#SupremeCourt Archives - Page 25 of 29

12 Jan

Supreme Court recognized the right to a pollution free environment as a fundamental right and Ordered the government to Implement Environmental Solutions

Prime Legal

blog, Blog #New Delhi #Air pollution, #SupremeCourt

Case Title: Container Corporation of India Ltd. Vs Ajay Khera & Ors

Case No: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3798 OF 2019

Decided on: 09.01.2024

Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay S. Oka

Facts of the Case

A former executive alleges the Tughlakabad Inland Container Depot (ICD) pollutes Delhi by accommodating non-Delhi bound trucks.

They petitioned the National Green Tribunal to:

Move non-Delhi operations elsewhere and
Restrict entry to Delhi-bound vehicles and implement cleaner technologies.

The Container Corporation contested, arguing shifting operations would worsen pollution by increasing road transport, and the ICD’s location serves Delhi well. The NGT ultimately ordered a phased shift to cleaner vehicles with deadlines, offering an alternative of limiting entry to satellite terminals around Delhi. This decision aimed to reduce air pollution within Delhi NCR.

In response to the Tughlakabad ICD pollution case, the Supreme Court initially stayed the NGT’s order and directed the involvement of the Environmental Pollution (Prevention and Control) Authority (EPCA) to find solutions. EPCA submitted a report with recommendations in June 2020, which all parties involved have now responded to. The ongoing court hearing focuses on addressing the specific recommendations proposed by EPCA.

Issues

Whether NGT’s observation is ignorant of the right to a pollution free environment as a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution?

Legal Provision

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution –

Protection of life and personal liberty – No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law

Court Decision & Analysis

The Supreme Court acknowledged Inland Container Depots (ICDs) as crucial inland hubs for streamlined containerized cargo handling. ICDs effectively bring the efficiency of seaports inland offering proximity, consolidation, simplified customs, cost savings. The Tughlakabad ICD, with its established customs offices and railway connections, exemplifies the vital role these dry ports play in regional transportation infrastructure.
EPCA acknowledged the need for cleaner fuels in heavy-duty vehicles but recognized current limitations. They recommended using BS-VI diesel vehicles as a significant improvement over older models. While encouraging ongoing exploration of cleaner sources like CNG/Hybrid/Electric, the policy focus should be on replacing older diesels with BS-VI.

The observation by the NGT was in complete ignorance of the fact that citizens living in other parts of the country other than Delhi NCR also have a fundamental right to a pollution free environment as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Such a fundamental right is equally enforceable by all and is not confined to the people of Delhi NCR.

In response to the Tughlakabad ICD pollution case, the Supreme Court issued new directions replacing those of the NGT:

Phased replacement of heavy-duty diesel vehicles with BS-VI vehicles: The Union of India must formulate a policy within six months.
Improved infrastructure for cleaner vehicles: The Ministry of Road Transport and Highways will be involved in exploring alternative fuel sources (CNG/Hybrid/Electric) for heavy-duty vehicles.
Optimizing ICDs around Delhi: The Container Corporation will develop a plan within six months to better utilize surrounding ICDs and establish central laboratories near them.
Enhanced parking management at Tughlakabad ICD: The Container Corporation will implement KPMG’s February 2021 recommendations within six months.

These actions aim to address air pollution concerns by transitioning to cleaner vehicles, optimizing logistics, and improving ICD operations.

The appeal was disposed of on the above terms.

“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- Bhawana Bahety

click to view judgement

12 Jan

Criminal charges in a civil dispute is an abuse of criminal justice : Supreme court.

Prime Legal

blog #criminalappeal, #JUSTICE, #legalnews, #SupremeCourt

TITLE : Dinesh Gupta v The state of Uttar Pradesh

CORAM : Hon’ble Justice Vikram Nath and Hon’ble justice Rajesh Bindal

DATE : 11^th January 2024

CITATION : WP No. 203 Of 2024

FACTS

A company, namely Global Capital filed an FIR against the appellants who are promoters of other companies. The company alleged that there should be an extension of short term loans of Rs. 5,16,00,000 and Rs. 11,29,59,000 to the promoter companies. The loan was then converted into debt equity which promised high returns from the real estate business. The company also acquired shares from the promoting companies. The promoting companies had plans of merging and as a result the company shareholding reduced considerably. The company also did not receive any notice of the amalgamation. When the company asked to return the loan amount, deliberate ignorance was done by the promoter’s company upon which the company filed an FIR. After investigation, the police found that a case was made out against the accused under Sections 420, 467 and 120-B of the IPC

ISSUES

Whether the Criminal charges against the appellant is valid?

JUDGEMENT

The court held that the money transaction was plain and simple between the corporates. The short term loan was advanced for a period of one year, which was not paid back. No other measures were taken by the complainant before filing the FIR.

The court stated that :

The entire factual matrix and the time lines clearly reflects that the complainant deliberately and unnecessarily has caused substantial delay and had been waiting for opportune moment for initiating false and frivolous litigation.

In furtherance, it held that hearing the proceedings would be a abuse of process of court and it is a clear case of malicious prosecution and quashed the FIR.

“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

11 Jan

The supreme court sets aside the order of Madurai bench on property consideration not being paid; States Time would be the essence of the contract.

Prime Legal

Blog #consideration, #contract, #law, #propertylaw, #SupremeCourt

TITLE : Alagammal and Ors v Ganesan and Anr

CORAM : Hon’ble Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Hon’ble Justice Vikram Nath

DATE : 10^th January 2024

CITATION : Civil Appeal No. 8185 of 2009

FACTS

The appellant got into an agreement with the respondents for the consideration amount of Rs.21000. Out of which Rs.3000 was paid in advance. 6 months has elapsed since the last payment and the appellants did not pay the pending money and subsequently executed a sale deed to a third party for the consideration amount of Rs.22000.

LAWS INVOLVED

The supreme court relied on the judgement of K.S Vaidyanthan which stated that :

‘10.It has been consistently held by the courts in India, following certain early English decisions, that in the case of agreement of sale relating to immovable property, time is not of the essence of the contract unless specifically provided to that effect. The period of limitation prescribed by the Limitation Act for filing a suit is three years. From these two circumstances, it does not follow that any and every suit for specific performance of the agreement (which does not provide specifically that time is of the essence of the contract) should be decreed provided it is filed within the period of limitation notwithstanding the time-limits stipulated in the agreement for doing one or the other thing by one or the other party.”

However the court also stated that in matters of inaction by the purchasing party to buy, time is of the essence :

In the case before us, it is not mere delay. It is a case of total inaction on the part of the plaintiff for 2 1/2 years in clear violation of the terms of agreement which required him to pay the balance, purchase the stamp papers and then ask for execution of sale deed within six months. Further, the delay is coupled with substantial rise in prices — according to the defendants, three times — between the date of agreement and the date of suit notice. The delay has brought about a situation where it would be inequitable to give the relief of specific performance to the plaintiff.

ISSUES

Whether the agreement discloses a fixed time frame for making payment in full?

JUDGEMENT

The court set aside the Madurai bench judgement and holds that there being no willingness to pay the remaining amount, the time is of essence.

“the same being at great intervals and there being no willingness shown by them to pay the remaining amount or getting the Sale Deed ascribed on necessary stamp paper and giving notice to the appellants to execute the Sale Deed, it cannot be said that in the present case, judged on the anvil of the conduct of parties, especially the appellants, time would not remain the essence of the contract.”

Written by- Sanjana Ravichandran

Click here to view judgement

11 Jan

Former Maharashtra Minister Nawab Malik’s Interim Bail Extends by Six Months in Money Laundering case: Supreme Court

Prime Legal

Blog #EnforcementDirectorate, #interimbail, #MedicalGround, #moneylaundering, #SupremeCourt, bail

Case Title: Mohammed Nawab Malik v. the State of Maharashtra

Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 2415 of 2023

Decided on: 11th January, 2024

CORAM: THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE BELA M TRIVEDI AND HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ MITHAL

Facts of the Case

On February 23, 2023, Nawab Malik was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate in connection with a money laundering case related to the notorious underworld figure Dawood Ibrahim and his associates. According to the investigative agency, Malik collaborated with a member of the D-gang, Haseena Parker (Ibrahim’s sister), and two others to fraudulently acquire a property in Mumbai’s Kurla area between 1999 and 2006. The agency asserts that since Parkar managed the illicit operations of the notorious gangster and global terrorist, the funds allegedly paid by Malik to her were ultimately utilized for terrorist financing. Consequently, charges under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act were imposed on the former legislator.

In November, 2023, Malik sought bail from a special court, but his request was denied. Due to his worsening health, Malik has been under custody in a private hospital for ongoing medical monitoring. In a subsequent appeal to the Bombay High Court, concerns were raised about the possibility of granting bail in light of the stringent provisions of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. Ultimately, on July 13, Justice Anuja Prabhudessai, presiding over a single-judge bench, declined to provide temporary bail to Malik. The court decided to revisit the matter on its merits after a two-week interval.

Dissatisfied with the decision of the high court, the leader of the Nationalist Congress Party has appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issue

Whether the Former Maharashtra Minister Nawab Malik’s interim bail can be extended on medical grounds in Money Laundering case?

Court’s analysis and decision

The Supreme Court has prolonged the temporary release initially granted to former Maharashtra minister Nawab Malik by an additional six months. Malik, arrested by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) on February 23, 2022, in a money laundering case, had been granted interim bail in August of the same year. Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal presided over the hearing of a special leave petition filed by Malik against a July 2023 Bombay High Court order that denied the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) legislator’s plea for interim bail on medical grounds.

Initially, the senior NCP leader had received a two-month interim bail on medical grounds in August. This period was subsequently extended by three months in October, following information that Malik’s health had not improved, and he was undergoing treatment for kidney-related and other ailments at a private hospital in Mumbai. On both occasions, the Enforcement Directorate did not oppose the court’s decision to grant relief.

During the hearing considering a further extension of interim relief, Additional Solicitor-General SV Raju, representing the central agency, stated,

“This request may be considered, and on medical grounds, an extension may be given.”

Granting Malik’s request for a six-month extension of interim bail, the bench declared,

“…Learned additional solicitor-general has no objection. The interim prayer is granted, and the application is allowed. Interim bail is extended for a further period of six months as prayed for. List the main matter after six months.”

Written by- Afshan Ahmad

10 Jan

Rajasthan High Court was not justified in issuing the mandamus as it failed to consider the significant impact on both consumer and public interests: Supreme court

Prime Legal

Uncategorized #mandamus, #Rajasthanhighcourt, #SupremeCourt, justice B.R. Gavai

Case Title: Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. Vs MB power (Madhya Pradesh) Ltd. & Ors.

Case No: CIVIL APPEAL NO.6503 OF 2022

Decided on: 08.01.2024

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.R. Gavai

Facts of the Case

The appeal challenged the judgment and order dated 20th September 2021, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan. The High Court held that the respondent no. 1 to 5 are bound to purchase a total of 906 MW of electricity from the successful bidders. It, therefore, directed the writ petitioner- MB Power to supply 200 MW electricity to the respondents within the limit of 906 MW. Furthermore, it ordered respondent 1 to 5 to issue Letter of Intent to PTC within 2 weeks of receiving compliant application. Court had specifically directed the State Commission to decide the tariff under Section 63 of the Electricity Act having regard to the law laid down both statutorily and by this Court.

Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission sought to procure 1000 MW of power via competitive bidding in 2009. Bids were received, 7 bidders qualified, but MB Power wasn’t among them. PTC India, a power-trading company, submitted a bid for 1041 MW sourced from five generators. BEC gave its opinion that since the rates quoted vary considerably, negotiations could be held with the bidders. the L-4 and L-5 bidders filed Writ Petitions before the High Court, seeking to strike down the negotiations process. The court directed the State Commission to go into the issue of approval for the adoption of tariffs concerning L-4 and L-5 bidders. Subsequent to the judgment, the BEC came to a finding that the tariffs quoted by the L-4 and L-5 bidders were not aligned to the prevailing market prices, and the state government held the same. The writ petition filed by MB Power has been allowed by the High Court. Aggrieved by this, the present appellants filed this civil appeal.

Issue

Whether the High Court was justified in issuing mandamus in the nature it issued?

Legal provision

Article 226 of Indian Constitution gives High Courts the power to issue writs to carry out the implementation of Fundamental Rights.

Section 63 of the Electricity Act –

Notwithstanding anything contained in section 62, the Appropriate Commission shall adopt the tariff if such tariff has been determined through transparent process of bidding in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Central Government.

Court Analysis and Decision

The Apex court found that the High Court was not justified in issuing the mandamus in the nature it issued for which it took reference to the case of Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd. and Ors. [(2000) 2 SCC 617]. The court deemed the issued mandamus flawed, since is failed to consider the significant impact on both consumer and public interests

The court held that Contract awards, public or private, are primarily commerce-driven. While the State has flexibility in selecting its decision-making method and even negotiating offers, it must follow its own established procedures and avoid arbitrariness. While courts generally don’t scrutinize award decisions, they can review the process for bias, unreasonableness, or arbitrariness. Even then, judicial intervention happens only under exceptional circumstances, prioritizing public interest and avoiding merely technical irregularities. Furthermore, the decision-making process, as adopted by the BEC was totally in conformity with the principles laid down by the Court from time to time. The conclusion by BEC that the rates quoted by SKS Power (L-5 bidder) were not market aligned, was approved by the state commission.

The appeals were therefore allowed and the judgment and order of the learned APTEL dated 1st June 2023 is quashed and set aside.

Written by- Bhawana Bahety

click to view judgement

1 … 23 24 25 26 27 … 29