Abhinav Mohnot

Court No- 1

Bench:  HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARA SIMHA

          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA

Item no- 09

C.A. No. 1746-8432/2023

Case Title : IDBI BANK LTD. vs. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.

Case details: In this case the appellant contended that the advance bank guarantees
(ABGs) issued by the Appellant Bank have been wrongfully utilised by the IOCL,
contrary to the terms of the Bank Guarantee. 

However, the Hon’ble Court dismisses the appeal.

Facts: In this case, it is submitted that the Advance Bank Guarantee was provided
to secure part of the mobilisation advance of Rs. 107 Crore and against 10% supply
payment which has been wrongfully utilised by the Corporate Debtor to secure
some other additional advances from IOCL, contrary to the contract and without
concurrence from the Appellant bank, which is the issuer of the Advance Bank
Guarantee and a party to the Bank Guarantee (BG) Agreement. The Letter dated
05.12.2017 from the Corporate Debtor to IOCL clearly reveals that the Corporate
Debtor has sought additional advances from IOCL and assured IOCL on its own,
that it shall not proportionally reduce the BG amount against the advance
recovered as it is specifically required under clauses 7.2.6 and 7.3.1A of the special
conditions of contract respectively.

 
Court Observed:- The court observed that there was no reason to interfere with
the encashment of ABGs by IOCL and that there was no injustice or harm caused
to it by the encashment, and that the court do not see any substantial ground to
delve into the issue of any breach of terms of the contract or any alleged fraud
between IOCL and the Corporate Debtor. It is also pertinent to note that the
Appellant Bank had not taken any action with respect to the issue of fraud raised
by them.

Held by Court: After observation of the learned counsels of the both parties, the
Hon’ble High Court comes to the decision of dismissing the appeal of the appellant
on the grounds that an irrevocable and unconditional Bank Guarantee can be
invoked even during moratorium period in view of the amended provision under
Section 14 (3) (b) of the Code. The court is conscious of the fact that the Bank has
not taken any steps with respect to the alleged fraud, if any, between IOCL and the
Corporate Debtor. The findings of the Hon’ble Arbitral Tribunal have also attained
finality.
RISHABH SHUKLA

COURT NO-1

BENCH: IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF
JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

ITEAM NO:15

CASE: THE STATE OF KERALA vs. DR. K.K. VIJAYAN

CASE DETAIL: JI P. CHALY, J. The captioned writ petitions are filed by the applicants participated in the
selection process to the post of Vice Chancellor in the Kerala University of Fisheries and Ocean Studies
(KUFOS)

HELD BY COURT: r the appointment of Vice Chancellor of the University held on 20.11.2020; Exhibit P9
resolution of the Selection Committee held on 22.01.2021 recommending the name of Dr. K. Riji John,
Dean (Fisheries) of the Kerala University of Fisheries and Ocean Studies, as the Vice Chancellor of the
said University; and Exhibit P10 notification dated 23.01.2021 issued by the Governor’s
Secretariat/Chancellor appointing Dr. K. Riji John as the Vice Chancellor of the University for a period of
5 years from the date of assumption of office or till he attains the age of 65 years, whichever is earlier, as
provided under Section 33(6) of the Kerala University of Fisheries and Ocean Studies Act, 2010 (‘Act,
2010’ for short) and as per the UGC Regulations as amended from time to time; and for a further
declaration that Dr. K. Riji John, respondent No.4, is not entitled to be appointed as the Vice Chancellor
of the University

FACT: That apart, it is contended that the promotions of W.P.(C) No. 16457 & 25932 of 2021 : 10:
academic staff were governed by the UGC Regulations 1996 till the promulgation of UGC Regulations,
2006 It is further pointed out that it takes 5 years for an Associate Professor to be promoted as
Professor and thus, Dr. K. W.P.(C) No. 16457 & 25932 of 2021 : 11: Riji John could be appointed as
Professor only after 8 years from 15.12.2002 i.e., on 15.12.2010. However, Dr. K. Riji John claim.

Accordingly, it is contended that, in that process, the Selection Committee became the appointing
authority which is not the scheme of UGC Regulations; which provides for preparation of a panel for the
appointment of a Vice-Chancellor and forwarded to the
 NAMAN CHATURVEDI
06/04/2023

Court No.- 1
Diary No.- 9994 - 2023
Item no- 16
Bench:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI
Case Title:
REJIKUMAR@REJI
Versus.
STATE OF KERALA
Case Details: This is a case of death reference against the order/judgment in S.C. No. 114/2009
on the files of the Sessions Court, Palakkad Division dated 10-09-2009 and it was heard along
with CRL. Appeal No. 1663/2010.
However, the High Court confirmed the decision of the Sessions court and consequently the
death sentence.
Facts: The appellant was tried, found guilty, convicted and sentenced under Section 302 IPC,
section 376 IPC and section 201 IPC. The allegation against him was that he intentionally caused
the death of his wife, 3 daughters and one son, it was further alleged that he committed rape
on one if his daughters before committing murder. Bodies of his two daughters were found in
his bedroom, body of his wife was found in the septic tank in decomposed state and bodies of
his son and the other daughter were found in decomposed state in the adjacent property. The
question of motive arose and prosecution relied on the circumstances as when there is direct
evidence, motive generally becomes irrelevant. The motive alleged by the prosecution was that
the appellant had developed illicit intimacy with PW24, who was his co-worker and he wanted
to have a life with her. For that he wanted to annihilate the whole family; so, stated the
prosecution. One of the circumstances relied by prosecutor was of the last seen theory and
according to PW9 the appellant took two of his daughters from Sneha Bhavan under the
pretext of takin them to for his mother’s funeral
Court Observed: The Crime committed by the appellant in this case satisfies the crime test fully
whereas, it does not satisfy the criminal test at all. The nature of the offences he has been
committed do not help in titling the balance in favour of the appellant. Therefore, the court
observed that the call for an interference in the sentence imposed by the Sessions Court can’t
be dealt with and the imposition of the lesser alternative is unquestionably foreclosed.
Court Held: After hearing all the contentions of both the parties the Court held that the death
sentence shall be carry on accordingly and the court also confirmed the sentences imposed
upon the appellant under Section 376 and 201 IPC. Therefore, the Criminal Appeal was
dismissed.
Abhinav Mohnot

Court No- 1

Bench:  HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARA SIMHA

          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA

Item no- 18

SLP (Crl) No. 7294-28447/2019

Case Title : SATISH SETH vs. THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

Case details: The present petitions are maintained by the petitioners under Section
482 Cr.P.C. which were registered against the accused persons under different
Sections of Indian Penal Code, Indian Forest Act and Environment Protection Act. 

Facts: In this case, as per the petitioners, the impugned orders, whereby the
learned Court ordered registration of FIRs against the petitioners is not
maintainable. The petitioners have further averred that the learned Court below
intermingled the provisions of Cr.P.C. as the Court below was not acting under
Section 202 Cr.P.C.. Thus, the learned Court below had no power to keep the
matter pending before it. As per the petitioners, no case or offence is made out
against them. The petitioners also annexed various documents with their petitions
and they have averred that the complaints have been made against them belatedly.
The complaints had been moved with an object of minting money from the
petitioners and random allegations have been imputed against the petitioners. The
petitioners have further alleged that the complainants have other remedies
available for redressal of their grievances, if any.

Court Observed:- The Fact Finding Committee found many irregularities in the
execution of the work. The Committee found that the officials of PKTCL
Company while erecting towers on the land of various stakeholders failed to
comply with the provisions of Electricity Act, 2003 and Indian Telegraph Act,
1985 and as such, the Deputy Commissioner recommended the action against the
officials of PKTCL Company. The learned counsel has argued that initially
PKTCL Company was BOOT (Built, Operate and Transfer Company) and after
grant of licence on 15.09.2008 it became BOO (Built, Operate and Own), if it is so,
now the Company has become owner of the transmission line. In view of the above
contention, learned Court below has to see whether in the above circumstances the
provisions of electricity Act, 2003 and Indian Telegraph Act, 1985, are not
applicable and PKTCL Company or its officers/officials were authorized to go
inside the private property without permission of the landlord, however, it is left
open to be adjudicated upon by the learned Trial Court. At this stage, this Court,
after analyzing the available material, finds that there exists a prima facie case for
registration of FIRs against the PKTCL Company and the petitioners.

Held by Court: After observation of the learned counsels of the both parties, the
Hon’ble High Court comes to the decision of dismissing the appeal because of
absence of merits in the case. Court held that in view of what has been discussed
hereinabove, it is more than safe to hold that the learned Court below had not erred
in ordering registration of FIRs against the petitioners and now the FIRs need to be
investigated thoroughly by the police.
 
 NAMAN CHATURVEDI
06/04/2023

Court No.- 1
Case No.- SLP(C) No. 004911 - / 2023
Item no- 34
Bench:
HON’BLE DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA
HON’BLE SAURABH LAVANIA
Case Title:
ALL INDIA COUNCIL OF MAYORS
Versus.
STATE ELECTION COMMISSION OF UTTAR PRADESH
Case Details: Many petitions merged together. Some of these petitions have been filed as
Public Interest Litigation and some of these raise the alleged personal grievance arising out of a
notification dated 05.12.2022 issued by the State Government in the Department of Urban
Development inviting objections to the proposed determination of number of offices of the
Chairpersons of different Municipal Bodies to be reserved for the Scheduled Castes, the
Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes and Women.
The High Court allowed all the writ petitions.
Facts: It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that the exercise of reservation of seats is
in complete derogation of the mandate of Hon’ble supreme Court in the case of Suresh
Mahajan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another 2022 SCC Online SC 589 in which the Apex
Court held that unless Triple Test formality is completed in all respects by the State
Governments, no reservation for Other Backward Classes can be provided. Even Though it is a
tentative draft order, but by the inclusion of certain seats shown to be reserved for Other
Backward Classes, it is clear that State Government is going to provide reservation to the Other
Backward classes as well. Though the Learned state Counsel stated that the notification dated
05.12.2022 is only a draft order and objections have been invited by the State Government and
the aggrieved persons may file objections accordingly and following the mandate of Suresh
Mahajan (supra) will only delay the process of election.
Court Observed: Hearing the arguments of both sides the court observed that until the Triple
Test formality is completed by the State Government, no reservation for Other Backward
Classes can be allowed until then the unreserved categories must be notified as for the General
Category. This order will apply to all the States and the respective Election Commission to abide
by the same without fail to uphold the constitutional mandate.
Court Held: Court directed the State Election Commission to not issue the election notification;
neither shall state Government make final order based on the draft order issued vide
notification under challenge, dated 05.12.2022 and also allowed petitioners and other
aggrieved persons to file their objections through E-mail as well.