Approved – Scheme of Administration

Since salary to teaching and non-teaching staff has to be disbursed pursuant to bills presented under the signatures of the manager and he also signs on the cheque, it is imperative that the Inspector authorises only such representative of the management which is constituted in accordance with the scheme of management. In addition to the functions assigned to a management in the U.P. High Schools And Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers And Other Employees) Act,  of 1971, there are other responsibilities entrusted upon the management by virtue of provisions contained in the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The U.P. Intermediate Education Act of 1921, therefore, contemplates that a scheme of administration shall exist for every institution recognized under the Act of 1921. The scheme of administration shall, amongst other matters provide for the constitution of a committee of management which is vested with the authority to manage and conduct the affairs of the Institution. The requirement of having such scheme of administration and also the particulars which it must contain are specified in Section 16-A of the Act of 1921. Sub-section (6) of Section 16-A mandates that every recognized institution shall be managed in accordance with the scheme of administration provided for in Sub-sections (1) to (6) thereof. Amendment has been made in the Act of 1921 to incorporate Section 16-CC and Section 16-CCC vide U.P. Act No. 1 of 1981. Third Schedule has also been added vide the same amending Act laying down principles on which approval to a scheme of administration shall be accorded. One of the factors specified in the Schedule is to provide for periodical elections. The scheme of administration is also required to be approved by the Deputy Director of Education.

    The object of enumerating need to have a scheme of administration and for a committee of management to be constituted as per it is to ensure that the body entrusted with the task of management functions in a democratic manner and the officials of the State interact only with a body duly elected in accordance with the approved scheme of administration. It is in this context that the term recognition needs to be understood for the committee of management of the Institution concerned. There is otherwise no specific provision in the Act of 1921 for grant of recognition.  Committee of Management Thakur Biri Singh Inter College v. State of U.P. , Writ – C No. – 28560 of 2019, decided on 25.02. 2020

Leave a comment

Filed under Scheme of Administration, Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921

Selection – Deemed to Have Been Approved

On perusal of Section 16-FF of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, it is evident on the face of it that without approval of the District Inspector of Schools, no appointment on the post of Lecturer or Assistant Teacher in L.T. Grade can be made in the institution recognized under the Act of 1921. It is further clarified that on submission of papers in case the District Inspector of Schools do not pass any order within a period of 1 month, then the selection is deemed to have been approved. Dr.Hemant Chaudhary V. State of U.P., Writ – A No. – 1821 of 2020, Decided on March 3, 2020

Leave a comment

Filed under Selection

Specific Performance of Contract – Starting Point of Limitation

Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Somabhai Kanjibhai Patel v. Abbasbhai Jafarbhai Daginawala, 1993 (2) GLR 1337, has held that in a contract for sale of all seven plots, sale of one plot only would amount to refusal to perform the contract in its entirety. The starting point of limitation would come into play as soon as performance of the contract in its entirety is refused either expressly or by necessary implication evinced by such contract of sale of one plot therefrom. It is held that if the starting point of limitation is not allowed to run on the ground of refusal of performance of the contract in part, no suit could be instituted till the performance of the contract in its entirety is refused. In that case, the suit filed before the entire contract is broken might be branded as premature. It is held that besides, the starting point of limitation cannot be permitted to be postponed indefinitely as in that case. The prescribed period of limitation under Article 54 of the Act is three years from the date performance of the contract is refused to the knowledge of the litigating party. Shetty Associates Pvt. Ltd. v.Samta Builders Private Limited, (2019) 4 Bom CR 735.

Leave a comment

Filed under Starting Point of Limitation

Party Sought to be Impleaded – Must Have a Direct Interest in the Subject Matter of Litigation

It is trite that the question of addition of parties under Order I Rule 10(2) is not one of the initial jurisdiction of the Court but of a judicial discretion which has to be exercised in view of the facts and circumstances of a particular case. Under the provisions of Order I Rule 10(2), the Court is empowered to direct that a person be added as party to the suit, if his presence in court is necessary in order to enable the court to adjudicate all the questions involved in the suit effectively and completely. The real test to determine whether a party is a necessary party to the suit is, whether in the absence of the person sought to be impleaded as a party to the suit, the controversy raised in the suit cannot be effectively and completely adjudicated. It is also well recognised that the expression “to settle all questions” employed in sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 of Order I receives a liberal and wide interpretation so as to facilitate the adjudication of all the questions pertaining to the subject matter of the suit. The jurisdictional condition is that the party sought to be impleaded must have a direct interest in the subject matter of litigation in contra-distinction to a commercial interest. Obviating multiplicity of proceedings is also one of the objects of the said provision. Jayashree Chandrakant Thite v. Padmavati Mohanlal Parekh, Chamber Summons No. 1359 of 2000 in Suit No. 2231 of 1986, Decided on February 7, 2020.

Leave a comment

Filed under Party Sought to Be Impleaded

Requirement of Public Employment – Is Transparency

An important requirement of public employment is transparency. Therefore, the advertisement must specify the number of posts available for selection and recruitment. The qualifications and other eligibility criteria for such posts should be explicitly provided and the schedule of recruitment process should be published with certainty and clarity. The advertisement should also specify the rules under which the selection is to be made and in absence of the rules, the procedure under which the selection is likely to be undertaken. This is necessary to prevent arbitrariness and to avoid change of criteria of selection after the selection process is commenced, thereby unjustly benefiting someone at the cost of others. Ram Krishna v. State of U.P., 2018 (3) AWC 2702.

Leave a comment

Filed under Transparency

Character Assassination of Wife – Amounts to Mental Cruelty

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijaykumar Ramchandra Bhate v. Neela Vijaykumar Bhate, (2003) 6 SCC 334,  had the occasion to consider the question as to whether the averments, accusations and character assassination of the wife by the appellant husband in the written statement constitutes mental cruelty for sustaining the claim for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act. The Hon’ble Court has observed that the position of law in that regard has come to be well settled and declare that leveling disgusting accusations of unchastity and indecent familiarity with the person outside wedlock and allegations of extra marital relationship is a grave assault on the character, honour, reputation, status as well as the health of the wife. Such allegations and aspersions made in the written statement or suggested in the course of examination and by way of cross-examination would amount to worst form of insult and cruelty, sufficient by itself to substantiate cruelty in law, warranting the claim of the wife being allowed. Such unfounded accusations and character assassinations causes mental pain, agony and suffering amounting to the reformulated concept of cruelty in matrimonial law causing profound and lasting disruption and causes the wife to feel deeply hurt and reasonably apprehend that it would be dangerous for her to live with a husband who was taunting her like that and rendered the maintenance of matrimonial life impossible. Debashis Choudhury v. Nibedita Choudhury, Mat. App. 22 of 2018 decided on 24.09.2019.

Leave a comment

Filed under Character Assassination of Wife

Alteration of Order – In View of Changed Circumstances

Sub-Section 2 of Section 25 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act provides that the aggrieved person or the respondent may approach before the Magistrate by filing an application for alteration, modification or revocation of any order made under this Act. If any such application is filed before the Magistrate praying for alteration, modification or revocation of any order made under this Act either by the aggrieved person or by the respondent then the Magistrate may for reasons to be recorded in writing pass order, as he may deem appropriate. Sub-Section 2 of Section 25 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act has conferred right both on the aggrieved person and the respondent to approach before the Magistrate for alteration, modification or revocation of any order made under this Act. Sub-Section 1 of Section 25 is restricted only to the protection orders under Section 18 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. The recourse under Sub-Section 1 of Section 25 can be availed of only by the aggrieved person not by the respondent. Whereas, Sub-Section 2 of Section 25 deals with the alteration, modification and revocation of any order made under the Act and recourse can be taken both by the aggrieved person and the respondent. The scope of application of Sub-Section 2 of Section 25 is much wider than Sub-Section 1 of Section 25. In view of the provision as contained in Sub-Section 2 of Section 25, it can be presumed that the order passed under the Act is not perpetual in nature and the order passed under this Act may be altered, modified or revoked, if there is a change in the circumstances and for that purpose the aggrieved person or the respondent may approach before the Magistrate under the Act. If such prayer is made the Magistrate may for reasons to be recorded in writing pass such order, as he may deem appropriate. Krishnendu Das Thakur v. State of West Bengal, (2019) 3 HLR 114.

Leave a comment

Filed under Alteration of Order

Juvenile Justice Act – Exclusion of Provision of Anticipatory Bail

The implied exclusion of Section 438 essentially flows from Section 1(4) of the 2015 Act that confers on the provisions made therein in respect of arrest and detention the character of preeminence. The section is a clear manifestation of the legislative intent that the provisions of the 2015 Act dealing with arrest and detention must necessarily prevail over any other law for the time being in force. The 2015 Act represents an all encompassing and self contained code laying in place a separate and distinct procedure liable to be followed in case of arrest or detention of a child in conflict with law. It places significant and special safeguards in respect of the apprehension of a child in conflict with law. It is in that sense not an incarceration or detention by the police as normally understood. The extension of the provisions of Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code would clearly interfere with and disrupt the statutory process that is otherwise liable to be followed upon apprehension of a child. It must consequently be held that once a first information is registered or information otherwise recorded by the SJPU or the CWPO with regard to a child in conflict with law, the provisions of Section 438 stand impliedly excluded. In such a situation it is the provisions made in Sections 10 and 12 of the 2015 Act which alone must be permitted to operate and recognised in law to be applicable.  The only limited window in which Section 438 can be held to apply is the pre recordal of information stage with regard to an offense allegedly committed by a child. As noticed above, Section 10 comes into play only once information in respect of an offense comes to be recorded. Prior to that a child apprehending detention or deprivation of liberty is accorded no protection or avenue of redress under the 2015 Act. It is within this narrow confine alone that his right to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court of Sessions or the High Court must be recognised to exist and preserved. Shahaab Ali v. State of U.P., Cri. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. 597 of 2020 decided on 20.01.2020.

Leave a comment

Filed under Anticipatory Bail, Juvenile Justice Act

One Co-Owner – Can Maintain An Action for Eviction

One co-owner, in the absence of any objection from the other co-owners, can maintain an action for eviction against a tenant, without impleading all the co-owners. The governing principle is the doctrine of agency. When one co-owner institutes a suit for eviction against the tenant, it is construed as the suit having been instituted in his own right and also as an agent of the other co-owners. What is of importance is the jural-relationship of the landlord and tenant. Once a co-owner satisfies the description of the landlord, the fact that the other co-owners have not joined in action pales in significance and does not affect the maintainability of the suit. Of course, different considerations come into play when existence of a dispute between the co-owners as regards the institution of the very action of eviction, is brought to the notice of the Court.

A reference in this context can be made to a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Prasad Jain v. Manohar Lal Jain, (2006) 2 SCC 724, wherein it was held as under:

This question now stands concluded by a decision of this Court in India Umbrella Manufacturing Cov. Bhagabandei Agarwalla (Dead) by Lrs. Savitri Agarwalla (Smt.), (2004) 3 SCC 178,wherein the Hon’ble Court opined:

 It is well settled that one of the co-owners can file a suit for eviction of a tenant in the property generally owned by the co-owners. (See Sri. Ram Pasricha v. Jagannath, (1976) 4 SCC 184 and Dhannalal v. Kalawatibai, (2002) 6 SCC 16.This principle is based on the doctrine of agency. One co-owner filing a suit for eviction against the tenant does so on his own behalf in his own right and as an agent of the other co-owners. The consent of other co-owners is assumed as taken unless it is shown that the other co-owners were not agreeable to eject the tenant and the suit was filed in spite of their disagreement. In the present case, the suit was filed by both the co-owners. One of the co-owners cannot withdraw his consent midway the suit so as to prejudice the other co-owner. The suit once filed, the rights of the parties stand crystallised on the date of the suit and the entitlement of the co-owners to seek ejectment must be adjudged by reference to the date of institution of the suit; the only exception being when by virtue of a subsequent event the entitlement of the body of co-owners to eject the tenant comes to an end by act of parties or by operation of law.”

A suit filed by a co-owner, thus, is maintainable in law. It is not necessary for the co-owner to show before initiating the eviction proceeding before the Rent Controller that he had taken option or consent of the other co-owners. However, in the event, a co-owner objects thereto, the same may be a relevant fact. In the instant case, nothing has been brought on record to show that the co-owners of the respondent had objected to eviction proceedings initiated by the respondent herein.

 This aspect was again considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Boorugu Mahadev and Sons v. Sirigiri Narasing Rao, (2016) 3 SCC 343, in the context of the proceedings between a landlord and tenant, governed by the rent control legislation. The Supreme Court enunciated that the concept of ownership and consequently the right to sue, in such cases, has to be distinguished from the one in a title suit. The observations in the said judgment are extracted below:

 It is also now a settled principle of law that the concept of ownership in a landlord-tenant litigation governed by Rent control laws has to be distinguished from the one in a title suit. Indeed, ownership is a relative term, the import whereof depends on the context in which it is used. In rent control legislation, the landlord can be said to be the owner if he is entitled in his own legal right, as distinguished from for and on behalf of someone else to evict the tenant and then to retain control, hold and use the premises for himself. What may suffice and hold good as proof of ownership in landlord-tenant litigation probably may or may not be enough to successfully sustain a claim for ownership in a title suit. (vide Sheela v. Firm Prahlad Rai Prem Prakash(2002) 3 SCC 375).” Madhuri Doulatram Choitram v. Lachmandas Tulsiram Nayar, 2019 SCC Online Bom 6111.

Leave a comment

Filed under Co-Owner Can file an Eviction Suit

Once Lease or Tenancy Stands Determined – Tenant’s Right to Possess the Leased Property Ends

In Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. v. Federal Motors (P) Ltd., (2005) 1 SCC 705, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that “the litigation goes on for an unreasonable length of time and the tenants in possession of the premises do not miss any opportunity of filing appeals or revisions so long as they can thereby afford to perpetuate the life of litigation and continue in occupation of the premises.” It has, then, observed that once the lease or tenancy stands determined, say, through a decree from a competent court, the tenant’s right to continue to possess the leased property ends. And for his continued use and occupation of the property for any period thereafter, he must pay damages at the rate the landlord could have let out the premises if there had been no tenant or the tenant had vacated with the lease termination. Thus, Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. v. Federal Motors (P) Ltd., (2005) 1 SCC 705 has summed up the principles of interim compensation:

(1) while passing an order of stay under Rule 5 of Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the appellate Court does have jurisdiction to put the applicant on such reasonable terms as would in its opinion reasonably compensate the decree-holder for loss occasioned by delay in execution of decree by the grant of stay order, in the event of the appeal being dismissed and in so far as those proceedings are concerned. Such terms, needless to say, shall be reasonable;

(2) in case of premises governed by the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, in view of the definition of tenant contained in clause (l) of Section 2 of the Act, the tenancy does not stand terminated merely by its termination under the general law; it terminates with the passing of the decree for eviction. With effect from that date, the tenant is liable to pay mesne profits or compensation for use and occupation of the premises at the same rate at which the landlord would have been able to let out the premises and earn rent if the tenant would have vacated the premises. The landlord is not bound by the contractual rate of rent effective for the period preceding the date of the decree; (3) the doctrine of merger does not have the effect of postponing the date of termination of tenancy merely because the decree of eviction stands merged in the decree passed by the superior forum at a later date. Ishwarlal Vrajlal Mistry v. Manohar U. Shetty, Writ Petition No. 13100 of 2018 decided on 18.12.2019.

Leave a comment

Filed under Determination of Lease