#law Archives - Page 33 of 46

24 Nov

Judicial Disapproval: Court Slams Deceptive Conduct, Imposes Cost, and Orders Relief Allocation in Writ Petition Controversy

Prime Legal

Blog #judgement, #judicial, #law, #LegalPost

Title: Geeta Devi vs State Of Rajasthan

Citation: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 620/2020

Coram: JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Decided on: 28/03/2023.

Introduction:

The respondent, Municipal Board, Bilara, has filed the current application seeking the recall of the interim order dated 14.01.2020 issued by the court. The nature of the case or the specific circumstances leading to the interim order .

Facts:

In this case, the respondent, Municipal Board, Bilara, has filed an application seeking the recall of an interim order dated 14.01.2020. During the argument, the respondent’s counsel highlighted that the petitioner, along with four others, had previously filed a joint writ petition (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13679/2019), which was listed on 13.09.2019. The court notes that a Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court had considered the petitioner’s case on that day and issued notices without granting any interim order. The respondent’s counsel argued that on the same day, two other cases challenging the same impugned order were listed, and detailed orders with interim relief were granted. However, in the petitioner’s case, only notices were ordered. The respondent’s counsel further brought to the court’s attention that the petitioner(s) withdrew the earlier writ petition on 10.01.2020 without informing the respondent’s counsel. In response, the petitioner’s counsel argued that there was no concealment, as the petitioner had mentioned the filing and withdrawal of the earlier writ petition in the current application.

To verify the claims, the court examined the records of the earlier writ petitions and found that the petitioner’s case was listed on 13.09.2019, and notices were issued without granting interim relief. The court expressed shock at the petitioner’s actions, noting that after failing to obtain an interim order in the first writ petition, the petitioner withdrew it on the same day she learned about an interim order in another similar case (SBCWP No.15048/2019).

The court criticized the petitioner for not disclosing the withdrawal of the earlier writ petition and filing the current one with the same assertions. It emphasized that withdrawing and filing a fresh writ petition without a material change in circumstances is impermissible in law. The court found that there was no change in facts or pleadings between the two petitions and criticized the petitioner for attempting to mislead the court.

Judgement analysis:

In this judgment, the court expresses strong disapproval of the petitioner’s conduct and her counsel, stating that not only should the interim order be recalled, but the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. The court cites an attempt to mislead the court and invokes the principle of res judicata, arguing that the petitioner, by withdrawing and filing a fresh petition without a material change in circumstances, has acted improperly.

The court emphasizes that the petitioner, by misleading the court, has secured an interim order and continued in services for over three years, causing an illegal burden on the public exchequer. As a consequence, the court imposes a cost of ₹50,000 on the petitioner, payable to the respondent Municipal Board, Bilara. The Board is granted the authority to recover this cost from the petitioner’s deducted or deposited amount in accordance with the law. The recovered amount is directed to be utilized by the Board for the construction or renovation of public toilets for females. Furthermore, the court dismisses the writ petition and the stay petition. While expressing displeasure about the conduct of the learned counsel, the court refrains from taking any action against them, expressing hope that they would exercise caution in the future.

“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

24 Nov

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

Prime Legal

Blog #Dispute, #judgement, #land, #law, #LegalPost

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.

Written By: Gauri Joshi

Click here to view full judgement

24 Nov

State government acceptance to Pay revision commission does not make it automatically applicable to the employees of BIADA : Patna HC

Prime Legal

blog #Cases, #law, #Legal News, #Legal Report

Title: Rameshwar Prasad Roy v State of Bihar and ors

Citation: CWJC No. 21787 of 2011

Coram: Justice Rajiv Roy

Decided On: 09-10-2023

Introduction:

The appellant is aggrieved by the rejection of his contentions on the basis of the 6th Pay Revision Commission by the impugned judgment.

Facts:

It was claimed by the appellant that he was continuing as a Junior Selection Grade Typist/ Head Typist receiving a scale of pay of Rs. 1400-2600 which scale was revised to Rs 5000-8000 by the 6th Pay Revision Commission report. The petitioner claims that the revision was once granted but later withdrawn along with arrears on accordance with the same to be paid from the date of pay revision.

Court’s Analysis and Judgement:

The court found that the petitioner is not a Head Typist and the pay revisions in the State Government would not apply to the Bihar, Industrial Area Development Authority unless a decision is taken by the authority to implement the same. The pay revision as applicable to the employees of the BIADA was as per the post in which they were continuing. The mere fact that the State Government had accepted the 6th Pay Revision Commission report would not make it automatically applicable to the employees of the BIADA. As for the arrears, the revision petitions were dismissed.

Written by- Sushant Kumar Sharma

Click here to view judgement

24 Nov

Arbitrator to be appointed if the parties to the agreement do not follow their duties : Patna HC

Prime Legal

Uncategorized #Judiciary, #law, #Legal Provisions, #Legal Report

Title: Delco Infrastructures Projects Limited v The Bihar State Education Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited and Ors

Citation: Request Case No.67 of 2023

Coram: Chief Justice K Vinod Chandran

Decided On: 07-10-2023

Introduction:

The application has been made seeking the appointment of an Arbitrator invoking the powers of the court under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Facts:

Petitioner and the respondent entered into an agreement dated 05.02.2014 The said agreement contains an arbitration Clause-25. The petitioner invoked the said arbitration clause vide communication dated 01.05.2023 and also reply dated 03.06.2023 to the show cause notice dated 26.05.2023 but was to no avail. It is claimed that the respondents have not settled the dispute and the dispute is of civil in nature.

Court’s Analysis and Judgement:

The court found that the there is no dispute in the legality, validity and binding effect of the written agreement entered into between the parties, he existence of arbitration clause contained therein, the existence of dispute(s) arising there from, the dispute arising out of the agreement being civil in nature, no legal impediment in the adjudication of the dispute by the learned Arbitrator, Petitioner having exhausted the channel available for resolution of the dispute, the respondent having failed to appoint an Arbitrator pursuant to the invocation of the arbitration clause by the petitioner. After consideration of the aforementioned factors, the court appointed an Arbitrator to solve the dispute.

Written by- Sushant Kumar Sharma

Click here to view judgement

22 Nov

Petitioner’s Candidature Was Not Rejected At Its Inception And Despite Her Failure To Produce The Certificate Is Sufficient Compliance Of Guidelines: High Court Of Patna

Prime Legal

Blog #Jobs, #judgement, #law, #Legal Report

Citation: L.P.A No.1414 of 2018

Coram: Honourable Chief Justice And Honourable Mr. Justice Rajiv Roy

Decided On: 03-10-2023

Introduction:

The present appeal is filed against an order in a review, which rejected the same finding the scope of review to be very limited and the invocation of such review jurisdiction possible only on the ground of an error apparent/evident from the face of the record.

Facts:

On 02.04.2018, a writ petition was filed by the petitioner against the rejection of her candidature to the post to Lady Supervisor, which was dismissed. The rejection of her candidature was on account of her not having produced the Non-Creamy Layer Certificate, which she was obliged to produce along with application.

The learned Single Judge found that though it was not produced along with application, she was called for counselling on 14.05.2012, on which date also she had not produced it. The petitioner’s reliance on the guidelines, which speak of an opportunity to submit the required certificate, having not been granted to her was also rejected on the ground that the advertisement clearly spelt out the requirement to produce the certificates along with application.

The advertisement was made for appointment on contractual basis to the post of Lady Supervisor (Mahila Parveyashika) in Katihar district. Even according to the petitioner, the advertisement required that the application should contain the self-attested photograph, the Extremely Backward Class certificate along with the certificate of not coming under creamy layer. Admittedly, the petitioner did not produce the certificate along with the application. In the writ petition also the petitioner had a contention that if her application was defective, she should have been informed.

Court’s Analysis and Judgement:

Petitioner’s candidature was not rejected at its inception and despite her failure to produce the certificate, she was called for the counselling. This was sufficient compliance of the guidelines. The advertisement clearly required the applicants to produce the certificates and the self-attested photograph long with the application itself. If any of the enclosures required are not produced, the application could be rejected in limine, which was not done.

It also have to be noticed that the certificate was issued only on 14.05.2012, on which date the counselling was also carried out. Hence, the petitioner’s contention that the certificate was produced at the time of counselling also cannot be believed. Hence the appeal was dismissed by the court.

Written by- Sushant Kumar Sharma

Click here to view judgement

1 … 31 32 33 34 35 … 46