0

Dismissal of companies appeal in compensation case, commissioner Upholds penalty: Bombay High court.

Commissioner upholds penalty, dismisses company’s appeal in compensation case: Bombay HC

Title: Shipping Corporation of India Limited Vs Mr. Dasu M. Kutty

Citation: FIRST APPEAL NO. 708 OF 1996

Coram: Justice M.M. SATHAYE

Date: 05/01/24

Facts

The case involves a compensation claim by Mr. Dasu M. Kutty, who worked as a seaman for the Appellant since 1958. Mr. Kutty was employed by the Appellant from 1958 until his retirement. He filed a claim for benefits for injuries caused while working, claiming in particular 1991 chest problems that required by-pass surgery and rendered him unfit to serve in the maritime industry. The claimant contended that his hard work while serving on the ship affected his pre-existing heart disease. The claim was opposed by the employer, who denied the claim of a lifelong damage and denied any hard and stressful work. The Employer Shipping Corporation of India Limited has filed an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, challenging a judgment from 13.02.1996. In that decision, the company was directed to pay the deceased Claimant’s family compensation of Rs. 3,16,688/- with 6% interest from 14.07.1991. Additionally, a penalty of Rs. 75,000/- and costs of Rs. 1000/- were imposed. The widow and daughter of the deceased Claimant are now pursuing the case.

Laws Involved

Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923.

“An order awarding as compensation a lump sum whether by way of redemption of a half- monthly payment or otherwise or disallowing a claim in full or in part for a lump sum”. This means that instead of receiving compensation in regular installments, the injured worker or their dependents can opt to receive a one-time lump sum amount.

 N.M.B. Agreement

It refers to the National Maritime Board Agreement, which typically governs terms and conditions of employment for seafarers in the maritime industry, including provisions related to compensation and benefits in case of injuries or disabilities.

Issues

Whether the Claimant’s entitlement to 100% disability compensation under the N.M.B. Agreement, is sustainable?

Judgement

After reviewing, The Appellant argued that a penalty should not have been imposed, citing the absence of such provision in the N.M.B. Agreement. However, the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, while not contested for jurisdiction, justified the penalty and interest under the Act due to non-payment of compensation since 1991. The judgment upheld the Commissioner’s decision, pointing to laws allowing penalties for late compensation, and the appeal was rejected without any additional costs.

“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:- Sanjana Ravichandran

Click here to view judgement

0

Appellate Court Upholds Determination of Coparcener Rights in Ancestral Property Dispute: Bombay HC

Title: Sau. Ushabai Vs Smt. Mainabai and ORS.

Citation: SECOND APPEAL NO. 326/2015

Coram: Justice SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR

Date: 22/12/23

Facts

The case involves the plaintiff, who filed R.C.S. No.1794/1999 for the specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 24/09/1998. The decree in her favor was issued on 18/10/2001, leading to the execution of a sale deed on 17/10/2003. In R.D. No.06/2002, the plaintiff sought possession of the property, with J.Dr.-1 (son) and J.Dr.-2 (mother) as respondents. Following the death of J.Dr. No.1 in 22/07/2005, respondents No.2 to 5, his legal representatives, were brought into the case. They objected on 11/07/2008, claiming the agreement wasn’t for legal necessity due to J.Dr.-1’s alcohol addiction. The objection was rejected on 01/01/2011, leading to the trial court directing the issuance of a possession warrant. Respondents No.2 to 5 then filed First Appeal No.97/2011 in the District Court. The appellant argues that the lower court lacked jurisdiction to entertain and decide the appeal under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, challenging the modified decree in R.C.S. No.1794/1999 based on the objection under Section 47 filed by respondents No.2 to 5 in the execution proceeding. The appeal court not only allowed the appeal but also issued an independent decree for partition and separate possession, which is contested in the present appeal. This second appeal pertains to a case where the appellant is dissatisfied with the judgment and decree issued by the District Judge-9 in Nagpur. The matter involves the rejection of objections under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code, and the dispute exists between the concerned parties. Additionally, the appellant contends that the Appellate Court shouldn’t have granted a decree for partition and separate possession in response to the execution proceeding, considering that the suit property had already been sold in compliance with the original decree favoring the appellant.

Laws Involved

Section 96 of Criminal Procedure Code

Appeal from original decree “It outlines the right of a party to appeal to the appellate court against a decree passed by the court of first instance. The section specifies that an appeal shall lie from every decree passed by any court exercising original jurisdiction to the court authorized to hear appeals from the decisions of such court.

Section 47 of Criminal Procedure Code

Deals with questions relating to the execution, discharge, or satisfaction of a decree. It specifies that all questions arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed or their representatives, and relating to the execution, discharge, or satisfaction of the decree, shall be determined by the court executing the decree and not by a separate suit.

Section 115 of Criminal Procedure Code

Empowers the High Court to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate courts. This provision is invoked when the High Court believes that the subordinate court has either exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise jurisdiction when it should have.

Section 20 of Hindu Succession Act,1956

Deals with the devolution of interest in coparcenary property or self-acquired property of a deceased Hindu.

Issues

  • Whether the Regular Civil Appeal is Maintainable challenging the rejection under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure or it is only a revision Under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure?
  • Whether the lower Appellate Court was right in passing a decree for separate possession of the property particularly when the sale deed has already been executed pursuant to decree passed in suit for specific performance of contract?

Judgement

In this judgment, the court affirms the decision of the learned Appellate Court (District Judge-9, Nagpur) in R.C.A. No.97/2011. The appellant failed to establish legal necessity for selling the ancestral property, and the court notes that the objectors, being coparceners with a share in the property, have the right to retain possession in their share. The court finds no infirmity in the Appellate Court’s order, emphasizing that the executed decree is not binding on the share of the objectors. Consequently, the substantial question of law is answered in the affirmative, and the appeal is dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree dated 23/02/2015. The court orders the decree to be drawn up 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 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 :- Sanjana Ravichandran

Click here to view judgement

0
patna high court

Authorities Directed To Resolve The Grievance Regarding The Bid: Patna High Court

Citation: CWJC No.5556 of 2023

Decided On: 01-11-2023

Coram: Honourable Mr. Justice P. B. Bajanthri  And  Honourable Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Jha

Introduction:

In the instant writ petition the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

  • To issue a writ in the nature of writ of certiorari to quash and cancel the result of the bid held on 10.03.2023 at 11:00 A.M. 11.50 A.M. (Annexure-3) for settlement of parking stand of scootere/motorcycle, car/other four wheelers, auto (vikaram), auto (bajaj) at south side karbigahiya of Patna Junction Railway Station for 3 years in favour of M/s Maruti Foundation.
  • To quash and cancel all other action or actions, order or orders agreement if any executed in favour of Respondent in continuation or in relation to the aforementioned settlement being arbitrary, illegal, malafide and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Facts:

Petitioner and eight respondents alongwith others participated in bid for settlement of parking stand of Scooter/Motorcycle, Car/other four wheelers, auto (Vikaram), auto (Bajaj) at south side Karbigahiya of Patna Junction Railway Station for a period of three years.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is an arbitrary decisions on behalf of the respondents in so far as the acceptance of bid with reference to the timing on 10.03.2023. Prima facie, it is too technical and the same cannot be adjudicated under Article 226. The concerned authority/competent authority has failed to take any decision either accepting or rejecting the petitioner’s claim.

Court’s Analysis and Judgement:

It is also submitted that in not awarding contract to the petitioner with reference to his bid, the respondent railway authorities have already put themselves into loss. These are all the materials information which is required to be taken note of by the competent authority before deciding the petitioner’s grievance dated 13.03.2023 and 20.03.2023.

The concerned authorities is directed to pass a detailed speaking order on the grievance of the petitioner and communicate the same to the petitioner within a period of one month. With that direction the writ is disposed by the court.

“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

Court Decides To Quash The Case When The Parties Agree On Settlement: Patna High Court

Title: Deepak Kumar v State of Bihar

Citation: CR. MISC. No.40319 of 2022

Decided On: 01-11-2023

Coram: Honourable Mr. Justice Satyavrat Verma

Introduction:

The present quashing application has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 21.03.2022 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sheikhpura in connection with Sheikhpura Mahila P.S. Case No. 38 of 2019, G.R. No. 674 of 2019 whereby charges have been framed against the petitioners under Sections 341, 323, 354(B), 504, 452 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Facts:

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that after the police submitted charge-sheet, cognizance was taken and after framing of the charges, on intervention of the well wishers, the parties have compromised the case. It is next submitted that the opposite party herein does not intend to pursue with the case or the trial.

Mr. Purushotam Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party concurs with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that he has instruction to make submissions on behalf of the opposite party that the opposite party does not have any objection in the event if the order dated 21.03.2022 passed by the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate.

Court’s Analysis and Judgement:

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the opposite party and evaluating that both the parties agree on the settlement and there is no party who wants to pursue the case. The court quashed the Case No. 38 of 2019, G.R. No. 674 of 2019 whereby charges have been framed against the petitioners under Sections 341, 323, 354(B), 504, 452 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

“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 the judgement

0

The Party Is Obliged To Follow The Undertaking Given In Front Of Court: Patna High Court

Citation: CR. MISC. No.39089 of 2023

Decided On: 16-10-2023

Coram: Honourable Mr. Justice Satyavrat Verma

Introduction:

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present quashing application has been filed seeking quashing of the FIR being Patliputra P.S. Case No. 386 of 2023 dated 12.05.2023, registered under Sections 406, 420, 504, 506 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

Facts:

The learned counsel submits that the aforesaid F.I.R. was instituted by the Opposite Party, it is next submitted that the offences are compoundable and the parties have entered into a compromise dated 20.09.2023. The learned for the Opposite Party does not object to the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners but submits that in the compromise dated 20.09.2023, three conditions were there out of which two conditions have been fulfilled by the petitioners but the third conditions which was with respect to withdrawal of Complaint Case No. 4801 of 2023, pending in the Court of learned C.J.M, Patna which was instituted by the petitioners against the Opposite Party till date has not been withdrawn though in the compromise it was clearly recorded that the petitioners will withdraw the said case also.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the next date fixed in the Complaint Case 4801 of 2023 pending in the Court of learned C.J.M, Patna is 03.11.2023 and on the said date the said complaint case shall be positively withdrawn by the petitioners, since the parties have compromised and the learned counsel for petitioners, on behalf of the petitioners, have undertaken before this Court that Complaint Case No. 4801 of 2023 pending in the Court of learned C.J.M, Patna shall be withdrawn on 03.11.2023 in terms of the compromise dated 20.09.2023.

Court’s analysis and Judgement:

In the event if the petitioners violates the undertaking given before this Court that petitioners will withdraw the Complaint Case No. 4801 of 2023 pending in the Court of learned C.J.M., Patna in that event the Opposite Party shall be at liberty to bring the said fact to the notice of the Court. Stating that the court allowed the quashing of the application.

“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

1 2 3 4