0

Court Cannot Turn A Blind Eye Towards Any Potential Violations Of Fire Norms: High Court Of Delhi

Blog , , ,

Title: Azad Market Residents Welfare Association V Ministry Of Home Affairs And Ors.

Citation: W.P.(C) 8437/2022

Coram: Hon’ble The Chief Justice And Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela

Decided On: November 06, 2023

Introduction:

The present petition has been filed as a public interest litigation (“PIL”) seeking directions from this Court to be issued to the Respondents in relation to inter alia (i) conducting a survey in order to identify unauthorized and illegal construction in the Azad Market, Delhi – 110006 (the “Subject Area”); and (ii) to take action against such properties situated in the Subject Area.

Facts:

Petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court the presence of illegal and unauthorized constructions situated in the Subject Area. It is stated the Subject Properties have been constructed in contravention to the Unified Building Bye Laws, 2016 (“UBBL 2016”); the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (the “Act”); and other building laws in vogue including inter alia the Master Plan for Delhi, 2021 (“MPD 2021”). Furthermore, it has been contented that the Subject Properties have been constructed and are being occupied without obtaining an Occupancy Certificates (“OCs”) and / or necessary permissions under the Delhi Fire Safety Act, 2007 (the “Delhi Fire Act”) read with the Delhi Fire Service Rules, 2010 (the “Delhi Fire Rules”)

Notice was issued in this matter on 26.05.2022, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (“MCD”) filed a status report on 02.07.2022 (the “MCD Status Report”); the Delhi Fire Service filed an affidavit on 02.11.2022; and the Union of India filed an affidavit in the present PIL on 01.07.2023. Per the MCD Status Report, the MCD took action against illegal and unauthorized construction in the vicinity of the Subject Area.

Court’s Analysis and Decision:

Court pointed out that the grievance raised by the Petitioner has been sufficiently addressed by the MCD through the considerable efforts it has made in relation to clearing unauthorized and illegal construction in the Subject Area. Regarding the violation of fire norms court didn’t turn a blind eye, accordingly the MCD and the Delhi Fire Services are directed to ensure scrupulous and rigorous enforcement of the Fire Norms pertaining to premises specified under Rule 27 of the Delhi Fire Rules. In this regard, the MCD shall endeavour to conduct regular monitoring of the Subject Area to ensure that persons found violating the Fire Norms are promptly identified and referred to the Fire Prevention Wing under Rule 34 of the Delhi Fire Rules.

Furthermore, in the future if stray individual cases of unauthorized and illegal construction are found dotting the Subject Area, the Petitioner may approach the Special Task Force constituted by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, Government of India  (the “STF”) pursuant to the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in W.P.(C) 4677/1985.

“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- Sushant Kumar Sharma

Click here to view judgement

0

First-Time Offender’s Sentence Reduced Due to Commitment to Reform and Lower Socio-Economic Status: High Court of Delhi

Blog , , , ,

Title:  Mohd Nasim vs. The State

Citation: CRL.REV.P.296/2017

Coram: HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN

Decided on: 3-11-2023

Introduction:

The present criminal revision petition has been filed under sections 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, along with section 482 of the same Code. This legal action aims to challenge and set aside three specific legal orders and judgments: The order dated 27.03.2017, referred to as “the impugned order,” issued by the District and Sessions Judge of East, Karkardooma Courts (referred to as “the appellate court”). The judgment dated 17.03.2016, referred to as “the impugned judgment.” The order on sentence dated 15.07.2016, issued by the Metropolitan Magistrate-03, East, Karkardooma Courts (referred to as “the trial court”).These orders and judgments pertain to a criminal case that arose from the FIR numbered 151/2009, registered under sections 279/337 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) at PS Mandawli Fazad Pur. The purpose of this criminal revision petition is to seek a review and potentially set aside these legal decisions.

Facts:

The facts of the case are such that, The case pertains to an incident in 2009, where a road accident occurred involving a rickshaw used for carrying goods and a blue line bus with the registration number DL 1PB 9786 (referred to as “the offending vehicle”). The Investigating Officer, SI Yad Ram, arrived at the accident scene after receiving information about the incident. A statement from the complainant, Mohd. Sabir was recorded, in which he described that the rickshaw he was travelling in was hit from behind by the offending bus, driven in a rash and negligent manner.

As a result of the collision, the deceased, Mahesh, fell on the road, and the rear tire of the bus ran over him, causing injuries that led to his subsequent death during treatment. An FIR was registered based on the statement of the complainant, initially under sections 279/337 IPC, and later section 304A IPC was added due to the death of the deceased. The petitioner, identified as Mohd. Nasim was charged as the driver of the offending bus. The trial court conducted proceedings, and the prosecution presented its evidence, including 11 witnesses, including the complainant and the Investigating Officer. The petitioner pleaded innocence and claimed false implication during his statement.

The trial court, in its judgment, convicted the petitioner for offences under sections 279/304A IPC and imposed sentences, including imprisonment and compensation to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased. The petitioner was also sentenced for an offence under section 279 IPC. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

 

 

Court Analysis & Judgement:

The Court concluded that, The present First Information Report (FIR) dates back to 2009, and the petitioner has been involved in legal and judicial proceedings related to this FIR since then. The petitioner is described as a first-time offender with a clear criminal record. They belong to a lower socio-economic stratum and are the primary provider for their elderly parents. The legal heirs of the deceased in this case have already received compensation. The petitioner has expressed a commitment to reform themselves. The petitioner’s actions, characterized as rash and negligent driving, led to the untimely death of a young man. This incident caused irreparable loss to the victim’s family.

 After considering all the facts, the court has decided that justice would be served by reducing the sentence imposed on the petitioner for the offence under section 304A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to simple imprisonment for six months. The remaining part of the sentence, as specified in the order on sentencing dated 15.07.2016, is to be maintained.  The court has directed the petitioner to surrender before the trial court on 20.11.2023 at 2:30 PM to serve the remaining portion of the sentence. The judgment is to be provided to the petitioner and sent to the relevant trial court for their information.

The present petition, along with any pending applications, has been decided and disposed of accordingly.

“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 the 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: Gauri Joshi

Click here to view judgements

0

Justice Prevails as Court Compensates Widow for Delayed Pension and Denounces Official Negligence: High Court of Patna

Blog , , , , ,

Title:  Jaymanti Devi vs. The State of Bihar & ORS.

Citation: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No:6338 of 2023

Coram: HONA’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH

Decided on: 04-10-23

Introduction:

It mentions the individuals who are involved or present in the case: Mr. Om Prakash Maharaj, who is identified as the learned counsel representing the petitioner. Mr. Manish Kumar, identified as “GP 4,” along with Mr. Manoj Kumar (referred to as “AC to GP 4”). Mrs. Ritika Rani, who is noted as the learned counsel for the Accountant General (Bihar). It is a civil Writ Petition.

Facts:

 The facts of the case are such that, The learned counsel representing respondent numbers 2 and 9 has filed a second supplementary statement of facts on their behalf in the court. The petitioner, represented by another counsel, has informed the court that there has been a delay of 15 years in the payment of retiral dues, including family pension. The petitioner’s husband passed away in 2008 while he was serving as a Chawkidar.

The petitioner’s counsel argues that pension is not a privilege but a fundamental right under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. They claim that the petitioner is entitled to compensation and interest, as per legal precedents, for the delay in receiving pension and other retiral dues, starting from the date of entitlement to the date of payment.

Court Analysis & Judgement:

The petitioner, who is already receiving a family pension and has had some retiral dues paid, has faced a significant delay in the process, and this has caused considerable hardship to her as a widow and an illiterate individual. The court has expressed strong disapproval of the callous attitude of State Government officials, particularly the Block Development Officer, Circle Officer, and District Magistrate, in handling the petitioner’s case. In response to this, the District Magistrate has been directed by the court to compensate the petitioner with a sum of Rs. 5,00,000 (five lac) in addition to the interest, based on legal precedents provided in the cases of State of Kerala Vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair (1985) 1 SCC 429 and D.D. Tewari Vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli (2014) 8 SCC 894.

The court has given a timeframe for the authority concerned to carry out this compensation, which is within four weeks from the date of passing the order. With these observations and directions, the writ petition in this case has been disposed of. This implies that the court has concluded its proceedings in this matter based on the provided 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: Gauri Joshi

Click here to view judgement

0

The Delhi High Court held that the competent court can examine valuation of IPR suits less than 3 lakh rupees transfer to the commercial courts is not required

Blog , , ,

Title: Pankaj Ravjibhai Patel Trading as Rakesh Pharmaceuticals v. SSS Pharmachem Pvt. Ltd.
Decided on: 02nd November, 2023

+ FAO (COMM) 98/2023

CORAM: HON’BLE Mr. Justice Yashwant Verma and Mr. Justice Dharmesh Sharma
Introduction

The Delhi High Court held that, if the relief sought in an IPR suit is valued at less than Rs. 3 lakhs, the competent court may investigate the “declared specified value” and the value assigned to the claims, provided that the case’s particular facts be taken into consideration when determining whether the suit was undervalued.

Facts of the Case

The current appeal challenges the order dated February 21, 2023, issued by the District Judge (Commercial), who, for the reasons specified and documented in that order, vacated the ex parte injunction that had been granted on September 25, 2021, in favor of the plaintiff/appellant. The order also requires the plaintiff/appellant to provide further documentation bolstering the Chartered Accountant’s [“CA”] certificate that was submitted in relation to the “specified value” of the suit.

Courts analysis and decision

The court said that it would be completely wrong to continue under the assumption that the disagreement at hand, which forms the basis of IPR lawsuits, would inevitably be worth at least Rs. 3 lakhs. It further said that a competent court may always investigate and determine if a certain claim had been purposefully devalued. In addition, the bench noted that it would be completely improper for it to issue a judicial fiat directing the non-commercial claims to be handled by District Judges (Commercial), even if those suits did not satisfy the CCA’s threshold requirements. It further said that an action cannot be considered by a commercial court unless the twin requirements of a commercial dispute and specified value are met.

The recommendation given by amicus curiae Advocate Swathi Sukumar regarding an additional declaration made by plaintiffs in IPR suits where the valuation is less than Rs. 3 lakhs were also deemed meritorious by the bench. Consequently, the court mandated that the plaintiff in any such action state that it has not previously taken an inconsistent stance about a specified value in any other litigation that is currently continuing or has been filed.

“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- Hargunn Kaur Makhija

Click here to view your judgement

0

Dismissal of Petition, Leaving Room for Defense in Trial Court, On The Grounds of Citing Irrelevant Judgements: High Court of J&K

Blog , , ,

Title: FAROOQ AHMAD LONE vs. STATE OF J&K & OTHERS

Citation: OWP No.1448/2014

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL

Decided on: 21.10.2023

Introduction:

The petitioner has initiated this writ petition with the objective of seeking the quashing of FIR No.42/2007, lodged at the Police Station, Vigilance Organization, Kashmir, as well as the Government Order No.22-GAD(Vig.) of 2014, dated 08.08.2014. These legal actions were taken by respondents No.2 and 3, granting the sanction to prosecute the petitioner and other officials.

Facts:

The facts of the case are such that, the petitioner, Ghulam Mohi-ud-Din Bhat, served as a Block Officer in Handwara Town from June 2005 to October 2009. It is claimed that during this period, he did not engage in any conspiracy. Furthermore, during his tenure, the stocks of deodar wood, both round and sawn, totalling 3305 cubic feet, were found to be neither illicit nor illegal, and they were accurately recorded in the official documents. However, the authorities have initiated a case for prosecution without thoroughly reviewing the petitioner’s response to the questions posed by the Investigating Officer.

On December 23, 2013, respondent No.5 requested respondent No.2 to grant sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act and RPC against the petitioner and others. Surprisingly, respondent No.2 granted sanction on August 8, 2014, without thoroughly examining the communication, for prosecution on charges related to various sections of the PC Act, RPC, and the Jammu & Kashmir Forest Act, indicating a lack of proper consideration. It is also mentioned that Forester Ghulam Mohi-ud-Din Bhat and records related to private timber sales depot holders were not directly involved in this charge. The case involves an investigation conducted by the Vigilance Organization, Kashmir authorities, and the Forest Protection Force. In the case, the respondents argue that the sanction granted for prosecuting the petitioner on charges related to the RPC (Ranbir Penal Code) and the Jammu & Kashmir Forest Act is valid. They base this argument on the notion that the provisions of Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006, take precedence over the general provisions found in Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr. P. C). Therefore, they assert that no separate sanction was necessary for the offenses under RPC and the J&K Forest Act, as the sanction under the PC Act covers them.

Court Analysis and Judgement:

In this judgment, the court has considered the arguments presented by the petitioner’s counsel, who relied on certain judgments in support of their case. The court, however, has concluded that the judgments cited by the petitioner’s counsel are not relevant to the specific facts and circumstances of the case. As a result, the court has decided to dismiss the petitioner’s case, indicating that it finds no merit in the petitioner’s claims. The judgment emphasizes that the petitioner is free to present their defence before the trial court, and the trial court should consider their defence without being influenced by any observations made by the court in this particular judgment.

Essentially, this judgment denies the petitioner’s claims and instructs them to address their defence in the trial court independently, without taking into account the court’s findings in this case. It also directs that a copy of this order should be sent to the trial court for their information and compliance.

“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 the 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: Gauri Joshi

Click here to view judgement

1 … 15 16 17 18