Judgments
Supreme Court
Municipal Committee Katra and Ors. Vs. Ashwani Kumar (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 398)
MANU/SC/0408/2024
09.05.2024
Commercial
Disputes arising out of purely contractual obligations cannot be entertained by High Court in exercise of the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction
The brief controversy presented for adjudication in present appeals is whether the High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction, was entitled to entertain a dispute which was purely civil in nature filed for claiming monetary relief/damages arising from fallout of contractual obligations.
No one can be permitted to take undue and unfair advantage of his own wrong to gain favourable interpretation of law. It is a sound principle that he who prevents a thing from being done shall not avail himself of the non-performance he has occasioned. To put it differently, 'a wrong doer ought not to be permitted to make profit out of his own wrong'. The conduct of the Respondent-writ Petitioner is fully covered by the aforesaid proposition.
Once the Respondent-writ Petitioner had participated in the tender process being fully conscious of the terms and conditions of the auction notice, he was estopped from taking a U-turn so as to question the legality or validity of the terms and conditions of the auction notice. By dragging the matter to litigation, the Respondent himself was responsible for the delay occasioned in issuance of the work order which deprived him of the opportunity to work for the entire period of 365 days.
Furthermore, the relief which was sought by the Respondent in the writ petition was purely by way of damages. By no stretch of imagination, such relief could have been subject matter of extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The quantification of the damages would require entering into disputed questions of facts and hence, the High Court ought to have relegated the writ Petitioner (Respondent herein) to the competent Court for claiming damages, if so advised.
Law is well settled that disputes arising out of purely contractual obligations cannot be entertained by the High Court in exercise of the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction. The impugned judgments are quashed and set aside. Appeals allowed.
Tags : Writ jurisdiction Dispute Contractual obligation
Share : 
Top
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
Usha Goyal, Delhi vs. DCIT
MANU/ID/0474/2024
09.05.2024
Direct Taxation
When reasonable cause for non-compliance with notice is crystal clear, assessee need not to be visited with rigours of penalty
The Appellant has filed her return of income under Section 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 27.03.2015 declaring income of Rs.41,42,690. Assessing Officer issued notice under section 274 read with Section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and asked the appellant to show cause as to why an order imposing a penalty should not be made under section 271(1)(b) of the IT Act for non compliance of notice issued under Section 142(1) of the Act.
AO imposed penalty of Rs.10,000 under section 271(1)(b) of the Act, vide order for failure to comply with the notice issued under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Against this levy of penalty, assessee appealed before the learned CIT(A) who confirmed the same.
Penalty of Rs.10,000 under Section 271(1)(b) of the IT Act has been imposed in this case on the failure of the assessee to comply with the notice though it is also recorded that on 08th November, 2019, assessee had requested the Assessing Officer to adjourn the hearing as her Authorised Representative was out of Delhi. When the reasonable cause for non-compliance with the notice is crystal clear, assessee need not to be visited with the rigours of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act.
Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa has held that, assessee may not be visited with rigours of penalty if the assessee's conduct is not found to be contumacious. The conduct of the assessee in this case is not contumacious. Accordingly, in the background of the facts and circumstances of the case, the orders of the authorities below are set aside and the penalty levied of Rs.10,000 is deleted. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Tags : Penalty Imposition Legality
Share :
Top
Supreme Court
Vijay Laxman Bhawe since deceased through his Legal Heirs Vs. P & S Nirman Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 394)
MANU/SC/0406/2024
08.05.2024
Property
Entertaining an application filed at the behest of a stranger for condonation of delay is unsustainable in law
The present appeal challenges the judgment passed by the High Court, whereby the High Court dismissed the revision application filed by the Appellants, challenging the order passed by the trial court in Application, filed by Respondent No. 1 herein, for condonation of delay.
The approach of the trial court in entertaining the application filed at the behest of Respondent No. 1 is totally unsustainable in law. The claim of Respondent No. 1 is on an unregistered Agreement for Sale dated 8th December 2009. Entertaining an application filed at the behest of a stranger for condonation of delay in filing an application for restoration of the subject suit is totally unsustainable in law. Admittedly, Respondent No. 1 has not even been impleaded in the subject suit. As such, the application filed at the behest of the stranger, who is not a party to the proceedings, is totally illegal. If the approach as adopted by the trial court is approved, any Tom, Dick and Harry would be permitted to move an application for condonation of delay in filing an application for restoration of the suit even if he is not a party to the subject suit.
The reasoning given by the trial court as well as the High Court for condoning such an inordinate delay will not come under the ambit of "sufficient cause" as has been delineated by this Court in a catena of judgments. The orders of the trial court as well as the High Court are not sustainable in law. The judgment passed by the High Court and the order passed by the trial court are quashed and set aside. Appeal allowed.
Tags : Delay Condonation Legality
Share :
Top
High Court of Delhi
Atamjit Singh and Ors. Vs. Sports Fit World Pvt. Ltd. (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:3635)
MANU/DE/3348/2024
07.05.2024
Company
Winding up proceedings pending before High Courts, which have not progressed to an advanced stage, ought to be transferred to the NCLT
The present company petition has been instituted under Section 433 (e) and (f) of the Companies Act, 1956 read with Section 434 and 439 of the Act, seeking winding up of the Respondent company and is predicated on the non-payment of an outstanding principal amount of Rs. 1,99,70,730, which is stated to have arisen as a result of arrears of rent for the period of June 2013 to 04.11.2015.
It appears that the respondent company has failed to pay its debt in the normal and ordinary course of its business and so, the present petition has been filed. However, from a perusal of the record, it is borne out that the present company petition is a complete non-starter, in so far then neither a Provisional Liquidator nor an Official Liquidator has yet been appointed in the present petition.
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 as well as the Companies Act, 2013, have since been enacted during the pendency of these proceedings, it is the opinion of this court that the present petition does not deserve to continue before this Court, and it would be appropriate for the same to be transferred to the National Company Law Tribunal.
It would also be expedient to place reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case titled Action Ispat and Power Private Limited v. Shyam Metalics and Energy Limited, whereby it was held that, those winding up proceedings pending before High Courts, which have not progressed to an advanced stage, ought to be transferred to the NCLT.
This above noted decision of the Supreme Court has been relied upon by this court in Citicorp International Limited v. Shiv Vani Oil & Gas Exploration Services Limited, wherein it was held that winding up proceedings pending before High Courts, which are at a nascent stage and have not progressed to an advanced stage, ought to be transferred to the NCLT. Hence, the instant petition is transferred to the NCLT. In view of the same, the present company petition as well as pending applications are accordingly disposed of.
Tags : Winding up Proceedings Transfer
Share :
Top
High Court of Delhi
The New India Assurance Co Ltd. Vs. Sujatha and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:3638)
MANU/DE/3381/2024
07.05.2024
Motor Vehicles
Unless exceptional circumstances are shown, rate of interest awarded to the claimants should be 7.5% from date of filing of petition
The Appellant/insurance company has preferred present appeal in terms of Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 assailing the impugned judgment-cum-award passed by learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, challenging the quantum of compensation awarded to the extent that the learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed compensation towards loss of financial dependency by not accounting or deducting the amount of certain allowances which were personal to the deceased.
Tribunal has committed certain irregularities in the assessment of compensation, which require to be corrected. As far as the loss of financial dependency is concerned, the last pay certificate of the deceased as on 6th April, 2012 was placed on the record and it clearly suggests that he was entitled to a transport allowance of Rs.1600 per month besides ration money of Rs.1,753. These two allowances which were personal to the deceased need to be deducted and the monthly income would be arrived at Rs.26,926. Annual income shall thus arrive at Rs.3,23,112 to which 50% has to be added towards future prospects after which the total annual income would be Rs.4,84,668.
Further, upon deducting one-third towards personal use and expenses, the amount of financial dependency would come to Rs.3,23,112 to which multiplier of '16' shall be applicable, and therefore, the loss of financial dependency would come to Rs.51,69,792. In terms of the decision by the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi, each of the legal heirs of the deceased is to be awarded Rs.40,000 towards loss of consortium along with Rs.15,000 towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000 towards loss of estate. Accordingly, the amount of compensation would come to Rs.52,79,792.
The learned Tribunal has awarded interest at 10% per annum. This Court has taken a consistent view that, unless exceptional circumstances are shown, the rate of interest that is to be awarded to the claimants should be 7.5% from the date of filing of the petition i.e. from 1st November, 2012 till realization. The amount of compensation is reduced to Rs.52,79,792 and the claimants shall be entitled to receive the same with interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing of the petition till realization.
Tags : Award Compensation Legality
Share :
Top
Supreme Court
Jatinder Kumar Sapra Vs. Anupama Sapra (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 382)
MANU/SC/0389/2024
06.05.2024
Family
Court has jurisdiction under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India to dissolve a marriage on basis of irretrievable breakdown
The instant appeal assails the correctness of an order passed by the High Court dismissing the appeal; and accordingly upheld the correctness of an order passed by the Family Court whereunder the Family Court dismissed a petition instituted by the Appellant under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking dissolution of marriage by way of a decree of divorce.
The Appellant and the Respondent before this Court were married on 14.10.1991 as per Hindu rites and rituals, at Faridabad, Haryana. Out of the wedlock two children were born on 25.08.1993 and 02.05.1996.Despite being together for approximately 14 years, bitterness crept into the relationship between the parties. Whilst on one hand, it is alleged that the Respondent ill-treated the Appellant; and constantly acted against the Appellant at the behest of her parents. On the other hand, the Respondent Wife alleged cruelty and torture at the hands of the Appellant Husband.
Despite best effort(s), the parties were adamant on parting ways - citing an irretrievable breakdown of their marriage. In Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan, it was observed that a marriage may be dissolved on the ground of an irretrievable breakdown in exercise of the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India. The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the parties have separated 22 years ago i.e., having cohabited last in January 2002. The children are now majors and gainfully employed; elder son is an associate in a dental clinic; and younger son is a video/film editor. Thus, keeping in view the totality of circumstances, present Court is satisfied that the facts on record establish that the marriage between the parties has broken down and that there is no possibility that the parties would cohabit together in the future. Accordingly, the formal union between the parties is neither justified nor desirable.
Present Court deem it appropriate to exercise discretion under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India and pass a decree of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. However, in view of fact that the Appellant has previously been employed by various multinational corporations in managerial post(s); and the fact that the Appellant is presently endowed with a respectable estate; present Court deem it fit and proper that the Appellant pays an amount of Rs. 50,00,000 to the Respondent Wife as permanent alimony. Appeal allowed.
Tags : Irretrievable breakdown Divorce Grant
Share :
Top
Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal
Power Grid Corporation of India Limited vs. Commissioner of Customs
MANU/CS/0184/2024
06.05.2024
Customs
Limitation for extended period invokable, only if, suppression, fraud, collusion etc and intent to evade payment of duty is proved
The Appellant filed bill of entry for import of 120 KN Composite Long Rod Insulators for 765 KV Transmission lines and 160 KV Composite Long Rod Insulators for 765 KV transmission line by classifying these goods under Chapter Tariff Heading 85469090 of Customs Tariff and by availing the benefit of concessional rate of basic excise duty vide Serial No. 350 of Notification No. 12/2012-Cus dated 17th March, 2012. The department has issued a show cause notice.
The adjudicating authority vide order-in-original dropped the proceedings initiated vide the said Show Cause Notice on the ground that, the importer had claimed the benefit of Notification correctly as the Director (PG), Ministry of Power, Govt. of India, New Delhi had recommended eligibility of concessional rate of duty for import of Composite Long Rod Insulators. Being aggrieved by the said order-in-original, Revenue filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) though remanded the matter but conclusively held that, the Appellant is not eligible to the benefit of Exemption Notification No. 12/2012-Cus. Being aggrieved by the Order-in-Appeal, the Appellant filed appeal before present Tribunal.
There is no change of circumstances from date of filing of bill of entry till the issue of show cause notice, therefore, nothing prevented the department to issue show cause notice within the normal period from the date of filing of bill of entry i.e. 9th February, 2017. Therefore, there is no reason for invoking the extended period upto three years, when there is no change in the facts of the case.
In Tamil Nadu Housing Board v. Collector of Central Excise, Madras, the apex court held that limitation for extended period invokable only if existence of situations (1) suppression, fraud, collusion etc and intent to evade payment of duty proved.
The suppression of fact or wilful misstatement or fraud or collusion etc., cannot be invoked in the present case. Therefore, the show cause notice issued after almost three years is clearly barred by limitation. Consequently, the demand being under extended period cannot sustain. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside, appeal is allowed.
Tags : Limitation period SCN Legality
Share :