0

Excess recovery made by the Department is subject to verification: Supreme Court of India

Uncategorized , ,

Case Title: State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. v. M/s. Vivo Mobile India Private Ltd. & Ors.

Case No: Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 27106/2023

Decided on:  4th January, 2024

CORAM: THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH

 

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the scheme was between March, 2020 to August, 2020, the respondents had sought benefit or extension of the scheme only by one month, that is, September, 2020. The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has recorded that the respondent(s) herein would be entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the amount of excess recovery of Rs.11,00,69,010/- from the date of the excess recovery to the date of its actual refund. Learned A.S.G. pleaded that there is no excess recovery made by the Department.

Issue

Whether there is excess recovery of Rs.11,00,69,010/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the excess recovery to the date of its actual refund made by the Department?

Court’s analysis and decision

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has recorded that whether there is excess recovery of Rs.11,00,69,010/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the excess recovery to the date of its actual refund made by the Department is subject to verification and in the event, there is any excess recovery, the direction of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad shall prevail. Hence, the special leave petition is dismissed.

“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- Afshan Ahmad

Click here to read the judgement

0

Madras High Court directs, The Inspector of Police to recover the money and gold and hand over to the petitioner even there are pending cases.

blog, Blog , , ,

TITLE: C. Sivaraja Vs. The Superintendent of Police.

Decided On: September 11, 2023.

Writ Petition (MD) No.18635 of 2021.

CORAM:  Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. Nirmal Kumar.

Facts:

The marriage between the petitioner and the third respondent was solemnized on 25.01.2021 at Nilakottai. The marriage was initiated by his wife’s family. Prior to the marriage, there were frequent meetings between them. During one such meeting, the third respondent informed that her parents were unable to arrange for money to celebrate the marriage function and hence, requested the petitioner to assist by giving Rs.5,00,000/-, which was received by the respondents 5 and 6 on 02.12.2020. After receipt of Rs.5,00,000/-, the marriage was solemnized on 25.01.2021. At that time, the petitioner’s father. given 10 sovereigns of gold chain and ½ sovereign of Mangalsutra to the third respondent and the petitioner’s father incurred an expenditure of Rs.3,62,000/-. Three days after the marriage, the third respondent went to her house for writing B.P.Ed. Examination and informed that she would return back within few days. On the contrary, the third respondent and her family members lodged a false complaint against the petitioner suppressing the real facts. Hence, the petitioner sent a petition, regarding the false complaint lodged by the third respondent.

The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking to take action against the respondents 3 to 7, who are his wife and in-laws, for threatening and cheating him and his parents, a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and 10 ½ sovereigns of gold chain and to recover the same from them, based on his complaint, dated 26.04.2021.

Legal Analysis and Decision:

The Cases are pending on both the petitioner and the 3rd respondent in the cases in Crime Nos. 10 of 2022 and 16 of 2022 had been registered against both of them and their family members. Now, investigation has been completed. Crime No.10 of 2022 registered against the petitioner and four of his family members for the offences under Sections 498(A), 406 and 506(ii) I.P.C., is taken on file as C.C.No.597 of 2022, by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nilakottai. Crime No. 16 of 2022 registered for the offences under Sections 406, 420 and 506(i) I.P.C. against the respondents 3 to 7 is taken on file as C.C.No.402 of 2022 by the learned Judicial Magistrate,   Nilakottai. Both the cases are pending trial before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nilakottai. The 3rd respondent filed a petition in H.M.O.P.No.110 of 2022 for divorce under Section 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Principal Sub Court, Dindigul and the same is pending.

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the second respondent to take action against the respondents 3 to 7 for threatening and cheating the petitioner and his parents a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and 10 ½ sovereigns of gold chain and further direction to the second respondent to recover the same from them and hand over it to the petitioner, based on his complaint date 26.04.2021, which is much prior to the registration of the criminal cases against both the groups. The court left it open to the parties to put forth their contentions before the Trial Court in the pending cases.

Conclusion:

Even though there are pending cases before the trail court the Madras High Court directed, The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Nilakottai to recover the  Rs.5,00,000/- and 10 ½ sovereigns of gold chain and hand over it to the petitioner as the petitioner complained prior to filing a case.

“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 JANGAM SHASHIDHAR.

Click here to view Judgement

0

T.N. Civil Supplies Corporation Should release the consequential benefits with penal interest — Madras High Court.

Blog , , ,

Case Title:

V.Jotheeswari   … Petitioner
         Vs.

TamilNaduCivil Supplies Corporation and Anrs.    …Respondents

Date of Decision:

                             Reserved on:07.06.2023

                           Delivered on: 19.06.2023

Coram:  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI

Citation:

           W.P.No.26113 of 2017 & W.M.P.Nos.27738 and 27739 of 2017

Introduction:

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the proceedings AD 5/86045/14 dated 21.01.2016 of the 1st respondent along with the proceedings No.AD1/27580/2017 dated 08.08.2017 of the 2nd respondent and the consequential recovery proceedings Na.Ka.E1/4203/2015 dated 06.03.2017 of the 3rd respondent, quash all the three orders and consequently direct respondents to release the consequential benefits with penal interest.

Facts:

The  Petitioner in the affidavit in support of her Writ Petition are that she was holding the post of Deputy Manager (Movement) with the respondent Corporation and she reached the age of superannuation on 30.06.2015. A special audit was ordered into the storage and movement of rice from 11.11.2014 to 17.11.2014 and the audit report has given a finding of irregularity in Storage and Movement of rice resulting in loss of Rs.35,67,379/-. According to the Writ Petitioner, the 4th respondent was the Senior Regional Manager and Head of the Chennai North Region and one S.Manimozhi was the Manager
(Storage and Movement) and that the petitioner was subordinate to these two persons. The audit report, besides suggesting action against the Writ Petitioner also suggested action to be taken various other employees responsible for the loss. However, excepting the 4th respondent, Tmt. S.Nirmala and the petitioner all others were let off and charges were framed by the 1st respondent vide proceedings dated 03.03.2015. Charges against both the two persons were identical, accusing all responsible for heavy loss to the Corporation.

Issues:

Whether the disciplinary authority is entitled to take a different view from the one taken by the enquiry officer?

Does the principles of natural justice would certainly require that the
disciplinary authority to afford a fair opportunity to the Petitioner?

Legal Analysis:

Learned counsel for the petitioner took this Court through various
charges and also the grounds raised in support of the Writ Petition and made his elaborate submissions with regard to each of the grounds, especially the right of the 1st respondent to initiate the disciplinary proceedings thereby the very charge memo itself being vitiated as one without jurisdiction.

The petitioner was only in charge of “Movement” and not “Storage and Movement” and when the enquiry officer had rightly found the main charge of monetary loss having been caused to the respondent Corporation in favour of the petitioner by holding that the said charge is not proved.

The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent
Corporation that Civil suit has already been filed and therefore all these issues can be thrashed out in the Civil suit and that the Writ Petition should not be entertained does not merit any consideration.

The very claim made in the suit is only a consequential action of the respondent Corporation in furtherance of the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent. If the impugned order itself is bad in the eye of law, the very cause of action for filing of the Civil Suit itself vanishes and therefore the Writ Petition, is certainly maintainable as prayed and the pendency of the Civil Suit is no way a bar for this Court entertaining the Writ Petition and dispose of the same on
merits.

Judgement:

The Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for records in AD 5/86045/14 dated 21.01.2016 of the 1st respondent along with the proceedings No.AD1/27580/2017 dated 08.08.2017 on the file of the 2nd respondent and the consequential recovery proceedings Na.Ka.E1/4203/2015 dated 06.03.2017 on the file of the 3rd respondent, and to quash all the three orders and consequently direct respondents to release the consequential benefits with penal interest.

Conclusion:

The appellate authority should consider the charges, discuss the
explanation offered by the delinquent officer or employee concerned one assess the same independently before concurring or dissenting with the findings of disciplinary authority. Merely endorsing the findings of the disciplinary authority as confirmed is certainly deplorable, especially in a case where the disciplinary authority has differed with the findings of the enquiry officer. The Court interpreted in right way and  ordered the Civil Supplies to release the consequential benefits with penal interest.

“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 JANGAM SHASHIDHAR

Click here to view Judgement