#Jurisdiction Archives - Page 4 of 6

26 Oct

The Kerala High Court stated that judicial separation cannot be given as an alternative when divorce grounds under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act are unproven.

Prime Legal

Uncategorized # Writ Petition, #dismissed, #divorce, #Jurisdiction, #keralahighcourt

Title: S v. D & connected matter

Decided on: 18, September 2023

Writ C No. – 148/2014

CORAM: The Honorable Mr. Justice Anil. K. Narendran and The Honorable Mrs. Justice Sophy Thomas.

INTRODUCTION

The Kerala High Court is hearing a case involving a marital dispute. According to Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the husband filed an Original Petition (OP) alleging matrimonial cruelties and an illicit relationship between his wife and her brother in order to obtain a divorce from her. The divorce petition was denied by the Family Court, but a judicial separation decree was approved. Furthermore, the husband was recognized by the Family Court as the child’s biological father and given compensation, all without the need for any special pleadings or prayers. Both parties then filed appeals in the case—the wife against the judgment of judicial separation and the husband against the dismissal of his divorce petition.

FACTS OF THE CASE

In this case, a husband requested a divorce, claiming that his wife had an extramarital affair with her brother and conceived despite the fact that their union had not yet been consummated. In order to establish that he wasn’t the child’s biological father, he also asked for a DNA test. The wife wished to keep the marriage intact and refuted these accusations. The husband was named the child’s father by the Family Court, which also granted judicial separation and awarded the child compensation, even though the divorce was denied. The ruling was appealed by both parties.

COURTS ANALYSIS AND DECISION

The Kerala High Court rejected a husband’s request because there was insufficient proof to back up the husband’s allegations of his wife’s supposed adultery, the Kerala High Court denied the husband’s request for a divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act. The court further decided that judicial separation was not an acceptable substitute remedy. It stressed that a long-term absence alone does not prove an irreversible marital breakdown and chastised the Family Court for overstepping its bounds of authority. The husband’s appeal for divorce was denied, the wife’s appeal was upheld, and the judicial separation decree was annulled. The wife’s costs were also mandated to be covered by the husband.

“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- Kusuma R

Kerala Hc 1

11 Oct

To prove undervaluation in customs duty cases, the Supreme Court requires evidence of contemporaneous import prices, or else the benefit of the doubt favors the importer.

Prime Legal

Blog # Justice N.ANAND VENKATESH, # Supreme Court, #appeal, #arbitration, #dismissed, #Jurisdiction

Case Title: Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai v. M/s Ganpati Overseas through its Proprietor Shri Yashpal Sharma & Anr

Decided on: 06 October,2023

Neutral Citation: 2023INSC881

CORAM : B.V. Nagarathna, Ujjal Bhuyan

INTRODUCTION

The case of “Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai v. M/s Ganpati Overseas” revolves around allegations of under-invoicing of imported goods from Hong Kong and the subsequent imposition of penalties by Customs authorities in India. The Supreme Court examined the rejection of invoice prices, the burden of proof in under-valuation cases, and the reliance on foreign export declarations.

The Court upheld the decision of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) to set aside the penalties and value enhancements, setting a precedent in customs valuation rules and evidence standards.

FACTS OF THE CASE

In the case where under-invoicing imported goods from Hong Kong, potentially evading customs duty. The case reached the Supreme Court after the Customs Commissioner imposed penalties.

The central issue was the rejection of the invoice price and the burden of proof for under-valuation. The Customs Valuation Rules were essential in this case. The Supreme Court upheld the CESTAT’s decision to set aside the penalties, emphasizing the need for solid reasons and evidence for rejecting invoice prices in customs disputes.

This case established a significant precedent for customs valuation rules and the burden of proof in similar cases.

Courts Analysis and Decision.

The court emphasized that the Customs department must provide solid reasons and evidence when rejecting invoice prices in customs disputes. The burden of proof for under-valuation lies with the department, and detailed inquiries and adequate evidence are required to allege under-valuation.

The Court noted that both the department and the adjudicating authority had not justified the rejection of the import invoice price as incorrect and the subsequent enhancement of the price. As a result, the CESTAT’s decision to set aside the penalties and value enhancements was upheld, and the appeals filed by the Customs Commissioner were dismissed. This case established a significant precedent in customs valuation rules and evidence standards.

Written by- Kusuma R

11 Oct

The Allahabad High Court criticized the National Minorities Commission for overstepping its authority and summoning officers without valid grounds.

Prime Legal

Blog # Justice N.ANAND VENKATESH, # Supreme Court, # Writ Petition, #allahabad, #allahabadhighcourt, #dismissed, #Jurisdiction

Case Title: Divine Faith Fellowship Church and Another vs. State of U.P. And 5 Others 2023

Decided on: 26^th September, 2023

Writ no. – C No. – 30476 of 2023

CORAM : Hon’ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon’ble Prashant Kumar,J.

INTRODUCTION

The case of “Divine Faith Fellowship Church and Another vs. State of U.P. And 5 Others” in 2023 involves a dispute where a church-owned property in Uttar Pradesh, India, had been illegally occupied.

The petitioners, a Christian organization, sought legal action through the U.P. Commission for Minorities and later the National Commission for Minorities. The case primarily focuses on whether these commissions had the authority to adjudicate and order actions related to the property dispute and whether their actions exceeded their statutory jurisdiction.

Facts of the case:

The petitioners, an NGO associated with a church, claimed ownership of property including Shop no. 13/1.They sought to evict an unauthorized occupant from Shop no. 13/1. The U.P. Commission for Minorities treated the case as a civil matter and ordered an FIR against the occupant.

The National Commission for Minorities got involved, issuing orders to assist the petitioners. The dispute centered on whether these commissions had the authority to handle the property dispute, leading to a legal challenge. The Allahabad High Court ultimately ruled that the commissions had exceeded their jurisdiction in this case.

Courts Analysis and Decision.

The court highlighted the limited statutory functions of these commissions, primarily aimed at safeguarding minority interests. Emphasized that these commissions do not possess the authority to adjudicate property disputes.

Criticized the practice of summoning government officers and pressuring them to pass orders beyond their jurisdiction. Reiterated that public officers should not be called to court unnecessarily. Deplored the commissions’ tendency to function as if they were courts, calling it an abuse of their position. Noted that such actions could result in the removal of commission members. Ultimately, the court dismissed the petition and affirmed that the commissions had acted beyond their authorized functions in the property dispute, underscoring the importance of respecting the separation of powers between the judiciary and executive branches.

Written by- Kusuma R

25 Sep

Delhi Court Upholds Interim Mandatory Injunction in a Recent Jurisdiction and Lien Dispute Case

Prime Legal

Articles, Blog #delhi, #delhicourt, #delhihighcourt, #injunction, #Jurisdiction, #lien

Case Title: COGOPORT PRIVATE LIMITED v. STRIDES PHARMA SCIENCE LIMITED & ORS

Date of Decision: 22nd September 2023

Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 163/2023

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Hon’ble Ms. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna

Introduction

This case involves an appeal under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, challenging an order allowing an interim mandatory injunction. The plaintiff, COGOPORT PRIVATE LIMITED, sought the release of goods from the defendant, STRIDES PHARMA SCIENCE LIMITED, which were withheld due to a payment dispute. The appeal challenges the jurisdiction, locus standi, and validity of the injunction.

Factual Background

The plaintiff, a pharmaceutical company, engaged defendant No. 1 to deliver life-saving medicines to New York. The consignment was forwarded through defendant No. 3. Upon reaching New York, the goods were withheld on the defendant’s instructions due to a payment dispute. The plaintiff’s consignment contained perishable items worth USD 642,609.

Legal Issues

The case raised several legal issues:

Jurisdiction of the court to entertain the suit.
Locus standi of the plaintiff to file the suit.
Validity of the defendant’s right to withhold the goods.
The appropriateness of granting an interim mandatory injunction.

Contentions

The appellant argued that the court lacked territorial jurisdiction, citing agreements that excluded Delhi’s jurisdiction.
They questioned the plaintiff’s locus standi due to the absence of privity of contract.
The appellant claimed the right to withhold goods due to an unpaid invoice.
The plaintiff argued that the extraordinary circumstances justified the interim mandatory injunction.

Observation and Analysis

The court found that the plaintiff had locus standi as the consignor, and the jurisdictional arguments were unfounded. The court also questioned the appellant’s right to withhold goods based on an unpaid invoice and found no privity of contract with the plaintiff. It observed that the goods were withheld to leverage other litigations, causing harm to the plaintiff.

Decision of the Court

The court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the appellant had its office in Delhi, within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. None of the other respondents contested the jurisdiction.

The plaintiff had the locus standi to file the suit since it was the consigner of the goods and had title until delivery was made to the consignee. The lack of a direct contract with the appellant did not negate the plaintiff’s right to initiate the suit.

The appellant’s exercise of lien on the goods was found to be without statutory basis. The appellant’s reliance on an unpaid invoice dated after the goods arrived was deemed inequitable.

The court upheld the grant of an interim Mandatory Injunction to the plaintiff, as the equities favored the plaintiff. The perishable nature of the goods and demurrage charges being incurred justified the injunction.

Written by – Ananya Chaudhary

Click here to view judgment

13 Sep

Madras High Court Says the Civil Court has no jurisdiction over a company case as per Sections 242(2)(i) and Section 430 of the Companies Act, 2013.

Prime Legal

Blog, blog #Civilcourt, #companies act, #company, #Jurisdiction, #MadrasHighCourt

TITLE: K. Prabhu Vs. G. Reghukumaran.

Decided On: September 11, 2023.

C.R.P.(MD)No.535 of 2014 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2014.

CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. Vijayakumar.

Facts:

The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed to strike off the plaint on the ground that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a suit for recovery of money from a Managing Director on the allegation of misappropriation of funds. According to the O.S.No.32 of 2014 the plaintiff is a Public Limited Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013. As per the allegations in the plaint, the first defendant, namely, K.Prabhu, had officiated as a Managing Director of the plaintiff Company between 20.09.2010 and 13.09.2011. The plaintiff has contended that the first defendant, while officiating as the Managing Director of the Company, has misappropriated the funds of the Company and helped the third defendant to get rid of the financial constraints under the guise of entertaining a fake transaction of running a mineral water plant.

Legal Analysis and Decision:

The plaintiff has contended that the Managing Director had caused a huge financial loss to the plaintiff Company, while he was dealing with the funds generated from the general public. The plaintiff Company had relied upon the auditor’s report relating to the misappropriation alleged to have been done by the first defendant. According to the plaintiff, the first defendant was actively assisted by other defendants in the misappropriation. A careful perusal of the plaint allegations would reveal that a sum of Rs.89,02,461/- is sought to be recovered only on the basis that the first defendant, while officiating as the Managing Director of the plaintiff Company, has misappropriated the Company’s funds, for which, the other defendants have assisted.

Section 242(2)(i) of the Companies Act, 2013 Company Law Tribunal has got jurisdiction to recover any undue gains made by any Managing Director during the period of appointment.

Section 430 of Companies Act, 2013 to impress upon the Court that the Civil Court shall not have any jurisdiction to entertain any matter which the Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal is empowered to determine by or under this Act.

After a combined reading of Sections 242(2)(i) and Section 430 of the Companies Act, 2013 it clearly reveals that the present suit for recovery of money is solely based upon the allegations that the first defendant has misappropriated the funds of the plaintiff/Public Limited Company, while he was officiating as the Managing Director. Therefore, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the said suit. In view of the said deliberations, the plaint in O.S.No.32 of 2014 on the file of the VI Additional District Court, Madurai, is hereby struck off. However, the plaintiff/Public Limited Company is at liberty to approach the appropriate forum for appropriate relief, if they are so advised.

Conclusion:

The court concludes that after looking carefully into Sections 242(2)(i) and Section 430 of the Companies Act, 2013 says that the suit is solely related to recovery of money and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction over the issue and the company may approach the appropriate forum.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY JANGAM SHASHIDHAR.

Click here to view Judgement

1 2 3 4 5 6