0

SUPREME COURT QUASHED THE JUDGEMENT OF HIGH COURT AND AWARDED THE EXTENSION OF TIME IN FILING THE WRITTEN STATEMENT.

Blog, CIvil Appeal, Indian law, Supreme court , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

CASE NAME: ADITYA KHAITAN & ORS. VERSUS IL AND FS FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED

CASE NUMBER: CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6411-6418 OF 2023

DATED ON: OCTOBER 03, 2023

QUORUM: HON’BLE JUSTICE J.K. MAHESHWARI & JUSTICE K.V. VISWANATHAN

INTRODUCTION:

The appeals challenge the High Court’s decision to dismiss applications for taking on record their written statements in a civil suit. The court ruled that the 30-day period for filing written statements had expired on 08.03.2020. The court also ruled in Sagufa Ahmed and Others Vs. Upper Assam Plywood Products Private Limited and Others (2021) 2 SCC 317, since the orders of this that the order dated 23.03.2020, effective from 15.03.2020, would not benefit the applicants/defendants since the limitation period had expired. The court also ruled that the court’s orders under Article 142 of the Constitution of India only extended the period of limitation, not the period up to which delay can be condoned.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The plaintiff, IL and FS Financial Services Limited, filed a suit for recovery of money and consequential reliefs in C.S. No. 177 of 2019 against nine defendants. The 30-day period for filing written statements expired on 08.03.2020 and the condonable period of 90 days expired on 06.06.2020.

The appellants filed applications for the defendants on 20.01.2021, requesting an extension of the time for the defendants’ written statements. The reasons for this were the declaration of COVID-19 as a pandemic, the Government of India’s advisories, the Disaster Management Act, the lockdown imposed by the Government of West Bengal, and the closure of the answering applicant’s office.

The affidavits relied on the court’s order dated 23.03.2020 and 10.07.2020, which extended the period of limitation until further orders. The plaintiffs opposed these applications, arguing that the orders would not help since the limitation period had expired before 15.03.2020. The plaintiff relied on the judgment of 18.09.2020 in Sagufa Ahmed to support its contention. The High Court accepted the plaintiff’s stand but did not take the written statements on record.

LEGAL PROVISIONS:

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

Article-142: Enforcement of decrees and orders of Supreme Court and unless as to discovery, etc.-

(1) The Supreme Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it, and any decree so passed or orders so made shall be enforceable throughout the territory of India in such manner as may be prescribed by or under any law made by Parliament and, until provision in that behalf is so made, in such manner as the President may by order prescribe.

(2) Subject to the provisions of any law made in this behalf by Parliament, the Supreme Court shall, as respects the whole of the territory of India, have all and every power to make any order for the purpose of securing the attendance of any person, the discovery or production of any documents, or the investigation or punishment of any contempt of itself.”

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

ORDER 5 RULE 1(1): Summons.— When a suit has been duly instituted, a summons may be issued to the defendant to appear and answer the claim and to file the written statement of his defence, if any, within thirty days from the date of service of summons on that defendant. Provided that no such summons shall be issued when a defendant has appeared at the presentation of plaint and admitted the plaintiff’s claim

Order 8 Rule 1:Written statement.- The defendant shall, within thirty days from the date of service of summons on him, present a written statement of his defence:

Provided that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said period of thirty days, he shall be allowed to file the written statement on such other day, as may be specified by the court, for reasons to be recorded in writing and on payment of such costs as the court deems fit, but which shall not be later than one hundred twenty days from the date of service of summons and on expiry of one hundred twenty days from the date of service of summons, the defendant shall forfeit the right to file the written statement and the court shall not allow the written statement to be taken on record.”

ORDER 8 RULE 10: Procedure when party fails to present written statement called for by Court.—Where any party from whom a written statement is required under rule 1 or rule 9 fails to present the same within the time permitted or fixed by the Court, as the case may be, the Court shall pronounce judgment against him, or make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit and on the pronouncement of such judgment a decree shall be drawn up.

COMMERCIAL COURT ACT:

Section – 16: Amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in its application to commercial disputes-

(1) The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) shall, in their application to any suit in respect of a commercial dispute of a Specified Value, stand amended in the manner as specified in the Schedule.

(2) The Commercial Division and Commercial Court shall follow the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), as amended by this Act, in the trial of a suit in respect of a commercial dispute of a Specified Value.

(3) Where any provision of any Rule of the jurisdictional High Court or any amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), by the State Government is in conflict with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), as amended by this Act, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by this Act shall prevail.

ISSUES RAISED:

  • Whether the High Court was justified in rejecting the application for extension of time dated 20.01.2021 and in not taking the written statements on record.
  • Whether the appellants are allowed to file the written statement after the expiration the limited time period in the special circumstances or not.

CONTENTION OF APPELLANT:

Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, Senior Counsel for the appellants, used the judgment in Prakash Corporates vs. Dee Vee Projects Limited, (2022) 5 SCC 112, to argue that extraordinary measures are crucial in extraordinary circumstances. The court noted that orders of 23.03.2020, 06.05.2020, and 10.07.2020 were addressed in the same In re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation. The court distinguished Sagufa Ahmed’s case (supra) in paras 28.1, 28.2 and 33.4 of Prakash Corporates (supra), stating that the period envisaged in the order dated 23.09.2021 should be excluded from computing the period of limitation even for filing the written statement. The court ruled that the decision in Sagufa Ahmed is irrelevant to the present case, as the extended period expired on 06.06.2020.

CONTENTION OF RESPONDENT:

Mr. Sahil Tagotra, learned Counsel for the Respondent reiterated the findings of the High Court and submitted that the applicants have forfeited their right to file the written statements and the hon’ble High Court justified in rejecting the application for extension of time dated 20.01.2021 and not taking the written statements on record.

COURT’S ANALYSIS:

The Supreme Court has extended the deadlines for statutes of limitations in cases related to the pandemic. The court took suo motu cognizance and issued orders under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, protecting parties’ rights and ensuring their remedies and defenses were not barred. The orders of 23.03.2020 and 08.03.2021 were issued in a case involving Sagufa Ahmed (supra), which extended the limitation prescribed under the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 until further orders. The court also extended the period between 15.03.2020 and the lifting of lockdown in the jurisdictional area.

The Supreme Court of India has issued directions to address the challenges faced by litigants during the COVID-19 pandemic. The order dated 08.03.2021 extended the period of limitation prescribed under general law or special laws, with effect from 15.03.2020 until further orders. The court believes that the order dated 15.03.2020 has served its purpose and should come to an end.

The court has also excluded the period from 15.03.2020 to 14.03.2021, allowing the balance period of limitation remaining as of 15.03.2020 to become available with effect from 15.03.2021. The period from 15.03.2020 to 14.03.2021 will also be excluded from computing periods prescribed under various laws. The government is also required to amend guidelines for containment zones, allowing for medical emergencies, essential goods and services, time-bound applications, and educational and job-related requirements.

The Court has directed that the period from 15.03.2020 to 14.03.2021 will be excluded from computing the period prescribed under various laws, including the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. This decision has a significant impact on the current controversy, as it excludes the period for computing outer limits within which the court or tribunal can condone delay.

The Court in Prakash Corporates (supra) also noted that the order of 08.03.2021 and subsequent orders by a Bench of three Hon’ble Judges were not available for the Bench which decided Sagufa Ahmed’s case. The outer limit within which the court or tribunal can condone delay is 120 days from the date of summons.

JUDGEMENT:

As has been set out hereinabove, summons was served on 07.02.2020, but the 30 days period expired on 08.03.2020 and the outer limit of 120 days expired on 06.06.2020. The applicants filed for written statements and extension of time on 20.01.2021, and the High Court’s judgment needs to be set aside. The principle underlying the court’s orders dated 08.03.2021, 27.04.2021, and 23.09.2021, in In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation would benefit the applicants-defendants.

The Appeals are allowed, and the written statements filed on 20.01.2021, are directed to be taken on record. The suit will proceed with the appeals, and the appeal stands allowed with no order as to costs.

 

“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 falls 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.”

Click here to view the full judgement: ADITYA KHAITAN & ORS. VERSUS IL AND FS FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY: ABHISHEK SINGH

0

Occupants’ Rights Upheld: Supreme Court Orders Rehabilitation or Compensation Under Town Planning Scheme.

Blog , , , , , ,

CASE TITLE – Jaffar Ali Nawab Ali Chaudhari & Ors. v. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

CASE NUMBER – Civil Appeal No.… of 2023 (Special Leave Petition (C) No. 4441 of 2020)

DATED ON – 06.11.2023

QUORUM – Justice Vikram Nath & Justice Rajesh Bindal

 

FACTS OF THE CASE

The appellants were found to be in possession of the property in dispute from the year 1976 onwards. It was even assessed to tax by the Municipal Corporation. The litigation started with the issuance of notice dated 20.02.2001 under Section 314 read with Section 394 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 to Nawab Ali Suleman, predecessor-in-interest of the appellants. The same was challenged by filing a Civil Suit, which was decreed on 27.03.2003 restraining the Corporation from taking any action against the occupants in pursuance of notice dated 20.02.2001. Subsequent thereto, fresh notices dated 17.01.2004 and 22.06.2007 were issued to the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant under Section 89 read with Section 165 of the Act. Earlier notice was replied to on 22.01.2004. However, still without considering the reply filed by stand taken by the predecessor-in interest of the appellants in pursuance to notice dated 17.01.2004, an order was passed on 25.06.2007 under Section 89 of the Act calling upon him to surrender possession of the plot. The same was challenged by filing the Civil Suit. During the pendency of the aforesaid suit, Nawab Ali died, and the appellants were brought on record as his legal representatives. The suit was decreed by the Trial Court on 29.09.2011 holding notices dated 17.01.2004 and 22.06.2007 and order dated 25.06.2007 illegal. The respondent being aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the Trial Court preferred appeal before the High Court. The appeal was accepted by the High Court. The aforesaid judgment and decree of the High Court was impugned in this said appeal. The short argument raised by learned counsel for the appellants is that in terms of the Town Planning Scheme, as notified on 01.08.1994 and the subsequent circulars issued by the Corporation from time to time, the appellants who are in possession of the property in dispute are entitled to be rehabilitated or paid compensation. The genuine claim of the appellants is not being considered though undisputedly they were found to be in possession of the property in dispute from the year 1976 onwards.

 

ISSUE

Whether it is within the Appellants’ rights to ask for consideration of their claim either for allotment of an alternative site or compensation for the premises in their use and occupation.

 

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, The Hon’ble Supreme Court stated that the present appeal deserves to be allowed without going into much details for the reason that admittedly, the appellants were found to be in possession of the property in dispute from the year 1976 onwards as per census certificate dated 24.05.1978. They further stated that in terms of the Town Planning Scheme, notified on 01.08.1994 and subsequent circulars, the claim of any occupant of the property is required to be considered for rehabilitation or for payment of compensation. The appellants are still in possession of the property, which is stated to be coming in the alignment of 60 feet T.D. Road. It was noted that the only prayer of the appellants is that their claim for rehabilitation or payment of compensation be considered in terms of the Town Planning Scheme, which has not been considered. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that instead of relegating the parties to litigate further, the present appeal can be disposed of with a direction to the Corporation to consider the claim of the appellants in terms of the Town Planning Scheme either for rehabilitation or payment of compensation, and that the needful shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

 

“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.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Gnaneswarran Beemarao

Click here to view full Judgement

0

SUPREME COURT UPHELD AND THE JUDGEMENT OF APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR ELECTRICITY AND SET ASIDE THE CIVIL APPEAL.

Blog, Central Electricity Regulatory Commission, CIvil Appeal, Supreme court , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

CASE NAME: MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED VERSUS RATNAGIRI GAS AND POWER PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.

CASE NUMBER: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1922 OF 2023

DATED ON: NOVEMBER 09, 2023
QUORUM: HONOURABLE CIJ Dr. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, JUSTICE P.B.         PARDIWALA & JUSTICE MANOJ MISHRA.

INTRODUCTION

The Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) in New Delhi dismissed an appeal against an order from the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) in 2013. The first respondent, Ratnagiri Gas And Power Private Limited, filed a petition against Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd., seeking resolution of issues related to non-availability of domestic gas, alternate fuel contracts, and fixed charges. CERC held the appellant liable, which was upheld by APTEL. The court granted the appellant the liberty to move the court again if necessary. The first respondent filed an execution petition, seeking payment of Rs 5287.76 crores and Rs 1826 crores, in accordance with the APTEL order.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The first respondent, RGPPL, a joint venture of NTPC Ltd., Gas Authority of India Ltd, MSEB Holding Company, ICICI, IDBI, SBI, and Canara Bank, took over the assets of Dabhol Power Company Limited after its operations were closed down. The first respondent owns a gas-based generating station in Ratnagiri, Maharashtra, with 95% allocated to the State of Maharashtra and the rest to Goa, Daman, Diu, Dadra, and Nagar Haveli. The appellant, MSEDCL, entered into a Power Purchase Agreement with the first respondent in 2007 for 25 years. The first respondent received gas supply from RIL until September 2011, but a decline in supply was attributed to low-yielding KG-D6 gas fields. The issue was raised with the Central Government and placed before the Empowered Group of Ministers on 24 December.

The first respondent entered into a Gas Supply Agreement/Gas Transportation Agreement with GAIL to supply Recycled Liquid Natural Gas under spot cargo. The appellant, however, refused to schedule power at the agreed rates, claiming that the first respondent failed to obtain their approval before entering into the agreement. The appellant argued that the declaration of capacity on RLNG was unilateral and arbitrary, violating Clause 5.9 of the Power Purchase Agreement. The first respondent filed a petition under Section 79 of the Electricity Act 2003 to resolve the issue of non-payment of fixed charges, the reservations of beneficiaries to enter alternate contractual arrangements for fuel, and the revision of the NAPAF.

LEGAL PROVISIONS:

POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENT

Clause (4.3) Declared Capacity

“Primary Fuel for RGPPL is LNG/Natural gas and/or RLNG. Normally capacity of the station shall be declared on gas and/or RLNG for all three power blocks. However, if agreed by MSEDCL, RGPPL shall make arrangements of Liquid fuel(s) for the quantum required by MSEDCL. In such a case the capacity on liquid fuel shall also be taken into account for the purpose of Availability, Declared Capacity and PLF calculations till the time Liquid fuel(s) stock agreed/requisitioned by MSEDCL is available at site.”

Clause (5.9) Gas Supply Agreement (GSA)/ Gas Transportation Agreement (GTA)

The gas supply agreement for 1.5 MMTPA R-LNG up to September 2009 is in place, sourced through Petronet LNG Ltd and re-gasified at their Dahej terminal. Commercial implications of the GSA/GTA contract will be signed separately with MSEDCL. The total gas/LNG will be procured through short-term and long-term contracts through GAIL, under GoI’s direction. RGPPL must obtain MSEDCL’s approval on contracting terms and price before entering the contract.

ELECTICITY ACT, 2003

SECTION-79: FUNCTION OF CENTRAL COMMISSION

(1) The Central Commission shall discharge the following functions :–

The Act regulates the tariffs of generating companies owned or controlled by the Central Government, those with a composite scheme for electricity generation and sale in multiple states, and inter-state transmission of electricity. It determines tariffs for inter-state transmission, issues licenses for transmission licensees and electricity traders, adjudicates disputes involving generating companies or transmission licensees, levies fees for the Act, specifies Grid Codes and Standards, enforces quality, continuity, and reliability of service by licensees, sets trading margins in inter-state electricity trading, and discharges other functions assigned under the Act.

(2) The Central Commission shall advise the Central Government on all or any of the following matters :–

The Central Commission is responsible for formulating National Electricity Policy and tariff policy, promoting competition, efficiency, and economy in the electricity industry, promoting investment, and addressing other government-referred matters. It ensures transparency and is guided by the National Electricity Policy, National Electricity Plan, and tariff policy.

ISSUSES RAISED:

  • whether the CERC and APTEL were justified in affixing liability to pay fixed charges on the appellant.
  • Whether the dispute in the particular case primarily turns on the terms of the Power Purchase Agreement or not.

CERC ORDER DATED 30 JULY 2023 AND APTEL JUDGEMENT AND FINAL ORDER DATED 22 APRIL 2015.

The CERC allowed a petition and held the appellant liable to pay fixed capacity charges under the Power Purchase Agreement. It  ruled that the appellant’s decision not to schedule RLNG influenced variable charges, not fixed charges. Further, the appeal in APTEL was made and they directed that if the appellant wanted to not pay for RLNG, it must compensate the first respondent, as it is liable under Article 5.2 of the PPA. No prior consent was required for liability to arise. APTEL dismissed the appeal. The Civil Appeal against APTEL’s decision was initially disposed of by this Court. Since the appellant was not facing any punitive action for recovery, and the appellant was granted the liberty to approach the court when needed.  The present appeal is before the Supreme Court of India.

APPELLANT’S CONTENTION

The appellant challenged APTEL’s judgment and final order, arguing that the CERC divided Clause 4.3 and Clause 5.9 of the PPA into two separate categories, absolving the appellant of paying for declared capacity due to RLNG. The placement of the prior approval clause in clause 5.9 suggests it applies to both clause 5.2 and clause 5.3 energy charges. The decision to adopt RLNG has commercial implications, so the prior approval requirement in clause 5.9 is invoked. The compartmentalization of clauses 4.3 and 5.9 is flawed, and the plant availability factor would be less than 70%, reducing capacity charges in accordance with CERC Regulations 2009.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION:

The first Respondent urged that, The appellant established a generating station to meet their electricity needs. After the failure of M/s Enron International and M/s Dabhol Power Company, the station was revived and its assets transferred to RGPPL. The appellant held 13.51% shares in the first respondent. The capacity declaration and demand for charges are in accordance with Clauses 4.3 and 5.2 of the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA). The PPA is valid for 25 years and the appellant is bound by Clauses 6.6. and 6.7, which stipulate paying 95% of charges during a dispute.

COURT’S ANALYSIS:

TERMS OF PPA

The PPA outlines two types of tariff charges for MSEDCL: capacity charges and energy charges. The former are fixed and subject to revision by the Government of India or Maharashtra, while the latter are calculated using a formula. MSEDCL must schedule energy sending from RGPPL and obtain approval from CERC for provisional billing. The total gas requirements are procured through GAIL, with RGPPL obtaining approval before entering into a GSA/GTA.

The first respondent argues that an alternate arrangement with GAIL and capacity declarations based on RLNG was necessary due to a nationwide fuel shortage. The appellant argues that the unilateral decision to declare capacity based on RLNG violated the mandatory approval requirement under clause 5.9 of the PPA, exempting it from liability to pay fixed capacity charges.

FACTUAL CONTEXT AND THE INTENTION OF PARTIES TO THE CONTRACT

The first respondent was established due to the failure of M/s Enron International and M/s Dabhol Power Company to meet Maharashtra’s energy needs. The tariff requirements were determined to preserve the unit’s viability. The appellant’s liability for the former is actual delivery agnostic, as long as the declared capacity is made in terms of the PPA.

The appellant’s interpretation of the PPA contradicts the original purpose and intendment of the parties, as it implies that capacity charges can be avoided and made subject to the appellant’s consent. A deviation from the plain terms of the contract is warranted only when it serves business efficacy better. The appellant’s arguments would require reading in implied terms contrary to the contractual provisions, which is permissible only in a narrow set of circumstances.

JUDGEMENT:

In the present context, bearing in mind the background of the establishment of the first respondent, and the shortfall of domestic gas for reasons beyond the control of the first respondent, such a deviation from the plain terms is not merited and militates against business efficacy as it has a detrimental impact on the viability of the first respondent.

The execution proceedings pursuant to the above-mentioned execution petition before the APTEL be continued. The appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

“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 falls 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.”

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY: ABHISHEK SINGH

Click here to view the full judgement: MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED VERSUS RATNAGIRI GAS AND POWER PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.

0

Delhi HC Validates Externment of Habitual Offender for Public Safety

Blog, Delhi High Court , , ,

Case title : Rajjan @ Ashu Chauhan vs. The State of NCT of Delhi

Case No. W.P. (CRL) 955/2024

Dated on: Reserved on 22nd April,2024 ; Pronounced on 21st May,2024

Quorum: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amit Sharma

FACTS OF THE CASE

 The petitioner, a habitual offender with a criminal record from 2017 to 2022, faced externment proceedings initiated by the police due to his persistent involvement in crimes such as cheating, criminal trespass, breach of trust, forgery, extortion, assault, and intimidation. Witnesses, who were too fearful to testify publicly, provided in-camera statements describing how the petitioner, often accompanied by armed associates, created a climate of fear and threatened those who opposed his illegal activities. The competent authority, after reviewing the statements and other relevant materials, concluded that the petitioner’s continuous presence was hazardous to the public, necessitating his externment under Section 47 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978. Despite the petitioner’s challenge to the scope and duration of the externment, the court upheld the order, emphasizing that it was based on credible evidence and aimed at ensuring public safety. The Lieutenant Governor later reduced the externment period from two years to one year, but the geographical scope remained the entire National Capital Territory of Delhi to effectively address enforcement challenges.

ISSUES

  1. The legality and validity of the externment order issued against the petitioner under     Section 47 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978, questioning the sufficiency of evidence and the subjective satisfaction of the competent authority.
  2. The geographical scope of the externment order, specifically questioning why the entire National Capital Territory (NCT) of Delhi was included and not just the specific area associated with the alleged offences or concerns related to the petitioner’s activities.
  3. The duration and proportionality of the externment order, considering whether the initially set duration of two years (later reduced to one year) is proportionate to the alleged offences and whether the imposition of the order aligns with principles of fairness and necessity.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

  1. Section 47 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978: This section empowers the competent authority to external individuals from specific areas within the National Capital Territory of Delhi if their presence is deemed hazardous to society.
  2. Section 56(1)(bb) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951: While not explicitly mentioned in the text, the case refers to the provisions of this act to outline the grounds and procedures for externment orders.
  3. Precedents and Case Law: The court referred to various judgments, including Pandharinath Shridhar Rangnekar v. Dy. Commr of Police, State of Maharastra, (1973) 1 SCC 372, and Gazi Saduddin v. State of Maharashtra, (2003) 7 SCC 330. These judgments provide precedents and interpretations related to the legal aspects of externment orders, including the requirements for sufficient evidence, procedural fairness, and the scope of such orders.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submitted that the externment order issued against the appellant was excessive and lacked proper reasoning. They contended that the order should have been more specific regarding the area of externment and the reasons behind selecting the NCT of Delhi as the externment area. The appellant’s counsel raised concerns about the lack of a clear link between the offences registered against the appellant between 2017-2022 and the externment order issued in 2024. They argued that this lack of connection undermined the validity of the externment order.The appellant’s counsel also questioned the sufficiency of the material considered by the competent authority in reaching its decision. They argued that there was a lack of opportunity given to the appellant to adequately explain the circumstances surrounding the offences and the grounds for the externment order. These contentions formed the basis of the appellant’s challenge to the legality and validity of the externment order in the case.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

The contentions of the respondent are not explicitly mentioned.The casemainly focuses on the arguments and observations made by the court regarding the petitioner’s case and the legal provisions relevant to it. The potential contentions that the respondent might have made in the case is that the respondent may argue that the externment order was necessary to maintain public safety and order in the locality where the petitioner was active. They could assert that the petitioner’s continuous involvement in criminal activities, as documented by the competent authority, posed a significant threat to the peace and security of the community. The respondent could contend that witnesses were reluctant to come forward and testify against the petitioner in public due to fear of retaliation. They might argue that the petitioner and his associates used intimidation tactics, such as threats of violence, to silence potential witnesses, thereby obstructing justice and impeding law enforcement efforts. Another contention could be that the petitioner demonstrated a pattern of habitual criminal behaviour, as evidenced by his involvement in multiple criminal cases over a significant period. The respondent may argue that the externment order was justified based on the petitioner’s persistent engagement in illegal activities and the need to protect society from further harm. These contentions would likely support the respondent’s position that the externment order was justified and necessary for the maintenance of law and order in the community.

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

The court’s analysis and judgement provide a comprehensive overview of the case, meticulously examining the arguments presented by both parties and applying legal precedents to reach a verdict.

The judgement begins by addressing the petitioner’s awareness of the proceedings initiated by the police station and the ample opportunity provided to explain the circumstances. It then proceeds to discuss the petitioner’s contention regarding the link between the offences registered from 2017-2022 and the externment order passed in 2024. This includes citing the Competent Authority’s reasoning for the externment order, which was based on evidence such as witness statements recorded in camera.

Legal precedents, particularly judgments from the Hon’ble Supreme Court, are referenced to provide a framework for evaluating externment orders. Cases like Pandharinath Shridhar Rangnekar v. Dy. Commr of Police, State of Maharashtra, and Gazi Saduddin v. State of Maharashtra are quoted to support the court’s analysis. These precedents establish the criteria for passing an externment order and the circumstances under which such orders can be upheld.

One significant aspect addressed in the judgement is the contention regarding the excessiveness of the externment order, particularly concerning the area of externment. The court compares the present case to previous rulings to determine if the order was justified based on the circumstances. It examines whether the area chosen for externment was proportionate to the petitioner’s unlawful activities and whether it served the intended purpose of maintaining public order and safety.

The judgement also mentions that the Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor had already reduced the period of externment from two years to one year, indicating a consideration of the severity of the order. This reduction reflects a balance between the need for public safety and the petitioner’s rights.

In conclusion, the court finds that the externment order and the subsequent reduction by the Lieutenant Governor do not suffer from any error. Therefore, it dismisses the petition and disposes of it accordingly. The judgement directs the immediate uploading of the judgement on the court’s website, ensuring transparency and accessibility to the public.

“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.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Shruti Gattani

 

Click here to view judgement

0

Delhi High Court Reduces Deposit Requirement in Stamp Duty Dispute to 25%: Pending Further Adjudication

Blog , , ,

CASE TITLE – HARI PARVAT FINANCIAL ADVISORS AND CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED v. OFFICE OF THE COLLECTOR OF STAMPS

CASE NUMBER – LPA 383/2024 & CM APPL. 28428/2024, CM APPL. 28429/2024

DATED ON – 13.05.2024

QUORUM – Hon’ble Acting Chief Justice Ms. Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

FACTS OF THE CASE

This is an appeal put forth by the Appellant, challenging the decision of a Learned Single Judge of the same Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. Where the Appellant was granted an interim stay subject to deposit a 50% pay demanded by the Collector of Stamps, Chanakyapuri. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant stated that the Appellant in September, 2017 had approached the Collector of Stamps with an application under Section 31 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 for the determination of the stamp duty payable. However, the appellant after much delay on 1st April, 2024 received an order from the Collector of Stamps inter alia (‘among other things’) indicating that the appellant is liable to pay stamp duty along with a penalty, totaling to Rs.1,00,20,167/-.

ISSUES

Whether the Collector of Stamps is out of his jurisdiction when exercising his powers of adjudication while his duty is merely those of an Advisory one?

LEGAL PROVISION

Section 31 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, prescribes the procedure on how to get official clarification on the required stamp duty for a document from the Collector of Stamps.

Section 56 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899,  prescribes the establishment of the oversight power by which the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority reviews the Collectors’ decisions in certain matters.

CONTENTIONS BY THE APPELLANT

The Appellant states that the order passed by the Collector of Stamps is wholly without jurisdiction and directing the appellant to deposit 50% of the demand raised as a pre-condition would prima facie legitimize an order passed without jurisdiction. The argument is also based on the fact that when an “instrument” is submitted to a collector under Section 31 of the Stamp Act for determination of stamp duty, the jurisdiction exercised by the collector is an advisory jurisdiction and the collector is not called upon to exercise powers of adjudication. While exercising power under Section 31, the collector has to merely determine the duty and has no power to impound the document.

CONTENTIONS BY THE RESPONDENT

The Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the writ petition in itself is not maintainable as the appellant has an alternative effective remedy of approaching the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority under Section 56 of the Stamp Act.

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

The Hon’ble Court did not deem it appropriate to comment as to the merits of the case as it was still pending adjudication before the Learned Single Judge of the same Court. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, reduced the amount of the deposit to 25% of the demand raised by the Collector of Stamps. And had instructed the amount to be deposited with the Registry of this Court within four weeks from the date. And due to the current position that the Court finds itself in, it had further strongly iterated that although the current Appeal has been disposed of, it refused to make any comments regarding it’s merits, and also mentioned that the rights and contentions of either parties remain open.

This could also mean that the parties could work on and further strengthen their arguments and even bring forth a clear precedent regarding this issue.

“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.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Gnaneswarran Beemarao

14

1 2 3 … 19