Month: February 2023

-Report by Pranav Mathur

The Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, on the 8th of February 2023, dismissed a criminal appeal against the decision of the Trial Court preferred by two murder convicts in the case of Mansa @ Mansu v. The State of Madhya Pradesh. The Court deliberated upon various issues commonly deduced before arriving at a judgment, such as the question of the crime being a homicide, whether the requisite mens rea can be reasonably ascertained, etc., with the help of various decisions of the Apex Court.

FACTS:

The two appellants were on a motorcycle when they arrived at the residence of the deceased. He was sitting on a platform at the house directly in front of his own. The appellant riding pillion fired three shots at the deceased, after which he fell, and eventually died due to excessive bleeding and the shock that accompanies it. The mother of the deceased witnessed the entire ordeal. The deceased was rushed to the hospital but was declared dead. The appellants were arrested after the passage of some time. The motorcycle and the pistol used were seized from the appellants. Both of them abjured guilt and signified their willingness to take the case to trial.

APPELLANTS’ CONTENTIONS:

The primary contention of the appellants was the presence of one sole witness; the mother of the deceased. All the other witnesses to the incident were hearsay. The mother of the deceased was regarded as an interested witness and hence unreliable. The appellants further pointed towards contradictions and omissions present in her statements. Major contradictions arose between her and the medical examiner who conducted the post-mortem related to the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased. It was further contended that the appellants lacked any real motive to kill the deceased, and hence cannot be said to have committed a crime in its truest legal sense. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Satveer and Ors. and Sunil Kundu and Anr. v. State of Jharkhand were some of the judgments relied on by the appellants to strengthen their case.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS:

The respondent contended that the Trial Court had correctly relied on the statements of the mother of the deceased when it came to the conviction of the appellants, as they were backed by the FIR and additional medical evidence. Other witnesses have also corroborated her story, proving the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Cases like Bhajan Singh alias Harbhajan Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Bipin Kumar Mondal v. State of West Bengal was quoted by the respondent.

COURT’S CONTENTIONS AND THE JUDGMENT:

The Court took into consideration whether the crime was homicidal or not. Upon the perusal of medical documents, the details of injuries, the post-mortem report, and other medical evidence, the Court concluded that the death was indeed homicidal. The Court opined that the mother of the deceased, and the other witnesses, including the son and the nephew of the deceased, cannot be considered unmeritorious witnesses due to their closeness with the deceased as their statements corroborated medical evidence. Due to circumstances of the investigation procedure, the recovery of the pistol from one of the appellants could not be proved, as had been observed rightly by the Trial Court itself, however, in the Apex Court case of State through the Inspector of Police v. Laly alias Manikandan and Anr., it was held that the non-seizure of the alleged weapon does not adversely hamper the case of the prosecution.

The appellants took the defence of alibi which could not be corroborated with other Defence Witnesses, affecting the appeal that they had filed, as it could not be ascertained that the appellants weren’t at the scene of the crime at the time when it occurred. The common intention of both the appellants was proved by their cooperation in carrying out the crime.

Based on these considerations, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dismissed the appeal, upholding the Trial Court’s decision of life imprisonment being awarded as punishment for the crime of murder as punished under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3XQacfD

–Report by Tannu Dahiya

The decision of the Delhi High court on Wednesday i.e 15th Feb 2023 came as a big relief to the petitioner in the Yogendra Kumar vs Union of India case.

Facts:

The facts of the case are that the petitioner after seeing the advertisement in Feb 2018, being eligible, applied for the post of Constable/ Driver cum Pump Operator (DCPO) in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), in the OBC category. For recruitment, he had to go through various tests like Height bar tests, etc and the final was medical. After examining his eligibility, he was issued admit card and was called for HBT, he cleared the test and was issued admit card for the written test. After clearing all the tests he was selected for the last stage of medical. He got his name on the list which was out and then after clearing medical, he was verbally informed that he has to report to CISF, Bhilai, Chattisgarh. He accordingly visited Bhilai and was informed that the final list is not out yet. Now, he was shocked to see that his name was not on the list which included all the candidates’ names who were medically fit. Following this, he filed a petition naming Vikram Singh and Ors. Vs Union of India. The court directed the respondent to make a new list as it was wrong on their part that the names of a few candidates have been removed without any reasonable cause. Despite the above judgement, the respondent did not comply with the same.

Again the petitioner filed a petition for wilful disobedience of the Judgment dated 24.10.2019. The Union of India had also filed an SPL which was dismissed.

So the judgement dated 24.10.2019 attained its finality. Now the respondents again made a new list of 72 candidates which had the name of the petitioner. However, no offer letter was issued instead he was asked to submit Heavy Motor Vehicle Driving License to be eligible for selection. The petitioner accordingly mailed his Driving Licence on 12.10.2020. After this, a letter informing them that his application has been cancelled was received by him. It was argued that the licence submitted validated him for ‘Trans’ vehicles which were issued for the period 23.05.2019 to 22.11.2019. And the closing date for the application was 19.03.2018, the licence mailed by the petitioner was invalid and could not be considered for his application and, therefore, the selection of the petitioner stood cancelled.

Petitioner’s contentions:

The petitioner claimed that the ‘Trans’ licence is equivalent to Heavy Motor Vehicle or Transport Vehicle”. This licence was valid up to 2016 and was renewed in 2019. The petitioner had a valid Licence to drive. He also asserted that due to some technical errors he couldn’t attach copies of his previous driving licence. He stated various other cases like East Coast Railway vs. Mahadev Appa Rao & Ors. (2010) 7 SCC 678; Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Anr. Vs. Neeraj Kumar & Anr. 2012 SCC OnLine Del 1160; to argue in the context of fundamental rights. It also claimed that the impugned Order dated 15.10.2020 by the respondent is unlawful and wrong.

Respondent’s contentions:

The respondent in its oral and written submissions admitted that the petitioner who appeared for the post of constable was once eligible for the same but due to a mistake in one Question paper and a change in the answer key, his name was cut out. After the orders of the court, they reconsidered the matter and decided to again select the candidate regarding his driving licence but his driving licence is for heavy vehicles and was not valid as it was invalid on the last date of submission. Despite the opportunity given to the petitioner, he failed to produce a valid licence and thus his candidature stands cancelled. It is submitted that the candidate must have possessed a driving licence for all the three categories as mentioned in the advertisement on or before the closing date to apply was 19.03.2018. It was further argued that the petitioner submitted false information which did not fulfil the eligibility criteria as laid down by the notification.

Judgement:

The court after hearing both sides said that the main issue is whether the petitioner’s licence is valid for “Heavy Motor Vehicle or Transport Vehicle” on the last date of submission which is 19.03.2018. For which the court also examined the eligibility criteria which was given in the advertisement. It also stated that there is no controversy on the fact that the licence was for Light Motor Vehicle/Motorcycle with Gear. The licence was renewed in 2019 vide endorsement made in 2016 which means that the licence was valid for submission. To answer the question of whether the licence could be considered for heavy motor vehicles, the court took reference to the Motor Vehicle Act, of 1988. After which it stated that Heavy Transport Vehicle, Medium Transport Vehicles and Light Transport Vehicles all come within the umbrella of Transport Vehicles. In the advertisement, it was stated the candidate must be having a Transport Vehicle licence or Heavy motor vehicle licence. The use of the conjunction “or”makes the candidate’s licence valid for consideration.

Therefore, the respondents were directed to look at the matter again and start the process of selection within 8 weeks from the date of the decision.

READ FULL JUDGEMNT: https://bit.ly/3lJrgpV

Citation: W.P(C) 8983/2020 & CM APPL. 28998/2020

–Report by Shreya Gupta

In the recent case of SURAJ MALIK Versus THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI, the bail was sought under section 439 of CrPC, 1973. The applicant was arrested under Sections 498A/306/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The petitioner, in this case, is Suraj Malik and the respondent is the state govt. of NCT of Delhi.

FACTS:

Shefali Malik the deceased was admitted to the hospital on account of burn injuries by her neighbour. It was revealed to the police that she was married for less than 7 years to her husband who had a 4-year-old son from his previous marriage on account of which F.I.R. was registered. The statement the patient was taken in which she admitted that she burned herself because she did not want to live as her mother-in-law used to taunt her for dowry and harasses her. She also claimed that her husband used to abuse her and that her sister-in-law was innocent. The F.I.R. was filed under Sections 498/306/34 of the IPC was registered and an investigation was taken up.

PETIONER’S CONTENTIONS:

The advocate of the applicant stated that the statement given by the father of the deceased varied completely from the dying declaration of the deceased. He alleged that statement was given by the father only to add section 304B to the F.I.R. since earlier it was registered only under section 306 of the IPC. He stated that there was no abetment to suicide. He also added that the deceased in the hospital asked the applicant to stay with her. He stated that since the chargesheet is already filed there is no useful purpose in making him stay under custody. He supported his arguments with previous judgements of i. Ranjeet Singh v. State, 2005 (2) J.C.C. 905 ii. Kamal @ Kailash Joshi v. State, 2007 I.A.D. (Delhi) 31 iii. Nitin Kumar v. State, 2015 IVAD (Delhi) 109 iv. Deepak v. State, 120 (2005) D.L.T 146.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS:

The father of the deceased alleged that she was harassed and demanded a dowry. He alleged that the applicant and the mother-in-law burnt his daughter to death. He alleged that her daughter was asked for Rs. 25 lakhs out of which he already gave Rs. 10 lakhs in demand of it. He also alleged that her daughter was pregnant but they got her aborted because Suraj malik already had a son from his previous marriage. He also alleged that she was maltreated when she got pregnant for the second time. The advocate mentioned that it is stated in the dying declaration that she was harassed and abused by her husband and mother-in-law.

JUDGEMENT:

The court stated that “Perusal of the aforesaid dying declaration made by the deceased reflects that the deceased was not happy at her matrimonial home, more specifically, with her relationship with her mother-in-law, but at the same time the fact that she did not make any allegation with respect to demand of dowry made by the present applicant cannot be lost sight of.” The court further passed his application for bail provided with some terms and conditions and a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and a surety.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/40YO59g

Neutral Citation Number: 2023/DHC/001062

-Report by Shweta Sabuji

The recent case of PANCHAM LAL PANDEY versus NEERAJ KUMAR MISHRA & ORS., talks about the Uttar Pradesh High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971 and how section 9, read along with section 10 of the act comes into being.

FACTS: 

Tripathi Ramroop Sanskrit Vidyalaya, located in Jogapur, Kaushambi, Uttar Pradesh, is an established school that provides Sanskrit education from Class I to XII, or what is also known as Uttar Madhyama. The school was granted permanent recognition on February 22, 1999. The Government of Uttar Pradesh has decided to include Sanskrit Vidyalayas and Mahavidyalayas on its Grant-in-Aid List, and has laid out specific criteria for institutions to be included in this list in a G.O. dated February 7, 2014. The State Government has notified a list of institutions that have been included in the Grant-in-Aid List, including Tripathi Ramroop Sanskrit Vidyalaya which is listed as Serial No.47. In relation to the aforementioned institution, the State Government approved five positions for salary payment from the State Exchequer, one for the Headmaster and four for the

Assistant professors. In a circular dated 01.01.2016, the Principal Secretary of the Government of Uttar Pradesh approved the payment of salaries to all instructors at institutions receiving Grant-in-Aid who were actively employed previous to the institution’s inclusion on the Grant-in-Aid list. A different circular, dated 18.03.2016, outlined how the reserve policy should be applied. One of the professors, Satya Prakash Shukla, filed Writ Petition No. 29784 of 2016 before the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court since the aforementioned Circulars were having an impact on some of the teachers.

On the grounds that the Joint Secretary of the Department of Secondary Education had stated that “the payment of salary to the teachers shall be made on the basis of seniority of teachers as disclosed in the Manager’s Return,” the aforementioned Writ Petition was granted by order dated December 21, 2016. Unfortunately, by order dated March 28, 2017, the Director of Secondary Education divided the positions of Assistant Teachers, disregarding the Joint Secretary’s testimony before the High Court, and ordered that Neeraj Kumar Mishra, who was nearly five years younger than Pancham Lal Pandey, be paid a salary. In light of this, the aforementioned Pancham Lal Pandey chose

As a result, the aforementioned Pancham Lal Pandey filed Writ Petition No. 19709 of 2017 to contest the Director of Secondary Education’s order from March 28, 2017. Following a hearing with the parties, the aforementioned writ petition was granted by decision and order dated 15.04.2019, nullifying the order dated 28.03.2017 and directing the authorities to declare Pancham Lal Pandey entitled to payment of salary from the State Exchequer.

PLAINTIFF’S CONTENTION: 

The argument made by the knowledgeable attorney representing the appellant in this case, Pancham Lal Pandey, in challenging the aforementioned order is that the Review Application was not maintainable because Neeraj Kumar Mishra’s Special Appeal was dismissed with no apparent error on the face of the record, and that the review was approved without taking his objections to the maintainability of the application into account.

DEFENDANT’S CONTENTION: 

On the other side, Mr. V.K. Shukla, learned Senior Counsel defended the order on the grounds that the learned Single Judge had made a clear legal error in granting the writ petition and that if the order is left in place, it will continue criminal activity, which is against the law. In light of Section 9 read with Section 10 of the Uttar Pradesh High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971, the institution is not permitted to create any new post of a teacher or any employee without the prior approval of the Director, so the review petition was properly allowed because there was an apparent error in the order of the Division Bench dismissing the Special Appeal.

JUDGEMENT: 

The Joint Secretary of the Department of Secondary Education stated that teachers’ salaries would be paid based on seniority, therefore the question of teaching was irrelevant. In light of this declaration, the Single Judge granted the writ petition. The institution’s decision to divide the authorized Assistant Teacher positions into subject-based groups is purely an internal decision that imposes no additional burden on the State. Since the school was placed on the Grant-in-Aid list with a Headmaster and four Assistant Teachers in order of seniority, allowing just five people to earn compensation from government funds is legal. The Court did not establish a new position for an assistant teacher at the institution. Because of this, the Writ Court correctly granted the writ petition, and the Division Bench did nothing wrong by rejecting the Special Appeal. We believe that, given the facts and circumstances of the case, the contested ruling, dated February 5, 2021, enabling the review, is illegal and must be reversed.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3jZEE97

Athena Legal Advocates & Solicitors – is looking to hire an Associate & Senior Associate with 2-5 years of experience in Delhi.

About the Organization

Founded in 2012, Athena Legal is a full-service law firm headquartered in New Delhi, India. The firm boasts a 30-member in-house team and a pan-India network of over 400 lawyers holding multi-disciplinary expertise. Our research-oriented approach and highly experienced team ensure quality assistance with an assortment of legal & business solutions, ranging from complex transactions, including those of cross-border nature, to corporate advisory services in day-to-day operations.

Job Description

• Will be responsible for independently appearing and arguing matters in Courts/Tribunals and assist senior colleagues at the firm or senior advocates based on requirements.
• Drafting of Petitions, complaints, counter affidavits, replies, rejoinders, written submissions, etc., with minimal supervision. (Civil, Real Estate, IPR, TMT, White Collar Crimes, Arbitration, etc.) and liaise with different practice teams/clients and take inputs in developing robust pleadings.
• Well-versed in dealing with original side matters suits and writ petitions etc., particularly.
• Disciplined to work around self-imposed deadlines. Well-versed in legal writing and referencing.

Location

Delhi

Experience

2 to 5 years

Positions available

Associate and Senior Associate

Application Process

Send applications to: isha.sacchar@athenalegal.in

Disclaimer: All information posted by us on Lexpeeps is true to our knowledge. But still, it is suggested that you check and confirm things on your level.

For regular updates on more opportunities, we can catch up at-

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/Iez749mZfpaGfG4x2J6sr9

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

https://www.linkedin.com/company/lexpeeps-in-lexpeeps-pvt-ltd

About the Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law

The Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Patiala (RGNUL) is an autonomous National Law University (NLU) established under the second wave of reforms instituted by the Bar Council of India. Established in 2006, RGNUL has garnered a pan-India reputation as a stellar institution for legal research and education. In May 2015, RGNUL became the first and the only NLU to have been accredited by the National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) with an ‘A’ grade.

About the Competition

The Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law’s flagship moot has grown into one of the biggest in the nation. The goal is to develop competent and talented lawyers and inquisitive researchers in order to help society through legal reforms. It was with this objective in mind that the idea for this Flagship moot was first conceived. Since the competition’s inception in 2011, students from all across the country have joined us in rendering it a success.

List of Important Dates

• Notification of the Competition and release of the Moot Proposition: Second week of February 2023
• Last Date of Registration (Submission of Registration Form via Email/Google Form): 5th March 2023
• Last Day of Seeking Clarifications: 10th March 2023
• Release of Clarifications: 15th March 2023
• Last Date of Submission of Soft Copy of Written Submission: 20th March 2023
• Last Day of Mailing Travel Form via Email: 25th March 2023
• Draw of Lots and Exchange of Written Submission: 6th April 2023
• Researcher’s Test: 6th April. 2023
• Preliminary Rounds 7th April 2023
• Quarter-Final and Semi-Final Rounds: 7th April 2023
• Final Rounds: 8th April 2023
• Valedictory and Prize Distribution: 8th April 2023

Awards

• Winners: 30,000/- INR
• Runners-Up: 20,000/- INR
• Best Speaker: 8,000/- INR
• Best Researcher: 8,000/- INR
• Best Memorial: 8,000/- INR

Click below to access the brochure:

Disclaimer: All information posted by us on Lexpeeps is true to our knowledge. But still, it is suggested that you check and confirm things on your level.

For regular updates on more opportunities, we can catch up at-

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/Iez749mZfpaGfG4x2J6sr9

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

https://www.linkedin.com/company/lexpeeps-in-lexpeeps-pvt-ltd

Lakshmikumaran and Sridharan is looking for bright and academically brilliant Long Term Law Interns for a minimum of 4+ months who are in their final and pre-final years.

About the Organization

Founded in 1985 by Mr V Lakshmikumaran and Mr V Sridharan with humble beginnings, the firm started with a Tax Practice but has gradually expanded to other areas. We are now a full-service law firm offering litigation, consulting, and advisory services in Tax, International Trade, Corporate, Commercial Dispute Resolution, Intellectual Property Rights, and Food Safety Law through the support of our 700+ professionals.

Eligibility

Only 4th or 5th-year students of 5-year Degree Programs and 2nd or 3rd-year students of 3-year Degree Program.

Internship duration

Minimum 4 months

Location

Delhi, Mumbai, Hyderabad, Chennai, Ahmedabad, Chandigarh, Chennai, Nagpur, Jaipur. (As per candidate’s preference)

Application Process

Interested candidates shall fill out the google form from the below-mentioned link:

https://lnkd.in/gqEzgFQh

Disclaimer: All information posted by us on Lexpeeps is true to our knowledge. But still, it is suggested that you check and confirm things on your level.

For regular updates on more opportunities, we can catch up at-

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/Iez749mZfpaGfG4x2J6sr9

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

https://www.linkedin.com/company/lexpeeps-in-lexpeeps-pvt-ltd

–Report by Saloni Agarwal

The Delhi High Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs M/S Sweka PowerTechEngineers Pvt. Ltd settled the dispute between them by awarding the rightfully demanded claims of the respondent.

Facts:

The Municipal Corporation of Delhi hired Sweka PowerTech Engineers Pvt Ltd for providing street lights and ancillary work in different areas of the Karol Bagh Zone. The work ordered was to be completed within six months. There was a delay in the work and until the deadline, only 41% of the work was done. The PowerTech company had also taken money for the completion of the work but the work was pending. The work was assumed to be related to Common Wealth Games and the delay caused a huge loss to the Corporation. The work was supposed to be completed by 15.01.2011. The work order had lost its worth due to delay as time was an important factor in the case. The main ground of the case was the Common Wealth Games but the game ended much before the completion date of work.

Appellant’s Contention:

The plaintiff claimed that it incurred a huge loss due to the delay in work and not even a single street was illuminated. The appellant also said that the respondent had claimed payment falsely which is wrong. It also claimed that it had the right to have a check on the working of the respondent according to the order. Due to a delay in work, the appellant was forced to cancel the contract as it could not ensure more loss. It was said that because of the respondent, it became necessary to file an arbitration case and incur its cost.

Respondent’s Contention:

The respondent claimed the amount fixed for completion of work along with interest and to return the security money which was deducted. It also asked for the loss amount due to the reduction of the work and cost of arbitration. The respondent’s claim that the work was not related to the Commonwealth Games was upheld. The claim of the amount by the respondent was not arbitrary and was according to the contract.

Judgement:

The High Court said that the Arbitrator’s findings were challenged because of advancement in evidence and no actual fault was there. The court awarded the respondent the claimed amount for the completion of work as the calculation was done with reasoning. The court agreed with the Arbitrator’s decision to refund the security amount. The court also asked to pay for the arbitration cost incurred by the respondent.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3K9VFIo

-Report by Muskan Vasaani

High Court Of Bombay while hearing the writ petition on 14th February 2023 in the case of Milind B. Jadhav & Ors. (Petitioners) Versus Usha S. Patel & Ors. (Respondents), dismissed the writ petition with exemplary costs of Rs. 25000/-

FACTS:

In the present case, the Respondents herein who were the Original Plaintiffs filed a suit against Mr Rafique Malbari (Original Defendant No. 1), Mr Bhimdas Jadhav (Original Defendant No. 2) and Mr Milind Jadhav (Original Defendant No. 3, son of Defendant no. 2and Petitioner herein) for seeking possession, non-payment of license fee and compensation concerning the room bearing chalta No. 589 (part) situated on the ground floor in Municipal House No.25 – Shambhu Building in Survey No. 1/3/3/C of village Mohone, Taluka Kalyan (herein referred to as a “suit premises”). A suit was instituted against Defendant No.2 and Defendant No.3 (Petitioner No.1 herein) because they were found to have the suit property as they were servants of Defendant No.1. Petitioners are legal heirs of deceased Defendant No.2 who expired on 18.09.2016. The Respondents herein had executed a leave and license agreement with the Original Defendant No. 1 for 33 months which expired in 2006. Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 had no connection in the suit as they were only the servants but they have trespassed into the suit property and are occupying the same since before 2006 which is not justified.

However the suit property was not vacated and the Repondents herein (Original Plaintiffs) visited the site and found that it owned Defendant No.2 and 3 i.e. Petitioner No.1 herein and that Petitioners are owners of ‘Shreenath Dairy’, run by the Petitioner No.1 and it stands immediately adjacent to the suit premises and Petitioner No.1 is carrying on business in the name of ‘Sunny Building Materials’ from the suit premises.

The suit filed against Original Defendant Nos.1 to 3 came to be decreed after a full-length trial by the Learned 5th Jt. Civil Judge Senior Division, Kalyan and the Petitioners were aggrieved and dissatisfied with the decree filed Civil Appeal along with Civil Miscellaneous Applicationseeking condonation of delay of 5 months and 23 days in filing the Appeal.

However, the Civil Miscellaneous Application was rejected by the impugned order and the Petitioners filed a Civil Writ Petition which was withdrawn by them themselves and they filed a second appeal in which a stay was granted to the Petitioners for some time but the same appeal was dismissed in the admission stage and therefore the present writ petition was filed

PETITIONER’S CONTENTIONS:

The petitioner contended before this hon’ble court that the impugned order dated 03.01.2022 be set aside and the delay in filing the Civil Appeal be condoned and Civil MiscelleaneousApplication is allowed.

RESPONDENT‘S CONTENTIONS:

The respondents contended before this Hon’ble Court that the Petitioners have no right or grounds to file this petition or appeal whatsoever in respect of the suit premises and that petitioners have not shown any sufficient cause to condone the delay and such applications are required to be dismissed with exemplary costs and the application is filed with an ulterior motive which should be dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs. 5,00,000/- and that this Court should uphold the impugned order.

JUDGEMENT:

The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay dismissed the petition along with exemplary costs on the following grounds :
• Petitioners have no title, entitlement or interest whatsoever in the suit premises. They are rank trespassers who have taken advantage of the legal system and have abused the due process of law at all stages without having been put in possession of the suit premises by the owner.
• Petitioners are owners of ‘Shreenath Dairy’, run by Petitioner No.1 and it stands immediately adjacent to the suit premises. Petitioner No.1 is carrying on business ‘Sunny Building Materials’ from the suit premises and as per the findings returned by the trial court; the possession and occupation of the suit premises is completely illegal.
• that if the delay in such cases is condoned in favour of Petitioners and if they are allowed to prosecute their appeal, it will amount to a bad representation of justice in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3Xw6WWf

–Report by Umang Kanwat

According to the legal dictionary, an appeal memorandum explains the grounds on which it is desired and why a court hearing has been requested. When the parties to the proceedings are unhappy with the orders or decisions made by the tribunal, they may appeal to the national company law appellate tribunal. This is mentioned in Section 421 of the 2013 Companies Act. The present case of Regal Machine Tools Private … vs Mrs Kaushy Lal & Ors revolves around the same.

FACTS:

M/s. Regal Enterprises, a sole proprietorship business owned by Mr S.M. Mohan Lal, received a one-acre parcel of land bearing Plot No. 39, Bommasandra Industrial Area, Attibele, Hobli, Ankal Taluk, Bangalore, measuring 3948 square metres in exchange for paying a portion of the consideration. The aforementioned allotment was initially given on a “lease basis” for a period of 11 years, and after that, a Sale Deed was to be executed subject to the satisfaction of further requirements. The Balance Payment was to be made after 11 years, it is further noted.

In order to convert the company from a sole “Proprietorship Concern” to a “Private Limited Company” with the name and designation of “M/s. Regal Machine Tools Private Limited,” Mr S.M. Mohanlal had to hold 51% of the company’s “Shares” until the end of the 11-year lease period. This request was granted by KIADB. It is alleged that the Appellants had asked KIADB to execute the Sale Deed and that KIADB had informed them that the Sale Deed would only be done if the Original Allottee, Mr SM Mohanlal, maintained a 51% shareholding, but the Appellants received no answer to their request.

APPELLANT’S CONTENTIONS:

The Appellant’s learned counsel claimed that the Respondents made the offer to buy 2,243 “Equity Shares” for Rs. 53,83,200/-, and the abovementioned consideration amount was given to the appellant by check as part of an MoU on July 1, 2011, but it was never presented and was given back to the respondent. Therefore, no deal has ever been reached to buy 2,243 “Equity Shares.”

RESPONDANT’S CONTENTIONS:

The Supplementary Agreement that the Appellant had recorded, according to the Respondents, was never ever signed. The Schedule Property was assigned for the purpose of constructing and operating an industrial unit for a period of 11 years, failing which the Sale Deed could not be performed in their favour. This is also important to note. A review of the documentation shows that there is no documentary proof that any transfer of shares was made with the approval of the Respondent or the legal heirs of Late Shri S.M. Mohan Lal, as shown by the pertinent Minutes of the Board Meeting or any other key documents.

JUDGEMENT:

The basic goal of the Memorandum of Understanding, it was stated, was for KIADB to allot land in the company’s name and for a check to be written in exchange for shares to be issued, but the same was subject to conditions. No transaction by the Company may be engaged in that would effectively reduce the Shareholding of the Respondents below 51% without the consent of the Respondents, who currently own 51% of the shares.

The Tribunal was of the sincere opinion that the Appellants had violated the Company’s Articles of Association and had not come before the Tribunal with clean hands. This is worth repeating. The well-reasoned order of the National Company Law Tribunal is dismissed as a result because the Tribunal finds no illegality or flaw in it, and the costs of the court are borne by each side separately.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3lr2mv9