Allahabad High Court NOMINAL INDEX Sunita And Others v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (All) 158 Rameshwar Pandey Third Bail v. State of U.P 2022 LiveLaw (All) 159 Irfan Shaikh @ Irfan Khan v. State Of U.P. Through Ats 2022 LiveLaw (All) 160 Iqbal Khan v. The State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2022 LiveLaw (All) 161 Yogendra Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. and Another 2022...
Allahabad High Court
NOMINAL INDEX
Sunita And Others v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (All) 158
Rameshwar Pandey Third Bail v. State of U.P 2022 LiveLaw (All) 159
Irfan Shaikh @ Irfan Khan v. State Of U.P. Through Ats 2022 LiveLaw (All) 160
Iqbal Khan v. The State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2022 LiveLaw (All) 161
Yogendra Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (All) 162
In-Re v. Vikram Sharma (Clerk) 2022 LiveLaw (All) 163
Sitaram v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (All) 164
Apparent Marketing Private Limited versus State of U.P. and Others 2022 LiveLaw (All) 165
Chatthoo Chero v. State of U.P 2022 LiveLaw (All) 166
Abhinay Jain v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2022 LiveLaw (All) 167
State of U.P. v. Dharma 2022 LiveLaw (All) 168
Mahadevi v. State of U.P 2022 LiveLaw (All) 169
Naushad Ali v. State Of U.P. Through Secretary Home And Another 2022 LiveLaw (All) 170
Abhay Pratap Mishra @ Ujjwal Mishra v. State Of U.P Thru. A.C.S./Prin. Secy. Home and Another 2022 LiveLaw (All) 171
Judgments/Orders of the Week
Case title - Sunita And Others v. State of U.P.
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 158
The High Court upheld the life sentence awarded to a wife who killed her husband in concert with two others (the life sentence awarded to them has also been confirmed) 18 years back by relying upon her 'voluntary' and 'trustworthy' extra-judicial confession.
The Bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Om Prakash Tripathi observed that since the extra-judicial confession made by the accused wife was corroborated by the other circumstantial evidence, and therefore, it concluded thus:
"The only hypothesis was that all three accused persons committed the gruesome murder of the deceased with planning and cool mind."
Case title - Rameshwar Pandey Third Bail v. State of U.P
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 159
The High Court granted bail to a murder accused, who has been in jail for almost 7 years, as it noted that there is no likelihood of conclusion of the trial in near future and the fact witnesses/prosecution witnesses are not-cooperating in the trial.
The Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan ordered while dealing with the third bail plea filed by one Rameshwar Pandey who has been in jail since May 27, 2015, in connection with a case registered against him u/s 302, 504, 506 IPC.
Case title - Irfan Shaikh @ Irfan Khan v. State Of U.P. Through Ats
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 160
The High Court upheld the order of denial of bail to a Central Government servant, Irfan Shaikh accused of waging war against India by converting people to Islam by misusing his official position.
Essentially, the Bench of Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Brij Raj Singh affirmed the October 2021 order of the Special Judge, N.I.A./A.T.S./Additional District & Sessions Judge, Lucknow denying bail to Shaikh by observing thus:
"Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the Investigating Officer, after due investigation, has found cogent and clinching evidence against the appellant that with the connivance of co-accused Umar Gautam and others, appellant is involved in anti-national activities of conversation by misusing his official position while working in Sign Language Training and Research Centre, New Delhi as Interpreter, we do no find any good ground to grant bail to the appellant".
4. Compassionate Appointment Not A Bonanza, Can't Be Claimed As A Matter Of Right: Allahabad High Court
Case title - Iqbal Khan v. The State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 161
Considering various aspects relating to compassionate appointments, the High Court observed that there is no general or vested right to compassionate appointments and that it can't be treated as a Bonanza.
This observation was made by the bench of Justice S. P. Kesarwani and Justice Jayant Banerjee while DISMISSING a special appeal filed by one Iqbal Khan challenging the decision of a single judge.
Case title - Yogendra Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. and Another
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 162
Denying anticipatory bail to a POCSO accused who allegedly raped a minor girl and her mother, the High Court observed that if anyone has been declared as an absconder/ proclaimed offender under Section 82 Cr.P.C., he is not entitled to relief of anticipatory bail.
The Bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery observed thus while relying upon the apex court's ruling in the case of Prem Shankar Prasad vs. State Of Bihar LL 2021 SC 579, wherein the bench of Justices MR Shah and AS Bopanna had held thus:
"In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Pradeep Sharma (Supra), it is observed and held by this court that if anyone is declared as an absconder/proclaimed offender in terms of section 82 of Cr.PC, he is not entitled to relief of anticipatory bail"
Case title - In-Re v. Vikram Sharma (Clerk)
Case citation - 2022 LiveLaw (All) 163
The High Court HELD a man, who wrote a letter alleging that in the District Court, all the Judges, Officers, and employees are dishonest and that they have murdered the Constitution of India, guilty of contempt
The Bench of Justice Suneet Kumar and Justice Umesh Chandra Sharma held Contemptnor [Vikram Sharma (Clerk)] guilty while refusing to accept his unconditional apology for writing the letter stating the aforesaid in the year 2016.
Case Title: Sitaram v. State of U.P.
Case citation - 2022 LiveLaw (All) 164
The High Court held that if an authority, conferred with discretionary powers by a statute, ignores or does not take into account considerations that are relevant to the purpose of the statute in question, then its action would be held invalid.
Justice Yogendra Kumar Srivastava observed,
"This would be more so where the statute conferring discretion on the authority has structured the discretion by expressly laying down the consideration which should be taken into account by the authority for exercise of the discretion. In such a case, if the exercise of the discretionary power has been influenced by considerations that cannot lawfully be taken into account or by disregard of the relevant considerations required to be taken into account, the decision arrived at by the authority would be invalid."
Case Title: Apparent Marketing Private Limited versus State of U.P. and Others
Case citation - 2022 LiveLaw (All) 165
The High Court ruled that registration under GST Act cannot be cancelled by merely describing the firm as 'bogus'.
The Single Bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh held that cancellation of GST registration has serious consequences since it takes away the fundamental right of a citizen to engage in business, adding that the revenue authorities have a heavy burden to establish the existence of facts that may allow for cancellation of registration under the GST Act.
Case title - Chatthoo Chero v. State of U.P [JAIL APPEAL No. - 116 of 2019]
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 166
The High Court observed the discovery of the material object/crime weapon at the disclosure of the accused is important for the purposes of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, but such disclosure alone would not automatically lead to the conclusion that the accused committed the offence.
Holding thus, the High Court, on Thursday SET ASIDE the life sentence of a murder-convict in a case that dates back to the year 2014, after concluding that merely on the strength of the recovery of the crime weapon on the pointing out of the appellant-accused CAN'T form the basis of his conviction.
Case title - Abhinay Jain v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 167
Allowing a Habeas Corpus plea filed by a father seeking visitation rights to meet his son presently living with his mother, the High Court observed the father is ENTITLED to visitation rights to meet his child.
Essentially, the child is presently living with his mother pursuant to a mutual agreement made between the husband and wife in a divorce suit decided on the basis of mutual consent. In the agreement, it was agreed the corpus/child will reside with his mother. However, the man/father moved to the Court alleging that he wasn't being allowed to meet the child.
Case title - State of U.P. v. Dharma
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 168
The High Court found a man guilty of committing the rape of a 10-year-old girl in May 1988, i.e., over 33 years after the date of the incident. With this, the HC allowed the Government appeal filed in 1989 against the trial court's acquittal order by setting aside the same.
Significantly, the Bench of Justice Suneet Kumar and Justice Vikram D. Chauhan also observed that a socially sensitized Judge is a better armor in cases of crime against women than long clauses of penal provisions, containing complex exceptions and complicated provisos.
Case title - Mahadevi v. State of U.P
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 169
The High Court directed the Principal Secretary, (Health & Family Welfare) Department of Health & Family Welfare, Government of Uttar Pradesh, to ensure that in all post mortem forms/proforma taken out by the competent authorities, the status/column of the hyoid bone shall be specifically reflected.
The Bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot ordered thus as it took into account an affidavit of the Chief Medical Officer, Etawah stating that post mortem forms/proforma taken out do not depict the status/column depicting the state of the hyoid bone.
Case title - Naushad Ali v. State Of U.P. Through Secretary Home And Another
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 170
The High Court observed that the Learning Driving License and Voter I.D. Card should not be taken into account while determining the age of a juvenile.
With this, the Bench of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi quashed the order of Special Judge, POCSO Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Bulandshahar rejecting an application moved on behalf of one Naushad Ali (Revisionist), booked under Rape, Penetrative Sexual Assault charges (under POCSO Act), for declaring him to be juvenile.
Case title - Abhay Pratap Mishra @ Ujjwal Mishra v. State Of U.P Thru. A.C.S./Prin. Secy. Home and Another
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 171
The High Court observed that even a minor girl cannot be detained against her will or at the will of her father in a Protective Home.
Holding thus, the Bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Gupta directed the Additional Session Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Sultanpur, who sent a girl/alleged victim to a protective home, to call her from the Nari Niketan, ascertain her wishes and pass an appropriate order for her custody in accordance with law keeping the wishes of victim.
Important Weekly Updates From the High Court/UP courts
Case title - Anjuman Intazamia Masazid Varanasi Vs. Ist A.D.J. Varanasi And Others
In the ongoing hearing before the High Court in connection with the Kashi Vishwanath temple-Gyanvapi mosque dispute, the next friend of Lord Vishweshwar, one of the contesting respondents in the case termed the dispute as a national dispute.
Before the Bench of Justice Prakash Padia, it was argued that it is not a dispute of property simpliciter, but it is a national dispute with the emotions of millions of people attached to it.
Case title - State of U.P. v. Khannu S/O Chetan Mishra And Another
The High Court asked the Government of Uttar Pradesh to furnish the details of its policy/government order/circular governing the procedure for filing the government appeal against the order of acquittal.
The Bench of Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Vikas Kunvar Srivastav issued this order after it dealt (and dismissed) with two such government appeals on March 30, wherein it found that the prosecution could not bring any evidence before the trial court for conviction of the accused persons implicated in both the cases.
Case title - Suo-Motu-With Regard To Filling Up All Vacancies In Revenue v. State of U.P.
The High Court requested the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh to assist the court in the suo moto matter regarding the non-availability or paucity of Presiding Officers in the Revenue courts.
The Bench of Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi has requested the members of the Bar Council of U.P. who are residents of Lucknow to assist the Court in the matter on the next date [April 27, 2022].
Case title - Alok Kumar v. Rakesh Shankar [CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 5432 of 2018]
The High Court sought the personal presence of the Director-General of Police, Uttar Pradesh to apprise him of the state of affairs of the Uttar Pradesh Police department and the reckless approach of the officers of the department in not complying with the orders the High Court.
The Bench of Justice Saral Srivastava has directed the UP DGP, Mukul Goel to remain personally present before the High Court on April 21, 2022 in connection with a contempt plea moved by one Alok Kumar.
The High Court suspended the Additional District Judge I (ADJ), Sultanpur District Court Manoj Shukla. ADJ Shukla was recently in news for an act wherein he had lain down before a JCB/bulldozer last month in an attempt to protect his ancestral land in Basti district which was being taken over by the state government.
ADJ Manoj Shukla is originally a resident of the Chhapia Shukla village of Basti district. He is presently serving as an ADJ in the Sultanpur district. Last month, he had lain in front of a JCB wearing a coat, pants, and a tie, the video of the incident had gone viral on social media as well.
The Ministry of Law & Justice informed the Rajya Sabha that at present, no complete proposal regarding setting up of Bench of Allahabad High Court in Western Uttar Pradesh, particularly at Meerut is pending with the Government.
This piece of information was provided by the Union Law Minister, Kiren Rijijju in response to a question put up by MP Vijay Pal Singh Tomar regarding the Setting up of the High Court Bench at Meerut.
The Union Law and Justice Ministry informed Rajya Sabha that 10,31,282 cases are pending before the Allahabad High Court as on 25 March 2022 as per the information/data available on the web portal of National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG).
This piece of information was provided by the Union Law Minister, Kiren Rijijju in response to a question put up by MP Syed Zafar Islam regarding Pendency in the High Court of Uttar Pradesh (Allahabad)
Case title - Suo-Moto In Re: Menace Created By Stray Dogs
Taking note of an unfortunate incident wherein an eight-year-old boy was killed and his sister was severely injured after they were attacked by more than 20 stray dogs, the Allahabad High Court today registered a suo moto case regarding the menace created on account of unchecked stray dogs on the streets of Lucknow.
The bench of Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi took note of the incident while referring to the newspaper reports of the incident and termed the news as extremely disturbing.
"Nothing can be more pain giving for a human being than to learn a human life being lost in such a manner. As per the news paper reports, stray dogs attacked the brother and sister duo and killed the brother separating his sister from him forever, perhaps to meet in only the next birth. The description of the incident in the newspaper reports has the potential of disturbing even the strongest mind, which compels us to take suo moto cognizance of the issue relating to the menace created on account of unchecked stray dogs on the streets of Lucknow," the Court observed.
Case title - In Re v. Ramakant Verma, Advocate And Another
The High Court directed an advocate, who threatened a lady judge, to tender a written apology to her and also give an undertaking that he would not repeat such conduct in the future. Similar directions have been issued for his client as well.
Essentially, the Advocate (Ramakant Verma) had issued a Section 80 C.P.C. notice to the presiding officer/a lady Judge in the Basti Judgeship demanding compensation, with a threat that in case the compensation is not paid, recourse would be taken by instituting a suit.
Bombay High Court
Nominal Index
Hanuman Anandrao Pendam v State of Maharashtra. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 116
2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 117
Sachin @ Lakhan v The State of Maharashtra and ors with connected matters. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 118
Savina Crasto vs The Union of India & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 119
Ravindra Prasad Munneshwar Prasad v Union of India & ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 120
Shaikh Taslim Shaikh Hakim vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 121
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation vs Sangharsh ST Kamgar Sanghatan & ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 122
Banabai and others Vs. Wasudeo, Rajesh and ors v Parwatibai and ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 123
Rajendra Bhau Patole v The State of Maharashtra and anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 124
Dheeraj Wadhawan vs Central Bureau Of Investigation And Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 125
Manager, National Insurance Co.Ltd v Shri Nilesh Suresh Bhandari and ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 126
Tagus Engineering Private Limited & Ors versus Reserve Bank of India & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 127
ORDERS/JUDGEMENTS
Case Title: Hanuman Anandrao Pendam v State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 116
The Bombay High Court held the Superintendent of Central Prison, Nagpur, Anupkumar M. Kumre, guilty of contempt and sentenced him to seven days' simple imprisonment for selectively denying prisoners emergency parole during the Covid pandemic.
"If the Court finds that the Government's (officials) action in rejecting the grant of parole to a prisoner has the effect of suffocating the Articles 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India, in that case, the Court must act to restore the rule of law and respect the residuary fundamental rights of the prisoners," the court observed.
A division bench of Justices VM Deshpande and Amit Borkar refused to accept Kumre's apology, fined him Rs. 5,000 and suspended the sentence for 10 weeks, allowing him to approach the SC for relief.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 117
The Bombay High Court recently quashed a rape case on the condition that the accused and the alleged victim shall extend social service for 6 months.
The bench of Justice Prasanna B. Varale and Justice S. M. Modak directed the Applicant and the alleged victim (Respondent No. 2) to obtain certificates from the respective institutes [where they have been directed to extend social services] having rendered community service satisfactorily for the period of six months.
The case was registered at the instance of the prosecutrix/alleged victim on a complaint made by her, however, later on, in Feb 2022, she filed a NOC affidavit saying that she lodged the complaint due to the compatibility issue and misunderstanding between herself and the accused-applicant.
Case Title: Sachin @ Lakhan v The State of Maharashtra and ors with connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 118
The Bombay High Court held that the authority under the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 can pass externment orders directing externment of a person from much larger area than the one of his illegal activities. However, such order should be based upon some material which provides an objective criteria to the authority for reaching a subjective satisfaction.
A division bench of Justices VK Jadhav and Sandipkumar C. More observed, "Even though the crimes considered for externment of the petitioners are registered only in the Camp Police Station, Ahmednagar, but considering the latest modes of transportation, it appears that the authorities below have rightly restricted the petitioners from entering into entire Ahmednagar district to prohibit their criminal activities."
4. Strictly Follow Motor Vehicles Aggregators Guidelines : Bombay High Court To Ola, Uber
Case Title: Savina Crasto vs The Union of India & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 119
The Bombay High Court asked cab aggregators, including Uber India and Ola, who were recently granted provisional licenses under the Motor Vehicles Aggregators Guidelines, 2020 framed by the Union government, to strictly follow the guidelines.
The court also asked the Maharashtra government to consider customer feedback in the nature of complaints against the aggregators to find out if there is deficiency in the grievance redressal mechanism.
The bench said it did not have the powers to legislate and order conditions for better grievance redressal to be added in the guidelines, it would however consider issuing directions.
"The deficiencies will be addressed in a time-bound manner. The state is at liberty to give suggestions to implement guidelines. The mechanism will have to be consumer-friendly," said a division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Makarand S Karnik.
Case Title: Ravindra Prasad Munneshwar Prasad v Union of India & ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 120
The Bombay High Court, through a bench of Justices AS Chandurkar and GA Sanap, held that if a government servant is suspended on account of charges for a serious crime, then if he is acquitted by giving him the benefit of doubt, he is not entitled for regularisation of the period of suspension by treating him to be on duty. The discretion belongs to the competent authority.
In view of registration of FIR under Sections 419 and 34 of IPC against the petitioner, a worker in the in the Ordnance Factory, he was placed under suspension on 12/11/2009 under Rule 10(1)(b) of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (CCA Rules, 1965).
In trial, the Judicial Magistrate observed that considering the nature of evidence on record the charge against the accused (petitioner) could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt. On that premise the said accused were acquitted. The Petitioner had sought revocation of suspension and regularization of suspension period as 'on duty' based on this acquittal.
6. Dissolution Of Marriage By Mutual Consent Permissible Under Muslim Personal Law: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Shaikh Taslim Shaikh Hakim vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 121
Observing that a family court can dissolve the marriage of a Muslim couple by mutual consent under the Muslim Personal Law, the Bombay High Court quashed criminal proceeding against the husband based on the couple's amicable settlement in the Family Court petition.
The court noted that under Section 2 of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act 1937 all property, marriage, dissolution of marriage including mubaraat, maintenance, dower, guardianship gifts, trusts and trust properties concerning Muslims is governed by the Act.
Moreover, the Family Court was empowered to adjudicate a suit regarding validity of a marriage or a person's matrimonial status under section 7 (1)(b) of the Family Courts Act, the bench said.
Case Title: Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation vs Sangharsh ST Kamgar Sanghatan & ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 122
The Bombay High Court said that it will order protesting employees of the State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC) to resume work by April 22 without the fear of administrative action, while concluding hearing in a contempt petition filed by MSRTC against them for not resuming work.
"When there is a fight between the lion and the lamb, the lamb has to be protected," the bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice GS Kulkarni observed. The court said it would extend time till April 22 from April 15 for protesting employees to resume work.
Earlier the court had asked MSRTC if it would be willing to allow all its employees to resume work irrespective of criminal cases filed against some of them, and view the situation "compassionately" as it was a question of their livelihood.
However, senior counsel Aspi Chinoy for MSRTC on Monday said it would not be possible to do so for those employees against whom FIRs were registered for resorting to violence.
8. Child Adopted By A Widow Not Entitled To Inherit Her Deceased Husband's Property: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Banabai and others Vs. Wasudeo, Rajesh and ors v Parwatibai and ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 123
The Bombay High Court answered in the negative the question of whether the principle of relation back is applicable in case of a son adopted post the demise of the husband of the adopting lady.
A single judge bench of Justice Shrikant D. Kulkarni observed, "an adopted son may have rights in future in the property which the family may acquire after his adoption, with regard to the property which has vested in any particular person before his adoption, the adoption does not vest in him any rights with regard to that property."
The Bench was ceased of a property dispute whereby an adoptive son had sold properties belonging to the late husband of his adoptive mother.
Case Title: Rajendra Bhau Patole v The State of Maharashtra and anr
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 124
The Bombay High Court recently considered whether an FIR can be quashed against a petitioner who is not referred to as an accused in the FIR and who was not present at the spot.
A bench of Justices Prasanna B. Varale & S. M. Modak reiterated the difference between normal criminal law and crimes under of Maharashta Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999, (MCOC) stating that, "It is not always necessary that every accused must be present on the spot. There are various circumstances in the chain of circumstances. In that chain, it may happen that set of accused persons may be present at the spot, some of the accused have played a role prior to commission of offence and some of them have participated post commission of offence."
Respondent did not dispute that the present Petitioner is not being named as an accused in the FIR. However, he submitted that the investigation so far carried out discloses involvement of the Petitioner in an abetting the main assailants.
Case Title: Dheeraj Wadhawan vs Central Bureau Of Investigation And Anr
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 125
In a relief for DHFL promoter Dheeraj Wadhawan, the Bombay High Court allowed him treatment for a limited period at a private hospital while setting aside the trial court's order to shift him to the State-run JJ Hospital.
Justice PD Naik observed that it was a settled principle of law that an undertrial prisoner also had fundamental rights and that right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution includes the right to health.
Case Title : Manager, National Insurance Co.Ltd v Shri Nilesh Suresh Bhandari and ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 126
The Bombay High court recently dealt with an appeal by an Insurance Company against the quantum of compensation awarded to an accident victim under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The claimant, in the course of this appeal, raised the issue of insufficiency of the compensation awarded.
Single Bench of Justice Bharati Dangre noted that though the claimant had not filed an appeal for enhancement of compensation,
"The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial piece of legislation and provide for some solace to a victim, who meet with an accident or to the family of the victim who is a sufferer, when the bread-earner is disabled or succumb to the said accident. The duty of the Court in granting compensation to the victim or to his family, for its survival and meet the harness is to ensure 'just' compensation, irrespective of whether any plea in that behalf was raised by the claimant."
Case Title: Tagus Engineering Private Limited & Ors versus Reserve Bank of India & Anr
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 127
The Bombay High Court ruled that remedy against orders passed under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 lies elsewhere and the petitioners, aggrieved by the orders passed under Section 16, cannot file Writ Petitions under Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution of India on the ground of 'exceptional circumstances'.
A bench of Justices G.S. Patel and Madhav J. Jamdar held that it is impermissible for the Court to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution even on questions with respect to the jurisdictional competence of an Arbitral Tribunal, except in cases where the arbitral tribunal is a statutory tribunal created by a statute.
The High Court observed that a Writ of Mandamus was sought against the respondents, who were private financial entities, and neither of them were 'State' within the meaning of Article 12. Therefore, the Court ruled that they were not susceptible to the writ jurisdiction of the Court.
Calcutta High Court
Nominal Index [LiveLaw (Cal) 105 To 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 114]
Purnima Kandu & Anr v. State of West Bengal 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 105
Laxmi Tunga & Ors v. The State of West Bengal & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 106
Dr Santi Prasad Sinha v. Laxmi Tunga and ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 107
Rajib Chakraborty and Ors v. The State of West Bengal and Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 108
Anindita Bera v. The State of West Bengal & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 109
The Court on its own Motion In re: The Brutal Incident of Bogtui Village, Rampurhat, Birbhum 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 110
Dr. Kunal Saha v. The State of West Bengal & Anr 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 111
Monirul Molla v. The State of West Bengal 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 112
APL Metals Ltd. v. Mountview Tracom LLP & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 113
Sona Karar & anr v. The Howrah Municipal Corporation & ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 114
Orders/Judgments
Case Title: Purnima Kandu & Anr v. State of West Bengal
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 105
The Calcutta High Court on Monday transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) the investigation into the death of former Congress councillor of Jhalda Municipality in Purulia, Tapan Kandu who was reportedly shot dead by miscreants on March 13. Justice Rajasekhar Mantha was adjudicating upon a plea moved by the widow of the deceased Councillor seeking a CBI probe on the ground that no progress in the investigation has been made by the State investigating authorities. Expressing deep concern, the Court also noted that the Inspector-In-Charge of the Jhalda Police station, Sanjib Ghosh who is set to have facilitated the crime has not yet been taken into custody. The Court observed that it is 'surprising' that the mobile phone of Ghosh has not yet been seized and that vital data may have been lost by now. Accordingly, while ordering a CBI probe, the Court underscored, "..there is need for instilling faith of the public at large in any investigation, relating to the crime of this nature. The public at large, need to see that the Rule of Law is still prevalent, given the gravity and politically sensitive nature of the crime. Justice must be seen to be done. Satisfaction of the de facto complainant, petitioners' family members and persons associated with them also needs to be addressed."
Case Title: Laxmi Tunga & Ors v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 106
Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay of the Calcutta High Court on Monday ordered the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Central) and the Commissioner of Police of Bidhan Nagar Police Commissionerate to ensure the presence of 4 members of the High Powered Committee which had been constituted by the State to oversee the recruitment of close to 13,000 non-teaching staff in government-aided schools in the office of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) by 4 pm on Monday. The direction was issued while adjudicating upon a batch of petitions pertaining to the alleged irregularities in the appointment of 'Group-D' (non-teaching staff) in sponsored Secondary and Higher Secondary schools under the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (WBBSE) on the purported recommendation by the West Bengal School Service Commission (WBSSC). Directing the police authorities to ensure the presence of 4 members of the High Powered Committee before the CBI, the Court ordered, "..I find that Sri S. Acharya and Sri P. K. Bandyopadhyay are working in Shilpa Sadan, 6th floor, 4, Abanindranath Tagore Sarani, Kolkata-700016 and as Sri A. K. Sarkar is residing in Falguni Abasan, Block-FB, Sector-III, Salt Lake and Sri T. Panja is working now as the Senior Law Officer in School Education Department, Government of West Bengal, Bikash Bhawan, 5th Floor, I direct the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Central) Kolkata Police to ensure the presence of Mr. S. Acharya and Mr. P. K. Bandyopadhyay before CBI by 3 p.m. today and I direct the Commissioner of Bidhan Nagar Police Commissionerate to take steps for ensuring the presence of Sri A. K. Sarkar and Sri T. Panja who are residing and working, respectively in Salt Lake, which is under the Commissioner of Police, Bidhan Nagar Commissionerate. Their presence are also to be ensured by the Commissioner of Police of Bidhan Nagar Commissionerate by 4 p.m. today."
Case Title: Dr Santi Prasad Sinha v. Laxmi Tunga and ors.
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 107
The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday allowed the CBI to interrogate S.P. Sinha, former chairman of the School Service Commission's advisory committee, and former education secretary Alok Sarkar pertaining to the alleged irregularities in the appointment of 'Group-D' (non-teaching staff) in State aided schools but barred the agency from taking them into custody. A Division Bench comprising Justice Subrata Talukdar and Justice Krishna Rao was adjudicating upon an appeal moved against a Single Judge order which had allowed the CBI to conduct custodial interrogation of the aforementioned members of the State appointed recruitment panel if the need arises. Four other division benches of the court had refused to hear cases related to the recruitment scam before the matter came up before Justice Talukdar's bench. Partially modifying the impugned order, the Division Bench observed, "This Court is of the view that the order of the Hon'ble Single Bench requires to be modified at this stage only to the extent that the appellant shall present himself for interrogation as directed and the CBI would act in terms of the order of the Hon'ble Single Bench without however taking recourse to custodial interrogation of the appellant." The Court further clarified, "Needless to dilate this order will axiomatically cover, if and as applicable, other identically circumstanced persons as the appellant." The Court further underscored that in the event the appellant fails to present himself for interrogation before the CBI as directed by the Single Judge Bench, the CBI shall be entitled to take recourse to steps in accordance with law.
Case Title: Rajib Chakraborty and Ors v. The State of West Bengal and Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 108
The Calcutta High Court ordered that private unaided schools whose names had come up with regard to allegations of arbitrary fee hike during the pandemic could not deny promotion to any student or withhold report cards for non-payment of fees. The Court further directed two joint special officers designated by the Court to look into any complaint of arbitrary increase in school fees during the pandemic and take a decision in the matter with regard to fee actually payable by those guardians/ students. A Bench comprising Justice IP Mukherji and Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya was adjudicating upon a bunch of PILs filed by aggrieved parents seeking a partial remission of school fees for the session 2021-2022 due to the ongoing pandemic owing to which students are attending schools only through virtual mediums. The Bench vide its order dated October 13, 2020, had slashed the fees charged by private schools in the State by 20% due to the ongoing pandemic. Restricting schools from withholding promotion or report cards on account of non-payment of fees, the Court directed on Wednesday, "None of the 145 schools/teaching institutions shall deny promotion to any student to the next session or withhold their report card till further orders. All students shall be allowed to join the higher class in the new session and shall be provided the normal educational facilities"
Case Title: Anindita Bera v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 109
The Calcutta High Court on Thursday ordered for a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe in another matter pertaining to the alleged illegal appointment of assistant teachers in State run schools in West Bengal. The Court was adjudicating upon a batch of pleas alleging illegal appointment of assistant teachers for Class 9 and Class 10 in State run schools pertaining to the West Bengal State Level Selection Test (SLST) on the purported recommendation by the West Bengal School Service Commission (WBSSC). Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay directed the Regional Head of CBI to start investigation in the matter after registering a case in course of the day itself. "Therefore, this matter is also required to be investigated by CBI by registering a new case in this matter as it relates to appointment of Assistant Teachers in classes IX and X", the Court directed. Opining that he is 'extremely surprised' by the revelation and the dishonest statement of Sinha, the Court remarked, "This notice shows, by which I am extremely and extremely surprised, that there were at least two or more than two meetings of the said committee. Whereas before this court Dr. Santi Prasad Sinha, the advisor of the Commission and convenor of the five member committee in other matters having similar allegations of corruption, here in the appointment in the posts of assistant teachers by the School Service Commission said time and again that there was no meeting of the said 5 member committee. The other members of the committee have also given their reply to similar questions before CBI".Therefore, the CBI was ordered to investigate the matter and also interrogate Sinha specially and other members of the committee again.
6. Birbhum Massacre| Calcutta High Court Orders CBI To Probe Into Murder Of TMC Leader Bhadu Sheikh
Case Title: The Court on its own Motion In re: The Brutal Incident of Bogtui Village, Rampurhat, Birbhum
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 110
The Calcutta High Court on Friday ordered the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate the murder of local All India Trinamool Congress (TMC) leader Bhadu Sheikh that was followed by arson in Bogtui village, Rampurhat, Birbhum, that killed eight people, including two children. The Court had earlier transferred to the CBI the investigation into the incident of violence in Birbhum district of West Bengal that had allegedly taken place in retaliation to the murder of Sheikh. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj on Thursday had taken on record the preliminary report submitted by the CBI as per the Court's earlier directions. Pursuant to the perusal of the report, the Court observed that the report prima facie suggests that the brutal incident of burning and killing at Bogtui village is the direct fall out of the murder of Bhadu Sheikh at 8.30 P.M. on the same day. It was further noted that the CBI report suggests that the incident is the outcome political rivalry amongst members of two groups in the village and that the burning of houses resulting in the death of 8 persons was a retaliatory plan. Ordering a CBI probe into the murder, the Court underscored, "The object of issuing the necessary direction in the suo motu petition is to ensure appropriate action against the person responsible for the incident. On the basis of the material which is available before us, we are of the opinion that the said object can be more appropriately achieved if the incident of murder of Bhadu Sk is also investigated by the CBI along with the incident of burning of houses and murder of villagers of Bogtui which took place shortly thereafter. The second incident prima facie seems to be the fall out of first incident".
Case Title: Dr. Kunal Saha v. The State of West Bengal & Anr
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 111
The Calcutta High Court while exercising its power under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC allowed an application for rejection of a plaint seeking compensation of Rs 100 crore against the State of West Bengal on account of vicarious liability for an alleged act of defamation committed by a High Court Judge. Justice Shekhar B. Saraf observed that the plaint lacks any cause of action as there exists no vicarious liability on the State for the judicial actions of the Judge. "The misplaced notion of the plaintiff that the State is liable and is required to take action against orders passed by the High Court is absolutely unfounded and finds no place in the law. Secondly, it has to be noted that there is no master-servant relationship between the State and a High Court Judge, and accordingly, there is no question of any vicarious liability on the State for the judicial actions of the Judge", the Court observed. The Court further opined that the plaint fails to indicate any law that creates an obligation on the State to take action against a Judge for an order passed by the Judge in his judicial capacity. It was further noted that the Judge's Protection Act, 1985 clearly provides protection to the concerned Judge and that the State is required to obey and comply with the orders of the Court.
Case Title: Monirul Molla v. The State of West Bengal
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 112
In a significant ruling, the Calcutta High Court on Wednesday issued a directive to trial courts in West Bengal stipulating that a sentence of life imprisonment till death, without any scope of remission, can only be passed in rape cases. A Bench comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Bivas Pattanayak observed that such a sentence of life imprisonment till one's death can only be imposed by the higher judiciary that is the Supreme Court or the High Court when commuting death sentences. Relying on Supreme Court decisions in Union of India v. V Sriharan Alias Murugan and Others and Gauri Shankar v. State of Punjab, the Court issued the following directions to all trial Court judges in the State, "Except in cases where the law provides for a sentence of imprisonment for life which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of the person's natural life (e.g., sections 376A, 376AB, 376D, 376DA, 376DB and 376E of I.P.C.), trial Courts while imposing a sentence of life imprisonment as provided under section 53 of I.P.C. shall not qualify the said sentence by directing that the sentence shall continue till the death of the convict or without remission as prescribed in law.".
Case Title: APL Metals Ltd. v. Mountview Tracom LLP & Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 113
The Calcutta High Court has observed that S.37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act (Arbitration Act) and S.13 of the Commercial Courts act exclude the applicability of Clause 15 of Letters Patent. The Division Bench of Justice I.P. Mukerji and Justice Aniruddha Roy relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Union of India v. Simplex Infrastructures, (2017) 14 SCC 225, to hold that the Arbitration Act is a self-contained code and no appeal lies against an order which does not fall within the four corners of S. 37 of the Arbitration Act. The Court held that an order passed under Sections 36(2) and (3) of the Arbitration Act is not an order contemplated under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act r/w S. 13 of the Commercial Courts Act. The Court also held that an order which is not appealable under S. 37 of the Arbitration Act, is also not appealable under S. 13 of the Commercial Courts Act and that S. 13 expressly excludes the applicability of Clause 15 of Letters Patent to orders which are not appealable under S. 13, therefore, there is an express exclusion against the exercise of power under the provisions of Letters Patent to hear appeals against an order not appealable under S. 37 of the Arbitration Act.
Case Title: Sona Karar & anr v. The Howrah Municipal Corporation & ors.
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 114
The Calcutta High Court has recently observed that unless an order of demolition specifically indicates the nature of the deviation and the extent of unauthorised construction which is to be demolished, such an order cannot be implemented. Justice Shampa Sarkar observed, "In the opinion of the Court unless the order of demolition specifically indicates the nature of the deviation and the extent of unauthorised construction which is to be demolished, such order cannot be implemented. The order is also unreasoned and arbitrary." Pursuant to the perusal of the rival submissions, the Court opined that the order of demolition does not point out the details of the deviation from the sanction plan. "..this Court is of the opinion that the order does not point out the nature, extent and details of the deviation from the sanction plan. There are no allegations of extension of floors, during the pendency of the revised plan", the Court observed.
Important Developments
Case Title: Dr. Santi Prasad Sinha v. Laxmi Tunga & ors
A Division Bench comprising Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Rabindranath Samanta of the Calcutta High Court on Monday recused from hearing a batch of petitions pertaining to alleged irregularities in the appointment of 'Group-D' (non-teaching staff) in sponsored Secondary and Higher Secondary schools under the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (WBBSE) on the purported recommendation by the West Bengal School Service Commission (WBSSC). This comes days after a single judge Bench of Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay had passed scathing remarks against the Division Bench of Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Rabindranath Samanta. On Friday, a Division Bench comprising Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee had stayed Justice Gangopadhyay's order directing the regional head of the CBI to call upon S.P. Sinha, former Advisor of the WBSSC in course of the day and start questioning him. The Division Bench had granted such an interim relief until the Regular Bench comprising Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Rabindranath Samanta hears the matter on April 4. On Monday, the Regular Division Bench informed senior advocate Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya representing the illegally recruited candidates that they were recusing from hearing all the cases pertaining to the alleged recruitment scam on their personal ground. "We are not inclined to take up the matter on our personal ground", Justice Harish Tandon orally remarked while speaking on behalf of the Bench.
Case Title: Sumitra Bhattacharyya v. State of West Bengal and other connected matters
The Calcutta High Court on Monday refused to order a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into the gruesome incident of rape of a minor 11 year old girl at Matia in North 24-Parganas' Basirhat but granted leave to the petitioners to suggest the name of a high ranking police officer from the police department of West Bengal under whose supervision the investigation can be carried out. An 11-year-old schoolgirl, who went missing, was found unconscious from a near a park in Matia on March 25. Preliminary probe by police revealed that she was raped. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj on the last date of hearing had directed Advocate General S.N Mookherjee to produce before the Court a report in the form of an affidavit containing the stage and status of investigation into the incident. The Bench had further called for the case diary to be filed before the Court on the next date of hearing. During the proceedings, one of the counsels for the petitioners vehemently argued for the investigation to be transferred to the CBI for an impartial probe. However, the Bench declined to issue such a direction at the present stage and instead remarked orally, "If at any point of time we feel that there is a deficiency in the investigation, we will duly consider the prayer". However, the Bench granted leave to the petitioners to suggest the name of a high ranking police officer under whose supervision, the investigation can be carried out.
In an unprecedented development, the Calcutta High Court on Monday witnessed various Benches either recusing or declining to hear a batch of appeals pertaining to the alleged irregularities in the appointment of 'Group-D' (non-teaching staff) in sponsored Secondary and Higher Secondary schools under the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (WBBSE) on the purported recommendation by the West Bengal School Service Commission (WBSSC). Proceedings pertaining to the recruitment scam have been in the spotlight ever since repeated orders for a CBI probe by a single judge bench of Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay have been either stayed or set aside by a Division Bench comprising Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Rabindranath Samanta. Justice Gangopadhyay on Wednesday had passed a scathing order against the direction issued by the Division Bench to accept an affidavit containing details of the assets possessed by S.P. Sinha, former Advisor of the School Service Commission in a 'sealed cover'. Recording serious displeasure against such an order by the Division Bench, Justice Gangopadhyay had observed, "I do not know what this court will do with a sealed cover in this proceeding when the hand of this appeal court has been tied by the above observation. I have been prevented from taking any consequential step on going through the said affidavit of assets." He had further opined that the 'highest degree of double standard' has been expressed by the Division Bench and that his hands have been tied from properly adjudicating the case. Subsequently, on Thursday, Justice Gangopadhyay had directed the regional head of the CBI to call upon S.P. Sinha, former Advisor of the WBSSC in course of the day and start questioning him. However, a Division Bench comprising Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee had stayed such an order until the Regular Bench comprising Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Rabindranath Samanta hears the matter on Monday i.e. on April 4. On Friday, Justice Gangopadhyay had further directed the CBI to call for questioning all members of the High Powered Committee which had been constituted in 2016 by the Education Department of the West Bengal government to oversee the recruitment of close to 13,000 non-teaching staff in government-aided schools. On Monday, the regular Bench comprising Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Rabindranath Samanta informed senior advocate Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya representing the alleged illegally recruited candidates that they were recusing from hearing all the cases pertaining to the alleged recruitment scam on their personal ground. "We are not inclined to take up the matter on our personal ground", Justice Harish Tandon orally remarked while speaking on behalf of the Bench.
Case Title: Laxmi Tunga & Ors v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to conduct a custodial interrogation of two members of the State appointed recruitment panel if the need arises. The direction was issued while adjudicating upon a batch of petitions pertaining to the alleged irregularities in the appointment of 'Group-D' (non-teaching staff) in sponsored Secondary and Higher Secondary schools under the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (WBBSE) on the purported recommendation by the West Bengal School Service Commission (WBSSC). Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay on the last date of hearing had directed the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Central) and the Commissioner of Police of Bidhan Nagar Police Commissionerate to ensure the presence of 4 members of the High Powered Committee which had been constituted by the State to oversee the recruitment of close to 13,000 non-teaching staff in government-aided schools in the CBI office by 4 pm on Monday. Opining that Sarkar played a 'very important' role in the scam, the Court ordered, "In my view he played an extremely important role in the whole scam as in the whole scam recommendations were made and appointments were given in vacancies, which were beyond the declared vacancy list. This aspect is to be thoroughly investigated. Mr. Sarkar is directed to reply all the questions of CBI properly and correctly. I direct the CBI to register a case in this matter so that they can take all steps required in this matter." Justice Gangopadhyay further ordered that CBI should also further interrogate S.P. Sinha, former Advisor of the School Service Commission and the Convenor of the Five-Member Committee and accordingly ordered the Officer-in-Charge of the Survey Park Police Station to ensure the presence of Sinha before CBI by 3 p.m on Tuesday. "It is submitted by Mr. Biswaroop Bhattacharya on behalf of Mr. S. P. Sinha that the committee constituted by the court has called him today at 1 p.m. Whatever be the notice and whatever be the order of the committee, he must be present before CBI by 3 p.m. for further interrogation. CBI should start interrogating him from the point they stopped in respect of Mr. S. P. Sinha. If CBI thinks, they can start custodial interrogation of Mr. S. P. Sinha", the Court ordered further.
The State government on Thursday moved a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court against the order for a CBI probe into the death of former Congress councillor of Jhalda Municipality in Purulia, Tapan Kandu who was reportedly shot dead by miscreants on March 13. According to reports, Congress councillor Tapan Kandu and TMC's Anupam Dutta were shot dead on March 13 in separate incidents in Jhalda area of Purulia and Panihati in North 24 Parganas, respectively. Justice Rajasekhar Mantha in the impugned order had ordered for a CBI probe by opining that there is a need for instilling faith of the public at large and that given the gravity and politically sensitive nature of the crime the public needs to see that the Rule of Law is still alive and functioning. On Thursday, the counsel appearing for the State government moved a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj seeking for an early listing of the appeal so that the hearing could take place expeditiously. "At the very threshold, my Lords, there is some urgency", the counsel appearing for the State government submitted. On the contrary, the opposing counsel averred that there is no urgency in the matter and that adverse inferences had been drawn against the Inspector-In-Charge of the concerned police station which he alleged the State government was trying to protect.Pursuant to the submissions, the Chief Justice orally remarked, "Give the (mentioning) slip, we will consider".
Delhi High Court
CITATIONS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 266 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 297
NOMINAL INDEX
Sacheerome Advanced Technologies (SAT) versus NEC Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (NECI) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 266
RANA AYYUB v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 267
LIVING MEDIA INDIA LIMITED & ANR. v. AABTAK CHANNEL.COM (JOHN DOES) & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 268
DR NAND KISHORE GARG v. GNCTD 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 269
IRCON International Limited v. GPT-Rahee JV 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 270
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited versus Teracom Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 271
India Tourism Development Corporation Ltd (ITDC) versus Bougainvillea Multipex & Entertainment Centre Pvt Ltd (BMEL) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 272
Mother Sparsh Baby Care Pvt Ltd v. Aayush Gupta & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 273
M/S KARAM CHAND THAPAR & BROS. (COAL SALES) LTD. v. MMTC LTD. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 274
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION v. PREM BHUTANI & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 275
Kirti Lata v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 276
Delhi Rozi-Roti Adhikar Abhiyan v. Union of India & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 277
Vijay Kumar Munjal V. Pawan Kumar Munjal 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 278
SHALEN BHARDWAJ (ADVOCATE) v. MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 279
Mahavir Prasad Gupta versus Union of India & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 280
SPORTA TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. AND ANR. v. UNFADING OPC PRIVATE LIMITED 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 281
GIAN CHAND BANSIWAL v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 282
AMAN VACHAR v. UNION OF INDIA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 283
MAMTA v. RISHIPAL 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 284
Glocaledge Consultants Pvt Ltd versus Rec Power Distribution Company Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 285
V. P. SINGH @ VIJENDER PAL SINGH v. STATE AND ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 286
The Indian Hotels Company Ltd. v. Union Of India And Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 287
Dr. Vidyottma Jha v. GNCTD 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 288
American Express India Private Limited Versus ACIT 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 289
Ajay Singh v. State 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 290
Virtual Perception Opc Pvt Ltd versus Panasonic India Pvt Ltd 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 291
Shailendra Kumar Yadav V State 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 292
Tata Capital Financial Services Limited versus Naveen Kachru Proprieter of M/S South Delhi Motorcycle & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 293
CIT (E) Versus India HIV Aids Alliance 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 294
SHIVAM SONI v. STATE(GNCTD) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 295
ANNIE GURMEHER KAUR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 296
Ecogreen Energy Gwalior Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Municipal Corporation, Gwalior 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 297
JUDGMENTS THIS WEEK
1. Challenge Against Arbitrator Appointment, Can't Be Under Section 14 Of The A&C Act ; Delhi High Court
Case Title: Sacheerome Advanced Technologies (SAT) versus NEC Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (NECI)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 266
The Delhi High Court has ruled that Section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not provide a separate remedy to the parties to challenge the appointment of an arbitrator, notwithstanding the provisions under Section 13 of the Act.
The Single Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru held that a party can challenge the appointment of an arbitrator only according to the procedure set out in Section 13 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and that a petition under Section 14(1) could not be filed to challenge the appointment of an Arbitral Tribunal on the grounds mentioned under Section 12(3) of the Act, i.e., on the ground of justifiable doubts as to the independence or impartiality of the Arbitrator.
2. "Devoid Of Merits, Infringing Her Right To Travel Abroad & Freedom Of Speech & Expression": Delhi High Court Quashes LOC Against Journalist Rana Ayyub
Title: RANA AYYUB v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 267
The Delhi High Court has quashed the look out circular issued by the Enforcement Directorate against journalist Rana Ayyub on the ground of it being devoid of merits as well as for infringing her human right to travel abroad and freedom of speech and expression.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh observed that the LOC was issued in haste and despite the absence of any precondition necessitating such a measure.
"An LOC is a coercive measure to make a person surrender and consequentially interferes with petitioner's right of personal liberty and free movement. It is to be issued in cases where the accused is deliberately evading summons/arrest or where such person fails to appear in Court despite a Non-Bailable Warrant. In the instant case, there is no contradiction by the respondent to the submission of the petitioner that she has appeared on each and every date before the Investigating Agency when summoned, and hence, there is no cogent reason for presuming that the Petitioner would not appear before the Investigation Agency and hence, no case is made out for issuing the impugned LOC," the Court said.
3. "Reputation & Goodwill Well Established": Delhi High Court Passes John Doe Order In Favour Of 'AAJ TAK' In Trademark Infringement Suit
Case Title: LIVING MEDIA INDIA LIMITED & ANR. v. AABTAK CHANNEL.COM (JOHN DOES) & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 268
Observing that the reputation and goodwill in the name and mark 'AAJ TAK' is well established, the Delhi High Court has passed a john doe order in favour of the news channel in a trademark infringement suit filed by it against various entities.
The order was passed by Justice Pratibha M Singh as John Doe since the owner name of the impugned domain names is hidden.
The suit was filed by Living Media India Limited which had registered the mark 'AAJ TAK'. According to the plaintiffs, the mark 'AAJ TAK' was a well-known mark which is used extensively on social media. The Plaintiffs had created various accounts, profiles and handles on social media and content sharing platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram etc. wherein millions of people subscribe to them.
4. High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Appointment Of Delhi Chief Secretary Vijay Dev As Election Commissioner Of Municipal Corporations
Case Title: DR NAND KISHORE GARG v. GNCTD
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 269
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a PIL challenging the decision to appoint of Delhi Chief Secretary Vijay Kumar Dev as the Election Commissioner of Municipal Corporations.
The Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla also refused to issue guidelines for appointment of election commissioners in the future. It observed that this relief sought by the Petitioner falls within the domain of the government, and it is not for the courts to frame the law on appointment of officers.
The petition was filed by former BJP MLA Nand Kishore Garg. He had challenged the notification dated November 25, 2021 issued by the Delhi government for appointment of Dev, presently serving as Delhi Chief Secretary, as the Election Commissioner of MCDs from April 21, 2022.
5. No Claim Certificate (NCC) Must Be Examined In The Context Of Relevant Documents And The Covering Letter Under Which It Is Issued: Delhi HC
Case Title: IRCON International Limited v. GPT-Rahee JV
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 270
The High Court of Delhi has observed that a No Claim Certificate (NCC) shall be examined along with the covering letter in which it is sent and that mere issuance of the NCC by the Claimant shall not ipso facto entail the extinguishment of all the claims.
The Single Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru further held that while adjudicating an application under S. 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, the Court must be mindful of the fact the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and strict rules of evidence are not applicable in arbitration and the tribunal enjoys considerable discretion to take a view on the quality and sufficiency of the evidence.
6. Performance Security Cannot Be Retained After Acknowledgement Of Due Performance : Delhi High Court
Case Title: Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited versus Teracom Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 271
The Delhi High Court has ruled that there is no principle in law whereby a party could be permitted to retain the Performance Security after it had acknowledged due performance of a contract.
The Single Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru upheld the award of an Arbitral Tribunal directing BSNL to refund the amount recovered by it from invocation of Performance Bank Guarantee, since no claim regarding failure to perform obligations under the Contract was made by it.
7. 'As Is Where Is' In A License Agreement Does Not Absolve The Contracting Parties To Make A Minimal Disclosure: Delhi High Court
Case Title: India Tourism Development Corporation Ltd (ITDC) versus Bougainvillea Multipex & Entertainment Centre Pvt Ltd (BMEL)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 272
The Delhi High Court has upheld the award of an Arbitral Tribunal that stipulating the condition of 'as is where is basis' in a License Agreement does not absolve the contracting parties to make a disclosure about the licensed premises, which is otherwise not evident on visual inspection.
The Single Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru ruled that the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 does not apply to the proceedings before the Arbitral Tribunal and that the Court was not required to reappreciate every material or piece of evidence that was placed before the Arbitral Tribunal.
8. Party Applying For Registration Of A Particular Trademark Estopped From Claiming That It Is A 'Descriptive' Mark: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Mother Sparsh Baby Care Pvt Ltd v. Aayush Gupta & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 273
The Delhi High Court recently confirmed the ex-parte injunction granted in favour of "Plant Powered", an entity involved in sale and distribution of baby care and personal care products, in a trademark infringement suit.
The Court rejected the contention of the Defendant, also said to be using the name 'Plant Powered' as a trading style for identical goods, that the impugned term is a descriptive mark and there can be no monopoly over the same.
9. No Distinction Between Decree Or Awards Where Amounts Are In Foreign Currencies For Purposes Of Enforcement Of Arbitral Award: Delhi High Court
Title: M/S KARAM CHAND THAPAR & BROS. (COAL SALES) LTD. v. MMTC LTD.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 274
The Delhi High Court has observed that for the purposes of enforcement of arbitral award, no distinction can be made between decree or awards where amounts are decreed or awarded in foreign currencies on the basis of the nationality of the disputing parties.
Justice Vibhu Bakhru was dealing with a plea filed by a Decree Holder under sec. 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking to enforce an Arbitral Award dated 07.01.2017.
The issue before the Court was regarding the rate of conversion of foreign exchange to be applied for determining the amount required to satisfy the Arbitral Award to the extent of the amount awarded in foreign currency (US Dollars).
10. Framing Of Charges | Investigation Into Offence & Elaborate Appreciation Of Evidence Discouraged, Only Prima Facie Material Significant: Delhi HC
Case Title: CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION v. PREM BHUTANI & ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 275
The Delhi High Court has observed that an investigation into the offence and elaborate appreciation of evidence is not required and is rather discouraged at the stage of framing of charges and that only the material prima facie establishing a case against or in favour of the accused is what is significant.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh added that as per the requirement of Section 227 and 228 of the CrPC, the Judge shall consider whether sufficient grounds exist or not and that such consideration shall be supported by material on record.
"The Judge need not be satisfied on the question of whether the trial, when conducted, will lead to the conviction or acquittal of the accused, but the consideration needs to be whether the accused is to be sent for trial at the first instance or not, based on the material on record. An investigation into the offence and elaborate appreciation of evidence is not required, and is rather discouraged, at the stage of framing of charges and only the material prima facie establishing a case against or in favour of the accused is what is significant," the Court said.
11. 'No Vested Right, Will Open Floodgates': Delhi High Court Dismisses Tennis Player's Appeal For Participating In Deaflympics As Substitute Player
Case Title: Kirti Lata v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 276
The Delhi High Court has dismissed the appeal filed by a specially-abled tennis player, seeking to participate as a substitute player in the upcoming Deaflympics to be held at Brazil in May 2022.
The Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navneet Chawla observed that there is no vested right in the Appellant to claim that she should form part of the contingent that will take part in the event. It was of the opinion that if any mandamus in this regard is issued by the Court, it will open floodgates and similarly placed athletes will approach the Court seeking similar reliefs.
The Court further observed that it is open to the Respondent, Sports Authority of India, to take decision on the number of athletes to be selected to take part in the event, as the applicable Rules merely prescribe the "maximum" limit, and not minimum.
12. Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Mandatory Aadhar Requirement For Availing Ration Under National Food Security Act
Case Title: Delhi Rozi-Roti Adhikar Abhiyan v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 277
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation challenging the mandatory requirement of Aadhaar card to avail free ration under the National Food Security Act, 2013.
" Supreme Court has said that if you wish to avail of state largess, you can be required to have Aadhar cards," the Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla observed at the outset.
It further said that from a combined reading of the judgment in Justice KS Puttaswamy v. Union of India and the Aadhaar Act, it is clear that Aadhaar can be made mandatory to avail welfare schemes.
13. Trademark Disputes That Purely Arise Out Of Contractual Rights And Obligations Are Arbitrable: Delhi HC
Case Title: Vijay Kumar Munjal V. Pawan Kumar Munjal
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 278
The High Court of Delhi has observed that all the disputes that arise out of the Trade Marks Agreement are not outside the scope of arbitration. The Single Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru clarified that disputes that purely deal with the interpretation of the terms of a trademark agreement and are not related to the grant or registration of the trademarks can be decided in arbitration.
The Court further clarified that unless it is a dispute relating to registration of trademarks, there is no legal requirement of raising the same before the Registrar of Trade Marks or the IP Division of the High Court and the disputes that purely arise out of contractual rights and obligations under a Trade Mark agreement can be adjudicated in arbitration.
14. Obligation To Ensure Compliance Of COVID-19 Protocols Must Be Adhered To More Strictly By Those Charged With Enforcement: Delhi High Court
Case Title: SHALEN BHARDWAJ (ADVOCATE) v. MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 279
The Delhi High Court has said that the obligation to ensure compliance of COVID-19 protocols must be adhered to even more strictly by those who are charged with its enforcement, Delhi Police in particular, who must therefore lead by example.
Justice Yashwant Varma was dealing with a plea moved by Advocate Shalen Bhardwaj seeking directions for taking legal action against the Delhi police officials for violating the Covid-19 guidelines on duty and not implementing the Covid-19 guidelines despite issuance of circulars by Ministry of Home Affairs and Delhi Disaster Management Authority.
15. 1994 Arbitration Reference, 2021 Award, Becomes Rule Of The Court Under Arbitration Act, 1940 In 2022
Case Title: Mahavir Prasad Gupta versus Union of India & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 280
One of the long pending Arbitration proceedings have come to a logical conclusion by making the arbitral award 'the rule of the Court' under the old Arbitration Act, 1940.
The Delhi High Court had made the arbitration reference way back in 1994, but the arbitral proceedings took an inordinately long time to complete with the constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal being changed a number of times and finally the award was passed in the year 2021. And finally, the Single Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru has made the arbitral award the rule of the Court as per the requirement of Arbitration Act, 1940.
16. Dream 11 Trademark Infringement Suit: Delhi High Court Grants Ex-Parte Ad-Interim Injunction Against "Satta Dream 11"
Case Title: SPORTA TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. AND ANR. v. UNFADING OPC PRIVATE LIMITED
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 281
The Delhi High Court has granted ex-parte ad-interim injunction in a trademark infringement suit filed by "Dream 11", a fantasy sports platform, against "Satta Dream 11".
Justice Jyoti Singh restrained the defendant from using the mark SattaDream11 or any deceptively similar variant as the trademark, trade name or domain name amounting to infringement of the Plaintiffs' 'Dream11' trademark or passing off, till the next date of hearing.
The Court also directed Godaddy.com LLC to suspend access to the domain name www.sattadream11.com, within a period of one week.
17. Suit Can Be Rejected Without Trial Where Pleadings Disclose Proceedings Are Time Barred: Delhi High Court
Case Title: GIAN CHAND BANSIWAL v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 282
The Delhi High Court has observed that where the pleadings of the plaintiff disclose that a suit is barred by time, there is no fetter on the trial Court rejecting the suit on that ground, without subjecting it to trial.
Justice C Hari Shankar rejected the contention of the Appellant (original plaintiff) that limitation being a mixed question of fact and law, ought to have been decided only consequent to trial.
The Bench was dealing with a matter concerning the dispute relating to a passage way which, according to the appellant, was the only mode for ingress and egress to the property owned by him as well as to other adjoining plots.
By reason of construction of a brick wall, the passage way, according to the appellant, was blocked, as a result of which there is no access to his entry gate.
18. Delhi HC Strikes Down MEA's Decision Requiring Judges Of Supreme Court, High Courts To Seek Political Clearance For Private Visits Abroad
Case Title: AMAN VACHAR v. UNION OF INDIA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 283
The Delhi High Court has struck down an office memorandum dated July 13, 2021 issued by Ministry of External Affairs, to the extent that it required the judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts to seek political clearance for private visits abroad.
"Insofar as the instant O.M. dated 13.07.2021 requires judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts to seek political clearance for private foreign visits, it is uncalled for, given the high offices they are holding, especially given the fact that nothing has changed since the 2011 guidelines were issued," a division bench comprising of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Jasmeet Singh held.
The Court was dealing with a plea filed by petitioner in person, Aman Vachar, who contended that the condition to require judges of Constitutional Courts to seek political clearance qua private visits to foreign countries, infringes not only their right of privacy but also, in a sense, degrades or diminishes the high office that they hold.
19. Order XI CPC | Application For Leave To Serve Interrogatories Need Not Be Decided Ex-Parte, Court Can Issue Notice On Opposite Party: Delhi HC
Case Title: MAMTA v. RISHIPAL
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 284
The Delhi High Court has observed that there is no proscription in law, either statutory or precedential, inhibiting a court from issuing notice on an application filed under Order XI Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure seeking leave to serve interrogatories on the opposite party, before deciding whether to grant, or refuse to grant, leave.
Justice C Hari Shankar observed that the right to serve interrogatories is not absolute, serving of interrogatories on the opposite party can only be by leave of Court.
" The sequitur would, therefore, be that the opposite party could oppose the grant of such leave, " the Court said.
20. Filing A Complaint With An Unrelated Government Office Does Not Constitute A Notice Under Section 21 Of The A&C Act, 1996: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Glocaledge Consultants Pvt Ltd versus Rec Power Distribution Company Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 285
The Delhi High Court has ruled that merely filing a complaint with an unrelated government office expressing one's grievance does not constitute a notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The Single Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru held that though it is a trite law that all contentious disputes are to be addressed by the Arbitration Tribunal, however in cases where there was no doubt that the claims raised were barred by limitation, the Court would decline to appoint an arbitrator.
21. "NOC Given By Complainant & Fact That She Turned Hostile Does Not Waive Off Offence Alleged": Delhi High Court Refuses To Quash Rape FIR
Case Title: V. P. SINGH @ VIJENDER PAL SINGH v. STATE AND ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 286
The Delhi High Court has refused to quash an FIR registered with the allegations of rape, observing that the NOC given by the complainant and the fact that she had turned hostile does not waive off the offence as alleged by the her.
Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar added that by simply entering into a compromise, charges cannot be said to have been mitigated or that the allegations leveled by the complainant regarding the alleged offence lost its gravity by any means.
"Act of rape is not an act against individual but this is an offence against the society," the Court said.
22. Breach Of Contract U/S 74 Not Applicable At Pre-Formation Stage: Delhi High Court Directs State To Refund ₹20 Crore Forfeited Amount
Case Title: The Indian Hotels Company Ltd. v. Union Of India And Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 287
The Delhi High Court has allowed a writ petition seeking refund of bid security paid by Indian Hotels Company Limited (IHCL) and dismissed the state's allegation of breach of contract at pre-formation stage.
In this single bench judgment, Justice Yashwant Varma held that the state's (respondent) action of forfeiture of the bid security, having no basis in any clause of the request for proposal (RFP) but merely being on the basis of certain communication during the pre-bid stage, was wholly unjustified. The respondent had invited bids for selecting a developer cum operator for a proposed a five-star hotel to be built at the International Exhibition cum Convention Centre, Pragati Maidan, New Delhi by way of the RFP.
23. "Country Will Go Bankrupt": Delhi High Court Refuses To Order Rs. 1 Crore Compensation For Covid-19 Deaths
Case Title: Dr. Vidyottma Jha v. GNCTD
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 288
The Delhi High Court has refused to pass orders for payment of Rs. 1 crore as ex-gratia compensation to families of those who have died due to Covid-19 or due to post Covid infections within one month of recovering.
"The entire country will go bankrupt," the Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla remarked at the outset. It further noted that there is already a policy in place with respect to payment of compensation to the victims' families and the same has been approved by the Supreme Court in W.P. (C) No. 539/2021.
24. Income Tax Dept. To Decide On Rectification Application Filed By American Express, Grant Refund If Any: Delhi High Court
Case Title: American Express India Private Limited Versus ACIT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 289
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma has directed the income tax department to decide on the rectification application filed by American Express and grant a refund, if any, along with the interest.
The petitioner/assessee sought the direction from the respondents/department to pass orders disposing of the rectification applications for the assessment years 2005-06, 2006-07, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2012-13, 2014-15, 2017-18, 2006-07 (FBT) and 2007-08 (FBT) filed by the assessee. As a result, a grant refund of Rs. 45.60 crore, including applicable interest, should be made under Section 244A of the Income Tax Act of 1961.
25. Delhi High Court Grants Interim Protection From Arrest To SpiceJet Promoter Ajay Singh In Fraud Case
Case Title: Ajay Singh v. State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 290
The Delhi High Court has granted interim protection from arrest to SpiceJet Promoter Ajay Singh in an alleged fraud case relating to transfer of airline's shares to some individuals.
Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta pronounced the order after hearing counsel appearing on behalf of Singh, Delhi Police and the complainant. While listing the matter for hearing on May 24, the court directed Singh to join investigation.
Singh was denied anticipatory bail by a city Court here last month observing that there was no sufficient ground for granting relief to him given the overall facts of the case and gravity of offence alleged.
26. Petition Under Article 227, Against The Interim Orders Of Arbitral Tribunal, Based On Violation Of Legal Provisions Can't Be Allowed: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Virtual Perception Opc Pvt Ltd versus Panasonic India Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 291
The Delhi High Court has ruled that a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot be allowed against an order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal rejecting a plea raised under Section 16(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 that the Tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction, on the ground that the Tribunal had violated the applicable legal provisions.
The Single Bench of Justice Prateek Jalan held that such an expansive reading would open the doors of the Court under Article 227 against virtually any procedural order of the Arbitral Tribunal, adding that Article 227 cannot be used to correct every order of an Arbitral Tribunal, even if it is found to be erroneous.
27. Sex On Basis Of "Genuine Promise" To Marry That Didn't Fructify Not Rape: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Shailendra Kumar Yadav V State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 292
The Delhi High Court has observed that a "genuine promise" to marry that did not materialise in future cannot be said to be false, and therefore doesn't amount to rape.
Justice Subramonium Prasad observed,
" If it is found that the promise of marriage was genuine and that the marriage failed to fructify due to external circumstances, then the promise cannot be said to be false, and consent as per Section 90 IPC is not vitiated."
The facts of the case are that the petitioner and the prosecutrix were engaged and fixed to get married to each other. However, due to some problems at the end of the prosecutrix's family, the marriage was postponed. Later on, due to some arguments between the prosecutrix and the petitioner, the marriage could not take place. The prosecutrix then filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 376(2)(n) IPC against the Petitioner.
28. Section 10 Of CPC Does Not Lay An Embargo In Proceeding With Arbitration During Pendency Of Insolvency Proceedings: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Tata Capital Financial Services Limited versus Naveen Kachru Proprieter of M/S South Delhi Motorcycle & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 293
The Delhi High Court has ruled that Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 does not lay an embargo in proceeding with arbitral proceedings during the pendency of insolvency proceedings under the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920.
The Single Bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva held that the issues involved in the insolvency proceedings and the issue involved in the arbitral proceedings were completely different and therefore the embargo of Section 10 of CPC does not apply.
29. Charitable Institution Can't Be Denied Income Tax Exemption For Collecting Service Charges From Its Donors To Defray Administrative Cost: Delhi High Court
Case Title: CIT (E) Versus India HIV Aids Alliance
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 294
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma has held that charitable institutions cannot be denied income tax exemption for collecting service charges from their donors to defray administrative costs.
The appellant/ department has challenged the orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in which exemption under Sections 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was allowed to the assessee, India HIV Aids Alliance, when the actual work of the assessee was to receive and simply transfer grants to other NGOs and the assessee was found to be charging service charges from its donors in various forms, like management fees, etc., for the execution of projects.
30. Visually Impaired Litigants Entitled To Receive Court Documents In Their Preferred Means Of Communication/ Braille Script: Delhi High Court
CaseTitle: SHIVAM SONI v. STATE(GNCTD)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 295
The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi government to make necessary arrangements for providing the court documents in a readable language to visually impaired in all cases wherever the circumstances so warrant.
Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta observed that the right to access to justice includes the right to receive documents to which the parties are legally entitled in the language and means of communication decipherable by them.
31. "Wholly Arbitrary": High Court Quashes Delhi University's Circular Not Considering Revaluation Result For Award Of Gold Medals
Case Title: ANNIE GURMEHER KAUR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 296
The Delhi High Court has quashed a circular of the Delhi University in so far as it does not take into consideration the revaluation result for award of gold medals and prizes to students.
Calling it wholly arbitrary, Justice Rekha Palli set aside the circular dated 6th March 2014 which stated that award of Gold Medals and Prizes should be considered only in cases who passed the examination on the basis of original result declared by the University, adding that neither revaluation nor improvement will be taken into consideration.
The plea was filed by student who had taken admission in a college affiliated by the Delhi University in the year 2017 in B.A. (Hons.) (Economics) course.
32. Rules Of Arbitral Institution Do Not Determine The Place Of Arbitration: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Ecogreen Energy Gwalior Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Municipal Corporation, Gwalior
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 297
The Single Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court has held that the rules of arbitral institution would not determine the place of the arbitration and only the Courts at the place of arbitration proceedings will have the jurisdiction to entertain an application for the appointment of an arbitrator.
The parties entered into a Concession Agreement for the "Implementation of Regional Integrated Solid Waste Management Project for 16 Urban Local Bodies".
Disputes arose between the parties in relation to the said agreement and the respondent terminated the agreement and also enchased the bank guarantee issued by the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner issued the notice invoking arbitration to the respondent and asked the respondent to appoint its nominee arbitrator.
Gauhati High Court
1. Gauhati High Court Upholds The Minimum Age For District Judges In Assam
Case Title : Pooja Agarwal V The State Of Assam And Anr
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Gau) 23
The Gauhati High Court recently upheld the minimum age limit for appointment of District Judges in Assam. A division bench of Chief Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Soumitra Saikia held that the limitation on age has a rational and reasonable nexus with the Rules of Assam Judicial Service Rules of 2003, and said that the Rule 1 of Assam Judicial Service Rules of 2003 providing an age limit to grade-1 judicial officers is not arbitrary.
Case Title: Century Plyboards (I) Limited Versus UOI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Gau) 24
The Gauhati High Court bench of Justice Achintya Malla Bujor Barua has held that the department has circumstantial discretion to include producers related to exporters or importers of dumped articles in the purview of 'Domestic Industry'.
The review petition was filed by the Century Plyboards Limited against the judgement as regards the concept of domestic industry as defined in Rule 2(b) of the Anti Dumping Rules 1995 (ADR).
Gujarat High Court
Case Title: Symphony Limited Vs ACIT
Case Citation: [2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 104]
The Gujarat High Court bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Nisha M. Thakore has held that the issuance of a show cause notice along with the draft assessment order is absolutely necessary before passing an order under Section 144B of the Income Tax Act.
The writ petitioner/assessee filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2018-19 at Rs. 197,12,28,420. Later, the return was revised at Rs. 197,12,28,420. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under the CASS to verify a few issues.
Case Title: Nilubahen Gordhanbhai Machhi Versus State Of Gujarat
Case Citation: [2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 105]
The Gujarat High Court has recently held that merely on account of the name of a candidate figuring in the select list, the candidate would not acquire any indefeasible right for being appointed. However, this is not a completely unqualified proposition. The State cannot act in an arbitrary manner and the decision not to fill up vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons.
It thereby reaffirmed the law laid down in Shankarsan Dash Vs. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 47 wherein it was held
"It is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successful candidates acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed which cannot be legitimately denied. Ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection they do not acquire any right to the post.... However, it does not mean that the State has the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner."
Case Title: Harkishanbhai Dahyabhai Lad vs State Of Gujarat
Case Citation: [2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 106]
The Gujarat High Court has held that past services of the daily-wagers where they have completed 240 days of continuous service as per Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act, would qualify for pension.
Justice Biren Vaishnav, heavily relying on the case of Executive Engineer, Panchayat v. Samudabhai Jyotibhai Phedi, held,
"for counting the period for purposes of pension, the date of initial appointment needs to be taken into consideration and for the purposes of taking initial date of appointment those years in which the petitioners have completed 240 days have to be counted for the purposes of pension."
Case Title: SHRI SHAKTI COTTON PVT. LTD. Versus THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER
Case Citation: [2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 107]
"It can be said that in interpreting a taxing statute, the equitable considerations are entirely out of place. The reasons of morality and fairness can have no application to bring a citizen who is not within the four corners of the taxing statute within its fold so as to make him liable to payment of tax," Justice JB Pardiwala of the Gujarat High Court has opined.
The Bench was hearing a writ application under Art 226 wherein the Applicants had prayed for the quashment of the impugned notice issued under the Value Added Tax, 2003 for the payment of outstanding sum of INR 1,68,02,573 and attachment of the personal properties of the director and the brother of director. They also sought a stay on the notice until the disposal of the petition.
Case Title: Asrafkhan Dilavarkhan Lashari vs The State Of Gujara
Case Citation: [2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 108]
The Gujarat High Court has recently granted anticipatory bail to an Applicant-accused, alleged to be supplier of prohibited animals.
The Applicant was booked for alleged commission of offences under Sections 11(1)(d), 11(1)(e), 11(1)(f) and 11(1)(h) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act 1960 and Sections 6(a), 4, 3 and 8(2) of Gujarat Animals Preservation Act and Section 114 of IPC as well as Section 119 of the Gujarat Police Act. The provisions pertain to animal cruelty, transportation of animals in a manner so as to subject it to unnecessary pain or suffering.
6.Gujarat High Court Stays Removal Of Vice-Chancellor Of Gujarat Vidyapith University
Case Title: Rajendra Amulakh Khimani Versus The University Grants Commission
Case Citation: [2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 109]
The Gujarat High Court has stayed the removal of the Vice-Chancellor of the Gujarat Vidyapith (Deemed to be University) Ahmedabad pursuant to the decision taken by the University Grants Commission in November 2021 directing the Chancellor to remove the Petitioner-Vice Chancellor.
The Petitioner approached the High Court challenging the decision of the UGC and claimed that the removal was in breach of Regulation 10.12.2.E of the UGC (Institutions Deemed To Be Universities) Regulations, 2019.
Case Title: SOMIBEN ARVINDBHAI PATEL Versus STATE OF GUJARAT
Case Citation: [2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 110]
The Gujarat High Court has recently come to the rescue of small vegetable sellers by setting aside the notice of the Collector, asking them to vacate a government land for construction of a Police station.
The Court rejected the ground stated by the Collector that petitioners request for allotment of land cannot be acceded without public auction, because they are carrying on commercial purpose. It observed,
"petitioners are doing small business like that of selling of vegetables / fruits, etc. by keeping small sheds and lorries. Therefore, if that activities are considered, it cannot be termed as large scale commercial activities and, therefore, if the vocation of the petitioners are considered then it is of small retail business then the other government lands can be considered for allotment of appropriate portion of land, available in the vicinity to the petitioners."
Case Title: M/S Bharmal Indane Service versus Indian Oil Corporation Limited
Case Citation: [2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 111]
The Gujarat High Court has ruled that petition for referring the matter to arbitration cannot be disallowed on the ground that the dispute involves interpretation of policy guidelines.
The Single Bench of Chief Justice Aravind Kumar held that whether there is an arbitrable dispute or not and whether the Arbitral Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide the dispute is an issue which can be decided by the arbitrator himself under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Case Title: Varyava Abdul Vahab Mahmood Versus State Of Gujarat
Case Citation: [2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 112]
The Gujarat High Court has rejected anticipatory bail to a man accused of forcefully converting religion of 37 Hindu families and 100 Hindus. It was also alleged that the Applicant lured them by offering financial assistance and converted a house constructed with Government funds to a place of worship — Ibadatgaah.
"Prima facie from the record produced by the prosecution, it appears that the present appellant has attempted to convert directly or otherwise, any person from one religion to another by use of force or by allurement or by any fraudulent means nor any person abet such conversion. Considering the material placed on record before this Court as well as reasons as discussed above, this Court is not inclined to accept the prayer to release the appellant on anticipatory bail, as prayed for," Justice BN Karia said.
Case Title: Kameshbhai Niranjanbhai Sopariwala Versus State Of Gujarat
Case Citation: [2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 113]
The Gujarat High Court recently refused to exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and issue directions for registration of FIR on a complaint lodged by the Petitioner, observing that if such petitions are entertained then the High Courts will be flooded and will not be able to do any other work.
Justice AS Supehia refused to quash the closure report by the Respondent authorities and opined that the Petitioner had the remedy to approach the concerned Magistrate under Section 156(3) of CrPC and therefore, the High Court was not required to interfere with the petition. It was noted that the Apex Court had expressed concerns with regard to the filing of such applications directly before the High Court which increases the burden of the courts.
Case Title: STATE OF GUJARAT Versus PARAMJIT @ KALI HIMMATSINGH CHIMA
Case Citation: [2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 114]
Emphasising that procedure under Section 50 of the NDPS Act needs to be followed in a just and proper manner, the Gujarat High Court has upheld the order of the trial court in acquitting the Respondent accused of offences under Sections 8(C), 20(B), 22 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act.
The facts of the case were that brown sugar packaged in a plastic bag was retrieved from the Respondent, herein. After the filing of complaint and chargesheet, the witnesses were examined however certain panchas and witnesses turned hostile and supported the case of the prosecution. Subsequently, the trial court after perusing the evidence on record acquitted the accused.
12. Seized Property May Be Returned If Vulnerable To Decay: Gujarat High Court
Case Title: Kanjariya Khalid Ahmed vs State Of Gujarat
Case Citation: [2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 115]
The Gujarat High Court has recently granted the petition seeking the quashment of order seizing the vehicles of the Petitioner under the Gujarat Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transport and Storage) Rules, 2017 and under Sections 4(1)A, 21(1), 21(4) and 21(4A) of the Mines and Mineral (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957. An FIR was also registered against the Petitioner for offences under Sections 379, 114 and 120B of IPC.
Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court
Case title - Rajesh Dogra @ Mohan Cheer v. UT of J & K & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 17
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court last week quashed the detention order passed against Rajesh Dogra, the prime convict in the murder case of 'Don' Sanjay Kumar alias 'Bakra'- the case that rocked Jammu in the year 2006. The Bench of Justice M. A. Chowdhary noted that the detention order dated November 29, 2021 [passed under the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978], relied upon 7 FIR against Dogra, however, only one among those 7 FIRs had been registered in the year 2020, and the rest were lodged upto the year 2006.
Case title - Sanichar Kol v. The State of Jharkhand
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 33
The Jharkhand High Court on Wednesday directed the State's Director General of Police to take suitable steps to ensure that innocent persons, against whom there are no materials, are not harassed and their liberty is not infringed or curtailed at the whim of the investigating officers.
This direction came from the Bench of Justice Ananda Sen while awarding a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to a tribal man as it found that he was made an accused in an Abetment of suicide case and was kept in custody for no fault on his part.
Karnataka High Court
Nominal Index
A B Devaraju and Others v. State of Karnataka 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 100
NANJAPPA v. STATE BY CHIKKAJALA POLICE STATION 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 101
Faheem Ahmed V Union Of India 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 102
M. Surendra Rao v M. Raveendra Rao and others 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 104
Shanti Dhama College v The Principal Secretary 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 105
PRABHAMANI v. HEMALATHA 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 106
Sayyad Mohammad @ Nasim V State Of Karnataka 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 108
Wing Commander G B Athri (Retired) v Union Of India 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 109
Iqbal Ahmed v C.B.I. SCB 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 110
Karnataka State Legal Services Authority v. State Of Karnataka 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 111
Renuka W/O Anand @ Anantsa Bakale v Ramanand S/O Ramkrishnasa Basawa And Others 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 112
Judgments/Orders/Reports
Case Title: A B Devaraju and Others v. State of Karnataka Case No: WP 6386/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 100
The Karnataka High Court has directed the Deputy Commissioner of Mandya District to consider the representation to be given by petitioners seeking to shift the location of the site proposed for setting up a solid waste management unit. The proposed site is purportedly close to a river. A division bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice S R Krishna Kumar said, "We, therefore, dispose of this writ petition with the observations that the petitioners may raise their grievance by way of fresh representation within a period of ten days from today before respondent No.4-Deputy Commissioner, DC Office, Mandya district, who may look into the matter and if need be, take an expert opinion, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law expeditiously, say, within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order along with the representation is placed before him."
2: Karnataka High Court Issues Guidelines To Curb Practice Of 'Fraud On Courts' For Securing Bail
Case Title: NANJAPPA v. STATE BY CHIKKAJALA POLICE STATION Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1653/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 101
Observing that "Unscrupulous litigants should not be allowed to pollute the stream of justice," the Karnataka High Court has issued directions to the Registry and District courts across the state to evolve mechanisms using modern technology to curb the practice of fraud on the court. A single judge bench of Justice H P Sandesh issued the following guidelines while rejecting the application filed by accused Nanjappa, who had filed multiple proceedings before various courts seeking anticipatory bail.
Case Title: Faheem Ahmed V Union Of India Case No: Writ Petition No.1030 Of 2020
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 102
The Karnataka High court has dismissed a petition seeking to declare as ultra vires the power of the local Registrar to verify and scrutinise the data so as to test the citizenship of an individual and consequently to declare him a doubtful citizen under the Citizenship (Registration of Citizen and issue of National Identity Cards) Rules 2003 as ultra vires.
Case Title: M. Surendra Rao v M. Raveendra Rao and others Case No: WRIT PETITION No.4290 OF 2017
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 104
The Karnataka High Court has said it is the duty of the trial court which records the evidence to then and there itself (immediately) hear on the objections and decide regarding the marking of the document and its admissibility. It cannot reserve the right of the parties to rake up the point at a later stage and get it marked as an exhibit and include it as evidence.
Case Title: Shanti Dhama College v The Principal Secretary Case No: Writ Petition No.3503/2022 (Edn-Res)
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 105
The Karnataka High Court has observed that applications made by colleges seeking affiliation/ recognition etc. for a specified academic year must be decided with "clock work precision" and final order granting or refusal of affiliation should be issued well before the commencement of that academic year. A single judge bench of Justice P. Krishna Bhat observed, "The filing of application seeking affiliation entails payment of considerably high fees. If decisions on such applications are not taken within a timeframe, they become irrelevant or infructuous due to efflux of time and thereby applicants suffer irreparable hardship."
Case Title: PRABHAMANI v. HEMALATHA Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.23811 OF 2021(LB-ELE)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 106
In a peculiar case, the Karnataka High Court recently allowed counting of ballot papers that belonged to another constituency after finding that there was "irrefutable evidence" to show that they were utilised for election in the constituency to which the parties before the Court belonged. The dispute pertained to elections to Karle Grama Panchayat. The Petitioner had obtained 232 votes and the Respondent had obtained 231 votes. This was on the basis of four votes that were initially rejected as not genuine, for being cast on ballot papers from another constituency.
Case Title: Sayyad Mohammad @ Nasim V State Of Karnataka Case No: Writ Petition No.5934 Of 2022
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 108
The Karnataka High Court has held that an accused charged under the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS) Act does not get a right to default bail under Section 167(2) of CrPC, merely because the charge sheet/ final report filed by the Police after investigation is without FSL report.
8: Karnataka High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking Removal Of Alleged Anomalies In Centre's 'OROP Policy'
Case Title: Wing Commander G B Athri (Retired) v Union Of India Case No: Writ Petition No.4237 Of 2021
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 109
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed seeking directions to the Union Government to implement the recommendation of one-man judicial committee resolving anomalies in the implementation of One Rank One Pension (OROP) to all the pension drawing persons as on July 1, 2014.
Case Title: Iqbal Ahmed v C.B.I. SCB Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.538 of 2014
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 110
The Karnataka High Court has said it is not necessary to register FIR whenever a police officer receives information over the phone or in some other way about an offence which is likely to take place. It clarified that the mandate under Section 154 for registration of FIR comes into picture when cognizable offence "has been committed". Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar said, "It is not necessary to register FIR whenever a police officer receives information over the phone or in some other way about an offence which is likely to take place. Rather it is the duty of the police officer to take immediate measures to prevent the crime from happening, or if committed in his presence, to take action according to section 41 of Cr.P.C, FIR may be registered later on."
Case Title: Karnataka State Legal Services Authority v. State Of Karnataka Case No: WP 18741/1996
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 111
The Karnataka High Court has till April 21, put in abeyance its order directing not to disburse the salary of the Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare (Medical Education) for failing to install M.R.I. Scanning Machine at the Dharwad Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences (DIMHANS). A division bench led by Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi had in November 2021, directed the State Government to upgrade DIMHANS, by March 1, 2022, to a higher psychiatry centre and to install and make operational the MRI Machine in the hospital.
Case Title: Renuka W/O Anand @ Anantsa Bakale v Ramanand S/O Ramkrishnasa Basawa And Others Case No: Writ Petition No. 103766 Of 2018
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 112
The Karnataka High Court has issued guidelines to be followed by courts and Lok Adalat for ascertaining the genuineness of the parties, before allowing a compromise decree, filed before it. A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj issued the directions in a petition filed by a party, claiming that its interest in the suit property was compromised by way of a compromise entered into by a person before the Lok Adalat claiming to be its power of attorney holder, without its knowledge.
Other reports
1: PIL Filed In Karnataka High Court Seeking Action Against Ministers, MLAs For Alleged Hate Speech
Case Title: Mohammed Khaleelulla v State of Karnataka
Case No: FR NO WP 6872/2022
A petition has been filed in the Karnataka High Court seeking direction to the state government to take action against the concerned public officials for failing to act against alleged hate speeches made by legislators and vigilante groups. The plea dubs such non-action as dereliction of duty and non-compliance of Supreme Court orders. The petitioner Mohammed Khaleelulla has also by way of interim relief prayed for a direction to the authorities to take suo-motu cognizance of all the hate speeches and initiate action for allegedly boycotting of Minority businesses, affecting livelihood of thousands of people.
2: High Court Stays Karnataka Govt's Order Making Kannada Compulsory Subject In Degree Courses
Case Title: Samskrita Bharati Karnataka Trust v. Union Of India
Case No: WP 18156/2021
The Karnataka High court on Wednesday stayed till further orders two Government orders issued in 2021, making Kannada language a compulsory subject in degree courses in the State. A division bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice S R Krishna Kumar in its order said, "In view of the stand of the Central Government that the Kannada language cannot be made as compulsory subject in higher studies for the purpose of implementing National Education Policy. We prima facie find that the impugned GO dated 7/08/2021 and 15/09/2021 cannot be implemented. The operation of the GO's are stayed till further orders."
Kerala High Court
Nominal Index [Citations 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 160 - 170]
Beksy A v. District Collector & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 160
Ramachandran @ Chandran v. State of Kerala & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 161
Saumya M.S. v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 162
Anil Kumar A.B. v. State of Kerala & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 163
Liji A.S v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 164
Manju A.& Ors v. Kerala University of Health and Sciences & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 165
Dr. C.P. Abdul Kabeer v. Union Territory of Lakshadweep & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 166
M.S Paulose & Anr v. State of Kerala & Anr., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 167
M.S Paulose & Anr v. State of Kerala & Anr., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 168
Bibin K. B. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 169
Mathew Z Pulikunnel v Smt. Sophy Thomas & Anr., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 170
Judgments This Week
Case Title: Beksy A v. District Collector & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 160
The Court recently reiterated that the marriage of an individual from one caste to another as permitted by law has no relevance for the purpose of claiming the benefit of reservation under Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India. Observing so, Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan allowed the plea moved by a woman who had challenged the order rejecting her application for a caste certificate citing that she had married to another caste, and thus not eligible for the same.
Case Title: Ramachandran @ Chandran v. State of Kerala & Anr
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 161
The Court has delivered a noteworthy judgment explaining when sex on the promise of marriage can amount to rape. Setting aside the conviction of a man for the offence of rape on false promise of marriage, the Court clarified merely because the accused contracted another marriage immediately after the sexual act with the victim, it cannot give rise to the presumption of lack of consent.
Case Title: Saumya M.S. v. State of Kerala & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 162
The Court recently ruled that a serving Government employee, who had earlier secured enrollment as an Advocate and had later suspended his legal practice for taking up the above Government employment, cannot be treated as a "member of the Bar" for the purpose of selection and appointment as Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade II. A Division Bench of Justice Alexander Thomas and Justice Viju Abraham observed that this was so since as per the Advocates Act and Bar Council of India Rules, a person who was initially enrolled as an Advocate and later voluntarily suspended from legal practice is not entitled to practise as an Advocate.
4. Kerala High Court Asks State To Revisit The Procedure For Search & Seizure In Abkari Cases
Case Title: Anil Kumar A.B. v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 163
While directing the State to compensate two persons who were falsely implicated in Abkari cases, the Court addressed a question concerning the search, seizure and arrest procedure in abkari cases in the State and opined that the State Government should take serious note of the same. The petitioners were arrested and in confinement for more than 50 days in connection with two separate Abkari cases. They were subsequently found to be innocent and were exonerated by the investigating agency by filing subsequent reports before the Court concerned.
5. Can't Deny Public Employment On Basis Of Place Of Residence/ Domicile: Kerala High Court Reiterates
Case Title: Liji A.S v. State of Kerala & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 164
The Kerala High Court recently observed that a candidate cannot be denied public employment merely on the ground that she is not a resident or domicile of a particular location. Ruling so, Justice V.G. Arun set aside a resolution and declared that the Panchayat cannot deny an appointment to the most meritorious candidate for the reason that she is not a resident of the Panchayat.
6. Kerala High Court Refuses To Reschedule KUHS Final Year MBBS Exam
Case Title: Manju A.& Ors v. Kerala University of Health and Sciences & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 165
The Court refused to reschedule the dates of the III Professional MBBS Degree Part-II Examinations to be conducted by the Kerala University of Health and Sciences (KUHS) in the plea moved by a large group of medical students from the State. Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan however clarified that students who failed to appear for the examination on March 31 should be permitted to appear along with their junior batch in the exams which are tentatively scheduled to be held on 19.9.2022, or such other date as modified by the Board of Examinations.
7. Kerala High Court Orders Expeditious Appointment Of Veterinary Staff In Lakshadweep
Case Title: Dr. C.P. Abdul Kabeer v. Union Territory of Lakshadweep & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 166
The Court while disposing of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) directed the Director of Animal Husbandry to appoint veterinary staff under the Central Government sponsored scheme called 'Livestock Health and Disease Control' in Lakshadweep within three weeks. A Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly asked the concerned authorities to expeditiously finalise appointments of veterinary surgeons and other staff, empathising with the plight of the animals and birds on the island deprived of medical attention.
Case Title: M.S Paulose & Anr v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 167
The Court quashed all proceedings against two individuals who were accused of forging the 1934 Constitution of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church observing that the matter had already been dealt with by the Supreme Court and the case was an instance of abuse of process of court. Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A found that the Apex Court had already clarified that the non-registration or the indicated modifications made in the 1934 Constitution cannot be a valid contention to challenge the validity of the document if any petitioner places reliance on it.
9. Initiating Litigation Cannot Be Treated As An Act Of Criminal Conspiracy: Kerala High Court
Case Title: M.S Paulose & Anr v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 168
The Court while quashing proceedings against two individuals who were accused of forging the 1934 Constitution of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church observed that Initiating litigation cannot be treated as an act of conspiracy as contemplated under Section 120B of the CrPC. Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A found that the offence of criminal conspiracy is not attracted in the case since the offence of forgery was not established in the case and particularly because filing a suit cannot be treated as an illegal act.
Case Title: Bibin K. B. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 169
The Court directed the concerned authorities to permit children with an IQ level between 70 and 84 to avail the facilities available to disabled persons in the forthcoming SSLC Examination 2022 pending disposal of a writ petition as an interim relief. A Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly directed the Government Pleader to communicate the order of this court to the respondents forthwith and also to the District Medical Officer, Thrissur for implementing this order.
Case Title: Mathew Z Pulikunnel v Smt. Sophy Thomas & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 170
The Court disposed of a contempt petition alleging that the Registry did not list a couple of petitions before a Bench on time despite all the defects being cured and recurring requests from the counsel for the petitioner. A Division Bench of Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Mohammed Nias C.P reminded the Registry that the filing of a case by a litigant before this institution is a manifestation of the confidence reposed by the litigant in the justice delivery system in our country.
Other Developments:
Case Title: Sagar Vincent v. Biju Paulose & Ors.
The Court dismissed a petition filed by Sagar Vincent, a witness in the 2017 actor sexual assault case alleging that investigating officer in the case Biju Paulose was threatening him. While observing that the relief sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted, Justice Anu Sivaraman clarified that the petitioner shall be summoned only after giving due notice under Section 160 CrPC and that he will not be harassed further or summoned unnecessarily, except for the purpose of recording the statement.
13. Nun Rape Case: Kerala High Court Admits Appeal Challenging Bishop Franco Mulakkal's Acquittal
Case Title: State of Kerala v. Bishop Franco Mulakkal
The Court admitted the appeal filed against the decision of the Additional District and Sessions Court acquitting Bishop Franco Mulakkal of the Catholic Church in the nun rape case. A Division Bench of Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice C. Jayachandran also issued notice to Mulakkal.
Case Title: Vijeesh V.P. v. State of Kerala
The Court granted bail to the 4th accused in the sensational actor sexual assault case of 2017 where a popular Malayalam actress was abducted, wrongfully confined and sexually assaulted in a moving car. Justice P. Gopinath released the applicant on bail considering that he had served five years in jail and since other accused who had similar roles in the incident as that of the applicant were already granted bail.
Case Title: Muralikrishnan v. State of Kerala & connected matters
The Court reserved the judgment in the batch of petitions challenging the State authorities laying down survey stones on petitioners' property as part of the ongoing survey in furtherance of the K-Rail Silver Line project. Meanwhile, the Centre submitted a written instruction that the State had not approached the Railways seeking permission to proceed with the Social Impact Assessment (SIA) or to lay survey stones on private land for the project.
Also Read: K-Rail | Centre An Equal Partner In The Project, Equally Accountable As State: Kerala High Court
16. Twenty20 Worker's Murder: Kerala High Court Grants Bail To Four Accused
Case Title: Sainudheen & Ors v. State of Kerala & Anr.
The Court allowed the appeal moved by four CPM leaders accused in the murder of Twenty20 worker, C.K. Deepu, thereby granting them bail and setting them at liberty. Justice Kauser Edappagath released the accused citing that their further detention seemed unnecessary considering that they had no criminal antecedents and since they had not used any weapon.
Case Title: Most Rev. Dr. Darmaraj Rasalam & Anr v. Union of India & Ors
The Court admitted a petition filed by a Christian sect which raises the point of whether a weaker section within a religious minority can claim further protection under Article 30 to reserve seats for that sect in the educational institutions run by it. The writ petition was filed by the President of the South India Union of Churches (SIUC), Bishop Dr. Darmaraj Rasalam and the Medical Mission of the South Kerala Diocese of the Church of South India.
Case Title: Ranimol K.J. & Ors v. State of Kerala & Ors.
A petition has reached the Court challenging the condition under the Kerala Education Rules, 1959 mandating an Equivalency certificate for master's degrees obtained from universities outside Kerala arguing that its violative of principles of equality. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas admitted the plea recently and the respondents sought time to file a counter in the matter
Also Read: Kerala High Court Bids Farewell To Justices Sunil Thomas & K. Haripal
Case Title: Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Union of India & Ors.
The state-owned oil marketing companies told the Court on Friday that oil prices are increasing due to the Ukraine war and that the companies are gradually passing on the prices to the consumers, which cannot be termed arbitrary. The submission was made in response to a p[lea by the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) challenging the decision of State-owned Oil Marketing Companies to increase the price of diesel sold to the Corporation, which is allegedly much higher than the market price.
Case Title: Anjitha C.P v. Kerala Public Service Commission & Anr.
The Court has directed its Public Service Commission to ensure that a visually impaired woman is given a suitable scribe as contemplated in the circular issued by the Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment Department of Disability Affairs to appear in an online examination for the post of a teacher. However, Justice N. Nagaresh clarified that if the respondents are not able to provide a suitable scribe, the petitioner shall be permitted to indicate her own scribe and added that the respondents to ensure that the scribe deputed by them is interacting with the petitioner sufficiently early, so as to ascertain suitability.
The prosecution has submitted a pendrive before the Kerala High Court while seeking more time to conclude the further investigation in the 2017 sexual assault case. The pendrive includes two folders containing three voice clips each which were apparently collected by the investigating officers during the course of further investigation.
Madhya Pradesh High Court
The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently set aside the order of lower court allowing revision against rejection of application under Section 91 CrPC, reiterating that the impugned order was interlocutory in nature and therefore no revision lies against it. Justice Atul Shreedharan was dealing with an application under Section 482 CrPC, moved by the Applicant who was aggrieved by the order of the lower court allowing revision against rejection of an application under Section 91 CrPC, moved by his wife.
Case Title : Dadhibal Prasad Jaiswal V Smt. Sunita Jaiswal
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 93
Case Title : Smt. Farha @ Premlata and ors v Indore Municipal Corporation and ors.
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 94
Citing environmental concerns, the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench recently refused to interfere with the direction of the Writ Court, whereby the landowners were directed to remove scrap material and other items from their land. The division bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice A.N. Kesharwani was dealing with a writ appeal preferred by Appellants who were aggrieved by the order of the Writ Court, whereby the Municipal Corporation was directed to remove scrap material and other items from the land of the Appellants/Petitioners.
Case Title: DR. SURYA TIWARI v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS.
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 95
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh recently directed a Government Medical College to issue appointment letter to the Petitioner, who was a successful candidate for the post of Assistant Professor in the said Institution.
The case of the Petitioner was that she had appeared for the interview round for the post of Assistant Professor in a Government Medical College at District Vidisha. She was later declared to be a successful candidate under the general category. However, the College did not issue the letter of appointment even after 40 days of announcing the result. She argued that due to some political pressure, the authority concerned was trying to recruit some other candidate instead of her. She further submitted that despite having shortage of faculty in medical colleges across the State, the authorities are dragging their feet to issue her the appointment letter.
Case Title : Smt. Kala Devi v State of M.P. and others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 96
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior Bench recently held that a harmonious reading of Rule 4A, 6 (3) of M.P. Pension Rules, 1979 and Rule 47 of M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 would reveal that family of a person employed in a regular work-charged establishment, cannot be deprived of the pension, which it would be entitled for by virtue of Rule 4A of Rules, 1979.
The Division Bench of Justice Rohit Arya and Justice M.R. Phadke was dealing with a writ appeal preferred by the Appellant against the order passed by the Writ Court, wherein her prayer for directing the State to provide her with family pension was rejected.
Case Title: Dilip alias Kalu Pal Vs. State of M.P.
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 97
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior Bench on Tuesday, granted temporary bail for 45 days to a rape accused to take care of his injured wife and to repair his house, which was in a poor condition.
Justice G.S. Ahluwalia was dealing with the fourth bail application moved by the Applicant accused for offences punishable U/S 376(d) and 304/34 IPC. The Applicant had submitted that although in the DNA test report, his DNA profile was found in the incriminating articles of the Prosecutrix, the DNA test report appeared to be suspicious. He further submitted that his wife had fallen from a bike, sustaining injuries. He also pleaded before the Court that his house was in a dilapidated condition and if it was not repaired, it may fall in the rainy season. For the said reasons, he sought for a grant of temporary bail for a period of six months.
6. Insecticide Not An Essential Commodity Under Essential Commodities Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Amrutlal Sanghani and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 98
The Madhya Pradesh High Court on Tuesday held that 'insecticide' does not figure in the Schedule annexed to the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and thus, the provisions and offences mentioned therein are not attracted relating to 'insecticide'.
The Court thereby quashed the FIR registered against the Applicants under the Act, holding that insecticides do not come under the ambit of the Essential Commodities Act. The FIR also contained allegations under the Insecticides Act but the same was quashed for the reason that they were non-cognizable in nature.
Case Title: Kishor Choudhary v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr., with connected matters
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 99
The Madhya Pradesh High Court on Thursday, struck down Rule 4(3)(d)(III) of M.P. State Services Examination Rules, 2015 which barred meritorious candidates from reserved categories to secure birth as unreserved candidates at the stage of preliminary and main examinations, as unconstitutional.
Observing that the impugned rule led to 'Artificial classification', the division bench of Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice D.D. Bansal called it 'arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of equality clause enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution'-
Case Title: MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, DHAR v. NASREEM
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 100
Setting aside an ex-parte award, the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench recently held that an award by labour court becomes binding only when it is passed in compliance with the principles of natural justice.
Relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Haryana Suraj Malting Limited vs. Phoolchand, Justice Anil Verma observed-
Merely because an award had become enforceable, it does not mean that it had become binding. For an award to become binding, it should be passed in compliance with the principles of natural justice. An award passed denying an opportunity of hearing when there was a sufficient cause for non-appearance could be challenged on the ground of it being nullity. An award which is a nullity could not be and should not be a binding award.
Case title - Prakash Singh and Nandita Singh v. State of MP and anr
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 101
The Madhya Pradesh High Court voiced its disapproval to an attempt made by Senior Advocate Mrigendra Singh to call for the recusal of the presiding judge (Justice Atul Shridharan) saying that he should rescue himself because of an apparent bias on the Judge's part. In response to the call made by the Senior advocate, the Bench observed that the designation of any Advocate as a Senior Advocate is an investiture of Honour for his vast knowledge, erudition, articulation, and legal acumen.
Case Tite :Nirman Sagar Vs. Smt. Monika Sagar Chaudhari and another
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 102
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior Bench has recently held that the word "resides" under Section 126 CrPC cannot be equated to a place where one makes 'a casual stay or a flying visit'.
The provision provides that proceedings for maintenance under Section 125 may be taken against any person in any district: (a) where he is, or (b) where he or his wife, resides, or (c) where he last resided with his wife, or as the case may be, with the mother of the illegitimate child.
Case title - Rajesh Bhoyale v. Smt. Mahadevi
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 103
Dissolving a marriage on an appeal filed by the husband alleging cruelty at the hands of his wife, the Madhya Pradesh High Court recently observed that a long-standing dispute itself is mental cruelty to a party who intends to live in a domestic relationship and peace. The Bench of Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Anand Pathak observed thus as it allowed the appeal filed by the appellant-husband against the judgment of the Family Court, Gwalior rejecting his application under Section 13 (1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 seeking a divorce.
Madras High Court
A weekly round-up of important cases from Madras High Court and its subordinate courts.
Citations: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 135 To 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 146
NOMINAL INDEX
M. Ramasamy v. State represented by its chief secretary and anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 135
G.Thirumurugan @ Theeran Thirumurugan v. Union of India and ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 136
V. Vasanthakumar v. The Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 137
Kamala v. Murugesan and Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 138
Major Frank Ralston Samuel Raj v Kezia Padmini Swarna Pandian, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 139
S.P Chockalingam v. Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Chief Wildlife Warden and Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 140
K. Vasudevan v. The Principal Secretary to Government and Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 141
Ms Preethika C (Minor) v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 142
S. Sampoornam v. C.K Shanmugam, 2022 Livelaw (Mad) 143
R. Selvaraj(died) and ors v Amutha and ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 144
Popular Front of India v. Haj Committee of India and Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 145
B Amudha v K Rajendran(Died) and Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 146
Case Title: M. Ramasamy v. State represented by its chief secretary and anr
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 135
The Madras High Court has issued a series of directions for proper treatment of law officers, who play a pivotal role in defending both the case of the Government as well as the interest of the general public. The directions issued involve treating of law officers with due respect, disbursal of fees and special fee claimed by the Advocate General and Additional Advocate General for appearing in cases, revision of fee regularly, promptness in getting legal opinions on time, etc.
Justice M. Govindaraj observed that Law Officers of the State are cast with the onerous responsibilities to strike a balance between individual and the interest of other fellow citizens and also the interest of the State, its policies, welfare schemes etc.
The development comes in a writ petition filed by former AAG S. Ramasamy against denial of special fees claimed by him.
Case Title: G.Thirumurugan @ Theeran Thirumurugan v. Union of India and ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 136
Madras High Court directed the Government of India to continue their efforts and to invoke any existing agreements for ensuring the the release of 68 fisherman laid up in the Srilankan jail.
The bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy were hearing petitions filed for the release of Tamil Nadu fishermen, who were taken into custody with their boats by the Sri Lankan Navy and Coast Guard.
The court stated that it did not have any territorial jurisdiction over the matters of the foreign government and could only ask the government to continue their efforts. Thus it was directed to send copies of the order to the government so that necessary action may be taken.
Case Title: V. Vasanthakumar v. The Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 137
The Madras High Court has declared Section 32(2) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 as unconstitutional.
The writ petition was filed by Mr V Vasanthakumar, appearing in person challenging the validity of Section 9 and Section 32(2)(a) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 as amended by the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016.
Section 32 of the Act deals with Qualifications for appointment of Chairperson and Members of appellate tribunal and subclause (2) states that in case of a Judicial Member, the person should have been a Member of the Indian Legal Service and has held the post of Additional Secretary or equivalent post in that Service
The court highlighted the importance of the concept of Separation of Powers and stated that the concept of independence of judiciary is a vital issue and for that emphasis is made that there should be separation of power. Prior to the constitution of the Tribunal, the adjudication was done by courts. Therefore, with the constitution of tribunal, they would be discharging the work earlier discharged by the courts.
Case Name: Kamala v. Murugesan and Anr
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 138
The Madras High Court has held that publication to serve notice in the second appeal cannot be ordinarily issued by the appellate Court.
This is because parties to the suit participated in the trial proceedings and they have contested the appeal suit before the First Appellate court, while so, notice must be served to all the parties for the purpose of deciding the second appeal.
Justice S.M Subramaniam made the above orders in a petition filed to permit the petitioner to bring on record the proposed appellants as the legal heirs of the deceased second appellant. Seeing that the notice was not served yet and submission of the petitioner seeking paper publication, the court discussed in detail the state of affairs due to non production of proper addresses in the plaint.
The court directed the registry to ensure that all the necessary details are clearly mentioned in the plaint and interlocutory applications filed by the plaintiff(s) and the defendant(s) and to ensure that mobile numbers/phone numbers/ email addresses are mentioned and a copy of the self attested Aadhar card is enclosed.
Case Title: Major Frank Ralston Samuel Raj v Kezia Padmini Swarna Pandian
Citation: 2022 Live Law (Mad) 139
The Madras High reiterated that marriage can be dissolved by decree of divorce on a petition presented either by the husband or the wife on the ground that the other party as after the solemnization of the marriage has not cooperated to consummate the marriage.
Justice K Kalyanasundaram and Justice V Sivagnanam were hearing an appeal filed by an army officer, Major Frank Ralston Samuel Raj. Observing that the marriage was beyond broken, the court stated that Continuance of the relationship for namesake is prolonging the agony and affliction would be a cruelty to both the parties.
The court drew attention to Section 10 of Indian Divorce Act 1869, marriage can be dissolved by decree of divorce on a petition presented either by the husband or the wife on the ground that the other party as after the solemnization of the marriage not co-operated to consummate the marriage and the marriage has not therefore been consummate is entitled for divorce.
The court also relied on judgements were it was held that a spouse willfully avoiding another spouse to have sexual intercourse without sufficient reason, amounts to mental cruelty to such spouse.
6. Night Travel Ban In Sathyamangalam Tiger Reserve; Madras High Court Issues Directions For Movement
Case Title: S.P Chockalingam v. Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Chief Wildlife Warden and Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 140
While considering a series of petitions concerning movement of vehicles through the Sathyamangalam Tiger Reserve and the Government Notification prohibiting movement of all vehicles between 6 pm to 6 am, the bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy highlighted the fundamental duty for protection of animals. The court also considered in detail the particular nature of the area and the need for protection of the Reserve.
The court ordered a complete ban on the movement of vehicles having more than 12 wheels and weighing more that 16.8 tonnes at any time through these roads. Vehicles having below 10 wheels and weighing less that 16.8 tonnes have been permitted between 6 am to 6 pm. The transport buses, both public and private are free to ply between 6 am and 9 pm.
The court, while highlighting the freedom of movement under Article 19, also stated that in the present case the restrictions are imposed taking into account that the highway is passing through the core protected zone of the Tiger Reserve, as a thoroughfare through the eco-sensitive zone, Sanctuary and Reserve Forest.
The court also highlighted the Fundamental Duty of compassion towards animals recognition of freedom of animals as held in the judgement of Apex Court in Animal Welfare Board of India v. A Nagaraja, where the court had extended the Right to Life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution to animals also.
7. Teachers Who Have Not Qualified TET Cannot Continue Service In Schools: Madras High Court
Case Title: K. Vasudevan v. The Principal Secretary to Government and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 141
The court ruled that it is mandatory for the teachers, who did not possess the minimum qualification of pass in TET prior to RTE Act, 2009 to acquire the same within the period of nine years i.e., within 31.03.2019. Teachers who do not possess this minimum qualification are not entitled to continue their service or seek increment.
The bench of Justice D Krishnakumar were hearing petitions filed by a teacher to sanction annual increment to them in the B.T. Assistant posts as well as incentive increment for having acquired Post Graduation, without reference to passing of Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) with all consequential and other attendant benefits.
The court held that the purpose of TET is to assess the teachers on whether they have the adequate teaching competency and a positive attitude towards teaching. It is made compulsory to bring national standards and benchmark for quality in the recruitment process and to lay special emphasis on teachers' quality.
Case Title: Ms Preethika C (Minor) v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 142
The Madras High Court has upheld the validity of The Tamil Nadu Admission to Undergraduate Courses in Medicine, Dentistry, Indian Medicine and Homeopathy on preferential basis to students of Government Schools Act, 2020, which provided for 7.5% preference/reservation to the students of government schools in admission to undergraduate medical/dental courses.
The bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice Bharatha Chakaravarthy opined that the horizontal reservation was not against Article 14 and that the act does satisfy the doctrine of proportionality, the court examined that findings of the committee and observed the stark difference in the social background of students coming from government schools and those coming from CBSE and ICSE schools.
The court also held that the students of the State Government Schools are a 'socially and educationally backward class', therefore, the reservation in their favour is will be within the power of the State as contained in Article 15(4) of the Constitution of India.
The court also directed the State Government to review the reservation in a period of five years and to take steps to improve the standard of education imparted in the Government Schools so that the reservation may not be further extended beyond a period of five years.
Case Title: S. Sampoornam v. C.K Shanmugam
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Mad) 143
Justice N Anand Venkatesh of the Madras High Court has recently held that the Coparcenary rights are not taken away by the Hindu Succession Act 1956. In fact, it has been reiterated even after coming into force of the 2015 amendment.
The court was considering a second appeal filed by for claiming share in the ancestral property for the appellant himself and his three sisters, defendants 2 to 4 from his father, first defendant.
The court held that when the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 was not in force, the old Hindu Mitakshara law was governing the field. Under the Mitakshara law whenever a male ancestor inherits any property from any of his parental ancestors up to three degrees above him, then his legal heirs upto three degrees below him, will get an equal right as co- parceners in that property.
In the present case, since the great great grandfather died even before the Hindu Succession Act Came into force, the ancestral property was governed under the Mitakshara Law. Therefore, the respondent could not claim that he enjoyed the property in individual capacity.
10. Degree Of Certainty Must Be Arrived At Before A Fact Is Said To Be Proved: Madras High Court
Case Title: R. Selvaraj(died) and ors v Amutha and ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 144
While considering a second appeal against the order of Sub Judge for enjoyment of suit schedule property, the Madras High Court bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh, while passing the order focused on the importance of bringing certainty to a fact especially in civil matters.
The main question was regarding the admissibility of a document showing a family arrangement for enjoyment of property in a particular manner between the family of original owners of the property. The court highlighted that this document in question was never mentioned before even in the sale deeds also and was introduced for the first time during the pendency of the suit.
The court held that a degree of certainty must be arrived at for a fact to be proved. Proof does not mean proof to rigid mathematical demonstration, because that is impossible, and it must only mean that such evidence as would induce a reasonable man to come to the conclusion.
In the present case, any reasonable person would have doubts about the genuineness of the document and the only reasonable conclusion is that the document was not a real one and was created to defeated the claims of parties to the registered document.
Case Title: Popular Front of India v. Haj Committee of India and Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 145
The Madras High Court was recently considering the writ petitions filed by Popular Front of India challenging the guidelines framed by the Haj Committee for the year 2022 regarding embarkation points and to include Chennai Airport as one of the embarkation points for the Haj pilgrims.
The bench comprising Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy stated that if found appropriate, the Haj Committee may take a decision to make necessary amendments in the guidelines to include other embarkation points, keeping in mind the recommendations of the State Government and the number of persons who travel for the Haj from any of the embarkation points.
The court was not inclined to pass a definite order against the guidelines as they were issues in view of the Covid-19 pandemic and it was not for the courts to decide upon the policy guidelines of the Committee.
12. Counsel Has Professional Duty To Exercise The Right Of Re-Examination: Madras High Court
Case Title: B Amudha v K Rajendran(Died) and Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 146
The Madras High Court recently observed that a counsel has a professional duty to exercise their right of re-examination for upholding the cause of their clients. Justice G.R Swaminathan noted that the sense and meaning of the answers given by the appellant in trial must have been brought out by re-examination by the counsel.
The appellant had sought for protection under the exception set out in Section 19(b) of the Act which states that Specific Performance cannot be sought against a transferee for value who has paid his money in good faith and without notice of the original contract.
The court while highlighting the ambulatory nature of the onus of proof observed the following-
"There is a game involving passing the ball and when the music stops the person holding the ball is declared out. The ambulatory nature of onus of proof plays out likewise. The burden keeps shifting back and forth. In this case, the onus shifted from the appellant to the plaintiff who passed it back to her. If only re-examination had been done and the appellant had clarified that she became aware of the facts relating to the agreement only during trial and had reiterated her lack of knowledge about the prior contract before she paid her money to the first defendant, the burden would have once again shifted to the plaintiff."
Other Developments
13. Madras High Court Stays Single Judge's Order For Closure Of TASMAC Bars
Case Title: The Managing Director and Anr v. S. Jaggannathan
Case No: W.A 883 of 2022 and C.MP No. 5926 of 2022
The Madras High Court bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy has recently ordered an interim stay on the order passed by Single Judge for closure of 'bars' attached to the TASMAC (Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation) Shops.
The appellants submitted that the Single Judge had issued directions to discontinue the bar attached to the TASMAC shops without hearing those who have been granted licence/permission to collect empty bottles and sell eatables in the Bar attached to TASMAC shop and they were not made parties to the litigation.
It was also contented that closing of these bars would bring great loss to the state. He further highlighted that the main purpose of introducing such bars was to ensure that people did not consume illegal alcohol and closing them would result in people consuming alcohol in the public causing more nuisance to others.
14. Madras High Court Issues Notice On Composer Ilaiyaraaja's Plea Over Copyright Infringement
Case Title: Illaiyaraja v. M/s Indian Record Manufacturing Co Ltd and Ors
Case No: OSA 75 of 2022 and CMP 5719 of 2022
The Madras High Court bench of Justices M. Duraiswamy and T.V Tamilselvi ordered notice to the respondents on a petition filed by Ilaiyaraaja challenging a single judge order, granting injunction in favour of India Records Manufacturing Company against him and others over select music from 30 South Indian films.
Ilaiyaraaja contented that the order passed by the single judge was without appreciation of proper facts, without material evidence and without impleading necessary parties i.e., the producers of films.
Ilaiyaraaja further contented that the single judge has failed to appreciate true purport and intent of Proviso (b) of Sec. 17 of the Copyright Act, 1957, which recognize that if a cinematograph film is made for a valuable consideration at the instance of any person, such person shall, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, be the first owner of the copyright therein, this proviso is not limited to a producer of a cinematograph film and is wider in its scope and any person who makes a cinematograph film for a valuable consideration.
In case of musical work, as per clause 14 (a) (i), copyright is the exclusive right "to reproduce the work in any material form including the storing of it in any medium by storing in in electronic means." This gives a clear meaning that only the author who originally produced the musical work can grant right to reproduce it.
15. Madras High Court Directs Sensitization Of School Teachers On LGBTQIA+ Students Issues
Case Title: S Sushma and Anr v. Director General of Police and Ors
Case No: WP 7284 of 2021
The Madras High Court bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh directed the State Government to organize a program spanning from 6-8 weeks inviting one teacher from every school for sensitization on dealing with issues relating to children belonging to the LQBTQIA+ community.
The court stated that these teachers can be addressed by NGOs working for the welfare of the community, members of the community, and even medical professionals who have proper understanding of the issue.
These sensitised teachers can then be assigned the task of the counsellor to whom the concerned student can talk freely. They can thus be a centre point to speak to the child, parents and other students who are studying with the child.
The court highlighted the untold trauma and physical abuse faced by students belonging to the LGBTQIA+ community in that they do not have any mechanism to discuss their issues and make complaints. The court also stated that there are many unreported cases where persons belonging to the community commit suicide since they lose all hope in the society and they don't find any light at the end of the tunnel.
Manipur High Court
Case Title: Dr. Salam Robindro Singh v. The Officer-in-Charge, Andro Police Station & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Man) 6
The Manipur High Court has held that Magistrate cannot take cognizance of a complaint involving an offence punishable under Section 188 IPC, if that is made by a third party and not by the public servant who promulgated the order or by the one to whom he (the public servant) is administratively subordinate. A Single Judge Bench of Chief Justice Sanjay Kumar observed,
"…when there is no complaint from the public servant concerned or his superior, permitting an FIR to be registered at the behest of a third party and allowing investigation to go on may ultimately turn out to be a futile exercise if no such complaint is forthcoming even at the stage of filing of the Police Report. That apart, the intended purpose of protecting the individual from persecution is lost as he would be subjected to the rigours of police investigation even though there is no complaint from the public servant concerned or his superior and the Court would ultimately have to refuse to take cognizance."
Case Title: Ksh. Kennedy Singh & Ors. v. The State of Manipur & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Man) 7
The Manipur High Court has clarified that the operation of Section 428 Cr.P.C. will be 'automatic', unless the benefit is denied by judgment. It further made it clear that even if the pre-conviction period of detention suffered, is in the nature of 'simple imprisonment', it would still be liable to be set-off against a sentence of 'rigorous imprisonment' under the Section.
Notably, Section 428 provides for set-off of period of detention undergone by the accused against the sentence or imprisonment.
Orissa High Court
Case Title: Indrajit Sengupta & Anr. v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 38
The Orissa High Court has clarified that a second trial for offences, other than what was tried in the first trial, does not attract 'double jeopardy' only because both set of offences arose out of same set of facts.
Justice Radha Krishna Pattanaik observed,
"The expression 'same offence' appearing in Section 300 Cr.P.C. read with Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India means that the offence for which the accused has been tried and the offence for which he is again being tried must be identical. The subsequent trial is barred only if the ingredients of the two offences are identical and not when they are different even though may have resulted from the commission or omission arising out of the same set of facts."
Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case Title : Neelam Devi and another v State of Punjab and another
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 55
Punjab and Haryana High Court on April 1, 2022, dismissed the petition seeking quashing of an FIR under Section 306 IPC on the basis of a compromise. The bench comprising Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill dismissed a petition filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the FIR registered under Section 306 for abetment of suicide. The claim was based on the ground that a compromise has been arrived at between the family of the deceased and the accused.
Case Title : Malkiat Singh v Kasturba Gandhi Memorial Trust & Anothe
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 56
Punjab and Haryana High Court on March 28, 2022, dismissed the revision petition filed against the impugned order by holding that the same is free from any illegality, irregularity, infirmity, or perversity.
The bench comprising Justice Meenakshi I. Mehta was dealing with a revision petition challenging the impugned order passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Ludhiana. The case came up as a result of the Trial Court's order dismissing the application by the petitioner for amendment of his plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.
Case Title : Jagdev Singh and another v State of Punjab and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 57
The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently quashed a FIR registered against the Petitioner-accused for allegedly causing hurt by dangerous weapons to the complainant-victim, which is a non-compoundable offence punishable under section 324 IPC, on the basis of a compromise between the parties. The bench of Justice Anoop Chitkara observed that rejection of compromise may lead to ill will. Further, pendency of trial may affect the career and happiness.
4. "Complaint To Police By Kin Not Threat To Life & Liberty": PH High Court Dismisses Protection Plea Moved By Same-Sex Live-In Couple
Case title - Amandeep Kaur and another v. State of Punjab and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 58
The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Tuesday dismissed a plea filed by a same-sex live-in couple seeking protection of their life and liberty on account of the fact that their family members are against their alliance and are extending threats to them that they would be falsely implicated in criminal cases. The Bench of Justice Manoj Bajaj found that the apprehension expressed by the petitioners that they may be falsely implicated in some criminal case was misplaced, as admittedly, no complaint had been made so far against them by the private respondents.
Case title - Mohammad Asif v. Union of India and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 59
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has sought the affidavits of two high officials of the Union Ministry of Home Affairs in connection with the matter of a Pakistani National who is currently in judicial custody and has already spent 2 years 9 months in Central Jail, Amritsar including an overstay of 1 year 9 months.
Essentially, the Bench of Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan has sought the affidavit of the Director (Foreigners), Ministry of Home Affairs, and the Under Secretary (Foreigners), Ministry of Home Affairs on account of their failure to communicate the Ministry's decision regarding the deportation of this Pakistani National.
Case title - Paramjit Singh Saholi v. State of Haryana and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 60
The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Thursday upheld the move of the Haryana Government to release Dera Sacha Sauda chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh on Furlough (for a period of three weeks from February 7 to February 27).
Essentially, the Bench of Justice Raj Beer Singh was dealing with a petition moved before the High Court challenging the Government's decision to release Gurmeet Singh on Furlough in the middle of the Punjab Assembly elections.
Case Title : Dr. Anant Ram v. State of Haryana
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 61
Punjab and Haryana High Court on April 02, 2022, dismissed a petition wherein the petitioner approached the court for quashing of FIR under Sections 23, 3(1), 3A, 4, 5(2), 6(b) of the PreConception and Pre Natal-Diagnostic Techniques Act, Sections 120-B/34 of IPC and all subsequent proceedings.
The bench comprising Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill dismissed the petition holding that the same is without any merit.
Case Title : Dr. Anant Ram v. State of Haryana
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 61
Punjab and Haryana High Court on April 02, 2022, dismissed a petition wherein the petitioner approached the court for quashing of FIR under Sections 23, 3(1), 3A, 4, 5(2), 6(b) of the PreConception and Pre Natal-Diagnostic Techniques Act, Sections 120-B/34 of IPC and all subsequent proceedings.
The bench comprising Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill dismissed the petition holding that the same is without any merit.
Case Title : Deva Singh v. Mohinder Singh and Other
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 62
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that an order refusing to appoint a Local Commissioner does not decide any issue nor does it adjudicate any rights of the parties for the purpose of the suit and hence would not be a revisable order.
The bench comprising Justice Alka Sarin thus dismissed the revision petition challenging an order passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), whereby it dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner for appointment of a Local Commissioner.
Case Title :Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab & Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 63
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that employees appointed on contractual basis without any advertisement and contrary to the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, do not have right to regularization.
The bench comprising Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal thus dismissed a petition filed by the petitioner, appointed by the Respondent as a driver for three months. His services were extended subsequently but the services were dispensed with by an order which is challenged by the petitioner stating that the same was passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to him.
Case title - Anil and another vs. State of Haryana
Case citation - 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 64
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed that the parameters laid down by the High Court in the Dharampal case [Dharampal vs. the State of Haryana, 1999 (4) RCR (Criminal) 600] for suspension of the sentence are only guidelines, and the same are not to be taken as an invariable rule.
It may be noted that in Dharampal case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court had, in 1999, held that the murder convicts who have already spent certain duration in custody (in certain cases, 2 years as undertrial and 3 years in post conviction stage), they can be released on bail and their suspension could be suspended.
12. [NDPS Act] Call Conversations B/W Co-Accused Sans Transcript Not Corroborative Material In Absence Of Substantive Evidence: PH High Court
Case title - Vikrant Singh v. State of Punjab and connected matters
Case Citation- 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 65
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed that without the transcript of the conversations exchanged between the co-accused, mere call details would not be considered to be corroborative material in absence of substantive material found against the accused in a case under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.
The Bench of Justice Vikas Bahl observed thus while relying upon Gujarat High Court's recent order in the case of Yash Jayeshbhai Champaklal Shah v. State of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 66, wherein it was held that mere contacts with the co-accused who were found in possession cannot be treated to be a corroborative material in absence of substantive material found against the accused in NDPS Cases.
Case title - Devesh Yadav v. Smt. Meenal [FAO-M-208 of 2013]
Case Citation- 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 66
The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently observed that if the wife is bent upon destroying the career and reputation of her husband by making complaints against him to his senior officers, then it would amount to mental cruelty and the same would entitle the man to divorce.
The Bench of Justice Ritu Bahri and Justice Ashok Kumar Verma observed thus, while hearing a plea filed by an Indian Air Force (IAF) personnel who sought a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion.
Rajasthan High Court
Nominal Index
Sohan Singh Rao Versus Union Of India 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 112
Pacific Industries Ltd. Versus Union Of India 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 113
Lakshya Purohit v. Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 114
Pratap Singh Shekhawat v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 115
Suo Moto, Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench v. Anand Singh 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 116
Laxman v. State Of Rajasthan & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 117
State, Through PP v. Atmaram & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 118
Anshul Sharma v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 119
Jal Grahan Vikas Sanstha, Riwadi, District Jaisalmer Through Its President Mathar Khan v. State of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 120
Mohammed Amin Through His Son:Zulkafil Amin Ansari v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 121
Nand Lal Through His Wife Rekha v. State of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 122
Kavita Bhargava v. Registrar Examination, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur (Raj.) 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 123
Akheraj v. State of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 124
Jagdish Prasad Meena v. The State Of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 125
Judgments/ Orders of the Week
Case Title: Sohan Singh Rao Versus Union Of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 112
The Rajasthan High Court bench of Justice Narendra Singh Dhaddha has refused to grant bail to the director of a company who was allegedly involved in goods and service tax (GST) evasion worth Rs. 869 crores.
The court noted that the Supreme Court in its various decisions held that an economic offender should not be dealt with as a general offender because economic offenders run a parallel economy and they are a serious threat to the national economy.
The court relied on the decision of Vinaykant Ameta Vs. Union of India in which the bail of Vinaykant Ameta was dismissed by the High Court and the Apex Court had granted the bail of Vinaykant Ameta on depositing Rs. 200 crores.
2. Non-Availability Of Form GST ITC-02A On GSTN Portal: Rajasthan High Court Allows ITC In GSTR-3B
Case Title: Pacific Industries Ltd. Versus Union Of India | D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12190/2019
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 113
The Rajasthan High Court bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani has allowed the Input Tax Credit (ITC) under GST in GSTR-3B Return as FORM GST ITC-02A was not available on the GSTN Portal at the time of its insertion.
The court observed that the department failed to acknowledge and transfer the input tax credit to the tune of Rs. 2,58,03,590 accruing to the petitioner pursuant to the registration of its new business unit in accordance with Rule 41A of the GST Rules. The action of the department was grossly illegal, arbitrary and unjust.
"The respondents are directed to regularise the input tax credit in favour of the petitioner as per entitlement. The petitioner shall be allowed to avail the Input Tax Credit of Rs.2,58,03,590/- through the next GSTR-3B return," the court said.
3. Administrative Committee Of Rajasthan High Court Says 'No Need' To Use A4 Size Paper
Case Title: Lakshya Purohit v. Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 114
The Rajasthan High Court has disposed of a public interest litigation seeking directions for usage of A4 size papers for judicial filings and other court proceedings.
The division bench of Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani and Justice Sandeep Mehta took note of the decision taken on High Court's administrative side that the present regime may continue and no change is needed.
Presently, the High Court follows General Rules (Civil and Criminal), 2018 which provides that all pleadings, applications, petitions and any other relevant paper of whatsoever nature filed in the course of judicial proceedings shall be printed in double space on stout durable papers of "foolscap size".
Case Title: Pratap Singh Shekhawat v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 115
The Rajasthan High Court has refused to hear a public interest litigation against alleged illegal religious conversions and erection of unauthorized religious structures in the Ganganagr city, stating that it cannot decide disputed questions of facts in writ jurisdiction.
The Bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani however granted liberty to the Petitioners to raise their grievance before the competent authorities. It said,
" It is expected that such representation shall be considered objectively and decided as per law by a reasoned order within a period of three months from the date of submission thereof."
5. Rajasthan High Court Cancels Bail Granted To Mastermind Of Psychotropic Drugs Case- Anand Singh
Case Title: Suo Moto, Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench v. Anand Singh
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 116
The Rajasthan High Court recently cancelled the bail granted to the mastermind of psychotropic drugs case Anand Singh. The court also dismissed the bail applications of other three accused, namely, Anil Chaukdiwal, Deepak Chaukdiwal and Bhagwan Sain.
Justice Pankaj Bhandari, while allowing the suo moto bail cancellation application. observed,
"The involvement of accused respondent - Anand Singh is writ large from the very fact that relevant photos and WhatsApp chats were found in the mobile phone of respondent accused-Anand Singh, which clearly show that he was receiving order online for these psychotropic substance and same were exported to USA. Further, from the chargesheet, it is also revealed that Anand Singh was the mastermind, who was running the Drug Syndicate."
The court opined that Anand Singh's presence is shown during the search of premises in Khatipura from where recovery of contraband of commercial quantity was made. The court observed that there is also evidence that payments for the psychotropic substance were received in the account of Anand Singh. The court also observed that he accepted in his statement that he was receiving the payment of these drugs in cash or in his account. The court directed that he should be taken in custody forthwith.
Case Title: Laxman v. State Of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 117
The Rajasthan High Court has held given the "unequal bargaining power" between an employer and its workmen under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the settlement arrived at between them must be sent to the State Government, Labour Commissioner and the conciliation officer concerned for scrutiny.
It further observed that in absence of compliance of this condition, the settlement cannot be said to be binding on the parties in terms of Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Justice Arun Bhansali, while allowing the petition, observed,
"The provisions are not without reason, inasmuch as on account of unequal bargaining power between the workmen and the management, in case a mutual settlement is arrived at the same becomes binding under the provisions of Section 18 (1) of the Act and, therefore, to ensure that the agreement arrived at is examined by the authority i.e. the Labour Commissioner and the conciliation officer, the same is required to be sent to them and entered in the register of settlement maintained by the conciliation officer."
Case Title: State, Through PP v. Atmaram & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 118
The Rajasthan High Court has commuted death penalty of four convicts accused of killing four persons and a minor over a land dispute.
The court ordered that the capital punishment awarded to the accused appellants by the trial court is commuted to life imprisonment, which shall enure till the natural life of the accused appellants without any possibility of permanent parole/premature release.
Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani and Justice Sandeep Mehta, while partly allowing the appeal, observed,
"However, the conduct of the accused, who attacked the entire family of Mr. Moman Ram with clear intention of eliminating them owing to the long-standing land dispute requires appropriate directions on the aspect of sentence of imprisonment. If the accused are permitted to roam at large without suffering the "imprisonment for life" in its literal meaning, they would in all likelihood eliminate the remaining family members as well if set at liberty. Hence, the capital punishment awarded to the accused appellants by the trial court is commuted to life imprisonment, which shall enure till the natural life of the accused appellants without any possibility of permanent parole/premature release."
Case Title: Anshul Sharma v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 119
The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur recently allowed the plea filed by the petitioner claiming his eligibility in the category of Persons with Disability (PwD), as per the result of NEET UG-2021 examination and participation in the counselling, for the purpose of admission.
The court opined that the present case is a classic example of non application of mind by the Authorities, who deal with such an important issue of granting disability certificates. The belief of the court is forfeited from the fact that direction which was given by this court for medical examination of the petitioner for the second time also, resulted into issuing the certificate without adhering to the norms, which have been prescribed for considering the eligibility of a candidate, added the court.
Justice Ashok Kumar Gaur, observed,
"Since, this Court intends to allow the writ petition, the petitioner will now be entitled to participate in the Mop-up round of counselling or any subsequent counselling, to be conducted by the respondents and his result will be accordingly declared by the Authorities and will be granted admission if falls in merit."
9. Rajasthan HC Dismisses PIL Against Solar Plant With 50k Cost; Quotes PM Modi, Obama, Etc.
Case Title: Jal Grahan Vikas Sanstha, Riwadi, District Jaisalmer Through Its President Mathar Khan v. State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 120
The Rajasthan High Court recently dismissed public interest litigations opposing the allotment of the land made to the respondent-company for establishing the solar power plant in Riwadi.
The court noted quotes of world leaders, scientists and environmentalists on the aspects of climate change and its impact which, by use of renewable energy, can help in reversing the process of global warming which has started having a serious adverse impact on the world at large.
In this regard, the division bench comprising Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani quoted Hon'ble Prime Minister of India Shri Narendra Modi,
"Solar Energy is 'Sure', 'Pure' and "Secure'."
"India plans to produce 450 GWS of power through solar energy and other renewable energy sources by 2030"
Case Title: Mohammed Amin Through His Son:Zulkafil Amin Ansari v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 121
The Rajasthan High Court has recently granted parole to an 80 years old accused convicted under TADA who remained in custody for more than 27 years.
The petitioner had preferred a writ petition (parole) for grant of emergency parole on the ground of his medical condition. It was contended that he was suffering from "DM, CAD (Coronary Artery Disease), BPH (Benign Prosthetic Hyperplasia)".
Justice Birendra Kumar and Justice Pankaj Bhandari, observed,
"Consequently, the writ petition (parole) stands allowed. The Jail Authorities are directed to release the petitioner on parole for àperiod of 30 days, on furnishing of his personal bonds of RS.50,000/- with one surety of like nature to the satisfaction of the Jail Authorities with the stipulation that he shall surrender himself before the Jail Authority on expiry of 30 days from the date of release and shall maintain peace and tranquility during parole period."
Case Title: Nand Lal Through His Wife Rekha v. State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 122
In a significant judgment, the division bench of Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur observed that denial to the convict-prisoner to perform conjugal relationship with his wife more particularly for the purpose of progeny would adversely affect the rights of his wife. In this regard, the court granted 15 days parole to the life convict.
The bench opined that Hindu philosophy also advocates the importance of pitra – rin, i.e. parental debt. Our lives are the consequence of the fact that ancestors have been carrying and forwarding the said pitra rin, it is because of this, life came to us and in order to maintain the continuity of life, we must pay off this debt, added the the court.
Justice Sandeep Mehta and Farjand Ali, while allowing the petition, observed,
"As an upshot of the observations made herein above, we are of the considered view that though there is no express provision in the Rajasthan Prisoners Release On Parole Rules, 2021 for releasing the prisoner on parole on the ground of his wife to have progeny; yet considering the religious philosophies, cultural, sociological and humanitarian aspects, coupled with the fundamental right guaranted by the Constitution of India and while exercising extra ordinary power vested in it, this Court deem it just and proper to allow the instant writ petition."
12. Rajasthan High Court Dismisses Challenge To Civil Judge Exam Preliminary Merit List
Case Title: Kavita Bhargava v. Registrar Examination, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur (Raj.)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 123
The division bench of Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur dismissed a batch of writ petitions questioning the correctness and validity of the merit list prepared after Preliminary Examination in the matter of selection to the post of Rajasthan Civil Judge Cadre.
Essentially, the challenge has been regarding correctness and validity of deletion of four questions, rejection of representation for deleting more questions on various grounds and some other common grounds to the process of selection.
Acting Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Sameer Jain, while dismissing the petitions and upholding the Expert Committee's recommendations, ordered,
"Having dealt with all the issues as raised in these petitions and relying upon dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in plethora of decisions cited hereinabove which restrict the scope of judicial review and interference is warranted only in exceptional cases of the nature as stated and restated in various judicial pronouncements, we are not inclined to interfere with the decision taken by the body of experts as it was acted upon by the respondents. We have carefully examined the original records which contained deliberations of subject experts and discussions, as also the conclusion arrived at by the experts of the subjects in the Expert Committee.".
Case Title: Akheraj v. State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 124
The Rajasthan High Court has recently observed that the right to seek default/statutory bail accrues to the accused in the nature of an indefeasible right, only if such remedy by preferring an appropriate application has been availed of within the prescribed window from the date of expiry of total period of detention of accused person(s) under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., until filing of the charge-sheet.
The Court also held that if an additional or new offence(s) are found to be made out by the investigating authority, against an accused, then the computation of the period, as laid down under Section 167 Cr.P.C. would be done afresh.
Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati observed,
"This Court hereby observes that the right to seek default/statutory bail accrues to the accused in the nature of an indefeasible right, only if such remedy by preferring an appropriate application has been availed of within the prescribed window from the date of expiry of total period of detention of accused person(s) under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., until filing of the charge-sheet."
Case Title: Jagdish Prasad Meena v. The State Of Rajasthan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 125
The Rajasthan High Court ruled that in the absence of any statutory prohibitions, establishment of Toll Plaza could not be faulted only on the ground that the Toll Plaza is in the vicinity of adjoining villages and dhanis. In the absence of any statutory provisions, only on that ground, the location of Toll Plaza cannot be said to be illegal, added the court.
The court observed that the Toll Plaza, in the present case, is beyond the prohibited distance under Rule 8 of the Rajasthan State Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collections) Rules, 2015 and there being no violation of any statutory provisions governed, the establishment of Toll Plaza cannot be said to be in violation of law only on the ground of violation of the certain guidelines which are principle based..
Acting Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani, while dismissing the petition, observed,
"We therefore come to the conclusion that, on facts, compliance of IRC guidelines was not mandatory, therefore, the present case where the location of Toll Plaza is governed by statutory provisions contained in the statutory Rules of 2015 framed in exercise of statutory powers under the Act of 2014 will hold the field and in the absence of there being statutory provisions under the law regulating location of Toll Plaza, there being no condition incorporated either in the advertisement or in the terms and conditions of eligibility for erection of Toll Plaza or in the concession agreement between government and the concessionaire, establishment of Toll Plaza cannot be said to be illegal or opposed to law."
Other Important Updates
Case Title: Asharam @ Ashumal v. State Of Rajasthan
The division bench of Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur has asked the Public Prosecutor to file reply within two weeks in Asaram's third application for suspension of sentences in minor rape case.
Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur, ordered,
"Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted time to file reply to this third application for suspension of sentences."
Earlier, on 21st May 2021, a Bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Devendra Kachhawaha of Rajasthan High Court, had directed the district and jail administration to ensure that Asaram is provided with proper treatment, a nutritious diet, and a safe environment looking at his old age and medical condition.
Advocate Darshan Ram, General Secretary of Rajasthan High Court Advocate's Association, Jodhpur has called for suspension of work in the Rajasthan High Court, District and Sessions Court, Jodhpur and other subordinate courts.
Further, the Election Officer Chandra Shekhar Kotwani of the Rajasthan High Court Lawyers' Association has also written a letter to the Registrar General of Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur. The letter states,
"It is to inform that Shri Sukhdev Vyas, Senior Advocate of our Bar in an unfortunate incident collapsed in the High Court premises and passed away. In this moment of grief, the entire members of the Bar as a mark of respect to departed soul will not work in the Court today."
A public interest litigation has been filed before the Jaipur Bench of Rajasthan High Court seeking directions to the respondent state to change the terminology like 'Baanjh', 'Parityakt', 'Nirashrit' used for the women in different schemes.
The present public interest litigation has been filed by Kunal Rawat.
The petitioner sought following reliefs from the court:
"I. Writ in nature of mandamus or any other direction instructing the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to appoint to change the terminology used for the women in different schemes of the Respondents.
II. And pass such other or order or orders as to Your Lordships may deem proper and fit. And your petitioner, as in duty bound, shall ever pray."
Uttarakhand High Court
Case title - Om Prakash Gaur & another v. State of Uttarakhand & others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Utt) 15
The Uttarakhand High Court has dismissed a plea filed in September 2021 challenging the Uttarakhand Subordinate Service Selection Commission LT Grade Teacher (Arts) Recruitment process 2020.
The Order issued by the bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari would essentially mean that the HC's earlier order of stay issued in September 2021 on the recruitment process of LT Arts Assistant teachers stands withdrawn