0

Delhi High court passed an order directing the Petitioner/tenants to pay use and occupation charges.

Blog , , , , , , , , ,

Title: MURARI CHAUHAN & ANR vs KAILASH NARAIN MALHOTRA

Decided on: 21.06.2023

+ RC.REV. 174/2019 & CM APPL. 13057/2019 and CM APPL. 40082/2019

CORAM: HON’BLE MS JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

Introduction

The Delhi High court passed an order on an application seeking directions to pay use and occupation charges by the petitioner/tenants from the date of the eviction order dated 20.09.2018 till the revision petition is finally decided by this court.

Facts of the case

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent/landlord submits that the Petitioner/tenant is in occupation of the demised premises for many years and the execution of the Eviction Order was stayed by this Court on 19.03.2019.

The present Application was filed on 03.08.2019 and the Notice in the Application was issued on 13.03.2020. On 13.03.2020, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner/tenant had sought time to file a Reply to the present Application. The Reply has not been filed despite the last opportunity granted by this Court on 25.01.2023. On 01.05.2023, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner/tenant, sought more time to file a Reply to the present Application.

Respondent/landlord has opposed the grant of any further time to file the Reply, as no Reply has been filed for almost 4 years. He further submits that the Petitioner/tenant has obtained Interim Orders from this Court and thereafter no use and occupation charges are being paid by the Petitioner/tenant.

In these circumstances, the Orders in this Application were reserved, and the Parties were given leave to file their respective written submissions.

Analysis and Decision of the court

The Delhi High Court held that the Supreme Court in its recent judgment in Martin and Harris Private Limited and Another v. Rajendra Mehta and others confirmed Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. vs. Federal Motors (P) Ltd. in the event that after the eviction is accepted, the tenant is obliged to pay the usage fees and usage fee of the respective sites based on the market rate until the application is finally removed. However, it has been found that the tendency to pay benefit or compensation depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, including the location of the property, whether it is in a village, town or city, and its character, whether commercial or residential and the circumstances of each case are governed by the usual rate of rent. It is noted that in relation to rentals at:

 (i) It is a newly constructed building and therefore not applicable;

 (ii) It is 2600 sq. ft. property with a rent of Rs. 72,000/- so at that price the occupancy charges for this space can be around Rs. 27.70 per square meter foot;

 (iii) Located far from the destroyed sites in a more expensive location.

The applicant/tenant has not registered leases. In the circumstances of the case, the order of the rental agreement no. (ii), above, viz. property measuring 258 square meters @ Rs.72,000/- seems most suitable for comparison considering that the destroyed premises is a shop on the ground floor.

In addition, since the location of the demolished premises is in a prime commercial area and the fact that the applicant/tenant uses the demolished premises for commercial purposes as much as he is engaged in the sale of shoes for daily use must also be borne. in mind However, since the demolished space is located in an old and dilapidated building, the price has been reduced. Therefore, without prejudice to the rights and claims of the parties, the applicant/tenant shall pay the occupancy and accommodation fees to the defendant/landlord and all payments shall be made to the bank account of the defendant/landlord.

“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 – Shreyanshu Gupta

Click to Review the full Judgement

0

Landmark Ruling: Karnataka High Court Downgrades Conviction, Sentences Man for Grievous Hurt Instead of Attempted Murder, in Testicle Squeezing Case

Blog , ,

Karnataka High Court

Parameshwarappa V. The State

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 242 OF 2012

Bench-   HON’BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

Decided On 01-06-2023

Facts of the case-

The prosecution’s case revolves around the complaint lodged by PW.1, Omkarappa, whose statement was recorded by the police in the hospital on 16.03.2010. According to the complaint (Ex.P.1), on the evening of 15.03.2010 at around 6:00 p.m., the complainant was driving his tractor when the accused suddenly appeared in front of his motorcycle and stared at him. Later that night, at approximately 10:00 p.m., during a village fair procession for Narasimhaswamy, while the complainant and others were dancing, the accused allegedly approached him with the intention to commit murder. The accused instigated a quarrel, verbally abused the complainant using derogatory language, and physically assaulted him by squeezing his testicles, causing internal injuries to a vital part of his body.

Several eyewitnesses, namely Ananda, Rama, Murthy, and Kumara, intervened and pacified the quarrel. They then helped the injured PW.1 and took him to the hospital. At the hospital, a Medico-Legal Case (MLC) was prepared and forwarded to the police. Subsequently, the police recorded the complainant’s statement and registered the FIR in Crime No.26/2010. The accused was apprehended, placed in judicial custody, and later released on bail. The investigation was completed, and a charge-sheet was filed against the accused. During the trial, the accused pleaded not guilty to the charges, opting for a trial. The prosecution presented ten witnesses (PWs.1 to 10) and nine documents (Exs.P.1 to P.9) as evidence. After the conclusion of the prosecution’s evidence, the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.). The accused, however, chose to deny all allegations and did not present any evidence in his defense. Following the arguments, the trial court found the accused guilty, convicted him, and imposed the aforementioned prison sentence. Dissatisfied with the verdict, the appellant has appealed to the Court.

Judgement

the court made modifications to the conviction of an accused individual who was initially charged with attempted murder. The court instead convicted the accused of a lesser offense of grievous hurt under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The basis for this decision was the act of squeezing the testicles of the complainant during a fight.

The court examined the circumstances of the case and stated that there was a quarrel between the accused and the complainant at the scene. During this quarrel, the accused chose to squeeze the testicles of the complainant. The court reasoned that this act alone did not demonstrate an intention or premeditation to commit murder. If the accused had indeed intended to commit murder, the court noted, it would have been expected for the accused to carry deadly weapons.

The court emphasized that the accused had not brought any deadly weapons with him, indicating that there was no premeditated plan to commit murder. However, the court acknowledged that the testicles are a vital part of the body and causing harm to them can be potentially life-threatening. In this particular case, as the complainant had to undergo surgery and have his testicles removed, the court held that the offense committed by the accused fell under the category of grievous hurt.

Consequently, the court concluded that the sentence passed by the trial court, finding the accused guilty under Section 307 of the IPC (attempt to murder), was incorrect. The court determined that the offense committed by the accused clearly fell within the scope of Section 325 of the IPC (grievous hurt). Therefore, the court partly allowed the appeal and modified the conviction accordingly.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY ABHAY SHUKLA

Click here to view judgement

“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.”

0

Karnataka High Court Rules: Married Woman Cannot Allege Cheating by Man for Breach of Promise of Marriage

Blog , , ,

Karnataka High Court

Prajith R v. XXX & ANR

CRIMINAL PETITION No.544 OF 2021

Bench-  HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

Decided On 16-06-2023

Facts of the case-

The 1st respondent, who is also the complainant, seeks to file a complaint against the petitioner, who is the sole accused. The complainant lodged the complaint on 10-11-2020, making specific allegations against the petitioner. According to the complainant’s account, she is married to a man named Jagadish. When she was eight months pregnant, her husband dropped her off at her parents’ house in Arakalgud, Hassan District. After two years, Jagadish returned to the matrimonial house and took the complainant and their daughter back to Bangalore. However, after staying together for about six months, Jagadish left the house and did not return for some time.

Due to this situation, the complainant had to find employment at Mariko Marketing Company. It was during her employment there that she came into contact with the petitioner. Allegedly, the petitioner promised to marry the complainant. The complainant informed the petitioner that she was five years older than him, but she was lured into a relationship with him based on his assurance of marriage. When the petitioner failed to fulfill his promise of marriage, the complainant filed a complaint with the jurisdictional police on 10.11.2020, accusing the petitioner of offenses punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 507, and 417 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The petitioner approaches this Court through the present petition in response to the registration of the crime against him.

Judgement

the court has dismissed the FIR filed by a married woman against a man, alleging that he deceived her by failing to fulfill his promise of marriage. Upon reviewing the records, the bench observed that the petitioner resided in Malaysia and regularly sent money to the complainant for her living expenses. The complainant claimed that this act established the man as her husband. Additionally, she accused him of ceasing communication with her.

The court pointed out that no evidence was presented to demonstrate that the petitioner was ever married to the complainant. The offense in question falls under Section 498A of the IPC (Indian Penal Code), which deals with cruelty towards married women. Furthermore, the complainant admitted that she was already married and had a child from her current marriage.

The court found it perplexing that the petitioner could be considered the complainant’s husband when she was already married. The complainant did not mention obtaining a divorce decree from her previous husband in her objections. As long as the earlier marriage remained intact, it could not be claimed that the petitioner was her husband and responsible for the maintenance of the complainant and her daughter.

Regarding the monthly financial assistance provided by the petitioner to the woman, the bench clarified that merely sending money on some occasions does not establish an obligation for the petitioner to support them in the absence of a legal marital bond between the complainant and the petitioner.

Based on these considerations, the court decided to quash the complaint.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY ABHAY SHUKLA

Click here to view judgement

“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.”

 

0

ANALYSIS OF A DEFAMATION JUDGMENT: SCOPE OF SPECIAL LEAVE AND APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE

Blog , ,

INTRODUCTION

The High Court of Bombay passed a judgement on 19 April 2023. In the case of UTTAM MANULAL KALE Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR IN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL (PVT.) NO. 30 OF 2018 which was passed by a single bench comprising of HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE S. M. MODAK, the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, 61st Court, Kurla, Mumbai acquitted Sudhakar Suradkar for an offense punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The original complainant, represented by Advocate Prashant Gurav, seeks to challenge the correctness of the judgment. This blog aims to analyse the judgment and the arguments presented by both parties.

FACTS

The applicant, represented by Advocate Shri. Prashant Gurav, seeks Special Leave to challenge the acquittal of Respondent No. 2, Sudhakar Suradkar, for the offense of defamation under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. The court’s inquiry at this stage focuses on whether there is a manifest error in the trial court’s findings and if the principles of evidence appreciation were disregarded or neglected. The complainant alleges that during a meeting regarding the malfunctioning of lifts in a building owned by a cooperative housing society, Respondent No. 2 made defamatory allegations against the complainant, accusing corruption in the lift maintenance contract. The trial court acquitted the respondent, citing inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses, lack of independent witnesses, and absence of publication of the defamatory statements. The applicant argues that it is not necessary to reproduce the exact words spoken but rather to establish the defamatory nature of the allegations. The applicant relies on relevant judgments supporting this interpretation. The court reviewed the oral and documentary evidence presented, including minutes of the meeting and a transcription of the discussion. After considering the evidence, the court finds that there are sufficient grounds to infer defamatory allegations made by Respondent No. 2. Therefore, the court grants Special Leave to challenge the acquittal and proceed with further inquiry based on the available evidence

SCOPE OF SPECIAL LEAVE

The law regarding the grant of Special Leave is well settled. While the scope of an enquiry for Special Leave differs from that of a final appeal, it is important to assess whether there is a manifest error in the trial court’s findings. The court must determine if there was a total disregard for the principles of evidence appreciation and whether any neglected or omitted evidence could affect the outcome. In this case, the Court will review the trial court’s judgment based on these principles.

DEFAMATION ALLEGATIONS AND EVIDENCE

The complainant alleges that during a special general meeting held on April 15, 2012, Sudhakar Suradkar made defamatory statements about him concerning corruption in the lift maintenance contract. The complainant argues that it is not necessary to mention every word uttered by the accused but rather to establish whether the words imply defamatory allegations. The complainant relies on two judgments, namely Balraj Khanna and others v. Moti Ram (AIR 1971 SUPREME COURT 1389) and Pyarelal Maganlal Jaiswal v. State of Maharashtra and others (1996 CRI. L. J. 989), to support this contention.

In Balraj Khanna, the court held that it would be impractical to insist on verbatim reproduction of lengthy statements, and the objective is to ascertain whether the words or statements are defamatory in nature. The same principle was reiterated in the Pyarelal case, where the acquittal was set aside based on defamatory allegations made against the complainant.

However, the trial court in the present case acquitted the respondent based on several reasons. It noted inconsistencies in the testimonies of the witnesses and the minutes of the meeting, stating that the minutes were not written by an independent person as required. Additionally, it highlighted discrepancies between the verbal script and the note-sheet prepared by the magistrate, the absence of publication of the defamatory allegations, lack of an independent witness, and the absence of a resolution authorizing the complaint. The trial court deemed the evidence untrustworthy and not believable.

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION

Upon reviewing the evidence and arguments presented, it is crucial to recognize the limited scope of the current enquiry for Special Leave. At this stage, the Court must determine whether there is a manifest error in the trial court’s findings. While there is oral evidence supporting the complainant’s claim, including the testimonies of witnesses and a transcription of the meeting, there are inconsistencies in the evidence and discrepancies in the minutes and note-sheet.

It is essential to note that the complainant’s burden is to establish that the utterances can be considered defamatory in nature. The court will carefully examine the evidence and determine if the trial court’s acquittal was erroneous or if there was a disregard for the principles of evidence appreciation.

In conclusion, the decision on whether to grant Special Leave or not will depend on whether the Court finds a manifest error in the trial court’s judgment, such as a disregard for the principles of evidence appreciation or neglecting relevant evidence. The final decision will be based on a deeper inquiry into the available evidence when the appeal is heard after admission.

“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 VETHIKA D PORWAL, BMS COLLEGE OF LAW

click here to view judgement

 

0

Valid notice is necessary to release land from reservation after ten- year period: Bombay High Court

Blog , , , , ,

 INTRODUCTION

The High Court of Bombay passed a judgement on 04 May 2023 in the realm of land development and town planning, legal provisions play a crucial role in ensuring fair and efficient utilization of resources. The case of MANDAKINI RUPRAO KHANGAR & ORS. VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1700 OF 2019 which was passed by the division bench comprising of HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE R.D. DHANUKA & HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SHRIRAM MADHUSUDAN MODAK. One such provision is the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, which governs the planning and development of areas in the state of Maharashtra, India. Under this Act, the concept of “lapsing of reservation” holds significance in determining the fate of reserved lands.

FACTS

The case revolves around a plot of land owned by the petitioners in Mohpa, Tahsil Kalmeshwar, District Nagpur Maharashtra, India. Originally, the land was reserved for a weekly market and shops under a development plan published in 1973. However, the authorities failed to take any action to acquire the land for the intended purpose within the specified time frame. Frustrated by the lack of progress, the petitioners issued a purchase notice, contending that the reservation on their land had lapsed due to the inaction of the authorities. They argued that since no acquisition had occurred within the prescribed period, they were entitled to sell the land for any purpose. On the other hand, the respondents challenged the validity of the purchase notice, claiming that it was premature. They pointed to a revised development plan that had been published, which still reserved the land for the same purpose. Therefore, they argued that the purchase notice was invalid. The main question before the court was whether the purchase notice was valid under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act. This provision set a ten-year period within which the reservation on the land should be implemented. The court had to interpret the provision and consider the impact of the revised development plan on the validity of the purchase notice.

JUDGEMENT:

The primary question before the court was whether the legal fiction of lapsing of reservation, as provided under Section 127 of the Act, would apply in this case. The landowners contended that since more than ten years had passed since the publication of the original development plan in 1973, the reservation should be deemed to have lapsed. They argued that the revised development plan published in 2012 should not affect the counting of the ten-year period.

On the other hand, the respondents argued that the purchase notice issued by the landowners was premature. They contended that the ten-year period should be reckoned from the date of the revised development plan in 2012 and not from the date of the original plan in 1973. They also pointed out that the landowners themselves had been inactive for more than ten years after the initial plan.

After considering the arguments put forth by both parties, the court examined the relevant provisions of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. Section 127 of the Act states that if land reserved for a specified purpose is not acquired within ten years from the date of publication of the final development plan, the owner or any interested person can issue a purchase notice. If the land is not acquired or no steps are taken for acquisition within twenty-four months from the date of the notice, the reservation is deemed to have lapsed.

The court interpreted the Act and its provisions to conclude that a revised development plan, issued under Section 38 of the Act, becomes the final development plan. Therefore, the ten-year period for the application of Section 127 would start from the date of publication of the revised plan. The court emphasized that the reservation would not automatically lapse unless a valid notice is issued under Section 127.

Considering these findings, the court dismissed the petition, stating that the purchase notice issued by the landowners was premature, as it was served after the revised development plan but before the expiry of ten years from its publication. The court upheld the continuation of the reservation and emphasized that a valid notice is necessary to release land from reservation after the ten-year period.

“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 VETHIKA D PORWAL, BMS COLLEGE OF LAW

click here to view judgement

1 … 13 14 15 16