0

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

Blog , , , ,

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.

“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 Judgement

0

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

Blog, blog ,

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.

“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 judgement

0

If the dying declaration is truthful, voluntary and free from suspicion, it CAN be the basis for conviction: Bombay High Court

Blog , , , , , ,

Title: Bhagwan Ramdas Tupe v. The State of Maharashtra

Decided on: 28th JULY, 2023

+ CRL.A. 530 OF 2016

CORAM: SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.

Facts of the Case

Bhagwan Ramdas Tupe (BRT) was previously convicted for Murder of one Vithabai, his neighbour and was thereof sentenced to life imprisonment.  BRT appealed to the Aurangabad Bench of Bombay HC and sought acquittal on the basis that there were inconsistencies between the dying declarations of 2 witnesses.

The respondents sought for the dismissal of the appeal for there was no “inconsistency” at all.  According to them the minor details may have been inconsistent, but overall, the story in both the dying declarations and Prime Witnesses is the same.

It was alleged that BRT had poured kerosene and tembha, i.e., burning wood, on Vithabai, due to which she sustained major burn injuries. She had not died instantly, she succumbed to the injuries only 2 months after the incident and before her death she gave her dying declaration to the Inspector.

Issues

Should the Dying Declaration of Vithabai be considered the basis for conviction?

Decision

The Court decided on the dying declaration made by Vithabai that although she had injuries, she was mentally sound and able to speak. In fact, her dying declaration corroborated with the Prime Witnesses’ story and therefore, the dying declaration made by her was truthful, voluntary and free from any suspicion.

Thus, the Court upheld the conviction and dismissed the appeal.

“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 – Aparna Gupta, University Law College & Dept. of Studies in Law

0

Delhi High Court dismissed the review petition on the grounds of inordinate delay with no grounds for condonation.

Blog , , , , , , , , ,

Title: MONIKA GUPTA Versus SANJAY BANSAL

Date of Decision: 19.07.2023

+ RFA(OS) 59/2019 & CM APPL. 19452/2022

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

     HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

Introduction

Delhi High Court dismissed the review petition on as the petitioner was lackadaisical in filing the review and there is no ground of reason to back this Inordinate delay of more than 1600 days.

Facts of the case

The appellant filed the current application in an effort to excuse the existing appeal’s 1969-day filing delay. The petitioner has chosen the current internal court appeal in opposition to a decision made on August 27, 2014, known as “the impugned order,” the respondent’s claim for particular judgement was heard by the learned Single Judge, wherein It was mandated to perform. According to the contested order, the parties had signed a contract to sell a piece of land known as Plot. Number 68, 50.40 square metres, Pocket 11, Block G, Sector 11, ‘The suit property’ in Rohini, New Delhi-110085, is up for sale Consideration in the amount of Rs. 80 lakhs.

The plaintiff said that on May 7, 2012—the day the Agreement to Sell was signed—it had paid the appellant/defendant a payment totaling Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs). At the time of the Sale Deed’s execution, the remaining amount of Rs. 30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs) was due to be paid on or by May 15, 2012. The learned Single Judge observed that the defendant/appellant had not filed a written statement and that it was not on record despite having had enough opportunity to do so. Additionally, the appellant did not show up in front of the relevant court on the dates when the case was heard.

As a result, the respondent/plaintiff’s request for particular execution of the Agreement to Sell dated 07.05.2012 was granted by the learned Single Judge, who also decreed the suit.

Analysis of the court

The appellant claims that the respondent failed to file the reply despite being given enough opportunity to do so, which contributed significantly to the delay in the processes surrounding the review petition.

The appellant supported his claim by citing the ruling in the case of DSR Steel (Private) Limited v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: (2012) 6 SCC 782, which held that the time spent by the party pursuing the review petition must not be taken into account when considering whether to excuse the delay in filing the appeal. He called this Court’s attention to paragraph 25.3 of the aforementioned ruling.

The appellant receives no benefit from the aforementioned ruling. Contrarily, the Court has mandated that the time spent by the party actively pursuing the remedy of review be excluded in suitable situations. In this instance, we determine that the appellant pursued its review petition in a careless manner, and we are unable to believe that the appellant did so conscientiously.

 It is obvious that the current appeal has been filed with excessive delay, and court finds no reason to excuse this.

 As a result, the appeal is denied.

“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 Shreyanshu Gupta

click to view the judgement

0

Delhi high Court dismissed the appeal by National Insurance Co. Ltd. challenging the compensation.

Blog , , , , , , ,

Title: National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Chitra & Ors.

Date of decision: 13.07.2023

+ MAC.APP. 1056/2016

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

Introduction

Delhi high Court dismissed the appeal by National Insurance Co. Ltd. challenging the compensation granted by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, in MACT Case No.402/2010, titled Chitra v. Mufid Khan & Ors.

Facts of the case

The first respondent in this case submitted the aforementioned Claim Petition, claiming that she, her husband, Dharmender, and daughter, Dristi, were travelling back from the home of a relative on October 31, 2010, at around 9:25 p.m., in a two-wheel scooter with the registration number DL 6ST 7734. An HR 55H 5499-registered truck rear-ended the motorcycle. The accident-related injuries to respondent no. 1 were severe, and a 60% impairment with regard to the right lower limb was determined as a result. In actuality, she had her right leg amputated below the knee.

Based on the aforementioned fact, the learned Tribunal determined in the impugned award that the respondent no. 1 in this case suffered injuries in the collision as a result of the truck’s driver’s reckless and careless operation. Regarding the amount of the compensation due to respondent No. 1, the learned Tribunal determined that she had not been able to establish that she was a contributing member of the family. Therefore, in order to determine the income loss, the learned Tribunal granted the compensation using graduate minimum wages. Regarding the respondent number 1’s age, it is undisputed that he or she was 26 years old when the accident occurred.  On the question of disability, the learned Tribunal considered 60% of the disability to the whole body for the purpose of calculation of the future loss of income/gratuitous services. It is challenging this head of compensation that the present appeal has been filed.

Analysis of the court

The learned Tribunal’s conclusion that the first respondent, who worked at home, had her right leg amputated below the knee is uncontested. Therefore, such harm would have serious repercussions for a homemaker, especially given the stratum to which respondent No. 1 belongs. It would undoubtedly hinder her capacity to do her housework, hence the contested award, which assigns her a 60% overall impairment, cannot be faulted.

Hon’ble High Court before arriving at the conclusion refers to several judicial precedents as, Arun Kumar Agrawal v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2010) 9 SCC 218(refer para 62-63), Jitendra Khimshankar Trivedi v. Kasam Daud Kumbhar, (2015) 4 SCC 237 (refer 10), Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343(refer para 9-14 and para 19).

The Supreme Court has reemphasized that “what is to be seen as emphasised by decision after decision, is the impact of the injury upon the income generating capacity of the victim” in Sidaram v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2023) 3 SCC 439. There cannot be a simple formula for blindly using maths to determine the severity of the loss of a limb (a leg or an arm) in connection to the victim’s job, vocation, or company.

Applying the aforementioned guidelines to the facts of the current case, the respondent no. 1’s contribution to the household cannot be questioned just because she was a housewife. She made her own unique contributions to the home. She would be expected to perform physical housekeeping as a homemaker in addition to providing emotional support and other types of assistance to the family members. Her capacity to conduct the strenuous physical task she would have been undertaking otherwise would be seriously hampered by losing her leg. I do not believe that the fact that respondent No. 1 was given money for the installation of an artificial limb justifies reducing the functional impairment.

Particularly in light of the social strata to which respondent no. 1 belongs, where she is expected to physically conduct all housework, respondent no. 1 would not be able to discharge the duties of a homemaker in a proper manner. Her impairment would undoubtedly limit her capacity to carry out these tasks.

The first respondent, CM Appl. No. 7812/2023, has submitted her medical records and prescription, dated 14.02.2023, from NKS Super Specialty Hospital, which recommends changing the prosthesis. It is obvious that the responder no. 1 continues to experience the effects of the accident.

therefore, find no merits in the present appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed.

“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 – Shreyanshu Gupta

click to view the judgement

1 2 3 4 5