April 2024 - The Law Literates

29Apr, 2024

Section 482 CRPC NI ACT Section 138 Dishonour of cheque – Quashing of complaint and summoning order -Punjab High Court

GURMEET vs State BANK OF INDIA CRMM 55404/22 27/04/24 [ HARKESH JUSICE ]

[ PUNJAB HARYANA HIGH COURT ]

Section 482 CRPC NI ACT Section 138 Dishonour of cheque – Quashing of complaint and summoning order – Petitioner admittedly stood as guarantor to loan facility availed by Company from Bank – Petitioner is neither Director nor in any manner in-charge of or responsible for day to day functioning of Company –

Besides making bald averment regarding petitioner being in-charge of or responsible towards Company, no such material or document provided in entire complaint to support this averment – Status of petitioner being guarantor can at best create civil liability against him as regards complainant, however, same in any manner cannot make him vicariously liable under Section 138 read with section 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act on account of dishonour of a cheque having been issued by Director of company towards discharge of its loan amount due towards Bank – Hence, quashing of complaint and summoning order.

Relevant paras

6. In the present case, the petitioner admittedly stood as a guarantor to the loan facility availed by the Company from respondent- Bank. The petitioner is neither a Director nor in any manner in-charge of or responsible for the day to day functioning of the Company. Besides making a bald averment regarding the petitioner being in-charge of or responsible towards the Company, no such material or document has been provided in the entire complaint to support this averment. The status of petitioner being a guarantor can at best create a civil liability against him as regards the respondent-complainant, however, the same in any manner cannot make him vicariously liable under Section 138 read with Section 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act on account of dishonour of a cheque having been issued by the Director of the company towards the discharge of its loan amount due towards the respondent-Bank. The aforesaid viewhas even been derived from the law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in “Pooja Ravinder Devidasani’s” case (supra).

7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present petition is allowed, the complaint bearing No. COMP/10342/17 filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act as well as the summoning order dated 26.07.2019 passed by Court of Ld. JMIC First Class, Ludhiana are hereby quashed qua the petitioners.

TO READ THE JUDGMENT CLICK HERE

CRM-M_55404_2022_27_04_2023_FINAL_ORDER GURMEET KAUR STATE BANK OF INDIA The law literates

26Apr, 2024

Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act Section 11 – Inquiry into complaint – The respondent, a constable in Delhi Police, was dismissed from service without a departmental enquiry, following allegations of sexual harassment

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE vs SANT RAM

WPC 5562/24 23/04/24 [CORAM:
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE ]

[ DELHI HIGH COURT ]

Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act Section 11 – Inquiry into complaint – The respondent, a constable in Delhi Police, was dismissed from service without a departmental enquiry, following allegations of sexual harassment – The main issue is whether the dismissal without an enquiry was justified under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India – The petitioner argued that the enquiry was not held due to the serious nature of the charges and the threat to the complainant and witnesses – The respondent contended that there was no evidence of threats and that the dismissal was unjustified without a proper enquiry – The court found that the dismissal was not in accordance with the principles of natural justice and the provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013 –

The court concluded that the dismissal order was not reasonably practicable and was violative of Article 311(2)(b), thus dismissing the writ petition – The court allowed the original application, setting aside the dismissal order and granting liberty to initiate disciplinary proceedings as per law.

To read the judgment click here

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ORS VERSUS DANT RAM THE LAW LITERATES

11Apr, 2024

Wife has filed divorce on the ground of impotency . High court disallows husband prayer for medical test. Supreme court allows the appeal and affirm the trial court order for husband to undergo potentiality test

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

DEEP MUKERJEE VERSUS SREYASHI BANERJEE. (Reported Judgment)

Hindu Marriage Act Section 9 and 13(1) (ia) Divorce -The case involves a marital dispute where the husband filed for restitution of conjugal rights, and the wife sought a divorce on grounds of the husband’s impotency – The primary issue is the challenge against the High Court’s order which set aside the Trial Court’s decision to subject both parties to medical tests – The husband is willing to undergo a potentiality test and challenges the High Court’s decision to set aside the Trial Court’s order – The wife opposes undergoing any tests,

including fertility or mental health check-ups, and contends she cannot be compelled to do so – The Supreme Court finds no cogent reason from the High Court as to why the husband should not undergo the potentiality test – The Supreme Court partially allows the appeals, upholding the Trial Court’s order for the husband to undergo the medical test, with the High Court’s order modified accordingly.

To read the judgment click here

DEEP MUKERJEE VERSUS SREYASHI BANERJEE JUDGMENT THE LAW LITERATES

8Apr, 2024

Amendment of written statement – Allowed CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

[DEBOBRATA MONDAL VERSUS PIJUSH BANERJEE ] JUSTICE BISWAROOP CHOWDARY

*Section 151 and Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 and Order 6, Rule 17 CPC Amendment of written statement Suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction and cancellation of sale deed – Defendants filed an application to amend their written statement, which was rejected by the court – In original WS, defendants made mistake in stating that ‘who was benamder’ which they sought to be corrected by amendment – Contention is that proposed amendment was necessary to rectify an inadvertent admission made in the written statement regarding Anita Devi’s status as the benamdar of Suprova Banerjee – While admissions should not be allowed to be withdrawn casually, courts have discretion to permit amendments if the admission was made inadvertently and the party seeking amendment acted in good faith – Thus, Courts had gone wrong in holding that defendant were not allowed to take inconsistent pleas in their defence – If a mistake in pleadings is committed due to inadvertence, opportunity should be given to rectify same – Amendment would not cause serious prejudice to plaintiffs – Amendment allowed.

To read the judgment click here

Debobrata Mondal & Ors. Vs. Pijush Banerjee and Ors. Judgment The Law Literates 🔁

8Apr, 2024

Set-Aside / Section 482 CRPC Section 408 IPC Dismissal of application for getting statement recorded by way of video conferencing through server room at the Civil Court and closing of evidence of prosecution by court order – Challenged

Sukhmanjit Singh Dhindsa vs State of Punjab CRMM 59290/23 28/11/23 [ HARPREET JJ ] [ PUNJAB HARYANA HIGH COURT ]

Section 482 CRPC Section 408 IPC Dismissal of application for getting statement recorded by way of video conferencing through server room at the Civil Court and closing of evidence of prosecution by court order – Challenged – Held, existing provisions of Criminal Procedure Code permit recording of evidence by way of video conferencing and such procedure duly recognized by High Court by inserting Model Video Conferencing Rules as circulated by Hon’ble Supreme Court – Recourse to record evidence through video conferencing is all more necessary when attendance of witness cannot be procured physically and any delay would affect progress of trial, which would cause great hardship and inconvenience to witness by travelling long distance to depose – Evidence of petitioner being complainant is necessary for pursuits of justice and mechanism of fair trial as enshrined under Article 21 of Constitution of India is not only available to accused but it exists for complainant victim as well and depriving opportunity to petitioner to depose through video conferencing, who is stuck in Canada due to diplomatic standoff between India and Canada, would be violative of his right to free and fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution – Therefore, dismissal of application for getting statement recorded by way of video conferencing set aside.

8. As such, keeping in view the proposition that the existing provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code permit recording of evidence by way of video conferencing and such procedure has been duly recognized by this Court by inserting Model Video Conferencing Rules as circulated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The recourse to record evidence through video conferencing is all the more necessary when attendance of a witness cannot be procured physically and any delay would affect the progress of the trial, which would cause great hardship and inconvenience to the witness by travelling a long distance to depose. The evidence of the petitioner being complainant is necessary for the pursuits of justice and the mechanism of fair trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is not only available to the accused but it exists for the complainant victim as well and depriving an opportunity to the petitioner to depose through video conferencing, who is stuck in Canada due to a diplomatic standoff between India and Canada, would be violative of his right to free and fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.

To read the judgment click here

Sukhmanjit Singh Dhindsa State of Punjab and others The Law Literates Judgment 🔁

7Apr, 2024

Order 39 Rule 1 CPC Injunction Agreement to Sell Suit for Cancellation of an agreement and Injunction -Allowed

MONICA GOGIA VERSUS M S RSS ESTATE LLP & ORS 202/24 09/03/24 [ HON’BLE NEENA KRISHNA BANSAL JUSTICE ] [ DELHI HIGH COURT ]

• Order 39 Rule 1 CPC Injunction Agreement to Sell Suit for Cancellation of an agreement and Injunction – The plaintiff has filed a suit seeking to cancel an agreement to sell and a sale deed related to agricultural land in Mehrauli, New Delhi, and to prevent the defendants from alienating or constructing on the property – Alleged Fraud by Defendants – The plaintiff claims that the defendants failed to pay the balance consideration for the land and fraudulently obtained her signature on a Sale Deed without payment, leading to unauthorized construction and blocking access to her property – Court’s Interim Orders – The High Court has ordered a status quo on the title and possession of the property, directed the removal of any obstruction to the plaintiff’s access, and appointed a Local Commissioner to inspect the site and report on the construction and possession Status.

3. The present Suit for Cancellation and Permanent Injunction has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff seeking following reliefs: –
“a. Pass a decree in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants thereby cancelling the Agreement to Sell dated 22.01.2024 with respect to the Agricultural Land measuring 4 bighas i.e 4032 sq. yds, bearing Mustatil No. 33, Killa No. 17 min(4 – 0) situated in the revenue estate of Village Mehrauli,Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi;
b. Pass a decree in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants thereby cancelling the purported Sale Deed executed for the Agricultural Land measuring 4 bighas i.e 4032 sq. yds, bearing Mustatil No. 33, Killa No. 17 min(4 – 0) situated in the revenue estate of Village Mehrauli, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi;
c. Pass a Decree of Permanent Injunction in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants thereby restraining the Defendants, their agents, attorneys, assignees from alienating, disposing, selling off or part with possession of Suit Property;
d. Pass a Decree of Permanent Injunction in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants thereby restraining the Defendants, their agents, attorneys, assignees from entering into of Suit Property;
e. Pass a Decree awarding costs of the instant suit along with legal costs in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants.” Allowed

To read the judgment click here

MONICA GOGIA VERSUS M S RSS ESTATE LLP & ORS THE LAW LITERATES JUDGMENT

3Apr, 2024

Sectiona 499 IPC Defamation – Whether ‘retweeting’ a defamatory content amounts to ‘publication’ under Section 499 of IPC, and whether the petitioner, who is not the original author of the content, can be summoned for defamation -Dismissed

DELHI HIGH COURT

ARVIND KEJRIWAL 🆚 STATE AND ANR CRLMC 6343/19 Justice Swarna Kant Sharma

Sectiona 499 IPC Defamation – Whether ‘retweeting’ a defamatory content amounts to ‘publication’ under Section 499 of IPC, and whether the petitioner, who is not the original author of the content, can be summoned for defamation – The petitioner, who is the Chief Minister of Delhi, had retweeted a video posted by another person on YouTube, which allegedly contained defamatory statements against the respondent, who is the founder of a social media page supporting the Prime Minister of India – The respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner for defamation under Section 499/500 of IPC – The petitioner challenged the summoning order on the grounds that the retweet did not constitute defamation, as it did not have any intention or knowledge to harm the respondent’s reputation, and that the petitioner was not the original author or publisher of the content – The petitioner also argued that the respondent had earlier withdrawn a Similar complaint against him, which amounted to acquittal under Section 257 of Cr.P.C – The respondent contended that the retweet was defamatory, as it lowered his reputation in the eyes of the public, and that the petitioner had a large following on Twitter, which amplified the impact of the retweet – The respondent also argued that the earlier withdrawal of the complaint was due to the lack of jurisdiction of the court, and that it did not bar the subsequent prosecution of the petitioner – The reach and influence of the person retweeting the defamatory content, and the potential harm caused to the reputation of the aggrieved person, and holds that the petitioner, being a Chief Minister with a large social media following, cannot escape liability by merely contending that he had no malicious intent or knowledge of the defamatory content – It is difficult to erase the reputational injury from public memory, as the tweets may be deleted but perceptions are difficult to be deleted from the minds of the community – This Court, thus, for the purpose of adjudicating the present case, holds that retweeting a content, which is allegedly defamatory, on the Twitter account and projecting it to be as if his own views, will prima facie attract the liability under Section 499 of IPC, for the purpose of issuance of summons – Therefore, this Court finds no infirmity with the impugned orders passed by the learned Trial Court as well as learned Sessions Court – Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed – It is, however, clarified that the observations made hereinabove qua the present complaint case are solely for the purpose of deciding the instant petition challenging the summoning orders, and the same shall not be construed as opinion of this Court on the merits of the case, which will be adjudicated upon during the course of trial.

To read the judgment click here

ARVIND KEJRIWAL VERSUS STATE & ANR THE LAW LITERATES JUDGMENT