0

Cutting Down Trees ought to be A Last Resort in This City That Can’t Breathe, Says Delhi High Court

Title: ALL RESIDENTS WELFARE SOCIETY (ARWS). v. CAELUM ARPIT BRAND TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. CM APPL. 32340/2023

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH

ORDER DATED: 14.06.2023

Introduction

The Delhi High Court has prohibited the Delhi Development Agency from clearing land and falling trees under a plot in Vasant Kunj because Vasant Kunj on the grounds that doing so should be the last option in the nation’s capital. I believe cutting down trees in a city cutting down trees in a city that is struggling to breathe should be a last option. The judge who issued the directive, Jasmeet Singh, ruled that if “any other possible site could be found, the same one has to be looked at.”

Courts Analysis and Decision

All Residents Welfare Society has filed a lawsuit asking the court to stop Caelum Arpit Brand Technologies Private Limited, the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), and others from building the planned Complex on the site. The petition likewise requested that the site of the proposed facility be relocated. The court issued a notice to the defendants after noting that images demonstrate the site has been transformed into a biodiversity park filled with trees, animals, birds, etc.

“For the aforementioned causes, till the subsequent date of seeing, the parties involved are forbidden from the removal of land and cutting of tree on the area contained in Sector A Quarters B&C, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi,” ruled the court, setting a follow-up hearing for July 3.

Judgment- click here to review the judgment

“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- Anushka Satwani

0

The right to a pension cannot be denied to construction workers based on purely technical considerations, according to the Delhi High Court.

Case Title: BADAM VERVA v. DELHI BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD & ANR. W.P.(C) 15061/2022
Date of Decision: – 29th May 2023.

CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Introduction

Hyper-technical difficulties and restrictions, such as requiring the original MR Slips or the serial numbers of the notary documents, cannot be used to deny pension benefits to construction employees. As the Delhi High Court noted very recently,

Given that many people who work in the construction industry come from rural areas and have low levels of education, it is important to note that this is the case. Their request for pension benefits, Justice Prathiba M. Singh said, must be handled promptly.

According to Section 372 of the Delhi (Right of Citizen to Time Bound Delivery of Services) Act2011, pension applications must be handled within 30 days. Construction workers’ applications are typically processed within 60 days, as per the Delhi Building and Other Construction Workers Board’s standard operating procedure.

The court stated, “It is clear because once a pension benefit request is made by the building worker, keeping in mind the economic circumstances of such workers, that request needs to be processed with no delay.” These comments were issued as part of a relief order for a construction worker who had previously sought to the Delhi Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Board for the release of her pension under Rule 372, but had been denied.

She argued that she and other beneficiaries got deficiency letters in regards to their pension applications notwithstanding an order from a coordinating bench requiring speedy processing of applications for award and disbursement of pensionary benefits by the Board.

Because she was not a Board member on the day of her retirement, the petitioner’s pension claim was denied. A writ petition had been filed by the construction worker, and on April 18 of last year, the single judge dismissed it, instructing the Board to issue appropriate instructions regarding the man’s claim for pension payments. Her application was still pending two weeks after the order was issued, so she filed an application to recall the order, which was dismissed with a directive to the Board to decide on her case. When the Board sent the petitioner a second denial letter, she filed a new petition asking that her pension be sanctioned and paid out.

Courts Analysis and Decision

Justice Singh dismissed the appeal after noting the construction worker’s registration with the Board dating back to September 2009 and her employment history of more than a year as a building and other construction worker at the time of the superannuation payment. Moreover, it was recorded that she had contributed in full for the designated time frame.

The court ruled that the fact that the pension beneficiary’s “period of contribution extended by beyond her retirement” or that her “renewal of membership was done after the age of superannuation” did not affect her right to receive benefits.

Accordingly, the construction worker’s pension in question is to be paid out to her with interest at the rate of 6% beginning on February 06, 2022, as ordered by the court. Payment in full is due by July 1, as mandated by the court.

Costs in the amount of Rs25000/- are given to the petitioner “in view of the nature of the case and because the applicant has had to face a second-round long litigation, that too despite invoking the statutory appeal, and has not received her proper pension for a considerable period of time.” Within eight weeks after receiving the petition, the Board shall pay the fees to the Petitioner. The petition and any related petitions are dismissed as set out above,” the court declared.

Judgment- click here to review the judgment

“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- Anushka Satwani

0

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the deposit of arrears cannot be made a condition for the granting of a stay on an interim maintenance order under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Title: RS v. MB

CRL.M.C. 4349/2023 & CRL.M.A. 16345/2023
Decision delivered on:07.06.2023

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

Introduction

The Delhi High Court has noted that a revisional court cannot make a broad direction of paying the whole maintenance sum by ignoring the facts and circumstances of the case when deciding whether to issue a stay of an interim maintenance decision made under section 125 of CrPC. A vacation bench presided over by Justice Girish Kathpalia stated, “While exercising the revisional scrutiny of a temporary maintenance order slipped in legal proceedings under Section 125 CrPC, the revisional court for yet an additional purpose may not impose as a prerequisite to granting of stay on the implementation of the assailed interim repair order, such general rider of deposit of the full amount of granted maintenance ignoring the overall circumstances of the case.”

Facts of the Case

A husband’s motion to appeal the trial court’s denial of his request to stay the indefinite maintenance order was being heard. The lower court made its decision based primarily on the High Court’s directives in Rajeev Preenja v. Sarika.

 In the case, the judge ruled that the Magistrate should not hear a husband’s appeal of an interim maintenance order in favour of his wife until the “entire amount of the interim maintenance due under the order of the learned MM up to the time of filing the revision petition is first deposited in the court of the learned ASJ.””

Justice Kathpalia pointed out that a subsequent case, Brijesh Kumar Gupta vs. Shikha Gupta, saw a single judge rule that the trial court’s order for maintenance payments must be paid in full before the statutory appeal could be heard.

Courts analysis and Judgement

The court emphasised that the Court of Sessions and the High Court have suo motu powers according to Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and that these powers come with a “attendant duty” to use them when necessary to achieve the goals of justice.

The court made clear, however, that it refrained from deciding whether an interim maintenance judgement was subject to a stay pending appeal. This matter must be reviewed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge considering the particular facts and circumstances of this case, as well as the existing body of law. The appeal was granted, and the case was sent back to the Additional Sessions Judge so that he or she may reconsider whether the magisterial court’s interim maintenance order should have been delayed until the outcome of the appeal.

Judgment- click here to review the judgment

“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- Anushka Satwani

0

The High court in Delhi has issued an order in response to Congress Young Leader Lokesh Chugh’s complaint about DU’s delay in admitting his Ph.D. thesis.

  • Title: LOKESH CHUGH v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS. on 13 April, 2023

W.P.(C) 4649/2023 & CM APPL 17922/2023
Introduction

Lokesh Chugh, Ph.D. Scholar and National Secretary of NSUI has moved the Delhi High Court against the Delhi University’s “inaction and delay” in recognizing his thesis, despite the university’s decision to bar him from taking an exam for an entire year due to his purported role in a showing of a documentary by the BBC on Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, who overturned the debarment judgment, issued a notice on Chugh’s petition, requesting a response from the Delhi University and other authorities, and scheduled a hearing for July 17.

Facts of the Case

Chugh, who is being represented by Advocates Naman Joshi and Ritika Vohra, has stated that he had been rushing from pillar to post to submit his Ph.D. thesis to the university but has received no answer from the authorities.

According to the petition, the Vice Chancellor of Delhi University stated publicly during a media engagement with the Times of India that the university intends to pursue an appeal against the verdict. Throughout today’s session, Chugh’s counsel argued that the varsity had not filed an appeal and that the judgement had not yet been stayed. Allowing Chugh to present the matter before the absence of the bench,

According to Chugh’s counsel, Justice Kaurav directed the varsity to comply with the decision if there is no stay. On April 27, Justice Kaurav overturned DU’s judgment citing a “violation of natural justice” and reinstated Chugh’s admission.

Courts Analysis and Decision

The judge rejected Chugh’s petition, which challenged a memorandum issued by the Registrar’s office on March 10 that barred him from sitting the exams for a year. He had also contested a probable cause order issued by the Proctor’s office on February 16 that stated he was involved in a disruption of law and order at the institution during the showing of the doc.

Click here to review the judgement

“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- Anushka Satwani

0

CRIMINAL PETITION FILED IN KERALA HIGH COURT TO GRANT BAIL TO THE PETITIONER

DENNY JOHN VS STATE OF KERALA…. ON 7 JAN 2022

BENCH : HONOURABLE JUSTICE GOPINATH P

BAIL APPL.NO. 7 OF 2022

CRIME.NO.1156/2021

FACTS OF THE CASE –

This is a request for regular bail. The petitioner is accused of violating Sections 8(1) and 8(2) of the Abkari Act and was allegedly in possession of 3 1/2 liters of illicit arrack. The appearing counsel claims that only 500 milliliters of the alleged arrack was found in the possession of the petitioner and the remaining 3 liters were found in a property close to the petitioner’s residence. Public prosecutor also asserts that no serious criminal acts have been reported against the petitioner, who has spent 11 days in custody and has been falsely implicated in the case. The petitioner was in custody starting on December 26, 2021, and further detention is not required for the purpose of the investigation.

JUDGEMENT

Given the facts of the case, the claims made against the petitioner, and the possibility that imprisonment was not necessary for the purpose of the investigation, the petitioner was released on bail with tight conditions.

1. The petitioner must execute a bond for 50,000 rupees with two liable sureties.

2. Until further instructions, the petitioner must attend each Saturday at 11 a.m. before the koratty police station’s investigating officer.

3. The petitioner is not permitted to obstruct the investigation.

4. While on bail, the petitioner must refrain from committing any other crimes.

click here to view judgement

“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 – Anvitha Rao

1 15 16 17 18