Tag: #SpecialLeavePetition

-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

–Report by Nawvi Kamalnathan

In the case of The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department and Others (hereinafter referred to as appellants) Versus Rattan India Power Limited through its Director and Others (hereinafter referred to as respondents) the important issue of, the party signing the contract is entitled to the amount of consideration or not was dealt with by the Supreme Court.

FACTS

The respondent has entered into a contract with the appellant to Pay the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for irrigation restoration charges reserved for irrigation purposes. The same consideration was agreed to be paid on the date of signing the contract. A writ petition filed before the High Court of Bombay directed the respondent to pay Rs 50,000/- per hectare by reducing the irrigation restoration charges affecting the total liability reduction.

The appellant sought an appeal as per the Irrigation Department of the State of Maharashtra. As per the circular, no water shall be utilized for other purposes unless an agreement is entered into by the concerned government and the industry. Water usage for industrial purposes is seen as a loss of water rather than being directed to agricultural purposes.

APPELLANT’S CONTENTIONS

The substance of the argument made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant was that the contract is sacrosanct in nature. The impugned order entered by the respondent and the appellant for accepting the irrigation restoration charges shall not be entitled to be challenged.

DEFENDANT’S CONTENTIONS

On the other hand, the counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent contended that the rate prevailing in the in-principle approval granted by the high-powered committee is directly linked to the approval or sanction was applicable and the appellant could have levied the charges.

The government circular shall apply prospectively and not to ongoing contracts. If the circular is given a retrospective effect, it would certainly undermine it.

JUDGEMENT

The respondent is not justified in levying the charges when he agreed to pay the same while entering into a contract he issued an undertaking to pay the specific sum within the specific time period. The agreement and undertaking shall be stopping the respondent from challenging the irrigation restoration charges.

The rights and liabilities of the parties are standing crystallized from the date when entered into the contract. The in-principle approval granted in favour has been cancelled as they failed to execute an agreement with the appellant. Also, the central government undertaking was given an exemption as the power produced from it shall be used for public benefit. In comparison to all other parties, the respondent has been drawing high amounts of water, especially from an area scarce of water resources.

However, the records before the court state only two instalments being paid by the respondents, and therefore, the court directed the respondents to pay the balance amount with interest from the date of instalment fell from the date of the impugned order.

In conclusion, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India allows the Civil Appeal arising from the special leave petition and sets aside the impugned judgment passed by the High Court of Bombay, and directs the parties to bear their own costs.

-Report by Gaurav Raj

The special leave petition in the case ANJALI BHARADWAJ v/s CPIO, was dismissed by the Supreme court on 9th December because one cannot rely on news articles and reports.

FACT

Feeling aggrieved by the decision of the Delhi high court, the petitioner filed an appeal by Special Leave in the Supreme Court. The petitioner herein preferred an RTI application before CPIO, Supreme court regarding the decision taken in collegiums of supreme court held on December 12, 2018.

Vide communication dated 12 December 2018, the said application was turned down. Due to this, the appellant further filed an appeal before the First appellate authority under RTI Act, 2005. The authority rejected the appeal by contending that there has not been any final decision taken in the collegiums dated 12.12.2018. The second appeal by the petitioner was also turned down by the single judge bench by reiterating that there has not been any final decision taken in the subsequent meeting dated 10.01.2019. The learned single judge believed that there was no formal resolution came to be drawn up so there is no question of providing any information regarding the decision taken on 12.12.2018. The order passed by the learned single judge was upheld by the Division bench of the high court by impugned judgement and order. Feeling Aggrieved by the order and judgement the petitioner has preferred the present appeal.

APPELLANT’S CONTENTION

Shri Prashant Bhushan, appearing on the behalf of petition contended that certain decisions were taken by the collegiums in the meeting held on 12.12.2018. and it must be uploaded into the public domain the decision taken by the collegiums is required to be informed under the RTI act 2005.

Shri Prashant Bhushan heavily relied upon an article uploaded by Bar and Bench that one of the members of the collegium had stated that he was disappointed that the decision taken by the collegiums was not uploaded on the supreme court’s website.

It is submitted that as per the article certain decisions were taken by the collegiums in the meeting held on 12.12.2018. However, it cannot be contended that no decision was taken at the meeting held on 12.12.2018 only because the decision was altered at a subsequent meeting held on 10.01.2019. it was submitted that everybody has the right to be informed about the decision taken in collegiums as per the previous resolution of the high court dated 03,10,2017.

COURT’S DECISION

The learned court has refused to comment upon the statement given by one of the members of the collegiums. The court is of the view that, in the earlier meeting dated 10.01.2019, it was mentioned that in the meeting dated 12.10.2018, the process for consultation was not over and remained un- concluded and it is only after the final resolution is drawn and signed by the members of the collegiums, the same to be published on the website of the Supreme Court of India as per resolution date 03.10.2017. Therefore, no reliance can be made on any news article in the media. What is to be seen is the final resolution signed by the members of the collegium. So, there is no substance in the above special leave to appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.

The bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrikesh Roy issued a notice on whether the children from second marriage would have a share in ancestral property? The Special leave petition was filed against the observation of the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench that the children should not inherit a share in the property of their grandmother, since they were born out of the second wife.

The Court while issuing the notice observed that a larger question relating to inheritance from second marriages is pending before the court in Ravanasiddapa & Anr vs. Mallikarajun & Ors (2011). The Court decided to hear the current petition after a judgment is delivered by a larger bench of this court.

Previous Interpretation by the Supreme Court In Bharatha Matha & Anr vs. R Vijaya Renganathan & others, it was held that children born out of void marriages were not entitled to claim the inheritance of the coparcenary property, but only a share in the self-acquired property of the father.

In Ravanasiddapa & Anr vs. Mallikarajun & ors (2011), the two-judge bench took a contrary view and it was held that the children born out of void marriages shall have an interest in coparcenary as well as the self-acquired property of the parents. Then the three-judge bench upheld the decision of the 2 judge bench regarding the share of children in their parent’s property but upheld the restriction imposed under section 16(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The question regarding restriction in 16(3) is pending before the Supreme Court.

-Report by GURPREET SINGH

–Report by RIDDHI DUBEY

In the matter, Supreme Court states that the verdict should not be uninfluenced by the verdict of the High Court.

FACTS

In the present case, A Journalist from Bangalore Gauri Lankesh who had turned into an activist had been shot down outside her place on 5th September 2017. At least 19 people are been accused of her murder out of which 9 people’s bail plea was rejected back then. It is been assumed that her murder is one of the many attacks that are been made on such activists and writers to shut their voices. She has been a very vocal journalist and used to speak the truth and it’s one of the reasons. Recently Karnataka High Court has quashed organized crime charges against one of her accused named Mohan Nayak and passed the bail plea. On being aggrieved by the judgment of the Karnataka High Court Kavita Lankesh sister of Gauri Lankesh has Filed Special Leave Petition in Supreme Court challenging this Judgment.

PETITIONER’S CONTENTION

Petitioner submits in the petition that Karnataka High Court had failed to evident from Special Investigation Team that the accused was involved in “organized crime syndicate”, different murder cases, had given settler to few criminals and other unlawful activities. Karnataka High Court has failed to go through Section 24 of KCOCA as well. So the Petitioner requests The Apex Court to not get influenced by Karnataka High Court’s Judgment.

JUDGEMENT

On Tuesday Supreme Court bench comprising of Justice Am Kahnwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and Aniruddha Bose responding to the Special Leave Petition of Petitioner challenging the order of Karnataka High Court stated that the decision on the bail plea cannot be uninfluenced by the order passed by Karnataka High Court.

KEY HIGHLIGHTS

• Senior Office who has been investigating the case has stated that it is one of the toughest cases he has investigated.
• There are a total of 19 accuses in the case and all of them are in Judicial Custody.
• The first charge sheet of the case was filed in May this year.

What is KCOCA?

Karnataka Control of Organized Crimes Act, 2000 (KCOCA) is a law enacted by Karnataka state in India in 2000 to combat organized crime and terrorism.

What does Section 24 of KCOCA?

Criminal syndicates are often known to commit acts of vigilantism by enforcing laws, investigating certain criminal acts, and punishing those who violate such rules.

When is the special leave petition filed?

SLP can be filed against any judgment of the High Court within 90 days from the date of judgment, or SLP can be filed within 60 days against the order of the High Court refusing to grant the certificate of fitness for appeal to Supreme Court.