Category Archives: judiciary

crime, judiciary, legal, sports

Relief For Robin Uthappa As Sessions Court Sends 2019 Cheque Bounce Case Back For Fresh Hearing

Leave a comment

In a relief to former cricketer Robin Uthappa, the sessions court has sent the cheque bouncing case against him back to the magistrate court for a fresh hearing due to non-compliance with mandatory legal provisions.

Earlier, the magistrate court had initiated proceedings against the firm where Uthappa served as a director in connection with the cheque bouncing case. However, the sessions court has now set aside the summons issued by the magistrate against Uthappa. The court noted that the magistrate court should have carried out a preliminary investigation under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code to determine if there were sufficient grounds to summon the accused, especially since Uthappa resides outside the court’s jurisdiction.

Accordingly, the sessions court has directed the magistrate court to hear the case afresh.

### Background of the Case

The complaint was filed against Centaurus Lifestyle Brands Pvt Ltd, where Robin Uthappa was a director. It is claimed that Centaurus Lifestyle had engaged Senior Marketing as their sole distributor for their products in Mumbai, Thane, and Navi Mumbai.

### Cheques Bounced in 2019

The dispute arose when Centaurus Lifestyle engaged two additional distributors in October 2017 without the consent of the complainant firm. Following a meeting, the complainant returned all stocks, and Centaurus agreed to make the payment.

In July 2018, goods were dispatched, and in February 2019, Centaurus issued post-dated cheques amounting to Rs. 22.22 lakh. However, these cheques bounced in March 2019 due to insufficient funds, leading to the current proceedings.
https://www.freepressjournal.in/mumbai/relief-for-robin-uthappa-as-sessions-court-sends-2019-cheque-bounce-case-back-for-fresh-hearing

crime, judiciary, justice, law

‘Bail Is Rule, Jail An Exception’: Thane Sessions Court Grants Bail To Man Booked In 10 Cases

Leave a comment

**Thane Sessions Court Grants Bail to Man Accused in Multiple Criminal Cases**

The Thane Sessions Court has granted bail to a man allegedly accused in 10 criminal cases registered across Thane, Mumbai, and Pune. The court held that the mere registration of multiple offences does not automatically disqualify an accused from seeking bail.

### Court’s Observation

The court observed that the investigating officer’s claim that the accused was a threat to society because he was found holding a sickle was not sufficient grounds to deny bail.

> “Considering the material placed on record and citations supra, it is noted that the investigating officer has recovered a sickle from the hands of the accused by showing him as the leader of an organised crime syndicate. In the investigation, it also transpired that the accused has given threats to the public by brandishing the said sickle. However, he has neither assaulted the complainant nor robbed the alleged amount of Rs 4,500 from the shop’s cash box. He has not played an aggravated role in the alleged crime… Mere registration of said crimes would not disentitle him to get the relief of bail in the absence of incriminating evidence against him,” the court said in its order.

### Principle of Bail Reiterated

The court emphasised the legal principle that **“bail is the rule and jail an exception,”** underscoring that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

### Background of the Case

The bail order pertains to a case filed by complainant Neelkumar Divakar, who alleged that on October 21, 2024, after 9 p.m., the accused, Akshay Jadekar, approached his pan stall demanding a cigarette. When Divakar asked him to clear earlier dues, Jadekar allegedly assaulted him with the help of his associates using fists and kicks, and forcibly took Rs 4,500 from the cash box while brandishing a sickle.

One of Jadekar’s associates is also accused of threatening the complainant with a pair of scissors.

### Arrest and Charges

Following the incident, Jadekar and his associates were arrested. The police invoked provisions of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) against them after obtaining the necessary approvals.

### Defence by the Accused

Akshay Jadekar, who has been in custody since his arrest on October 24, 2024, maintained his innocence. He claimed to be falsely implicated and denied assaulting the complainant with any weapon.

Jadekar argued that the investigation was complete, the charge sheet had been filed, and there was no risk of him absconding or tampering with evidence if released on bail.

### Prosecution’s Argument

The prosecution opposed the bail plea, contending that Jadekar was the leader of an organised crime syndicate. They argued that releasing him could lead to a repetition of similar offences.

### Court’s Final Decision

Rejecting the prosecution’s apprehensions, the court found no reasonable grounds to believe that Jadekar would commit similar crimes if released.

The court noted that the complainant’s injuries were simple in nature and highlighted that the accused had a fixed place of residence.

—

For details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai and surrounding regions, visit: [https://budgetproperties.in/](https://budgetproperties.in/)
https://www.freepressjournal.in/mumbai/bail-is-rule-jail-an-exception-thane-sessions-court-grants-bail-to-man-booked-in-10-cases

education, government, judiciary, law, politics

Delhi HC Quashes NHAI Notification On Recruiting Lawyers Based On CLAT-PG Scores

Leave a comment

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Wednesday set aside a notification issued by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) that made scores of the Common Law Admission Test for Post-Graduate courses (CLAT-PG) the basis for the recruitment of lawyers.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela allowed a petition challenging the NHAI’s August 11 notification. “The writ petition is allowed. Resultantly, the recruitment criteria given in the notification is quashed,” the bench stated while pronouncing its judgment. The detailed judgment is awaited.

The court’s verdict followed a plea contesting the NHAI notification which mandated the use of CLAT-PG scores for legal recruitment. On September 18, the court had stayed the notification, observing that there appeared to be “no rationale” behind the recruitment process based on CLAT-PG scores.

The petition was filed by Shannu Bahgel, a lawyer, who argued that CLAT-PG scores cannot legally form the basis for public employment. Bahgel contended that the CLAT-PG exam is designed solely to assess the merit of LLB degree holders seeking admission to master’s degree programs in law, not for selection in government jobs.

He further submitted that the purpose of recruitment under the August 11 notification was to engage legal professionals to provide services, not for candidates to pursue higher studies. “There does not appear to be any reasonable or rational nexus between the objects sought to be achieved and the basis of preparation of merit for such selection,” the petition stated.

The bench had earlier observed that the rationale behind the CLAT-PG exam was to measure merit for higher education and not for public employment purposes.

In response, the NHAI’s counsel defended the notification, stating that the authority sought to test a candidate’s legal acumen through CLAT-PG scores. The counsel argued that CLAT scores provided a reasonable benchmark for assessing candidates. He also emphasized that while the selection was primarily based on CLAT results, candidates’ experience was also taken into consideration.

The petitioner challenged the NHAI’s directive to engage 44 young professionals solely on the basis of scores obtained in CLAT 2022 and subsequent editions of the postgraduate law admissions test. He argued that restricting recruitment to candidates who appeared for CLAT-PG from 2022 onwards was arbitrary and unreasonable.

“The recruitment is restricted only to candidates who appeared in CLAT 2022 and onward PG, ignoring all other law graduates and practising advocates who are otherwise fully qualified. The criteria of restricting selection exclusively on the basis of CLAT 2022 onward (post-graduate) score is arbitrary, irrational,” the plea stated.

(Note: Except for the headline, this article has not been edited by FPJ’s editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)
https://www.freepressjournal.in/education/delhi-hc-quashes-nhai-notification-on-recruiting-lawyers-based-on-clat-pg-scores