#LegalPost Archives - Page 8 of 9

6 Nov

First-Time Offender’s Sentence Reduced Due to Commitment to Reform and Lower Socio-Economic Status: High Court of Delhi

Prime Legal

Blog #accident, #delhi, #judgement, #law, #LegalPost

Title: Mohd Nasim vs. The State

Citation: CRL.REV.P.296/2017

Coram: HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN

Decided on: 3-11-2023

Introduction:

The present criminal revision petition has been filed under sections 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, along with section 482 of the same Code. This legal action aims to challenge and set aside three specific legal orders and judgments: The order dated 27.03.2017, referred to as “the impugned order,” issued by the District and Sessions Judge of East, Karkardooma Courts (referred to as “the appellate court”). The judgment dated 17.03.2016, referred to as “the impugned judgment.” The order on sentence dated 15.07.2016, issued by the Metropolitan Magistrate-03, East, Karkardooma Courts (referred to as “the trial court”).These orders and judgments pertain to a criminal case that arose from the FIR numbered 151/2009, registered under sections 279/337 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) at PS Mandawli Fazad Pur. The purpose of this criminal revision petition is to seek a review and potentially set aside these legal decisions.

Facts:

The facts of the case are such that, The case pertains to an incident in 2009, where a road accident occurred involving a rickshaw used for carrying goods and a blue line bus with the registration number DL 1PB 9786 (referred to as “the offending vehicle”). The Investigating Officer, SI Yad Ram, arrived at the accident scene after receiving information about the incident. A statement from the complainant, Mohd. Sabir was recorded, in which he described that the rickshaw he was travelling in was hit from behind by the offending bus, driven in a rash and negligent manner.

As a result of the collision, the deceased, Mahesh, fell on the road, and the rear tire of the bus ran over him, causing injuries that led to his subsequent death during treatment. An FIR was registered based on the statement of the complainant, initially under sections 279/337 IPC, and later section 304A IPC was added due to the death of the deceased. The petitioner, identified as Mohd. Nasim was charged as the driver of the offending bus. The trial court conducted proceedings, and the prosecution presented its evidence, including 11 witnesses, including the complainant and the Investigating Officer. The petitioner pleaded innocence and claimed false implication during his statement.

The trial court, in its judgment, convicted the petitioner for offences under sections 279/304A IPC and imposed sentences, including imprisonment and compensation to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased. The petitioner was also sentenced for an offence under section 279 IPC. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

Court Analysis & Judgement:

The Court concluded that, The present First Information Report (FIR) dates back to 2009, and the petitioner has been involved in legal and judicial proceedings related to this FIR since then. The petitioner is described as a first-time offender with a clear criminal record. They belong to a lower socio-economic stratum and are the primary provider for their elderly parents. The legal heirs of the deceased in this case have already received compensation. The petitioner has expressed a commitment to reform themselves. The petitioner’s actions, characterized as rash and negligent driving, led to the untimely death of a young man. This incident caused irreparable loss to the victim’s family.

After considering all the facts, the court has decided that justice would be served by reducing the sentence imposed on the petitioner for the offence under section 304A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to simple imprisonment for six months. The remaining part of the sentence, as specified in the order on sentencing dated 15.07.2016, is to be maintained. The court has directed the petitioner to surrender before the trial court on 20.11.2023 at 2:30 PM to serve the remaining portion of the sentence. The judgment is to be provided to the petitioner and sent to the relevant trial court for their information.

The present petition, along with any pending applications, has been decided and disposed of 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 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: Gauri Joshi

Click here to view judgements

6 Nov

Justice Prevails as Court Compensates Widow for Delayed Pension and Denounces Official Negligence: High Court of Patna

Prime Legal

Blog #HighCourt, #judgement, #law, #LegalPost, #patna, #pension

Title: Jaymanti Devi vs. The State of Bihar & ORS.

Citation: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No:6338 of 2023

Coram: HONA’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH

Decided on: 04-10-23

Introduction:

It mentions the individuals who are involved or present in the case: Mr. Om Prakash Maharaj, who is identified as the learned counsel representing the petitioner. Mr. Manish Kumar, identified as “GP 4,” along with Mr. Manoj Kumar (referred to as “AC to GP 4”). Mrs. Ritika Rani, who is noted as the learned counsel for the Accountant General (Bihar). It is a civil Writ Petition.

Facts:

The facts of the case are such that, The learned counsel representing respondent numbers 2 and 9 has filed a second supplementary statement of facts on their behalf in the court. The petitioner, represented by another counsel, has informed the court that there has been a delay of 15 years in the payment of retiral dues, including family pension. The petitioner’s husband passed away in 2008 while he was serving as a Chawkidar.

The petitioner’s counsel argues that pension is not a privilege but a fundamental right under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. They claim that the petitioner is entitled to compensation and interest, as per legal precedents, for the delay in receiving pension and other retiral dues, starting from the date of entitlement to the date of payment.

Court Analysis & Judgement:

The petitioner, who is already receiving a family pension and has had some retiral dues paid, has faced a significant delay in the process, and this has caused considerable hardship to her as a widow and an illiterate individual. The court has expressed strong disapproval of the callous attitude of State Government officials, particularly the Block Development Officer, Circle Officer, and District Magistrate, in handling the petitioner’s case. In response to this, the District Magistrate has been directed by the court to compensate the petitioner with a sum of Rs. 5,00,000 (five lac) in addition to the interest, based on legal precedents provided in the cases of State of Kerala Vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair (1985) 1 SCC 429 and D.D. Tewari Vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli (2014) 8 SCC 894.

The court has given a timeframe for the authority concerned to carry out this compensation, which is within four weeks from the date of passing the order. With these observations and directions, the writ petition in this case has been disposed of. This implies that the court has concluded its proceedings in this matter based on the provided judgment.

“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 judgement

4 Nov

System Default is the standard excuse given by the Department when it comes to giving refunds

Prime Legal

Blog #bombay, #expressway, #HighCourt, #law, #LegalPost

High Court of Bombay Observed System Default is the standard excuse given by the Department when it comes to giving refunds.

Title : Matrix Publicities and Media India Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle16(1), Mumbai & Ors

Decided on : 25^th October 2023

Case No. : W.P (L) No.16764/2023

CORAM : HON’BLE Mr K. R. SHRIRAM, HON’BLE Ms NEELA GOKHALE

Introduction

The bench of Justice K. R. Shriram and Justice Neela Gokhale has observed that the excuse used is that the system under the control of the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC), Bangalore, has some issues and, therefore, amounts are not being released to assesses. Interest is payable by law until the date of refund, and the Department does not realize that it is public money that is used to pay interest. That is a waste and a burden on the exchequer.

Facts of the Case

The Petition is restricted to seeking refund amount of Rs.19,69,46,789/- for Assessment Year 2020-21. But it appears amount payable is Rs.19,79,40,376/- and Mr. Singh has nothing to dispute this amount. Mr. Singh relies on affidavit of reply of one Mr. Parmanand Pravin Darade, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax16(1), Mumbai affirmed on 20th October 2023.

“A copy of this order be sent to the PMO, the Hon’ble Finance Minister GOI, the Hon’ble Law Minister GOI, the Central Board of Direct Taxes and to the Attorney General for India for information and necessary action”.

Case Analysis and Decision

The department sorted out its technical issues, totally unrelated to any substantial legal issue, nevertheless contravening the fundamental right of Petitioner to receive undisputed amount of refund, the present proceedings would not have crept into the litigation arena.

The Court ordered Respondents either by itself or through CC shall ensure that the amount is credited to Petitioner’s account on or before 4th November 2023 with interest up to the date of payment in accordance with law.

Written by- Nimisha Sunny

4 Nov

Bata questioned the status of such salesman as ‘workman’ under the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 and consequently as ‘employee’ under the MRTU & PULP Act.

Prime Legal

Blog #bombay, #expressway, #High Court, #law, #LegalPost

High Court of Bombay on Bata’s status of such salesman as ‘workman’ under the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 and consequently as ‘employee’ under the MRTU & PULP Act.

Title : M/s. Bata India Ltd v. Mr. Yellappa Satyappa Patil

Decided on :01 November,2023

Case No. : W.P. No. 1815/2016

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. SANDEEP V. MARNE

Introduction

Labour Court has however held those salesmen as workmen under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act and ‘employees’ under MRTU & PULP Act and held the complaints to be maintainable. In two sets of complaints, Bata is before this Court challenging findings on preliminary point of status of salesman as workman.

Facts of the Case

Accordingly, by Notification dated 02 February 2007, the State Government granted permission to Bata to keep its retail outlets open for 07 days in a week and during extended working hours subject to various conditions.

Bata accordingly issued notices to the employees employed in the showrooms in November 2007 giving them intimation about the permission granted by the State Government. Bata prepared a duty chart with a view to man its showrooms during the extended hours for keeping them open for 07 days in a week. It appears that some of the salesmen in the showrooms were not willing to accept the sudden change in the working hours.

Courts analysis and decision

Bata unsuccessfully challenged Labour Court’s decision in revision before the Industrial Court and upon dismissal of its revisions, has filed Writ Petition . In rest of the cases, the Labour Court not only held the Complainants to be workmen but proceeded to set aside the termination orders by directing reinstatement with 50% back wages.

Appellant Court could not find any error in the orders passed by Labour Court holding the termination of employees to be illegal. The Industrial Court has rightly rejected the Revisions filed by the Bata challenging the relief of reinstatement granted by the Labour Court.

Written by- Nimisha Sunny

3 Nov

The Delhi High Court held that the competent court can examine valuation of IPR suits less than 3 lakh rupees transfer to the commercial courts is not required

Prime Legal

Blog #delhihighcourt, #ipr, #judgement, #LegalPost

Title: Pankaj Ravjibhai Patel Trading as Rakesh Pharmaceuticals v. SSS Pharmachem Pvt. Ltd.
Decided on: 02^nd November, 2023

+ FAO (COMM) 98/2023

CORAM: HON’BLE Mr. Justice Yashwant Verma and Mr. Justice Dharmesh Sharma
Introduction

The Delhi High Court held that, if the relief sought in an IPR suit is valued at less than Rs. 3 lakhs, the competent court may investigate the “declared specified value” and the value assigned to the claims, provided that the case’s particular facts be taken into consideration when determining whether the suit was undervalued.

Facts of the Case

The current appeal challenges the order dated February 21, 2023, issued by the District Judge (Commercial), who, for the reasons specified and documented in that order, vacated the ex parte injunction that had been granted on September 25, 2021, in favor of the plaintiff/appellant. The order also requires the plaintiff/appellant to provide further documentation bolstering the Chartered Accountant’s [“CA”] certificate that was submitted in relation to the “specified value” of the suit.

Courts analysis and decision

The court said that it would be completely wrong to continue under the assumption that the disagreement at hand, which forms the basis of IPR lawsuits, would inevitably be worth at least Rs. 3 lakhs. It further said that a competent court may always investigate and determine if a certain claim had been purposefully devalued. In addition, the bench noted that it would be completely improper for it to issue a judicial fiat directing the non-commercial claims to be handled by District Judges (Commercial), even if those suits did not satisfy the CCA’s threshold requirements. It further said that an action cannot be considered by a commercial court unless the twin requirements of a commercial dispute and specified value are met.

The recommendation given by amicus curiae Advocate Swathi Sukumar regarding an additional declaration made by plaintiffs in IPR suits where the valuation is less than Rs. 3 lakhs were also deemed meritorious by the bench. Consequently, the court mandated that the plaintiff in any such action state that it has not previously taken an inconsistent stance about a specified value in any other litigation that is currently continuing or has been filed.

Written by- Hargunn Kaur Makhija

Click here to view your judgement

1 … 6 7 8 9