Limitation Act-Continuing cause of action

Limitation Act, 1963- Section 22 and Articles 85 and 87- Limitation for continuing breaches and torts- Encroachment of a public property, like a public road is a public wrong. So long as any obstruction or obstacle is created to free and unhindered access and movement on the road, wrongful act continues. Being a continuing source of wrong and injury, cause of action is created as long as such injury continues.

Hari Ram -vs- Jyoti Prasad reported at (2011) 2 SCC 682.

Service Law-Pay Scale

Service Law- Pay- Parity in pay scale- Entitlement to- Normally, the principle of equal pay for equal work must be left to be evaluated and determined by an expert body and these are not matters where a writ court can lightly interfere. Doctrine of equal pay for equal work can be invoked only when the employees are similarly situated. Only having similarity of designation or nature or quantum of work is not sufficient and is not determinative of entitlement to equality in pay scales.

Union Territory Administration, Chandigarh -vs- Manju Mathur reported at (2011) 2 SCC 452.

Criminal Prosecution and Vicarious Liability

The words "every person who at the time the offence was committed", occurring in Section 141 (1) of Negotiable Instruments Act indicate that criminal liability of a director of company must be determined on the date the offence is alleged to have been committed.If the cheques are issued by the company after the director has resigned from the company, the said director has nothing to do with the affairs of the company. No prosecution can be launched against such director and he cannot be held vicariously liable for the acts of the company.

Harshendra Kumar -vs- Rebatilata Koley reported at 2011 (2) Scale 278.

Rule of Rounding off

Rule of Rounding off based on logic and common sense is that if part is one half or more, it's value shall be increased to one and if part is less than half then its value shall be ignored.
(2005) 2 SCC 10

Service Law - Regularisation - Entitlement to regularisation and parity in pay - Principles reiterated - Constitution of India, Article 16

The following well settled principles relating to regularization and parity in pay, were reiterated by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India:

(i) High Courts, in exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution will not issue directions for regularization, absorption or permanent continuance, unless the employees claiming regularization had been appointed in pursuance of a regular recruitment in accordance with relevant rules in an open competitive process, against sanctioned vacant posts. The equality clause contained in Articles 14 and 16 should be scrupulously followed and courts should not issue a direction for regularization of services of an employee which would be violative of constitutional scheme. While something that is irregular for want of compliance with one of the elements in the process of selection which does not go to the root of the process, can be regularized, back door entries, appointments contrary to the constitutional scheme and/or appointment of ineligible candidates cannot be regularized.

(ii) Mere continuation of service by an temporary or ad hoc or daily-wage employee, under cover of some interim orders of the court, would not confer upon him any right to be absorbed into service, as such service would be litigious employment . Even temporary, ad hoc or daily-wage service for a long number of years, let alone service for one or two years, will not entitle such employee to claim regularization, if he is not working against a sanctioned post. Sympathy and sentiment cannot be grounds for passing any order of regularization in the absence of a legal right.

(iii) Even where a scheme is formulated for regularization with a cut off date (that is a scheme providing that persons who had put in a specified number of years of service and continuing in employment as on the cut off date), it is not possible to others who were appointed subsequent to the cut off date, to claim or contend that the scheme should be applied to them by extending the cut off date or seek a direction for framing of fresh schemes providing for successive cut off dates.

(iv) Part-time employees are not entitled to seek regularization as they are not working against any sanctioned posts. There cannot be a direction for absorption, regularization or permanent continuance of part time temporary employees.

(v) Part time temporary employees in government run institutions cannot claim parity in salary with regular employees of the government on the principle of equal pay for equal work. Nor can employees in private employment, even if serving full time, seek parity in salary with government employees. The right to claim a particular salary against the State must arise under a contract or under a statute.

(See : Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi - 2006 (4) SCC 1, M. Raja v. CEERI Educational Society, Pilani - 2006 (12) SCC 636, S.C. Chandra v. State of Jharkhand - 2007 (8) SCC 279, Kurukshetra Central Co-operative Bank Ltd v. Mehar Chand - 2007 (15) SCC 680, and Official Liquidator v. Dayanand - 2008 (10 SCC 1)

State of Rajasthan and ors -Vs.- Daya Lal and ors.

(2011) 2 SCC 429

Service of court notices by email - Supreme Court of India pioneering in this high tech world

Necessity felt to avoid delay in process serving and consequent piling up of arrears – Service of notice to be effected by email in addition to normal mode of service by registered post.

 

For more details see Central Electricity Regulatory Commission -Vs.- National Hydroelectric Power Corpn. Ltd

(2010) 10 SCC 280

 

Waiver of preliminary grounds of objection

Omission to plead preliminary objection(s) and thoroughly arguing issues on merits, amounted to waiver of preiminary objections. CPC 1908, Order 14 R2 (Paras 39 to 43.

North Delhi Power Limited -Vs.- Govt (NCT of Delhi)

(2010) 6 SCC 278 = AIR 2010 SC 2302

Bombay HC stops lawyer after 115th case against wife

A Bombay high court division bench recently passed an interim order restraining Naziruddin Nizamuddin Kazi from any more legal proceedings without court permission.

The HC admitted the petition on an application filed by Maharashtra advocate general Ravi Kadam to declare Kazi a vexatious litigant.

"We are satisfied that the issues raised in this application filed by the advocate general require consideration," the bench said, scheduling the hearing in June 2011. when it will decide if Kazi should be declared a vexatious litigant.

Kazi is an advocate. His wife Kishwar is an assistant public prosecutor attached to a judicial first class magistrate`s court in Pune. Kazi filed the 115 defamation cases relying on every letter allegedly written by Kishwar, which he claimed were abusive.

Kishwar denied writing the letters and claimed that her husband had started filing cases against her after she lodged a dowry harassment complaint against him.

When the judges tried to effect a settlement, Kishwar said she wanted divorce, but Kazi insisted she return to him.

Under the Maharashtra Vexatious Litigation (Prevention) Act, the HC can brand a person a vexatious litigant if it is convinced he has "habitually and without any reasonable ground instituted proceedings, civil or criminal, in any court, whether against the same person or against different persons". Such a litigant then has to obtain the permission of the high court or the district judge to file a fresh case or continue with existing cases filed by him.

"The law is to ensure that there is no abuse of court proceedings," said additional public prosecutor Aruna Pai, who represented the state.

Following an application filed by Kishwar, advocate general Ravi Kadam gave his nod to the petition seeking to declare Kazi a vexatious litigant.

Kazi, who appeared in person, sought dismissal of the application. He told Justices B H Marlapalle and U D Salvi that of the 115 cases, the court has taken cognizance of only 20, while the rest are pending.

"Despite our intervention, it appears that an amicable settlement between the parties does not appear to be possible, at least at this stage," the judges noted. 

Source: Times Of India

Doctrine of Merger – which of the judgments to be executed.

Judgment of lower court vis-à-vis judgment of higher court – which of the two judgments to be executed ?

Held it is the judgment of higher court to be executed.

MRF Ltd -Vs.- Manohar Parrikar

(2010) 11 SCC 374