Public endowment vs. private endowment

Dispute about endowment being private or public.

The suit temple, as is asserted by the respondents, came to be registered in the Books of Endowment (Muntakab of Registry of Endowment) recording the name of Gokarnath Tiwari, the father of the appellants as the endower of Wakf (that is the temple) on 16th Aban 1345 Fasli (corresponding to the year 1936 as per the English Calendar). The extract from the Registry of Endowment discloses that the entry had been made as per the order of the Minister, Ecclesiastical Department as contained in File No.60/1 of 1945 Fasli (corresponding to the year 1933) of the Directorate of Endowment. This document also indicated that it had been published in the contemporary Official Gazette.

Evidence in suit for declaration

Continue reading “Public endowment vs. private endowment”


Opportunity of hearing before penalty of dismissal

Does principles of natural justice would require an opportunity to be given to the delinquent employee before imposition of penalty?

The Disciplinary Authority after supplying the Report of the Inquiring Authority had given an opportunity to the Respondent to submit his explanation, which he did. In view of the disability of the Disciplinary Authority in passing an “order of removal” under Rule 68 (2), the entire record was sent to the Appointing Authority who examined the matter and passed an “order of removal”.

In State Bank of India v. Ranjit Kumar Chakraborty (supra) which is the basis of the judgment of the High Court, it was held that the Appointing Authority could not pass an order imposing a major penalty. In that case, the Disciplinary Authority sent the Records to the Appointing Authority who passed order of “dismissal from service”. It is not clear from the judgment as to whether the delinquent officer in that case was given a notice by the Disciplinary Authority before the records were sent to the Appointing Authority. Continue reading “Opportunity of hearing before penalty of dismissal”

Compensation of 100 percent disability

Compensation for paraplegic victim:

Finding of High Court:

The High Court held that in the first information report which was registered on the date of the accident on the basis of the statement of the appellant, it was stated that the appellant was sitting on the mud-guard next to the driver of the tractor. Subsequently on 30 September 2005 another statement was recorded by the police in which the appellant stated that the accident had taken place as a result of the rash and negligent act of the tractor driver, due to which the tractor had turned turtle and fallen over the appellant. In the view of the High Court, the police had attempted to protect the liability of the owner and had recorded a further statement to support the plea that the appellant was a third party and that the tractor had fallen upon him. The High Court has also doubted as to how the police could have recorded the statement of the appellant on 30 September 2005 when he was shifted to M S Ramayya Hospital in Bangalore.

FIR at variance with ocular evidence:

Continue reading “Compensation of 100 percent disability”

Menace of unauthorised construction in Delhi.

Prelude of the problem of unauthorised construction in Delhi:

Invaders have pillaged Delhi for hundreds of years, but for the last couple of decades it is being ravaged by its own citizens and officials governing the capital city – we refer to unauthorized constructions and misuse of residential premises for industrial and other commercial purposes. This Court has focussed on these illegal activities in several decisions and has issued directions from time to time to try and bring  some sanity to urban living but to little or no effect.

Continue reading “Menace of unauthorised construction in Delhi.”

Fairness in public dealings by public authority.

Wherever a contract is to be awarded or a licence is to be given, the public authority must adopt a transparent and fair method for making selections so that all eligible persons get a fair opportunity of competition.

To put it differently, the State and its agencies/instrumentalities must always adopt a rational method for disposal of public property and no attempt should be made to scuttle the claim of worthy applicants. When it comes to alienation of scarce natural resources like spectrum, etc. it is the burden of the State to ensure that a non-discriminatory method is adopted for distribution and alienation, which would necessarily result in protection of national/public interest.

Jurisprudentially thus a public authority in its dealings has to be fair, objective, non-arbitrary, transparent and non-discriminatory.

Continue reading “Fairness in public dealings by public authority.”

Form of demand notice under Insolvency Code.

Validity of demand notice by lawyer:

Whether a demand notice of an unpaid operational debt can be issued by a lawyer on behalf of the operational creditor?

5. Demand notice by operational creditor.— (1) An operational creditor shall deliver to the corporate debtor, the following documents, namely.-

(a) a demand notice in Form 3; or

(b) a copy of an invoice attached with a notice in Form 4.

(2) The demand notice or the copy of the invoice demanding payment referred to in sub-section (2) of section 8 of the Code, may be delivered to the corporate debtor,

(a) at the registered office by hand, registered post or speed post with acknowledgement due; or

(b) by electronic mail service to a whole time director or designated partner or key managerial personnel, if any, of the corporate debtor. (3) A copy of demand notice or invoice demanding payment served under this rule by an operational creditor shall also be filed with an information utility, if any.

Continue reading “Form of demand notice under Insolvency Code.”

Civil court has no jurisdiction to interfere with acquisition of land

Forum for judicial review of Land Acquisition:

Section 9 of CPC exclude jurisdiction of Civil Court:

Futile attempts have been made by respondent no. 4 only to see that the allottees are harassed and to keep the litigation pending. After the final notification, an award was passed and compensation was deposited. Possession was taken and the same was evidenced by the Panchanama prepared as far back as 23.09.1986. Notification under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 20.01.1987 disclosing the factum of taking possession of the land in question. Attempt made by respondent no. 4 for getting the disputed land de-notified has also failed as far back as 15.01.1993, when the State Government has rejected the representation of respondent no. 4 seeking de-notification. The writ petition filed by respondent no. 4 challenging such order of dismissal of the representation was also dismissed. Despite the same, respondent no. 4 is pursuing the matter by filing writ petition after writ petition. It is a clear case of abuse of process of law as well as the Court.

Abuse of process of Court:

Continue reading “Civil court has no jurisdiction to interfere with acquisition of land”

Offence under SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act

SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act as it existed prior to Amendment of 2016:

The gravamen of Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act is that any offence, envisaged under Indian Penal Code punishable with imprisonment for a term of ten years or more, against a person belonging Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe, should have been committed on the ground that “such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member”. Prior to the Amendment Act 1 of 2016, the words used in Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act are “……on the ground that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe”.

Effect of Amendment of 2016:

Continue reading “Offence under SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act”

Summon to Investigator to produce all material collected during investigation.

Summons to produce document or other thing:

Criminal trial:

It is settled law that at the stage of framing of charge, the accused cannot ordinarily invoke Section 91 (of Cr.P.C.). However, the court being under the obligation to impart justice and to uphold the law, is not debarred from exercising its power, if the interest of justice in a given case so require, even if the accused may have no right to invoke Section 91. To exercise this power, the court is to be satisfied that the material available with the investigator, not made part of the chargesheet, has crucial bearing on the issue of framing of charge.

Summon at the stage of framing of charge:

In State of Orissa versus Debendra Nath Padhi (2005) 1 SCC 568, it was observed: Continue reading “Summon to Investigator to produce all material collected during investigation.”