Case BriefsHigh Courts

Gujarat High Court: A Bench of S.G. Shah, J. partly allowed an appeal which confirmed the conviction of the appellants but reduced the sentence.

In the present case the Sessions Court had convicted the appellants for abetment of suicide and subjecting the victim to cruelty respectively, in different appeals. The deceased had succumbed to the pressure from her in-laws and husband, as alleged in the petition, which was later challenged by the appellants.

The Court while not agreeing fully with the impugned judgment in appreciation of evidence, partly allowed the appeal where the conviction of the appellants was confirmed but the sentence was reduced to the period for which they have already undergone judicial custody, pending trial and appeal. Moreover, the Court also held that when it is possible to take a different view from the same set of evidence and offense, the benefit of doubt can be extended.[Bharatbhai Jamnadas Ramavat v. State of Gujarat, 2018 SCC OnLine Guj 3059, Order dated 05-07-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Manipur High Court: The Bench of Ramalingam Sudhakar, J. dismissed a writ petition holding that proper remedy for the petitioners to seek intervention of either the competent court or competent authority of the Government.

Petitioner who claimed to be the Maharaja of Manipur pleaded that as per the “Manipur Merger Agreement” dated 21-9-1949 between the erstwhile Governor General of India and the Maharaja of Manipur, certain private properties were allocated to the Maharaja to be administered by him on his own terms. It was further pleaded that some people were trying to encroach upon his property.

P. Tomcha, Advocate for the petitioner prayed for the relief of issuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to stop their illegal possession of the subject Multipurpose Community Hall. The documents on the basis of which the petitioner claimed his rights were disputed by the respondents.

The High Court was of the view that the matter involved disputed question of facts and therefore it was not inclined to entertain the petition. It was stated that the petitioner could approach either competent civil court or competent authority of the Government for establishing his rights as claimed. Thus, the petitioner was dismissed with liberty to petitioner to work out on his remedy in accordance with law. [Leishemba Sanajaoba v. State of Manipur, 2018 SCC OnLine Mani 171, decided on 14-12-2018]

Case BriefsTribunals/Commissions/Regulatory Bodies

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): A Division Member Bench of Anup K Thakur, C. Viswanath, Members, dismissed a complaint filed against the opposite party for claiming compensation for alleged deficiency of services.

The main issue that arose before the Commission was whether the opposite party was liable for deficiency of services under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

The Commission observed that the complainant had intimated the opposite party about the breakdown of its machinery a month after it actually broke down. Further, the complainant was regularly communicating with the opposite party but even then it did not provide any information to the opposite party via email or telegram about the break down of machinery and this omission on the part of the complainant was a violation of one of the provisions of the insurance policy. The Commission also observed that soon after taking Machinery Breakdown and Machinery Loss of Profits Policies, the machinery of the complainant broke down. Complainant’s omission to disclose that the machinery was giving trouble prior to the complainant taking insurance policy, is an active concealment on its part. Further, the complainant had dismantled the machinery before it was examined by the surveyor and it also made an excuse about the logbooks gone missing.

The Commission held that the composite result of all the actions on the part of the complainant clearly suggests that the complainant had deliberately concealed some vital facts from the opposite party and hence it cannot be allowed to derive benefits of an insurance policy obtained by concealment of such important facts. Resultantly, the complaint was dismissed by the commission holding the opposite party not liable for deficiency of services under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. [Amrit Environmental Technologies (P) Ltd. v. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd.,2018 SCC OnLine NCDRC 381, order dated 09-10-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Allahabad High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Rajeev Misra, J., dealt with this petition which was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India where a summoning order under Sections 323, 504, 379, 427 and 452 IPC, criminal revision petition and any proceedings arising out of them were prayed to be quashed.

Petitioner had made contentions on factual basis pleading that he had been falsely implicated. Various cases were referred before the Court which elucidated in length the legal aspects evolved with regard to matters where proceedings can be quashed. Cases, where allegations made against accused or investigation was done by investigating officer, do not show any offence committed by accused or the allegations seems absurd, or extremely improbable, or where prosecution is legally barred, or the criminal proceeding is found to be made maliciously with motive of grudge can be quashed.

The Court observed that as per the submissions of petitioner, adjudication was required on the question of facts and even the question of law coming therein can be adjudicated by the trial court itself. Court found no reason to quash the summoning order, complaint or any other proceedings arising out of them. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed. [Vivek Kumar v. State of U.P.,2018 SCC OnLine All 1166, order dated 23-08-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court: A review petition filed by the Union of India and the Chief Postmaster General was allowed by a Division Bench comprising of R.M. Borde and A.M. Dhavale, J.

The review was sought of the judgment passed earlier by the same Court, wherein the candidates whose selection to the posts of Postman or Multi-tasking staff was cancelled on grounds of irregularities in the selection process, were ordered to be given posting. The instant petitioners (original respondents) had alleged large-scale irregularities in the selection process and therefore the selection of the respondents (original petitioners) was cancelled. The respondents (original petitioners) filed a writ petition in the Court against cancellation of their selection. The Court allowed the petition and order as mentioned above. The instant petitioners (original respondents) preferred the review of the said judgment.

The High Court considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and held that the original respondents were inadvertent in bringing out proper facts to the light of the Court. The alleged incidents of mass scale irregularities were not clearly placed before the Court. The High Court placed reliance on the Supreme Court decision in BCCI v.  Netaji Cricket Club, 2005 (4) SCC 741, wherein it was held, “An application for review would also be maintainable if there exists sufficient reason therefore. What would constitute ‘sufficient reason’ would depend on facts and circumstances of the case. The words sufficient reason in Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code is wide enough to include a misconception of fact or law by a Court or even an Advocate.” The Court held that in this case too, the earlier judgment was passed on a misconception of facts as proper facts were not brought to light.  The Court held that it was a fit case where its review jurisdiction required to be exercised. Accordingly, the judgment under review was set aside. The original writ petitions were restored to the file for further consideration. [Union of India v. Prakash, 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 927, dated 04-05-2018]