Author: LEXPEEPS editor

Mint Law Associates, Advocates is looking to hire an associate /senior associate in Delhi. The firm specialises in fields such as arbitration, and civil and commercial litigation.

Positions

Two

PQE

3-5 Years

Location

Delhi

Qualification

LL.B. / B.A. LL.B

Job Description

Candidates should be well-versed in drafting, research, and court appearances.

Remuneration

As per industry standards.

Interested candidates can send applications (CV) to: umesh@mintadvise.com

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 Asatkalpa Consulting

Asatkalpa is a growing recruitment firm that believes in simplifying hiring for fast-growing startups. Through their tailor-made end-to-end recruitment solutions, they take on the challenge to connect their partner clients(you) to the most relevant and reliable talents while relieving you from this painstaking yet vital task. They have been at the forefront of the HR and Recruitment Services industry for more than a year, helping companies discover the best senior and middle-level talents to scale up.

They help one build a robust and long-lasting talent reputation responsible for the growth and success of the organization’s initiatives. From the time you hand over a part of or the entire recruitment process to us to the time they close it with the offer letter generation, they uphold our promise of transparency and handholding across Contingency Search, RPO, and Leadership Hiring services.

They are actively hiring for the role of “Sr. Legal Counsel” for a leading Fintech firm based at the Mumbai location.

Responsibilities

• Overseeing the litigation for and on behalf of our company
• Sending legal notices and replies to legal notices for and on behalf of our company respectively.
• Engaging with various law firms and lawyers to prepare strategies for various forms of litigations including but not limited to proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and to ensure the implementation of the aforesaid strategies.
• Reviewing the drafts of legal notices, petitions, complaints, plaints, replies, and rejoinders prepared by external lawyers, to be filed on behalf of our Company in ongoing as well as future litigations.
• Coordinating with the business team(s) to collect and collate documents for the purpose of filing any fresh case(s) on behalf of our company
• Keeping track of changes in laws applicable to the company and preparing internal notes and checklist(s) for the same.
• Assist in closing strategic deals with external partners, and services providers, resolving issues that arise in existing commercial relationships and handling pre-litigation legal disputes and inquiries.
• Assisting in drafting and reviewing various types of agreements such as Confidentiality Agreements, Data Sharing Agreements, Service Agreements, Client Agreements, Channel Partner Agreements, Terms & Conditions, Privacy policies etc.

Qualifications

• Law degree from a reputed university recognized by the Bar Council of India with CS qualified.
• Post-qualification work experience in the range of 3+ Yrs
• Strong analytical and interpersonal skills.
• Good communication (both written and verbal) skills.
• Prior experience in the FinTech or financial services industry would be preferred.
• The candidate should possess good research skills.
• Negotiation skills are required.

APPLY 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.

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 Mushkan Vasani

Supreme Court while hearing the special leave petition on 17th February 2023 in the case of S.M. Pasha & Ors. (Petitioner) Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors (Respondents) allows the petitioners to withdraw the special leave petition and dispose of all the pending applications if any.

FACTS:

In the present case, the Petitioners aggrieved with the judgement passed by the Hon’ble High Court Of Bombay in Writ Petition No. 6142/2014 and Writ Petition No. 5490/2014 filed these SLPs before this Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and the Petitioners (except petitioner no. 4) states that the development agreement with Respondent no. 5 is terminated by the present management / Maharashtra Housing and Development Authority (MHADA) and fresh development agreement is entered into with a new developer and the cause for this petition did not survive due to the change in circumstances.
However, Respondent No. 5 opposed the withdrawal of SLPs and challenged the termination of his development agreement by way of an Interim Application and also initiated perjury proceedings.

PETITIONERS CONTENTIONS:

The petitioner contended before this hon’ble court to permit the withdrawal of this Special Leave Petition no. 4428/2016.

RESPONDENTS CONTENTIONS:

The respondents opposed the withdrawal of SLPs and challenged the termination of the development agreement and fresh development agreement with the new developer and also consideration of perjury application in accordance with the law.

JUDGEMENT:

1. The Hon’ble Court after hearing all the facts in the present case dismissed the present SLP No. 4428/2016 due to a change in circumstances.
2. Condoned the delay with respect to SLP CC no. 4922/2016 and disposed of the SLP CC No. 4922/2016 by taking note of the termination of the development agreement and directing the present management to furnish a copy of the fresh development agreement to the tenants;
3. Also liberty is given to the tenants to challenge the fresh development agreement before the appropriate court/forum if the terms and conditions mentioned therein are not agreeable.
4. The Court also allowed respondent no. 5 to challenge the termination of his development agreement and subsequent development agreement before the appropriate court and allowed the perjury application for consideration on its merits.

CITATION: SLP(C) NO. 4428 OF 2016

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3XM704h

-Report by Pranav Mathur

The Gwalior Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, on the 15^th of February 2023, allowed for the partial acceptance of an appeal, by allowing a majority of it, in the case of Tinku@ Vijay Singh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh. The appeal was against the Trial Court’s decision of convicting the two appellants for murder, as punished under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the “IPC”), 1860. Provisions of the Arms Act, 1959 were also included in the charges, which one of the appellants was convicted for.

FACTS:

On the morning of the 10^th of December 2022, the two appellants arrived at the place of occurrence, an English Liquor shop. Both of them demanded alcohol, but on credit. When they were denied being given any, they hurled abuses at the workers there, and left, after exclaiming that they’d be returning shortly. Upon their return, they assaulted one of the workers of the liquor shop, and one of the appellants fired at him using a country-made pistol that he had procured. Subsequently, both of the appellants fled from the spot. The injured worker’s dying declaration was recorded, proceeding which he succumbed to his injuries after he was en route to a hospital. The appellants were charged with murder, and the appellant who shot the worker was additionally charged with Section 25 (1B) (a) read with Section 27 of the Arms Act. Both of them abjured their guilt, and pleaded their false implication in the case.

APPELLANTS’ CONTENTIONS:

The appellants contended that the decision of the Trial Court had been based on the misappreciation of evidence which had not been materially interpreted in the right perspective. Furthermore, they argued that the purported eye-witness in the present case cannot be considered as reliable since he witnessed the incident through gratings encasing the liquor shop, which have to have hampered with his vision during the incident. Additionally, they argued that the dying declaration of the injured worker does not bear the signature of a medical official, and his condition was critical at the time of his death. Had his condition not been critical, they argue, the injured worker would’ve filed the complaint himself, and not through a person. The other eye witnesses were relatives of the deceased, making them interested witnesses. They further contended that due to the non-deposition of the fact that a quarrel had arisen between the appellants and the deceased, mens rea cannot determinedly be proven. The pistol seized from the one of the appellants cannot truly be construed as the weapon of crime, as it had not been produced before the court, and the possibility of it being tampered cannot be ruled out, due to the delay in sending it for examination. They even contended that the statements of the witnesses and the deceased have contradictions in them which renders the entire case made by the prosecution rather doubtful. 

THE COURT’S CONTENTIONS AND THE JUDGMENT:

The Court concluded that fatal gunshots were, as a matter of fact, fired by one of the appellants, which led to the death of the deceased. The Court also opined that the Trial Court had, rather correctly, not given importance to minor depositional inconsistencies as they do not materially alter the case. The Court took the help of the case of Laxman v. State of Maharashtra and held that the dying declaration cannot be called unacceptable just because a doctor’s certificate of fitness was missing. Further, the Court held that the mere presence of relatives doesn’t make the dying declaration doubtful. At this juncture the Court recalled the maxim – nemo moriturus proseumitur mentiri – which means that when one is about to meet his maker, one does not lie. As for the nature of the crime committed, the Court opined that mens rea was absent in the conduct of the appellants, as they committed this offence in the heat of passion, which is considered an exception to the definition of murder, as given in Section 300 of the IPC. The non-recovery of the murder weapon is essential for conviction, however, if enough evidence is available on record, even in the absence of the weapon itself, it may still lead to a conviction, as was held in State through the Inspector of Police v. Laly @ Manikandan and Anr. The Court therefore altered their punishments from those of Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I of the IPC. Their sentences were subsequently reduced to the time they had already spent in prison, and hence, their appeal was partially allowed.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3Z0bKVb

–Report by Eshna Ray

A legal case involving criminal appeals filed by accused individuals and the State of Uttar Pradesh against a judgment of the High Court. The appeals challenge the conviction and sentences awarded by the Trial Court for various offences, including under the Indian Penal Code and the Arms Act. One of the accused has since died, leading to the abatement of one of the appeals. The State has filed appeals seeking enhancement of punishment, including the imposition of the death penalty.

FACTS:

This is a case of a quadruple murder in which the accused, including Braj Pal Singh, are charged with killing Vijay Pal Singh, his wife, son, and son-in-law while injuring his daughter. The prosecution’s case is based on the complaint made by Braj Pal Singh, who claimed to have found the victims with their necks cut, along with the statements of the two daughters of the deceased, Smt Pinky and Ms Rashmi. According to Smt Pinky, there was enmity between her father and Braj Pal Singh and his family, as well as their neighbour, Mukesh. She also claimed that Mukesh and Braj Pal Singh, along with others, assaulted her family with weapons and killed them. She further stated that Mukesh was ordered to “kill all of them.”

APPELLANT’S CONTENTIONS:

The appellants have raised multiple contentions before the appellate court. Firstly, they argue that the sole eyewitness in the case, Smt Pinky, is related to the deceased and has enmity with the appellants, making her an unreliable witness. Secondly, they claim that there is no other evidence to corroborate her testimony. Thirdly, they assert that Smt Pinky did not disclose the names of the assailants at the first instance, which suggests that her testimony has improved over time. Fourthly, they argue that the fact that a dog squad was summoned in the morning indicates that the assailants were unknown and that Smt Pinky did not actually see anyone or recognize them. Fifthly, they contend that the failure to examine Ms Rashmi and Horam, who was present at the place of occurrence, raises questions about the investigation. Sixthly, they claim that Smt Pinky’s statement was not recorded before the Magistrate under section 164 CrPC, which creates doubt. Seventhly, the appellant Ravi argues that Smt Pinky did not take his name before the Investigating Officer, and his name has been mentioned for the first time during the trial as an improvement. Lastly, the amicus appearing for the appellant Mukesh has referred to various discrepancies in the testimony of the witnesses.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS:

The respondent-State’s main contention is that the findings of the Trial Court and the High Court are based on thorough scrutiny and appreciation of the evidence on record and do not require any interference. The State argues that the appellants, being close relatives and neighbours of the deceased, committed the ghastly act of brutally murdering four members of the same family and attempting to murder the injured witness Smt Pinky, who lost a couple of fingers of her upper hand in the act of protecting herself.

The State further argues that the appellants committed the murders to gain property and settle their score of enmity. Therefore, no leniency should be shown to them, and the High Court committed an error in commuting the death sentence to life imprisonment. The State contends that the sentence of life imprisonment awarded by the High Court should be set aside, and that of the Trial Court of the death sentence be restored.

JUDGEMENT: 

In Criminal Appeal Nos. 598-600 of 2013 and Criminal Appeal No. 337 of 2014, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by the accused and affirmed their conviction under Sections 302, 396, and 394 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, and the sentences awarded to them by the trial court and upheld by the High Court.

The prosecution relied on the testimony of a reliable witness who was injured during the attack and her statement under section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The witness was fully supported by her testimony, and nothing was elicited during cross-examination that weakened her testimony. The daughters of the deceased did not speak out at the time of the attack but later provided information to the Investigating Officer, leading to the arrest of the accused. The non-examination of certain witnesses and the failure to obtain a statement under section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code did not affect the conviction. The appeals filed by the accused were dismissed, and their sentence was upheld. The appeals filed by the state for enhancement of the sentence were also dismissed, and the accused were ordered to serve out their sentence.

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

The Indra Sawhney vs Union of India case, also known as the Mandal Commission case, was a landmark case in the history of the Indian judiciary. The case, heard by a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court, dealt with the issue of reservation in government jobs and education for the socially and economically backward classes of Indian society, also known as Other Backward Classes (OBCs). The judgment, in this case, has had far-reaching implications for Indian society and polity.

Background and facts

The Mandal Commission, formally known as the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes Commission, was set up by the Indian government in 1979 to identify socially and educationally backward classes (SEBCs) in India and make recommendations for their advancement. In 1980, the Commission submitted its report to the government, recommending that 27% of all government jobs and seats in educational institutions be reserved for SEBCs. This recommendation was implemented in 1990 by then Prime Minister V.P. Singh, leading to protests and agitation across the country.

The implementation of the Mandal Commission recommendations in 1990 was met with widespread protests and opposition, particularly from upper-caste communities, who argued that it violated the principle of meritocracy and was unconstitutional. The government defended the policy, arguing that it was necessary to provide opportunities to historically marginalized communities and to address the historical injustices of caste discrimination. Several petitions were filed in various high courts challenging the implementation of the reservation policy for OBCs, and eventually, the matter reached the Supreme Court. The apex court, in its judgment in the Indra Sawhney vs Union of India case, addressed several issues related to reservation and its implementation.

The case was first heard by a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court in 1992, which delivered a split verdict.

Procedural History

The procedural history of the case can be divided into the following stages:

The Mandal Commission Report: In 1979, the Mandal Commission was constituted by the Government of India to identify the socially and educationally backward classes (SEBCs) in the country and recommend measures for their upliftment. In 1980, the Commission submitted its report, which recommended that 27% of government jobs and seats in educational institutions be reserved for SEBCs.

Implementation of the Mandal Commission Report: The implementation of the Mandal Commission Report was challenged in various courts across the country. In 1990, the government issued an office memorandum implementing the recommendations of the Commission. This led to widespread protests and agitation by various groups, including students and job seekers.

The Indra Sawhney Case: In 1992, a group of petitioners led by Indra Sawhney, a former civil servant, filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court challenging the implementation of the Mandal Commission Report. The petitioners contended that the reservation policy violated the fundamental right to equality enshrined in the Indian Constitution.

Constitution Bench: The case was heard by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court comprising nine judges. The hearings began in 1992 and continued for almost five years. The bench heard arguments from both sides and also received inputs from various experts and stakeholders.

Interim Orders: During the pendency of the case, the Supreme Court issued several interim orders. In 1993, the court directed that the reservation policy would not be applicable to posts and seats meant for technical and professional courses. In 1997, the court directed that the creamy layer among the SEBCs should be excluded from the benefits of reservation.

Judgment: In 1999, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court delivered its judgment in the case. The court upheld the constitutional validity of the reservation policy but imposed certain restrictions and conditions. The court held that the reservation should not exceed 50% and that it should be reviewed periodically. The court also held that the creamy layer among the SEBCs should be excluded from the benefits of reservation.

Controversies and Criticisms: The judgment in the Indra Sawhney case has been the subject of several controversies and criticisms. Some have criticized the court for diluting the concept of equality by upholding the reservation policy. Others have criticized the court for imposing arbitrary restrictions and conditions on the policy. However, the judgment remains a landmark in Indian legal history and continues to shape the discourse on reservations in the country.

Judgment

The Supreme Court of India rendered a historic decision in the 1992 case of Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, also referred to as the Mandal Commission case. The issue concerned the implementation of reservations for the socially and economically underprivileged sectors of Indian society in government employment and educational institutions. The Supreme Court’s nine-judge panel issued the ruling, which upheld the constitutionality of OBC reservations in government employment and educational settings. However, it also set certain limitations and conditions for the implementation of reservations.

One of the main issues before the court was whether the classification of the OBCs as a separate category was constitutional. The court held that the classification was based on intelligible differentia and was therefore constitutionally valid. The court also addressed the issue of the maximum limit for reservations. It held that the total reservation should not exceed 50% of the available seats or posts. However, it also allowed for exceptional circumstances where a higher percentage of reservations may be justified.

The court further emphasized that reservations should not be granted on the basis of economic criteria alone and that social and educational backwardness should be the primary criterion for determining eligibility for reservations. The judgment also dealt with the issue of creamy layer exclusion, which refers to excluding the relatively well-off members of the reserved categories from the benefits of reservations. The court held that the creamy layer exclusion should be applied to the OBCs as well and that the exclusion should be based on economic criteria. The court also directed the central government to create a permanent body to regularly review the implementation of reservations and to identify the backward classes that are in need of affirmative action.

Overall, the Indra Sawhney v. Union of India judgment has had a significant impact on the implementation of reservations in India. It has helped to ensure that reservations are not granted arbitrarily or on the basis of economic criteria alone and has set clear guidelines for the implementation of reservations in a fair and just manner.

Analysis

Reservations for Other Backward Classes were implemented as a result of the Mandal Commission Report (OBCs).

The “Creamy Layer” theory was developed by the court to deny the benefits of reservation to specific OBC groups based on their socioeconomic standing.

The Indra Sawhney judgment is a landmark judgment for several reasons. First, it upheld the constitutional validity of reservation for OBCs, but with certain restrictions. The court held that the total reservation, including reservations for SCs and STs, should not exceed 50% of the vacancies. The court also held that the reservation policy should not be based solely on caste but on the backwardness of the classes. The court further held that the creamy layer, i.e., the socially and economically advanced among the OBCs, should be excluded from the benefits of reservation.

Second, the court gave a detailed analysis of the concept of social backwardness and its relationship with caste. The court observed that social and educational backwardness can be caused by several factors, including poverty, lack of access to education, and geographical isolation. The court held that caste can be a factor in determining social backwardness but cannot be the sole criterion.

Third, the court recognized the importance of affirmative action in ensuring social justice and equality in a society marked by historical discrimination and oppression. The court observed that the Constitution of India envisages a society based on equality and social justice, and affirmative action is necessary to ensure that the benefits of development reach all sections of society.

Fourth, the court recognized the need to balance the competing claims of different sections of society. The court observed that while reservation is an important tool for social justice, it should not be at the cost of efficiency and merit. The court held that reservation should be a temporary measure and should be reviewed periodically to ensure that it does not perpetuate backwardness or lead to reverse discrimination.

Fifth, the court recognized the importance of diversity in a democratic society. The court held that diversity is a source of strength and vitality in a democracy, and any attempt to homogenize society would be against the spirit of the Constitution.

The Indra Sawhney judgment has had a significant impact on Indian society and polity. First, it has led to the implementation of reservation for OBCs in government jobs and educational institutions, leading to greater representation of OBCs in the public sphere. The judgment has led to a debate on the efficacy of reservation as a tool for social justice. While some have argued that reservation has led to the empowerment of the socially and economically backward classes, others have argued that it has perpetuated caste-based discrimination and led to a decline in the standards of education and administration.

Conclusion and Suggestions

The Supreme Court upheld the government’s decision to provide reservations for SEBCs in a limited manner, while also placing certain restrictions on the quantum of reservation and the definition of SEBCs.

The case’s conclusion and suggestions include:

The government can provide reservations for SEBCs, but it should be based on their social and educational backwardness, not their economic status. The reservation for SEBCs should not exceed 50% of the total seats/jobs, and there should be no reservation for the creamy layer. The government should regularly review the list of SEBCs to ensure that only the truly backward classes receive the benefits of reservation. The reservation policy should not undermine the merit-based selection process, and the reserved category candidates must meet the minimum qualifying standards. The government should also work on improving the educational and social status of the backward classes to reduce their dependence on reservations.

This case analysis is done by Vishal Menon, from Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad.

Economic Laws Practice are currently seeking a lawyer (𝟬 𝘁𝗼 𝟮 𝘆𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲) for their 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗲𝘁𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗟𝗮𝘄 & 𝗣𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗰𝘆 team in Delhi.

Roles and Responsibilities

• Candidates with prior experience in the area of competition law will be preferred.
• Strong communication skills
• Strong research skills
• Must be a competition law enthusiast
• Must be able to work well with a tight-knit team
• Must be self-driven and should take up responsibilities for publications and other team / firm initiatives
• Association with initiatives such as competition law publications / online blogs/ podcasts, etc., will be given due weightage.

Qualification

LLB/LLM

Application Process

Interested candidates may write to careers@elp-in.com

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 CEERA

Centre for Environmental Law Education Research & Advocacy (CEERA), NLSIU, Bengaluru. National Law School of India University, established in 1997, is a Research Centre at NLSIU, headed by Prof. Dr. Sairam Bhat, Professor of Law at NLSIU. CEERA focuses on research and policy advocacy in the field of environmental law while building an environmental law database, effectively networking among all stakeholders, undertaking training and capacity development exercises, providing consultancy services, and building an environmental law community are CEERA’s main objectives.

About the Internship

• Candidates should be at least in their 3rd year of the Five-Year Integrated Law Programme.
• Candidates should have a learning curve toward Research, strong writing skills, and the ability to draft, review, edit, and proofread.
• Candidates will be made to sign a Non-Disclosure & Confidentiality Agreement for the maintenance of integrity. Indemnity will apply.
• Candidates must have a stable and strong broadband/internet connection to work remotely. (in case of online Internships).

Mode of Internship

Online/Offline

Internship Duration

Not less than 28 days, starting from March 01, 2023

Application Process

Interested candidates can write to Jaibatruka Mohanta at ceera@nls.ac.in / jaibatruka.mohanta@nls.ac.in. With the subject line: Application for Offline/Online Internship | March 2023
Mandatory Attachments: Curriculum Vitae and a sample of prior research work.

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 Mushkan Vasani

High Court Of Bombay at Aurangabad Bench while hearing the writ petition on 16th February 2023 in the case of Rohit Enterprises (Reg. no. 27AHQPD2485F1Z7) Through its proprietor, Changdeo Punjaji Deokar (Petitioner) Versus The Commissioner State GST Bhavan, The Dy. Commissioner, State Tax (Appeal) and The State Tax Officer. (Respondents), allowed the writ petition by restoring the GST registration number and setting aside the order passed by the State Tax Officer and the Dy. Commissioner, State Tax (Appeal).

FACTS:

In the present case, the petitioner is a proprietary firm engaged in the business of fabrication work. And is registered in the year 2018 under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (GST Act) as well as Maharashtra State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Petitioner states that the firm suffered a huge loss in the pandemic situation and the proprietor had undergone angioplasty during that period due to which the GST returns from August 2021 could not be filed.

However, Section 29(2) of the GST Act enables the concerned officer to cancel registration if the registered person/firm fails to furnish three consecutive returns. The State Tax Officer, Aurangabad (Respondent No. 3) issued a notice calling upon the petitioner to furnish his explanation within a period of 7 working days. The notice stipulated that the registration of the petitioner stood suspended. The petitioner replied to the notice within the given period citing the reason for the financial crunch. However, the State Tax Officer vide its order dated 14-03-2022 cancelled the registration with effect from 28-02-2022.

The petitioner requested for revocation of the cancellation of registration but the State Tax Officer issued a notice for rejection of the application. The petitioner was called upon to furnish the reply within 7 days along with some specific documents and a late filing penalty. The matter was taken up for hearing and finally, the State Tax Officer vide its order rejected the application of the petitioner seeking revocation of cancellation.

Further, the petitioner filed an appeal challenging cancellation of registration before the Dy. Commissioner/State Tax (Appeal), Aurangabad Division but however the appeal was rejected on technical grounds as it was time-barred and hence this petition is filed before this Hon’ble Court.

PETITIONERS CONTENTIONS:

The petitioner contended before this hon’ble court that :

1. The order passed by the Dy. Commissioner (Appeal) Aurangabad (Appellate authority) be set aside and quashed.
2. The Order passed by the State Tax Officer for cancellation of registration and suspending the registration w.e.f. 28.2.2022 may kindly be quashed and set aside.
3. And Finally that the petitioner registration no.27AHQPD2485F1Z7 is valid from 28.02.2022 onwards.

RESPONDENTS CONTENTIONS:

The respondents supported the impugned order.

JUDGEMENT:

The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad Bench while referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. Vs Union of India reported in (1997) allowed the petition by quashing the order dated 28-02-2022 suspending the GST registration, the order dated 14-03-2022 cancelling GST registration of the petitioner passed by the State Tax Officer and the order dated 21-10-2022 passed by the Dy. Commissioner of Tax, Aurangabad (Appeal) (Appellate Authority) and declared that the registration No.27AHQPD2485F1Z7 in the name of the petitioner is valid from 28-02-2022 onwards subject to the condition that the petitioner files up-to-date GST returns and deposits entire pending dues along with applicable interest, penalty, late fees in terms of Rule 23 (1) of MAST Rules, 2017

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3Ivp529

CITATION: (1997) 5 SCC 536

–Report by Arun Bhattacharya

A nearly two-decade-old issue of landowners who have been divested from their lands for the construction of Express Highway was relieved on receiving orders regarding due compensation by the hon’ble Supreme Court of India on Wednesday (15th February 2023) in the matter of RAVINDER KUMAR GOEL versus THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

FACTS:

A certain extent of 798 Kanals and 2 Marlas of land were acquired by the Haryana Government Industries Department in 2005 due to the construction of Express highway Phase VII which would connect National Highway numbers 1,10,8 and 2. The District Revenue cum Land Acquisition Collector had declared an amount of approximately twelve lakh rupees per acre for the said lands. On seeking reference from the Reference Court, they were given a consideration of approximately forty-three lakh rupees per acre which was again enhanced by the High Court to nearly sixty-two lakh rupees per acre amount.

FIRST APPEAL:

Both the landowners and the State had filed appeals before the apex court under the title Surender Singh v. State of Haryana whereby the matters were remanded back to the Reference court which after further consideration revalued the amount of compensation to approximately twenty-two lakh rupees per acre. Appeals by both parties were again filed before the High Court which rectified the amount again to nearly fourteen lakh rupees per acre. On such occasion, the land losers filed another appeal to the apex court with the demand for further rectification of the said compensation value.

APPELLANT’S CONTENTION:

The appellants primarily contended the fact that the lands which were under consideration were part of an urban agglomeration and had served purposes other than merely agricultural and hence the determination of compensation on such lands assuming them to be purely agricultural would be faulty. They also highlighted their grievance regarding the Reference Court’s decision to deduction of 35 per cent as development charges. They argued that since the purpose of such acquisition was for the construction of roadways hence such acquisitions must be treated as sale deeds and compensation thereby must be determined in compliance with their market values.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION:

The Reference Court had relied upon certain Exemplars which were in connection to lands which amounted to 798 Kanals 2 Marlas while determining the compensation in the present case. This was pointed out to be unjustified due to the non-representation of the true value of such lands. They further pointed out that the Land Acquisition Officer was correct in his determination of compensation since he had relied upon nine sale Exemplars during the very same period wherein large extents of agricultural lands were sold and per acre value for those said transactions were lower than what was determined by the LAO.

JUDGEMENT:

The hon’ble apex court did an in-depth analysis of the contentions of both parties, relied upon different judgments like State of Gujarat vs. Kakhot SinghJi VajesinghJi Vaghela observed that “the principle that the price agreed between a willing seller and a willing purchaser would be the price which is generally prevailing in the market in respect of the lands having similar advantages which can be the basis to determine the market value of acquired lands if such sale instances are brought on record.” Considering all the valid points referred by the Reference Court, the apex court stated that since the purpose of such acquisition was the construction of roadways, it is prudent that development charges are bound to occur and declared that twenty-five per cent of charges must be paid in accordance to development cost which resulted in a deduction of nearly eight lakh rupees from the initial thirty-three lakhs. Thus the final amount to be paid in compensation was calculated to be twenty-five lakhs per acre approximately by the apex court concluding a nearly two-decades-long litigation.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/40ZLYC9