0

“In a case involving trade and commerce, the Supreme Court dismissed the State’s appeal and held that the State of Arunachal Pradesh has been relieved to have escaped an unnecessary criminal prosecution.”

Blog , , , , , ,

Case Name: The State of Arunachal Pradesh v. Kamal Agarwal 

Case No.: SLP(Crl.) Nos.8663-8665 of 2023 

Dated On: April 18, 2024  

Quorum: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice K. V. Viswanathan 

 

FACTS OF THE CASE: 

The First Information Report is the source of the two appeals listed above. The above case was dealt along with another case, Chandra Mohan Baday v. The State of Arunachal Pradesh (SLP(Crl.) No. 7301 OF 2022). Three petitions for special leave have been filed by the state of Arunachal Pradesh. 

A plea for the quashing of the FIR was filed with the Gauhati High Court by three of the accused, Chandra Mohan Badaya and Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, Shashi and Rajesh Natani. One crore rupees was transferred in 2016 by M/s Shiv Bhandar, the proprietorship in question, to the accounts of Chandra Mohan Badaya, two of his proprietorships, and Rajesh Natani in four equal transactions of twenty-five lakhs apiece.  

In contrast to the complainant, who claims that the payments were made for the acquisition of a building located between plots Nos. A-47 to A-55, Sikar House, near Chandpole, Jaipur, Rajasthan, the appellant Chandra Mohan Badaya claims that the amount was transmitted as a loan. 

It is crucial to note that there is no formal contract pertaining to the reason for the money transfer, be it a loan or a down payment for the previously mentioned building or piece of land. It is important to remember that there is no official contract regarding the purpose of the money transfer—whether it is a loan or a down payment for the building or property that was previously indicated. The said amount was later repaid in 2016/17. 

 According to Chandra Badaya, he executed two sale deeds for two properties located in Chaksu, Jaipur, in the names of the complainant proprietor’s wife, Smt. Shalini Agarwal, and sister-in-law, Smt. Jaya Agarwal, as well as Shri Anil Agarwal, the holder of the power of attorney. Even though both sale deeds had a total sale consideration of Rs. 1.08 crores, the petitioner only received a total of Rs. 54 lakhs, or Rs. 27 lakhs each. 

The Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance and filed a case based on the aforementioned chargesheet. Following that, two sets of petitions were submitted to the Rajasthan High Court and the Gauhati High Court, two separate high courts.  

 

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT: 

The appellants contended that Rajesh Natani and Chandra Mohan Badaya contacted the complainant company and asked to be considered for an exchange of land or building in Rajasthan for a sum of Rs. one crore. 

As full payment for the sale of the aforementioned land/building, the aforementioned sum was deposited in four instalments on July 19, 2016, July 20, 2016, July 22, 2016, and July 25 in the accounts of Shri Ram Enterprises, A.R. Properties and Colonisers, Shashi Natani w/o Rajesh Natani, and Chandra Mohan Badaya.  

When the accusers saw the structure or plot of land, they refused to give it to the complaint. Since the accused had caused pain, mental anguish, and financial loss, it was evident that they had cheated. Further, the accused refused to turn over the land/building when the complaint was inspected. Because of this, it was evident that the accused had cheated, causing pain, suffering, and financial loss.  

 

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS: 

The State of Arunachal Pradesh appealed the Rajasthan High Court’s ruling in Special Leave Petition Nos. 8663–8665 of 2023, which it filed with the Supreme Court. Interestingly, the complainant did not challenge the Rajasthan High Court’s decision to quash the proceedings. 

The accused individuals have amassed substantial wealth through illicit means; but rather than keeping their word, they have threatened the complainant with dire repercussions. Upon identifying no other course of action, the formal complaint was filed in order to take suitable measures against the individuals involved.  

The address provided in the First Information Report (FIR) for the complainant, Mr. Anil Agrawal, is the address of the company M/s Shiv Bhandar in Pasighat, East Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh. However, the residential address of Anil Agarwal was not mentioned. 

It was also contended that Jaipur, Rajasthan is also home to the property for which it is said that a payment of Rs. 1 crore was made. The FIR makes no mention of the transaction involving the bank data.  

Arunachal Pradesh is the state in where the complainant is allegedly located, however other than that, no additional information related to the alleged offence is stated to be in or within the state; still, a FIR was filed there. It is obvious that the accused parties’ refusal to carry out the sale deed for which they had accepted the Rs. 1 crore sale consideration was the primary motivation behind filing the FIR.  

 

LEGAL PROVISIONS: 

  • Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code: Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. When multiple people commit a crime together to accomplish their shared goal, each of them bears the same liability as if they had committed the crime alone. 
  • Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code: Punishment of criminal conspiracy. In the absence of a specific provision in this Code regarding the punishment of criminal conspiracies, any individual involved in a criminal conspiracy that involves the commission of an offence punishable by death, life imprisonment, or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or more will face the same punishments as if they had assisted in the commission of the offence.  
  • Section 420 of the Indian Peanl Code: Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. Anyone who deceives someone by cheating and then dishonestly persuades that person to give up property to someone else, create, alter, or destroy all or a portion of a valuable security, or sign or seal anything that could be turned into a valuable security, faces up to seven years in prison of any kind in addition to a fine.  

 

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT:  

The court was of the view that the issue was exclusively of a civil nature. It was a situation where money was advanced without a formal document being signed to specify its purpose or significance. It is unclear from records whether this money was advanced for a loan or as an advance payment for the transfer of property, which was land or a building located in Jaipur.  

Based on the complainant’s assertion that it was for the transfer of property for the land/building specified above would be the subject of evidence presented and proven in a court of law, not by the police conducting an investigation and making a determination. The complainant’s claim in the FIR is not that the land or plot they claimed was going to be transferred to them either didn’t exist or had been sold to another party; rather, it is that the accused parties engaged in some form of deception.  

The court held that a capable Civil Court could hear arguments on all these points. It is not possible to call it cheating. Even though Chandra Mohan Badaya, the appellant, has attempted to clarify that he has already transferred Rs. 37 lakhs to the complainant via bank transfer and has also completed two transfer deeds in favour of Anil Agrawal’s wife and sister-in-law, the holder of the power of attorney, valued at a total of more than Rs. 1.45 crores.  

The court observed that the Rajasthan High Court correctly concluded, after taking into account all relevant circumstances, that any offense—though none is shown to exist—would fall under the territorial jurisdiction of Rajasthan and not Arunachal Pradesh. 

The court pronounced that after eliminating a needless criminal case that was filed and tried in Arunachal Pradesh, the State of Arunachal Pradesh should have been pleased.  

When the complainant in a case involving a civil or business dispute does not come forward to defend its FIR, which has been quashed by the said State, it is equally incumbent upon the said State to explain why it has contacted this Court.  

As a result, the court reversed the Gauhati High Court’s ruling, granted Chandra Mohan Badaya’s appeal, and halted all legal actions related to FIR No. 227 of 2017. The court also rejected the three appeals that the State of Arunachal Pradesh had submitted.  

 

“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.” 

 

Judgment reviewed by Riddhi S Bhora. 

Click to view judgment.

0

Supreme Court: No evidence could be presented beyond the initial pleadings.

Blog , ,

Case Title : Srinivas Raghavendrarao Desai(Dead) By LRS versus V.Kumar Vamanrao @ Alok and Ors.

Case No: Civil Appeal No(S).7293-7294 of 2010

Quorum: Judge Rajesh Bindal

Facts of the case

The case involves a suit filed by Kumar Vamanrao, Kumar Vyas and Aruna against various defendants, including the parents of defendant No.1 and others. Defendant No.7 is in appeal before this court against the judgement and decree of the high court but passed away during the proceedings. His legal representatives have been brought on record later. Defendant No.8 on 11-07-2003 and defendant No.9 on 08-06-2005 were also impleaded in the suit at different times. Defendant No.9 did not appeal the High Court’s decision, leaving defendant No.7 alone . The High Court allowed defendant No.7 to argue based on pleadings and evidence. Trial Court gave authority to allocate shares in a partition suit. In the case, the plaintiffs sought oral petition by the plaint to include details about a 1965 partition, but the trial court rejected the application .The afore said order was not challenged any further. Therefore, the judgment on the 1965 partition issue became final. The specific amendments in the pleadings were sought by the plaintiff with reference to the 1965 partition but the same was rejected The High Court emphasized that evidence cannot be considered. The plaintiff attempt to introduce the 1965 partition in their replication was also deemed inadmissible.

Appellant Contentions

The appellant, defendant No.7, challenged the High Court’s judgment and decree, emphasizing common interests with defendant No.9 as a bona fide purchaser of the property. Defendant No.1’s taken stand that before the high court was a clear somersault as his counsel sought to argue relying upon the proceedings before the land tribunal which was not even his pleaded case before the trial court. The sale deed by defendant No.7 in 2001 was given to known of defendant No.1. The appellant’s counsel argued against the High Court’s decision to set aside a decree without any challenge from the involved parties. It was also mentioned that defendant No.7 sold property to defendant No.9 to protect his interests.

Respondent Contentions

The respondents argued that the High Court correctly relied on the 1965 partition, but raised regarding 1984 partition and exclusively fallen to the share in the family partition effected in them. They had convinced to deny rightful claim to the plaintiffs. Trail court passed the interim order that the appellant defendant no 7 in favor of defendant no 9 is in violation. The respondents cited relevant court judgments to support their position on evidence beyond pleadings and the validity of the sale deed.

Court Analysis and Judgement

The court analyzed that defendant no 7 has challenged the judgement and decree of the high court before the trial court. The trial court partly allowed the plaintiff appeal. The defendant No.7 specifically raised pleas regarding the 1984 partition and property allocations, supported by a decree from a Civil Court. The Court noted the rejection of the amendment application related to a 1965 partition, emphasizing that what was not allowed directly cannot be permitted indirectly. The High Court’s decision to allow defendant No.7 to argue based on pleadings and evidence was given, affirming the Trial Court’s authority in partition suits. The sale deed executed by the appellant in favor of defendant no 9 .

“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”.

Judgement Analysis Written by – K. Immey Grace

Click here to view the judgement

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

Land Dispute Resolved: Court Upholds BOR Decision, Emphasizes Legal Precedents and Rejects Petitioner’s Claims Under Article 227

Blog , , , ,

Title: Amar Chand S/o Moolchand and ORS. Vs State of Rajasthan and ORS.

Citation: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9798/2016

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

Decided on: 29/03/2023.

Introduction:

The current petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenges the order dated 29.06.2016, issued by the Board of Revenue (BOR) Ajmer in Revision/6763/2011. This order favored the respondents in their revision petition. The case revolves around Mutation Entry No. 192 dated 20.04.2002, issued by the Gram Panchayat in Sandeda, Tehsil Peeplu, District Tonk

Facts:

The current legal matter involves a dispute over a piece of land measuring 29 Bigas 11 Biswa, claimed by both the petitioners and respondents. The petitioners argue that the land belonged to their ancestors, presenting evidence to support their claim. The legal proceedings include an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer (SDO), Piplu, Tonk, which was initially allowed, leading to a remittance of the case to the Tehsildar for fresh consideration. Subsequent appeals and revisions followed, with the Board of Revenue ultimately reversing the earlier decisions in favor of the respondents. The petitioners assert that the Board of Revenue’s decision was based on incomplete consideration, highlighting applications they filed indicating the revision’s ineffectiveness due to the successful challenge of the Tehsildar’s order. They also point out the death of some non-applicants, leading to the abatement of the revision.

In response, the respondents argue that the Civil Court’s decision in Suit No. 60/2003 validated their status as legal successors and upheld the validity of mutation entries. They contend that the orders challenged in the revision become irrelevant in light of the Civil Court’s findings. The respondents emphasize the sub judice nature of the matter before the Board of Revenue, downplaying the significance of the Tehsildar’s order and the mutation entry for legal rights.

The court, in considering the case under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, emphasizes the limited scope of interference and the need for sparing use of this jurisdiction. The judgment underscores that such powers are not meant to convert the High Court into an appellate authority but to ensure the subordinate courts adhere to the law. The court refers to precedents, including the principle that orders below are presumed justified if passed after due consideration of facts and materials on record.

Judgement analysis:

In this judgment analysis, the court addresses a dispute over a piece of land by considering the facts and legal arguments presented. The court notes that the Civil Suit No. 60/2003 for declaration was decided against the petitioners by the Trial Court, with specific issues related to the legal successor of the deceased Veerumal and the validity of mutation entries. The Board of Revenue (BOR) took this into account and concluded that once the Trial Court had decided these issues, the matter before the BOR was adjudicated. The court rejects the petitioner’s argument that the Tehsildar’s denovo investigation and fresh order should be considered. It cites legal precedents, emphasizing that mutation entries do not determine land title and are fiscal in nature. The court agrees with the BOR’s reliance on the Civil Court’s decision in Suit No. 60/2003, which addressed title and succession issues concerning Veerumal, and dismisses the significance of any subsequent order by the Tehsildar.

The judgment underscores that the BOR’s decision was well-reasoned, in accordance with legal principles, and did not violate natural justice. The court supports the BOR’s conclusion and finds no grounds for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merits, and any pending applications are disposed of.

“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 full judgement

0

The Compensation Rate Has To Be Evaluated Fairly Considering The Nature Of The Land, If Land Is Taken Under NHAI Act: High Court Of Allahabad

blog , , , ,

Title: Chandra Kishori v Union Of India

Citation: Appeal Under Section 37 Of Arbitration And Conciliation Act 1996 No. – 55 And 56 Of 2022

Coram: Hon’ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

Decided On: 16.10.2023

Introduction:

Here both the appeals involve a common question of law and fact, hence both the appeals have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the Court referred to the facts as they emerge from Appeal No. 55 of 2022, however, the relevant facts relating to the other appeal was also considered at the appropriate place.

Facts:

The appellant, of the two appeals, are the land owners, whose land was acquired under the National Highway Authority of India Act, 1956 under Sections 3 A & 3 D of the NHAI Act, 1956. The land of appellants of both the appeals were made the subject matter of notification issued under Section 3-A of the NHAI Act, 1956 dated 28.05.2012 and notification under Section 3-D was made on 15.3.2013 for widening of Lucknow-Sultanpur Highway from km. 35.670 to 64.100. The competent authority passed its award in terms of Section 3-G of the NHAI Act, 1956 and awarded a sum of Rs. 6,98,923 to Chandra Kishori vide award dated 11.7.2016 and a sum of Rs. 6,18,051/- to Om Prakash vide award dated 31.07.2015.

Being aggrieved both Chandra Kishori and Om Prakash escalated the matter by invoking the provisions of Section 3-G (5) and (6) and referred the matter for arbitration. The Arbitrator in terms of his award dated 19.9.2019 passed in Case No. 1689 of 2017 relating to Chandra Kishori and in Case No. 1690 of 2017 relating to Om Prakash did not find favour with the contentions of the appellant, of the two appeals, for enhancement of compensation and consequently, rejected their claim.

The award passed was further challenged by filing a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 before the District Judge, Barabanki. Both the petitions under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 relating to both the appellant in the respective appeals, was rejected by the Additional District Judge.

The counsel for appellants in the two appeals has primarily raised two points for consideration. It is submitted that in the case of both the appellants the land in question had already been declared as non-agricultural in terms of Section 143 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, however, the competent authority had given the compensation treating it to be agricultural land. It is urged that once the land was declared as non-agricultural, the appellants were entitled to get compensation on the rates as applicable to non-agricultural land.

learned counsel appearing for National Highway Authority of India through video conferencing has submitted that mere change in the land use from agricultural to non-agricultural is not going to confer any benefit to the appellants inasmuch as on the date of acquisition the nature of the land as it stood on the revenue records, has to be seen. It is further submitted that even though the appellants may have got the land declared for non-agricultural purposes yet there was no material on record to suggest that any non-agricultural activities were being done.

Court’s Analysis and Judgement:

In the present case the court decided that the Arbitrator committed an error in failing to consider this aspect of the matter relating to the nature and status of land on the date of notification including ignoring the order passed by the SDM under Section 143 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, and it was the duty of the Arbitrator to have noticed the provisions and the manner in which the compensation is to be computed so that the land which has been taken away of the appellants, and they are directed to be appropriately compensated as per the provisions of law.

It was further found out that the Additional District Judge while considering the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 also erred in holding that it does not have the power to interfere with the award which requires re-calculation as it is apparent that the Additional District Judge did not apply the settled legal principles applicable and defining the realm of jurisdiction, the Court exercises, while adjudicating a petition under Section 34 of the Act of 1996.

“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: Sushant Kumar Sharma

Click here to view the judgment