0

If a party fails to comply with the deadline of the agreement it is not entitled to the extension of limitations – High court of MP

Blog , ,

Case Title: RAMESH KUMAR MANSANI, ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS Versus MADHYA PRADESH RURAL ROAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and others

Case No: ARBITRATION REVISION No. 47 of 2022

Decided on:16th April, 2024

Quorum: HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU & HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF

Facts of the case

The facts of the present case show that the termination occurred on June 25, 2004. While the petitioner filed a claim against termination on September 16, 2004, well past the 30-day window specified in condition 29 for bringing up a disagreement with the Authority’s Chief Executive Officer. As a result, the petitioner is not eligible to benefit from the extended three-year statute of limitations granted by Section 7-B (2-A) since they did not follow the schedule stipulated in clause 29 of the agreement.

Petitioner’s Contentions

The petitioner disputed the validity of an award made by the M.P. Arbitration Tribunal, claiming that the reference petition was rejected because it failed to comply with the agreement’s mandatory elements within the allotted time . The reference petition was dismissed by the Tribunal after it was determined that the petitioner had not used the internal remedy within the allotted time . The argument that Clause 29’s time limit is not required was denied, highlighting the significance of timely submissions to avoid evidence loss . The petitioner was not entitled to the extended three-year statute of limitations since they did not follow the deadline stipulated in Clause 29 of the agreement . The Tribunal denied the revision petition after finding no anomalies in the award.

Respondent’s Contentions

Rejecting the idea that the time restriction in Clause 29 is not required, the respondent contended that timely claims are essential to prevent loss of evidence . They stressed that in order to invoke the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, a reference petition must first be filed with the authority in accordance with the conditions of the work contract . Furthermore, the respondent argued that the contractor was still required to adhere to the administrative authority’s timeframe in accordance with the internal remedy outlined in Clause 29 , despite the additional three-year limitation period.

Court Analysis and Judgement

The ruling underlined how crucial it is to abide by the conditions of the work contract before utilizing the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and how the disagreement must be submitted to the final authority first . It was emphasized that an aggrieved party may file a complaint with the Tribunal within three years after the date of the cause of action in situations where the works contract does not contain a dispute resolution clause such as Clause 29 . The ruling further said that a party may not be eligible to receive the extended three-year statute of limitations if they do not comply with the deadline stipulated in Clause 29 of the agreement .

“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 read the judgement

0

The High Court cannot interfere in the Criminal Acquittal Appeal unless the findings of the Trial Judge is Perverse or Impossible: Supreme Court

Blog , , , , , , ,

Case title: Ballu @ Balram @ Balmukund and Anr Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Case no.: Criminal Appeal No. 1167 of 2018

Decision on: April 2nd, 2024

Quoram: Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta

Facts of the case

In this case the deceased Mahesh Sahu was in a relationship with Anita, the sister of the appellant. The couple after staying together in Agra for eight months returned to Damoh . Subsequently, the marriage of Anita was solemnized with another person. But, even then, the couple continued to stay in touch.  The appellants due to enmity alleged to have caused the death of Mahesh in furtherance of their common intention. The prosecution relied on the evidence of the eye-witness who saw the appellants dragging a dead body from the house and washing the blood stains at the door of their house. The Trial Judge acquitted the accused persons since the prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Further, the High Court by the impugned judgment reversed the decision of the trial Judge and convicted the appellant 1 & 2 under Sections 302 and 201/34 of IPC and Sections 302/34 and 201 of IPC respectively with rigorous imprisonment for life.

Submissions on behalf of the Appellant

The Counsel for the appellants submitted that the High Court had grossly erred in reversing the well-reasoned judgment of acquittal and neglected to observe elaborate reasonings of the Trial Court on the failure of prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. He submitted that the present case is based on circumstantial evidence and unless the prosecution is able to prove the chain of circumstances beyond reasonable doubt it is not permissible to interfere with the findings of the trial Judge and to record the finding of conviction.

Submissions on behalf of the Respondents

The Counsel for the State submitted that the trial Judge has totally misread the evidence. He submitted that the evidence of Beni Prasad and Sumitra Bai coupled with the medical evidence, would show that that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.

Issue – Whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt so as to adetermine the guilt of the appellants for committing the crime?

Court’s Analysis and Judgement

The Court stated that the case was clearly based on the circumstantial evidence and accordingly perused the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra which laid down five golden principles for the same. It inferred from the said judgement that it is necessary for the prosecution that the circumstances from which the conclusion of the guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. Also, emphasized that it is a primary principle that the accused ‘must be’ and not merely ‘may be’ proved guilty before a court can convict the accused. Further, it noted that no matter how strong the suspicion is, it cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt. It reiterated the legal principle that an accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Court analyzed the elaborate facts and circumstantial evidence discussed by the Trial Judge. It noted that the prosecution had failed to prove any of the incriminating circumstances beyond reasonable doubt and to provide the interlinked chain of circumstances to conclude the guilt of the accused persons. It asserted the findings of the Trial Judge in providing sound and cogent reasons for discarding the testimony of the IO and the other witnesses and noted that the High Court had erred in observing the same.

The Court noted that the High Court could have interfered in the criminal appeal only if the findings of the trial Judge were either perverse or impossible, which was absent in the present case. It held that the decision of High Court was totally based on conjectures and surmises and unsustainable in law. The Apex Court thereby set aside the impugned order of the High Court and acquitted the accused persons.

“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 Reviewed by – Keerthi K

Click here to view the Judgement