Supreme Court of India Judgements

46650 Judgements hosted as on 11/11/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Constitution

Opportunity to participate in the proceedings and make submissions – It open for the Division Bench to ensure giving appropriate opportunity and time to the appellants to make submissions before the Division Bench and thereafter appropriate orders may be passed as the Division Bench may deem fit after hearing learned counsel for the appellants – Appeal allowed

Bysclaw

Jun 29, 2023

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

DIVISION BENCH

GREATER MALWA PARAMEDICAL COLLEGE — Appellant

Vs.

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent

( Before : Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ. )

Civil Appeal No. 4083 of 2023 [Arising out of SLP [C] No.11975 of 2023] with Civil Appeal No. 4084 of 2023 [@SLP(C) No. 11982 of 2023]; Civil Appeal No. 4085 of 2023 [@SLP [C] No.11367 of 2023] and Civil Appeal No. 4086 of 2023 [@SLP(C) No. 12179 of 2023]

Decided on : 16-06-2023

Opportunity to participate in the proceedings and make submissions – It open for the Division Bench to ensure giving appropriate opportunity and time to the appellants to make submissions before the Division Bench and thereafter appropriate orders may be passed as the Division Bench may deem fit after hearing learned counsel for the appellants – Appeal allowed.

Counsel for Appearing Parties

Mr. Puneet Jain, Advocate, Mr. Pramod Nair, Advocate, Mr. Yogit Kamat, Advocate, Mr. Mann Arora, Advocate, Ms. Christi Jain, Advocate, Mr. Puneet Jain, Advocate, Mr. Pramod Nair, Advocate, Mr. Yogit Kamat, Advocate, Mr. Mann Arora, Advocate, Ms. Christi Jain, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, AAG, Mr. Sunny Choudhary, Advocate, Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate, Mrs. Mrinal Elkar Mazumdar, Advocate, Mr. Sourabh Singh, Advocate, for the Respondent.

ORDER

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4083/2023 @ SLP [C] NO.11975/2023 & CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4084/2023 @ SLP(C) No. 11982/2023

1. Leave granted.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. On 04.05.2023, learned Single Judge sitting at the Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court passed an interim order which reads as follows:

“Heard on the question of admission and interim relief.

Let notice be issued to the respondents on payment of PF within a week, returnable within four weeks.

Till the next date of hearing, operation of the impugned orders shall remain stayed.

List this petition along with W.P.No.10031/2023.

Certified copy, as per the Rules.”

4. On 10.05.2023, the Division Bench at the Principal Seat at Jabalpur of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh passed an order to the effect that similar matters which were pending at Indore Bench may be called there and may be listed on the next date i.e. 11.05.2023. The order incorporates details of the writ petitions pending before the Indore Bench. The said order dated 10.05.2023 is reproduced below:

“Learned Additional Advocate General has filed a further action taken report along with certain interim orders passed by the Indore Bench of this Court in various writ petitions. The same is taken on record.

Registry to procure those W.P.No.25685 of 2022, W.P.No.10031 of 2023, W.P.No.25669 of 2022, W.P.No.10030 of 2023. W.P.No.10683 of 2023, W.P.No.10673 of 2023, W.P.No.10669 OF 2023, W.P.No.10733 of 2023 and W.P.No.10732 of 2023 from the Indore Bench.

The Government may also clarify with regard to the noting at Page 7 of the report pertaining to certain cases where RRCs are yet to be issued.

Call on 11.05.2023 along with Writ Petition No.12031 of 2016 and Writ Petition No.25743 of 2022.”

5. On 11.05.2023, the Division Bench at Jabalpur records in the Writ Petitions transferred from Indore that none appears for the petitioner therein nor any representation is made and as such there is no question to continue the stay order. Meaning thereby that the interim order granted on 04.05.2023 stood vacated.

6. The said order dated 11.05.2023 is reproduced hereunder:

“None appears for the petitioner nor any representation is made.

By the order dated 4.5.2023, the operation of the impugned orders was stayed till next date of hearing. Today none appears for the petitioner. Therefore, there is no question to continue the stay order.

Issue rule nisi.

Post for hearing in the usual course.”

7. Aggrieved by the said order, these present appeals have been preferred.

8. The basic grievance of the appellants is that they had no opportunity, time or knowledge to participate in the proceedings before the Division Bench at Jabalpur as the matter was fixed for the very next day. No intimation was given to the appellants or their counsels about the transfer of petitions from Indore to Jabalpur.

9. Learned counsel appearing for the State of Madhya Pradesh and the other State authorities impleaded as respondents in the petitions submitted that in other similar matters the Division Bench has passed orders apparently directing the similar petitioners therein to make deposits to the extent of 50 per cent of the demand.

10. Be that as it may, we are not convinced with the manner the Division Bench has proceeded to vacate the interim orders in the facts and circumstances stated above.

11. We accordingly set aside the order dated 11.05.2023, leaving it open for the Division Bench to ensure giving appropriate notice and time to the appellants to engage counsels and represent before the Division Bench and thereafter appropriate orders may be passed as the Division Bench may deem fit after hearing learned counsel for the appellants.

12. The State of Madhya Pradesh and the State authorities would be at liberty to file a copy of this order before the Division Bench and move appropriate application for further listing.

13. Till fresh orders are passed by the Division Bench as observed above it is directed that the interim order passed by the Single Judge on 04.05.2023 will continue.

14. The appeals are allowed in the above terms.

15. Pending application(s), if any, is/are disposed of.

CIVIL APPEAL NO.4085/ 2023 @SLP [C] NO.11367/2023 & CIVIL APPEAL NO.4086/ 2023 @SLP(C) No. 12179/2023

16. Leave granted.

17. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

18. On 01.05.2023, learned Single Judge sitting at the Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court passed an interim order which reads as follows:

“Heard on the question of admission and interim relief.

Let notice be issued to the respondents on payment of PF within a week, returnable within four weeks.

Till the next date of hearing, operation of the impugned orders shall remain stayed.

List this petition along with W.P.No.22439/2022 and 26867/2022.

C.C. as per rules.”

19. On 10.05.2023, the Division Bench at the Principal Seat at Jabalpur of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh passed an order to the effect that similar matters which were pending at Indore Bench may be called there and may be listed on the next date i.e. 11.05.2023. The order incorporates details of the writ petitions pending before the Indore Bench. The said order dated 10.05.2023 is reproduced below:

“Learned Additional Advocate General has filed a further action taken report along with certain interim orders passed by the Indore Bench of this Court in various writ petitions. The same is taken on record.

Registry to procure those W.P.No.25685 of 2022, W.P.No.10031 of 2023, W.P.No.25669 of 2022, W.P.No.10030 of 2023. W.P.No.10683 of 2023, W.P.No.10673 of 2023, W.P.No.10669 OF 2023, W.P.No.10733 of 2023 and W.P.No.10732 of 2023 from the Indore Bench.

The Government may also clarify with regard to the noting at Page 7 of the report pertaining to certain cases where RRCs are yet to be issued.

Call on 11.05.2023 along with Writ Petition No.12031 of 2016 and Writ Petition No.25743 of 2022.”

On 11.05.2023, the Division Bench at Jabalpur declines to extend the interim order despite request on behalf of the petitioner to grant time for making submissions. Meaning thereby that the interim order granted on 01.05.2023 stood vacated.

20. The said order dated 11.05.2023 is reproduced hereunder:

“Shri Paritosh Gupta-Advocate for the petitioners.

Shri Ashish Anand Bernard-Additional Advocate General and Shri Amit Seth-Deputy Advocate General for respondents/State.

By the order dated 01.05.2023, the operation of the impugned orders was stayed till the next date of hearing.

Learned Additional Advocate General submits that vide impugned orders RRCs have been issued for recovery against the petitioners. Therefore, in case any interim order is to be granted it should be subject to deposit of 50% of the recoverable amount.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he wants time to make submission. At his request, call after vacation.

Learned counsel for the petitioners made a request for extension of the interim order. We do not think it is appropriate to grant the stay especially when huge amounts of recovery are due and nothing is paid by the petitioners.”

21. Aggrieved by the said order, these present appeals have been preferred.

22. The basic grievance of the appellants is that they were denied opportunity to participate in the proceedings and make submissions before the Division Bench at Jabalpur as the matter was fixed for the very next day. Request for time was denied. The interim order granted on 01.05.2023 was not extended.

23. Learned counsel appearing for the State of Madhya Pradesh and the other State authorities impleaded as respondents in the petitions submitted that in other similar matters the Division Bench has passed orders apparently directing the similar petitioners therein to make deposits to the extent of 50 per cent of the demand.

24. Be that as it may, we are not convinced with the manner the Division Bench has proceeded to vacate the interim orders in the facts and circumstances stated above.

25. We accordingly set aside the order dated 11.05.2023, leaving it open for the Division Bench to ensure giving appropriate opportunity and time to the appellants to make submissions before the Division Bench and thereafter appropriate orders may be passed as the Division Bench may deem fit after hearing learned counsel for the appellants.

26. The State of Madhya Pradesh and the State authorities would be at liberty to file a copy of this order before the Division Bench and move appropriate application for further listing.

27. Till fresh orders are passed by the Division Bench as observed above it is directed that the interim order passed by the Single Judge on 01.05.2023 will continue.

28. The appeals are allowed in the above terms.

29. Pending application(s), if any, is/are disposed of.

By sclaw

Related Post

Constitution

Citizenship Act, 1955 — Section 6A — Special provisions as to citizenship of persons covered by the Assam Accord — The case involves the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955, which grants citizenship to certain migrants from Bangladesh to Assam —The main issues include whether Parliament had the legislative competence to enact Section 6A, and if Section 6A violates Articles 6, 7, 14, 29, and 355 of the Constitution — Petitioners argue that Section 6A is unconstitutional as it conflicts with Articles 6 and 7, adopts unreasonable cut-off dates, and violates Articles 14, 29, and 355 — Respondents contend that Section 6A is within Parliament’s legislative competence under Article 11 and does not violate the Constitution — The judgment addresses the legislative competence of Parliament, the reasonableness of cut-off dates, and the impact on Assamese cultural identity — The court examines the historical context of citizenship provisions, the legislative intent behind Section 6A, and the scope of judicial review under Article 14 — The court analyzes the constitutional provisions on citizenship, the legislative objective of Section 6A, and the balance between legislative intent and constitutional mandates —The court concludes that Section 6A of the Citizenship Act is constitutional and does not violate the cited Articles of the Constitution.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Constitution

Child Marriages — Restraint of — The petitioner, an NGO, argues that despite the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, child marriages remain prevalent in India —They seek stronger enforcement and support systems for child brides —The main issue is the failure of authorities to prevent child marriages and the need for effective guidelines and enforcement mechanisms — The petitioner highlights the high rate of child marriages, the ineffectiveness of Child Marriage Prohibition Officers (CMPOs), and the need for comprehensive support for child brides — The Union of India attributes child marriages to societal perceptions and economic pressures, and outlines various government programs aimed at reducing child marriages —The court acknowledges the persistence of child marriages and the need for stronger enforcement and support systems — The court emphasizes the socio-economic determinants of child marriage and the need for a multi-faceted approach to address the issue — The court refers to various laws and international conventions that recognize child marriage as a violation of human rights — The court calls for comprehensive measures, including legal enforcement, judicial measures, community involvement, awareness campaigns, and support systems for child brides.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Constitution

Citizenship Act, 1955 — Sections 5(1)(b) and 8(2) — Grant of Indian Citizenship — Respondent born in Singapore in 1999 to Indian parents who later renounced their Indian citizenship, applied to resume Indian citizenship in 2017 —Whether respondent is entitled to resume Indian citizenship under Section 8(2) and if he qualifies as a person of Indian origin under Section 5(1)(b) — Petitioner argued he is entitled to Indian citizenship based on his grandparents’ birth in undivided India and his parents’ birth in independent India — The Union of India contended that respondent’s parents lost Indian citizenship upon acquiring Singapore citizenship, making respondent ineligible under the cited sections — The Supreme Court ruled that respondent is not entitled to resume Indian citizenship under Section 8(2) or Section 5(1)(b) — The court found that respondent’s parents ceased to be Indian citizens by operation of law when they acquired Singapore citizenship, and thus Section 8(2) does not apply — The court emphasized the plain language of the Citizenship Act, stating that equitable considerations cannot override statutory provisions — The appeal by the Union of India was allowed — However respondent may apply for citizenship under Section 5(1)(f).

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw

Leave a Reply

You missed

Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 376 and 313 — Rape — False promise of marriage — Physical relationship with the complainant under the false promise of marriage, leading to her pregnancy and subsequent abortions — Whether the FIR should be quashed based on the allegations and the delay in filing the complaint — The petitioner argued that the relationship was consensual and the delay in filing the FIR undermines the credibility of the allegations — The respondent claimed that the petitioner deceived her with a false promise of marriage, leading to non-consensual physical relations — The Supreme Court quashed the FIR, noting the long-term consensual relationship and the lack of prima facie evidence for rape under Section 376 IPC —The Court emphasized the delay in filing the FIR and the nature of the relationship, which appeared consensual —The Court referred to previous judgments, highlighting the importance of prima facie evidence and the misuse of legal provisions —The FIR and all proceedings based on it were quashed, preventing abuse of the legal process.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120-B —Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) — Financial misconduct and conspiracy — Whether the High Court was correct in discharging the respondent from the charges of conspiracy and financial misconduct — The CBI argued that the High Court conducted a mini-trial at the charge-framing stage and that there was sufficient suspicion to frame charges against the respondent — The respondent’s counsel argued that the material in the charge sheet did not make out a case against the respondent and that the High Court rightly discharged him —The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to discharge the respondent, stating that mere suspicion was not enough to frame charges – The Court found that the respondent’s role was limited to signing the memorandum prepared by senior officers and participating in the Management Committee meeting, which approved the proposal — The Court emphasized that the proposal had passed through various committees and that the respondent’s actions did not amount to criminal misconduct — The appeal was dismissed, and the respondent was discharged from the charges — The trial against other accused persons will continue.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Municipal Laws

Patna Municipal Corporation Act, 1951 — Sections 146, 423 and 488(1) — The Patna Municipal Corporation imposed a royalty on advertisements, which was later increased — The respondents challenged this imposition, arguing it was a tax without legislative backing — Whether the royalty imposed by the Corporation was a tax and if it was legally enforceable without legislative sanction — The Corporation argued that the royalty was agreed upon by the parties and was not a tax — They contended that the enhancement of the rate was within their rights — The respondents argued that the imposition was a tax, which required legislative sanction, and the Corporation had no authority to levy it — The Division Bench quashed the enhancement, ruling that the Corporation had no power to impose the tax without legislative backing — The Court found that the royalty was not a tax but a fee agreed upon by the parties — It held that the Corporation’s actions were within the scope of the agreement — The Court distinguished between royalty and tax, emphasizing that royalty is based on an agreement, not statutory provision — The Court upheld the imposition of royalty as per the agreement but noted that the enhancement in rates was not challenged effectively — The judgment of the Division Bench was set aside.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Constitution

Citizenship Act, 1955 — Section 6A — Special provisions as to citizenship of persons covered by the Assam Accord — The case involves the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955, which grants citizenship to certain migrants from Bangladesh to Assam —The main issues include whether Parliament had the legislative competence to enact Section 6A, and if Section 6A violates Articles 6, 7, 14, 29, and 355 of the Constitution — Petitioners argue that Section 6A is unconstitutional as it conflicts with Articles 6 and 7, adopts unreasonable cut-off dates, and violates Articles 14, 29, and 355 — Respondents contend that Section 6A is within Parliament’s legislative competence under Article 11 and does not violate the Constitution — The judgment addresses the legislative competence of Parliament, the reasonableness of cut-off dates, and the impact on Assamese cultural identity — The court examines the historical context of citizenship provisions, the legislative intent behind Section 6A, and the scope of judicial review under Article 14 — The court analyzes the constitutional provisions on citizenship, the legislative objective of Section 6A, and the balance between legislative intent and constitutional mandates —The court concludes that Section 6A of the Citizenship Act is constitutional and does not violate the cited Articles of the Constitution.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw