Monthly Archives: December 2013

Departmental Enquiry against a Retired Employee

In a recent Judgment of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court it was held as under:
“A retired employee who is no longer in service cannot be inflicted any punishment of dismissal or removal from service, reversion or reduction in rank and stoppage of increments etc. It is only by virtue of specific rule permitting imposition of punishment after retirement that the appointing authority can do so and if necessary after taking leave of the authority concerned. This logically means that when a retired employee cannot be punished as aforesaid there is no point in continuing a departmental enquiry against him once he has been superannuated.” Shiv Ram Verma v. U.P. Co-operative Union Ltd., 2013 (6) AWC 5908.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Employment Law, Retired Employee

Lease and Mortgage – Difference between

Lease and Mortgage are species of the same genus viz., the ‘transfer of property’. Both of them bring about transfer of property, but with a substantial change as to the nature of disposition. The principal objective of a mortgage is to provide security for repayment of amount, whereas the one under lease is that the owner of an item of immovable property permits another to use it on payment of rent. Except in the case of usufructuary mortgage and mortgage through conditional sale, the possession of the property continues to be with the mortgagor.
In the case of lease, the transferee invariably gets the possession of the property. Apart from the broad difference, there are certain minute important aspects, that differentiate the mortgage from lease. Once a transaction of mortgage is brought about, the mortgagor gets the right to redeem and the mortgagee gets the corresponding tight to foreclose the mortgage. The nature of decree to be passed in a suit for foreclosure of mortgage differs substantially from the one to be passed in a suit for recovery of possession of property from a lessee. A preliminary decree is to be passed and it is followed by final decree. Chapter IV of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 confers rights and places obligations on the mortgagors, on the one hand, and mortgagees, on the other hand, which are typical and germatone to such transactions. Prescription of any fixed term is alien to mortgages.
Lease, on the other hand, involves, just the permission being accorded by an owner of property, to another, to use it. The consideration therefor is the rent fixed with the consent of the parties. In a given case, the lease may be nominal or phenomenal. Further law does not prohibit the rent being paid in the form of adjustment from the amount due from the lessor to the lessee. What becomes important is the objective underlying the transaction, namely use of the property belonging to the lessor by the lessee, on payment of rent and for a stipulated term. Chapter V of the Act enlists the rights, which a lessor has against the lessee and vice versa. Termination of lease on the one hand, and foreclosure/redemption of mortgage, on the other hand, have nothing in common. When such is the radical difference between the two transactions, it is not at all possible to take the one for the other. Gita Cotton Trading Company v. CCRA, Hyderabad and another, 2013(121) RD 661 (AP).

Leave a comment

Filed under lease and mortgage, Property Law

Rule of lis pendens – Applicable to Suit on Mortgagee

Rule of lis pendens applies to suit on mortgagee as well. Lord Justice Turner has succinctly dealt with this principle in the leading case of Bellamy v. Sabine (1857) 1 De G J 566. The doctrine is intended to prevent one party to a suit making an assignment inconsistent with the rights which may be decided in the suit and which might require a further party to be impleaded in order to make effectual the court’s decree. Law is well settled that a mortgagee, who has purchased a mortgaged property in execution of his mortgage decree is entitled to avoid a transfer on the ground that it was mortgaged by the mortgagor during the pendency of a mortgage suit. Section 52 of the TPA prevents a mortgagor from creating any lease during the pendency of mortgaged suit so as to effect the right of a mortgagee or the purchaser. Sunita Jugakishore Gilda v. Ramanlal Udhoji Tanna, 2013 (6) AWC 5652 (SC).

Leave a comment

Filed under Civil Law, Property Law, Rule of Lis Pendens

Reinstatement of an Employee

As per Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Vol. 2, 3rd Edition, the word “reinstate” means to reinstall or re-establish (a person or thing in a place, station, condition, etc.) ; to restore to its proper or original state; to reinstate afresh and the word “reinstatement” means the action of reinstating; re-establishment. As per Law Lexicon, 2nd Edition, the word “reinstate” means to reinstall; to re-establish; to place again in a former state, condition or office; to restore to a state or position from which the object or person had been removed and the word “reinstatement” means establishing in former condition, position or authority (as) reinstatement of a deposed prince. As per Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the word “reinstate” means to place again (as in possession or in a former position), to restore to a previous effective state. As per Black’s Law dictionary, 6th Edition, “reinstatement” means:”to reinstall, to re-establish, to place again in a former state, condition, or office; to restore to a state or position from which the object or person had been removed.”
The very idea of restoring an employee to the position which he held before dismissal or removal or termination of service implies that the employee will be put in the same position in which he would have been but for the illegal action taken by the employer. The injury suffered by a person, who is dismissed or removed or is otherwise terminated from service cannot easily be measured in terms of money. With the passing of an order which has the effect of severing the employer-employee relationship, the latter’s source of income gets dried up. Not only the employee concerned, but his entire family suffers grave adversities. They are deprived of the source of sustenance. The children are deprived of nutritious food and all opportunities of education and advancement in life. At times, the family has to borrow from the relatives and other acquaintance to avoid starvation. These sufferings continue till the competent adjudicatory forum decides on the legality of the action taken by the employer. The reinstatement of such an employee, which is preceded by a finding of the competent judicial/quasi-judicial body or court that the action taken by the employer is ultra vires the relevant statutory provisions or the principles of natural justice entitles the employee to claim full back wages. If the employer wants to deny back wages to the employee or contest his entitlement to get consequential benefits, then it is for him/her to specifically plead and prove that during the intervening period the employee was gainfully employed and was getting the same emoluments. The denial of back wages to an employee, who has suffered due to an illegal act of the employer would amount to indirectly punishing the employee concerned and rewarding the employer by relieving him of the obligation to pay back wages including the emoluments. Deepali Kundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya, (2013) 10 SCC 324.

Leave a comment

Filed under Reinstatement

Stop Order

There is a distinction between an order granting time for filing counter affidavit or for doing something else and a stop order for the same purpose. If simply time has been granted, it can be enlarged or further time can be granted on oral prayer. But if a stop order has been passed and still further time is being sought, a proper application supported by an affidavit has to be moved for this purpose giving an explanation, why despite the stop order, a counter affidavit was not filed or the particular thing was not done within the time fixed by the stop order. If this distinction is not kept in mind, stop orders of this court would be reduced to a mockery and would cease to have any meaning. Ravi Shankar Pandey v. State of U.P. and others, 2013 (4) AWC 3370.

Leave a comment

Filed under Practice and Procedure, Stop Order

Alienation of Affection

Alienation of affection by a stranger, if proved, is an intentional tort i.e. interference in the marital relationship with intent to alienate one spouse from the other. Alienation of affection is known as “Heart Balm” action. Anglo-Saxon common law on alienation of affection has not much roots in the country, the law is still in its nascent stage. Anglo-Saxon based action against the third parties involving tortious interference with the marital relationship was mainly compensatory in nature which was earlier available to the husband, but, of late, a wife could also lay such a claim complaining of alienation of affection. The object is to preserve marital harmony by deterring wrongful interference, thereby to save the institution of marriage. Both the spouses have a valuable interest in the married relationship, including its intimacy, companionship, support, duties, affection, welfare of children, etc.
Action for alienation lies for all improper intrusions or assaults on the marriage relationship by another, whether or not associated with “extramarital sex”, his or her continued overtures or sexual liaisons can be construed as something akin to an assumption of risk that his/her conduct will injure the marriage and give rise to an action. But all the same, a person is not liable for alienation of affection for merely becoming a passive object of affection. The liability arises only if there is any active participation, initiation or encouragement on the part of the defendant. Act which lead to loss of affection must be wrongful, intentional, calculated to entice the affection of one spouse away from the other, in order to support a cause of action for alienation of affection. For proving a claim for alienation of affection it is not necessary for a party to prove an adulterous relationship. Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal v. State of Gujarat, (2013) 10 SCC 48.

Leave a comment

Filed under Alienation of Affection, Matrimonial Dispute