Home Speak to a lawyer Meet a lawyer Flat fee services About Blog Careers Contact Us Snippet Terms & Conditions Privacy Policy Legal Topics
Array ( [__ci_last_regenerate] => 1611213786 )

Find a Lawyer

Use technology for transparent pricing.

Don't know whom to connect with?

Connect with top Banking lawyers in Ashburn

Legato provides assistance to those seeking help navigating the complexities of getting legal help. Don’t go at it alone. Let us help you with our experience in finding lawyers for your all the legal issues including Family, Business, Civil, Criminal or any other legal issue belonging to any category of the legal spectrum.

Why choose Legato?

1
Verified Lawyers

As the saying goes, it's always better to avoid legal problems than deal with them later. At Legato, we have a wide range of lawyers to cater to your every legal need.

2
Transparent Pricing

There are no hidden charges in our pricing provided for the Consultation. Post consultation, out ( it has to be our not out ) team assist you in discussing and finalising professional charges of Lawyer.

3
Quick Results

Read what previous clients have said about services and their experiences. Once you finalise on attorney, you are good to go with quick action as to your work. Most lawyers would be ready to share a time estimate of what to expect.

4
Case Follow-up Manager

Once you decided to proceed with your case with the consulted lawyer, you will have a dedicated Case Follow-up Manager who will assist you.

Read up

Read top blogs from legal experts

Articles that keep you updated with legal knowledge and help you achieve your goals.

See all blogs

Judgement: Triloki Nath Singh V/s Anirudh Singh
  • By: Admin
  • 2021-01-14 12:52:39

Facts of the Case

This appeal has been filed before the Honorable Supreme Court pursuing to the question which was raised before the court was can a stranger to a suit can challenge the compromise decree by filing another suit in the court of law. The appellant herein filed a suit before a judge pleading that the decision provided by the High Court Judge has been obtaining by submission of some fraudulent documents and so such order or decree is a miscarriage of justice. The Honorable High Court has proceeded with the matter by the facts presented before such court but the appeal here is made with a plea that an order which is provided on the basis of misrepresentation should be inoperative as such order will be against the objective of the proceedings.

Further, the appellant also pleaded to pass an injunction order against the then defendants now respondents for entering in the suit property which being in peaceful possession of the then plaintiff herein appellants. The matter facts are that there was a land in the name of Lakhan Singh as it already been mentioned in the schedule 1 of the complaint filed and after the death of the owner, he had three sons i.e. Din Dayal Singh, Jalim Singh and Kunjan Singh. The 1st son name Din Dayal Sing also died issueless during the time of his father’s lifetime and the second son Jalim Singh died after that leaving behind two daughters and a son i.e. Sampatiya, Soniya and Ram Nath Singh respectively. The third son of the Lakhan Singh died issueless after the death of Jalim Singh but before he died he gifted his share of land to Sampatiya by creating a gift deed in her favour which later came to her possession on the date 10th July, 1978. Further, one lady name Salehri claims to be the daughter of the Kunjan Singh and filed a petition in the munsif court setting aside the gift deed and claiming here share in the ancestral property. Ram Nath Singh died during the pendency of the suit and the suit was only contested by the daughter Sampatiya and later to that, the suit was dismissed in favour of the daughter with the reason that the petitioner could not prove her claim to be the daughter of the Kunjan Singh Sampatiya. Later the daughter Sampatiya sold the area of land by way of sale deed that was around 3Bigha 6Katha 3Dhurs to the appellant herein on the date of 6th January, 1984. The appellant took over the possession of the suit property on the same date for INR 25,000/-. In July of 1995 when the respondents herein started interfering in the suit property it was later discovered that such property was later at the strength of the compromise decree between the appellant and respondents.

Issues of the Case

  1. Whether the matter was misrepresented?
  2. Whether there should be any injunction order passed in this behalf?
  3. Whether the matter heard by the High Court did not cover all its aspects?

Judgment

The Honorable Supreme Court after hearing the learned counsels representing both the parties in the matter above and considering the facts and the precedents submitted established by the Honorable Judges to support the prayers and pleadings of the parties in the matter above states its observation herein that states In the matter herein it was established that there were significant questions that were answered by the Honorable Trail Court and the court appreciates the findings made by the trial court however it will be at par with the justice only when the interpretation played a major role in its entirety. The court after considering the facts has made an analysis that the issues no 4 and 5 as mentioned in the matter by the trial court were overlooked by the trial court and the matter was decided against the plaintiff/appellant and that the precise question to be dealt by this court is the maintainability of the suit filed with the High Court is in compliance with the orders and provision mentioned under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The court also finds it satisfying that in a compromise decree if one party alleges for the compromise decree and other party alleges or claims against the compromise decree the matter should be dealt with and according to law.

The Court also found it difficult that there should be no adjournment in the matter of compromise unless otherwise, it is in the interest of the parties. In the above case, the court finds it surprising that the suit was instituted in the year 1995 and after that 25 years has passed since the sale deed has been entered by the appellant and the respondent, and as the Trial Court has already receded the finding with references to the issues regarding the right, title and the interest of the suit property against the appellant herein was taken on the basis of the stated sale deed as presented before the magistrate on the day of 6th of January, 1984 and such deed was not interfered by the Court of Appeal, even when the appeal was been made by the appellant herein before the court. The Court finds no reason to remit the matter back to Trail court for further examination and reconsideration of the legality of the sale deed just at the instance of the appeal that has been filed by the appellant herein. The sale deed that was executed 25 years back where the party to such deed has now filed an appeal stating there was a misrepresentation has no locus standii. The Court also finds that there will be no more appropriation and diversions in the finding if the Court even though the matter if remitted.

The Supreme Court is of the opinion that the appeal filed herein is without any substance and should be rightly dismissed. The appeals stand dismissed without any cost. The Court also states that if there should be any appeals pending relevant or related to this appeal, it should also stand disposed of accordingly.

Case No.: CA 3961 of 2020

Date: 06/05/2020

Judgement: Milmet Oftho & Ors. V/s Allergan Inc.
  • By: Admin
  • 2021-01-14 12:51:43

Facts of the Case

This appeal has been filed before the Honorable High Court of Calcutta pursuing the order passed on 6/11/1997.

The appellant is an Indian Pharmaceutical Company producing the medicine for eyes and ears. A different company sells the same medicine with a similar objective, is produced by the respondent company and has claimed production of the product long before the inception of the same to the appellant. The respondent alleged that the name (trademark) OCUFLOX is their trademark and have been provided with the documents for proof of this. The respondent states that the first use of this product by the respondent was made on 09/09/1992 and after such use, this product was further marketed in countries like Europe, Australia, South Africa and South America and also claiming the marketing of product they mentioned that this mark is being registered in the countries like Australia, Ecuador, Bolivia, Mexico, Peru, South Africa, Canada and the United States of America.

The respondents have also claimed that they have made an application for registration this mark in several other countries including that of India, but due to some reason with the department the registration of this mark is been on help or this mark is yet to be registered.  The appellant claims that the product contains Ciprofloxacin Hcl the composition that helps to cure the problems relating to eye and ear.  The appellant explaining the ideology behind the mark that they invented it by taking the OCU from Ocular and Flox from the word Ciprofloxacin. The name has derived from the basic constituents of this composition or product and has its own origin. The food and Drug Administration of Indian granted appellant registration for its mark on 25/08/1993. Further, they applied for registering their mark with the trademark authorities with the name OCUFLOX, even the appellant’s application is pending before the trademark authority. Respondent filed with the authority for an injunction against the trademark application of the appellant. The respondent then received the ad-interim injunction against the applicant. Further, the ad-interim injunction was vacated on 29/01/1997 by the authority.

The Learned Single Judge bench passed an order against the respondent stating the observation that the respondent did not have any presence in India and the appellant have made its use the country so there no point for issue any injunction against the appellant.  Considering the impugned judgment and law laid down by this court I can fairly conclude that the respondent though had no presence in the market but was first to introduce the product globally and so was entitled to such injunction order.

Issues of the Case

1. Is the injunction valid by the respondent against the appellant?

2. Who should have priority in the registration of a trademark?

Judgment

The Honorable Court in its observation states that it is a dire need for exacting a Judicial Scrutiny where there is a case of medicinal products, further its very important to understand that confusion over a mark in medicinal products is grievous potential harm than any other ordinary products. It might cause a problem regarding incompetence or quality of some core objectivity that might be lacking or is a difference that other product but might deceptive because of the same or similar mark. This might also cause confusion at time prescription were there two or more medicines registered under the same name or similar mark that can led to confusion.

It was observed by the Honorable Court that though doctors are treated to be professional when it comes to the study and remedies of the human body they cannot be left out from the periphery from the doubts and confusion and considering these days the recommendation is provided over a phone call or a medium of telecommunication it might add the chances of confusion if there are multiple product available od the same or similar mark. The prescription provided by the doctors are sometimes in written form and handwriting can create confusion which might be a potential threat. Considering the potential threat and medicinal quality of the product the court finds it appropriate that all the facts present before this court are legit and appreciable in nature where such facts provide clear image or contemplation of the situation in future. The Honorable court further observes that due to its structure and understanding the medicine industries has its global or international characteristics and can have its operation in several other countries part from its origin. It is also observed that due to international characters any product or invention or change in its composition and objectivity of any product becomes a wide knowledge for the practitioners worldwide it is nowadays also are published in various media platforms that are accessible to the expert and other professionals in the country.

Doctors in the country have understood to attend various lectures and symposium conducted internationally. It is said that if any product is launched in the international market this becomes knowledge for all the experts immediately, but the test here is that whether the mark has put to use by the respondent or the appellant, this question should be further assessed by the Trial Court with the help of evidence provided before the Trial Court. The Honorable Court states that if any multi-national company has no desire to introduce the product or enter Indian market then such company should not throttle an Indian company in dealing with the products.

This court further deals and dispose of all the appeals hereinabove and further order the court to expediated the process to provide the decision so as to reinstate the appellant in the business or provide relief to the respondent as deems fit. A period of 6 months has been allotted from today to the Trail Court to assess the situation.

Case No.: CA 5797 of 1998

Date: 7/05/2004

Judgement: Director of Income Tax II (International Taxation) V/s M/s Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd.
  • By: Admin
  • 2021-01-14 12:49:01

Facts of the Case

This appeal has been filed before the Honorable Supreme Court pursuing to the dismissal against the department with regard to the tax liability of the PE (Permanent Establishment) with regard to DTAA (Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement). On the day of 28/06/2020, the government company i.e. ONGC (Oil and Natural Gas Company) has awarded a turnkey contract to a consortium which includes the companies like Samsung Heavy Industries Ltd which is a company incorporated in South Korea and a company called Larsen & Turbo Limited. The contract awarded was for carrying out the work like surveys, design, engineering, procurement, fabrication, installation and modification at existing facilities, and start-up and commissioning of entire facilities covered under the ‘Vasai East Development Project’.

On the day of 24th May, 2006 the Respondent set up an office in the city of Mumbai as per the submission made by the respondent the said office was a channel or medium of communication between ONGC and the company for any update or information regarding the project. The company carried out activities like Pre-engineering, survey, engineering procurement and fabrication abroad and later the completion of the activities were done by 2006 and the platforms were brought by the company to India after commencing the work in November, 2007 for the purpose of installing the same at the Vasai East Development Project. The said project was to be completed by the date 26th July, 2009. The Assessee, respondent herein filed an income tax return for the assessment year of 2007-2008 with submission made by the respondent that company made no profit while the company incurred the loss of 23.5 lacs in INR, the loss was pertaining to the activities carried by the respondent in India. On 28th August, 2008 a show-cause notice was issued by the Income Tax Authorities to the Assessee for filing in reply as to what why the profit submission was made nil in the return filed to which the Respondent filed a reply but the Authorities were dissatisfied and so this matter.

Issues of the Case

  1. Taxability question in the matter is valid or invalid?
  2. Should the question of law in the matter herein be revisited?
  3. Should the tax liability be attributable to the PE of the respondent?
  4. Whether the contract is divisible or distinguishable vide the relating activities?

Judgment

The Honorable Court after hearing the matter at length and considering the argument made by the learned counsels observes that the court is of the opinion that applying the principles of the double taxation avoidance agreement it is clear that the business transaction and income will be distinguished between the PE and business conducted therefore excludes it from the part of income. The court further stated that for any activity to be taken within the range of taxation there should be any activity from the PE where such income arises out of India which in this matter it fails so no tax liability will be applicable. The court finds it is extremely important for justice to distinguish the interpretation regarding the business entity and permanent establishment so as to apply the respective section from the Act. This court referring to earlier precedents state that for any tax to be applied to any permanent established by terming such PE as a fixed place of business need to comply with the applicability mentioned in the treaty whereas in this case, it is a clear resolution that the company or PE has no business place India, one of the conditions specified by the treaty is the company offshore should carry out fully or in part any business transaction out of such establishment and there should be income raised on the part of conducting such business in the territory of the establishment.

The tax liability falls on the establishment only if such income raised from the office is relating core business activity of the offshore company and there is income from such activity. The court hereby sadly reiterates that by looking at the Board Resolution submitted by way of the document to this court that the office was just medium or channel for coordinating of any modification or dispute regarding the project with ONGC in the country, and unfortunately the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal read the first paragraph of the Board Resolution decided the matter by concluding the office was fixed place of business of the offshore company (Respondent) which states that the place will be established to implement and execute the project. This court find in the paramount interest of justice it is important to set aside the decision of the Appellate Tribunal rejecting the argument regarding the account maintenance cannot be understood as a sole character of the PE. Deciding the onus for proving the character of tax liability the court decides should be on the tax authorities but on the respondent. The Court find is absolutely in unsatisfactorily on the part of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to set aside an understanding of the two parties involved in working of the PE were no way had the mental acumen to carry out the core business activity of the company.

This judgment states that many questions evolving out the basic facts and the advance should be ruled out as with correction of the view provided by this court. The impugned order will be dismissed by the reason stated by this court accordingly.

Case No.: CA 12183 of 2016

Date:  22/07/2020

Judgement: M/s ExL Careers V/s Frankfinn Aviation Services Pvt. Ltd.
  • By: Admin
  • 2021-01-14 12:47:58

Facts of the Case

This appeal has been filed before the Honorable Supreme Court pursuing to the appeal filed by the appellant and due to conflict between two Division Bench Judges with regards to the interpretation of the facts of the law in the precedents set forth in the two landmark judgments, whereas the question of the law that is needed to answer is whether the suit should have instituted from the start in the court of law or the suit should proceeded from the stage such suit was been filed. The respondent herein filed a civil suit against the appellant wherein such suit was filed by the respondent was for recovery of some amount arising out of the franchise agreement entered into by the appellant in Gurugram, Uttar Pradesh on the date of 24th March, 2003.

The abovementioned suit was filed before the Senior Division bench of the Civil Court at Gurugram. The franchise agreement that was entered between the appellant and respondent had a clause that excluded other some court from trying this matter, so pursuing to such clause the suit filed was returned by the court and stating such clause excluded this court and so the court lacks the territorial jurisdiction to try the matter and so the Delhi Court has the sole jurisdiction to try the matter and issues the directions. The Honorable Delhi High Court by its impugned judgment stated that the matter that has come before the court has to proceed from the stage where it was left in the Civil Court at Gurugram, since the matter though not being in territorial jurisdiction in the Civil Court there arise no situation that matter should take effect for the consideration from the start or afresh.

The appellant raised the contention that as the court lacks in the jurisdictional matter such issue cannot be treated as half proceeding there should be complete start before the new bench with regards to understanding the question of law in the matter further no complaint or suit filed by any person in any court under whose jurisdiction it doesn’t comply with such court proceeding the matter to any stage should also not be considered it may cause the breach of justice towards the respondent wherein the interpretation for any relief sought will differ completely as according to the authority or power provided under the legislation to such court. Hence, the appellant filed this appeal to understand the question of law.

Issues of the Case

  1. Whether the matter should be heard in de novo or from the stage of the proceeding of the Civil Court?
  2. Whether the order provided by the High Court is valid?

Judgment

The Honorable Supreme Court after hearing the learned counsels representing both the parties in the matter above and considering the facts and the precedents submitted established by the Honorable Judges to support the prayers and pleadings of the parties in the matter above states its observation herein that The Court after such submission consider the contention filed by the learned counsels stating that a lot of material facts were concealed and the special leave petition filed lack in the credibility to be considered for deciding the question raised. The question raised before the court was not raised by the person earlier to be resolved now that the matter was decided the new question was raised filing the special leave petition new relief was pleaded which makes no considerable matter. The special leave petition also has no attachment with respect other appeals filed and the other context the appellant as not filed and/or annexed any order of rejection to such appeal this act of the apart such application fraudulent and conceivable. The appellant and the respondent have entered into a contract and/or agreement wherein the franchise to start the course of the Aviation, Hospitality management in Meerut wherein one clause regarding the dispute resolution mentioned that in the case of the dispute only the Court in Delhi will have sole jurisdiction to entertain the matter.

It is no more reintegrate for the parties entering into contracts or agreements that where the more than one court has authority over the matter to resolve the dispute, parties with mutual consent or forming an agreement can confer the exclusive jurisdiction to one or more court. The court understands, acknowledges and accepts that there can be an exclusive clause which in the matter above is clause 16B providing sole jurisdiction to the Delhi Court for resolving the dispute if any arises in the franchise agreement which valid and legitimate. The court finds no contradiction in the earlier precedents which states that even if any suit that was filed by any party before any court and such court if provides the direction or judgment full resolving issues cannot be considered if such court has not competence by the law in force and any court with full competence entertains the matter has to do it without any consideration to any finding of the earlier court. But in the same manner as the precedence, it was also decided by the statutory law that the court to whom such case has been transferred has the jurisdiction to try the matter as new or from the point of earlier findings and such provisions are complete contrary of the earlier procedure stated by the Civil Procedure Code. Further, the Court is of the finding that though there was a delayed in the finding done by the court its in the best interest of the parties to understand the procedure of the court. The court further states to provide the best resolution under Article 142 of the Constitution of India it will be best that there should sustainability in the order provided by the Honorable High Court.

The Honorable Supreme Court states that the decision by the High Court should sustain in further application of the legislation and to provide justice. The appeal made before the court stands disposed.

Case No.: CA 2904 of 2020

Date: 05/08/2020

Judgement: The Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank Ltd V/s Babulal Lade & Ors.
  • By: Admin
  • 2021-01-14 12:46:16

Facts of the Case

The above appeal has arisen out of the judgement passed by the bench of Nagpur High court where the order had been directed through the issuance of a recovery certificate against the appellant in this case.

The above appeal was made due to the below-given facts of the case.

While duly registering under the Maharashtra Co-operative societies act 1960 Respondent no. 6 had obtained some credit facilities from the above-said bank and had mortgaged his property with the bank in return. When the respondent, failed to repay the loan the bank started to initiate recovery proceedings against him, through issuing a notice to the respondent under section 13(2) of the SARFASI ACT 2002 and acquired physical possession of the respondent’s property as per section 13(4).

Thus, taking into account poor financial condition, the employees at the small Kharkhana were issued a notice stating that they can search for another work and they won't be able to pay their salaries as well. This was then further challenged in the industrial court, and the above notice was quashed by the court stating that these rules resulted in unfair labour practice. The court had directed that the employees must be paid their salaries on a priority basis through any funds that are currently available. This funds can be reserves that every company stores for unforeseeable events. On the basis of the order given by the industrial court, the appellant bank could not recover a certificate for recovering the dues through the court.

However, the High Court of Bombay had held that they could be made only against the Kharkhana and not against the employees who were working in the bank. According to this, the court directed the issuance of a recovery certificate against the Kharkhana and its managing directors. However, this issue of recovery was rejected.

In an interim order passed by the court, the bank had auctioned and sold the Kharkhana to some other party. They had proceeded with the sale amount that was to be given by the respondent, and the original amount that was due. After liquidation, it was found that Section 529 A of the Companies Act, 1956 came into operation under this, and it was held that the collector could recover the amount that was due that is Rs. 13,89, 84, 334 through the sale proceeds acquired by the bank. After hearing both the parties of the respondent, the Senior counsel for the appellant submitted that section 529 A of the Companies Act was not applied appropriately, and he also submitted that the provisions of Section 13(9) under the SARFASI ACT require the company to be in a liquidated format and secured assets at the time of sale, and there is a provision that makes the payment of salaries or dues to the employees as on an immediate basis. Thus, the bank must be given preference than any other to take their amount from auction sales. With this, there is no relevance of an employer-employee relationship between the bank and the employees of the Kharkhana.  Thus, after both, the counsels argued that the court had found some merits in the provisions raised by the learned counsel of the appellant and it is duly considered by the said court, then various cases were also laid down such as the Central Bank of India Vs State of Kerala, Builders supply corporation Vs Union of India. The argument was also made with regards to the sale letter via the appellant bank, SICOM Limited Vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr.

Issues of the Case

  1. How was the section 529 A of Companies Act was applied in the above matter?
  2. Whether the dues of the employees can be a priority other than the claim to recover arrears of Land Revenue?

Therefore, it is evident from the provisions mentioned that the dues of the employees made by the industrial court are also recoverable at par with the arrears of the land revenue, and it was argued by the senior counsel that the recovery land revenue is of utmost importance as mentioned in the land revenue code as the provisions from this code were stated by the counsel. The claims of the employees also fall under section 50 of the MRTU and PULP act. According to section 169 (2) - one’s first priority can be for claiming their dues.

Various other rules and regulations of the SARFAESI act were discussed during the proceedings.

Judgment/Court Observation

In light of the discussions that were made by the learned counsel for the above matter, the court has observed the following parameters.

  1. The provisions of the company’s act cannot be applied under this scenario as due priority must be given to the workers for the payment of their dues which becomes the foremost responsibility of any company working according to the Company’s Act.
  2. In light of the order issued by the industrial court, paramount importance has to be given to the workers and not to the arrears of the land revenue for claim as per the code.
  3. Thus, in this case, the appellant bank does not possess any importance with regards to recovering charges under the SARFAESI act.
  4. As per the total result, the appellant bank must give the dues to the employees or the workers from the sale proceeds of the auctioned property, adding that if there is any further delay in the payment of dues and recovery of the same shall be made by the collector within the fixed time period of six months from the date of passing of the order.
  5. All other dues such as PF, gratuity, the bonus shall be paid by the respondent number 5 within six months as stated in the order.
  6. The employees of a company have various legal rights when they are not paid their dues on time. This rights can be revoked by the employees against the company, during their course of employment.
  7. The appeal was disposed of after the order had been passed by the court.

Supreme Court of India

Case number- 232/ 2016

Constitutionality of Bandhs

"Bandh" is a Hindi word which signifies "shut" Bandhs, Hartals, tumults, and civil disobedience are incessant in India. They are considered an acclaimed technique for expressing dissent, drawing in the Government's interest to specific requests of an association or community, thereby forcing the specialists to yield the necessities set forward. It upsets the general individuals' ordinary life. It causes loss to private property and injury to the health of general individuals. Mostly affected parties are the retailers. The transport frameworks are likewise upset. India saw Bharat Bandh for the whole day and Chakka jam till 3 P.M. on 8th December 2020 called by the farmer's union challenging the new homestead area laws or farm laws on the ground. Despite having a few rounds of talks with the Central Government; they didn't yield any result.

Hence, Bandhs, Hartals and Chakka Jam hold an issue of relevance here whether it's a legal right, fundamental right or a constitutional right. However, there are many cases where the Courts have held that "Bandh" is illegal as they meddle with our basic rights. Ideological groups and associations coercively close shops and end public vehicles. Individuals notice these fights under dread. In this way, the achievement of any such fights can't be ascribed to general assessment as it might not have been noticed intentionally. The assessment of general individuals isn't considered.

The Legality of Bandhs

The Supreme Court of India has understood the evil effects of the Bandh and has pronounced Bandh unlawful and illegal. Individuals who are apprehensive and who don't support such sort of exercises ought to understand that they have their set of fundamental rights and there are numerous laws and not to fail to remember the most important one, that is the Indian Penal Code, 1908 which criminalizes limitation, force, terrorizing during bandhs and even hartals.

Supreme Court and different High Courts of the State have made it clear that the Bandh meddles with residents fundamental liberty and freedom through different decisions and causes a public loss from numerous points of view.

The fundamental rights of residents must be given an essential spot, and can't be seen as ignorable to an individual's privileges or a few general public segments. The essential explanation of the Court disdaining towards Bandh is that they comprehend that under the Bandhs, hartal and strike no one has the right to cause inconvenience to others or make a cause of danger to life, freedom and property in particular Government or public property.

Court Precedents

On 6th January 2010, Guwahati High Court announced that "Bandh" is unlawful and illegal. It disregards the citizen's fundamental rights. Chief Justice Jasti Chelameswar and Justice Arun Chandra Upadhyay in the light of a 1997 Supreme Court request maintaining a Kerala High Court's Judgment proclaimed bandhs are unlawful. Guwahati High Court gave the Judgment in the wake of hearing two separate Public Interest Litigations (PILs) filed by two residents in 2005, looking for the revelation of "bandhs" as unlawful and illegal. The Petitioners said that regular "bandhs" influence the economy and education.

In 2004, the Bombay High Court fined the Shiv Sena and BJP to the tune of Rs. 20 lakhs for organizing a bandh in Mumbai to protest bomb blasts. The Court licenses general strikes which protest against a particular establishment. In any case, they don't uphold the total strike. In Bharat Kumar's landmark judgment, the Kerala High Court's full bench has pronounced "Bandhs" organized by political parties occasionally as unlawful and being violative of the individuals' fundamental rights. The Court did not acknowledge it as an activity of freedom of speech and expression by the concerned party requiring the Bandh.

When a bandh is called, individuals are expected not to travel, not carry on their trade or business, or not attend their work. A threat is held out either explicitly or impliedly that any endeavour to conflict with the call for Bandh may bring about physical injury. A call for Bandh is different from a call for general strike or hartal. There are chances of the destruction of public property during Bandh. The High Court has directed that a call for Bandh by any association or political group and enforcing it is illicit and unlawful. The High Court has likewise directed the State and all its law enforcement organizations to do all that might be important to offer impact to the court request. The Supreme Court has acknowledged the Kerala High Court's decision and would not meddle with the High Court decision. The Court has acknowledged the High Court's differentiation between a "bandh" and a "strike". A bandh meddles with different residents' fundamental freedom, notwithstanding causing loss from numerous points of view.

In Ranchi Bar Association v. Province of Bihar, following the Apex court decision noticed above, the Patna High Court has decided that no party has a privilege to arrange a "Bandh" making the individuals forcibly prevent them from practising their regular lawful exercises. The Government is duty-bound to prevent unlawful exercises like Bandh, which attacks people's life, freedom and property. The Government will undoubtedly pay compensation to the individuals who suffer the loss of life, freedom or property because of a bandh in light of the Government's failure to discharge its public obligation to protect them. In some cases, even the organizers of the Bandh might be directed to pay. Any association meddling with the courts' working shall be held liable for contempt of Court and punished accordingly. A peaceful strike which doesn't meddle with the rights and properties of individuals is not in any way unlawful. In the present case, the High Court granted pay against the State Government for loss of property and demise of an individual during the Bandh for the authorities' failure to make a right move and give satisfactory assurance to the people's life, freedom and property. The Government neglected to discharge its public obligation to protect the individuals during the Bandh.

Supreme Court judgement in the case of T.K. Rangarajan vs Province of Tamil Nadu (2003), was that proclaiming the right to strike is illegal, and "bandh" is unlawful. By characterizing a bandh and punishing the Bandh members, the Court had trespassed into the authoritative function. Taking a serious note of different occasions of large scale destruction of public and private properties for the sake of agitation, bandhs, hartals and so forth, suo motu proceedings were started by the Supreme Court in cases of Destruction of Public and private properties.

In re case, after examining different reports filed, two committees were named; one headed by a resigned Supreme Court Judge, Justice K.T.Thomas (K.T.Thomas Committee), and other headed by Mr. F.S.Nariman, a senior member from the legal profession (Nariman Committee). Both the Committees presented their reports independently. In the wake of considering the two Committees' reports and hearing the issue, the Supreme Court held the Thomas Committee's proposals are healthy and should be acknowledged. To effectuate the reports of the two Committees, the accompanying rules are to be noticed:

  1. The organizer should meet the police to survey and overhaul the route to be taken and to set down conditions for a peaceful march of protest; 
  2. All weapons, including but not limited to knives and lathis, should be disallowed during the protests;  
  3. The organizers should guarantee a peaceful march with marshals at each applicable jurisdiction; 
  4. The police and the State Government ought to guarantee videography of such fights to the most extreme degree possible; 
  5. The person-in-charge to oversee the exhibit should be S.P. (if the circumstance is bound to the region) and the most noteworthy police in the State, where the circumstance extends beyond one district;
  6. In case the demonstrations turn violent, the officer-in-charge ought to guarantee that the events are video graphed through private administrators and also request such additional data from the media and others on the episodes being referred to; 
  7. The police ought to quickly inform the State Government with reports of the events, including any loss or damage, if any, brought about by the police; and  
  8. The State Government ought to set up a report on the police reports and other data that might be accessible to it and file a petition including its report for the High Court being referred to make a suo motu move.

Ongoing Developments 

The Kerala Government had concocted a draft bill called the Kerala Regulation of Hartal Bill, 2015 which condemns enforcement of hartals forcibly, the danger of injury, etc. Organizers are needed to get consent from the authorities and inform the public three days ahead of time. Organizers must deposit a sum as security to install compensation for damage caused to property and injuries sustained.

Bail can be granted to the accused simply in the wake of depositing a sum equivalent to the estimation of harmed property as surveyed incidentally. On the off chance that the police neglect to help general society practice their lawful rights during such hartals, it would be treated as the desolation of obligation and can likewise be punished with fine which shall not be less than Rupees Ten Thousand. The Government is additionally enabled to make rules for viable execution of the provisions.

The Central Government has created the draft Prevention of Damage Public Property (Amendment) Bill, 2015, which combines the principles suggested by the Justice Thomas Committee Report and the Nariman Committee Report. The features consolidate rebuttable presumption against the accused, obligatory video graphing of fights and Bandh, and plan for booking office transporters of associations leading Bandh and Hartal to decrease deviousness. Fines can stretch up to the market assessment of the properties damaged. Therefore, it is a positive sign that the Central Government has decided to figure out how to complete the measures proposed by both the Committees.

Conclusion

The State lawmaking bodies need to prepare enactments to deal with Bandh and Hartals harmony issues. Besides enactments, there is a vital need for the police and various other authorities and experts to keep up harmony and hinder everyday life movement during Bandh and Hartals. Changes in the police and modernization are expected to help the police restoring everyday life in mercilessness. The Government ought not to embrace a tolerant position on wrongdoers as a result of political reasons. At last, at no time should assessments be dropped, and transportation should be stopped, just because of Hartals and Bandh. It defiles the general public's purpose and supports such methods for fights to constrain the Government to yield the requests. However, if conducted peacefully and through the correct order of law, bandhs and hartals can prove vital in our society to voice opinions accurately.

Now find lawyers in your city,
& Consult on the go.

Download the app here

Flat Rate Service

Tenant Eviction Notice

Starting from 5000

Leave and Licence Agreement

Starting from 4500

Drafting Memorandum Of Understanding

Starting from 15000

Preparing Affidavit

Starting from 300

Anticipatory Bail

Starting from 12000

Cheque Bounce Notice

Starting from 2500

Drafting & Filing Mutual Divorce

Starting from 15000

Marriage Registration

Starting from 5000

Trademark Registration

Starting from 6500

Leave and Licence Agreement

Starting from 4500

Happy Clients

Let us assist you in taking care of all your legal worries and immune you from legal risks.

Rewards from brands you love

Let us assist you in taking care of all your legal worries and immune you from legal risks.