Case Title: X v. Registrar General, High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Writ Petition(Civil) 1137 of 2018
A Division Bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai ordered reinstatement to service of a former Madhya Pradesh District judge who had resigned from service in 2014 alleging sexual harassment by a High Court judge.
It further observed that resignation tendered by the judge was not voluntary but under coercion.
“The petitioner was a Judicial Officer and a mother too. The Judicial Officer in her must have been battling with the mother in her. On one hand, was her career as a Judicial Officer; on the other hand, was the possibility of her daughter’s educational prospects and career coming into jeopardy, if she shifted to the place of posting at Sidhi. A possibility of her mind engrossed with a feeling, that she was subjected to injustice by the very Institution of Judiciary, cannot be ruled away.” the Court has stated in its decision.
10. Entire service record should be considered before passing premature retirement order: Supreme Court
Case Title: Central Industrial Security Force v. HC Om Prakash [Civil Appeal 5428 of 2012]
A Division Bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramanian ruled that entire service record of an employee should be considered before passing an order of premature retirement of the employee, even though recent reports would carry their own weight.
It further held that the entire service record to be considered towards premature retirement includes the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) prior to any recent promotion.
Case Title: Pradeep Kumar And Another v. Postmaster General And Others, [Civil Appeal 8775 of 2016]
A three-Judge Bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao, Sanjiv Khanna and BR Gavai in its recent decision held that a post office can be held vicariously liable for the acts of its employees done during the course of their employment.
The Court further observed that post office shall be entitled to proceed against the defaulter officers for the loss caused due to the fraud or wrongful act, but this would not absolve them from their liability.
“Employees, as individuals, are capable of being dishonest and committing acts of fraud or wrongs themselves or in collusion with others. Such acts of bank/post office employees, when done during their course of employment, are binding on the bank/post office at the instance of the person who is damnified by the fraud and wrongful acts of the officers of the bank/post office,” the Court has observed in its decision.
12. Consent decree cannot be modified unless mistake is patent or obvious: Supreme Court
Case Title: Ajanta LLP vs Casio Keisanki Kabushiki Kaisha d/b/a Casio Computer Company Limited [Civil Appeal 1052 of 2022]
A Division Bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai ruled that a consent decree cannot be modified/altered even if there is a mistake in the same unless the mistake is a patent or obvious one.
“Even assuming there is a mistake, a consent decree cannot be modified/ altered unless the mistake is a patent or obvious mistake. Or else, there is a danger of every consent decree being sought to be altered on the ground of mistake/ misunderstanding by a party to the consent decree,” the Court has said in its decision.
It further held that judgment by consent is intended to stop litigation between the parties just as much as a judgment resulting from a decision of the Court at the end of a long-drawn-out fight.
Case Title: M/s Bombay Chemical Industries v. Deputy Labour Commissioner and Another, Civil Appeal 813 of 2022
A Division Bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna in its recent decision has held that under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (ID Act), 1947, it is not open for the Labour Court to entertain disputed questions and adjudicate upon the employer-employee relationship.
It further observed that under Section 33(C)(2) of the ID Act, the Labour Court’s jurisdiction is like that of an executing court and it can only interpret the award or settlement on which the claim is based.
“As per the settled proposition of law, in an application under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Labour Court has no jurisdiction and cannot adjudicate dispute of entitlement or the basis of the claim of workmen. It can only interpret the award or settlement on which the claim is based,” the Bench has stated in its decision.
14. Consumer complaint cannot be transferred to High Court: Supreme Court
Case Title: YES Bank Limited v. 63 Moons Technologies Limited and Others, Transfer Petition(Civil) 968-971 of 2020
A Division Bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramanian held that it cannot transfer consumer complaints filed under the Consumer Protection Act (CPA), from District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to High Court.
The Court also observed the same while rejecting a bunch of transfer petitions moved by YES Bank seeking transfer of consumer complaints pending before certain District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC) of Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Delhi to Bombay High Court.
“We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties at some length and find that the consumer complaints are filed under the Consumer Protection Act, therefore, such consumer complaints cannot be transferred to the High Court exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the request for transfer of the consumer complaints is declined,” the Court stated in its dismissal order.
15. Insurance company cannot deny claim on ground of delay in intimation of theft: Supreme Court
Case Title: Jaina Construction Company v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Another [Civil Appeal 1069 of 2022]
A Division Bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M Trivedi in its recent decision held that insurance company cannot repudiate a claim merely on the ground of delay in intimation of theft of an insured vehicle.
The Court relied on its 2020 decision in Gurshinder Singh, where it was held that when an insured has lodged the FIR immediately after the theft of a vehicle and when the police after investigation have lodged a final report, then mere delay in intimating the insurance company about the occurrence of the theft cannot be a ground to deny the claim of the insured.
“When the complainant had lodged the FIR immediately after the theft of the vehicle, and when the police after the investigation had arrested the accused and also filed challan before the concerned Court, and when the claim of the insured was not found to be not genuine, the Insurance Company could not have repudiated the claim merely on the ground that there was a delay in intimating the Insurance Company about the occurrence of the theft,” the Court has stated in its decision.
Source: Barandbench
