Tag: #recentjudgement

–Report by Shweta Sabuji

The judgment and order from the learned Single Judge of the High Court, dated April 4, 2019, that overturned the Trial court’s orders by Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is being contested in the present case of MITA INDIA PVT. LTD. Versus MAHENDRA JAIN.

FACTS:

Mahendra Jain was given a contract by the appellant company, M/s.Mita India Pvt. Ltd., for the relocation of a 33 K.V. electrical overhead line at its Dewas factory. The appellant company unintentionally paid an excess payment in connection with the aforementioned contract. The respondent sent two checks to the appellant company for its return after agreeing to refund the excess money. Cheques were returned due to “stop payment” instructions. By section 138 read with Sections 141/142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act of 1881, the appellant company filed a complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dewas through its authorized representative Ripanjit Singh Kohli. Respondent made two petitions in the aforementioned complaint. – Kavindersingh Anand cannot testify in court because the complaint nowhere claims that he is aware of the facts and transactions, according to the first allegation that the complaint was not submitted by an authorized person.

PLAINTIFF’S CONTENTIONS:

Ripanjit Singh Kohli, the company’s authorized representative, submitted the lawsuit on behalf of the appellant company, according to a cursory review of it. Thus, the appellant corporation is filing the lawsuit under its name. It hasn’t been submitted in the power of attorney holder’s name. The appellant corporation, the complainant, is allowed to file the complaint on its behalf through the holder of its power of attorney. 10. The appellant corporation has granted Kavindersingh Anand, one of its directors, a broad power of attorney.

The aforementioned power of attorney was implemented following its proper approval by the board of directors at its meeting on May 1, 2010, which took place. As a result, KavindersinghAnand, one of the appellant directors, business’s is the true and legal representative of the company and holds power of attorney on its behalf. The aforementioned power of attorney expressly grants him the right to choose “counsel” or “special attorneys” to handle every case and to carry out any other actions necessary for the proper prosecution or defence of legal or fictitious judicial proceedings anywhere in the world. The power of attorney mentioned is based on the aforementioned power of attorney, Kavindersingh Anand gave Ripanjit Singh Kohli permission to file the relevant complaint.

JUDGEMENT:

The trial court denied the initial application in a ruling dated January 30, 2018. After the second application was turned down on July 23 of this year, a criminal revision was filed and later dismissed by a decision dated September 26. The respondent invoked jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to challenge these three orders. By the contested order, the High Court granted the petition brought under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code and directed that the aforementioned orders be set aside because the complaint was not brought by the person authorized and that Kavindersingh Anand, who was granted the power of attorney, lacked legal standing to sub-delegate the said power to Ripanjit Singh Kohli, the designated representative. Second, Kavindersingh Anand is not authorized to testify on the company’s behalf.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3YQqm9T

–Report by Arun Bhattacharya

The High Court of Delhi on Monday 20^th February, 2023 in SHIWANG TRIPATHI & ORS versus UOI & ORS reiterated the stance taken by a learned Single Judge’s bench while dismissing the matter that a Right of Absorption or regularization of post does not arise merely because of an agreement of apprenticeship between parties.

FACTS:

The National Insurance Company had invited applications for an apprenticeship programme on a pan India basis and the candidates participating in the same were appointed for a term of 2 years which were later extended twice. Several recommendations were made in support of regularisation of these apprentices due to their excellent performances but the responsible authority did not act accordingly. That is when the present issue arose when these apprentices demanded regularisation of their post based on the agreement for apprenticeship that were provided to them.

APPELLANT’S CONTENTIONS:

The appellants tried to present the case in the manner that they were eligible according to the basic statistics that vacancies were open and their performances were at par with what the authorities shall ask and that is what made such absorption valid and legal.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS:

The respondents tried to highlight the point that such right to absorption does not arise since the appellants were merely recruited for apprenticeship trainee purpose and no separate promise was made to them regarding any kind of conversion or regularisation of such a contract into one of a permanent appointment.

JUDGEMENT:

The primary issue was already dismissed by the learned Single Judge’s bench and nothing new happened in case of the appeal either. The honourable appellate bench by referring to Employees State Insurance Corporation & Anr. Vs. Dr.Vinay Kumar & Ors. [C.A.No. 4150 of 2022] clearly observed that no person or apprentice can claim a right to absorption or permanent employment, when they are devoid of any proper employer employee relation. By objectively pointing out the absence of a proper contract between the said parties the appellate bench reiterated the Single judge’s decision to deny the grant of such relief for regularisation and highlighted the fact that the respondents were not obligated to regularise positions just because someone has been an apprenticeship in the said organisation.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3SeHR1b

–Report by Tannu Dahiya

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh has granted bail to the petitioner in the case of Rohit vs State of Himachal Pradesh while hearing the same on 20th February, 2023.

Facts:

Here the petitioner is a 28 year old man who is a permanent resident of Village Palsawan, Post Office, Chanog, Tehsil . He had been in a relationship with the respondent for the past three years. A FIR has been filed by her stating that the petitioner has been living with her and they had sexual relations repeatedly. But He refuses to marry her and had sexual intercourse by making false promises. 

Petitioner’s contentions:

The petitioner has prayed for grant of bail against the FIR no. 33/23 filed on 6th January 2023. He’s been in custody since then. He pleaded that the girl has been maintaining the relationship for a very long time . He accepted that his parents are against their marriage due to their caste differences. But he claims that he never made false promises to her and she voluntarily made physical relations with him. He is a permanent resident of village Palswan and promises to abide by all the terms and conditions which may be imposed. 

Respondent’s contentions:

The learned additional advocate general opposed the plea for bail on the grounds that the petitioner has committed serious offence. The investigation is under process and 

He may try to mess with the evidence if he is granted bail. 

Judgement:

The single judge bench after hearing both the parties , pronounced the judgement that the girl is mature enough to take decision when she indulges herself in any unwanted relationship. Also she has been in a relationship for so long. It would not be just if the petitioner is kept in custody for an indeterminate period. The apprehension that he may mess with the evidence, can be taken care of by putting certain terms and conditions on him. Hence keeping in view all the facts, the petition is allowed and bail is granted. However it will be subject to certain conditions which are :

1.  He will appear before the court and investigation officer whenever required. 
2.  Will not threat or induce any person who is related to the facts of the case.
3. Will not mess with the evidences.
4. Will not repeat the offence.
5.  Will not act in a manner which will delay the trial in court.
6. Will not leave India without the permission of court

The Investigation agency can move for quashing this order if the above said points are violated. 

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

Citation: Cr.MP(M) No.319 of 2023

–Report by Umang Kanwat 

The recent case of Government of NCT of Delhi v Krishan Kumar was based on the Statement of Objectives and Reasons of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, which discussed the “sacrifices” of the affected individuals who were “unavoidably” losing their property rights for the greater good of society. The Land Acquisition Act of 2013 aims to correct this unbalanced paradigm of development by making the land acquisition process more collaborative and facilitating. 

FACTS:

Affirming that the acquisition of the disputed lands was deemed to have terminated in accordance with Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act, 2013, the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and the petitioner felt wronged and dissatisfied with the impugned judgement and order issued by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in a Writ Petition.

PETITIONER’S CONTENTIONS:

It was argued that since the petitioners did not assert that they had possession of the subject land in their writ petition but rather that the government was obligated to return the property to them, it was implied that they were admitting that the government had taken actual vacant physical possession of the land. The petitioners had complained about the lack of remuneration.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS:

The High Court had granted the writ petition and stated that the acquisition with regard to the subject land is assumed to have expired under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, on the grounds that the compensation has not been paid.Regarding the action brought on behalf of the Act, the High Court made no findings, including that the beneficiary department was awarded immediate ownership of the disputed lands in question. As the entire land acquisition processes are regarded to have expired, it was the contention on behalf of the respondents that possession of the land is liable to be returned to the petitioners.

Indore Development Authority:

The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act, 2013 (the “2013 Act”), which governs State land purchase, rehabilitation, and resettlement, was unclear in this case, but a five-judge Supreme Court bench had clarified it.The question in front of the court was whether land acquisition procedures may be terminated if the State failed to compensate landowners was a key concern. The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was repealed in 2013, and the Court had to decide how that act interacts with it. This created complications. 

In Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal, the landowners argued that acquisitions undertaken in accordance with the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 had expired and that new procedures in accordance with the Land Acquisition Act of 2013 were necessary.In this landmark ruling, the Supreme Court ruled that cases still pending under the 2013 Act would have to be renewed and would expire under two circumstances.

The five-judge panel also held that landowners who rejected the offered compensation or asked for more money may not pursue compensation under Section 24(2) of the Act. However, if compensation is not given in accordance with Section 24(1)(a) of the Act, the proceedings will not be regarded as having ended, and compensation must be given in line with the Act of 2013’s rules.

JUDGEMENT:

The impugned judgement and order issued by the High Court declaring that the acquisition with respect to the lands in question was deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 as it was observed to be unsustainable and so it deserved to be quashed set aside as a result of applying the law established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Indore Development Authority to the facts of the case at hand.

As a result, the appeal was accepted. However, the court decided that given the facts and circumstances of the case, there would be no judgement regarding costs, and any pending applications would likewise be dismissed.

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

-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 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

-Report by Pranav Mathur

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

FACTS:

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

APPELLANTS’ CONTENTIONS:

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

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS:

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

COURT’S CONTENTIONS AND THE JUDGMENT:

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

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

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

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

–Report by Tannu Dahiya

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

Facts:

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

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

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

Petitioner’s contentions:

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

Respondent’s contentions:

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

Judgement:

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

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

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

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

–Report by Shreya Gupta

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

FACTS:

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

PETIONER’S CONTENTIONS:

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

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS:

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

JUDGEMENT:

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

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

Neutral Citation Number: 2023/DHC/001062