#Jurisdiction Archives - Page 6 of 6

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

22 Jun

Karnataka High Court Declares Notice and Assessment Order in the Name of Non-Existing Company as Illegal and Lacking Jurisdiction

Prime Legal

Blog #Jurisdiction, #Karnataka High Court, #Non-Existing Company, #primelegal

Karnataka High Court

COFFEE DAY RESORTS (MSM) PVT. LTD. V. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

WRIT PETITION NO. 9594 OF 2023 (T-IT)

Bench- HON’BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV

Decided On 01-06-2023

Facts of the case-

Coffee Day Resorts (MSM) Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) has raised concerns regarding the validity of the reassessment proceedings initiated against them. The petitioner, formerly known as Shankar Resources Pvt. Ltd., was a non-banking financial company (NBFC) that underwent a merger with the petitioner company pursuant to an order of amalgamation by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT).

Subsequently, the respondent, referring to the provisions of Section 148A (b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, issued a notice to Shankar Resources Private Limited, seeking an explanation as to why a notice under Section 148 of the said Act should not be issued.

In response, the petitioner submitted a reply stating that the company to which the notice under Section 148A (b) was directed, namely M/s. Shankar Resources (P) Ltd., had been amalgamated with M/s. Coffee Day Resorts (MSM) Pvt. Ltd. Consequently, as of April 1, 2018, M/s. Shankar Resources (P) Ltd. ceased to exist, and there was no longer any assessable entity under the name of M/s. Shankar Resources (P) Ltd. for the assessment year 2019-20.

It is imperative to analyze the legal implications of the aforementioned facts. The merger of Shankar Resources Pvt. Ltd. with Coffee Day Resorts (MSM) Pvt. Ltd. has been carried out in accordance with the order of amalgamation issued by the NCLT. Such an amalgamation signifies the consolidation of both entities, resulting in the cessation of the existence of Shankar Resources Pvt. Ltd. from the effective date of the amalgamation, i.e., April 1, 2018.

Therefore, the petitioner contends that the notice issued under Section 148A (b) is misplaced, as it is directed towards an entity, M/s. Shankar Resources (P) Ltd., that no longer exists. The petitioner, now known as Coffee Day Resorts (MSM) Pvt. Ltd., is the only surviving and accessible entity following the merger.

In light of these facts, the petitioner asserts that there is no valid basis for the reassessment proceedings for the assessment year 2019-20 to be conducted against them. The amalgamation has effectively dissolved the identity and legal existence of Shankar Resources Pvt. Ltd., leaving Coffee Day Resorts (MSM) Pvt. Ltd. as the only relevant entity subject to assessment.

Consequently, the petitioner seeks legal redress and challenges the validity of the reassessment proceedings, arguing that the notice issued under Section 148A (b) is untenable given the amalgamation and the subsequent cessation of Shankar Resources Pvt. Ltd.

Judgement

The Court has ruled that a notice and assessment order issued in the name of a non-existent company is fundamentally illegal and lacks jurisdiction. The Court specifically noted that M/s. Shankar Resources (P) Ltd., which had merged with the petitioner company, no longer existed at the time the notice was issued. As a result, the notice issued under Section 148A(b) is declared null and void.

The Court emphasized that the tax department is entitled to initiate appropriate proceedings, as permissible by law, against the petitioner company based on the contents of the notice under Section 148A(b). However, such proceedings must be in accordance with the relevant legal provisions. The Court clarified that the petitioner company is still subject to assessment and can be subjected to lawful actions by the tax department.

Therefore, the Court sets aside the notice issued under Section 148A(b) in relation to M/s. Shankar Resources (P) Ltd., while affirming that the tax department retains the authority to commence appropriate proceedings against the petitioner company, Coffee Day Resorts (MSM) Pvt. Ltd., in compliance with the applicable laws.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY ABHAY SHUKLA

click here to view judgement

9 Jun

Ensuring Constitutional Rights: Karnataka High Court Upholds Civil Court’s Jurisdiction to Hear Individual Suits by Catholics Seeking Prayers in Their Own Language at Church

Prime Legal

Blog #Constitutional Rights, #Jurisdiction

Karnataka High Court

Diocese of Chikkamagaluru v. Lancy J Narona & Others

MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO.98 OF 2021 (RO)

Bench- HON’BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

Decided On 26-05-2023

Facts of the case-

This case involves a dispute between the plaintiffs, who are citizens of the country and residents of Chikkamagaluru town, and the defendant, who is the religious head of the Archdiocese of Chikkamagaluru. The plaintiffs are Christian Catholics who follow the traditions and language of Konkani-speaking Catholics. They allege that there is a significant population of Konkani-speaking people in Chikkamagaluru town.

The plaintiffs claim that they have been denied the right to offer prayers in their own language, Konkani, at the local church, which is under the defendant’s control. They argue that Konkani is a recognized language under the Indian Constitution and that it is their constitutional right to offer prayers in their own language. They assert that the defendant’s actions amount to a violation of their fundamental right under Article 25(1) of the Constitution of India.

The plaintiffs further contend that they have formally requested the defendant to permit them to offer prayers in Konkani, but they have received no response. They clarify that they do not object to offering prayers in Kannada or any other language.

The plaintiffs argue that there is no specific statute or law governing Christian churches in India. They assert that the defendant, as the head of the churches in the Diocese of Chikkamagaluru and Hassan, is subject to the laws of the land. Therefore, they request the court to direct the defendant to conduct prayers in Konkani language on Sundays and allow Konkani catechism classes and masses on a regular basis. They also seek a permanent injunction to prevent the defendant from violating their fundamental rights under Article 25(1) of the Constitution.

In response, the defendant has filed a written statement and an application under various sections and rules of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). The defendant argues that the suit should be dismissed because it is outside the jurisdiction of the civil court and falls within the religious authority of the Catholic church. They claim that the decisions regarding language policy are within the powers of the Bishop of the Diocese as per the Canon Law.

The defendant contends that the suit is barred under specific canons of the Canon Law and asserts that the plaintiffs do not have the standing to represent the entire community but have filed the suit in their individual capacity. Therefore, they request the court to dismiss the suit by allowing their application.

In summary, the plaintiffs, as Konkani-speaking Catholics, are seeking the court’s intervention to allow them to offer prayers in their language at the church controlled by the defendant. They argue that this is their constitutional right, while the defendant maintains that the religious authority of the Catholic church should handle this matter and that the suit is barred under the Canon Law.

Relevant Provisions

The Constitution of India	Related to
Art. 25	Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion

Judgement

The court observed that the Trial Court had erroneously framed a point for consideration regarding the applicability of Canon Law, despite the fact that Canon Law is not recognized. It further stated that while considering the maintainability of the case, the court should only look into the averments made in the plaint and should not consider the defense. The court disagreed with the appellant’s argument that the matter pertained to rituals and concluded that the suit was filed seeking the relief of worshipping in a specific language at the church.

The court also noted that although the defendant had stated before the Trial Court that they would not press the question of cause of action, the Trial Court had still made an approach without considering the pleadings that were not pressed into service.

Based on these observations, the First Appellate Court correctly reversed the Trial Court’s finding and concluded that the appellant’s defense was not legally sustainable. The court held that the matter needed to be considered in accordance with the law. As a result, the appeal was dismissed.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY ABHAY SHUKLA

Click here to view judgment

1 … 4 5 6