LawforAll

▼
Friday, November 29, 2019

No person can be deprived to his job for which he was selected on the groud that he was a Juvniel offender In the present case, the complaint/FIR lodged against the respondent was to the effect that when he was a minor, he had teased a girl a few times and went to the extent of catching hold of her hand. However, the girl and her parents finally decided to pardon the respondent by not giving any evidence against him, resulting in the acquittal of the respondent. In the aforesaid facts, even if the aforesaid is found to be true, it cannot be said that the respondent had committed such a crime, which would be covered under the definition of moral turpitude, specially when the respondent is said to have committed the alleged offence when he was a minor. 9. From the facts, it is clear that at the time when the charges were framed against the respondent, on 30.06.2009, the respondent was well under the age of 18 years as his date of birth is 05.09.1991. Firstly, it was not disputed that the charges were never proved against the respondent as the girl and her parents did not depose against the respondent, resulting in his acquittal on 24.11.2011. Even if the allegations were found to be true, then too the respondent could not have been deprived of getting a job on the basis of such charges as the same had been committed while the respondent was juvenile. The thrust of the legislation, i.e. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 as well as The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 is that even if a juvenile is convicted, the same should be obliterated, so that there is no stigma with regard to any crime committed by such person as a juvenile. This is with the clear object to reintegrate such juvenile back in the society as a normal person, without any stigma. Further, the case against the respondent is not with regard to the suppression of any conviction or charges having been framed against him. The respondent had very fairly disclosed about the charges which had been framed and his acquittal on the basis of no evidence having been adduced by the complainant against the respondent. In our considered view, the same can also not be said to be a suppression by the respondent, on the basis of which he could be deprived of a job, for which he was duly selected after following the due process and appointment having been offered to him.

›
 No person can be deprived to his job for which he was selected on the groud that he was a  Juvniel offender In the present case, the comp...

The casual labourers shall be entitled to the wages according to the rates specified in the order dated 14.01.2010 passed by this Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 9472­9473/2003 and the contractor shall not be entitled to 471% ASOR basis with respect to supply of casual labourers as claimed by him. Therefore, it is specifically observed and held that the FCI shall be liable to pay the wages payable to the casual labourers under the subject contract according to the rates specified in the judgment and order dated 14.01.2010 passed by this Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 9472­9473/2003 and not on 471% ASOR basis. It goes without saying that the contractor shall be entitled to reimburse the wages paid by him, i.e., Rs.106.38 per labourer, if the same is not reimbursed/paid to the contractor.

›
  The casual labourers shall be entitled to the wages according to the rates specified in the order dated 14.01.2010 passed by this   Court...

in the absence of any further evidence implicating the accused­ convicts, if one of the accused was acquitted, the same reasoning is apply to other accused also At the outset, it is required to be noted that the Learned Trial Court convicted five accused out of 14 accused who came to be tried for the offences under Sections 148, 302/149, 379 of the IPC. The prosecution heavily relied upon the deposition of PW2 and PW3 who claimed to be the eye­witnesses. The prosecution also relied upon the so­called dying declaration; however, the dying declaration has not been believed. In an appeal, the High Court has further acquitted another Accused Bhanwar Lal on the ground that the statement of PW2 Om Prakash and the statement of PW3 Ram Dayal under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. were recorded after a period of 18 days and that the statement of Ram Dayal was exaggerated and more and more persons of the family were tried to be implicated. Therefore, the High Court was of the opinion that recording the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of Om Prakash PW2 and Ram Dayal PW3, leaves no doubt that both the witnesses took benefit of delay and for the three injuries on the person of the deceased Hariram, out of which one was abrasion, the witnesses have resorted to implicate 14 accused.- except relying upon the deposition of PW2 and PW3, there is no other evidence implicating the appellantsAccused convicts. Under the circumstances, in the absence of any further evidence implicating the accused­ convicts, the High Court has materially erred in confirming the conviction of the appellant solely relying upon the deposition of PW2 and PW3 whose deposition has been doubted by the High Court and not relied upon by the High Court so far as one of the accused is concerned, the same reasoning should be applied in the appellants’ case also which weighed with the High Court while acquitting Bhanwar Lal.

›
in the absence of any  further evidence implicating the accused­ convicts, if one of the accused was acquitted, the same reasoning is apply...
Wednesday, November 27, 2019

Whether in mediations [ lokadalat etc., ] other than the subject matter of the suit can be added and the award/decree to that effect is valid and excutable ? yes Now so far as the submission on behalf of Ramu Ram that as the disputed properties in question were not the subject matter of original suit proceedings and therefore the same could not have been the subject matter of Settlement Agreement entered into between the Kaushaliya and Jodha Ram and/or the order passed by this Court dated 05.05.2017 is concerned, at the outset, it is required to be noted that being the dispute between father and daughter the matter was referred to the Supreme Court Mediation Centre to explore an amicable settlement between the parties. Both the parties agreed to settle all the disputes between the parties in the Mediation. In the Mediation it is always open for the parties to explore the possibility of an overall amicable settlement including the disputes which are not the subject matter of the proceedings before the Court. That is the benefit of the Mediation. In the Mediation parties may try for amicable settlement, which is reduced into writing and/or a Settlement Agreement and thereafter it becomes the part of the Court’s Order and the Court disposes of the matter in terms of the Settlement Agreement. Thereafter the order in terms of the Settlement Agreement is executable irrespective of the fact whether the Settlement Agreement is with respect to the properties which was/were not the subject matter of the proceedings before the Court. Thereafter the order passed by the Court in terms of the Settlement is binding to the parties and is required to be acted upon and/or complied with and as observed above the same is executable. Under the circumstances, the submission on behalf of Ramu Ram and Rampal that as the properties in question were not the subject matter of the suit before the Trial, the same could have been the subject matter of the Settlement Agreement and/or the order dated 05.05.2017 cannot be accepted. The order passed by this Court dated 16 05.05.2017 in SLP (C) No.10022 of 2016 is required to be complied with and the same is executable. Under the circumstances the Executing Court has to execute the order passed by this Court dated 05.05.2017 in SLP (C) No.10022 of 2016 in its true spirit. 13. In view of the reasons stated above, M.A. No.2485 of 2018 stands dismissed. I.A. No.30045 of 2019 is hereby allowed. In exercise of powers conferred under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and to see that the order passed by this Court dated 05.05.2017 in SLP (C) No.10022 of 2016 is fully complied with, we direct all the concerned persons claiming to be in possession of the disputed properties in questions including Plot Nos. 29 and 29A of the Jodha House to handover the peaceful and vacant possession to Jodha Ram as per the order passed by this Court on 05.05.2017 in SLP (C) No.10022 of 2016, within a period of four weeks from today. Executing Court is hereby directed to see that the present order passed by this Court and its earlier order dated 05.05.2017 in SLP (C) No.10022 is fully complied with. Both the parties Kaushaliya and Jodha Ram ­ parties to the Settlement Agreement dated 10.02.2017 are hereby directed to comply with 17 the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement dated 10.02.2017 and the order passed by this Court on 05.05.2017 in SLP (C) No.10022 of 2016 fully and in its true spirit.

›
Whether in mediations [ lokadalat etc., ] other than the subject matter of the suit can be added and  the award/decree to that effect is va...