#dismissed Archives - Prime Legal

17 Aug

Section 5 Limitation Act| Court Must Not Discriminate Against Government Agencies, Government Has Special Obligation To Perform Duties: High Court of Delhi

Prime Legal

Blog #delay, #delhi, #delhicourt, #delhihighcourt, #dismissed, #health, #healthdepartment

Title: Department of Health v. Kamla Mehndiratta and Ors.
Ordered on: 4th August, 2023

+ CM APPL. Nos. 20019/2019 and 20017/2019 in W.P.(C) 3613/2004 & CM APPL. 20068/2022 & CM APPL. 20069/2022

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH

Introduction

The Delhi High Court recently declined to condone an inordinate delay of 691 days in an application seeking restoration of a petition filed by a government agency. The Court emphasized that government agencies, despite facing bureaucratic delays, must provide valid reasons for such delays. The case raised questions about the admissibility of the application given the substantial delay and the requirement for sufficient cause to condone delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

Facts

The petitioner, a government agency, sought restoration of a petition that had been dismissed in default by the Labour Court. The petition had challenged an order of the Labour Court concerning the appointment and promotion of the respondent, who was initially appointed on a temporary basis and later worked as a regular staff member. The petitioner filed the restoration application after a delay of 691 days.

Analysis and Held

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh, a Single Judge Bench, underscored the significance of providing sufficient cause to condone delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. While acknowledging that government agencies may encounter procedural delays, the Court emphasized that unexplained delays of such magnitude could set a precedent for more similar applications.

The Court acknowledged the petitioner’s argument, which cited frequent changes in panel advocates and the resulting delay in restoration application filing. However, the Court expressed dissatisfaction with the petitioner’s failure to act in a timely manner despite ample resources at its disposal.

Justice Singh highlighted the special obligation of government agencies to perform duties diligently and committedly. Condonation of delay should be an exception and not a convenience for government departments. The Court emphasized that the phrase “sufficient cause” is pivotal in seeking extension of the prescribed period, requiring the petitioner to justify the delay convincingly.

In light of these considerations, the Delhi High Court held that the petitioner failed to satisfy the court that there existed a sufficient cause justifying the delay of 691 days in filing the application seeking restoration. Consequently, the Court declined to condone the delay and upheld the dismissal of the application for restoration.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Ankit Kaushik

Click here to view order

10 Aug

The prosecution’s failure to establish its case against the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt charged under Sections 376,201 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code- Appeal dismissed Gujarat high court

Prime Legal

Blog #dismissed, #Gujarathighcourt

TITLE: Minaben D/O Chauhan v State of Gujarat

Decided On-: 12/07/2023

2253 of 2022

CORAM: Hon’ble Justice Mr. Umesh Trivedi and M.K Thakker

INTRODUCTION- In accordance with Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 the first informant-victim appealed the judgment and order of acquittal.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The respondent is accused of breaking into the appellant’s home on February 23, 2020, around 2:00 p.m., and committing an act of rape over her while brandishing a knife, threatening to kill the appellant’s parents in the process. As the respondent-accused was her third-generation cousin, she was terrified by the accused’s behaviour at knifepoint and lacked the courage to file the FIR right away. As a result, it took 6-7 days to be filed. According to the FIR filed, an investigation was conducted, and after sufficient evidence was gathered during the course of the investigation, the police authorities filed the charge-sheet, which ultimately led to the registration of a SessionsCase against the Respondent.

COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISION

The prosecution used approximately 22 of the case’s records, including the testimony of nearly 12 witnesses, including the first informant and victim, to prove its case against the defendant.

knowledgeable advocate We have carefully read the Record and Proceedings and have heard from Mr. Kishore Prajapati for the appellant, learned attorney Ms. Shivangi M. Rana for the respondent-accused, as well as learned APP Ms. C.M. Shah for the State. The State has decided not to contest the learned Judge’s order of acquittal, according to Ms. CM Shah, a learned APP.

It is evident that the accused of the crime is none other than a close third-generation cousin, and that there is a dispute regarding property between the two families, after listening to the learned advocates for the various parties and taking the evidence presented to the court into consideration while reading the Record and Proceedings of the case. Therefore, before accepting or rejecting the evidence presented to the court, careful consideration of the evidence is necessary.

There is once more a significant discrepancy between the victim’s history as provided to the doctor and the deposition provided to the court.

Although the victim’s statement recorded under Section 164 of the “Code” was produced and proved by the victim herself, who had signed it and verified her signature, it is useless unless the events described in the statement were not deposed to before the Court and it did not support the deposition.

However, in the cross-examination, it is revealed that there has been a dispute between two families for years, and despite efforts by village residents, their relations have not improved. This raises questions about the crime and the way it was committed, which were both claimed by the witnesses.

Appeal Dismissed

Written by- Steffi Desousa

Click here to view judgement

8 Aug

The Delhi High Court objects to the use of printed forms for matrimonial settlement agreements and directs mediation centres and family courts to ensure proper drafting.

Prime Legal

Blog #delhi, #delhicourt, #delhihighcourt, #dismissed

Title: Vivek Kumar & Ors. v. State & Anr.
Decided on: 27th July, 2023

+ CRL.M.C. 5205/2023

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA

Introduction

The Delhi High Court has issued a directive regarding the drafting of matrimonial settlement deeds, emphasizing that they should not be on printed proforma. In a case related to a matrimonial dispute, the court expressed its concern about settlement agreements being mechanically drafted on printed forms and directed Mediation Centres and Family Courts to ensure proper drafting of settlement deeds.

Facts

The case pertains to a petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.PC seeking the quashing of a case registered under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioner and respondent got married in 2015, but differences and disputes led to their separation. An FIR was filed by the wife, and during the proceedings, the parties entered into an amicable settlement through a deed. The divorce was granted, and the husband made a payment of Rs. 2,50,000/- as per the settlement terms.

Advocates Sanjeev Kumar, Wahid Ali, and Ram Kamal Prasad represented the petitioners, while APP Digam Singh Dagar and Advocate Aman Srivastava appeared for the respondents.

Analysis

Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma, in the context of dealing with matrimonial disputes, expressed dissatisfaction with the common practice of drafting settlement agreements using printed proforma. The court believed that such proforma-based drafting lacked proper application of mind and conveyed a sense of mechanical processing. In line with this, the court directed Mediation Centres and Family Courts to ensure that settlement deeds are not drafted on printed proforma and should reflect proper consideration.

Held

The High Court observed that the parties had entered into an amicable settlement without any force, fear, or coercion, thereby deciding to conclude the proceedings and move forward with their lives. Considering the voluntary settlement and the divorce decree already granted, the court found no purpose in continuing the trial.

The court emphasized the need for settlement deeds to adhere to the judgment in the case of Ganesh vs. Sudhirkumar Shrivastava (2020) 20 SCC 787, which sets standards for drafting settlement deeds. The court directed the circulation of its judgment to all Mediation Centres and Family Courts, urging them to draft settlement deeds that demonstrate proper application of mind and alignment with the mentioned legal precedent.

Consequently, the Delhi High Court disposed of the petition.

Written by- Ankit Kaushik

Click here to to view Judgement

4 Aug

Delhi High Court Upholds Eviction Order Against Son for Harassing Father: Senior Citizen Cannot Be Expected To Knock Door Of Civil Courts

Prime Legal

Blog #delhi, #delhihighcourt, #dismissed, #HighCourt, #seniorcitizen

Title: Ashish Randev & Anr. vs The State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi)
Decided on: 21st July, 2023

+ W.P.(C) 7554/2022 & CM APPL. 23192/2022

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD

Introduction

The Delhi High Court recently dismissed a Writ Petition filed under Article 226 challenging an order of eviction passed by a District Magistrate in Delhi and affirmed by the Divisional Commissioner, GNCTD (Appellate Authority) under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The case involved protecting the old parents from harassment at the hands of the son and the daughter-in-law. The Court emphasized the objective of the Act to provide inexpensive and speedy protection to senior citizens from ill-treatment and non-maintenance by their children or legal heirs.

Facts

The petition was filed by a 90-year-old partially blind and deaf man, along with his 84-year-old wife, seeking eviction of their son and daughter-in-law from the ground floor of their property. The elderly couple alleged harassment from their son and daughter-in-law over the right to reside on the ground floor, which was also occupied by a school run by the old man’s daughter and wife. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the school was closed, and the elderly couple, who were bedridden, wanted to reside on the ground floor. However, the son and daughter-in-law objected to this arrangement.

The Tribunal for Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens directed the eviction of the son and his wife from the property. The appellate authority upheld this decision, which led the son to approach the Delhi High Court, challenging the eviction order.

Analysis

The Delhi High Court emphasized the objective of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, which is to provide inexpensive and speedy protection to senior citizens from ill-treatment and non-maintenance by their children or legal heirs. The Court observed that the Act aims to safeguard the life and property of senior citizens, ensuring they have a shelter over their head and can sustain themselves independently without interference from their children or legal heirs. The Court further reiterated that senior citizens should not be forced to engage in legal battles to obtain possession of their property, and the Act is meant to protect their rights without the need for prolonged litigation.

Held

The High Court upheld the orders of the Tribunal and the Appellate Authority, stating that the District Magistrate was well within its rights under the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens (Amendment) Rules, 2016, to pass an eviction order for protecting the elderly parents from harassment by their son and daughter-in-law. The Court dismissed the Writ Petition and affirmed the eviction order, ensuring the protection of the elderly couple’s property and well-being. The Court emphasized that the Act provides an effective remedy to senior citizens to seek eviction of children or legal heirs from their property when they refuse or fail to maintain them.

Written by- Ankit Kaushik

Click here to view Judgement

1 Aug

The powers of the Metropolitan Magistrate cannot be usurped by parties with malafide intentions; they view the High Court as their only option in NI Act cases. High Court of Delhi

Prime Legal

Blog, blog #dismissed, #highcourtdelhi

Title: Vinod Keni & Ors. vs Technology Development Board
Decided on: 24th July, 2023

+ CRL.M.C. 942/2023 & CRL.M.A. 3608/2023, CRL.M.A. 3610/2023

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNISH BHATNAGAR

Introduction:

The present case involves two petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) seeking the quashing of complaint cases registered under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, along with the summoning orders issued by the Metropolitan Magistrate. The petitioners contend that they should not be held vicariously liable for the alleged offense as they were only nominee and non-executive directors of the company at the time of the incident. On the other hand, the respondent argues that the petitioners’ claim of being non-executive directors is not supported by company records, and they should face trial as per the provisions of the Act.

Facts:

The complainant, the Respondent herein, filed two complaint cases against the petitioners under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, alleging non-payment against dishonored cheques issued by the petitioners. The cheques were issued in favor of the respondent for substantial amounts. The Metropolitan Magistrate, based on the complainant’s evidence and other documents, issued summoning orders requiring the petitioners to attend the court and face trial.

The petitioners, being aggrieved by the summoning orders, approached the High Court with petitions invoking Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., seeking the quashing of the complaint cases and summoning orders. They argued that they were merely nominee and non-executive directors of the company at the relevant time and were not involved in the day-to-day affairs or in charge of the conduct of the business of the company. The petitioners further claimed that there was no evidence to suggest that they had knowledge of the dishonored cheques or any consent or connivance on their part.

Courts analysis and decision

High Court’s decision in this case is that it dismissed the petitions filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking the quashing of complaint cases and summoning orders issued against them under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The Court upheld the validity of the summoning orders issued by the Metropolitan Magistrate, which required the petitioners to attend the court and face trial.

The High Court found that the trial court had followed the proper procedures and had considered the complainant’s evidence before issuing the summoning orders. The Court also rejected the petitioners’ claim of being non-executive directors, as it was contradicted by the company records. The Court held that the question of whether the petitioners can be held liable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act should be determined by the trial court based on the evidence presented by both parties.

The High Court emphasized that it should not interfere in the trial proceedings at this stage and allowed the trial court to proceed with the trial and consider the petitioners’ defense. The Court made it clear that the burden of proving their defense lies with the petitioners, and it is the trial court’s duty to evaluate the evidence and decide on their liability under the relevant provisions of the law.

In summary, the High Court’s decision signifies that the case will proceed to trial, and the petitioners will have the opportunity to present their defense before the trial court. The dismissal of the petitions means that the High Court did not find sufficient grounds to quash the complaint cases or the summoning orders, and it has allowed the trial court to continue with the proceedings and determine the merits of the case.

Written by- Ankit Kaushik

Click here to view judgement

1 2 3