advocatemmmohan
just another law knowledge bank
Petition
workers and officers = even though resolution passed 6 years back, suddenly with out hearing the workers, the working hours can be increased by way of implimention of resolution = whether the increase of working hours from 42 to 48 hours per week with one day weekly off as against two days weekly off issued through the impugned circular is valid or not.=”14. Action by the State, whether administrative or executive, has to be fair and in consonance with the statutory provisions and rules. Even if no rules are in force to govern executive action, still such action, especially if it could potentially affect the rights of the parties, should be just, fair and transparent. Arbitrariness in State action, even where the rules vest discretion in an authority, has to be impermissible. The exercise of discretion, in line with principles of fairness and good governance, is an implied obligation upon the authorities, when vested with the powers to pass orders of determinative nature. ………..” Applying the said principle, I am of the view that the impugned order cannot be sustained and the respondent can very well convene a meeting and negotiate with the petitioner association to impress upon the members of the petitioner association to increase the working hours, etc., even though consensus is not required for increasing the working hours and for reduction of weekly holidays. 15. On the said limited ground the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the respondent to convene a meeting for discussion and proceed further in accordance with law. This order need not be construed as accepting the contentions of the petitioner association on merits. The writ petition is disposed of according
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 12-12-2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.22831 OF 2011 M.P.NOS.1 TO 3 OF 2011 CHENNAI PETROLEUM OFFICERS ASSOCIATION (REGN.NO.178/TUR) INSIDE CPCL CAMPUS MANALI CHENNAI-600 068. … Petitioner Vs CHENNAI PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED REP.BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER (HR) MANALAI CHENNAI-600 068. … Continue reading
the complaint is barred by limitation and also it is a voluntary surrender of plot on his failure to pay required instalments=The petitioner was the complainant before the District Forum with the allegation that he was compelled to surrender the plot allotted to him by the respondent in view of HUDA’s failure to carry out the necessary development works. On the other hand, the HUDA pointed out that the complainant had voluntarily surrendered the plot under his letter dated 08.05.2003 and received the refund of Rs.1,80,723/- from the HUDA by cheque no. 1030653 dated 25.08.2003. There was no protest by the allottee/complainant. However, he filed a complaint on 14.09.2006 alleging that his surrender of the plot was not voluntary but due to the non-completion of necessary development works.
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 4529 OF 2010 (From the order dated 05.07.2010 of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula in First Appeal no. 2161 of 2006) Puran Chand Son of Jaisha Ram House no. 485, Ward 7 Near Gurdwara Bahi Sant Narain Singh Petitioner Panipat, Haryana Through G.P.A holder Mukesh Kumar, son of Bihari Lal House no. 530, Sector 8 Panipat, Haryana versus 1. … Continue reading
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL commission= bank deposits =It also stands to reason that had there been any mala fide action on the part of any employee of the respondent bank in encashing the FDR in question, such a person could have easily encashedthe complainant’s remaining three FDRs also. Further, the action of the petitioner/complainant to claim payment of the four FDRs made in 1961 after nearly 39 years without any enquiry, etc., in the long intervening period is most unusual. 7. In conclusion, therefore, I do not find any jurisdictional error, legal infirmity or material irregularity in the impugned order of the State Commission to warrant action under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed, with the further observation that (as admitted before the Fora below) the Bank shall pay to the petitioner within six weeks the maturity amount of the remaining three FDRs along with interest thereon at the rates applicable from time to time. If the order is not complied with within the stipulated period, the entire amount including regular interest shall carry further interest @ 15% per annum from the date of this order.
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 3073 OF 2007 (From the order dated 29.05.2007 of the Punjab Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh in Appeal. no. 597 of 2002) Dr. Narinder Mohan Wadhera Son of Shri Ram Wadhera Resident of 189 Basant Avenue Petitioner Amritsar versus 1. The State Bank of India Local Head Office, Sector 17, Chandigarh Through its Chief General Manager Respondents 2. State … Continue reading
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION=though the site is purchased in public auction, he can be treated as consumer as the terms and conditions are like that and the auction is not an out and out sale, later terms saddled with some obligations on the HUDA =..In a situation like this, the auction purchaser of an existing site/plot/house will certainly be a “consumer” of, in accord with the provisions of section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act, the promised developmental “service” of the Authority in question, from the date of the letter of allotment till such time the promised service/s is/are delivered to the satisfaction of the purchaser, in accordance with the service provider’s, i.e., the Authority’s commitment in this behalf. The ruling of the Apex Court in the UT Chandigarh case does not, in my respectful view, cater for a situation where an auction purchaser buys an existing plot of land, not on “as is where is” basis but with an explicit commitment on the part of the original owner/auctioning entity to offer possession after completion of development works in the area”. (v) In the Suneja case, this Commission further observed that the Apex Court itself did not find it fit to disentitle an auction purchaser to his simultaneous identity as a “consumer” under the Act in two cases decided in quick succession after the U.T. Chandigarh Administration case, viz., the cases of Haryana Urban Development Authority and Another vSatish Hans [(2009) 7 SCC 282] and Madan Kumar Singh vs District Magistrate, Sultanpur [IV (2009) CPJ 3 (SC)]. 5. It need not be emphasised that in this case too, clause 6 of the allotment letter is identically worded as that in the Suneja case referred to above. Therefore, by the same logic, the status of the petitioner as a “consumer” under the Act and consequently, the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora to adjudicate on the dispute cannot be ousted by mechanical application of the ratio of the Apex Court’s decision in the U T Chandigarh Administration case on the ground that the plot of land in question was sold by the respondent HUDA in an open auction, unmindful of the provisions of clauses of the letter of allotment, particularly clause 6. Further, the fact of deficiency in service in terms of failure of the respondent HUDA to carry out the assured development works in the area is amply established by evidence led before the District Forum in not one but two complaint proceedings, a point conceded by Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent.
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 729 OF 2011 (From the order dated 26.11.2010 in Appeal no. 1146 of 2002 of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes RedressalCommission, Panchkula) Rajil Khod Son of Hait Ram Khod Resident of 143, C Block Petitioner Near New Anaj Mandi Sirsa versus Haryana Urban Development Authority Through Estate Officer, Respondent Hisar BEFORE: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. C. … Continue reading
what is the arbitration agreement ? = the pre-requisites of a valid and binding arbitration agreement leading to an appropriate reference under the Act. Section 2(1)(b) defines `arbitration agreement’ to be an agreement referred to in Section 7. Section 7 of the Act states that an `arbitration agreement’ is an agreement by the parties to submit to arbitration all or certain disputes which have arisen or which may arise between them in respect of a defined legal relationship, whether contractual or not. The arbitration agreement may be in the form of an arbitration clause in a contract or in the form of a separate agreement and shall be an agreement in writing. An arbitration agreement is in writing if it is contained in any of the clauses i.e. clauses (a) to (c) of Sub-section (4) of Section 7 of the Act. Once these ingredients are satisfied, there would be a binding arbitration agreement between the parties and the aggrieved party would be in a capacity to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 11(6) of the Act.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 5 OF 2010 Powertech World Wide Limited … Petitioner Versus Delvin International General Trading LLC … Respondent O R D E R Swatanter Kumar, J. 1. M/s. Powertech World Wide Limited, the petitioner, is a limited company registered under the Companies Act, … Continue reading
Sentence/Sentencing: Commutation of death sentence to life imprisonment by the Governor – No reason indicated in the order which was passed on recommendation of NHRC – Writ petition under Article 32 challenging order of Governor – Held: NHRC proceedings were not in line with the procedure prescribed under the 1993 Act – That being so, recommendations by NHRC was non est – Moreover said order did not indicate reasons – Governor’s order is set aside – Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 – Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 32. Writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India was filed challenging the order of Governor of Assam, commuting the death sentence to life imprisonment when the accused was held guilty of heinous crime of brutally killing four persons of a family. He was awarded death sentence which was confirmed by this court and review thereagainst was also dismissed. The order of commutation was passed on recommendation of NHRC. =Partly allowing the writ petition, the Court HELD: 1. In the documents filed before this Court by NHRC, the name of victim was stated and cause of action was stated to be the date of judgment of this Court i.e. 31.7.2000. The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 was enacted for constitution of NHRC for better protection of human rights and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Section 17 in Chapter IV deals with inquiry into complaints regarding violation of human rights. Obviously, there have to be atleast two persons involved. One whose human rights have been violated and the other who has violated the human rights. [Para 7 and 8] [504-C-G] 2. The NHRC proceedings were not in line with the procedure prescribed under the Act. That being so, the recommendations, if any, by the NHRC are non est. [Para 14] [505-G-H; 506-A] 3. The State of Assam indicated that not only the recommendations of NHRC but several other aspects were take note of. But the order directing commutation did not indicate any reason. Absence of any obligation to convey the reasons would not mean that there should not be legitimate or relevant reasons for passing the order. Apparently, in the instant case that was not done. The impugned order of commutation of death sentence to life imprisonment is set aside and direction is passed to reconsider the application filed by the accused for commutation of sentence. [Para 15 and 16] [506-A-E] Epuru Sudhakar v. Govt. of A.P. and Ors. (2006) 8 SCC 161, relied on. Case Law Reference: (2006) 8 SCC 161 relied on Para 15 CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) No. 457 of 2005. Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. Manish Goswami and Map & Co. for the Appellant. Avijit Roy (for M/s. Corporate Law Group), Vijay Panjwani, Shobha, J.B. Prakash and Puja Sharma for the Respondent.
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 457 OF 2005 Bani Kanta Das and Anr. …Petitioners Versus State of Assam and Ors. ..Respondents JUDGMENT Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. This petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by Smt. Jayanti Das w/o … Continue reading
Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920: Ss. 28, 55 and its Proviso: Insolvency Petition by the debtor/transferor-Bonafide transferee for valuable consideration-Protection to-Held: When transfer of shares to the transferee was for valuable consideration without any notice as to the presentation of the Insolvency Petition by the debtor, requirements of Proviso to Section 55 satisfied-Hence, entitled to protection/claim. Section 218/Proviso to Section 55-Protection to creditor vis-a-vis- Protection to bona fide transferee-Interpretation of-Held, An order of adjudication in an Insolvency Petition relates back to the date of its presentation-No word or Provision of Law could be left redundant/ superfluous-Both must be given effect to by harmoniously construing-On construing so the bonafide transferee could be protected under the provisions when the conditions of Proviso to Section 55 are complied with. The question which arose for consideration and decision in the appeal was as to whether protection under Section 55 of the Provincial Insolvency Act is available to a bonafide transferee for valuable consideration after presentation of the Insolvency Petition by or against the debtor but without notice and before passing an order of adjudication. =Answering the question in the affirmative and allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The object of Section 28 of the Provincial Insolvency Act is to secure unrestricted right to dispose of insolvent’s property after an order of adjudication is made. On making an order of adjudication, the whole of the property of the insolvent shall vest in the Court or in a Receiver, as the case may be. When sub-section (1) is read along with subsection (7) of the Act, the effect would be an order of adjudication relates back to the date of presentation of Insolvency Petition and the order of adjudication takes effect from the date of the presentation of the Insolvency Petition. Consequently, vesting of property under sub-section (2) also relates back to the date of presentation of the Insolvency Petition. Combined reading of sub-sections (1), (2) and (7) makes the position clear that the interest of the creditors is safeguarded, parties are put on notice against attempt to transfer the property after the date of presentation of the Insolvency Petition by the petitioners or others relating to his property and also to warn the intending purchasers or transferees that they are taking the risk of purchasing or getting the property transferred in their names during the pendency of the insolvency proceedings from the date of presentation of the petition itself and even before passing of an order of adjudication. [936- D-G] 1.2. Sections 28 and 55 of the Act are to be read together. Where the transfer has been made by the insolvent after presentation of the Insolvency Petition, the transfer cannot be held as void ab initio but its validity or otherwise depends upon a consideration as to whether the conditions specified under Section 55 are or are not satisfied. [936-H; 937-A] 1.3. It is cardinal rule of construction that normally no word or provision should be considered redundant or superfluous in interpreting the provisions of a statute. The Courts always presume that the legislature inserted every part thereof with a purpose and the legislative intention is that every part of the statute should have effect. It may not be correct to say that a word or words used in a statute are either unnecessary or without any purpose to serve, unless there are compelling reasons to say so looking to the scheme of the statute and having regard to the object and purpose sought to be achieved by it. Once the requirements of Section 55 of the Act are satisfied, the appellant is entitled for the protection of the said Section as a bona fide transferee. A contrary view takes away the very protective umbrella specifically made available to a bona fide transferee covered by Section 55. Protection provided for bona fide transfer in Section 55 is in a way exception to Section 28(7) of the Act. Proviso to Section 55 of the Act protects bona fide transactions mentioned in clauses (a) to (d) of Section 55. [937-C, D, F, H] Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Bank Ltd. Vikas v. Shri Ram Gopal Sharma and Ors., JT (2002) 1 SC 182, followed. 1.4. It is clear that the shares were transferred in favour of the appellant before the order of adjudication was made on the Insolvency Petition filed by the respondent and the appellant had no knowledge at the time of purchasing the shares as to the presentation of the Insolvency Petition, the transfer of shares was for valuable consideration and such transfer was bona fide. In this view, the appellants, did satisfy the requirements of proviso to Section 55 of the Act and hence they are entitled for the claim made by them. [938-B-D] 1.5. If the intention of the proviso to Section 55 of the Act was not to protect even a bona fide transferee for valuable consideration without notice of presentation of Insolvency Petition before an order of adjudication was made, the legislature could have simply said any transaction taking place after the date of presentation of any Insolvency Petition by or against the debtor instead of qualifying the transaction that takes place before the date of the order of adjudication. In this situation, the proviso which is intended to serve a definite purpose should be given full meaning and effect It is not possible to ignore a part of the provision, namely, “any such transaction takes place before the date of the order of adjudication”. It stands to reason as well, that a bona fide transferee for valuable consideration without the knowledge of the presentation of Insolvency Petition on the date of transfer of property is to be protected. [938-E-G] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 176 of 1997.
CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 176 of 1997 PETITIONER: Sankar Ram and Co. RESPONDENT: Vs. Kasi Naicker and others DATE OF JUDGMENT: 30/07/2003 BENCH: Shivaraj V. Patil &[D.M. Dharmadhikari. JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T Shivaraj V. Patil,J. “Whether protection provided in the proviso to Section 55 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 … Continue reading
About two years after the dismissal of the insolvency petition, the petitioners herein filed I.A.No.883 of 2005 to release the bank guarantee. Through the impugned order, the Insolvency Court dismissed the same. The petitioners contend that the bank guarantee is liable to be released and that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. when the insolvency petition was dismissed and when the bank guarantee was expired earlier to it, the petitioner can be released from bank guarantee to continue their business.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR C.R.P.NO.5131 OF 2006 20-12-2010 Between:- R.Srinivas and others .. Petitioners And Pulamati Bai and others ..Respondents ORDER:- The learned III Additional District Judge, Warangal, … Continue reading
SARFAESI Act,=avail the alternative remedy available under law, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.= it is to be noticed that under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, any person aggrieved by any of the measures referred to in Section 13 (4) by the secured creditor or his authorized officer has to make an application to the Debts Recovery Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter within 45 days from the date on which such measures had been taken. Against the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, a further appeal lies under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act to the Appellate Tribunal. In the light of such efficacious alternative remedy available under the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, the petitioner cannot straightaway invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed on the said ground alone.
THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.19260 OF 2011 Dated: 08.07.2011 Between: 1. Ch. Vijay Thomas and another. … Petitioners AND The State Bank of Hyderabad, RACPC, rep. by Its Manager, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad., And another. … Respondents … Continue reading
service matter = Unless the suspension period is regularized treating the same as on duty by the disciplinary authority, the question of payment of difference of pay does not arise.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.17159 OF 2011 Dated:22.06.2011 Between: Challa Srinivas Rao .. Petitioner And The Chairman and Managing Director, Andhra Bank, Head or Central Office, Saifabad, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE … Continue reading
advocatemmmohan 