Month: April 2023

About the Organization

Khurana & Khurana (K&K) is a full-service Intellectual Property, Tax, Media-Entertainment, and Commercial/Corporate Law firm giving high-end technology backed Corporate/Commercial Law, Tax, and IP Prosecution/Litigation Support, and represents over 30000 Indian and Global Corporates ranging from Fortune 500 Corporates to SMEs to Start-ups. K&K is among the youngest Indian Firms to have been ranked and recommended by Legal 500, IAM, MIP, Chambers & Partners, Asia IP, Corp-INTL, and Acquisition-INTL, and is a niche law firm with over 220 Professionals that was started by Attorneys having extensive corporate experience in handling IP and Commercial Law issues. 

Location

Chennai and Hyderabad

PQE

Minimum 4-6 years, having Core Focus on Arguing all types of Civil Litigation Matters across tribunals and Dist/High Courts, preferably with IP Litigation matters.

Requirements

• The Attorney should be willing to work independently and, apart from engaging on current matters of the firm, focus extensively on helping grow the firm’s Litigation Practice in the region by undertaking business development/network and allied mandates.
• The colleague would be responsible for independently and comprehensively handling all the Chennai oriented Litigation of the firms’ practice across High Courts and Tribunals such as NCLT, NGT, NCDRC, NBA, among others including making core arguments before different benches are concerned along with reviewing drafts prepared by Associates/Sr. Associates.
• The colleague should be comfortable working from the Chennai Office of K&K with a core focus on growing the Litigation Practice.
• Should have a thorough practical knowledge of CPC and procedural issues pertaining to various forums and tribunals.
• Should have strong verbal and written communication skills, should be willing to work independently as well as in a team.
• Should not have any ego/hangover of a previous job/position. Should be willing and open in participating in business development mandates.

Application Procedure

To Apply, CLICK HERE

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.

EXPLORE MORE SUCH OPPORTUNITIES HERE!

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 Organization

Established in 1897, the Godrej Group has its roots in India’s Swadeshi movement. Our founder, Ardeshir Godrej, lawyer-turned-serial entrepreneur failed with a few businesses, before he struck gold with the locks business that you know today. One of India’s most trusted brands, with revenues of USD 4.1 billion, Godrej enjoys the patronage of over 750 million Indians across our consumer goods, real estate, appliances, agri and many other businesses. You think of Godrej as such an integral part of India that you may be surprised to know that over 25 per cent of our business is done overseas.

Job Position

General Manager- Litigation

Responsibilities

• Managing litigations and disputes proceedings
• Coordinating with and instructing legal counsels ▪ Providing strategic legal advice including in relation to litigations matters
• Drafting, negotiating and reviewing international and domestic agreements
• Providing legal support to businesses on a wide range of legal, business and contractual interpretation issues
• Providing legal support for interactions with government, industry bodies and other external stakeholders
• Keeping abreast and updating stakeholders of legal developments, in particular new legal and regulatory requirements and compliance risks that arise
• Providing legal support and proactively improving Godrej’s processes and legal productivity, through simplification, digitization, standardization, model contract clauses and contracting toolkits.
• Facilitating knowledge management.

Qualification and Experience

• LL.B. from an accredited law school
• At least 10 years experience in related areas of law
• Experience with a reputed law firm or an in house legal department of a large organization.

Requirements

• Significant experience in :

➢ litigation and disputes management including contractual disputes, consumer complaints, vendor/customer disputes, Labour and employment disputes, at different forums (SC, HCs, Tribunals etc.)

➢ contract drafting and negotiations, including procurement/supply / services contracts, infrastructure contracts, software and other licensing contracts, conveyancing, leave and license agreements, distributor agreements etc.

• Ability to advise on day to day operational, business and strategic issues
• Superior advocacy skills, ability to effectively communicate and interface with all levels of the organization, aptitude for practical negotiation, capability to think clearly and quickly under pressure
• Excellent analytical and drafting skills, strong commercial acumen, strong desire to learn and time sensitivity
• Fluency (oral/written) in English
• A strong commitment to integrity and professionalism
• A work history that affirmatively demonstrates leadership and ability to persuade and push others to deliver
• Good to have but not a must: Dealing with FMCG or manufacturing industry.

Application Procedure

To apply, CLICK HERE

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.

EXPLORE MORE SUCH OPPORTUNITIES HERE!

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 Nehha Mishra

In the case of DILIP KUMAR VS UNION OF INDIA, the court said that the “petitioner may be unfit to perform the duty for the post he was appointed but certainly, punishment of “removal from service” inflicted upon him is too harsh.”

FACTS

The petitioner joined the Indo-Tibetan Police Force (ITBP) in 1993 as a Sub-Inspector and was later elevated to Subedar Major and Assistant Commandant (Group A)/General Diary Duty in 2008.

According to the Shape system of annual medical examination, the petitioner claims to be in Shape -1 absolute medical fitness through 2014. He was sent to Cuttack, Orissa for 28 days under Shape-2 after the petitioner’s wife made a complaint saying that he was an alcoholic.The petitioner was then transported to Base Hospital Tigadi in New Delhi, where, by the opinion, he was determined to be in Shape-1 medically fit. But once more, in their opinion from June 25, 2013, the respondents put the petitioner in Shape 3 for a period of six months.

Petitioner preferred representations in opposition to the opinion from June 25, 2013, but those were not responded to. Six months passed, and the petitioner had been deemed fit for Shape-1. The petitioner claims to have been in an accident and off work for 256 days, which the respondents approved of before allowing him to resume his job. Although the petitioner had not disclosed his medical condition, the 256 days were treated as unpaid leave for not doing any duties.

Petitioner was Shape 1 on January 4, 2014, but changed to Shape 2 again on August 6, 2015, and again on July 20, 2016. On April 11, 2017, it was suggested that he be placed under Shape-5 and removed from service. At another facility, the petitioner underwent a self-examination and was given the all-clear. 

The petitioner claims that despite repeated requests, he was not granted leaves. On 03.07.2017, just as he was about to leave for his hometown, he was informed that his Invalidation Medical Board (IMB) was scheduled in the 9th battalion and instructed to report there. When the petitioner arrived there, he was informed that there was no order for the formation of the IMB; as a result, he returned and reported to his 10th battalion. 

After that, the petitioner was under the doctor’s care, when he was deemed fit, but in the medical report, he was once more placed in the Shape-5 category. On the petitioner’s request, he was sent for a second test, during which time he was determined to be qualified to carry out his duties. But by instructions provided by the MHA, the defendants held the petitioner under observation in Shape-5 and forwarded him to IMB. The Medical Board recommended that the petitioner be terminated from ITBP services.

PETITIONER’S CONTENTION

When removing the petitioner from his position, the respondents, according to the petitioner’s knowledgeable attorney, failed to consider the provisions of Rule 23 of the ITBP Rules, 1994, which state that the officer or board issuing such an order must believe the incumbent is physically unfit, even though it is clear from Dr. Bhatnagar’s report that the petitioner was healthy on the day of his examination.

The seasoned attorney further argued that the MHA guidelines, do not state that anyone who is in Shape-5 must be terminated from employment. The Board considered the period from 2013 to 2016, which includes the 122 days that he was absent from work due to an accident rather than ADS. Since 2013, no complaint has been filed against the petitioner. The relevant fact is that neither of the doctors mentioned above determined that the petitioner had ADS and that he was therefore fit to carry out his obligations. It was argued that the respondent’sactions were malicious, and as a result, they should be disregarded.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION

The petitioner was discovered to be intoxicated and was sent for a medical examination, first to Composite Hospital, CRPF, Bhubaneshwar where he was kept in a Low Medical Category; next, he was referred to a Referral Hospital, ITBP for the opinion of a psychiatrist who opined it a case of “Mental and behavioral disorder due to use of alcohol, Harmful use,” according to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents.

Further claimed that the petitioner was assessed by a psychiatrist before being submitted to the IMB. The psychiatrist concluded that the petitioner had been given more than three years to improve and stop drinking, but he had failed and was held under Shape 5. He was then taken before the IMB, which, after considering the specialists’ opinion, advised that the petitioner board out on 06.12.2017.

JUDGEMENT

According to MHA guidelines dated 31.07.2007, para.235(f)(vi), the Controlling Authority is required to watch for any signs of relapse, but in the present case, we do not find any mention of a relapse of ADS in the petitioner. Instead, various reports from different doctors and psychiatrists at various points noted that the petitioner was in a normal, stable state of health.

The court ordered the respondents to have the petitioner examined to determine whether or not he is currently experiencing ADS. As a result, a Medical Board was established, and the petitioner had a physical examination at the Base Hospital in Delhi Cantt by Dr. Virendra Vikram Singh.

According to Dr. Virendra Vikram Singh, a prolonged full remission of the petitioner cannot be predicted with absolute confidence in light of the petitioner’s elevated AST/LFT and sickness, which has the potential for lapse and return. It is widely accepted that it is unfair to intervene in situations involving the Medical Board’s opinion while seated in an appellate or writ jurisdiction, particularly if the opinion is provided by subject-matter experts.

The petitioner may not be qualified to carry out the duties of the position to which he was assigned, but this Court believes that the punishment of “removal from service” meted out to him is excessive. This Court determines that if the petitioner received a lighter sentence, the interests of justice would be served.

As a result, the challenged orders from the respondents, dated 13.04.2021 and 05.05.2020, are hereby reversed. The petitioner will be regarded as having “compulsorily retired from service” and will be eligible for pensionary and other benefits as of the date he was let go from his position. The respondents have four weeks to issue the required orders and provide the necessary benefits.

The present petition is disposed of as a result of the instructions.

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

-Report by Sejal Jethva

ZAFAR BADYARI VS. SANDEEP SINGH, in this matter, the appellant/defendant seeks to challenge the decision made by the learned, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, according to Order 43 Rule 1 read with Section 104 CPC.

FACTS

The respondent/plaintiff had brought the underlying lawsuit, CS No.461/2021, following Order 37 CPC, to collect possession, licence fees, and damages of Rs.13,30,000. It was said in the lawsuit that the suit property, a shop on the ground level (apart from the mezzanine floor), had been licenced to the appellant for 11 months at a rate of Rs. 1,33,000 per month, minus additional costs. The dishonoured checks that the appellant had given to the respondent to cover the arrears were the basis for the lawsuit. The contested order states that on September 17, 2021, the appellant received summonses in the suit and was deemed to have been served. Due to the appellant’s refusal to present and/or submit a leave to defend under Rules 3 and 5 of Order 37 CPC, respectively, the trial court issued the ex-parte decree by using Rule 6 of Order 37. A finding of respondent serving of process had been made by the Trial Court.

APPELLANT’S CONTENTION

Rather than using Order 37 Rule 4 as provided for in the CPC, an application was submitted for the setting aside of the ex-parte decree under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC. The impugned order makes it clear that the trial court did not suffer any harm as a result of this misunderstanding and treated the case exactly as if it had been submitted in accordance with Order 37 Rule 4 and made identical decisions as such. The appellant did not establish “exceptional circumstances,” as the trial court noted in the impugned ruling, and this suggests that the trial court decided the application in accordance with Rule 4 of Order 37 and not Order 9 and Rule 13.

The appellant attempted to make arguments regarding the case’s merits, but given that the maintainability of the case has been questioned, this Court will first address the maintainability problem because the merits of the case are not currently a factor that should be taken into account. The learned counsel for the appellant was unable to cite any CPC provisions under which the appeal would fall, but he argued that because the two provisions, which essentially deal with the court’s ability to overturn an ex-parte decree, are similar, the appeal may be deemed to be maintainable against the Order 37 Rule 4 order because it is maintainable against an Order 9 Rule 13 order.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION

The respondent’s knowledgeable attorney, Mr. Aaditya Vijay Kumar, raised a preliminary challenge to the appeal’s maintainability. He claimed that because the contested ruling was issued in accordance with Order 37 Rule 4 CPC, it is not subject to appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC.

JUDGMENT

1. In order to speed up the resolution of commercial lawsuits, Order 37 CPC relates to the summary trial method. After being served, a defendant is obligated under sub-rule 2 to appear in court; otherwise, the averments in the plaint are deemed conceded, and the plaintiff is entitled to a decree. Within ten days of receiving the summons, the defendant must appear in court and submit a memo of appearance. The plaintiff must serve the defendant with a summons for judgment upon the defendant’s attendance, and the defendant must submit an application for leave to defend the action within ten days of receiving the summons. The Court then decides whether to grant unconditional leave to defend, conditional leave to defend with the conditions it may deem appropriate, or dismiss the leave to defend and pronounce the lawsuit. 

2. A challenge to the order issued in accordance with CPC Order 37 Rule 4 is not admissible under Order 43 Rule 1. As a result, the appeal is denied and the respondent’s initial objection is upheld. The appellant is free to look for a legal remedy if one is available. It is made clear that this Court has not addressed the arguments made by either party about the case’s merits.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/41IBTsZ

-Report by Nehha Mishra

In the case of DELMA LUBNA COELHO VS EDMOND CLINT FERNANDES, the petitioner filed the petition seeking the transfer of the pending case before the family judge at Mangaluru, Karnataka to the family court at Bandra, Mumbai, Maharashtra.

FACTS

The couple met on Facebook in December 2019 and married on December 5, 2020, according to Christian rites and customs at Our Lady of Miracles Church in Mangaluru. Following the marriage, the petitioner lived with the respondent in her matrimonial house in Mangaluru, where she was abused, insulted, and humiliated by the respondent and his family members.

She was accused of everything, and foul language was used against her. Under the guise of providing her with a 10-­15­day break, the respondent booked a one-way ticket for the petitioner and despatched her to Mumbai on January 15, 2021.

After COVID­19 Pandemic limitations were lifted on July 5, 2021, the petitioner returned to Mangaluru. The defendant and his family members, however, refused her admission into her matrimonial house. She was completely distraught. She went to the Pandeshwar Police Station in Mangaluru and filed a complaint. 

The Superintendent of Police intervened and summoned the respondent to the Police Station. The respondent replied that he has already served a divorce notice and that his divorce petition is being prepared.  Despite the petitioner’s repeated appeals, the respondent did not change his behaviour. On 06.08.2021, she responded to the legal notice, claiming that she is ready and eager to come to her matrimonial home and want to live a happily married life. On October 10, 2021, she received a summons from the Court, along with a copy of the divorce petition filed in the Mangaluru Family Court. 

PETITIONER’S CONTENTION

The petitioner’s learned counsel stated that she lives in Mumbai with her elderly parents. No one at her home can accompany her from Mumbai to Mangaluru to defend the petition, which is over 1,000 km away. She doesn’t even know the Kannada language.  The respondent, on the other hand, will experience no difficulties if the petition is relocated to Mumbai (Maharashtra).

The petitioner claims that if given the chance, she would try to rework the marriage. The petitioner was obliged to obtain a job with a bank because the respondent failed to financially support her. If she routinely travels to Mangaluru to attend the proceedings, she risks losing her job as a newbie. She will be unable to bear the additional expenditure.

The petitioner has filed a petition for restitution of marital rights in response to the respondent’s Divorce Petition. 

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION

On the other hand, experienced counsel for the respondent contended that, even though the parties met on social media, one year before their marriage, she had visited Mangaluru after the COVID19 Pandemic/restrictions were removed and they met often.  

She was well aware of the respondent’s familial background as well as the condition of his family. The petitioner’s behaviour was not the same after the marriage as it was before the marriage.

The petitioner, a permanent resident of Canada, was accustomed to such a way of life. The marriage was just intended to ruin the respondent’s life, even though she first claimed to love Indian culture and traditions. Though it is claimed that the respondent forced the petitioner to leave the matrimonial home, the petitioner chose to leave on her own.   She applied for a job with ICICI Bank immediately after arriving in Mumbai and resigned from the organizationon February 19, 2021, where she was working with the respondent.

The marriage was irretrievably broken since the parties could not reconcile despite several mediations. Without the parties’ consent, this Court may issue divorce under Article 142 of the Indian Constitution.

JUDGEMENT

In marriage disputes, several Transfer Petitions are filed, typically by wives requesting transfer of the matrimonial procedures launched by the husband. Normally, the court accepts the prayer given while being lenient towards ladies.

Given the status of the parties and the fact that it is a petition filed by the wife seeking transfer of the husband’s case from Mangaluru, Karnataka to Mumbai, Maharashtra, we believe no case is made out for transfer of the petition from Mangaluru, Karnataka to Mumbai, Maharashtra.  The wife is a Canadian permanent resident. She must travel abroad frequently.

She can travel to Mangaluru to attend the case hearing and can also request an exemption from the appearance when necessary. Despite this, we do not believe that there is a basis for ordering the respondent to reimburse the petitioner’s travel expenses to Mangaluru based on the financial circumstances of the parties as they currently stand. However, if she wishes to seek compensation for expenses, she may do so by applying with the appropriate court, which will be considered on its own merits. 

We do not believe this is a suitable case for exercising power under Article 142 of the Indian Constitution, despite the parties’ good faith. The judgments relied on by the respondent’s learned counsel are distinguishable, as in those cases, there was adequate evidence on file, and the cause on which the marriage was dissolved in the exercise of power under Article 142 of the Indian Constitution was an irretrievable breakdown of marriage, which is not a ground for dissolution of marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

We do not believe the current petition has substance for the reasons stated above.  As a result, the same is dismissed.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3Ak0sR6

About the Organization

A full-service law firm based out of Kolkata, founded in 1993 by Mr. Paritosh Sinha (the Advocate-on -Record for the State of West Bengal).

Eligibility

5th Year Student, Fresher

Requirements

• Can dedicate full-time working hours
• Interest in Arbitration Act and Civil Procedure Code.
• This will be a physical internship (no online mode of working allowed)

Application Procedure

Apply to career@sinhaco.com with the subject ” Long term Internship application for Arbitration Department “

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.

EXPLORE MORE SUCH OPPORTUNITIES HERE!

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 Organization

AAA Legal is a law firm with an illustrative legacy of 14 years of practice and advisory. Areas of practice include, Arbitration, Competition laws, Data protection, and Employment and labour laws among others.

Availability of slots

Two (2) slots

Mode

Physical internship

Internship Duration

May 2023.

Location

South Delhi

Application Procedure

Email your CV to contact@aaalegal.pro (The subject of email should read ‘Physical internship in May 2023’).

NOTE: Selected learners will receive an email confirmation by this weekend.

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.

EXPLORE MORE SUCH OPPORTUNITIES HERE!

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 Srishti

Delhi High Court in the case of LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER Vs SANTOSH & ORS. on April 18 passed an ex parte decision imposing a permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from using the plaintiff’s trademark for manufacturing and selling goods and granted other temporary reliefs.

FACTS:

The plaintiff company Louis Vuitton Malletier was set up in France and is a Frenchluxury fashion and leather goods company owning the brand named Louis Vuitton. In 2003, it established its first store in India and currently, there are three stores of the plaintiff in India. It uses its trademark ‘LV’ from the initials of the name of its owner Louis Vuitton. The plaintiff has been using its canvas designs since 1986 popularly known as ‘ Toile monogram’. The plaintiff has also registered its trademarks, ‘the LV’, ‘the Toile monogram pattern’, ‘the Damier pattern’, and ‘theLV flower pattern’. Their ‘LV’ trademark has also been included in the list of ‘well-known trademarks’ by the Indian Trademark Office.

Through the periodical market surveys in 2018, theplaintiff came to know about the selling and manufacturing of goods under histrademark by the defendant. Therefore the plaintiff appointed an investigator toascertain the activities of the defendant and the same was confirmed by theinvestigator. Accordingly, the suit was filed in the court for granting a permanentinjunction to restrain the defendant.

While keeping in view the irreversible damages that canbe caused to the plaintiff, the court on 23^rd February 2018 granted an interiminjunction against the defendant until the delivery of the final order. Hence, thedefendant was temporarily restrained from using the registered trademarks of the plaintiff. Also, three local commissions were set up to seize the manufactured products by the defendant under the trademarks of the plaintiff.

PLAINTIFF’S CONTENTIONS:

1) The assertions made by the plaintiff had not been rebutted and therefore, it was established that the defendant was aware of his illegal acts.

2) He had proved his goodwill and his reputation in respect of the trademarksby registration of the same.

3) He also succeeded in establishing statutory and common law rights as he was using his ‘LV’ trademark for a long time.

Since the defendant was not appearing in the court despite summons, theplaintiff pleaded for a permanent injunction.

DEFENDANT’S CONTENTIONS:

The defendant did not appear in court despite the service of a summons andalso, no written statements were filed by him.

JUDGEMENT:

The court while referring to Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs . Satish Kumar held ‘since, the defendant has maintained silence, therefore, the guilt of the defendantspeaks for itself’. Hence, it is evident that he’s aware of his illegal acts and has failed to contend the case on merits. Therefore, to avoid further irrevocable damages and to avoid deterioration of the plaintiff’s reputation, the court granted a permanent injunction against the defendant.

The defendants were ordered to provide compensation ofRs.5,00,000. to the plaintiff. As per the volume of seizure products, they were further liable to provide compensation of Rs.1,50,000 and the defendants engaged in manufacturing such products were made liable to compensateRs.3,50,000 in favour of the plaintiff. In total, Rs.9,59,413 was granted to the plaintiff which included fees of local commissions, court fees, and legal fees.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3mK9GTF

-Report by Kanishka

The recent judgment of ISOLATORS AND ISOLATORS THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR MRS. SANDHYA MISHRA V/S MADHYA PRADESH MADHYA KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO. LTD. & ANR. is concerned with the debarring of the contractor in course of tender.

FACTS:

The appellant, a sole proprietorship company, has been in the transformer manufacturing and maintenance industry for the past 30 years. Its facility is located at Govind Pura, Bhopal. The appellant’s only clients are distribution businesses (Discoms). Two renders were issued by the respondent Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Limited. No response on rescheduling the delivery and due to extraordinary storm accompanied by heavy rains caused the roof of their plant to collapse. Half of the project is ready to be delivered and the same was asked to defer by the respondent. Chief General Manager has cancelled all the purchase orders and debarred the company for 3 years and also imposed a fine of 27,98,960. The aggrieved party approached the high court Also high court didn’t even consider the other part(penalty) of the review petition. Nevertheless, the High Court issued an order that was identical to the chief general manager’s order.

APPELLANT’S CONTENTIONS:

The learned counsel for the appellant contended that there has been a violation of natural justice and there was no reason specified by the respondent for debarring the appellant. TS-494, the appellant had supplied 300 out of 586 transformers and as regards TS-532, the appellant had supplied all 63 KVA transformers. It was unlawful to terminate the order for the delivery of the remaining transformers after a significant quantity of transformers had been provided against purchase. The respondent intentionally had not considered the heavy rains resulting in damage to the plant and loss of raw material.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS:

It was contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the appellant has not performed on the terms and conditions of the contract and debarring was done after the hearing opportunity given to the appellant. The order has been given in the exercise of the relevant clauses of the purchase order. The termination order had never been challenged by the appellant and the same has attained finality. The learned counsel, imposition of penalty has been consequential to the aforesaid order the same had been as per the terms and conditions of the rate/contract/purchase order.

JUDGEMENT:

The court has quashed and set aside in debarment of the appellant and imposition of penalty, no recovery shall be made from the appellant thereunder and if any amount has been recovered, the same shall be refunded to the appellant within a month from today or else, it shall carry simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of recovery and until the date of repayment.

The further court explained that:-

1) Imposing of penalty 

A) the appellant was only made aware of the potential debarment in the show-cause notice, and nothing concerning the proposed imposition of penalty was included in the notice.

B) Without explaining why the maximum penalty was sought to be applied, the relevant body has gone ahead and levied the maximum fine of 10% of the deficit supply. The appellant’s list of pertinent considerations could not have been completely disregarded. The respondents have not provided a particular amount of loss in order to support the imposition of the maximum penalty.

Therefore, the lack of particular show-cause notice, the application of a penalty against the appellant cannot be allowed and it is to be set aside.

2) Debarring the appellant for 3 years 

The respondent themselves postponed taking the balance of delivering further there has been no instructions, or communication provided by the respondent to resume the supply. The debarment judgment had been made against the appellant without taking into account the evident factual situation, in which the appellant could not have been solely blamed or held responsible.

Court has also referred to a case Gorkha Security Services v. State (NCT of Delhi) where it was ruled that a prior show-cause notice granting a reasonable opportunity to be heard is a crucial component of all administrative decision-making, especially when those decisions involve blacklisting and carry serious repercussions for the entity being blacklisted. In these situations, providing a legitimate show-cause notice is essential, and failing to do so would render any order of blacklisting based on said order null and void.

Therefore, debarring the appellant for 3 years is also set aside.❖ Both of the orders could only be disapproved because the High Court failed to approach the situation correctly, whether in deciding the writ case or the review petition.

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

-Report by Arunima Jain

The Delhi High Court on Thursday while referring to Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994, upheld that the question of whether the notice or demand for recovery was given within a reasonable length of time considering the case’s facts and circumstances should be considered by the pertinent official. Moreover, it is established law that jurisdiction must be exercised within a reasonable amount of time even if a time limit is not specified. If there exist nojustified reasons to condone the delay cause, then the relevant case becomes unreasonable in the court of law. Through the case of Sanghvi Reconditioners Pt. Ltd. v. Union of India through the Secretary, Department of Revenue & Ors^., the court further iterated the fact that the definition of ‘reasonable time’ is sufficiently open-ended to take account of the particular facts and circumstances of each case.

FACTS

In the matter at hand, the petitioner is a partnership firm registered under the IndianPartnership Act, 1932. The petitioner company was a contractual worker which was tasked with building residential flats by the Housing Board, Haryana (HBH) during July 2005 which had been completed thereafter. The Anti-Evasion branch of the Respondent organisation proceeded investigation as to why the petitioner company hadn’t paid taxes amounting toapproximately

2.15 crores in addition to not having registered with the Service Tax Department.Accordingly show cause notices and letters were issued to the petitioner from the respondent. After initial proceedings, the petitioner did not receive further communication from the respondent, and considered the case to be closed. But the respondent further asked the petitioner to submitshow cause as to the inability to pay taxes. The show cause notices and letters are being challenged in the present court by the petitioner on the grounds of exceeding the limitationperiod and the nature of the contracts between the petitioner company and its clients beingstatutory bodies in nature.

CONTENTIONS

Petitioner

The petitioner’s learned counsel has submitted before the High Court that the contractsprovided by the Housing Board of Haryana were composite in nature and were solely ‘workcontracts. Moreover, since the construction of the residential flats was made in the interest ofpublic good, alongside HBH, the petitioner company was merely aiding in a statutory activityand was hence not liable for service tax. In addition, the petitioner also claimed that theperiod of limitation under Section 73 of the Finance Act, the present case had exceeded its capacity.

 Respondent

Contrary to the petitioner’s counsel, the respondent’s learned counsel submits that therespondent no.1 had immediately placed the matter at hand in the ‘Call Book’ with theapproval of the commissioner, as had been prescribed by the norms of the CBEC Circulars.Additionally, the respondent also claims that the petitioner was not eligible to attain 67%value of the benefits from the taxable service since the supplies for these services were received by the Petitioner at zero cost from the HBH.

JUDGEMENT

Upon giving due regards to the facts and law in the above-mentioned case, the Hon’ble HighCourt finds it challenging to accept that the impugned show cause notice could not have been decided upon because the Supreme Court was still debating the controversy it involved as regards to the matter of M/s Sobha Developers Ltd. when it came to the concept of ‘CallBooks.’ Even if the concept of such books was assumed to be true, it was still quintessentialfor the respondents to have maintained communication with the petitioner company which itwas unable to do. Moreover, there is no excuse for delaying the decision on the notice formore than fifteen years after the show cause notice and letters were issued. The respondents were directed to restrain from taking any actions regarding the same and the petition was allowed, disposing of all other pending applications.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/43EQvvj