RAW LAW’s Post

Uttarakhand High Court Orders Thorough Investigation in Case of Alleged Hate Crime Leading to Death Amid Inter-Community Relationship Dispute Court’s Decision: The Uttarakhand High Court directed the Investigating Agency to carry out the further investigation in a scientific and professional manner, considering all the available evidence, including inputs from the petitioner. The writ petition was disposed of, emphasizing that the investigation should be conducted comprehensively and without prejudice. Facts: The petitioner approached the court alleging that his son, who belonged to a Christian community, was found dead under suspicious circumstances after being last seen with his girlfriend, who belonged to a Hindu community. The petitioner claimed that the deceased and his girlfriend were in a relationship that was opposed by her family. On 06.09.2024, the deceased was last seen alive with his girlfriend on her scooty. The next day, the mother of the girl informed the petitioner that the body of his son was found lying in bushes near her house, leading the petitioner to suspect foul play. Following this, the petitioner filed an FIR under Section 140(3) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. He alleged that the post-mortem was not conducted properly and critical information regarding the cause of death and the nature of the injuries was omitted from the report. Issues: Whether the police conducted a fair and impartial investigation considering the circumstances of the case. Whether the post-mortem was properly conducted and whether it warranted further investigation. Whether the CCTV footage from the surrounding areas was properly collected and preserved. Whether there was a need for the transfer of investigation to a specialized agency like CBCID or CBI. Court’s Reasoning: The court observed that the circumstances of the case, coupled with the petitioner’s allegations and the incomplete post-mortem report, warranted a closer scrutiny of the investigation. The court found that the initial investigation lacked thoroughness and that the petitioner’s concerns about the CCTV footage and post-mortem inconsistencies needed to be addressed. The state’s submission that the death was caused by a road accident involving a dumper truck was not entirely convincing without proper evidence. Thus, the court directed that the further investigation be carried out scientifically and in a professional manner, taking into consideration all available evidence and inputs from the petitioner. Conclusion: The High Court directed the Investigating Agency to conduct a thorough and scientific investigation, considering all relevant evidence, and ensure that justice is served without any bias. The court emphasized that the investigation should be conducted from all angles, taking into account the petitioner’s submissions and any other evidence that might surface. #UttarakhandHighCourt #LegalUpdate #HateCrimes #JudicialDecision #LawyersOfLinkedIn #LegalInsights

Delhi High Court Grants Bail to Accused in Murder Case, Observes: “Bail is Neither Punitive Nor Preventive.” Court’s Decision: The Delhi High Court granted regular bail to the accused, observing that she played no direct role in the injuring or stabbing of the victim. The Court emphasized that “bail is neither punitive nor preventive” and that incarceration should not be unduly extended without substantive justification. The bail was granted subject to stringent conditions, including the surrender of the passport and restrictions on movement outside the city. Facts: The case stemmed from an incident on 12.05.2019, when an altercation took place in Basai Darapur, Delhi. According to the complaint, one of the accused made inappropriate comments about the complainant’s sister, which led to a confrontation between the families. During the altercation, the complainant and his father were assaulted. The complainant’s father was stabbed in the abdomen, and his condition deteriorated, leading to his demise during treatment. Consequently, the charges escalated to include Section 302 of the IPC. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, a 30-year-old woman, actively participated by restraining the complainant’s sister and preventing her from helping the injured parties. The trial is ongoing, and all key eyewitnesses have been examined. Issues: Whether the accused’s role in the incident justified the continued denial of bail. Whether the petitioner posed a threat to the trial’s integrity by tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. Whether granting bail would be consistent with established principles laid down by the Supreme Court on the matter. Court’s Reasoning: The Court observed that while the allegations against the petitioner were serious, her role was limited to restraining the complainant’s sister. The evidence did not suggest that she was involved in the stabbing. The Court found that the petitioner did not pose a threat to society or a flight risk. Thus, denying her bail would not serve any significant purpose. Conclusion: The Court granted bail on the condition that the petitioner furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties of the like amount. The petitioner is required to report to the police station on specified days and seek prior permission before leaving the city. She is also prohibited from contacting the complainant’s family directly or indirectly. #DelhiHighCourt #LegalUpdate #BailLaw #CriminalJustice #JudicialDecision #LegalPrecedent #CriminalLaw #CourtRuling #LawAndJustice #LegalInsights #LawyersOfLinkedIn #LegalCommunity #LegalFramework #BailConditions #CriminalLitigation #JudicialProcess #LawUpdates #CriminalProceedings #LegalProfessionals #CourtVerdict #LawAndOrder #LegalAnalysis

Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Filed by Developer Against Occupant: “Attempt to Misuse Section 9 of Arbitration Act” Court’s Decision: The Bombay High Court dismissed the petition filed by the developer under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, against the occupant, holding that there was no arbitration agreement between the developer and the occupant. The court imposed costs of ₹5,00,000 on the developer, stating that the petition was a “complete and utter misuse of the provisions of Section 9 of the Arbitration Act.” The court concluded that the developer’s attempt to obtain reliefs against the occupant through Section 9 was frivolous and vexatious. Facts: The dispute arose from a Redevelopment Agreement (RDA) and a Supplementary Agreement (SA) executed on 20th July 2022 between a developer (the petitioner) and a Cooperative Housing Society (the respondent society). The property in question includes a plot of land and a building comprising two wings: ‘A-Wing’ and ‘B-Wing’. The developer entered into the RDA and SA only with the society and its members; Respondent No. 2, referred to as an “occupant” of the ‘B-Wing,’ was not a member of the society and had not signed the agreements. In 2018, the society resolved to undertake redevelopment. The occupant did not cooperate, leading to delays. The society later obtained a deemed conveyance in 2020. The occupant contested this decision, and the matter is pending in a separate writ petition. The developer, having obtained all necessary permissions, approached the court seeking interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act to proceed with redevelopment, claiming rights over both ‘A-Wing’ and ‘B-Wing.’ Respondent No. 2 argued that they held independent rights over ‘B-Wing,’ which had been separately assessed for property tax, had independent utilities, and had never been considered a part of the society. Issues: Whether the developer, who was not in privity of contract with the occupant, could seek interim reliefs under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act. Whether the society’s deemed conveyance could bind the occupant who did not sign the RDA and SA. Court’s Reasoning: The court highlighted that the occupant had never signed the RDA and SA, nor were they bound by any arbitration agreement. Stated that the petitioner’s attempt to enforce an agreement solely between the society and its members against a non-member was a misuse of Section Emphasized that issues of title and ownership cannot be conclusively determined under a deemed conveyance order and must be resolved through appropriate proceedings. Conclusion: The court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner, having no privity of contract with Respondent No. 2, could not seek reliefs under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act. It directed the petitioner to pay costs of ₹5,00,000 to the respondent for instituting frivolous proceedings. #LegalUpdate #LegalProfessionals #LegalInsights #LawyersOfLinkedIn

Uttarakhand High Court Grants Liberty to Move Application Under Land Ceiling Act: No Show Cause Notice Issued Before Declaring Land Surplus Court’s Decision: The Uttarakhand High Court disposed of the writ petition, granting the petitioners liberty to file an application under Section 11(2) of the UP Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. The petitioners challenged the impugned order that declared their purchased land as surplus, without issuing a show cause notice. The court observed that the appropriate remedy lies in moving an application before the Prescribed Authority within 30 days from the date of the impugned order. Facts: The petitioners had purchased the disputed land through a registered sale deed in 2006-07 from one of the respondents to the ceiling proceedings. The petitioners have been in possession and cultivation of the said land since then. Subsequently, proceedings under the UP Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, were initiated, and the land was declared surplus under Section 11(1) of the Act, 1960. Issues: Whether the impugned order declaring the land as surplus could be sustained when the petitioners were not issued a show cause notice under Section 10(2) of the Act, 1960. Court’s Reasoning: The court reasoned that the petitioners’ grievance regarding the non-issuance of a show cause notice could be effectively addressed by the Prescribed Authority under Section 11(2) of the Act, 1960. The availability of an alternative remedy necessitated that the petitioners approach the Prescribed Authority first. Conclusion: The writ petition was disposed of with liberty granted to the petitioners to move an application under Section 11(2) of the Act, 1960, within the prescribed period of 30 days. The court clarified that if such an application is filed, the Prescribed Authority shall entertain and decide it as per law. #UttarakhandHighCourt #LegalUpdate #LandLaws #CeilingAct #LandHoldings #PropertyLaw #CourtRuling #JudicialDecision #LegalPrecedent #LandDisputes #LegalInsights #LawyersOfLinkedIn #LegalProfessionals #AgriculturalLaw #PropertyRights #RealEstateLaw #LegalFramework #LawAndJustice #JudicialProcess #LegalCommunity #LawUpdates

Uttarakhand High Court Quashes Recovery Order of Rs. 1,84,478 From Retired Employee’s Gratuity and Salary Benefits; Holds Recovery After Retirement Invalid Court’s Decision: The Uttarakhand High Court quashed the office order issued against the petitioner, which directed the recovery of Rs. 66,914 from gratuity and Rs. 1,17,514 as a difference in salary after retirement, amounting to a total of Rs. 1,84,478. The Court held that the petitioner’s case was squarely covered by the Division Bench judgment in Managing Director, Uttarakhand Transport Corporation vs. Ashok Kumar Saxena, where similar deductions were deemed invalid. The High Court, therefore, directed the respondent authority to refund the deducted amount to the petitioner with statutory bank interest. Facts: The petitioner, a retired employee of the Uttarakhand Transport Corporation, filed a writ petition challenging the recovery of amounts from his post-retirement benefits. The office order dated 19.02.2022 stated that Rs. 66,914 would be recovered from his gratuity and Rs. 1,17,514 would be recovered as a difference in salary due to discrepancies in the Assured Career Progression (ACP) scheme. This total deduction of Rs. 1,84,478 was made after the petitioner’s retirement. Issues: Whether the recovery of gratuity and salary difference from the petitioner after retirement was lawful. Whether the petitioner’s case is governed by the decision in Managing Director, Uttarakhand Transport Corporation vs. Ashok Kumar Saxena. Court’s Reasoning: The Court, while deciding the petition, emphasized that the recovery was not justified as it violated the principles laid down in the Ashok Kumar Saxena case. The Court reasoned that retirement benefits are meant for the sustenance of retired employees and any unauthorized deduction would cause undue hardship. Conclusion: The Uttarakhand High Court concluded that the office order dated 19.02.2022 for recovery was unsustainable in law. It quashed the order and directed the respondent authority to refund the deducted amount of Rs. 1,84,478 along with statutory bank interest. #UttarakhandHighCourt #LegalUpdate #EmployeeRights #RetirementBenefits #LabourLaw #CourtRuling #LegalPrecedent #LegalInsights #PublicSectorEmployees #EmploymentLaw #LegalCommunity #LabourJustice #RetirementLaw #JudicialDecision #LawAndJustice #LawyersOfLinkedIn #CorporateLaw #CourtOrder #LegalProfessionals #EmployeeWelfare

Uttarakhand High Court Quashes Recovery Order Against Retired Employee; Directs Re-fixation of Pay Scale and Payment of Arrears in Line with Prior Judgments Court’s Decision: The Uttarakhand High Court quashed the impugned recovery order against the petitioner, a retired employee, and directed the respondents to re-fix the pay scale of the petitioner as per the 2nd and 3rd Assured Career Progression (ACP) schemes. The court ruled that the matter was already covered by the judgment dated 04.04.2024, passed by the Division Bench of the Uttarakhand High Court in Managing Director, Uttarakhand Transport Corporation, Dehradun and others vs. Ashok Kumar Saxena. Facts: The petitioner, a retired employee of the Uttarakhand Transport Corporation, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 07.09.2024, which directed a recovery of Rs. 1,67,198/- from his retirement dues. The petitioner claimed that he was entitled to arrears and interest on delayed payments and sought the court’s intervention to quash the recovery order. Issues: Whether the recovery order issued against the retired employee was valid. Whether the petitioner was entitled to arrears and interest for delayed payments. Whether the petitioner’s pay scale needed to be re-fixed in accordance with the 2nd and 3rd ACP schemes. Court’s Reasoning: The court held that, since the respondents admitted the applicability of the previous judgment, there was no need for an extensive discussion on the merits of the case. The matter was squarely covered by the precedent, and the petitioner was entitled to the same reliefs as granted to similarly situated employees. Conclusion: The High Court quashed the impugned order dated 07.09.2024 and directed the respondents to re-fix the petitioner’s pay scale in line with the 2nd and 3rd ACP schemes. Additionally, the respondents were instructed to pay the arrears due, along with interest at 18% per annum from the date of retirement until the actual date of payment. #UttarakhandHighCourt #LegalUpdate #EmploymentLaw #RetirementBenefits #PayScaleRevision #CourtRuling #LegalPrecedent #LegalInsights #LabourLaw #PublicSectorEmployees #JudicialDecision #LawyersOfLinkedIn #EmployeeRights #LegalCommunity #LabourJustice #LegalProfessionals #LawAndJustice #ComplianceMatters #CourtOrder #CorporateLaw #RetirementLaw

Supreme Court Reverses High Court’s Order for Further Investigation Citing Lack of Justifiable Grounds: ‘Fishing and Roving Enquiries Cannot Be Allowed Merely to Delay Justice’ Court’s Decision: The Supreme Court set aside the Madras High Court’s order directing further investigation in a case related to the murder of the deceased. The court held that the High Court’s order lacked any justifiable grounds for allowing further investigation, especially when all necessary witnesses had been previously examined, and the original trial had almost concluded. The court emphasized that further investigations cannot be permitted for conducting “fishing and roving enquiries,” especially when the trial is at an advanced stage and no new substantial facts have come to light. The Supreme Court also stated that “Delay in trial will cede to the pursuit of truth, however, a distinction should be made between cases where there exist genuine grounds to hold up the proceedings and cases where such grounds do not exist.” The trial court was directed to conclude the trial and pronounce the judgment within eight weeks from the date of the order. Facts: The case pertains to a murder incident where the deceased was allegedly hacked to death by several accused while on a morning walk. An FIR was registered in March 2013, naming eight accused. In 2016, the prime witness (PW-1) was declared hostile and sought to be cross-examined by the prosecution. The wife of the deceased (PW-2) and other relatives were also examined in March 2017. The primary witness’s (PW-1) testimony became inconsistent during multiple examinations, raising doubts about the nature of the evidence. After the trial concluded, the wife of the deceased sought further investigation under Section 311 Cr.P.C., which was rejected by the trial court and subsequently confirmed by the High Court. Despite the trial nearing completion, a fresh application for further investigation under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. was filed in January 2020 by the wife of the deceased. This was allowed by the High Court, which led to the present appeal. Issues: The key issue before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was justified in ordering further investigation at a stage when: The trial had already concluded. The primary witness (PW-1) had been examined multiple times. No new facts or evidence were brought to light justifying a reinvestigation. Court’s Reasoning: The court stated, “Fishing and roving enquiries cannot be permitted when the very applicant has not provided any new facts in her evidence.” It emphasized that justice should be timely and not delayed unnecessarily due to frivolous applications. Conclusion: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order directing further investigation and dismissed the application under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent. The court directed the trial court to proceed with final arguments and conclude the trial within eight weeks.

Uttarakhand High Court Observes Unnecessary Adjournments Hinder Expeditious Disposal of Cases Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Court’s Decision: The Uttarakhand High Court disposed of the petition seeking expeditious disposal of a complaint case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which was pending before the Judicial Magistrate I, Haldwani. The court emphasized that while Section 143(3) of the Act mandates trials to be conducted as expeditiously as possible, completing them within six months is not always feasible due to the type, age, and pendency of cases. Facts: The petitioner is the accused in Complaint Case No. 505 of 2022, initiated under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The respondent is the complainant in the case, and the matter has been pending since 2022. The petitioner alleged that the complainant has been avoiding cross-examination for the last year, thereby delaying the proceedings unnecessarily. Issues: Whether the High Court should direct the lower court for expeditious disposal of a complaint case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Whether the conduct of the complainant in delaying the cross-examination constitutes an abuse of the judicial process. Court’s Reasoning: The court acknowledged that the complainant’s repeated non-appearance for cross-examination has contributed to the delay. It emphasized the importance of adhering to the legislative mandate of expeditious disposal but also acknowledged the practical constraints faced by trial courts in achieving this goal. The court observed that unnecessary adjournments are to be discouraged and directed the trial court to dispose of the matter as soon as possible, considering the overall pendency and nature of the case. Conclusion: The petition was disposed of with an observation that the trial court should make every effort to conclude the matter at the earliest possible opportunity, discouraging any further unwarranted adjournments. However, the court refrained from setting a strict timeline for disposal, taking into account the practical difficulties faced by lower courts. #UttarakhandHighCourt #LegalUpdate #NegotiableInstrumentsAct #Section138 #ChequeBounce #ExpeditiousJustice #CourtRuling #LegalInsights #LawyersOfLinkedIn #JudicialEfficiency #LegalCommunity #LegalPrecedent #JusticeDelayed #LawAndJustice #CourtProceedings #JudicialReforms #LawUpdates #LitigationStrategy #LawProfessionals #LawAndOrder #LegalFramework

Supreme Court Rules on Seniority Dispute in Engine Factory, Avadi: “Seniority Cannot Be Counted from the Date of Induction in Semi-Skilled Grade Without Completing Probation and Passing Trade Tests.” Court’s Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Madras High Court’s decision to restore the seniority of the private respondents, confirming that the seniority should be determined from the date of promotion to the skilled grade, rather than the date of initial appointment in the semi-skilled grade. The Court held that the appellant’s seniority could not be considered from the initial induction date as he failed to complete his probation period within the stipulated timeframe and pass the necessary trade test. The Court ruled that the appellant could not benefit from a subsequent change in rules which were prospective and could not alter settled seniority positions. Facts: The appellant and the private respondents were recruited in 1996 for semi-skilled positions such as Fitters and Machinists at an industrial establishment. They were placed on a common select list based on merit, with the appellant positioned higher than the respondents. The appellant was appointed as a Fitter (semi-skilled) and placed on probation for two years, which was further extended by six months. Upon successful completion of probation, the appellant was promoted to the skilled grade on 6th January, 1999, while the respondents were promoted earlier in July 1998. A seniority list issued in 2006 ranked the respondents above the appellant, leading to a dispute over the correct determination of seniority. The appellant contested this list, claiming his seniority should be reckoned from his initial appointment date due to his higher position on the merit list. Issues: The core issue before the Court was to determine whether the seniority of the appellant should be based on his initial appointment date or from the date of his promotion to the skilled grade, considering the rules governing promotions in the establishment. Court’s Reasoning: The Supreme Court reasoned that seniority must follow the rules existing at the time of the employee’s confirmation and promotion. Since the appellant was confirmed in the skilled grade only in 1999 after completing his probation and passing the trade test, he could not claim seniority from 1996 when he joined as a trainee in the semi-skilled grade. The Court held that the private respondents, who completed their probation earlier and were promoted in 1998, were rightly placed above the appellant. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court’s judgment. The appellant’s seniority was to be determined based on the date of promotion to the skilled grade, and the private respondents’ seniority positions were restored. The Court further clarified that any subsequent changes in the rules or policies could not alter the settled seniority positions retrospectively.