The case analysis of ‘URBAN ASIA RESTUARANTS AND HOTES PVT.LTD v. STATE OF TELANGANA AND OTHERS’ is basically about the illegal interference with the peaceful possession of the premises of the Petitioner.
The petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court maybe pleased to issue a writ order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent in interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of licensed premises of the Petitioner in spite of injunction which also caused the stop in the work thereby causing huge loses.
Also the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that even the essential step of registering the FIR has not been taken by the police. The learned counsel of the State submits that the police are carrying out an enquiry in order to find out the veracity of the complaint.
All over the Illegal, contrary to law , malafide exercise of executive power , violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and principles of natural justice .
INTRODUCTION
A simple case study on a case of Hyderabad where the petitioner is a company which is registered under of Companies Act, 2013 under the name of M/S Urban Asia Restaurants & Hotel Pvt.ltd. wherein the respondents i.e representatives of L&T metro rail by making false representation lured them into leasing he property and thereby started threatening them to pay rents . Moreover under coercion made the representatives of the petitioner to sign a letter of penalty. Arbitration matter was set up and interim order was passed against the representatives of L&T company even after that the petitioner was troubled my illegal interference in the premises and also when the electricity of their premise was disconnected by the respondents. Even the police did not file the FIR when the aggrieved party reached there.
This case of URBAN ASIA RESTUTANT v. THE STATE OF TELANGANA involves many law points including the violation of constitutional and fundamental rights. The law points involved may include False representation, coercion, interference with the premise/property, interim orders, writs specially the writ of Mandamus, police delaying in the filing of FIR.
MAIN TEXT
SUMMARY OF THE CASE
- The case is about the petitioner which is a company under the provisions of Companies Act, 2013 which is into the business of selling/providing food products and services under the name of M/S Urban Asia Restaurants & Hotel Pvt.ltd.
- The Representatives of L&T Metro Rail(Hyderabad) ltd. induced and lured the Petitioner represented by Ms. Sujatha , Kishore Reddy and others by making false representation that a mall at hi tec city will have a connectivity with the metro station and thereby induced the representatives of the Petitioner to take more than 15000sft on lease to run a Food Court and assured the petitioner that it will get Sub-lease of good business and derive huge profits . Believing their representations as true and genuine, the petitioner entered into a Registered Sub- lease Agreement with M/s L&T Metro Rail (Hyderabad) limited for premises. The Representatives of the L&T Metro Rail started demanding rent of the premises even before the starting of the mall and connectivity of the metro rail.
- Since inception the representatives of the L&T Metro rail have been threatening and blackmailing the petitioner company. They even disconnected the electricity of the premises upon which the staff of the Petitioner company went to the office of the L&T Metro Rail (Hyderabad) with a request to restore the electricity, but they made the staff sign a letter of penalty under coercion without explaining the content and also without giving them a copy of the letter.
- The petitioner filed arbitration and the Hon’ble court was pleased to pass an interim order against the L&T Metro Rail limiting their representatives, men, henchmen etc., from interfering with the licensed premises of the Petitioner and were also directed not to resort to disconnecting the electricity supply.
- After the representatives of L&T metro rail came to know about the filing of the above Arbitration, they removed the workers of the Petitioner out of the premises on the pretext of inspection being carried out at the Mall. The material/ articles worth more than 10 Crores in the premises are in the threat for being damaged caused by the representatives of the said L&T Metro Rail (Hyderabad) limited.
- The Petitioner gave a complaint in the police station with a request to grant the protection from the illegal interference of the representatives of the L&T Metro rail. Also the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that even the essential step of registering the FIR has not been taken by the police.
- The petitioner had no alternative, efficacious remedy to approach to the honourable court under article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was therefore prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to issue ·a writ order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondent in interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the licensed premises of the Petitioner.LAW POINTS INVOLVED
1. FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION:
Fraudulent misrepresentation is a civil tort arising out of contract law. It is a false statement of fact that causes or induces someone to enter into a contract. A defendant commits fraudulent misrepresentation when he or she lies or misrepresents an important fact about in order to cause or induce the other party to enter into a contract. The misrepresentation can be in the form of anything that is designed to deceive the other party including innuendos, half-truths, or silence when there exists a duty to speak.
The following six elements are generally required to prove the tort of fraudulent misrepresentation :
- The defendant made a false representation or lied;
- The misrepresentation is material to the transaction;
- The defendant made the misrepresentation with malice (the defendant made the statement with knowledge that the statement was false or the defendant made the statement with a reckless disregard as to the veracity of the statement);
- The defendant made the misrepresentation with the intention of inducing the other party to enter into a contract;
- The other party reasonably relied on the misrepresentation; and
- The defendant’s lie was the proximate cause for the plaintiff’s injury.
REMEDIES
Depending on the nature of the case, remedies for fraudulent misrepresentation can include rescission of the contract and damages. Rescission of the contract is the most common remedy, since fraudulent misrepresentation renders it voidable. Therefore, the parties may choose not to rescind the contract — which restores the parties to their pre-contractual positions — if this is not possible. With respect to damages, only actual losses stemming from the misrepresentation may be claimed.
2. COERCION :
Section 15 of the Indian Contract Act , 1872 defines coercion as the committing or threatening to commit any act forbidden by the Indian Penal Code or the unlawful detaining, or threatening to detain any property to the prejudice of any person, with the intention to cause any person to enter in an agreement. Coercion is codified as a duress crime. Duress is wrongful pressure exerted upon a person in order to coerce that person into a contract that he or she ordinarily wouldn’t enter. Duress involves an intentional use of force or threat of force in order to induce the contract.
Coercion may involve the actual infliction of physical pain/injury or psychological harm in order to enhance the credibility of a threat. An agreement entered into under coercion is voidable at the option of the party.
Coercive remedies – Requiring a party to do or omit doing a specific act through injunctive relief or a court order of specific performance (a court mandates that the party fulfil contractual obligations.
Essential elements of Coercion are as follows :
a) Committing or threatening to commit any act forbidden by Indian Penal Code or,
b) The unlawful detaining or threatening to detain any property to the prejudice of any person,
c) with the intention of causing any person to enter into an agreement.
Contract coercion may be raised as a defence against performing contract duties. For instance, one party might claim that they don’t need to perform their contract duties because they were coerced into performing the contract. Thus, coercion is often itself used as a contract defence.
3. INTERFERENCE WITH THE PREMISES/PROPERTY:
Possession is lawful if the possessor has a valid legal foundation for the possession (the right to possession). Possession is truthful if it was not obtained by force, covertly or by fraud, or by abusing someone’s trust. The ability to own property is recognized as a basic human right. When someone interferences with another person’s property rights, serious criminal or civil penalties may result. In civil law, the intentional interference with property rights is an area of tort law. Arbitrary interference with the possession is prohibited; regardless of the nature of the possession. The possession is being interfered with if the possessor is being obstructed from exercising his/her power over the possession.
DAMAGES AND REMEDIES
A tenant’s remedies for breach of his/her quiet enjoyment are damages and injunction. Such interferences may deprive the tenant of expectations under the lease and reduce the value of the lease, requiring an award of compensatory damages. Moreover, under modern business conditions, there is no reason why a lessee, after establishing itself on the leased premises, should be forced to await eviction by the lessor or surrender the premises, often at great loss, before claiming a breach of the covenant for interference with the use and possession of the premises that doesn’t rise to the level of a total eviction.
4. INTERIM ORDER:
Defined under Section 2(14) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which means the formal expression of any decision of a civil court which is not a decree. Therefore, interim orders may be defined as those orders which are passed by the court during pendency of the suits. Also known as an interlocutory order or a temporary order, although the former is usually reserved for matters of procedure or process. Any reference to an interlocutory order generally includes interim orders. It is fully enforceable unless and until the final order has passed.
Interim orders issued by the court may be of various kinds. The nature of the order essentially depends on the direction issued by the Court. Some examples of court orders classified as interim orders include:
- Restraining orders (also called Injunction), which are issued to stop either party from acting in a particular manner during the pendency of the civil action. These are essentially issued by the court to prevent situations in which either party may suffer harm because the other party did/continued an act which was the matter in issue; and
- Directive orders, which are issued to direct either party to continue to act in a particular manner until the conclusion of the trial or until further orders are issued. Directive orders may be issued if the non-continuation of the act would cause harm to the other party.
An interim order may be passed by the court only if the following conditions are satisfied:
- Where there is a prima facie case in favour of the party seeking the order,
- Irreparable damage may be caused to the party if the order is not passed and such damage may not be ascertained in terms or money and payable as damages, and
- Where the balance of convenience lies with the party requesting for the order.
5. FIR:
A First Information Report is the initial step in a criminal case recorded by the police and contains the basic knowledge of the crime committed, place of commission, time of commission, who was the victim, etc. The definition for the First Information Report has been provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the virtue of Sec. 154. An FIR is a very important document against a recognizable offense, since it sets the criminal justice process in motion. Only after the FIR is registered at the police station, the police investigate the case. The Supreme Court has observed on the said subject matter, stating that “the first information report gives information of the commission of a cognizable crime.
A police officer has no discretionary power towards the recording of FIR if the report reveals the commission of a cognisable offence.
WHAT IF THE POLICE DOES NOT FILE FIR?
- One can meet with the Superintendent of Police or other senior officers such as the Deputy
- Inspector General of the Police and the Inspector General of the Police and present the Complaint upon notification,
- One can send your complaint in writing and by mail to the Superintendent of Police involved;
- If the Superintendent of Police is satisfied with the complaint, he will either investigate the case or order an investigation to be conducted;
- One can file a private complaint with the court that has jurisdiction;
One can also file a complaint with the State Human Rights Commission or the National Human Rights Commission if the police do nothing to enforce the law or do so in a partial and corrupt manner.
6. ARTICLE 226:
The Article 226 empowers High Courts to issue directions, orders or writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari. Such directions, orders or writs may be issued for the enforcement of fundamental rights or for any other purpose. It is well established that the remedy provided for in Article 226 of the Constitution of India is a discretionary remedy and the High Court has always the discretion to refuse to grant such a relief in certain circumstances even though a legal right might have been infringed. Availability of an alternative remedy is one of such considerations which the High Court may take into account to refuse to exercise its jurisdiction, but this principle does not apply to the enforcement of fundamental rights either under Article 32 or under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Article 226 of the Constitution, writ is issued for correcting gross errors of jurisdiction, i.e., when a subordinate court is found to have acted:
(i) Without jurisdiction, by assuming jurisdiction where there exists none, or
(ii) In excess of its jurisdiction – by overstepping or crossing the limits of jurisdiction,
(iii) Acting in flagrant disregard of law or the rules of procedure or acting in violation of principles of natural justice where there is no procedure specified, and thereby occasioning failure of justice.
7. WRIT:
A writ is a formal written order issued by a Court. Any warrant, orders, directions, and so on, issued by the Supreme Court or the High court are called writs. A writ petition can be filed in the High Court (Article 226) or the Supreme Court (Article 32) of India when any of your fundamental rights are violated. The jurisdiction with the High Court (Article 226) with regards to a writ petition is wider and extends to constitutional rights too.
There are five types of writs: namely: quo warranto, habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition and certiorari.
Habeas Corpus: A writ of Habeas Corpus is used by the courts to find out if a person has been illegally detained. If the answer is yes, the court can order for his release. If a person has been illegally detained, he himself, a friend or even a relative can file a writ of Habeas Corpus. Habeas Corpus is Latin for ‘Let us have the body’ (or, let us see the person who has been illegally detained). Through Habeas Corpus, the court can thus also summon the person detained or imprisoned to the court.
Mandamus: A writ of Mandamus is issued by a higher court to a lower court, tribunal or a public authority to perform an act which such a lower court is bound to perform. If a public official is not performing his duty, the court can order it or him/her to do that. Mandamus means we command.
Prohibition: A writ of prohibition, also known as a ‘stay order’, is issued to a lower court or a body to stop acting beyond its powers. While a writ of mandamus is issued for any activity that is not legal, the writ of petition is issued against the lower courts, such as magistrates and commissions, for inactivity in the matter of concern. The High Court and Supreme Court can issue the Writ of Prohibition.
Writ of Certiorari: The writ of Certiorari is issued by the Supreme Court to a Lower Court or any other body to transfer a particular matter to the higher courts than itself. The Writ of Certiorari is issued by the high court to the lower courts or tribunal, when an error of jurisdiction or law is believed to be committed.
Writ of Certiorari is a curative writ.
Quo Warranto: The writ of Quo Warranto (by what warrant) is issued to inquire about the legality of a claim by a person or authority to act in a public office, which he or she is not entitled to. The writ is only for the public offices and does not include private institutions/offices.
8. WRIT OF MANDAMUS (as mentioned in the case):
A (writ of) mandamus is an order from a court to an inferior government official ordering the government official to properly fulfil their official duties or correct an abuse of discretion . According to the U.S. Attorney Office, “Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, which should only be used in exceptional circumstances of peculiar emergency or public importance.”
Writs of mandamus are not routine. Normally, court rulings go through the ordinary appeals process, where a higher court can make a ruling on the decision of a lower court. Before a petition for a writ of mandamus in a court case can be considered, a reason why the traditional appeals process wouldn’t work or wouldn’t be relevant needs to be demonstrated. No other legal relief, or solution to the problem, can be available in order for a writ of mandamus to be considered.
The writ petition is not maintainable when a remedy provided for under the Code of Civil Procedure is available. For example, the High Court cannot entertain writ petitions for mandamus to the Government who fails to deposit and pay in the requisite time an enhanced compensation account as ordered by a lower Court. The petitioners in this case would be directed to approach the executing Court for appropriate relief.
Only the Supreme Court and High Courts are empowered to exercise Writ Jurisdiction, under Art. 32 and 226 of Constitution. No other courts are empowered to issue writ. Mandamus:- It means court can ask common people, authorities to do or no to do some task. It does not come against president, governor, parliament, state legislature, private bodies, and individual persons.
CASE ANALYSIS
According to me, the accused petitioner company has suffered a lot, starting from the point where they have been misleaded into believing that they should take the place into lease and thereafter torturing them in one way or the other by the respondent has taken whole another step of a wrongful act .
Even the essential step of filing the FIR was not taken by the police when the petitioner representatives reached to the police station and complained about the respondents.
The petitioner company has been in a loss due to the respondent, taking into consideration when the electricity of the premises was disconnected and the illegal interference with their property where the workers were asked to move out of the premises as the respondents said that there was an inspection going on.
It is the duty of the police officer To file an FIR, if the nature of the crime is serious and the person has committed a cognizable offence. It was wrong that police did not file FIR against the respondent knowing the seriousness of the crime . And then later gave an excuse that the police are carrying out an enquiry in order to find out the veracity of the complaint.
There has been fraudulent representation, coercion, disconnecting of the electricity of the premises, interference with the peaceful procession of the petitioner company even after the interim order was passed, delay in lodging the FIR by the police.
Moreover there has also been a violation of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of the Indian Constitution
Article14: Equality before law. The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.
Article 21: This Article secures two rights : Right to life and Right to personal liberty. No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to a procedure established by law. Right to life is fundamental to our very existence without which we cannot live as a human being and includes all those aspects of life, which go to make a man’s life meaningful, complete, and worth living. It is the only article in the Constitution that has received the widest possible interpretation. Under the canopy of Article 21, so many rights have found shelter, growth, and nourishment. Thus, the bare necessities, minimum and basic requirements that are essential and unavoidable for a person is the core concept of the right to life.
Article 300-A: No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. The Right to Property would now be a Constitutional Right and not a Fundamental Right. The 44th constitutional amendment act inserts article 300-A. Before this amendment, right to property was the fundamental right. Article 300 A includes all type of property capable of being owned : tangible, intangible, corporeal and incorporeal property. It does not confine to land alone but includes copyright, intellectual property rights, mortgage, money, any interest in the property, lease, license. The pension and gratuity are a valuable right of individual therefore protected under article 300 A.
CONCLUSION
I would like to conclude by mentioning that fundamental as well as constitutional rights of the petitioner have been violated. All over the Illegal , contrary to law , malafide exercise of executive power, violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and principles of natural justice . Civil wrong has been caused by the respondent and even the interference with the peaceful enjoyment of the property of the petitioner has taken place.
There has been fraudulent representation, coercion, disconnecting of the electricity of the premises , interference with the peaceful procession of the petitioner company even after the interim order was passed , delay in lodging the FIR by the police.
The petitioner has suffered loss as well as has been mentally disturbed.
The court must provide the petitioner with a relief and declare the representatives of L&T metro rail guilty and thus they have to make a compensation for the act the have done and pay for the damages.
Even the police who have not filed the FIR must be taken into consideration and action has to be taken accordingly. The petitioner can meet with the Superintendent of Police or other senior officers such as the Deputy Inspector General of the Police and the Inspector General of the Police and present the complaint upon notification or a private complain with the court or Human Service department as it may think fit. Moreover, justice must be done.
REFRENCES:
1. www.legalserviceindia.com
2. www.livelaw.com
3. www.constitution.org
4. www.indiankanoon.org
5. www.loctopus.com
6. The Criminal Code Procedure , 1973(bare act)
7. Law of Torts ( Dr.R.K.Bangia)
8. The Constitution of India
9. https://www.kanoonirai.com/right-to-property/
About author –
This case analysis is writeen by Paarth Chopra, Final year BBA LLB(Hons) student at ICFAI Law School, Hyderabad.
