Sunday, July 31, 2022

MACT cases: Supreme Court imposes costs on States which failed to file response on insuring State Corporation vehicles

The Supreme Court last week imposed costs of ₹50,000 on States that had failed to file their replies with regard to insuring vehicles owned or used by State-run undertakings.

The bench said that it has continuously been deprecating such practice and saddled such States with ₹10,000 costs.

"Such of the States who have filed it after the cut-off date but before today will pay a cost of ₹10,000 each while such of the States which have not complied will pay a cost of ₹50,000 each, to be recovered from the officers responsible for the delay along with compliance of recovery from that officer. The costs be deposited with the Mediation and Conciliation Project Committee within four weeks. The next step would be only to call the Chief Secretaries for noncompliance if it is not so complied with," the Court directed.

The Court then proceeded to state the following in its order:

"It is stated that in terms of the direction (v) on November 16, 2021, this Court had directed to take suitable steps to amend and digitize the claim application forms as per the format reproduced in the report filed by learned ASG on 21.10.2021. Form XIII of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 is thus directed to be uploaded digitally on the platform."

Friday, July 29, 2022

Mother has right to give step-father's surname to child after demise of biological father: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on 28/07/22 observed that the mother being the only natural guardian of the child has the right to decide the surname of the child, and also give the child up for adoption. (Akella Lalitha vs Konda Rao and ors).

a direction of the Andhra Pradesh High Court to a mother to restore her child's original surname from his stepfather's surname was set aside by the top court.

A division bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Krishna Murari said that such a direction of the High Court to a mother, who had remarried after her first husband's death, to restore her child's original surname, was "almost mindless and cruel".

"The mother being the only natural guardian of the child has the right to decide the surname of the child. She also has the right to give the child in adoption," the Bench said.

The division bench opined that when a child is adopted into a new home, it is only logical that he takes the surname of the adoptive family.

"The direction of the High Court to include the name of the Appellant’s husband as step-father in documents is almost cruel and mindless of how it would impact the mental health and self-esteem of the child. A name is important as a child derives his identity from it and a difference in name from his family would act as a constant reminder of the factum of adoption and expose the child to unnecessary questions hindering a smooth, natural relationship between him and his parents.

The instant case dealt with a custody battle between the appellant-mother and the paternal grandparents of the child who in 2008 sought for the child's custody under the Guardians and Wards Act after the mother remarried.

A trial court rejected the grandparents' plea for custody holding that it would not be sensible to separate the child from mother. It, however, granted limited visitation rights to the grandparents, which the High Court also upheld.

The High Court also added the following two additional conditions:

  • The mother shall complete formalities for restoring the original surname of the child to that of the biological father's (and not step-father) within a period of three months.

  • Wherever records permit, the biological father's name shall be shown; if otherwise impermissible, the name of the present husband will be mentioned as step-father.

Bombay High Court orders demolition of unauthorised floors, structures of 48 buildings around Mumbai airport

The Bombay High Court on 29/07/2022 directed Mumbai Suburban District Collector to initiate steps to demolish unauthorised floors and/or structures of 48 buildings around the Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport (CSMIA).

A division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice MS Karnik pulled up the Collector for inaction and asked her to file an affidavit by August 22 spelling out the steps it would take to pull down the structures or portions of the structures which have flouted the height restrictions.

The majority of the offending structures are located in Vile Parle east with the airport itself spread over Santa Cruz, Andheri and Vile Parle East.

"We direct the Collector, Mumbai Suburban District, to take steps to implement the final orders passed by the DGCA in respect of the 48 obstacles. By the next date, an affidavit should be filed stating the steps that would be taken to implement the orders," the Court ordered.

The bench further expressed their displeasure over the fact that the Collector in the affidavit attempted to shift the responsibility of demolition onto the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC).

"We are not at all impressed with this affidavit. We do not approve of the Collector passing off his responsibility on the BMC. It has to comply with the orders of the DGCA as provided under the Aircraft Rules, 1994."- CJ Datta

Wednesday, July 27, 2022

Supreme Court upholds validity of PMLA

Read Judgment

The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the Constitutional validity of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) .

The Court upheld the validity of Sections 3 (definition of money laundering), 5 (attachment of property), 8(4) [taking possession of attached property), 17 (search and seizure), 18 (search of persons), 19 (powers of arrest), 24 (reverse burden of proof), 44 (offences triable by the special court), 45 (offences being cognizable and non-bailable and twin conditions for grant of bail by the court) and 50 (statements made to ED officials).

The Court also held that the supply of Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) under PMLA proceedings is not mandatory since ECIR is an internal document and cannot be equated to a First Information Report (FIR).

"ECIR cannot be equated with FIR and ECIR is an internal document of ED.
Supply of ECIR to the accused is not mandatory and only disclosure of reasons during the arrest is enough. Even the ED manual is not to be published since it is an internal document," the Court held.

Supreme Court directs pay hike for judicial officers across country with arrears as per revised pay structure

The Supreme Court today ordered the implementation of an enhanced pay scale for judicial officers from January 1, 2016 and directed the Central and state governments to pay their arrears [All India Judges Association v. Union of India].

The arrears were directed to be paid in three instalments - 25% in 3 months, another 25% in the next 3 months and the balance by June 30, 2023.

The Bench of Chief Justice of India NV Ramana and Justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli observed that the revision of the pay structure should come into effect immediately since judicial officers were not under the pay commissions constituted by the Central government and the States.

The Court was hearing a plea by the All India Judges Association for the constitution of an All India Judicial Commission to review the service conditions of judges of the subordinate judiciary.

Amicus Curiae K Parameshwar stated that as per the recommendations of the Second National Judicial Pay Commission, the judges were entitled to a revised pay scale and stated denying the same on account of insufficient funds was "unjust".

"Revision of pay structure indicated in Table 1 shall be accepted and the same shall be implemented with effect from January 1, 2016. Arrears shall be computed by adjusting the interim relief and the balance of 25% be paid in cash within a period of 3 months and another 25% within another 3 months, and the balance of 50% to be paid in the first quarter of 2023."

Madras High Court directs registration of cheating case against man for failing to disclose impotency before marriage

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court last week directed the police to register a case of cheating against a man who did not disclose his impotency to his wife before marriage.

On considering the facts, Justice V Sivagnanam directed the Police to register the offence against the husband, investigate and file the final report within four months.

"Court directs the respondent Police to add the offences under Sections 417 and 420 in the case and investigate and file the final report within four months, after receiving the report from the Social Welfare Department, Madurai.

The wife had moved the High Court seeking a direction to respondent police to alter the First Information Report (FIR) registered and include the offence of cheating and theft under the Indian Penal Code.

It was submitted that the husband did not disclose to her that he was impotent before marrying her. He also received 200 sovereign gold jewels, along with other things worth ₹5 lakh.

After marriage, the wife claimed that she became aware of the impotency and subsequently, also came to know that the husband's first marriage also ended due to this.

ALL about Gift Deed

मकान देना है किसी को गिफ्ट में, यहां जानिए गिफ्ट डीड की जरुरी बातें

किसी को गिफ्ट (Gift) देना या लेना हमारे जीवन में कई महत्वपूर्ण अवसरों का हिस्सा है। हम किसी ना किसी मौके पर गिफ्ट का लेन-देन करते हैं। मगर इससे जुड़े कई तथ्य हैं जो गिफ्ट के मूल्य और उसकी प्रकृति पर निर्भर करते हैं। उसे कानूनी दायरे में लाते हैं और उसकी वैध्यता तय करते हैं। आइए, आज हम बात करते हैं किसी को मकान गिफ्ट करने के लिए तैयार होने वाले गिफ्ट डीड (Gift Deed) के बारे में।

भारतीय संस्कृति में उपहार (Gift Culture) का लेन-देन लगा ही रहता है। गिफ्ट से जुड़ा एक महत्वपूर्ण अंग है गिफ्ट डीड (Gift Deed) या उपहार दस्तावेज। गिफ्ट डीड सिर्फ तभी कानूनी रूप से वैध हो सकता है, जब इसे स्टाम्प ड्यूटी (Stamp Duty) और रजिस्ट्रेशन फी (Registration Fee) भुगतान करके नियमानुसार पंजीकृत किया गया हो। 

गिफ्ट डीड पर कितना स्टाम्प ड्यूटी चुकाना पड़ता है?

गिफ्ट देना एक ऐसा व्यावहारिक कार्य है, जिसके द्वारा कोई व्यक्ति अपनी इच्छा से अपने स्वामित्व वाली संपत्ति के आंशिक या सभी अधिकारों को किसी अन्य व्यक्ति को हस्तांतरित करता है। एक मकान उपहार में देने पर इनकम टैक्स और स्टाम्प शुल्क देना पड़ता है। भारत में गिफ्ट डीड स्टाम्प ड्यूटी विभिन्न राज्यों में अलग-अलग होती है और यह संपत्ति के मूल्य के अनुसार 2% से 7% के बीच हो सकती है।

गिफ्ट डीड के रजिस्ट्रेशन पर कुछ और शुल्क देना पड़ता है.

कौन सी संपत्ति उपहार में दी जा सकती है?

संपत्ति चल या अचल संपत्ति होनी चाहिए।संपत्ति हस्तांतरणीय होनी चाहिए।संपत्ति भविष्य की संपत्ति नहीं होनी चाहिए।संपत्ति मूर्त (स्पर्श करने योग्य) होनी चाहिए।

गिफ्ट देने की कानूनी जरूरतें क्या हैं?

ट्रांसफर ऑफ प्रॉपर्टी एक्ट यानी की संपत्ति हस्तांतरण कानून के तहत घर को गिफ्ट तौर पर देने के लिए एक नियमानुसार रजिस्टर्ड डॉक्युमेंट तैयार कराना पड़ता है, जिस पर उस शख्स के दस्तखत होते हैं, जो प्रॉपर्टी गिफ्ट में दे रहा है। इसके अलावा दस्तावेज में दो गवाहों का भी हस्ताक्षर कराना पड़ता है। इसका मतलब यह है कि कोई व्यक्ति ऐसे ही किसी प्रॉपर्टी को उपहार में देने का फैसला नहीं कर सकता। इसके लिए उसे पूरी कानूनी प्रक्रिया का पालन करना होगा, जैसा कि सेल डीड के मामले में होता है, ठीक उसी प्रकार गिफ्ट डीड को सब रजिस्ट्रार दफ्तर में रजिस्टर कराना पड़ता है। 

जब गिफ्ट डीड रजिस्ट्रेशन के लिए लाई जाती है तो उस पर स्टैंप ड्यूटी चुकाई गई है या नहीं यह रजिस्ट्रार सुनिश्चित करता है। स्टैंप ड्यूटी और रजिस्ट्रेशन शुल्क के तौर पर जो राशि चुकाई जाती है वह नियमित बिक्री के मामले में समान होती है। लेकिन अगर गिफ्ट कुछ खास रिश्तेदारों को दिया जा रहा हो तो गिफ्ट डीड पर कुछ राज्य स्टैंप ड्यूटी में छूट देते हैं। उदाहरण के लिए, महाराष्ट्र में किसी के पति या पत्नी, बच्चों, नाती-पोतों या मरने वाले बेटे की पत्नी को रिहायशी या कृषि संपत्ति के तोहफे पर चुकाई जाने वाली स्टैंप ड्यूटी की सीमा 200 रुपये है, चाहे संपत्ति का मूल्य कुछ भी हो

गिफ्ट पर स्वामित्व तुरंत लागू हो जाता है?

अगर कोई व्यक्ति अपनी प्रॉपर्टी को बतौर गिफ्ट दे रहे हैं तो उन्हें इस बात का पता होना चाहिए कि जैसे ही गिफ्ट डीड रजिस्टर्ड होगी, उस संपत्ति पर उसका स्वामित्व समाप्त हो जाएगा। यह कहा जाता है कि गिफ्ट डीड के प्रावधान जैसे बिक्री या त्याग तुरंत प्रभाव में आ जाते हैं। यहां ध्यान देने वाली बात है कि गिफ्ट डीड तभी लागू होगी, जब जरूरी स्टाम्प ड्यूटी चुका दी जाती है।

गिफ्ट डीड पर इनकम टैक्स भी लगता है?

एक साल में उपहारों की कीमत 50 हजार रुपये से ज्यादा नहीं होनी चाहिए। अगर एक साल में मिले उपहारों की कीमत 50 हजार रुपये से ज्यादा है तो इस पर कोई छूट नहीं मिलेगी और इनकम टैक्स लगाया जाएगा। हालांकि अगर दो करीबी रिश्तेदारों के बीच उपहार दिए जाते हैं तो आयकर नियम राहत देते हैं। नतीजन किसी संपत्ति को बतौर उपहार (चल या अचल) किसी खास रिश्तेदार को दिया जाता है तो इसे लेने वाले पर कोई टैक्स नहीं लगेगा। इन खास रिश्तेदारों में माता-पिता, पत्नी/पति, भाई-बहन, पति या पत्नी के भाई-बहन, किसी महिला-पुरुष या पति-पत्नी के वशंज आते हैं।

क्या आप अपनी गिफ्ट दी हुई प्रॉपर्टी को वापस ले सकते हैं?

आप अपना दिया हुआ गिफ्ट वापस ले सकते हैं, लेकिन इस पहलू को रजिस्टर्ड गिफ्ट डीड में लिखवाना जरूरी है। ट्रांसफर ऑफ प्रॉपर्टी एक्ट के सेक्शन 126 के तहत सौदा रद्द करना तब तक संभव नहीं होगा, जब तक कि डोनर रजिस्टर्ड कॉन्ट्रैक्ट में इसका जिक्र नहीं करता है कि गिफ्ट वापस लेने का अधिकार उसके पास है। इसका मतलब यह है कि गिफ्ट डीड का मसौदा तैयार करते समय, प्रॉपर्टी गिफ्ट करने वाले को स्पष्ट तौर पर इस बात का जिक्र करना होगा कि गिफ्ट डीड लागू होने के बाद भी, जब भी चाहे गिफ्ट करने वाले के पास गिफ्ट डीड को रद्द करने और गिफ्ट वापस लेने का अधिकार होगा।

गिफ्ट डीड के बारे में और किन बातों का ध्यान रखना होता है?

रिश्तेदारों के अलावा अन्य लोगों से गिफ्ट: 

भारतीय कानूनों के तहत, गैर-रिश्तेदारों के बीच गिफ्ट को कानूनी नहीं माना जाता है। यह धारणा इस आधार पर आधारित है कि मालिक किसी ऐसे व्यक्ति से विमर्श करेगा जो उन्हें नहीं जानता, ऐसे मामलों में, डीड को सेल डीड की तरह रजिस्टर कराना होगा। 

गिफ्ट को वापस लेना: 

गिफ्ट डीड को वापस लेने के लिए, देने वाले को यह साबित करना होगा कि उसे धोखा दिया गया था या डीड को निष्पादित करने के लिए मजबूर किया गया था। गिफ्ट में दी गई संपत्ति को वापस लेने का कोई और तरीका नहीं है।

शादी में मिले उपहार: 

वसीयत या विरासत के जरिए शादी पर रिश्तेदारों से मिले उपहार पर टैक्स नहीं लगाया जाता है।

गिफ्ट वैलिडिटी: 

एक गिफ्ट डीड तभी वैध है, जब सही तरीके से उसका निष्पादन किया गया है और ट्रांसफर करने वाला संपत्ति का कानूनी मालिक है। गिफ्ट डीड के वैध होने की एक और शर्त यह है कि अदालतों के किसी भी आदेश से इस तरह के ट्रांसफर नहीं रुके हों।

गिफ्ट डीड पर टैक्स देयता: 

शादी, विरासत या किसी स्थानीय निकाय द्वारा अगर कोई शख्स गिफ्ट डीड हासिल करता है तो उसे टैक्स नहीं चुकाना होगा। यही बात फाउंडेशन, ट्रस्ट, एजुकेशन इंस्टिट्यूट्स, मेडिकल इंस्टिट्यूशन्स इत्यादि पर लागू होती है।

गिफ्ट डीड को एग्जीक्यूट करने में किन बातों का ध्यान रखना चाहिए?

अगर आप किसी को चल संपत्ति दे रहे हैं तो गिफ्ट डीड को एग्जीक्यूट करना जरूरी नहीं है। गिफ्ट डीड में, यह बात जरूर डाल दें कि आपका गिफ्ट लेने वाले के प्रति स्नेह और लगाव है इसलिए आप प्रॉपर्टी ट्रांसफर कर रहे हैं। बेहतर यह भी होगा कि आप यह बात जरूर डाल दें कि किस वजह से आप गिफ्ट डीड में गिफ्ट को दे रहे हैं। इसका कारण सामान्य कल्याण या व्यक्ति हो सकता है। गिफ्ट डीड के रजिस्ट्रेशन के वक्त आपको इस बात का भी सबूत दिखाना होगा कि गिफ्ट लेने वाले ने उसे स्वीकार कर लिया है।गिफ्ट डीड को एग्जीक्यूट करने से पहले अपने परिवार के सदस्यों की राय जरूर ले लें, उनके ध्यान में यह बात लानी जरूरी है ताकि आगे कानूनी झंझट ना हों।

Monday, July 25, 2022

Pay Hike For High Court Staff : Supreme Court Requests Tripura HC To Defer Contempt Proceedings Against State

The Supreme Court on 22/07/2022 issued notice on a special leave petition filed by the State of Tripura challenging an interim order passed by the Tripura High Court which directed the state government to enhance the salary of the staff of the High Court as per the recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission with effect from January 1, 2006.

In the order passed in December 2021, the High Court also directed the State to pay the salary arrears as well in three monthly instalments starting from January 2022. Later, the High Court initiated suo motu contempt proceedings against the State Government for not implementing the directions.

A bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna, while issuing notice returnable within 3 weeks on the State's SLP, requested the High Court to defer the contempt proceedings in the meantime.

Generally Wife's Convenience Must Be Looked At While Considering Transfer Petition Under Section 24 CPC: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that generally, it is the wife's convenience which must be looked at while considering a transfer petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

"In matrimonial matters, wherever Courts are called upon to consider the plea of transfer, the Courts have to take into consideration the economic soundness of both the parties, the social strata of the spouses and their behavioural pattern, their standard of life prior to the marriage and subsequent thereto and the circumstances of both the parties in eking out their livelihood and under whose protective umbrella they are seeking their sustenance to life", the bench comprising Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and JK Maheshwari observed.
Asper the case detail, the husband filed a petition for marriage annulment before the Family Court, Vellore. Before the Family Court at Chennai, the wife filed two petitions, one seeking restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the second, a petition for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Before the Madras High court, she filed a transfer petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking the transfer of the petition filed by her husband before the Family Court, Vellore, to the Family Court at Chennai. She submitted
that her parents are old and that she is aged 21 years and not in a position to travel to Vellore throughout the court proceedings without having any support. Aggrieved with the dismissal of the Transfer Petition, she approached the Apex Court.
The court noted that the appellant is 21 years old and does not have any source of income of her own as she is not employed and is totally dependent on her parents for her livelihood. In order to attend the court proceedings of the case filed by her husband at Vellore, she has to travel alone all the way from Chennai to Vellore as her parents are not in a position to accompany her on account of their old age, the bench noticed.

"The cardinal principle for exercise of power under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that the ends of justice should demand the transfer of the suit, appeal or another proceeding. In matrimonial matters, wherever Courts are called upon to consider the plea of transfer, the Courts have to take into consideration the economic soundness of both the parties, the social strata of the spouses and their behavioural pattern, and their standard of life prior to the marriage and subsequent thereto and the circumstances of both the parties in eking out their livelihood and under whose protective umbrella they are seeking their sustenance to life. Given the prevailing socioeconomic paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it is the wife's convenience which must be looked at while considering a transfer.", the bench observed.

The court also observed that is also just and proper to club all three cases together to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings and conflict of decisions.

"Further, when two or more proceedings are pending in different Courts between the same parties which raise a common questions of fact and law, and when the decisions in the cases are interdependent, it is desirable that they should be tried together by the same Judge so as to avoid multiplicity in a trial of the same issues and conflict of decisions."

Sunday, July 24, 2022

Kerala High Court recognises right to include mother's name alone in birth certificate and other documents

Read Full Judgment

Justice PV Kunhikrishnan held that this right is owed to citizens as the State has a duty to protect all citizens, even those who may have been conceived out of wedlock or out of rape, and their right to privacy, dignity and liberty are protected.

"It is clear that it is the right of a person to include his mother's name alone in the birth certificate, identity certificates and other documents. As I observed earlier, there are children of rape victims and children of unwed mothers in this country. Their right of privacy, dignity and liberty cannot be curtailed by any authority. The mental agony of such person is to be imagined by every citizen of this country while intruding into their privacy. In some cases it will be a deliberate act and in other cases it may be by mistake. But the State should protect citizens of all such kind as equal to other citizens without disclosing their identity and privacy. Otherwise, they will face unimaginable mental agonies."

Friday, July 22, 2022

Police’s duty to register FIR if cognizable offence brought to its notice, says Bombay High Court

The HC said this while hearing a petition challenging a circular issued by former Mumbai Police commissioner Sanjay Pandey on June 6 that said that approval of the DCP was needed before registering FIRs under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and in cases of molestation.

The Bombay High Court on 21/07/2022 said that it was the duty of the police to register an FIR when a cognizable offence is brought to its notice and an appropriate report can be filed later if no evidence is found in the case.
The HC said this while hearing a petition challenging a circular issued by former Mumbai Police commissioner Sanjay Pandey on June 6 that said that approval of the DCP was needed before registering FIRs under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and in cases of molestation.
The June 6 order was withdrawn and a revised circular was issued on June 17, which directed police officers to immediately register FIRs in cases of molestation or crimes under POCSO in case they do not suspect any foul play. The HC was informed that the revised circular was also withdrawn on July 12 by new police commissioner Vivek Phansalkar.

A division bench of Justice Revati Mohite-Dere and Justice Sharmila Deshmukh was hearing a plea filed by the mother of a victim, who alleged that she had approached a police station in Mumbai last September after she and her minor daughter were sexually assaulted by a constable and another person.

she claimed the police declined to register an FIR and instead recommended that a preliminary probe be conducted to check the
veracity of the allegations. The petitioner then moved a special POCSO Act court, which is yet to hear the plea.

On Thursday, the petitioner’s advocate Arjun Kadam told HC that while the June 6 circular has been withdrawn, the special court judge was deferring the decision citing the circular.

The HC clarified that it would not direct the subordinate court to pass any order, but urged the police officers to do their duty. “Right or wrong, once it is brought to notice that a cognizable offence is committed, it is the duty of the police officer to register an FIR. Thereafter, if there is no evidence then an appropriate report can be filed.”

Andhra Pradesh High Court upholds amputee workman's compensation for 100% loss of earning capacity despite 40% disability

The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently upheld an order of the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner holding that the loss of a workman's limb amounted to 100 per cent loss of his earning capacity, despite a medical board assessing his disability at 40 per cent.
Reliance was placed on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar v Ajay Kumar where it was held that the percentage of the permanent disability cannot be mechanically applied as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. Instead, the apex court held that the assessment of compensation for loss of future earnings would depend on the effect and impact of the disability on one’s earning capacity.

Wednesday, July 20, 2022

Police not authorised to suspend driving licence of any citizen: Only transport dept can suspend driving licences, not police, rules high court-Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court recently held that a police officer cannot disqualify the driving license of a person under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya said that only the licencing authority is empowered to issue and suspend the driving licence.

"The provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 show that only a licensing authority can disqualify a person from holding or obtaining a driving licence or revoke such licence. Licensing authority has been defined in section 2(20) and does not include any authority other than an authority empowered to issue licences. Section 206 refers to the power of the licensing authority to disqualify or revoke under section 19 and limits the power of a police officer to impound a document; this is by restricting the power of the police only to seize the driving licence and forward it to the licensing authority for disqualification or revocation." 

The State government relied upon a notification issued by it on November 23, 2016 that empowered the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Traffic) and Superintendent of Police of the Districts to act in terms of Section 19 for disqualifying offending drivers or revoking their licences if it is found necessary for the purpose of ensuring effective control of traffic under Chapter VIII of the Act.

The bench noted that though this notification refers to Section 19 of the Act, there was no evidence to suggest that the relevant provisions of the West Bengal Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 were been amended to reflect the authorization given to the Police.

"The Notification in fact mentions that the Rules will be suitably amended in due course. Since the Motor Vehicles Act gives the power, in no uncertain terms, to the licensing authority and limits the power of the police to disqualify a person or revoke his licence under the Act, this Court is of the view that a later Notification issued by the State Transport Department cannot override the provisions of the parent Act," the judge opined, adding that the notification under a provision of any statute must be in aid of and in sync with the statutory scheme.

The notification in the present case results in confusion as to the licence impounding powers of the authority mentioned in the Act.

The court seized of a plea filed by the petitioner challenging the suspension of her licence by the Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP), Kolkata on May 20, 2022, for over speeding. The police suspended her licence on the ground that she was driving at the speed of 60 km per hour on a road which permitted a speed of 30 km per hour.

However, the court said that since it has come to a conclusion that the police doesn't have powers to suspend the licence of a person, it, therefore, quashed the orders passed by the ACP, Kolkata, who suspended the licence of the petitioner.


Supreme Court stays Karnataka High Court judgment allowing prosecution of man for rape of wife

The Supreme Court on Tuesday stayed a March 23 judgment of the Karnataka High Court which had declined to quash the charge of rape framed under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against a man accused of raping and keeping his wife as a sex slave. [Hrishikesh Sahoo v. State of Karnataka].

The Special Court framed charges against the petitioner-husband for offences punishable under Sections 376 (rape), 498A and 506 of IPC and Section 5(m) and (l) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

The single-judge of the High Court, however, refused to grant the prayer observing that men have been donning the robes of husband for ages to use the wife as his chattel but this age-old thought and tradition that the husbands are the rulers of their wives, their body, mind and soul should be effaced.

The Court noted that what drove the wife in the present case to register the complaint was the allegation of brutal sexual acts by the husband against her, as also, as sexual abuses against the child.

Monday, July 18, 2022

Son cannot avoid responsibility to maintain old father: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court at Aurangabad recently said that a son cannot avoid his responsibility to maintain his old and ailing father and cannot dictate the father to live with him as a condition to pay maintenance .

Justice Vibha Kankanwadi while hearing a father's plea seeking maintenance from his son, noted that the son insisted the father live with him.

"The son cannot avoid his responsibilities to maintain the father. It appears that he is putting a condition that the petitioner (father) should come and stay with him like his mother. The son cannot impose such conditions.

"Unfortunately, now the situation has arisen for the father that he is unable to maintain himself and then he is required to depend upon somebody else. The son is trying to say that because of the father's vices, there are differences between the mother and the father and they are not residing together. So also now the father is demanding the money just to fulfil his vices. We cannot go into these disputed facts forever."