Latest news with #NarendraKumarVyas
Time of India
9 hours ago
- Business
- Time of India
Tata-govt body bank guarantee case: HC refuses to intervene
Raipur: The Chhattisgarh High Court has disposed of a writ petition filed by Tata Projects Limited, which sought restoration of status quo, directing the company to seek remedy before the commercial court. The petition concerned the encashment of a performance bank guarantee of Rs 167.46 crore by the Chhattisgarh Infotech Promotion Society (CHiPS), the nodal agency for driving IT growth and implementing IT and e-Governance initiatives in the state. A division bench of Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas and Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad heard the petition filed by Tata Projects. The company sought restoration of the status quo ante, asking for the return of the Rs 167.46 crore to State Bank of India and the issuance of an identical bank guarantee. Alternatively, Tata Projects requested CHiPS to deposit the amount in an interest-bearing account until the dispute's resolution. According to court records, CHiPS had issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the selection of a Master System Integrator (MSI) for the BharatNet Phase-II Project in Chhattisgarh. A dispute arose between Tata Projects and CHiPS during the commercial contract. Previously, Tata Projects had filed writ petition, in which a single bench of the high court on 2 July 2024, granted interim protection, restraining respondents from encashing the performance bank guarantee. This writ petition was later disposed of on 30 April 2025, with the court re-delegating the parties to approach the commercial court. Subsequently, Tata Projects filed an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The commercial court, on 3 May 2025, ordered an interim status quo regarding the invocation of the bank guarantee. However, after the respondents filed their reply, the commercial court disposed of the application on 6 May 2025, vacating the status quo order. The initiation of the bank guarantee encashment process led Tata Projects to approach the high court. Senior counsel Kishore Bhaduri, appearing for Tata Projects, argued that CHiPS's conduct was fraudulent and high-handed, misleading the court and misusing its power by attempting to invoke the bank guarantee. Counsel for the respondents and the state argued that the writ petition was not maintainable, as Tata Projects had remedies available under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, or under the Chhattisgarh Madhyashtham Adhikaran Act, 1983. The high court observed that an arbitration clause existed in the agreement and that Tata Projects had already approached the commercial court. The court ruled that the writ petition was not maintainable at this juncture. However, it granted Tata Projects the liberty to pursue statutory remedies before the commercial court. The court also clarified that the respondents were free to raise objections regarding the maintainability of any application. The High Court directed the commercial court to consider and decide any interim application or application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, filed by the petitioner expeditiously and in accordance with the law. The high court also made it clear that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, leaving it to the commercial court to decide independently.
Time of India
18 hours ago
- Business
- Time of India
Chhattisgarh high court declines to intervene in tata projects and CHiPS bank guarantee dispute
RAIPUR: The Chhattisgarh high court disposed of a writ petition filed by Tata Projects Limited, directing the company to seek remedy before the Commercial Court. The petition concerned the encashment of a performance bank guarantee of Rs 167.46 crore by the Chhattisgarh Infotech Promotion Society (CHiPS), the nodal agency for driving IT growth and implementing IT and e-Governance initiatives in the state. A division bench of Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas and Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad heard the petition filed by Tata Projects. The company sought restoration of the status quo ante, asking for the return of the Rs 167.46 crore to State Bank of India and the issuance of an identical bank guarantee. Alternatively, Tata Projects requested CHiPS to deposit the amount in an interest-bearing account until the dispute's resolution. According to court records, CHiPS issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the selection of a Master System Integrator (MSI) for the BharatNet Phase-II Project in Chhattisgarh. A dispute arose between Tata Projects and CHiPS during the commercial contract. Previously, Tata Projects filed a writ petition, in which a single bench of the high court on 2 July 2024, granted interim protection, restraining respondents from encashing the performance bank guarantee. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like American Investor Warren Buffett Recommends: 5 Books For Turning Your Life Around Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List Undo This writ petition was later disposed of on 30 April 2025, with the court re-delegating the parties to approach the Commercial Court. Subsequently, Tata Projects filed an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Commercial Court, on 3 May 2025, ordered an interim status quo regarding the invocation of the bank guarantee. However, after the respondents filed their reply, the Commercial Court disposed of the application on 6 May 2025, vacating the status quo order. The initiation of the bank guarantee encashment process led Tata Projects to approach the highcourt. Senior Counsel Kishore Bhaduri, appearing for Tata Projects, argued that CHiPS's conduct was fraudulent and high-handed, misleading the court and misusing its power by attempting to invoke the bank guarantee. Counsel for the respondents and the state argued that the writ petition was not maintainable, as Tata Projects had remedies available under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, or under the Chhattisgarh Madhyashtham Adhikaran Act, 1983. The high court observed that an arbitration clause existed in the agreement and that Tata Projects already approached the Commercial Court. The court ruled that the writ petition was not maintainable at this juncture. However, it granted Tata Projects the liberty to pursue statutory remedies before the Commercial Court. The court also clarified that the respondents were free to raise objections regarding the maintainability of any application. The high court directed the Commercial Court to consider and decide any interim application or application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, filed by the petitioner expeditiously and in accordance with the law. The high court also made it clear that it did not express any opinion on the merits of the case, leaving it to the Commercial Court to decide independently.
Time of India
06-05-2025
- Time of India
Married woman has absolute right over her ‘Stridhan', rules CG HC
Raipur: A married woman has absolute right over 'Stridhan', even if it is in the custody of her husband and in-laws, Chhattisgarh high court has ordered the husband to return 28 tolas (around 326.5 gram) of gold to his wife, 53, and pay a fine of Rs 10,000 within two months. Failure to comply with the order will lead to three months' bench of Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas noted that 26 years have passed since the original complaint was filed on Sept 17, 1998. The couple are aged 56 and 53 the possibility that both parties may have remarried and settled in their respective lives, the court deemed a jail sentence to be of no practical purpose. Section 406 IPC stipulates a maximum sentence of three years or a fine, or both, but does not prescribe a minimum sentence, the court case involves a Raipur woman, who was married to a Bhilai resident on Nov 3, 1995. She lived in her matrimonial home but alleged that her husband and other in-laws subjected her to harassment and cruelty, leaving her no option but to leave the house at midnight on March 19, 1996. In her distressed state, she was compelled to leave behind her 'Stridhan', including jewellery, gold, silver, and other filed a complaint against her husband at Raipur Mahila Thana, citing offences under IP section 498-A and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Police registered a investigation was on when her husband sent a legal notice to her on Dec 7, 1997. The wife, too, sent a notice to him on May 30, 1998, demanding the return of her 'Stridhan', a list of which she submitted at Mahila Thana. The wife eventually filed a complaint under Section 200 CrPC in hearing both parties, the Raipur judicial magistrate acquitted the husband on 10 May, 2023 , which led the wife to approach high the appeal, her counsel argued that 'Stridhan' remains the property of the wife, and an offence of criminal breach of trust continues as long as it is not returned. Her counsel asserted that the trial court had overlooked a 2003 judgment by the Secunderabad family court, which established the wife's entrustment of the articles to her after hearing all parties, observed in its order, "It is quite clear that the gold ornaments were worn by the appellant at the time of marriage, and the receipts were also produced before the trial court. The appellant left her matrimonial home on March 19, 1996, under dire circumstances at midnight. Therefore, it was impossible for her to carry gold and silver ornaments in such a terrifying situation."These circumstances prove that the gold remained with the husband, HC noted. It overturned the husband's acquittal and found him guilty under Section 405 IPC.
Time of India
05-05-2025
- Time of India
Chhattisgarh HC Affirms Women's Right to Stridhan, Orders Return of 28 Tolas Gold After 26 Years
RAIPUR : The Chhattisgarh High Court delivered a significant verdict in a case concerning the return of ' Stridhan ' (a woman's property), affirming a married woman's absolute right over it, even if it is in the custody of her husband and in-laws. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The High Court Single Bench of Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas, hearing an appeal filed by a woman (now 53), directed the husband (now 56) to return 28 tolas (approximately 326.56 grams) of gold and pay a fine of Rs 10,000 within two months. The court warned that failure to comply with the order would result in the husband serving three months of simple imprisonment. The court noted that since the original complaint was filed on September 17, 1998, more than 26 years elapsed. Considering the possibility that both parties may have remarried and settled in their respective lives, the court deemed a jail sentence to be of no practical purpose. Section 406 of the IPC stipulates a maximum sentence of three years or a fine, or both, but does not prescribe a minimum sentence, the court observed. The case involves a Raipur woman, whose marriage with a Bhilai resident took place on November 3, 1995, at Kundan Palace, Raipur. Following the marriage, she resided at her matrimonial home. However, she alleged that her husband and other family members subjected her to harassment and cruelty, leaving her no option but to leave the house at midnight on March 19, 1996. In her distressed state, she was compelled to leave behind her 'Stridhan,' including jewellery, gold, silver, and other valuables. Subsequently, the aggrieved wife filed a complaint against her husband at the Mahila Thana (women's police station) in Raipur, citing offences under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The police registered a case and initiated an investigation. During the investigation, on December 7, 1997, the husband sent a legal notice to his wife. Conversely, the wife sent a notice to her husband on May 30, 1998, demanding the return of her 'Stridhan,' the list of which was submitted to the Mahila Thana, Raipur. The wife eventually filed a complaint under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) in the court. After hearing both parties, the Judicial Magistrate, Raipur, acquitted the husband. This acquittal prompted the wife to file an appeal in the High Court. In the appeal, it was argued that 'Stridhan' remains the property of the woman, and the offence of criminal breach of trust continues as long as it is not returned. The appellant's counsel asserted that the trial court overlooked a 2003 judgment by the Family Court, Secunderabad, which established the wife's entrustment of the articles to her husband. The High Court, after hearing all the parties, observed in its order, "It is quite clear that the gold ornaments were worn by the appellant at the time of marriage, and the receipts were also produced before the trial court. The appellant left her matrimonial home on March 19, 1996, under dire circumstances at midnight; therefore, it was impossible for her to carry gold and silver ornaments in such a terrifying situation." The court further stated that these circumstances proved that the gold remained with the husband. Consequently, the High Court overturned the husband's acquittal and found him guilty under Section 405 of the IPC. The court ordered him to return 28 tolas of gold to his wife and pay a fine of Rs 10,000 within two months, failing which he would have to undergo three months of simple imprisonment.
Yahoo
15-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
India anger as judge frees man accused of raping wife who then died
Warning: This report contains some disturbing details An Indian court's ruling that a man's forced "unnatural sex" with his wife is not an offence has led to huge outrage and sparked renewed calls for better protections for married women. The controversial order has also brought back into the spotlight the issue of marital rape in a country which has stubbornly refused to criminalise it. Earlier this week, a high court judge in the central Indian state of Chhattisgarh set free a 40-year-old man who was convicted by a trial court in 2019 of rape and unnatural sex with his wife, who died within hours of the alleged assault. The lower court had also found the man guilty of "culpable homicide not amounting to murder". He was sentenced to "rigorous imprisonment for 10 years" on each count, with all the sentences to run concurrently. But on Monday, the High Court's Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas acquitted the man of all charges, saying that since India did not recognise marital rape, the husband could not be considered guilty of non-consensual sex or any non-consensual unnatural sexual act. The judgement has been met with anger, as activists, lawyers and campaigners renew their calls to criminalise marital rape in India. "To watch this man walk away is unacceptable. This judgement may be correct legally, but it is ethically and morally abhorrent," said lawyer and gender rights activist Sukriti Chauhan. "An order that absolves a man of such a crime, to say it's not a crime, is the darkest hour in our legal system," she told the BBC. "It has shaken us to the core. This needs to change and change quickly." Priyanka Shukla, a lawyer in Chhattisgarh, said a judgement like this "sends out the message that because you're the husband, you have rights. And you can do anything, you can even get away with murder". She added that this is not the first time a court has given such a judgement, and there is always anger. "This time, the outrage is more because it is so gruesome and the woman died." The court documents make for grim reading. According to the prosecution, the incident took place on the night of 11 December 2017, when the husband, who worked as a driver, "committed unnatural sex with the victim against her will… causing her a lot of pain". After he left for work, she sought help from his sister and another relative, who took her to hospital where she died a few hours later. In her statement to the police and her dying declaration to a magistrate, the woman said she became ill "due to forceful sexual intercourse by her husband". A dying declaration carries weight in court and legal experts say it is generally enough for conviction, unless contradicted by other evidence. While convicting the man in 2019, the trial court had relied heavily on her dying declaration and the post-mortem report, which stated "the cause of death was peritonitis and rectal perforation" - simply put, severe injuries to her abdomen and rectum. Justice Vyas, however, saw matters differently – he questioned the "sanctity" of the dying statement, noted that some of the witnesses had retracted their statements and, most importantly, said that marital rape was not an offence in India. The lower court's conviction was "a rarest of rare case", Ms Shukla said, "probably because the woman died". "But what is shocking about the high court order is that there's not even one sympathetic comment from the judge." Considering the nature of the assault, the high court's order has come as a shock for many, who believe the judge should not have dismissed the case so lightly. India is among more than 30 countries - along with Pakistan, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia - where marital rape is not a criminal offence. A number of petitions have been filed in recent years seeking to strike down Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, which has been in existence since 1860. The British colonial-era law mentions several "exemptions" - or situations in which sex is not rape - and one of them is "by a man with his own wife" if she is not under 15 years. Britain outlawed marital rape in 1991 but India, which recently rewrote its criminal code, retained the regressive law in its new statute book. India government says criminalising marital rape 'excessively harsh' In India, growing clamour to criminalise rape within marriage The idea is rooted in the belief that consent for sex is "implied" in marriage and that a wife cannot retract it later. Campaigners say such an argument is untenable in this day and age, and that forced sex is rape, regardless of who does it. But in a country where marriage and family are considered sacrosanct, the issue has polarised opinions and there's strong resistance to the idea of criminalising marital rape. The Indian government, religious leaders and men's rights activists have strongly opposed the move. In October last year, the government told the Supreme Court that criminalisation of marital rape would be "excessively harsh". The federal home ministry said it "may lead to serious disturbances in the institution of marriage". Authorities also insist that there are enough laws to protect married women against sexual violence. But campaigners say India cannot hide behind archaic laws to deny women bodily agency. "A lot of people say the constitution cannot enter your bedroom," Ms Chauhan said. "But doesn't it grant women - like all citizens - fundamental rights to safety and security? What kind of redundant country do we live in that we remain quiet when a woman has to face this level of violence?" she asks. Violence within marriage is rampant in India. According to a recent government survey, 32% of married women face physical, sexual or emotional violence by their husbands and 82% have experienced sexual violence by their husbands. And even that doesn't give the true scale of the problem, Ms Shukla said, because a majority of women do not report violence, especially sexual violence, out of shame. "In my experience, women are not trusted when they complain, everyone says it must be fake. The only time such cases are taken seriously is when a woman dies or the assault is particularly gruesome," the lawyer said. Ms Chauhan believes nothing will change until the law changes. "We need to criminalise marital rape. The wife not getting justice after such a gruesome incident deserves a nationwide campaign, which is not born of anger but is serious [and] well thought out." She added that the government and men's activists try to project it as a "man versus woman debate". "But the demand for criminalising marital rape is not against men, but for the safety and wellbeing of women. Is it not important to ensure women's safety?"
