Court, Stories, Supreme Court
 

Review: Delhi HC Rules That Men Are Also Entitled to Safeguards Under The Law Just as Women Deserve Protection From Cruelty and Violence

0

In this edition of Court Judgements review, we look at the Supreme Court’s judgement on whether an individual who neither possessed nor borrowed can claim restoration of a secured asset, Karnataka High Court’s judgement on Right to health/medical care as a fundamental right, Bombay High Court’s judgement in a case for bail for drunk driving, Allahabad High Court’s judgement on cyber-crimes and digital arrests, and Delhi High Court’s judgement on same protection from cruelty and violence for both men and women.

Supreme Court: Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) has no power to “hand over” possession to a person who was never in possession.

In Central Bank of India & Anr. vs. Smt. Prabha Jain & Ors., the Supreme Court held that Section 17(3) of the SARFAESI Act provides that the DRT has the power to “restore” possession which would mean that it has the power to return possession to the person who was in possession when the bank took over possession. DRT only has the power to “restore” possession; it has no power to “hand over” possession to a person who was never in possession.

A bench of two judges, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan was addressing the question of whether a person who neither possessed nor has borrowed the secured asset can claim restoration of the secured asset under Section 17(3) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The brief facts of the case are as follows. In the case at hand, the plaintiff claims ownership of the suit land, which was initially purchased by her late father-in-law through a sale deed dated 19 June 1967. Following his demise on 15 August 2005, the land was inherited in equal shares by her late husband, Mahendra Kumar Jain, his elder brother, Sumer Chand Jain (Defendant No. 4), and their mother. Upon the death of Mahendra Kumar, his one-third share of the property passed to the plaintiff. However, the defendant, Sumer Chand Jain, without any formal partition among the heirs, divided the land into multiple plots and illegally sold them to third parties. One such plot was sold to Defendant No. 3, Parmeshwar Das Prajapati, through a registered sale deed dated 3 July 2008. Subsequently, Parmeshwar mortgaged the plot with the Central Bank of India (Defendant No. 1) to secure a loan. It appears that the borrower defaulted on the loan, prompting the Bank to invoke provisions under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act).

The plaintiff contends that both the sale deed and the mortgage are null and void and has filed a suit seeking possession of the land. In response, the Bank filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), arguing that the civil court lacked jurisdiction, citing Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. The trial court upheld this argument and rejected the plaint. The plaintiff subsequently appealed to the High Court, which allowed the First Appeal. The High Court held that the appeal provision under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act did not oust the jurisdiction of the civil court in cases where the matter could not be decided by the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT). The current appeal by the bank is against this judgment.

In her suit, the plaintiff seeks three forms of relief: (1) a declaration concerning the sale deed executed by Sumer Chand Jain in favour of Parmeshwar Das Prajapati, (2) a declaration regarding the mortgage deed executed by Pramod Jain in favour of the Bank, and (3) an order for the return of possession of the suit property. The first two reliefs pertain to actions taken before the bank invoked the SARFAESI Act, and as such, they do not fall within the jurisdiction of the DRT. Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act bars civil courts from entertaining suits or proceedings related to matters within the jurisdiction of the DRT or the Appellate Tribunal under the Act. Therefore, the jurisdiction of the civil court is only excluded in cases where the DRT or Appellate Tribunal is empowered by the SARFAESI Act to determine the matter. The SARFAESI Act, particularly under Section 17, only grants jurisdiction to the DRT to assess whether the measures taken by the secured creditor, under Section 13(4), comply with the provisions of the Act. The Act does not provide a mechanism for determining the legality of deeds or adjudicating questions of title, which remain within the purview of the civil court under Section 9 of the CPC. In this context, the DRT’s role is limited to determining whether measures taken by the secured creditor under Section 13(4) of the Act are in compliance with the Act and related rules. The DRT does not possess the authority to grant declaratory reliefs concerning the validity of documents, as such powers are vested with the civil courts.

Attention is also drawn to the application of Section 17(3) of the SARFAESI Act prior to its 2016 amendment. This provision empowers the DRT to “restore” possession of secured assets to the borrower if it finds that the measures taken by the creditor were not in accordance with the Act. However, the DRT’s authority under Section 17(3) does not extend to restoring possession to third parties who do not claim through or under the borrower.

The question of whether a civil court’s jurisdiction is barred in such cases was addressed in Om Prakash Gupta vs. Dr. Rattan Singh & Anr. where the Supreme Court held that tribunals, as creatures of statute, have limited jurisdiction. The court emphasized that the jurisdiction of a civil court is not to be readily inferred as excluded. The Dwarka Prasad Agarwal (Dead) by LRs. & Anr. vs. Ramesh Chander Agarwal & Ors case further confirmed that a civil court’s jurisdiction to entertain a suit must be strictly interpreted, and the court generally leans in favour of retaining civil jurisdiction unless explicitly excluded.

Additionally, the Supreme Court highlighted the need for banks to exercise greater caution in obtaining title clearance reports, especially when such reports are procured cheaply or for external reasons. The court felt that the protection of public money necessitates that the Reserve Bank of India and other stakeholders collaborate to create standardized guidelines for preparing title search reports before sanctioning loans. This would also involve determining the liability of officers who approve loans based on inadequate title clearance, ensuring accountability and preventing malpractice. It is imperative that these reports are of high quality to safeguard public interest and maintain confidence in the lending process.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Karnataka HC: Recognizing the Right to Health and Medical Care as Fundamental Right requires the State to fulfil its Constitutional duty to provide medical facilities.

In The Registrar General vs. Union of India & Others, the Karnataka High Court reiterated that for effective enforcement of the Right to Health and Medical care, the creation of a medical cadre, adequate medical personnel, setting up of infrastructure, availability of medicines in sufficient quantity and without interruption is necessary and it is the Constitutional obligation on part of the State to create such medical facilities.

The division bench comprising Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind was hearing a Suo-motu petition based on a newspaper report titled ‘Karnataka Short of 16,500 Medical Personnel’. The report further highlighted that there was uneven distribution of medical staff and Primary Health Centres and that there are deficits of medical professionals across thirty districts of the Karnataka. The petition noted the presence of several important health initiatives like the National Health Mission 2005,  Ayushman Bharat – Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana (AB-PMJAY), and Karnataka Compulsory Service Training by Candidates Completed Medical Courses Act, 2012, and despite it, healthcare sector lags behind and desired efficiency is not achieved and therefore, the intervention of this Court was required.

The petition underscored the concept of the Right to Health both from International Conventions and the Constitutional provisions by referring to various judgements of the apex court. Accordingly, it was prayed to direct the respondent authorities to fill up all the medical personnel positions in Karnataka. The Principal Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, Karnataka State, was assigned as a respondent in this case. An affidavit on the vacancies was filed, measures taken to improve medical infrastructure and also the progress of schemes. The answers sought through the petition were largely covered in the details submitted.

Further, the Karnataka High Court remarked that in the fundamental right of right to health, the obligation of the State to tone up the health services is also imbibed.

Accordingly, the State was directed to constitute a three-member committee headed by the Secretary, of the Department of Health to continuously oversee and implement the mechanism to ensure the providence of medical facilities and medical infrastructure and collect the details on the needs and requirements of medical infrastructure and personnel every six months.

The petition is disposed of accordingly.

Bombay HC: Directs the accused to perform community service for grant of bail in a case of drunk driving

The Bombay High Court, in Sabyasachi Nishank vs. State of Maharashtra, granted bail to the applicant who is accused of drunk driving and directed the applicant to perform community service by holding a flex banner in his hands which shall state the words “Don’t Drink and Drive” in bold and big font.

The single bench judge headed by Justice Milind N Jadhav was hearing an application for bail for the offences punishable under Sections 110, 132, 281, 324(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS”) and Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The incident occurred during a blockade check post at Gokhale Bridge, Western Express Highway, Andheri (East), Mumbai. The applicant, driving a car (MH47-Q-1349), ignored police instructions to stop, rammed through barricades, and fled. He repeated this behaviour at another checkpoint, causing damage to multiple vehicles and injuring a police officer. When finally apprehended, a medical examination revealed a blood alcohol level of 42.5%. Thereafter, a case was lodged against the applicant accused and he was taken into custody.

The applicant’s counsel argued that most charges against him were bailable, except for Section 110 of the BNS, which the counsel claimed was inapplicable. Emphasizing the applicant’s young age, education, and career prospects, the counsel requested bail, arguing that further incarceration was unnecessary. The state opposed the plea, citing the severity of the offence and the reckless endangerment caused by the accused.

The High Court acknowledged that the offence was serious but considered the applicant’s background and career prospects. Drawing on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Parvez Jilani Shaikh and Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr., the court granted bail while imposing a community service condition.

The applicant is required to report to the traffic officer at Worli Naka Junction within two days of release. Over the next three months, he must hold a 4×3-foot flex banner with the message “Don’t Drink and Drive” at a visible, well-lit location near the traffic signal every Saturday and Sunday from 7:00 PM to 10:00 PM. This community service aims to promote awareness of the dangers of drunk driving. The concerned officer will supervise the compliance and submit a report to the court at the end of the three-month period.

Accordingly, the bail application is disposed of.

Allahabad HC: Cybercrime in our country is like a silent virus—stealthy, disruptive, and eroding not just money, but also trust, security, and societal progress.

The Allahabad High Court, in Nishant Roy vs. State of U.P., held that rapid advancement of technology and the widespread adoption of digital infrastructure have accelerated the country’s digital transformation, but they have also exposed vulnerabilities that cyber-criminals exploit. Cyber-crime in our country is like a silent virus stealthy, disruptive, and costing society more than just money, but also trust, security and progress.

The single judge bench headed by Justice Ashutosh Srivastava was hearing an application for bail of the applicant Nishant Roy charged under Sections 384, 406, 419, 420, 506, 507 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code & Sections 66-C & 66-D of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008. The case stems from a complaint lodged by the informant, Smt. Kakoli Das Gupta, on 27 April 2024, alleging a phishing scam. The informant received a call from an individual impersonating a representative of the FedEx International Courier company, who falsely claimed that a parcel containing illegal materials (200 gm MDMA, 5 Laptops, 3 Credit Cards etc) had been sent in her name. The call was escalated to someone posing as a Deputy Commissioner of Police, who coerced her into revealing sensitive bank account details. Over several days, substantial amounts totalling ₹1.48 crores were fraudulently transferred from her bank.

The counsel for the accused held that the applicant, a 6th-semester BBA student, was not named in the FIR but was allegedly falsely implicated during the investigation based on the confessional statement of a co-accused, Rama alias Chetan, who mentioned the name of the applicant’s father, Dev Kumar. It is further argued that the investigating officer fabricated a recovery and arrest memo, claiming to have seized three mobile phones, two pre-activated SIM cards, and a cheque book from the applicant. It was also contended that no transactions were traced to the applicant’s account and that the alleged offences under Sections 384, 406, 419, 420, 506, 507, 34 IPC, and Sections 66-C and 66-D of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 were not made out. The charges, triable by a Magistrate, carry a maximum punishment of seven years, and the applicant cannot be implicated solely on the basis of a co-accused’s statement. The applicant has been in custody since 7 May 2024, and while the charge sheet was filed on 27 June 2024, charges are yet to be framed. Arguing that custodial interrogation is no longer necessary, the applicant is seeking bail.

On the other hand, the prosecution argued that a substantial sum of ₹62 lakhs was transferred to the account of Sandhu Enterprises, operated by co-accused Amar Pal Singh and his wife, Karan Preet. A SIM card recovered from the applicant was found to be connected to the bank account of Sandhu Enterprises, indicating the applicant’s complicity in the crime. Other co-accused, including the applicant’s father, Devendra Kumar alias Dev Roy, are absconding, and the investigation is ongoing. Given the gravity of the offence and the financial and emotional impact on the victim, a senior citizen, the applicant’s release would not serve the interest of justice.

The court agreed with the seriousness of the offence. It also acknowledged the vulnerabilities that come with the rapid digital advancements and the number of people defrauded of their hard-earned money every day in cybercrimes.

Since the investigation is underway, the Court held that it is not inclined to release the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.

Delhi HC: Just as women deserve protection from cruelty and violence, men too are entitled to the same safeguards under the law.

In Jyothi alias Kittu vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi, the Delhi High Court held that a fair and just justice delivery system must remain gender-neutral, ensuring that the empowerment and protection of one gender do not come at the expense of fairness to another. While women deserve safeguards against cruelty and violence, men are equally entitled to the same legal protections. To deny this balance would undermine the fundamental principles of equality and human dignity.

The single judge bench headed by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma was hearing an anticipatory bail petition of the wife who allegedly caused burn injuries by pouring boiling water mixed with chilli powder on her husband. The brief facts of the case are as follows. The case at hand involves serious allegations of domestic violence and attempted murder. On 1 January 2025, a PCR call was received at Police Station Nangloi, Delhi, reporting an incident where Suraj, the victim, was found with severe burns inflicted by his wife, Jyoti. The victim explained that while he was sleeping, his wife poured boiling water mixed with red chilli powder on his face, neck, chest, and eyes. She then locked the room from the outside to prevent him from seeking medical help and fled the scene, taking his phone with her. The victim revealed that he and his wife got married after he was threatened with a false rape case. Further, he informed that his wife had a history of filing false rape charges against several individuals and had threatened him too prior to the incident. In addition, the victim had already filed a complaint four days prior to the incident with the police regarding which the accused was upset with the victim.

The counsel for the applicant argued that she was a victim of domestic violence and had been forced into marriage under duress due to threats of false accusations. However, the counsel failed to explain the injuries sustained by the victim or the applicant’s conduct of evading arrest and fleeing the scene. The prosecution, on the other hand, argued that the injuries were life-threatening and caused with intent to kill. The victim’s statement was supported by medical evidence showing severe burns.

The court heard both parties. Despite the severity of the offence, the court noted that an argument was advanced before it that since the accused is a woman, and wife of the victim, who was being tortured by him, she should be treated with leniency. The court reminded of the hidden conscious/unconscious biases- rooted in societal perceptions, cultural conditioning, or individual assumptions, and remarked that it is the duty of the judiciary to remain vigilant and ensure that decisions are not influenced by such biases where law or judicial precedents specifically do not so provide.

In light of the above discussion, and considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the Court dismissed the application for bail.

Share.

Comments are closed.

scroll