#highcourtdelhi Archives - Page 9 of 9

2 Jul

The Delhi High Court set aside the order of the Railway Claims Tribunal and granted compensation to the appellants.

Blog #compensation, #delhihighcourt, #highcourtdelhi, #Jurisdiction, #lyingontrack, #passengerdeath, #primelegal, #Railtracks, #railways, #raiwayclaimstribunal, #untowardincident

Title: Sita Devi & Ors. vs UOI

Decided: 22.03.2023

Pronounced: 02.06.2023

FAO 46/2022

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

Introduction

The Delhi High court set aside the order of Railway claims tribunal and remanded back to the Tribunal for awarding the amount of compensation in terms of the Act and for which purpose the matter shall be listed at the first instance before the Tribunal on 10.07.2023. it is to be decided and compensation is to be paid within two weeks thereafter.

Facts of the case

It was Vinod Kumar i.e., deceased undertook a train journey on 12.06.2017 from Shahdara to Faridabad by a local train and when the train reached at KM 1514/13-11 JNC Yard between Faridabad and Tughlaqabad Station, the deceased fell down from the train on account of sudden jerk and push of the passengers and died at the spot. The journey ticket along with other articles of the deceased including his bag were also lost.

A perusal of the record would show that the first information on the incident was received in the form of memo of Station Master of Faridabad Railway Station at about 9:00 am on 12.06.2017. It mentions about the dead body lying at KM 1514/13-11.

Based on the reports and testimony submitted, On 10.02.2021, the principal bench of Railway Claims Tribunal passed an order dismissing the claims of the appellants.

Court Analysis and Decision

The delhi high court was expedient to refer to the judgement of Supreme court at Union of India v. Rina Devi (2019) 3 SCC 572 para 29, Where it was held that, “mere presence of dead body on the railway tracks will not be conclusive to hold that injured or deceased was a bona fide passenger for which claim for compensation could be maintained. However, mere absence of ticket with such injured or deceased will not negative the claim that he was a bona fide passenger Initial burden will FAO 46/2022 Page 3 of 4 be on the claimant which can be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts and burden will then shift on the Railways and the issue can be decided on the facts shown or the attending circumstances. This will have to be dealt with from case to case on the basis of facts found. The legal position in this regard will stand explained accordingly.”

The court decided to avoid the DRM report for taking into consideration as it is being filed after 14 months of the incident especially in the view of final report submitted by the SHO, court referred to the judgement of its coordinate bench in Bhola v. Union of India 2018 SCC OnLine Del 13486. Accordingly, the deceased is held to be a bona fide passenger and the incident to be an ‘untoward incident’ under Section 123(c) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act 1987. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for awarding the amount of compensation in terms of the Act and for which purpose the matter shall be listed at the first instance before the Tribunal on 10.07.2023. Let the compensation amount be paid to the appellants/claimants within two weeks thereafter.

“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 review the judgement

28 Jun

Provide an Appropriate Number of Short and Long-Term Care Facilities for Mental Ill Inmates: High Court Orders Delhi Govt

Prime Legal

Blog #highcourtdelhi, #law

Title: MADHU BALA v. STATE

Decided on: 26th June 2023

+ CRL.A. 161/2011

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA, HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE POONAM A. BAMBA

Introduction

The High Court of Delhi has urged the government of Delhi to guarantee that an appropriate amount of short and long-term care home is provided for mentally ill convicts who do not need frequent hospitalization and do not have houses to return to in order to live in a secure environment. A division bench of Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Poonam A. Bamba stated: “It is the bounden duty of the State to take care of the life of all its citizens.”

Facts of the Case

In Charanjit Singh & Ors. v. State & Ors., a Coordinate Bench instructed the State to establish Short or Long Stay residences for convicts suffering from mental illness who do not require hospitalisation.

The panel was hearing an appeal filed by Madhu Bala, a murder offender who was diagnosed with Schizophrenia during his trial and is currently receiving treatment as an outpatient at the Institute of Human Behaviour and Allied Sciences (IHBAS).

Bala was arrested in September 2005, and his treatment at IHBAS began in May 2009. On August 21, 2010, the trial court condemned her for charges punishable under Sections 302 and 326 of the IPC, which she contested in court. Bala also attempted to get her life sentence commuted.

Courts Analysis and Decision

Bala, who has been in and out of IHBAS since her conviction, was ultimately sent to Saksham, a Half Way stay home on the IHBAS campus, on March 3, 2017. She has been detained since then.

The court took notice of IHBAS’s medical report, which said that according to her most recent examination on February 20, her paranoid schizophrenia is in remission and she is thus fit to defend herself. As a result, the court heard Bala’s appeal on the merits after allowing her counsel to visit her at the Halfway house at IHBAS.

Observing that Bala was in judicial custody even when admitting to the Short Stay Home and that her stay would be counted towards her custody duration, the court changed her conviction for the death of the deceased from Section 302 to Section 304(1) of the IPC.

The court, however, upheld her conviction for an offence punishable under Section 326 of the IPC.

Concerning a woman’s injuries, including the ten-year term she received for the offence. The judge noted that she had already served the time in jail.

“Furthermore, the sentence for an offense punished under Section 304 Part 1 IPC is reduced to a 12-year prison sentence.” The appellant has been in the role of the appellant for 18 years. As a result, it is held that the petitioner has already served the term imposed for an offense punishable under Section 304(1) IPC,” the court stated. The bench further noted that following her time at the IHBAS Short time Home, Bala’s mental state had improved incrementally, allowing her counsel to engage with her.

“Because the appellant is unable to care for herself, even though the schizophrenia is currently in remission, and none of her family members are capable of looking after her, it is the responsibility of the State to take sufficient care of Madhu Bala and other similar patients, for the reason that the Short/ Long Stay Residences have been established,” the court stated.

It directed that Bala remains in the Long Stay Home at IHBAS and that the State bear the costs of all necessary care, including her stay. “A copy of this judgment should also be sent to the GNCTD’s Principal Secretary (Home), Principal Secretary (Health), Director General (Prisons), and Medical Superintendent, IHBAS for their records.”

Judgment- click here to review the judgment

Written by- Anushka Satwani

5 Jun

Delhi high court on Extending of the period of Agreement by Written Communication Methods, No Novation, Arbitration Clause Stands in Effect.

Prime Legal

Blog #arbitration, #contract, #highcourtdelhi

Introduction

Case Title: Unique Décor (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Synchronized Supply Systems Ltd. FAO (COMM) 69/2023 Date: 30.05.2023 Counsel for the Appellant: Mr.Nishant Nigam and Mr. Aman Abbi Counsel for respondent: Mr. Sushil Shukla. Headed by justice Vibhu Bakru and Amit Mahajan.

The Delhi High Court confirmed that if each of the parties has prolonged the term of the contract by written correspondence, the provision for arbitration that was included in the deal remains in effect. The bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan differentiated among situations in which a provision for arbitration comes to an end with the restructuring of the primary agreement and circumstances in which the arbitration clause remains in effect when the primary contract is not overtaken by an additional contract but is prolonged by both parties through communication in writing.

Facts of the case

Both parties signed a Rent Agreement on July 1, 2017, under which the applicant leased the appropriate property to the defendant. The respondent was leased to the relevant premises by the appellant. The contract included an arbitration provision. The initial term of the deal was one year.

When the initial term expired, the parties prolonged the agreement by written communication, such as emails and letters, and the buildings had only been evacuated in March 2019. However, a disagreement emerged amongst the parties about the restoration of the security fee, as the applicant refused to release the sum on the basis that it would be required for the upkeep of the premises due to the respondent’s occupation causing harm to the property.

The respondent, who was enraged by the confiscation of its security funds, filed a lawsuit to reclaim the money. The appellant filed an application to the commercial court for sending the issue to arbitration under Section 8 of the A&C Act (the judicial authority must necessarily refer the parties).

The Ld. Commercial Court rejected the appellant’s claim on the grounds that the agreement lapsed with the passage of time in the year 2018, so there was no existing contract, and with the expiration of the primary agreement, the arbitration provision also lapsed. As a result, the appellant filed an appeal according to Section 37(1)(a) within the Act.

Issues Raised

The appellant objected to the contested decision on the following justifications:

The provision requiring arbitration survives the original agreement’s cancellation.
The primary agreement was extended since each party maintained the agreement via communication in writing and their actions until March 2019.

Courts Analysis and Decision

The Court noted that the initial duration of the contract was only 12 months, which was scheduled to end on June 30, 2018, but both sides remained with the terms agreed upon in the agreement and prolonged the agreement until March 2019. The judge observed that where the contract between the parties has been replaced by another contract, the provision requiring arbitration is also superseded;

nevertheless, where no additional arrangement has been reached among the individuals and the original contract has been broadened by written correspondence, the arbitration clause remains in effect.

The Court further concluded that while executing authority under Section 8 of the Act, the Court should submit both sides to mediation if there is an important disagreement over if the actual contract has the provision of the arbitration clause or has been changed completely, novated, or superseded because it would otherwise it will be out of the scope of the relevant section.

The Court noted that the extent of intervention under Sections 8 and 11 is the same and must be on a prima facie level when examining the validity of the agreement.

Judgement

Click here to review the judgement

Written by – Anushka Satwani

1 … 7 8 9