Supreme Court takes Serious view of Huge Wastage of Food Grains

Article Source : SC Judgments.com

Describing the distribution of food grains to the poor as a matter of ‘grave importance’, the Supreme Court asked the Centre if godowns of Food Corporation of India or the government cannot preserve them, why should these not be allocated in BPL categories, particularly in 154 poorest districts of the country. 

A bench comprising Justices Dalveer Bhandari and Deepak Verma adjourning the hearing of People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL)’s petition till November 11, asked the government to inform the court about the mechanism through which over seven crores BPL families can also be covered under the Public Distribution System to ensure food security for all the BPL families. 

The apex court also asked why the BPL families are being identified on the basis of 1991 census, while the population has gone up to over 117.61 crore.

Find the original Article here.

Gujarat Government moves Supreme Court against the Gujarat HC order in the Ishrat Jahan Encounter Case

Article Courtesy : Indlaw.com

Gujarat government has moved the Supreme Court against the Gujarat High Court order to get the Ishrat Jahan encounter case probed by a new special investigation team. 

The petitioner has contended that High Court has no power to handover the probe of the case to a non-statutory investigating agency. 

The state government has also urged the apex court to set aside the High Court order setting up a new SIT. 

In a special leave petition filed in the apex court, the state government has sought stay of the High Court till the disposal of its SLP.

The SLP will be heard on November 12. 

The Supreme Court had earlier refused to hand over the investigation of the case to the SIT, headed by former CBI Director R K Raghavan. This SIT is already probing ten major riots cases in Gujarat in 2002, including the Gulbarg Society massacre in which Congress former MP Mohammad Ehsan Jafri was among 69 people killed. 

Ishrat Jahan and her three accomplices were killed on June 15, 2004 allegedly by Gujarat police who had claimed they were terrorists of Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT) outfit and had planned to murder state Chief Minister Narendra Modi. UNI Ishrat Jahan encounter case

The Original Article can be found at http://www.indlawnews.com/NewsDisplay.aspx?7083f6a0-7e1b-4f6d-a38a-d009bd388c42

Bride Burning falls under 'Rarest of Rare' cases : Supreme Court

This snippet may be read in continuation of our previous post on the Law relating to Dowry Death. The Supreme Court, in a recent Judgment has stated that Bride Burning falls under the category of 'rarest of rare' cases and deserves the death penalty.

The Bench comprising Justice Markandey Katju and Justice Gyan Sudha Mishra, opened their judgment with the words "The hallmark of a healthy society is the respect it shows to women. Indian society has become a sick society. This is evident from the large number of cases coming up in this Court (and also in almost all courts in the country) in which young women are being killed by their husbands or by their in-laws by pouring kerosene on them and setting them on fire or by hanging/strangulating them. What is the level of civilsation of a society in which a large number of women are treated in this horrendous and barbaric manner? What has our society become - this is illustrated by this case."

The Bench went on to hold;

"We have carefully perused the impugned judgment and order of the High Court and the judgment of the trial court and other evidence on record. We see no reason to disagree with the judgment and order of the High Court convicting the appellants. In fact, it was really a case under Section 302 IPC and death sentence should have been imposed in such a case, but since no charge under Section 302 IPC was levelled, we cannot do so, otherwise, such cases of bride burning, in our opinion, fall in the category of rarest of rare cases, and hence deserve death sentence. Although bride burning or bride hanging cases have become common in our country, in our opinion, the expression "rarest of rare" as referred to in Bachan Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 898 does not mean that the act is uncommon, it means that the act is brutal and barbaric. Bride killing is certainly barbaric.

Crimes against women are not ordinary crimes committed in a fit of anger or for property. They are social crimes. They disrupt the entire social fabric. Hence, they call for harsh punishment. Unfortunately, what is happening in our society is that out of lust for money people are often demanding dowry and after extracting as much money as they can they kill the wife and marry again and then again they commit the murder of their wife for the same purpose. This is because of total commercialization of our society, and lust for money which induces people to commit murder of the wife. The time has come when we have to stamp out this evil from our society, with an iron hand."

Find the Entire Judgment here.

--

The Legal Blog.in

Jurisdiction and Ouster Clauses in Agreements : The Law

The Delhi High Court recently examined the law relating to ouster clauses in Agreements vis-a-vis jurisdiction of a Court to try and entertain a matter. Very often, one finds agreements which contain specific ouster clauses, limiting the jurisdiction of courts to try a matter. Per contra, agreements may contain clauses which actually confer jurisdiction on courts, which otherwise do not have jurisdiction to entertain a matter.

The law on this aspect is fairly well settled.The Supreme Courts in its judgment in ABC Laminart Pvt. Ltd. v. A.P. Agencies, Salem has upheld the validity of contracts ousting or conferring jurisdiction on courts. The findings may be summarised as under;

(a) Ousting jurisdiction of a court, which otherwise would have jurisdiction, by a contract, is void.

(b) Conferring jurisdiction on a court, which otherwise does not have any jurisdiction, by a contract, is void.

(c) Where 2 or more courts have jurisdiction to try a matter, then limiting the jurisdiction to a particular court is valid. However, such contract should be clear, unambigous and specific. Ouster clauses may use the words 'alone', 'exclusively' and 'only' and the same pose no difficulty in interpretation. Even in the absence of such words, the ouster may be inferred from the terms of the contract.

Following the above Judgment, the Delhi High Court in Khosla Machines Pvt. Ltd. v. Deepak Verma, while dealing with two interim applications has held;

17. Having considered the submissions of the counsel for the parties, it appears to this Court that the defendant will succeed in these applications. The question of jurisdiction has to be decided on the facts and circumstances of every case. In A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. v. A.P. Agencies, Salem, Supreme Court in para 21 explained the position concerning the ouster clause as under (SCC @ p.175-76): "From the foregoing decisions it can be reasonably deduced that where such an ouster clause occurs, it is pertinent to see whether there is ouster of jurisdiction of other Courts. When the clause is clear, unambiguous and specific accepted notions of contract would bind the parties and unless the absence of ad idem can be shown, the other courts should avoid exercising jurisdiction. As regards construction of the ouster clause when words like 'alone', 'only, 'exclusive' and the like have been used there may be no difficulty. Even without such words in appropriate cases the maxim 'expressio unius est exclusio alterius' - expression of one is the exclusion of another - may be applied. What is an appropriate case shall depend on the facts of the case. In such a case mention of one thing may imply exclusion of another. When certain jurisdiction is specified in a contract an intention to exclude all others from its operation may in such cases be inferred. It has therefore to be properly construed."

18. In the instant case, the agreement to sell as well as the Non Compete Agreement both dated 19th November 2003 contain an identical clause which reads as under:-

"That both the parties irrevocably and unconditionally consent to submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts in Chandigarh."

19. What is significant is that an undertaking was given by the defendant not to design or develop a similar prototype/machine as was "an essential and fundamental condition of this agreement" and formed the basis of the present suit. Mr. Lal tried to impress upon the court that even irrespective of such an agreement to sell containing a negative covenant, the plaintiff would still be able to sue the defendant for violation of copyright. In a given case such a contention could be accepted. However, in the present case, the plaintiff has itself placed these documents on record and has come to the court claiming violation of the agreements by the defendant. The plaintiff cannot be heard to say that the court should now ignore the said two documents in determining whether the court has jurisdiction to try the suit.

20. The next contention of Mr. Lal is that a part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this court and therefore in terms of Section 20(c) CPC this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It requires to be noticed that the only averment in this regard is that the defendant has received a purchase order from Fena Pvt. Ltd., which has its office in Delhi. It is not in dispute that the allegedly offending machine made in Mohali to be delivered at Surajpur (UP). Mr. Lal states that this Court should not go by the place from where the machine is dispatched or even the place where it is delivered, it should only go by the address of the company which purchased the machine from the defendant.

21. There are two difficulties in the way of the plaintiff. The first is that by accepting the above plea of the plaintiff, this Court would be turning a blind eye to the two documents which have been included by the plaintiff in the list of documents being relied upon by it. Both these documents contain clauses, which have been inserted obviously at the instance of the plaintiff itself, conferring on the exclusive jurisdiction on the courts in Chandigarh. In light of the law explained by the Supreme Court in A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. v. A.P. Agencies, Salem, the wording of the ouster clause is unambiguous particularly when it uses words like "exclusive". In those circumstances, no option is left to the court to still assert its jurisdiction. Once an ouster clause is clear that it is only the court in Chandigarh that will have the jurisdiction, it is not possible to ignore such a clause and still say that since a part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this court, this suit should be entertained. This is what distinguishes the judgments of this Court in LG Corporation v. Intermarket Electroplasters (P) Ltd., Pfizer Products, Inc. v. Rajesh Chopra and of the Madras High Court in Base International Holdings N.V. Hockenrode 6 v. Pallava Hotels Corporation Ltd. in their application to the present case. Those cases seem to find jurisdiction on the basis that either a sale or a threatened sale was to take place within the jurisdiction of this Court. None of those decisions were rendered in cases where there was an ouster clause which conferred exclusive jurisdiction on some other court.

22. As regards the plea of estoppel, this Court is unable to appreciate how the plaintiff can seek to take advantage of the defendants averments in its written statement. The submission of Mr. Lal was that unless the defendant admitted the genuineness of the two documents which contained the ouster clause, the ouster clause cannot be used to estop the plaintiff from approaching the court. In the first place, this Court does not have to look into the written statement to see whether the suit is maintainable. At this stage this Court has to determine whether on the basis of the averments in the plaint, this Court has jurisdiction or not. The plaint has to be examined along with the documents for that purpose. It is incumbent on the plaintiff to satisfy the court that it has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. In the considered view of this Court, the question of estoppel does not arise. It is the plaintiff that maintains that its case on the basis of the two documents which are part of its reliance. As long as these documents remain on the record, it is not possible for this Court to ignore them. Therefore, it is not possible to accept the plea of the plaintiff that this Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

--

The Legal Blog.in