Legal Citations: 02-07-2018
Assistant (Accounts)/Junior Accountant/Senior Accountant Recruitment Rules, 2002 – Validity of Order – analysis of 2002 Rules and amended Rules of 2005, would go to show that while channel of promotion from Junior Accountant to Senior Accountant stood abolished, naturally, because cadre of Senior Accountant was also declared to be 'Wasting Cadre', same was sought to be substituted by providing 10% extra quota for promotion to cadre of Junior Accounts Officer by Departmental Competitive Examination – To said additional quota, requirement of qualifying service of 10 years was relaxed to 5 years and requirement of being graduate was also dispensed with –40% quota available under earlier Rules to both categories i.e. Junior and Senior Accountants continued to remain subject to same eligibility conditions – it appears that power of creation of posts which would, undoubtedly, include power of abolition of posts, has been delegated to Chairman-cum-Managing Director – Order of Tribunal should not have our acceptance. [Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Others Versus V. Babu & Others, The Honourable Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi & The Honourable Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi, Dt: 20-03-2018, CDJ 2018 SC 628]
Conduct of election – Appointment of commissioner – As per Scheme, voters list should be ready at least within six months before election – However, Respondents have not shown any keen interest in that aspect – In view of discrepancies found in electoral rolls and delay in preparatory work by existing trustees to fill vacancies, election should be conducted for electing eight Trustees including third to seventh Respondents vacancies – Election should be conducted for trustees without any further delay – Though Respondents made some efforts in preparing electoral roll in view of delay and also discrepancies in voters list, Interim Administrator shall be appointed to administer Trust – Hence, it deem fit to appoint Retired Judge as Interim Administrator and also to conduct election. [Petitioner Versus Respondent, The Honourable Mr. Justice N. Sathish Kumar, Dt: 14-06-2018, CDJ 2018 MHC 3932]
Constitution of India – Article 226 – Entitlement for admission – Supreme Court has categorically stated that admission for academic year need not be disturbed – If Petitioner has got seat in different subject, but not M.S.Orthopaedics, his candidature would not be disturbed – Petitioner has already been given alternative seat in other subject, so, it cannot direct Respondents to permit him to join M.S.Orthopaedics – If Petitioner wants to do M.S.Orthopaedics, he has to once again compete and appear in competitive examinations for subsequent year and thereafter, if he is selected, he would be entitled for admission to M.S.Orthopaedics. [Dr. Rajesh Wilson Versus The Secretary To Government, Health And Family Welfare Department, Chennai & Others, The Honourable Mr. Justice S. Vaidyanathan, Dt: 08-06-2018, CDJ 2018 MHC 3892]
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34 – Validity of Arbitral Award – It is not in dispute that Arbitral Tribunal is bound by terms of Agreement, however, at same time, if Arbitral Tribunal has interpreted terms of Agreement, unless it is shown that same is perverse, Award cannot be set aside on this ground – It has further been held that correspondence exchanged between parties is required to be taken into consideration for purpose of construction of Contract – Arbitral Tribunal has further considered effect of not giving notice in strict compliance with specified Clause on application for extension of time under Clause and has held that even if it is to be assumed that Contractor has not given notice in terms of Clause, another Clause shall still be attracted – This again being matter of interpretation of Agreement, which cannot be said to be totally perverse, does not merit any interference by this Court in exercise of its power under Section 34 of Act. [Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Versus Larsen & Toubro Limited, The Honourable Mr. Justice Navin Chawla, Dt: 01-06-2018, CDJ 2018 DHC 740]
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 201, Section 302, Section 364 – Legality of Conviction – There is no evidence that accused had any injury on his person – He has not explained as to how human blood was found on his clothes and iron rod – Evidence of few witnesses show that accused shown dead body, which was thrown in well – Accused only was having knowledge where dead body was – Therefore, this is material incriminating circumstance against him – prosecution has proved material circumstances against accused – All this chain of circumstances only points out guilt towards accused and none else – All chain of circumstances only show that accused and none other person killed deceased – Trial Court rightly recorded its finding – There is no perversity or illegality in judgment. [Bhimrao Versus State Of Maharashtra, Through P.S.O., Mouda, Distt. Nagpur, The Honourable Mr. Justice P.N. Deshmukh & The Honourable Mr. Justice M.G. Giratkar, Dt: 26-06-2018, CDJ 2018 BHC 918]
Indian Penal Code – Section 377 – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, Section 6, Section 26, Section 29 – Code of Criminal Procedure – Section 313 – Unnatural sexual assault – Conviction – There are material improvements made in evidence given by victim child witness – There was clearly no medical evidence to demonstrate that victims had suffered unnatural sexual assault – There was no other prosecution witness who could support statement of child witness – Medical evidence did not show any corroboration of unnatural sexual assault on victims and evidence of Police Officers who recorded statements of complainant and those of victims, demonstrated that neither complainant nor victims had stated in their first statements made to Police about Appellant having shown obscene videos to victims – Thus, it would be unsafe to hold that prosecution had proved its case against Appellant – order passed by Trial Court is set aside. [Navin Dhaniram Baraiye Versus The State Of Maharashtra, The Honourable Mr. Justice Manish Pitale, Dt: 25-06-2018, CDJ 2018 BHC 917]
CDJ Citations: 30-06-2018
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 173 – Award of Compensation – Validity of – On careful perusal of above petition, it is seen that same was prepared during relevant year, but Respondent was dead during year and hence, at time of preparation of claim petition, thumb impression was obtained during year, but Respondent died during year and memo was filed to that effect – No compensation was awarded to respondent no.5, it is found that no fraud was played by claimants – It is seen from records that Tribunal has fixed monthly salary of deceased – It was admitted by both claimants and Insurance Company – monthly income of deceased is rightly fixed. [The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Represented Through Its Divisional Manager, Madurai Versus Selvi & Others, The Honourable Mr. Justice K. Ravichandrabaabu & The Honourable Mrs. Justice T. Krishnavalli, Dt: 06-06-2018, CDJ 2018 MHC 3592]
Constitution of India – Article 226 – Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 – Section 7 Q, Section 8 (B) – Legality of show cause notice – It is show cause notice issued to Petitioner and it is left open to Petitioner to submit all explanations and materials available with them and defend their case before Authorities – Without doing so, Petitioners have approached High Court – Petitioner is at liberty to submit all his explanations, documents, if any with them, to Respondents and defend their case properly and in manner known to law – Petitioner has not established any legal grounds enabling High Court to interfere with show cause notice issued. [K. Kaleeswarn Versus The Recovery Officer, The Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Coimbatore & Others, The Honourable Mr. Justice S.M. Subramaniam, Dt: 06-06-2018, CDJ 2018 MHC 3590]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 46(1), Section 438 – Indian penal Code – Section 143, Section 147, Section 148, Section 149, Section 307, Section 341 – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – Section 2(13), Section 10, Section 12(1) – Maintainability of application – Anticipatory bail – Section 12(1) of Act deals with situation where child in conflict with law is apprehended or detained by police or appears or brought before Juvenile Justice Board – However, provision contained in Section 12(1) of Act does not take away jurisdiction of High Court or Court of Session under Section 438 of CrPC even by implication – application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of CrPC at instance of child in conflict with law is maintainable before High Court or Court of Session – In present case, non-bailable offence alleged against Petitioner and other Accused under Section 307 of IPC – However, role of Petitioner is only that he wrongfully restrained victim – Prosecution has no case that release of Petitioner is likely to bring him into criminal association – Petitioner can be granted benefit of anticipatory bail. [Mr. X Versus The State Of Kerala, Through The Station House Officer, Hosdurg Police Station, Represented By The Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Kerala, The Honourable Mr. Justice R. Narayana Pisharadi, Dt: 05-06-2018, CDJ 2018 KER HC 387]
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order XXXVII – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 65B – Validity of Order – conditions under Section 65B of Act are relaxable – Original agreement, original dispatch register and original print out of statement of account having been placed on record, suit is liable to be decreed – This Court wishes to add that approach of Trial Court has been flawed – Judgment of Trial court, clearly appear to be unwarranted remarks made in respect of NPAs – It is not clear as to how Trial Court comes to conclusion that banking guidelines have not been followed and attempt by Bank is to bring this dispute in category of `court filed cases in order to off NPA at a later stage – This part of judgment is completely speculative and perverse – Moreover, if Trial Court believes present dispute to be involving NPA, suit ought to have been decreed – Trial Court has, in effect, left Plaintiff Bank remediless by dismissing suit – Trial Court judgment deserves to be set aside. [M/S. Icici Bank Ltd. Versus Ashok Sharma, The Honourable Ms. Justice Prathiba M. Singh, Dt: 01-06-2018, CDJ 2018 DHC 726]
Industrial Disputes Act,1947 - Section 17-B - Indian Penal Code - Section 409 - Misconduct - Reinstatement - Industrial Tribunal had been unduly lenient with workman - Workman/Bank Official had been negligent in handling cash entrusted to him for onward transmission - Tribunal by merely withholding two increments while reinstating workman in service and awarding fifty percent wages, appears to be more than a bonanza than penalty - Directions in Award modified, keeping in mind superannuation age of workman - Dismissal of workman from service by Tribunal is affirmed and upheld - Direction to reinstate workman in service, is set aside as workman having crossed age of superannuation - Direction to set aside fifty percent of back wages to workman is also set aside - Workman entitled to retiral benefits. [Central Bank Of India & Another Versus M.K. Gupta & Another, The Honourable Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar, Dt: 11-06-2018, CDJ 2018 DHC 706]
