Sunday, August 28, 2011

Public premises eviction act..citation..

PUBLIC PREMISES: Eviction Orders

An order of eviction validly made in accordance with the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, cannot be interfered with, even if there has been any transgression of any guidelines, except where it is arbitrary or mala fide or in violation of any statutory provision. The only ‘remedy' of any person complaining of non-compliance with such guidelines, is to bring such violation, to the notice of a higher authority. An unauthorized occupant or tenant against whom action is initiated under the Public Premises Act, cannot resist the proceedings on the ground of non-compliance with the said guidelines.

In this case, respondent was in occupation of the shop in 1961 when the premises was purchased and he continued in such occupation and paid the rents regularly. The bank issued a notice demanding him to vacate the premises as it required the property for demolition and reconstructions. As the demand was not met, eviction proceedings were initiated which were resisted by the legal heirs of the tenant. An order of eviction passed by the Estate Officer was affirmed by the Appellate Authority. However, the High Court set aside the order of eviction on the ground that the bank had not complied with the guidelines issued by the Central Government.

Syndicate Bank v. Ramachandran Pillai , 2011 (1) SCALE 368; Decided on 4-1-2011 (SC) [R.V. Raveendran and A.K. Patnaik, JJ.]

Read for more information about public premises eviction at public premises eviction act.

Decisions on consumer complaints regarding Banks...

M.P.Minerals Ltd Vs. Bank of India & ors - 2003 (1) CPR 96 (NC)
A complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service in not paying the amount of bank guarantee on demand. The defense plea was that the demand was not in accordance with terms of guarantee. It was held that where bank guarantee provided conditions for its invocation then Bank would not be deficient in service in not making payment under the bank guarantee if conditions were found not fulfilled.

M/s.Anand Lubricating & Pneumatic Systems Ltd. Vs. State Bank of India - 2003 (2) CPR 53
The bank was alleged to have failed to issue bank guarantee despite sufficient security and the complainant suffered financial loss. It was held that the non-issuance of bank guarantee despite security deposit with the bank would amount to deficiency in service and the complainant would be entitled to interest on that security amount.

Banking Service

M/s. House of Dubary Vs. New Bank of India and others 1991(1) CPR 216 (NC).
The grant of relief of rendition of accounts in relation to transactions with the Bank is not within the scope of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act and the averments in the petition do not make out any deficiency in the service rendered by the Bank. The rendition of accounts by the Bank and the recovery of amounts that may be found due as a result of settlement of accounts are reliefs that can be obtained only by recourse to a suit in the Civil Court.


P.N.Prasad Vs. Union Bank of India 1991(1) CPR 198 (SCDRC- AP, Hyderabad).
The bank is liable for deficiency in service for inordinate delays in providing banking services and the customer of the bank is entitled to claim compensation for the loss and the injury suffered by him due to the inordinate delay in the payment of the amount of deposit certificate on its premature encashment.


Dilip Madhukar Kambli Vs. Nilesh Vasant Borkar and Ors 1991(1) CPR 571(SCDRC- New Bombay, Maharashtra).
The banker is supposed to safeguard the interest of the depositors when his amount is entrusted to the custody of the Bank and the Bank is liable to return the amount with interest. In the absence of any directions from the customer, no banker can unilaterally and arbitrarily transfer the money of a depositor from his account and deposit in the account of another customer. This amounts to deficiency in service by the bank.


Consumer Association Vs. The Registrar Coop. Societies, Madras & Others (Madras) 1991(2) CPR 447 (SCDRC- Madras).
The Commission ruled that adopting discriminatory practice in sanctioning loan without basis by the cooperative society or Bank amounts to deficiency in service & such practice is liable to be stopped. Madras Prov.

N.Sahadevan Vs. Manager, Syndicate Bank 1991(2) CPR 617 (SCDRC- Kerala).
They (Banks) must be ever vigilant and solicitious about the interests of their customers departure from such standard can cause inconvenience not only to stray individuals but widespread economic disaster. The Banks should therefore be enjoined to maintain their services efficient and above reproach. In view of the above it was held that where the bank caused unexplained delay in the mail transfer of money it amounts to deficiency in service for which bank is bound to compensate.


N.Raveendran Vs. Branch Manager, State Bank of India 1991(2) CPR 473 (SCDRC-Kerala)
Due to the wrongful dishonour of the demand draft the complainant was stranded at a very far off place from his home and it resulted in loss, mental agony and hardship to him. The primary duty of a Bank is to safeguard and protect the interest of their customer. It was held that if there has been a lapse or an omission committed by the officials of the Bank and if some inconvenience were caused to a customer due to the omission, negligence or default of the Bank, it amounts to a defective service according to the Consumer Protection Act.


Mrs. S.S.Shirwaikar, Margao Vs. State Bank of India, Margao 1991(1) CPR 513 (SCRDC- Goa).
It is a common knowledge that when an account holder draws a cheque in favour of the bank itself, it is undoubtedly for the purpose of utilizing that amount by the bank for any of the specified directions of the customer and not for paying to an unknown 3rd party, merely because the word 'bearer' is not struck off in the cheque. Therefore a cheque directing the drawer (i.e.) the bank to pay itself cannot be equated with an ordinary cheque payable to self or bearer where the bank can pay to the bearer. Hence the bank has clearly shown utter negligence in paying a huge amount of Rs.20,000/- to an unknown outsider and thus caused loss to the account holder. There is clearly lack of good faith on the part of bank. In the circumstances, the customer is entitled to the loss and costs of this complaint.


Corporation Bank & Anr. Vs. M/s Filmalaya Pvt. Ltd -1992(1) CPR 445 ( NC).
It was alleged by the complainant that misappropriation by its employee from the complainant's account maintained with the bank was made possible due to the negligence and deficiency in service of the officials of the bank. It was held that the bank passbook is not a reliable piece of evidence to establish the fact of short deposit especially when it was in the custody of the employee who was convicted of forgery and fraud in the case. The short deposit has to be established on the basis of the amounts indicated in the depositors counterfoils of the pay-in-slips.


A.R.Narayan Vs. State Bank of Hyderabad – 1992(1) CPR 534 (NC).
The complainant had already overdrawn the cash credit limit given by the opposite party bank and was in default in the repayment of his dues. He was also not clearing the dues which he owed to some other bank. It was held that the refusal by the opposite party bank to permit the complainant to further draw in his account was justified and there was no deficiency of service.


M/s Classsic Electronics Vs. Punjab National Bank & Anr. -1992(2) CPR 128 (NC).
The complaint against the respondent bank was improper maintenance of the complainant's account and transfer of some amount from Fixed Capital Loan account to Working Capital Loan account. The statement of the bank that the transfer of the amount from one account to the other was as per the instructions of the complainant himself, was accepted by the Commission. It was held that the transfer, though irregular, was to the benefit of the complainant and enabled him to reduce to an extent his exceeding the drawing power limit. The complaint was dismissed as vexatious and malicious.


Pawan Kumar Birla Vs. Branch Manager, State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur – 1992 (1) CPR 15 (SCRDC – Raj)
The complainant filed the complaint praying that the opposite party bank be directed to issue a No Dues Certificate and also claimed compensation. There was nothing on record to show that the complainant had hired the services of the opposite party for consideration for the purpose of issuing a no dues certificate. Hence, it was held that the complainant is not a consumer as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. As the Redressal Forum can grant only those reliefs enumerated under Section 14(1) of the Act, it was held that the direction which the complainant has sought against the opposite party cannot be granted to the complainant.


Parashuram S. Veerannavar Vs.Branch Manager, Union Bank of India –1992 (1) CPR 329 (SCRDC – Kar)
The services of appellant , an MD Collector of the bank, was terminated and his security deposit was not refunded by the bank. It was held that since the bank had hired the services of the appellant by paying commission and not hired the services for consideration, the appellant will not be a consumer of the bank. Also, it was held that for determining the amount due to the appellant accounts will have to be taken and that can be done by a Civil Court and not by the Consumer Forum,


Premananda Nanda Vs. State Bank of India & Anr.- 1992(2) CPR 199 ( SCRDC – Orissa).
Where the bank permitted withdrawal of a huge amount from the account of the complainant on the basis of a duplicate pass book and cheque book, it was held that complainant is a consumer and permission for withdrawal from his account by another is deficiency in service.

This is a short compilation.If you search you will find numerous findings and judgements from different forums of different states as well as from state commissions and national commission regarding this.Moreover you can read different consumer publications to get it more results and decisions.

Saturday, August 27, 2011

Industrial Dispute Act-1947

2001-I-LLJ-185 (SC)

Between
Management of English Electric Co. of India

And
V. Manohara Rao & Others

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Secs. 33, 33-A and 33C(2) - Industrial dispute not pending - Only claim petition pending - No illegal termination of services - Hence Labor Court's order set aside.

HELD: Aplain reading of Sections 33 and 33-A of the I.D. Act makes it clear that it is only during the tendency of any proceeding in respect of an industrial dispute provisions of Section 33-A would be attracted and not otherwise. The Labor Court totally lost sight of the aspect that there was no industrial dispute but only a claim petition under Section 33-C (2) of the Act was pending.

Appeal allowed.
.....................................................

1. APPLICABILITY OF THE PROVISION



Section 33 C(2) Adjudication of question of existence or non existence of master and servant relationship is outside the purview of this Section.



Petitioner claimed wages for certain period before the Labour Court through an application under Section 33 C (2) of I.D. Act. The management disputed master servant relationship. Also, it was pointed out to the Court that the worker has raised a dispute regarding the refusal of employment to him and that dispute is still pending. Labour Court held it has no jurisdiction to entertain the application. The worker approaches the High Court.



Held: The Labour Court has no jurisdiction under Section 33 C(2) of the I.D. Act to examine and adjudicate the dispute as to whether there is master and servant relationship between the management and the worker, basing on which the question of payment of wages would arise. (Para 4) Shankar Rao B.M. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chickmagalur. [1999]



Section 33 C(2) Section provides remedy to workman only for recovery of amounts due to him If his right is disputed, he is not entitled to lay claim under Section.



Held: The High Court further observed that the management had disputed the right of the petitioner for the privilege leave and had successfully proved before the Labour Court that the petitioner was not entitled to the leave. Hence he was not entitled to lay his claim under Section 33 C(2) of the I.D. Act. (Para 12) Rajan T.K. v. Labour Court, Ernakulam. [1999]



2. BACK WAGES



Section 33 C(2) Backwages can be computed in application by workmen ordered to be reinstated Such computation cannot be treated as conferring any new right upon workmen.



Held: The High Court negatived another contention of the petitioner Bank that the impugned order was not valid, as proceedings under Section 33 C(2) were only in the nature of execution proceedings, and since the order directing reinstatement was silent on the point, award of back wages could not be made in applications under Section 33 C(2). The High Court observed that by awarding backwages, in those application, no new right in favour of workmen had been determined. (Para 12) State Bank of India v. Ram Chandra Dubey. [1999]



3. JURISDICTION OF LABOUR COURT



Section 33 C(2) Employee claiming overtime allowance for service rendered at Ratnagiri Petition under Section 33 C(2) filed before Nasik Labour Court Nasik Court had no jurisdiction to deal with matter.



Held: This petition challenging a decision of the Nasik Labour Court that it had jurisdiction to decide an application of the respondent employee, was allowed. The High Court observed that the claim of the respondent regarding overtime allowance did not relate to the period of his service within the jurisdiction of the Nasik Labour Court. Hence it lacked the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the said claim. (Para 4) Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Shrikant V. Ingale. [1999]



4. MISCELLANEOUS



Section 33 CM Amount due to workman has to be computed within 3 months Dues so computed and certified has to be collected within reasonable period Tardiness of Government in collecting amount indicated.



Held: This petition by a workman was necessitated as the sum of nearly 2 lakhs of rupees certified by the Labour Court as due from the respondents to petitioners under Section 33 C(2) of the I.D. Act was not recovered as the Government (Collector) pleaded inability to auction the respondents property. The High Court described this plea as too facile and allowed the petition. It observed the dues of workman should be collected within reasonable time. (Paras 2 and 3) Islam Ali v. D. Dayaram & Co. [1999]



5. WAGES/PAY/SALARY



· Section 33 C(2) Minimum Wages Act, 1048Section 20 Dispute on deduction from wages Remedy under Section 33 C(2) is available to workman Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act not applicable.(Para 17 )

.............................................

33C. RECOVERY OF MONEY DUE FROM AN EMPLOYER. - (1) Where any money is due to a workman from an employer under a settlement or an award or under the provisions of Chapter VA or Chapter VB, the workman himself or any other person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or, in the case of the death of the workman, his assignee or heirs may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the appropriate Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the appropriate Government is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector who shall proceed to recover the same in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue :

Provided that every such application shall be made within one year from the date on which the money became due to the workman from the employer:

Provided further that any such application may be entertained after the expiry of the said period of one year, if the appropriate Government is satisfied that the applicant had sufficient cause for not making the application within the said period.

(2) Where any workman is entitled to receive from the employer any money or any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money and if any question arises as to the amount of money due or as to the amount at which such benefit should be computed, then the question may, subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, be decided by such Labour Court as may be specified in this behalf by the appropriate Government within a period not exceeding three months.

Provided that where the presiding officer of a Labour Court considers it necessary or expedient so to do, he may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend such period by such further period as he may think fit.

(3) For the purposes of computing the money value of a benefit, the Labour Court may, if it so thinks fit, appoint a Commissioner who shall, after taking such evidence as may be necessary, submit a report to the Labour Court and the Labour Court shall determine the amount after considering the report of the Commissioner and other circumstances of the case.

(4) The decision of the Labour Court shall be forwarded by it to the appropriate Government and any amount found due by the Labour Court may be recovered in the manner provided for in sub-section (1).

(5) Where workmen employed under the same employer are entitled to receive from him any money or any benefit capable of being computed in terms of money, then, subject to such rules as may be made in this behalf, a single application for the recovery of the amount due may be made on behalf of or in respect of any number of such workmen.

Explanation : In this section "Labour Court" includes any Court constituted under any law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in force in any State.

............................................

Publication by Advocates

THE ADVOCATES ACT.
Statutory Instrument 267—2.
The Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations.
Arrangement of Regulations.



23. Publications by advocates.
(1) Subject to subregulations (2) and (3) of this regulation, an
advocate shall not knowingly allow articles (including photographs) to be
published in any news media concerning himself or herself, nor shall he or
she give any press conference or any press statements which are likely to
make known or publicise the fact that he or she is an advocate.
(2) An advocate may answer questions or write articles that may be
published in the press or in news media concerning legal topics but shall not
disclose his or her name except in circumstances where the Law Council has
permitted him or her so to do.
(3) Where the Law Council cannot readily convene, the chairperson
of the Law Council may grant the permission referred to in subregulation (2)
of this regulation to the advocate.
(4) This regulation shall not apply to professional journals or
publications or to any publications of an educational nature.




24. Advocate’s nameplate or signboard.
(1) An advocate may erect a plate or signboard of not more than 36
centimetres by 25.5 centimetres in size containing the word “advocate”,
indicating his or her name, place of business, professional qualifications,
including degrees, and where applicable, the fact that he or she is a notary
public or commissioner for oaths.
(2) Notwithstanding subregulation (1) of this regulation, a nameplate
or signboard shall, in the opinion of the Law Council, be sober in design.
(3) No advocate shall carry on any practice under a firm name
consisting solely or partly of the name of a partner who has ceased to practise
as an advocate.
(4) An advocate or a firm of advocates affected by subregulation (3)
of this regulation shall be allowed five years from the date of the change in
the composition of the firm, in which to effect the required change in the firm
name.
(5) Notwithstanding subregulation (1) of this regulation, no advocate
shall include on his or her nameplate, signboard or letterhead any nonlegal
professional qualifications or appointments in any public body whether the
appointments are present or past.


25. Advocate not to advertise his or her name, etc.
(1) An advocate shall not allow his or her name or the fact that he or
she is an advocate to be used in any commercial advertisement.
(2) An advocate shall not cause his or her name or the name of his or
her firm or the fact that he or she is an advocate to be inserted in heavy or
distinctive type, in any directory or guide and, in particular, a telephone
directory.
(3) An advocate shall not cause or allow his or her name to be
inserted in any classified or trade directory or section of such directory.

sponsors ads