ABOUT HON’BLE FORMER JUSTICE MR. I.S. MEHTA
Former Hon’ble Justice Mr Mehta had been very popular and affectionate to advocates. Born in a Buddhist family on 6th April 1958 in village Lila, Tehsil Moorakh, District Kinnaur, Himachal Pradesh. Justice Mehta’s schooling was primarily in the city itself and he studied from Vishesh Kendriya Vidyalaya. Later, he was sent to prestigious Hansraj College for his graduation and later he did his L.LB. from the Delhi University in 1982. In the same year, he enrolled himself with the Bar Council of Delhi and started his practice. He was a bright NCC Cadet and was awarded ‘C’ certificate by the DG-NCC, Delhi. Moreover, he was also awarded Hansraj College Color during his days in graduation.
He started his practice in Himachal Pradesh and gained immense experience by serving his very own Janambhoomi and made it his Karambhoomi too. After 13 years of practising Law, in March 1995, he was selected as the youngest Additional District & Sessions Judge in Delhi Higher Judicial Service.
TENURE AS A DISTRICT JUDGE
In his tenure as a District Judge, former Justice Mehta handled various types of cases including the most complicated cases related to counter-terrorism. He was appointed as first District Judge of South- West District Courts, Dwarka, Delhi in the year 2008 and later he was posted as first District and Sessions Judge of New Delhi District in Patiala House Courts, New Delhi where he was handling various NIA cases. He was instrumental in building the entire infrastructure of Dwarka Court and was popularly known as Dwarka Dish.
Former judge, Justice Mehta, then being as a District Judge, New Delhi District had participated in the seminar on Global counter-terrorism held in 2014 at Hague titled as Role of Judiciary in Handling Counter-Terrorism and other National Security Cases.
JOURNEY DURING HIGH COURT
Former Justice Mehta was elevated as an Additional Judge of the High Court on 15.12.2014.
LANDMARK CASES DECIDED
As a judge of the Delhi High Court Former Justice Mehta has delivered many landmark judgements. In a case in which an NRI who was residing in Canada who was refused maintenance on the pretext that she is highly qualified and can maintain herself, Justice Mehta not only ordered payment maintainable to his wife but also paved way for the destitute wives and minors to have their legal and just rights. It was held that husband’s plea that he did not possess any source of income did not absolve himself of his moral duty to maintain his wife in the presence of good physique along with educational qualification.
In another case Colgate-Palmolive (India) Ltd. & Others vs. Anchor Health & Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd. & Others, in a petition seeking quashing of summoning order, while the Respondent sought interference of the High Court against the discharge of 2 accused, former judge, Justice Mehta held that summoning of accused persons in a criminal case without scrutinizing the evidence on record is bad in the eyes of law and liable to be set aside.
In the case of Reema Salkan vs Sumer Singh Salkan, the Petitioner-wife had sought a revision of an order passed by the Family Court. In the impugned order, the Family Court had refused to grant the Petitioner-wife maintenance under Section 125 CrPC on the ground that the respondent-husband was unemployed. His Lordship reversed the decision of the Family Court and held that since the Respondent-Husband was able-bodied and educated, he was duty-bound to maintain his wife who was unable to maintain herself. A mere plea that the Respondent-Husband does not possess any source of income does not ipso facto absolve him of the duty to maintain. The Respondent-husband could be discharged of the duty to maintain, only if, he was unable to earn enough because of reasons beyond his control.
In Pawan Kumar vs Delhi Transport Corporation, the Petitioner was employed as a driver by the Respondent-Corporation. During the course of his employment, the Petitioner suffered an injury which left him visually handicapped by 30%. The Respondent-Corporation thereafter terminated him. The Petitioner challenged the termination order and sought employment in an alternative suitable post. The Respondent-Corporation contended since the Petitioner had not suffered 40% disability, he cannot be considered a person with a disability in terms of The Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995. Former judge, Justice I.S Mehta interpreted the Act and held that the requirement of 40% disability is only for appointment to the posts reserved for disabled persons. On the other hand, as per the Act, a person who acquires a disability during employment is entitled to an alternative post even though disability is less than 40%. His Lordship quashed the termination order, granted the Petitioner back-wages and ordered the Respondent-Corporation to grant him alternative suitable employment.
In the case of Mohini Aggarwal vs Deepika Sarees Private Limited, the Respondent-Complainant had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act against the Petitioners. The Petitioners were directors of a company which had issued the cheques in the favour of the Respondent-Complainant. The Learned Magistrate, after examining the evidence, issued summons to the Petitioners. The Petitioners approached the High Court for quashing of the summons. His Lordship observed that the Petitioners were not directors of the company when the cheques were issued. Therefore they cannot be summoned in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. His Lordship held that criminal liability under Section 138 of the Act is attracted only against persons who have issued the cheques or against those under whose authority the cheques were issued. Since the Petitioner became directors of the company after the cheques were issued, the only cause of action against them would be civil in nature.
In Ranbir Singh vs Sh. Ganga Ram Hospital, the Petitioners were working as Security Guards at the Respondent-Hospital. The Petitioners were terminated from their employment by a contractor. The Petitioners contended that their employment could not be terminated by the contractor as they were employees of the Respondent-Hospital. The question of law was whether the Petitioners were employees of the Respondent-Hospital. The Petitioners contended that since the Respondent-Hospital contributed to their provident fund, the same created a relationship of employer and employee. His Lordship thoroughly examined the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952 and noted that the requirement of paying the Provident Fund exists even when employment is through a contractor. Therefore, mere payment of monies in the Provident Fund is not determinative of an employer-employee relationship. In the case of Abdul Rashid vs Mohd. Rizwan, the Respondent had instituted a complaint against the Petitioners before the Magistrate Court. The Magistrate Court dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved by the order of the Magistrate Court, the Respondent-Complaint had preferred a revision petition before the Additional Sessions Judge. The Additional Session Judge allowed the revision petition without issuing the notice to the Petitioners. His Lordship set aside the order of the Additional Sessions Judge. His Lordship noted, that in the revision petition before the Sessions Judge at the instance of the complainant challenging the order of dismissal of the complaint, the order of the Magistrate could be reversed and complaint could be revived. Therefore, the accused must be heard in such proceedings.
SPECIAL REMARKS BY STANDING COUNSEL RAHUL MEHRA
Due to unprecedented circumstances of a nationwide lockdown because of the outbreak of Covid19 pandemic, the legal fraternity was unable to gather in the court premises to bid farewell to Hon’ble Mr Former Justice Inder Singh Rahul Mehra Mehta who was a demitting office on April 3, 2020, after rendering distinguished service to this Hon’ble Court for about 5 ½ years and to our great institution for about 25 years.
With the retirement of Justice Mehta, both the Bench and the Bar of this Hon’ble Court will be losing one of its highly spiritual, extremely simple, immensely humane and incredibly modest Judge of all times.
Lawyers have always enjoyed, appearing before the court if Justice Mehta. His knowledge of the law and his approach towards the lawyers always made it easy for the lawyers. For the young lawyers, Justice Mehta’s Court was like the classroom, just like, you come with your notes and the teachers make corrections in it and hence when you come next time you are more prepared and more mature.
Former Justice Mehta is a gifted talent and his approach towards life makes him special. He has always led a disciplined and planned life. His reputation, integrity, honesty, sincerity, everything is unmatched. Apart, Former Justice Mehta is a fine human being and a judge par excellence and his mastery over law is unquestionable.
Add Comment