Adverse Possession— Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Section 100—A plea of adverse possession is not a pure question of law, but a blended one of fact and law—Therefore, a person who claims adverse possession should show: (a) on what date he came into possession, (b) what was the nature of his possession, (c) whether the factum of possession was known to the other party, (d) how long his possession has continued, and (e) his possession was open and undisturbed—A person pleading adverse possession has no equities in his favour—Since he is trying to defeat the rights of the true owner, it is for him to clearly plead and establish all facts necessary to establish his adverse possession—The learned Courts below failed to consider such aspect of the matter and dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs/appellants—Held, concurrent findings of both the Courts below are perverse and cannot be sustained—Second appeal is allowed., 2019 (204) AIC (Cal., H.C.) 474 Adverse Possession— —Doctrine of—In matter of plea of adverse possession, mutually inconsistent or mutually destructive pleas—Cannot be taken in plaint—In present suit instituted by plaintiff/appellant—Founded on his plea of ownership in pursuance of sale-deed executed by defendant No. 2—Therefore, plea of adverse possession not available to him—Appeal dismissed. , 2019 (204) AIC (Alld., H.C.) 941, 2019 (204) AIC Adverse Possession— —Second Appeal—Suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction—Plea of adverse possession—Sustainability—Since clear case of possession with plaintiff of disputed tank with permission of competent authority—Thus, plaintiff comes to possess disputed site with permission of true owner—Therefore, possession of any length and continuance thereof—Cannot create a right over disputed property in favour of plaintiff—Lower Appellate Court, therefore, right in reversing judgment and decree passed by Lower Court in favour of appellant/plaintiff—Appeal dismissed., 2019 (204) AIC (Ori., H.C.) 896 Advocates Act, 1961— Section 30—Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016—Section 29-A—Constitution of India, 1950—Articles 19 (1) (g) and 136 (1)—Willful defaulter—Declared under “master circular on willful defaulter”—Circular issued by Reserve Bank of India—Whether entitled to be represented by a lawyer of its choice—Delhi High Court held the two in-house Committees could be considered to be Tribunals hence a lawyer had a right to appear—Hence, the instant appeals—Held, cannot be said that either in-house Committee had been vested with the judicial power of the State to decide a lis between the parties after gathering evidence and applying the law, as a result of which, a binding decision is then reached—They have been given powers to gather facts and then arrive at a result—In-house committees not vested with judicial power of the State—Hence, there was no right to be represented by a lawyer in the in-house proceedings—Orders impugned set aside—Appeals allowed. , 2019 (204) AIC (S.C.) 81
Judgments on Civil and Criminal Laws
Judgments on Labour Laws
AWARD— Appellants/workmen were appointed on a contingent basis as “Nursing Orderlies”—For period of 89 days to Group-D posts on a daily wage basis on 29.11.2011—By Medical Superintendent MBH—Appellants filed application before CAT seeking regularization which was dismissed on 29.4.2003—More than two years thereafter their services terminated “on basis of last come first go policy”—By award, it was held that services of appellants had been terminated abruptly without following procedure and in violation of section 25-F of I.D. Act—Single Judge set aside the award—However, impugned orders of Single Judge are hereby set aside and award holding the termination to be bad in law is hereby restored with backwages., 2019 (163) FLR (Del. H.C.) 1065 AWARD— —Challenged—Controversy is for regularisation of services of respondents—Respondents were engaged on temporary/work charge basis with the petitioner institution—As the respondent number 7, State Government impleaded herein was not impleaded as party before Labour Court—As such this Court cannot exercise jurisdiction of original authority—Therefore, respondent No. 7, be impleaded as party in the case and same shall be decided after affording opportunity to it—Impugned award is set aside—Matter is remitted back to Labour Court to decide afresh., 2019 (163) FLR (Utt. H.C.) 990 AWARD— —Delay and laches in challenging it—Delay of 4-1/2 years in challenging it by Management—Writ Court condoned the delay, without recording any reasons—Condonation of delay—Set aside., 2019 (163) FLR (P&H H.C.) (Sum.) 17 AWARD— —Ex parte award—Challenged by petitioner—Ex parte award passed by Tribunal against the petitioner-employer—Set aside in petition—And matter is remanded back to Tribunal to decide it afresh—After affording opportunity to petitioner-company and to workman., 2019 (163) FLR (H.P. H.C.) 1053 AWARD— —Judicial review—Workman appointed as Beldar—Carried out work as Laboratory Assistant—But pay-scale of said post not given—Work of Laboratory Assistant at relevant time was not being taken from workman—Hence, award allowing claim of workman—Was illegal and contrary to evidence on record hence set aside., 2019 (163) FLR (Alld. H.C.) 204 AWARD— —Modification of award passed by Labour Court/Tribunal—Sought by petitioner-Union—To the extent that workmen be granted full back wages—It could not be said that there was no evidence on record of unemployment of AWARD— workmen during period they were disengaged by management—This important aspect has been ignored by Tribunal—Hence, this petition is allowed and award is modified to the extent that workmen are held to be entitled to back wages—However, at the time of execution the management can bring the fact of settlement by some workmen to the notice of the Executing Court., 2019 (163) FLR (H.P. H.C.) 295 AWARD— —Once the award interfered with by this Court and modified in a writ petition by way of a judgment/order—Award stands merged with order of this Court rendered in writ petition—It would apply on good and sensible analogy if not in stricto sensu., 2019 (163) FLR (Alld. H.C.) 812 AWARD— —Order passed by Labour Court—High Court upheld the award passed directing reinstatement of workman in service—As the respondent has worked for more than 240 days and it is held that he was entitled for protection of labour laws—Being a finding of fact the Court is not inclined to interfere—State failed to produce any evidence before Labour Court—Labour Court had no option but to proceed ex parte against the State and to pass award on basis of evidence led by workman—Hence, appeal dismissed., 2019 (163) FLR (S.C.) 641 AWARD— —Passed by C.G.I.T.—Holding that the workman is entitled to continue in service till the date of superannuation according to Matriculation certificate and to get all the benefits in the manner as he is continuing in service till that date—Challenged by writ petition—Matriculation certificate issued prior to the date of employment shall be treated to be correct—Employer has no other alternative but to accept the said certificate to be true and correct—Tribunal was justified in accepting the date of birth recorded in Matriculation certificate to be valid—Award also does not suffer from any perversity—Petition therefore, dismissed. , 2019 (163) FLR (Cal. H.C.) 448 AWARD— —Passed by Labour Court, ordering reinstatement of respondent No. 2 with continuity of service and all benefits including the wages from the date of award—Respondent No. 2 was a watchman in corporation on 21.7.1983 and continued till 9.8.1985—Labour Court has rightly held that once respondent No. 2 was discharging his services regularly—Then his abandoning services on 10.8.1985 cannot be a reasonable cause of his services coming to an end—Hence, compensation granted to respondent No. 2 in lieu of relief given in impugned award—Upholding the relief given to respondent No. 2 vide award—Relief of reinstatement is substituted to compensation of ` 1,00,000/-., 2019 (163) FLR (Raj. H.C.–J.B.) 172 AWARD— —Passed by Labour Court—By impugned order dated 28.8.2014—Holding that respondent-employees fall under category of permanent employees and they are entitled for all benefits for same—Labour Court has erred in accepting the version of respondent-employees and also erred in drawing adverse inference against the corporation—Impugned award is therefore, legally unsustainable on other grounds also—Findings returned by Labour Court are based upon no legal admissible evidence and are wholly perverse—Cannot be sustained., 2019 (163) FLR (Alld. H.C.) 207 AWARD— —Passed by Labour Court—Challenged by petitioner daily wager—In the award respondent has referred to a copy of service book produced by petitioner, wherein period of working mentioned w.e.f. November, 1989 to August, 1991—He has also referred to documentary evidence filed by Department and oral statements—Petitioner was not retrenched or illegally terminated—Petitioner could not prove that he had worked for 240 days—Petitioner could not prove his allegations regarding his juniors having been retained—Hence, the award passed by Labour Court being well reasoned—Cannot be said to be illegal and arbitrary. , 2019 (163) FLR (Alld. H.C.–L.B.) 535 AWARD— —Passed by Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal—Awarding a lumpsum compensation of ` 50,000/- in favour of workman in lieu of back wages, seniority, past service benefit as well other consequential service benefits—Challenged by petitioner workman—Respondent failed to prove abandonment of job by workman—He has actually worked for 416 days and after termination fresh hands were engaged, despite petitioner being available for job—However, workman issued notice after 14 years of alleged retrenchment—Labour Court can award compensation even if there is delay in raising the dispute—Labour Court rightly awarded compensation—No reason found to interfere with., 2019 (163) FLR (H.P. H.C.) 1056
Judgments on Environmental Laws
Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981— Section 21/22—Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974—Section 25/26—Consent to operate—Application for—Rejection—Petition—Maintainability—Not so exceptional a situation so as to allow writ court to intervene by exercising its extraordinarily high prerogative discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution—Statutory alternative remedy available to petitioner in respect of orders impugned—He is always at liberty to approach statutory appellate authority—Direction issued—Petition dismissed., 2019 FLT (9) (Alld., H.C.) 900 Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981— —Section 31—Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974—Sections 33-A and 33-B—Air and water pollution—Show cause notice challenged—Violation of natural justice claimed—Hence, the present writ petition—Held, petitioner had an alternative remedy of filing appeal to National Green Tribunal—Order impugned did not disclose the specific violations of Act concerned—Order impugned set aside—Petitioner would be given opportunity to reply to show cause—Writ petition disposed of., 2019 FLT (9) (Bom., H.C.) 188 Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981— —Sections 31 and 31B—Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974—Sections 28 and 33-B—National Green Tribunal Act, 2010—Section 16—An appeal would lie from an order or decision of the Appellate Authority under section 28 of the Water Act to the N.G.T. only under section 33-B (a) of the Water Act read with section 16 (a) of the N.G.T. Act—Similarly, an appeal would lie from an order or decision of the Appellate Authority under section 31 of the Air Act to the N.G.T. only under section 31-B of the Air Act read with section 16 (f) of the N.G.T. Act—N.G.T’s. jurisdiction being strictly circumscribed by section 33-B of the Water Act, read with section 31-B of the Air Act, read with section 16 (a) and (f) of the N.G.T. Act, would make it clear that it is only orders or decisions of the Appellate Authority that are appealable, and not original orders—Appeals are disposed of., 2019 FLT (9) (S.C.) 697 Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981— —Sections 31 (a), 17 and 21—Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1971—Sections 17 and 25/26—Industrial plant of petitioner was directed to be closed by Chairman, Bihar State Pollution Control Board—Hence, the present writ petition—Held, inspection team found that the plant was situated within habitation and noise level was found beyond the tolerance limit causing air and noise pollution—Show-cause notice was not replied by the petitioner—Petitioner also did not file affidavit seeking ‘No Objection Certificate’—Plant was found within residential area—No illegality in the order impugned—Writ application dismissed. , 2019 FLT (9) (Pat., H.C.) 661 Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981— —Section 37—Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 244(1)—Environmental laws—Violation by petitioner company—New unit was started without consent of Pollution Control Board—Learned Magistrate rejected discharge application and charges were decided to be framed—Hence, the present revision by petitioners—Held, without consent of Pollution Control Board, petitioner company operated new plant—Discharge application was rightly rejected—Criminal revision dismissed., 2019 FLT (9) (Ker., H.C.) 212 Air Pollution— Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989—Rule 115 (16), (21)—Constitution of India, 1950—Article 21—Sale and registration of emission standard Bharat Stage-IV motor vehicles—Extension of period of registration upto 30.9.2020—A comparison of BS-VI fuel with BS-IV fuel shows massive improvement in environment test—Once BS-VI emission norms are introduced—There will be 68% improvement in P.M. 2.5—Problem of pollution not limited to NCR of Delhi but of entire country especially in the major cities—Situation alarming and critical—Necessary to ensure BS-VI compliance uniformly throughout the country—Even a day’s delay in enforcing BS-VI norms going to harm the health of the people—Sub-rule 21 of Rule 115 is very vague—It does not talk of sale of vehicle but only mentions registration of the vehicle conforming to BS-IV norms up to 30.6.2020—Any extension of time in introducing the new norms not only adversely impacts the health of the citizens but is also violative of Article 21 of the Constitution—Need of the hour is to move to a cleaner fuel as early as possible—Sub-rule 21 of Rule 115 read down in exercise of power under Article 142 of the Constitution—It shall be interpreted and understood to read that no motor vehicle conforming to emission standard Bharat Stage-IV shall be sold or registered in the entire country w.e.f. 1.4.2020—Writ Petition disposed of as such. , 2019 FLT (9) (S.C.) 1 Air Pollution— —Indiscriminate use of firecrackers—Air quality monitoring conducted by C.P.C.B. shows that air quality worsened during Diwali—Actual P.M. 2.5 mass concentrations increased due to firecrackers bursting—Bursting of fire crackers during Diwali not the only reason for deterioration of the air quality—But definitely it contributes to air pollution in a significant way—In environmental law “precautionary principle” well recognized principle followed to save the environment—”Precautionary Principle” and “Polluter Pays Principle” part of environment law of the country—Plea that burning of crackers during Diwali is part of religious practice—Article 25 of the Constitution of India is subject to Article 21—If a particular religious practice threatening the health and lives of people—Such practice not entitled to protection of Article 25—Short term measures/actions proposed by the Ministry of Environment to tackle pollution problem occurring due to fire crackers during Diwali—Strike a nice balance between the two competing interests—Suggestions given by Union of India accepted—Specific direction with regard to production, sale and bursting of crackers on the occasion of Diwali and on other festivals issued—Writ petitions directed to be listed on 11.12.2018., 2019 FLT (9) (S.C.) 93 Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 1991— Massive construction without obtaining statutory permission from M.C.Z. M.A.—Allegation that construction was being done between the High Tide Line and Law Tide Line—Hence the present application—Held, the google images showed the structures surrounding the site in question—These structures were also visible in google images in the year 2002—In year 2000 there was a letter of Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Bombay regarding clearance—Clearance appeared to be in accord with the MoEF and C.C. Guidelines—Project had also obtained E.C. on 28.6.2016—Allegation of petitioner found to be incorrect—Application dismissed., 2019 FLT (9) (N.G.T.-P.B.-N.D.) 564 Confiscation of Vehicle— Black Granite—Transportation of—Without valid permit—Penalty imposed—Lorry owner not given sufficient opportunity—Lorry of petitioner-respondent seized by Tehsildar—District Collector directed petitioner to pay certain sum as penalty—Single Judge set aside the order and remanded the matter to Director—No notice issued to owner of granite—Order of Single Judge confirmed—Mines and Minerals (D&R) Act, 1957—Section 4 (1-A)—T.N. Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1959—Rule 36-A., 2019 FLT (9) (Mad., H.C.) 493 Confiscation of Vehicle— —Orissa Forest Act, 1972—Sections 2 (g) and 56—Orissa Timber and Other Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1980-—Rule 4—Seizure of tractor and trolley alongwith seized forest produce—Order of confiscation passed by opposite party No. 1 was confirmed by learned District Judge in appeal—Hence, the present petition—Held, seized items were being carried without any T.T. permit—Petitioner did not have any transit permit under Rule 4 of Rules, 1980—Allegation that nine pieces of sal seized were kept in the tractor by the villagers in enmity was without any foundation—Petitioner being owner was also responsible for the act committed by his agent or servant—Petition failed—Dismissed., 2019 FLT (9) (Ori., H.C.) 215 Confiscation of Vehicle— —Orissa Forest Act, 1972—Sections 27 (2) and 56—Seizure of tractor and trolley—By Forest Officer—Order of Authorized Officer challenged in appeal—Learned District Judge dismissed the F.A.O.—Hence the present petition—Held, the petitioner was not found involved in the offence—The incident that had taken place was also not within his knowledge—Direction to release tractor and trolley—Petition allowed., 2019 FLT (9) (Ori., H.C.) 522 Constitution of India, 1950— Article 226—Constitutional validity of legislation—Challenge to—Constitutional validity of a legislation—Can be questioned only on limited grounds—First ground : lack of legislative competent and second : amendment infringes fundamental right and other rights conferred by the Constitution., 2019 FLT (9) (Kant., H.C.) 797 Constitution of India, 1950— —Article 226—Mining work—Petitioner unable to work for a period of 4 months 20 days without his fault—Present writ petitioner to get exemption from paying settlement amount for that period—Held, during the period in question, the petitioner was unable to do mining work due to the restriction imposed by State Government in compliance of the order of Hon’ble Green Tribunal, Eastern Zone Bench, Kolkata—Petitioner entitled for exemption from paying settlement amount—Writ petition allowed., 2019 FLT (9) (Pat., H.C.) 886 Constitution of India, 1950— —Article 226—National Green Tribunal Act, 2010—Section 22—Scope and ambit of—Direction of Division Bench of the N.G.T. to the Forest authorities including the Collector and Principal Chief Secretary to take steps to remove all the encroachments on the forest lands within there weeks and resititute the environment—Subsequent order of Judicial Member for compliance of earlier order—Challenged under writ jurisdiction—Maintainability of—Perusal of records—Petitioner filed a civil suit for the same cause of action—Not succeeded in getting any relief—Contention raised that orders were passed without hearing him—It is always open to the petitioner to approach the Division Bench of N.G.T. and seek appropriate relief—Further statutory remedy of an appeal under section 22 of the N.G.T. Act was also available to him—Petition dismissed as alternative remedy is available to the petitioner., 2019 FLT (9) (Bom., H.C.) 431 Constitution of India, 1950— —Article 226—Powers of Court to decide and conclusively determine the rights of the parties under—Once these rights have been determined after hearing of the interested parties at length—Then permitting withdrawal of the writ petition will not be in the interest of public as it may lead to multiplicity of litigation—Petitioner being subsequent purchasers after issuance of notifications under section 18 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 has no locus—Prayer for withdrawal of writ petition declined—Petitions dismissed., 2019 FLT (9) (M.P., H.C.-G.B.) 400 Constitution of India, 1950— —Articles 226 and 14—Constitutional validity of legislation—Challenged on ground of violation of Article 14—This ground available only in case of manifest arbitrariness., 2019 FLT (9) (Kant., H.C.) 797 Constitution of India, 1950— —Articles 323-A and 323—National Green Tribunal Act, 2010—Sections 14 and 29—Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985—Sections 14 and 28—The N.G.T. is not a Tribunal set up either under Article 323-A or Article 323-B of the Constitution, but is a statutory Tribunal set up under the N.G.T. Act—Such a Tribunal does not exercise the jurisdiction of all Courts except the Supreme Court is clear from a reading of section 29 of the N.G.T. Act—Thus, a conjoint reading of section 14 and section 29 of the N.G.T. Act must be contrasted with a conjoint reading of section 14 and section 28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985—Appeals are disposed of., 2019 FLT (9) (S.C.) 698
Our Journals
Explore Interesting Journals
Our Books
LIST OF BOOKS PUBLISHED BY LAW PUBLISHING HOUSE, ALLAHABAD
Contact us
Address
LAW PUBLISHING HOUSE
39, Sheo Charan Lal Road, Allahabad-211003 (U.P.)
Call Us
Tel. No. (0532) 2563956, 2563835
Fax (0532) 2564690
Mail Us
lawpublishinghouse@gmail.com
Send a message
Feel free to reach us if you need any assistance.
