STUDENTS NOT TO JOIN, THE EDUCATION INSTITUTION WITHOUT RECOGNITION AND AFFILIATION

The institution that is engaged or interested in getting involved in imparting a course for training has to obey the command of law in letter and spirit. There cannot be any deviation. But, unfortunately, some of the institutions flagrantly violate the norms with adamantine audacity and seek the indulgence of the court either in the name of mercy or sympathy for the students or financial constraint of the institution or they have been inappropriately treated by the statutory regulatory bodies. None of this ground justice deviation. The Supreme Court said the High Court putting the blame on the statutory authority has granted relief to the respondent institution which is impermissible.

The Supreme Court in National Council for Teacher Education & Another Vs Venus Public Education Society & Others held:

“that without recognition from the NCTE and affiliation from the university/examining body, the educational institution cannot admit the students. An educational institution is expected to be aware of the law. The students who take admission are not young in age. They are graduates. They are expected to enquire whether the institution has recognition and affiliation. If we allow ourselves to say so, the institution had given admission in a nonchalant manner. Possibly, its functionaries harboured the idea that they had an incomparable fertile mind. The students who had taken admission possibly immersed with the idea that ignorance is a bliss. It is also necessary to state that the institution had the anxious enthusiasm to commercialize education and earn money forgetting the factum that such a attitude leads to a disaster. The students exhibited tremendous anxiety to get a degree without bothering for a moment whether their effort, if any, had the sanctity of law. Such attitudes only bring nemesis. It would not be wrong to say that this is not a case which put the institution or the student to choose between Scylla and charybdis. On the contrary, both of them were expected to be Argus-eyed. The basic motto should have been “transparency”. Unfortunately, the institution betrayed the trust of the students and the students, in a way, atrophied their intelligence. The institution decidedly exhibited characteristics of carelessness. It seems that they had forgotten that they are accountable to law. The students, while thinking “vision of hope”, chose to play possum. The law does not countenance either of the ideas. Hence, the plea propounded with anxiety, vehemence and desperation on behalf of the appellant is not acceptable and, accordingly we unhesitatingly repel the same”.

Prepared by: S. Hemanth

Advocate at Hemanth & Associates

CONTEMPT OF COURT AGAINST A WOMAN FOR BREACHING UNDERTAKING TO DIVORCE

The Delhi High Court issued the contempt of court to the women for breaching her undertaking to a family Court to divorce her husband with mutual consent.

A contempt petition was filed under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 by the petitioner (husband) to take action against the respondent (wife) for withdrawing from her undertaking given the Court, at the time of filing of the petition for mutual divorce, in the matrimonial Court.

The parties negotiated between themselves and with the intervention of the family friends, both arrived at a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). They agreed to seek divorce by mutual consent. The petitioner (husband) paid a lumpsum of rupees Seven Crores to the respondent (wife), as a one time settlement in lieu of all the claims of the wife towards maintenance, alimony, istridhan, jewellery etc. The husband agreed to pay Rupees One crore Fifty Lakhs at the time of filing of the divorce petition to seek divorce by mutual consent and the balance amount was to be paid at the time of filing of the second motion. The wife also agreed to make a statement before the court in support of the divorce petition.

The petitioner (husband) said that his wife did not come forward to make a statement before the matrimonial Court on the second motion to obtain a divorce.

The Delhi High Court in Avneesh Sood Vs Tithi Sood  held:

“I, therefore, hold the respondent guilty of contempt of Court as she has breached her undertaking given to the learned ADJ-01, New Delhi on 14.09.2010 in the first motion divorce proceedings under section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. The agreement arrived at between the parties not only deals with the aspect of divorce, to be obtained by mutual consent, but also deals with the aspect of custody/visitation rights of the minor child. Admittedly, the respondent has breached the said arrangement……”

The Court issued the contempt notice to the wife and was subjected to costs which was quantified at Rupees One Lakhs to be paid to the petitioner (husband).  

Prepared by: S. Hemanth

Advocate at Hemanth & Associates

SCHOOL ACROSS THE COUNTRY DIRECTED TO PROVIDE BASIC INFRASTRUCTURE AND FACILITIES TO STUDENTS

A petition was filed by a registered charitable society, seeking various directions to improve the conditions of Government and aided school and also school run by the local authorities so that the constitutional objective of providing free and compulsory education under the Constitution of India would be a reality.

The Supreme Court in Environment & Consumer Protection Foundation Vs Delhi Administration & Others27 directed the schools across the country to provide basic infrastructure facilities like toilet facilities for boys and girls, drinking water facilities, sufficient class rooms, appointment of teaching and non-teaching staff, etc., if not already provided, within six months from the judgement (decided on 03.10.2012). It was held that the directions are applicable to all the schools, whether State owned or privately owned, aided or unaided, minority or non-minority.

Prepared by: S. Hemanth

Advocate at Hemanth & Associates 

DEATH DUE TO NEGLIGENT ACT OF A DOCTOR IS AN ACCIDENT – LIC TO PAY ACCIDENTAL DEATH BENEFITS

Does the negligent or rash act of a doctor which causes the death of his patient immediately, comes within the parameters of an accident?

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)  in Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs Narender Singh26 observed:

Death of a patient due to rash and negligent act of a doctor is an accident, making the victim entitled to the accidental death benefits from his or her insurer. The LIC was ordered to pay the accidental death benefits to the husband of the insured, who had died while being operated upon. The NCDRC held “..the injury to the life assured was an accident caused by outward, violent and visible means and therefore, the Life Insurance Corporation of India cannot be absolved from its liability to pay the accidental benefits to the complainant”.

The LIC had denied the accidental benefits to the complainant saying his wife death during the surgery was not an accident.

Prepared by: S. Hemanth

Advocate at Hemanth & Associates

COMMUNITY SERVICE AS PUNISHMENT IN ADDITION TO PRISON SENTENCE FOR DRUNKEN DRIVING

In a matter of BMW car hit case, where on the intervening night of 9/10.01.1999, an unfortunate motor accident took place involving BMW car. The BWM car driven by the accused in a drunken state, had caused the death of six human beings and one injured. Bodies were lying on the road unattended.

The Supreme Court in State Tr.P.S. Lodhi Colony New Delhi Vs Sanjeev Nanda25 , observed:

The convict should serve the community, especially in crimes relating to motor vehicles. Serving the society actually is not a punishment in the real sense where the convicts pay back to the community which he owes. The conduct of the convicts will not only be appreciated by the community, it will also give a lot of solace to him, especially in a case where because of one’s action and inaction, human lives have been lost.

In the above case, the Supreme Court in addition to a prison sentence and fine held “the accused would do community service for two years which will be arranged by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment within two months. On default, he will have to undergo simple imprisonment for two years”.

The question that arose for consideration was whether the respondent deserves to be held guilty of commission of offence under section 304 part II of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) or the conviction and sentences awarded to him by the High Court of Delhi, under section 304 A of the IPC should be held to be good and legally tenable. The Highest court held that the High Court committed an error in converting the conviction to section 304A of the IPC from that of 304 (II) IPC.

Prepared by: S. Hemanth

Advocate at Hemanth & Associates

WIFE RIGHT TO RESIDE WITH HER HUSBAND UNDER THE PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT

The Delhi High Court in Kavita Dass Vs NCT of Delhi & Another(24), held that a woman can never be charged with trespass if she insists on staying with her husband in a house taken on rent.

In the above case the wife had sought to quash FIR registered for criminal trespass. The Delhi High Court observed:

The legally wedded wife has a right to live with the husband, whether he lives in an ancestral house or own acquired house or rented house. If the husband does not allow the aggrieved wife, then by taking shelter of the Court under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, the Magistrate may pass the order so that she may enter to the house or she would not be thrown out of the house of his husband without due process of law.  The wife cannot be directed to vacate the house without due process of law.

The High Court in the above matter, quashed the FIR registered under section 448 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and all the emanating proceedings therefrom. 

Prepared by: S. Hemanth

Advocate at Hemanth & Associates

STAY ORDERS AND ITS EXERCISE BY THE HIGH COURT, SUGGESTION MADE BY THE SUPREME COURT

Grant of stay orders in civil and criminal cases is part of  judicial proceedings and courts have been vested with inherent powers in this regard under the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

In a recent judgement in Imtiyaz Ahmad V State of Uttar Pradesh & Others23, the Supreme Court had the occasion to look into the issue of grant of stay orders by the High Courts during investigation or trial in criminal matters. The Supreme Court held:

“The authority of the High Court to order stay of investigation pursuant to lodging of FIR, or trial in deserving cases is unquestionable. But this Court is of the view that the exercise of this authority carries with it the responsibility to expeditiously dispose of the case. The power to grant stay of investigation and trial is a very extraordinary power given to High Courts and the same power is to be exercised sparingly only to prevent an abuse of the process and to promote the ends of justice. It is therefore clear that:

(i) Such an extraordinary power to be exercised with due caution and circumspection.

(ii) Once such a power is exercised, High Court should not lose sight of the case where it has exercised its extraordinary power of staying investigation and trial.

(iii) High Court should make it a point of finally disposing of such proceedings as early as possible but preferably within six months from the date the stay order is issued.

Prepared by: S. Hemanth

Advocate at Hemanth & Associates