Tag: #lawstudents

-Report by Utkarsh Kamal

In this case, The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that the State cannot be forced to create posts and hire qualified individuals without sanctioned positions. In this case, the Bench comprising Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Bela M. Trivedi was deciding a case pertaining to the reinstatement and regularisation of members of the ‘Makkal Nala Paniyalargal’, or Village Level Workers were members of the Makkal Nala Paniyalargal (MNP) organizations who worked in Tamil Nadu.

FACTS:

A program offering jobs to educated youngsters in rural regions who had completed the 10th standard was started by the Tamil Nadu government in 1989. In the entire State, 25,234 MNPs (Makkal Nala Paniyalargal/Village Level Workers) were employed. The program was abandoned by the government in 1991. As a result, those hired through the program had their employment terminated. The scheme was reinstated in 1997 by government order, and it was abandoned once more in 2001. The government devised a plan in 2006 to transfer those who had been hired as Panchayat Assistants and part-time clerks to any scale as of September 1st, 2006. The Government announced in an order dated 2008 that it would take into account filling 50% of open positions in the cadre of record clerks, office assistants, night watchmen, and analogous posts from MNP. The government hired 600 MNPs to work as night watchmen and official assistants in local panchayats. The period of MNPs was extended by two years till May 31, 2012, subject to absorption. However, the Government disbanded MNPs in the interim on November 8, 2011. The Government order was contested before the Madras High Court, and the Single Judge permitted it. The decision made by the single judge was upheld by the Division Bench. In response to an appeal, the Supreme Court gave notice and suspended the High Court’s decision. The Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Jobs Guarantee Scheme is a program that the State Government started in 2022 to give jobs to educated unemployed youth. The majority of the 13,500 MNPs had enrolled in the program, while 489 MNPs had declined the chance.

LAW:

The schedule of the Act included the State of Tamil Nadu. According to Section 3 of the Act, each State must implement a program that offers every household in rural areas covered by the Scheme, whose adult members agree to perform unskilled manual labour, at least 100 days of guaranteed employment in a fiscal year. The Court remarked that the 2005 Act’s provision of the benefit made by the State of Tamil Nadu’s plan remains in effect.

ISSUE:

Whether the government can be compelled to create posts and absorb those in service in the absence of sanctioned posts?

APPELLANT’S CONTENTION:

The appeals court would be the least qualified to determine whether the government acted honestly in creating a post or refusing to create a post or whether its decision suffers from malice (legal or factual), according to the appellants, who argue that creation and abolition of posts rest with the government and is a matter of government policy, which can always be exercised in the interest and necessity of internal administration.Because these appointments were not made in accordance with the State Government’s formation against a cadre post, the service conditions of which are governed by the service regulations established in accordance with the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. The current appointments are made solely to give educated youngsters in rural regions employment as MNPs in the implementation of various schemes at the village level for an honorarium that has periodically been updated.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION:

A court must review every government decision to create or eliminate posts, especially if it goes against established service rules or constitutional clauses. The respondent may contend that the creation of positions purely to give educated children in rural areas work is not a proper use of public funds and may not be a valid government policy. The respondent may further argue that rather than being subject to arbitrary periodic modifications, the service conditions of such posts should be governed by established regulations.

JUDGMENT:

The National Rural Employment Guarantee Act was passed by the Central Government in 2005 to provide direct supplemental wage employment to rural citizens, the Supreme Court remarked. In a fiscal year, it guaranteed at least 100 days of paid employment. The schedule of the Act included Tamil Nadu as a state. According to Section 3 of the Act, each State must adopt a program that offers every household in rural areas covered by the program, whose adult members agree to perform unskilled manual labour, at least one hundred days of guaranteed work in a fiscal year. The Court determined that the 2005 Act-adopted benefit offered by the State of Tamil Nadu’s plan is still in effect. The court took note of the High Court’s ruling that employees who lost their jobs as a result of the government order disbanding the program in 2011 are not only entitled to reinstatement but also to be regularised in service after the post was created. 

According to the Supreme Court, judges cannot command the creation of jobs. The MNPs were hired through a system and received honoraria rather than compensation for holding a cadre position.

After the scheme expired, the Divisional Bench ruled that MNPs were not eligible for reinstatement or regularisation of service. Hench overruled the judgment of the High Court.

READ FULL JUDGMENT: https://bit.ly/419WE0D

-Report by A.K. Sooraj

The Delhi High Court in the case of  Rashmi Sehrawat vs Praveen Sehrawat held that the failure to comply with the orders of maintenance, even after giving several opportunities, amounts to contempt of court.

 FACTS:

The contempt petition was filed by the petitioner, wife stating that the Respondent, husband was in wilful disobedience and deliberate non-compliance with the order dated 18.09.2019 passed by the Mahila Court, New Delhi ( Trial Court), whereby the Respondent was directed to pay a monthly maintenance amount of Rs. 35,000, including rent, for the two minor sons and the Petitioner from the date of application to the disposal of the case. This contempt petition was filed by the Petitioner on 24.08.2020, given the absolute non-compliance of the said order dated 18.09.2019. The petition alleged that since the date of the order, the Respondent has not made any payments. The aforementioned order of 18.09.2019 had been challenged by both parties, and the cross-appeals were dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi in an order dated 12.11.2020. A finding was returned by the Appellate  Court that the monthly income of the Respondent is Rs. 65,000. The Appellant Court directed the Respondent to pay to the Petitioner an amount of Rs. 5000 per month for the maintenance of each child and apart from that he was directed to pay Rs. 10000 per month for the school fees of each child. In addition, the Respondent was directed to pay Rs 10000 per month for the Petitioner towards the maintenance and Rs. 5000 towards the rent. The Appellate Court determined the sum total of the monthly amount of maintenance as Rs. 45000 subjects to the variation on account of school fees.

ARGUMENTS OF THE PETITIONER:

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was Rs. 15,45,000 in maintenance arrears as of the current date for the petitioner and her young children. He said that this did not include the minor children’s unpaid school expenses. He claims that the Respondent in this case has a sizable rental revenue of 10–12 lakhs per month based on instructions from the Petitioner. According to him, the respondent in this case and his family are the owners of 32 units in Mahipalpur. He further refers to the Petitioner’s averments, which allege that the Respondent sold the Greater Noida villa for Rs. 49,00,000 in 2018. He claims that the Trial Court had directed the Respondent to present an account of the relevant transaction and specifics of how the relevant sum had been spent. He claims that the Respondent has purposefully disobeyed the aforementioned directive and has not yet supplied it. He added that the minor children were being harassed for fee demands and made fun of by the relevant school as a result of the Respondent’s actions in failing to pay their tuition on time.

ARGUMENTS OF THE RESPONDENT:

The learned counsel for the Respondent claimed in a computation that the amount of arrears due and payable as of 01.02.2023 was Rs. 8,52,333. The Petitioner disputed the computation and the statement of payments attached, refusing to accept the entries made therein. On February 15, 2023, he restated his arguments from February 13 to the effect that the petitioner could not continue the current contempt proceedings since she had submitted an execution petition that was still being decided by the Trial Court. He also added that the non-compliance with the orders was not wilful or intentional. He claimed that despite his best efforts, the Respondent was unable to pay the arrears under the conditions of the maintenance order due to the Respondent’s meagre income.

JUDGEMENT:

The current matter has been listed 32 times. Even as of the date the decisions were reserved, the amount of accepted maintenance arrears owed by the Respondent was Rs. 8,52,333 (which, according to the Petitioner, should be Rs. 15,45,000). The Respondent had not made the payments of the admitted arrears even after repeatedly, seeking time from this Court to clear the same. the Respondent is a 50-year-old professional, holding a degree and therefore, in accordance with the judgement in Anju Garg vs Deepak Kumar Garg, 2022 SCC OnLine 1314, capable of earning and maintaining his wife and children. Respondent had numerous opportunities and undertakings, but he had failed to follow the maintenance directives. The Respondent was adjudged to have committed contempt of court and was subject to punishment under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, as the Court was of the opinion that the Respondent was defiant and wilfully and intentionally disobeyed the undertakings made to the Court and orders made by the Trial Court, Appellate Court, and the Court in these proceedings. The Court sentenced the respondent, contemnor, Mr. Praveen Sehrawat, to undergo two months of simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 2000, and in default of the payment of the fine, he shall further undergo fifteen days of simple imprisonment. Following the judgement in Sonali Bhatia vs Abhivansh Narang, the Court directed that the Respondent exhibit his apology by complying with the orders of the Trial Court as modified by the Appellate Court, and directions issued by the Court makes payment of entire arrears of maintenance within ten (10) days and undertakes to continue to pay the maintenance until the order dated 12.11.2020 continues to remain in force, and tenders an unconditional apology to the Court, the Court shall consider recalling the punishment of Respondent undergoing simple imprisonment, provided the respondent complies with the aforesaid directions within 10 days. However, he was instructed to appear before the Jail Superintendent at the Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi, on April 20, 2023, if he does not abide by the aforementioned instruction within the time allotted.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3zOvT5X

-Report by Anurag Sinha

To review the environmental clearance given by the Ministry of Environment, Forest, and Climate Change (MoEF &CC) for the project by the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Integrated Development Corporation (the project) in Great Nicobar Islands, the Eastern Zone bench of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) has established a High-Powered Committee.

FACTS:

At the southernmost point of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, a massive project will be carried out. An international airport, a terminal for trans shipping containers internationally, a township development, and a 450 MVA gas and solar-powered power plant are all included in the project, which spans an area of 16,610 hectares on the island. The NGT was hearing the appeal filed by the Conservation Action Trust and others against the Environment and Forest Clearances granted by the MoEF&CC for the project, including the clearance for the diversion of 130.75 sq. km of forest land under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, on Great Nicobar Island.

APPELLANT’S CONTENTION:

The main contentions on behalf of the appellants are that the project will have an adverse impact on the rich biodiversity of the area and damage the habitats of the endangered species. The appellants emphasized that due to the existence of numerous coral colonies, the location of the port, which is a component of the project, is specifically forbidden in the CRZ-IA region. Additionally, the coast will erode as a result. While a thorough impact evaluation necessitates data collection for three seasons, this assessment only uses data from one season.

Additionally, the appellants argued that the Shompen tribes and Nicobari groups must be kept apart due to government policy, which has not been taken into account in this case. This element disregards the Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Protection of Aboriginal Tribes) Regulation of 1956 and the Forest Rights Act of 2006, respectively. Additionally, a recognized firm has not carried out the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). There are two national parks – Campbell Bay National Park (in the North) and Galathea National Park (in the South) which also will be adversely impacted, added the appellants.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS:

The project is important for Great Nicobar Island’s overall development as well as for defense, national security, and strategic reasons, according to responders MoEF&CC and the Project Proponent. With the completion of the project, India will have a stronger presence in Southeast Asia and the Andaman Sea. Additionally, a significant cargo transhipment terminal will be built, and a popular tourist destination will be established. The respondents claimed that the development of an international transhipment terminal offers significant prospects to further boost India’s commercial standing in the international arena.

JUDGEMENT:

After hearing arguments from both sides, the Tribunal determined there was no reason to interfere with the forest clearance, noting the necessity for both national security and economic development, neither of which could be proved to be unimportant. Regarding environmental clearance, the Tribunal asserted that the prescribed procedure had been followed, which included holding open forums, creating an environmental impact assessment (EIA), conducting an EAC assessment, preserving wildlife habitats, taking tribal welfare into account, and organizing necessary conservation measures. According to the MoEF&CC and the PP, all required steps will be implemented, eco-sensitive regions will not be covered, corals will be safeguarded, and the area proposed to be a part of the Port that is prohibited according to the CRZ notification will not be included. The Tribunal has directed that further work in pursuance of the impugned EC should not proceed, except for the work that may not be of an irreversible nature.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3ZPG3hr

-Report by Mehul Jain

It was held by the Delhi High Court in the case of M/S THE COMMERICAL ELECTRIC WORKS & ORS VS SHARDA GUPTA that the Delhi High Court on April 06, while not changing the decision of Trial Court for giving landlady property to his grandson for bona fide needs. Because of the dicta of the Supreme Court, this Court is of the view that the issues raised by the Petitioner herein do not merit any interference and the finding of the Trial court does not suffer from any infirmity. The petition of the petitioner is dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court.

FACTS

The judgment is made by the learned Single Judge bench on 06 April 2023. The judgment is given by “HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA”. This revision petition has been filed by the Petitioners, tenants, assailing the eviction order dated 23.03.2019, passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (‘Trial Court’), in Eviction Petition No. E-150/16 (New No. 15/17).

The Respondent, the landlady, is stated to be the owner of the entire property bearing No. 1814-1815, ward No. IV, Chandni Chowk, Delhi (‘subject property’) which comprises a Ground Floor (‘GF’), Mezzanine Floor, First Floor (‘FF’), Second Floor (‘SF’), and Third Floor (‘TF’).

The Respondent filed the eviction petition for recovery of the commercial premises being the ground floor, mezzanine floor, and third floor of property No. 1814-1815, ward No. IV, Chandni Chowk, Delhi (‘tenanted premises’) located in the subject property. The eviction petition was filed by the landlady on the plea that she has a bona fide need for her grandson i.e., Mr. Kanishk Gupta, who has recently graduated and wants to establish, run and operate his own business or join the landlady in her existing business and expand the said business, from the tenanted premises. It was asserted that there is no other commercial property owned by the landlady. However, before this Court, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners has restricted his oral submissions to assail the findings concerning bona fide need on the plea that FF and SF of the subject property are lying vacant and are therefore, available to the landlady for the alleged business of her grandson. The Trial Court after considering the submissions of the parties held that the Respondent is the owner as well as landlady in respect of the tenanted premises. The Trial Court further held that the tenanted premises are bona fide and required for the business of the grandson. The Trial Court rejected the submission of the Petitioners herein that the landlady has suitable alternative accommodation on the FF and SF of the subject property. The Trial Court relied upon the photographs placed on record to opine that the FF and SF are in a dilapidated condition. The Trial Court, further, held that there is no parity between commercial premises located on the ground floor vis-à-vis upper floors. In light of the aforesaid facts and findings, the Trial Court rejected the application seeking leave to defend and passed the impugned eviction order.

PETITIONER CONTENTION

The petitioner’s counsel states that the tenanted premises are not bona fide required by the Respondent, landlady, since her grandson, for whose bona fide need the tenanted premises are required, is working as a relationship manager in the HDFC Bank branch at A-9, Lajpat Nagar-4, New Delhi.

Petitioner states that the FF and SF of the subject property were recovered by the Respondent, landlady, in May 2013, in an eviction petition (E106/13/09) filed by her under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act. In this regard, he has placed on record the electricity bill issued by BSES Yamuna Power Limited (‘BSES’) for the meters installed on the said floors, to show the negligible consumption of electricity in the said premises. 

He relies upon the Petitioners’ averments recorded in the order dated 06.09.2019 passed by this Court, whilst issuing notice in the present petition. Petitioner states that the non-use of the FF and SF by the Respondent belies the plea of bona fide need and the Trial Court erred in dismissing the leave to defend the application.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION

In reply, learned counsel for the Respondent, the landlady, states that currently, both, the Respondent’s son i.e., Mr. Manish Gupta and grandson i.e., Mr. Kanishk Gupta are unemployed. Both the grandson was employed before but they leave their job for operating or running the business.

He states that the landlady along with her daughter-in-law i.e., Ms. Madhu Gupta had started the business of sale of women’s wear under the name and style of ‘Kanishk Sarees’ in the year 2014, from the FF of the subject property. He states that however, the said business has failed as customers are unwilling to come to FF in the subject property. However, FF and SF are unsuitable for new businesses.

He states that the Petitioners herein have abused the procedural safeguards to delay the hearing in the present revision proceedings. He states that even during the adjudication of the eviction petition, though the leave to defend application was filed, however, a copy of the same was not provided to the landlady for almost 3 years.

COURT’S DECISION

The Hon’ble High Court observed that the decision of the Trial Court was correct and there is no need to change or revision of that judgment. So, the Hon’ble High Court gives the judgment in the favour of Respondent. And the Hon’ble High Court referred the case which is related to this matter as “Abid-ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua, (2022) 6 SCC 30”[2].

The subject eviction petition was filed much later on 26.12.2016 and for the bona fide need of the grandson, which in this opinion of this Court has rightly upheld by the Trial Court. The Supreme Court in the case of Abid-ul-Islam (Supra) has after discussing the law held that the scope of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 25B(8) of the DRC Act is limited.

Accordingly, because of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no merit in this revision petition, which is hereby dismissed and the eviction order dated 23.03.2019 is upheld. The pending applications are disposed of. The interim order dated 06.09.2019 is hereby vacated. The Respondent is at liberty to proceed with the execution of the eviction order and the Petitioners will be liable to continue to pay the use and occupation charges at Rs. 15,000/- per month, until the handing over of the possession to the Respondent.

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

-Report by Himanshi

The recent judgement of Shri Mukund Bhatia vs State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & ORS is concerned with the grant of Letters of Administration / Probate of the Will in respect of the immovable properties left behind by the Paternal Aunt of the petitioner.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND:

The Paternal Aunt of the petitioner, Kumari Lajja Bhatia (hereinafter referred to as “The Testatrix”) was a permanent resident of 17/14, Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi – 110060. She expired as a spinster, leaving behind her nephew, petitioner herein; her brother, respondent no.2 herein; the wife and two sons of her pre-deceased brother, impleaded as respondent no.3 herein; and her sister, respondent no.4 herein.

The above-mentioned property acquired by Testatrix was a self-acquired property of her late father and by the virtue of the Will executed by him; the said property was bequeathed to the Testatrix. Thereafter, upon the death of the Testatrix, the said property has devolved upon the petitioner as per the Will, dated 15.01.2020, executed by her.

During her lifetime, she also purchased other immovable property in Pitampura, Delhi with a Conveyance deed dated 29.07.2004. As per the terms of the subject Will, the property is to be divided in the following manner:-

• 70% share of the said property shall devolve upon the petitioner;
• The remaining 30% share shall devolve upon Respondent No. 5 which is a religious trust.

Therefore, the present petition has been filed in the court with reference to sections 276 and 278 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 seeking the Probate of Will executed by the Testatrix in respect of the immovable properties left behind by her.

PETITIONER’S CONTENTIONS:

• The learned counsel for the petitioner alleged that during her lifetime she had executed the subject Will dated 15.01.2020 in the presence of two attesting witnesses namely Shri Vijay Vasandani and Shri Ashok Pohuja.
• The learned counsel also provides the details of the moveable assets in the form of fixed deposits, PPF and shares left behind by the Testatrix.
• They further contended that as per the affidavit of service filed by the petitioner, Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 were duly served. However, despite service, they failed to appear. Thereby, their right to file objections has been closed by the learned Joint Registrar (Judicial).
• The learned counsel further states that respondent no.2 has filed an affidavit giving his ‘No Objection’ for the transfer of property in favour of the petitioner as per the Will dated 15.01.2020.

Therefore the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this is an uncontended case.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS:

The petition is not contested by Respondent No. 2 and Respondent No. 3 to 5 has failed to appear despite service.

JUDGEMENT:

The Delhi HC in its judgement relied upon sec 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which provides that where a document is required by the law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until at least one attesting witness has been called for proving its execution. In the present case, the two attesting witnesses approved that Late Kumari Lajja Bhatia had signed the Will in their presence. They further stated that the subject Will was executed by her voluntarily and when she was in sound disposing of mind. Hence, the requirements of Section 68 of the Act were fulfilled.

Apart from this, a citation was also directed to be published in two daily newspapers in the NCT of Delhi, Pune, Mumbai and Jaipur. No Objection has been received from any third person to grant Probate of Will dated 15.01.2020 in favour of the petitioner.

Considering all these facts, Delhi HC in this particular case held that the unchallenged and rebutted testimony of the petitioner which is supported by the testimony of the two attesting witnesses proves the authenticity of the Will dated 15.01.2020. Thereby, the petitioner being the nephew and beneficiary is entitled to the Probate of Will.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3o0tKBK

-Report by Bhavana Bhandari

In a landmark decision case Income Tax Officer vs Vikram Sujitkumar Bhatia, the Supreme Court of India held that the Assessing officer under the Income Tax Act 1961 shall be authorized to initiate proceedings under Section 153C of the Act even against person non-searched persons, and the same shall have a retrospective effect for searches were conducted before the amendment in 2015.

FACTS:

On 11.09.2012, the original writ petitioner filed his Return of Income for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2012-13, declaring a total income of around 44 Lakhs as business income from a partnership firm and other income. A notice dated 08.02.2018 was issued by the Income Tax Assessing Officer to begin proceedings against the assessee under Section 153C of the Act, 1961. In a letter dated 01.05.2018, the assessee submitted his response and his income tax return, and the assessed officer received it to his satisfaction. Although no evidence was found against the petitioner, the assessing officer seized a hard disc containing an Excel sheet containing data from the searched person, which included references to the petitioner’s name.

The writ petitioner objected to the actions taken following Section 153C of the Income-Tax Act of 1962, claiming that the requirement that any money, bullion, jewelry, or other valuable item or thing be “belongs or belong to” a person other than the searched child was not met. In response to a writ petition submitted by the petitioner, the Gujarat High Court ruled that Section 153C of the Act of 1961 is a mechanism for determining the assessee’s income who is on search by authorities.

The Assessment Officer was satisfied with the evidence and directed the court to summon an assessee if books of account or documents about him or containing information about him were found during the search. However, the Amendment Act of 2015 went into effect, and petitioners who were not included during the search were now sought to be included because the satisfaction notes and notices under the Income Tax Act of 1961 were issued after the amendment went into effect. The Gujarat High Court’s decision to invalidate the notice under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act 1961 was challenged by the Income Tax Department in the current set of appeals and a Special Leave petition to the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:

The primary issue for the Apex Court to address was whether the Finance Act of 2015’s amendment to Section 153C of the Income Tax Act of 1961 would apply to searches conducted according to Section 132 of the Act of 1961 before 01.06.2015, the amendment’s effective date.

CONTENTIONS:

Appellant’s Contentions:

When arguing against the current appeals, the attorney representing the assesses vehemently asserted that the point of applicability of the existing law in search cases specifically, whether Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, as amended with effect from 01.06.2015 would apply to cases where the search is initiated before that date—was the subject of contention in the current group of appeals. It is further argued on behalf of the respective assessees that the Department’s position—that Section 153C of the Act, 1961 is a procedural and machinery provision—means that the amendment, even though it took effect on June 1, 2015, is retroactive and, as a result, applies to situations in which searches were conducted before the amendment but notices under Section 153C of the Act, 1961 were issued after the amendment.

Respondent Contentions:

The Additional Solicitor General of India appearing for the respondent submitted that the concerned amendment in Section 153C was necessary given the observation made by the Delhi High Court in the case of PepsiCo India Holdings Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, wherein the High Court observed that the words “belong or belong to” should not be confused with the words “relates to or refers to,” making the former much narrower than the latter. Due to this, the court determined that the provision could only be used if the documents or other materials “belong” to a third party (other than the searched person).

JUDGEMENT:

Relying on the Delhi High Court in the case PepsiCo India Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (2014) had given a restrictive meaning to the words “belong/belongs, the Supreme Court held that Section I53C of the Finance Act of 2015 was amended to replace the words with “pertain/pertains to.” It is incorrect to claim that a document “belongs” to someone simply because copies of it were taken from them because the originals were with someone else.

The Supreme Court further observed that the amendment to Section 153C of the Act, 1961 without the inclusion of incriminating materials in the form of books of account or documents or assets relating to them from the premises of the searched person may not be subjected to the proceedings under Section153C solely on the ground that the search was conducted before the amendment is accepted.
The Court must avoid any interpretation that might undermine the law’s or statute’s fundamental goals and purposes. The judgment stated that the amendment to Section 153C of the Income Tax Act would not apply to searches conducted under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act before 01.06.2015, the amendment’s effective date, which is in the revenue’s favor and against the assesses.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3ZQlK3t

-Report by Bhavana Bhandari

In Madhyamam Broadcasting v. Union of India & ors, the Supreme Court decided that the State cannot claim complete immunity from the disclosure of materials essentially by asserting the information related to national security. The idea of national security does not enable the principles of natural justice to be suspended, and the Court shall be the appropriate authority to determine whether the request for non-disclosure has a proper and suitable linkage to the claim for national security.

FACTS:

In 2011, the Ministry of Home Affairs granted the appellant Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited (MBL) “MediaOne” security clearance for 10 years of operation. However, within six years, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting issued a notice to show cause to MBL, ordering the security clearance to be revoked. Furthermore, the respondent refused to renew the license based on national security, but the specific reasons were not disclosed.

To contest the MIB’s order “revoking” Media One’s permission to uplink and downlink the decisions of the Division Bench of the High Court, the appellants brought an action under Article 136 of the Constitution. Based on the information provided to the court in a sealed cover by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs, the High Court of Kerala dismissed the petitions filed by MBL and other respondents, stating that license revocation may be necessary when constitutional considerations are prevalent. Following this, the appellants filed an appeal with India’s Supreme Court.

CONTENTIONS:

Appellant’s Contention

The appellant’s counsel asserted that MIB’s revocation of the permission granted to uplink and downlink the channel, Media One, was unconstitutional. Only the granting of permission to operate a channel and not the renewal of existing permission are subject to the requirement of security clearance. Even if it goes beyond the logical limitations on press freedom outlined in Article 19(2) of the Constitution, it cannot be denied. The restrictions outlined in Article H(2) must be read in conjunction with Section 4(6) of the Republications Act of 1995 and the Cable Television Networks (Regulations) Act of 1995 to determine whether or not security clearance will be granted or denied.

The security clearance was not revoked between 2011 and 2022, but the renewal should have been granted if the show cause notice did not allege any violation of the terms of the agreement. By providing information in a “sealed cover,” the Union of India violated the principles of an open court and party fairness. The respondent only stated that the material was sensitive and that the denial was made in the interests of national security and no reason was disclosed for the reasons for such denial by the respondents.

Respondent’s Arguments

Mr. K. M. Nataraj, Additional Solicitor General, representing each of the respondents, argued that MIB was justified in revoking the permission given to Media One because security clearance is a prerequisite for license renewal. The Centre asserted that judgments in the case Ex-Army Men’s Protection Services Private Limited v. Union of India and Others (2014) and Digi Cable and Network (India) Private Limited v. Union of India and Others (2019) have already established that the natural justice principle shall not be applicable in case of natural security.

ISSUES:

1. Whether security clearance is one of the conditions required for renewal of permission under the Uplinking and Downlinking Guidelines; 
2. Whether rejecting a license renewal and the decisions made by the Division Bench of the High Court infringed the appellants’ procedural rights under the Constitution.
3. Whether the order refusing renewal of license was an arbitrary restriction on the appellant’s right to freedom of speech and expression.

JUDGEMENT:

Justices CJI D.Y. ChandraChud and Justice Hima Kohli made up the two-judge panel that delivered the decision. Granting blanket immunity to the reports of all the investigative agencies from disclosure is negating to a transparent and accountable system, and these reports have a deeper impact on decisions affecting the life, liberty, and profession of individuals and entities. 

Thus, it is possible to obstruct the release of any investigative reports in any way. Even when national security concerns are used to justify the withholding of information, the courts should still take a less rigorous course of action.

To fairly exclude materials after a successful public interest immunity claim, courts should take the recourse of redacting confidential portions of the sealed cover document and providing a summary of the document’s contents.

The Court continued by saying that it can still examine whether the State’s refusal to disclose has any connection to national security although it is acknowledged that confidentiality and national security are both respectable objectives. Referring to the Pegasus case (ML Sharma v. Union of India), it was stated that the courts would not take a “hands-off” stance simply because national security claims were made.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3Mmf2ip

-Report by Harshit Gupta

In the case of “The Chairman & Managing Director City Union Bank Ltd. & Anr. V. R, Chandramohan“, the apex court held that the burden of proving the deficiency in service is on the aggrieved party, and in the present case, the respondent-aggrieved was not able to prove that there was any deficiency in service.

FACTS:

The present appeal was from the order dated 01.02.2007 passed by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Chennai hereinafter “National Commission.” The National Commission confirmed the judgment and order dated 23.12.2004 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai “State Commission.” The facts behind the case are that the respondent here was a complainant against the appellants before the State Commission for a deficiency in service on the side of banks. The respondent is a Managing Director of “D-Cube Constructions (P) Ltd” and has its office in Chennai. Shri R. Thulasiram and Shri R. Murali were the other directors of the same company. An NRI named Ravindra sent two drafts one for 5 lakhs and another one for 3 lakhs INR. On checking out, the respondent found that the drafts have not been credited to his account. Later the respondent came to know that appellant No. 2 was presented and the same was paid to the City Union Bank, Ram Nagar Branch. The respondent requested that appellant No. 2 to re-credit the amount to his account. Respondent found that another account in the name of “D-Cube Construction” is being operated and the drafts were credited into that account. He thereafter filed a complaint in the State Commission and was decided in the favour of the complainant by granting him rupees 8 lakhs along with one lakh as compensation. Being aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, the appeal was filed in the National Commission and was dismissed by the National Commission.

CONTENTIONS:

Appellants:

The counsel for the appellants contended that both the Commissions had erred while giving Judgement and Order in this case as there was no fault or imperfection from the side of the Bank and there was no deficiency in service under section 2(1)(g) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. He relied on cases “Ravneet Singh Bagga V. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines and Anr. ” and “Branch Manager, Indigo Airlines Kolkata and Anr. V. Kalpana Rani Debbarma and Ors” that the complaint was not even maintainable before the State Commission and the respondent had failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the appellants. He also contended that drafts were issued in the name of “D-Cube Construction” only.

Respondent:

The counsel for the respondent contended that two forums had consistently held the appellants liable for the deficiency in service. He further added that the banks are vicariously liable for the actions of their employees. He further relied on the cases “Kerala State Cooperative Marketing Federation V. State Bank of India and Ors.” and “Indian Overseas Bank V. Industrial Chain Concern.”

JUDGEMENT:

In the current case, the main issue was that was there any deficiency in service as required by the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and in answer to this question the Court held that there was any willful neglect in deficiency in service or imperfection or shortcoming. The Court relied on the appellants’ case of Bagga. The court said that since some disputes were among the director, therefore, the bank cannot hold them liable if they acted bona fide and followed the due procedure. The Court further added that the burden to prove is on the aggrieved party and here the respondent was unable to prove that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the bank. Hence the order of the National Commission and State Commission was set aside.

READ FULL JUDGMENT: https://bit.ly/3KAnvxg

-Report by Harshit Gupta

Anticipatory bail was granted to all accused in the case of Mahmood Bava V. Central Bureau of Investigation decided on 20-03-2023. 

FACTS:

This case involves many accused, who were booked under sections 420, 466, 467 471 read with section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In this case, M/s. NaftoGaz India Pvt Ltd. secured a loan from a consortium of banks led by SBI. After 27.07.2012 the account of the bank was showing signs of sickness and on 22.11.2012, the account was classified as NPA, and on 03.02.2015, the account was declared fraudulent account. One property as security was found to be in litigation and another property was overvalued. Thereafter, the Loan Company lodged the FIR on 26.06.2019, and none of the accused was taken into custody by CBI. It seemed to the court that each accused cooperated in the investigation and the final report was filed by CBI on 31.12.2021, and after this, special courts issued summons for the appearance of all accused in the court on 07.03.2022. Therefore, apprehending arrest, the appellants moved to the special court with the application of Anticipatory Bail, which was rejected by the said Court and was confirmed by the High Court of Allahabad. Therefore, the Appellants approached Supreme Court. 

CONTENTIONS:

Respondent:

Accused no. 2, Shri Mahdoom Bava, is stated to be the promoter/director of the Company and he is alleged to be the kingpin. Accused no. 3, Shri Deepak Gupta is a third party who has allegedly given his personal guarantee. According to the prosecution, he claimed title to the property based on fictitious documents and he sold away some proportions of his property before the mortgage. Accused No. 10 was alleged to have created bogus bills and fake lorry receipts, in connivance with accused No. 2, to enable the Company to have the bills discounted. Accused 14 namely Yatish Sharma was alleged to have operated the account of M/s Shri Radhey Traders. The respondent also contended that the prime accused, no. 2, Mahdoom Bava, is also involved in 11 other cases.

JUDGEMENT:

In this, the judgement was delivered by Justice V. Rama Subramanian by granting SLP, as the criminal appeal arose from the SLPs. The judgement was so delivered and granted anticipatory bail to the accused on the basis that they cooperated through the investigation, and they would do so in future if they were summoned during the trial. The prayer of anticipatory bail was opposed vehemently by the respondent. But the court was of the view that there were three factors which tilted the balance in the favour of the accused. Factor one was that the custody of all accused was not required during the investigation, therefore, it is now hard to digest that custody is now required at this stage. Factor two is that in the case of Shree Deepak Gupta, CBI took the stand before the special court that the presence of the accused during the investigation is not required but it will surely need during the trial. Therefore, the Apex Court considered this as the only presence of all accused is required not the custody during the trial to face the trial. Factor three the Apex Court considered is that the complaint is borne out of records and the primary focus is on documentary evidence, so the court did not understand the arrest of all accused during this time as the offence was committed a decade ago. In the respondent’s contention of 11 cases, appeal arouse from 3 cases and 7 were of 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The eighth case is filed by an income tax officer for non-payment of the TDS amount. In this case, anticipatory bail was granted by the Court to all accused based on the findings of the Court. 

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3Ksujg6

-Report by Harshit Gupta

In the case of S. Athilakshmi v. The State of Rep. by the Drugs Inspector reported on 15-03-2023 in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.  This is a case where criminal proceedings were initiated by the state against a medical practitioner for selling medicines within her house. 

FACTS:

S. Athilakshmi (hereinafter Appellant) is a registered medical practitioner working as an Associate Professor and the Head of the Dermatology Department, in the Govt. Omandurar Medical College, Chennai. The appellant was carrying medical practice in her private capacity at premises which is No. 87 Red Hills Road(North), Villivakkam Chennai. She meets and examines her patients. An inspector on 16.03.2016, inspected the aforesaid place and found 18 medicines at the said place. He also found some bills. He obtained the sanction from the office of the Director of Drugs Control, Tamil Nadu, Chennai-06, on 22.09.2016 which was given to him on 23.01.2018. Thereafter he initiated criminal proceedings before the court of X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore to hold liable her under section 18(c) punishable with section 27(b)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Aggrieved by the proceedings, she applied section 482 of CrPC, 1973 before the High Court of Madras for quashing Criminal proceedings against her. Her petition was dismissed by the LD. Single Judge on 21.06.2022. Aggrieved by this, she filed an SLP(Special Leave Petition) in the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

APPELLANT’S CONTENTIONS:

It was contented by the appellant that she is a registered medical practitioner in dermatology and has an M.D. (DVL) degree in this specialization. She is protected by the law if she was practicing medicines while she was not on her official duty. She has produced the required bills and necessary documents asked by the court to support her side. 

RESPONDANT’S CONTENTIONS: 

The respondent contended that she had stocked the medicines in her capacity. Therefore, the criminal proceedings shall remain to be continued. 

JUDGEMENT:

This case was decided by a two-judge bench, and they set aside the impugned order of the High Court of Madras. The judgment was delivered by Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia as the Court granted the leave and held that since she is a registered medical practitioner and thus protected by law to practice medicines independently. The Court also emphasized the word ‘stocked’ in section 18(c). The Court held that most of the drugs were lotions and ointments in small quantities therefore they can not fall under the ambit of ‘stocked.’ The court said that a small number of drugs can be found in the room or office of a registered medical practitioner. The court also emphasized the timeline of incidents that occurred in this case. “The search was carried out on 16.03.2016 and sanction was sought on 22.09.2016 and it was granted on 23.01.2018” this is the whole timeline from search to granting sanction. The court observed that there is a very wide difference in time. And there is no explanation for this too. The court relied on the case “Hasmukhlal D. Vohra and Anr. V. State of Tamil Nadu.” In this case, criminal proceedings were quashed against the petitioner considering the delay in the proceedings, and the court in his judgment para 25 said that the respondent i.e., the State of Tamil Nadu, has not explained the extraordinary delay of more than four years between the initial site inspection, the show cause notice, and the complaint. This delay prompted Court to infer some sinister motive behind initiating the criminal proceedings. This Court in the case of “Manshukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat” in this case, the court highlighted the importance of prior sanction. In the case of “Mohd. Shabir V. State of Maharashtra” in this case, the court observed that possession simpliciter would not itself be an offense, but the prosecution had to prove the essential under section 27 which was that even a stock of medicine was for sale. By observing that sanctioning authority had not examined at all whether a practicing doctor could be prosecuted under the facts of the case, the Court quashed the Criminal proceedings against the appellant. 

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/40D35cm