Rajasthan High Court Weekly Roundup: January 31 to February 6, 2022

Judgments/ Orders of the Week 1. Alienation Of Property During Pendency Of Suit Null & Void; Subsequent Purchaser Not A Necessary Or Proper Party: Rajasthan High Court Case Title: Yogesh Goyanka v. Govind and Ors. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 42 The Rajasthan High Court has recently observed that alienation of a property during pendency of a suit is null and void and hence, an application filed by the subsequent purchaser for impleadment as a necessary and proper party is not untenable in law. Justice Sameer Jain, observed, "The provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and the judgments cited at bar by learned counsel for the respondents, in loud voice, have held that alienation having been made in favour of any party during pendency of the suit, was hit by doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and hence, the said transaction is nullity, illegal and void and the Hon'ble Apex Court has further held that in the said situation, the application filed by the subsequent purchaser for impleading as necessary and proper party is not tenable." Essentially, as per the petitioner, he along with proforma-respondents purchased a land from one Rajani Upadhaya and was never informed about pendency of suit for cancellation of sale deed which was executed in favour of the latter. 2. Employee Can Claim Gratuity "Either" Under 1972 Act Or The Bank Regulations, Not Under Both Statutes : Rajasthan HC Case Title: Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank Jodhpur, Through Its Chairman v. The Appellate Authority Under Payment Of Gratuity Act 1972, And The Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Ajmer (Raj.) Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 43 The Rajasthan High Court has observed that an employee must receive gratuity, either under the Payment Of Gratuity Act 1972 or under the Regulations framed by the bank, whichever is more beneficial. However, an employee can not choose computation of gratuity under one statute and seek benefits of other provisions under another statute. The observation was made by a division bench of Chief Justice Akil Qureshi and Justice Rameshwar Vyas while dealing with a clutch of petitions raising a question as to whether employees of the Gramin Bank can claim benefits the 1972 Act or under Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2010, or both. It held, "the scheme of gratuity under the Act of 1972 and under the regulations framed by the bank are different. For example, the Act of 1972 prescribes the ceiling beyond which the gratuity would not be paid irrespective of the computation. There is no such ceiling prescribed under the regulations. However, the regulations have other inherent limitations in computation of gratuity such as the gratuity computation would not exceed 15 months' salary upto 30 years of service, after which an additional benefit of half month's salary would be added to the payable gratuity. The employee, therefore, can claim gratuity either under the Act of 1972 or under the regulations framed by the bank, but cannot claim the benefit under both the statutes." 3. Workmen's Compensation Commissioner Last Authority For Deciding Claim On 'Facts'; Appeal Lies Only On 'Substantial Question Of Law': Rajasthan HC Case Title: Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., Kota v. Shyam @ Jagdish S/o Gopal Lal Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 44 The Rajasthan High Court has held that under the scheme of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923, the Compensation Commissioner is the last authority to decide any claim on facts. No appeal lies against its order unless a substantial question of law is involved. Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand therefore dismissed an appeal filed by the Insurance Company challenging the order of Commissioner Workmen's Compensation, Bundi, for not qualifying any substantial question of law under. It observed, " Since the appeal is not qualifying to have a substantial question of law, which is mandatory under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. Therefore, no interference is called for in this appeal and the same is dismissed." 4. Demanding Additional Performance Security For Unbalanced Bid Is Arbitrary & Illegal: Rajasthan HC Sets Aside E-Auction Notices Of Water Department Case Title: M/s. Shera Ram Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan, with connected matters Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 45 The Rajasthan High Court has set aside e-auction notices issued by the Water Department which demanded additional performance security for unbalanced bids, as arbitrary and illegal. The court directed the respondents-state to permit the petitioners to perform the contract in accordance with law, without insisting upon additional performance security. Justice Dinesh Mehta, ruled, "A look at the...

Rajasthan High Court Weekly Roundup: January 31 to February 6, 2022

ANIRUDH VIJAY

Tags