Justice K. Vinod Chandran had taken oath as Chief Justice of Patna High Court March 29, 2023. His appointment as a judge of the Supreme Court was announced in a post on X on January 13, 2025 by Arjun Ram Meghwal, the Union Minister for Law, Justice and and Parliamentary Affairs. He posted the message at 7:28 PM. It reads:"In exercise of the powers conferred by the Constitution of India, the President, after consultation with Chief Justice of India, is pleased to appoint Shri Justice Krishnan Vinod Chandran, Chief Justice, Patna High Court as a Judge of the Supreme Court of India." After he takes oath as a judge of the Supreme Court, the working strength of the Court would rise to 33. Its sanctioned strength is 34, including the Chief Justice of India. The Supreme Court's Collegium had recommended Justice Chandran's name for elevation on January 7, 2025.
In M/s Vijay Pandey vs. The State of Bihar (2025), the Patna High Court’s division bench of Chief Justice Chandran and Partha Sarthy on January 3, 2025 observed:"The law favours the diligent and not the indolent. The delay stands against the petitioner. Hence, we dismiss the writ petition; declining exercise of discretion." The relief was denied. The judgement was authored by the Chief Justice.
In Baidyanath Kumar Sahu vs. The State of Bihar (2025), Patna High Court’s division bench of Chief Justice Chandran and Partha Sarthy on January 10, 2025 observed:"The law favours the diligent and not the indolent. The delay stands against the petitioner. The writ petition would stand dismissed." The judgement was authored by the Chief Justice. The Court observed that Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (BGST Act) permits an appeal to be filed within three months and also apply for delay condonation with satisfactory reasons within a further period of one month. An appeal was to be filed on or before 31.01.2024 and if necessary with a delay condonation application within one month thereafter, i.e. on or before 01.03.2024. Hence, an appeal could have been filed on or before 01.03.2024, which provision was not availed by the petitioner herein. The petitioner did not avail such remedy and at this point of time, he cannot seek to avail the appellate remedy for reason of the limitation period having expired long prior. Section 30 of the GST Act also provides for an application for revocation of cancellation within thirty days of the order. The petitioner contends that in the application filed under Section 30 notice was issued for hearing which did not have the name of the Officer or even the signature. We cannot accept the contention since it is the Assessing Officer of the petitioner before whom he should have appeared since it is before that authority the application under Section 30 was filed. The petitioner was not a registered dealer after cancellation and there was no monitoring of his activities by the Department in the intervening period. There is no way to ascertain as to whether there was any transaction carried out during the said period. There is also the fact that the petitioner has not availed of the appellate remedy. There is also no averment as to the assessee having filed returns for a period of six months, on failure of which the cancellation was effected.
In Dr. Poonam Singh vs. The State of Bihar (2024), Patna High Court’s division bench of Chief Justice Chandran and Rajiv Roy on January 19, 2024 observed: "The law favors the diligent and not the indolent. However, the benefit accrued to her cannot be denied, being a continuing wrong. In such circumstances, going by the decision of Union of India v. Tarsem Singh reported in (2008) 8 SCC 648, the petitioner can be given the benefit of payment of arrears only three years prior to the filing of the writ petition." The relief was granted. The judgement was authored by the Chief Justice.
Between January 3, 2025-Jnauary 10, 2025, Chief Justice Chandran delivered 29 judgements prior to his scheduled farewell on January 15, 2025. He delivered 12 judgements on January 10, 2025.
The last case, Request Case No. 104/2023 is: Karnataka State Electronics Development Corporation Ltd. vs. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Bihar (2025). It came up before the Single Judge Bench of Chief Justice Chandran. The other seven respondents in the case are Secretary, Prohibition, Excise and Registration Department, Development Commissioner- cum- Chairman, BSBCL, Patna, Managing Director, BSBCL, Patna, Excise Commissioner, Prohibition, Excise and Registration Department, Managing Director, Bihar State Electronics Development Corporation/BELTRON, Deputy Commissioner- cum- Nodal Officer, Prohibition, Excise and Registration Department AND General Manager, BSBCL. The oral judgement records that an application was moved for appointment of an Arbitrator invoking the powers of this Court under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The petitioner and the respondent entered into an agreement dated January 16, 2017. The petitioner invoked the arbitration clause vide communication dated July 18, 2023 for appointment of an arbitrator, but it was to no avail. It was pleaded that the respondents have not settled the dispute till date and the dispute is of civil in nature. The judgement reads: "Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar, a former Judge of this Court, is appointed as learned Arbitrator to adjudicate all disputes arising out of agreement entered into between the parties to the lis. All pleas and issues raised, on merits, are left open to be considered and decided by the learned Arbitrator. The learned Arbitrator shall be entitled to fee as per the schedule of the Act. Since the dispute arises out of an agreement of the year 2017, the hearing be expedited. The issue of limitation, if any, along with any other objections, are left open to be raised before the Arbitral Tribunal. Joint Registrar (List) is directed to communicate the order to the learned Arbitrator. Learned counsel for the parties also undertake to communicate the order to the learned Arbitrator. The Arbitral Tribunal shall issue notice to the respondents. The Request Petition stands disposed of in the above terms."
In Chandan Kumar Singh vs. The State of Bihar through Additional Chief Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department (2025), it was submitted before Patna High Court’s division bench of Chief Justice Chandran and Partha Sarthy that the Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Sitamarhi floated an Notice Inviting Tenders (NIT) without prior approval, as is mandated by the Urban Development and Housing Department. It was pointed out that "three outsourcing agencies were granted the work, to whom payments have been made, even when the terms and conditions of the agreement have not been complied with. It was also submitted that "the NIT itself was without prior approval of the department." The Court noticed that "the three outsourcing agencies, to whom work has been awarded, have not been made parties. Hence, there is no question of consideration of whether the disbursement of money is in accordance with the agreement or not."The case from Sitamarhi was filed on November 19, 2024 and registered on December 24, 2024. On the January 3, 2025, when the case came for hearing no one appeared for the petitioner. Sanjay Kumar was the counsel for the petitioner. The judgement dated January 10, 2025 reads: "It is for the authority to consider whether the explanation is proper or not and there is no question of a Public Interest Litigation being initiated for the same. For all the above reasons, we find the writ petition to be misconceived. The writ petition stands dismissed." The Court did not examine the veracity of the claim regarding floating of Notice Inviting Tenders (NIT) without prior approval. It also did not ascertain whether three outsourcing agencies were granted the work, to whom payments have been made, even when the terms and conditions of the agreement have not been complied with.
No comments:
Post a Comment