Allahabad High Court 1. Caste System Deep Rooted In Society; We Couldn't Get Out Of The 'Menace' Even After 75 Yrs Of Freedom: Allahabad High Court Case title - Sanni Singh v. State Of U P And Another Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 22 "Caste system in our society is deep-rooted, we boast ourselves as an educated society but we live our lives with double standards....
Case title - Sanni Singh v. State Of U P And Another
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 22
"Caste system in our society is deep-rooted, we boast ourselves as an educated society but we live our lives with double standards. Even after 75 years of Independence, we are not able to get out with this social menace," remarked High Court as it granted bail to a murder accused in connection with an alleged Honour Killing case.
The Bench of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi also observed that it is the moral duty of those sane people, who are well-off, to protect the underprivileged and downtrodden so that they feel safe, secure and comfortable.
"Simultaneously, the other group also feel that they are the integral and inseparable part of the society and it is in the larger interest of the country and high time for the introspection for everyone to give serious thought over the matter," the Court further added.
Case title - Dayalbagh Education Institute v. Election Commission Of India And 2 Others
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 23
The High Court dismissed a plea filed praying for a direction to the Election Commission of India (ECI) to provide online training to the presiding officers (who are susceptible to COVID), for the upcoming assembly polls in the State.
The matter was heard in a special hearing conducted on Sunday by the Bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav and it had sought ECI's reply as to whether training through online mode can be given to such individuals who were immunocompromised and whose family members were at risk.
Related news: UP Assembly Polls 2022- Can Officers Who Are Susceptible To COVID Be Given Online Training?: Allahabad HC Asks ECI
Case title - Dlshad @ Dillu v. State of U.P
Case Citaiton: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 24
The High Court directed departmental action against the Assistant Registrar of the High Court who failed to list a particular case in the fresh list and send the case file to the court citing various administrative instructions and remained defiant even when enquired by the HC about his failure to perform his duty.
Significantly, when the Bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot called him personally and asked him about the lapse on his part, he reiterated his stand that the order cannot be complied with due to administrative instructions.
Against this backdrop, noting that he remained defiant, the Bench ordered departmental action against him after terming his conduct as interfering with the administration of justice.
"...the Court cannot remain silent spectator to such acts of grave misconduct and deliberate defiance of orders passed by this Court by officers of the registry. Such conduct interferes with the administration of justice. In case such officials are given free run, public at large will lose faith in the judicial system," the Court further remarked.
4. UP Govt Informs Allahabad High Court About Its Preparedness To Hold Magh Mela Amid COVID Spread
Case title - Utkarsh Mishra v. State of U.P. and others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 25
The Uttar Pradesh government informed the High Court about its preparedness to hold Magh Mela amid COVID spread.
The UP Govt submitted its response on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea filed before the Court seeking a direction to the state government to prevent devotees from bathing in/participating in the Mela on the auspicious dates i.e. Shahi Snan on account of COVID spread.
The Bench of Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Piyush Agrawal was told that the UP government has already issued guidelines to be followed by the devotees who come to the Magh Mela.
Case title - Rishi Kumar Trivedi v. Election Commission of Bharat and Anr.
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 26
The High Court refused to entertain another Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea seeking postponement of elections for the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly (scheduled to be held in Feb-March 2022) in view of the COVID surge.
The bench of Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi and Justice Suresh Kumar Gupta wasn't convinced to interfere on the basis of the ground raised in the PIL i.e. Pandemic as it noted that the Commission, being a constitutional body, must have taken into consideration the pandemic situation, with utmost responsibility.
The instant plea, moved by one Rishi Kumar Pandey, the State Head of the Akhil Bharat Hindu Maha Sabha, had submitted before the Court that COVID will spread drastically if the election is conducted as per the scheduled as were are currently dealing with the third phase of COVID.
Related News: "Haven't People Lost Lives At Homes Too?": Allahabad HC In Plea Seeking Postponement Of UP Assembly Polls Amid COVID Surge
Case title - Kanika Construction v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 27
The High Court recently observed that there is no absolute bar on the maintainability of a writ petition against the state and its instrumentalities in contractual matters.
The Bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava remarked that where the amount is admitted and there is no disputed question of fact requiring adjudication of detailed evidence and interpretation of the terms of the contract, a writ would very well lie against the State and its instrumentalities.
Important Weekly Updates From the High Court/UP courts
Case title - Avaneesh Kumar v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
The High Court remarked that the State Education Department and its officers are not attending to the grievances that are raised against it and that they are performing their duties in a very casual manner.
With this observation, the Bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal directed the Principal Secretary, Basic Education, Government of Uttar Pradesh to ensure that all the District Basic Education Officers start performing their duties promptly and to take the final call on all the matters which come before them for consideration at the earliest.
Arguments in the bail application of Anand Giri, the prime accused in the alleged suicidal death of Mahant Narendra Giri could not take place today as the CBI's counsel wasn't available and therefore, the matter was adjourned to January 31.
Giri has been booked for allegedly abetting the suicide of Mahant Narendra Giri, the President of Akhil Bhartiya Akhara Parishad and the matter is currently being probed by the CBI. Anand Giri is presently under custody and has moved the HC with his bail plea.
The case was adjourned on a request made by the Central Bureau of Investigation, which is currently probing the matter, on account of the unavailability of its lead counsel due to his illness.
Case title - Bharti Patel And 5 Others v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Education Deptt. Lko. And 9 Others
The High Court has stayed the decision of the Uttar Pradesh government to appoint 6800 additional candidates as primary assistant teachers in the state in addition to already appointed 69000 candidates.
The Bench of Justice Rajan Roy made it clear that the Government can't appoint more than 69000 candidates without issuing an advertisement regarding the same, since in the original advertisement issued by the state, only 69000 posts were intended to be filled.
Observing that some of the orders, statements, and office reports in the Subordinate Courts are written in bad handwriting that the same cannot be read properly, the High Court warned erring officials of action in case they fail to write legible orders.
It may be noted that in October 2021, the Allahabad High Court had observed in its order that it is the bounded duty of the Peshkars/ Court Readers to write the Court order in a legible manner, failing which, it may be treated as misconduct.
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Amoda Iron Steel Limited v. Sneha Anlytics and Scientifics
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 6
The High Court ruled that the Commercial Courts dealing with transferred cases from civil courts have the power to prescribe a new timeline for submission of written statement. The petition was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order passed by the Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes, Visakhapatnam for not extending the period of 120 days for filing the written statement.
Case Title: K Ravi Prasad Reddy v. G Giridhar
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 7
The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently ruled that Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 does not operate as a bar to grant of temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, of Civil Procedure Code.
Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice C. Praveen Kumar in common judgment observed that: "Section 52 of T.P. Act although provides protection to the parties from transfers pendent lite, in as much as it makes such transfers subservient to the decree that may be passed in the suit, but it does not come in the way of passing an order of temporary injunction restraining alienation of the suit property during the pendency of the suit on the applicant satisfying all the three ingredients of prima facie, balance of convenience and causing irreparable loss or injury in his favour."
Case Title: Anmol Steel Processors Pvt Ltd vs Colour Roof (India) Ltd
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 16
The Bombay High Court held that once payment is adjusted at the creditor's discretion under Section 60 of the Contract Act only to a few of the pending invoices instead of all, and the period of limitation has expired regarding all of them, the creditor then cannot claim a cheque getting dishonoured will extend the period of limitation on all pending payments.
Case Title: Vodafone Idea Ltd v Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 17
In a case under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Bombay High Court observed that where on consideration of material on record, one view is conclusively taken by the Assessing Officer, it would not be open to reopen the assessment based on mere change of opinion.
The Court further held that assessment can be reopened under Section 148 only on a reasonable belief that income had escaped assessment on account of failure of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts that were necessary for computation of income but not in a case where the assessment is sought to be reopened on account of change of opinion of the Assessing Officer.
Case Title: Nabeel Construction Pvt.Ltd vs Union Of India And 2 Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 18
Observing that a liberal interpretation had to be given to the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme Rules, 2019 (SVLDRS) as the intent was to unload the baggage relating to legacy disputes pre-GST era, the Bombay High Court quashed a show-cause cum-demand notice against a construction company.
Case Title: Hareshwar Harishchandra Mistry v Pravin B. Nayak
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 19
The Bombay High Court held that while determining the compensation that the applicant would be entitled to on account of loss of future earnings, even if the applicant has not suffered total loss of income due to permanent disability. It was held that the claimant would be entitled to proportional of notional income corresponding to the extent of his disability. Accordingly, the Court enhanced the compensation awarded to the appellant-claimant from Rs.50,000 to Rs.2,70,000.
Case Title: Raigad Zilla Parishad & Ors v Kailash Balu Mhatre & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 20
Bombay High Court reiterated that Standing Order 4C of the Model Standing Orders, framed under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 cannot be invoked with reference to State Instrumentalities or such local authorities, which do not have the power of creating posts.
When an establishment cannot create posts, the declaration of ULP under Item 6 cannot be made against such establishment since temporary workers cannot be regularised, in the absence of sanctioned permanent posts.
Case Title: Laxman Dadasaheb Jagtap v Additional Commissioner, Konkan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 21
In a recent case, the Bombay High Court reiterated that in the absence of an affidavit, a simple application for leave to defend would not enable a petitioner to claim benefit of Section 4 of the Limitation Act.
Section 4 of the Limitation Act provides that - Where the prescribed period for any suit, appeal or application expires on a day when the court is closed, the suit, appeal or application may be instituted, preferred or made on the day when the court reopens.
Case Title: Shankeshwar @ Shambhu s/o Bhausaheb Dhakne vs The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 22
A girl child is not property that can be donated, the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) observed during a bail hearing after it noticed a 'danpatra' according to which the rape victim's father had allegedly donated her to a self-proclaimed godman.
Justice Vibha Kankanwadi directed the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) to ascertain if the teen was fit to be declared as a 'child in need of care and protection' as contemplated under Section 2(14) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act.
Case Title: Somnath Laxman Giri vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 23
The Bombay High Court took strong exception to the seemingly deliberate non-functioning of CCTV cameras inside police stations and directed Maharashtra's Chief Secretary to take "stern action" against police officers for not reporting cameras that required repair.
Case Title: Sushitex Exports (India) Ltd. & Ors. Vs. The Union of India & Anr
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 24
The Bombay High Court directed the Customs department to refund Rs 2 crore along with an interest of 12% per annum to a fabric-exporter due to the delay of 23 years in deciding a fraud case initiated against him.
A division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice MS Karnik observed while setting aside the demand notice, "While the respondents' right in law to initiate proceedings for violation of the provisions of the Act can never be disputed, at the same time they do not have the unfettered right to choose a time for its termination and conclude proceedings as per their convenience."
10. Consider Decentralization Of Medical Purchases For Hospitals : Bombay High Court To Maharashtra Govt
Case Title: CH Sharma & Oths Versus State of Maharashtra and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 25
The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court directed the Maharashtra Government to consider de-centralizing the purchase of medical essentials for medical colleges and hospitals in the state.
"We are of the view that in the interest of efficient management of Hospitals and making available proper treatment to patients being admitted to the Government Hospitals in an effective and quicker manner, it is necessary that the Deans of these colleges are permitted to make purchases of all the medical essentials at their respective levels…" the bench observed.
Case Title: Shaikh Ruheena vs The State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 26
"I have forgotten how to communicate with human beings, every human feeling has been wiped out, even animals are not kept like this," Imran Shaikh a convicted prisoner in solitary confinement for 2 years and four months, had written in anguish to the Superintendent of Central Prison, Aurangabad, in vain.
Last week, the Bombay High Court's Aurangabad bench took cognisance of Shaikh's wife's letter, and directed prison official to transfer him to an ordinary prison cell with immediate effect, and ordered a team of doctors visit prison and ascertain his condition.
The court, further, directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad, to visit Shaikh in prison, record his statement and report to the HC on the condition of the Anda cell.
Other Significant Updates
1. FIR Against Google CEO Sundar Pichai, YouTube MD Gautam Anand And Others In Copyright Infringement
The Mumbai police, on January 26, registered an FIR against the CEO of Google, Sundar Pichai, along with five others in a copyright infringement case. Gautam Anand, Managing Director of YouTube, is also an accused in the case.
The FIR was registered following a Magistrate's order under section 156(3) of the CrPC on a private complaint filed by producer Suneel Darshan regarding his 2017 film "Ek Haseena Thi Ek Deewana Tha" being illegally uploaded on YouTube.
Days after the Bombay High Court concluded hearing a PIL seeking appointment of a permanent Director General of Police (DGP) in Maharashtra, the court impleaded acting DGP Sanjay Pandey as a party.
Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice MS Karnik observed they had come across certain portions of the PIL where direct allegations were made against Pandey, making him a necessary party/ respondent.
A Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Ballard Pier discharged actress Shilpa Shetty in an obscenity case from 2007. Shetty was booked after Hollywood Actor Richard Gere hugged and kissed her during an AIDS awareness event in Alwar, Rajasthan.
Shetty and Gere were booked under Sections 292 (Sale, etc., of obscene books), 293 (Sale, etc., of obscene objects to young person), 294 (Obscene acts and songs), 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the IPC, Section 67 of the IT Act and sections 4 and 6 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act.
Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Rama Prasad Sarkar v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 13
The Calcutta High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition filed against the decision of the Centre to reject the tableau of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose as proposed by the West Bengal government for the ensuing Republic Day parade. The PIL filed by advocate Ramaprasad Sarkar sought the Court's interference to issue a direction to the Central Government to permit the State of West Bengal Tableau of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose in the ensuing Republic Day parade scheduled to take place on January 26, 2022. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj expressed reservations to the delayed filing of the PIL and accordingly observed, "..the writ petitioner has belatedly approached this Court. As the Republic Day celebration is day after tomorrow, therefore, at this stage, no effective direction can be issued. Hence, no case for interference in the present writ petition is made out which is accordingly dismissed." The Bench further took note of the various defects in the filing of the instant PIL as pointed out by the Additional Solicitor General Y.J. Dastoor while dismissing the PIL.
Case Title: Anindya Sundar Das v. Union of India and other connected matters
The Calcutta High Court took on record the latest status report filed by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) pertaining to the progress of the investigation with regards to cases of violence that had allegedly taken place post the declaration of the West Bengal assembly elections in May 2021. The Court vide order dated August 19, 2021 had handed over to the CBI the investigation of cases related to murder, rape and crime against women whereas an SIT had been constituted to investigate other criminal cases related to post-poll violence. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajrashi Bharadwaj was apprised by Additional Solicitor General Y.J Dastoor appearing for the CBI that a total of 51 cases had been initially registered out of which 48 cases had been referred to by the NHRC committee constituted by the Court and 3 cases had been registered on the basis of individual complaints. ASG Dastoor also informed the Bench that in 20 cases charge sheets had been filed and that out of the 20 cases, in 18 cases an application had been filed under Section 173(a) of the CrPC for further investigation. He further submitted that 3 cases had been transferred to the SIT and that currently, 28 cases are still under investigation by the CBI. The counsel appearing for the SIT informed the Bench that 689 cases had been registered initially and that on the last date of hearing investigation was pending in 12 cases. However, till date investigation is pending only in 2 cases, the counsel informed further.
3. By-Poll Expenses Can't Be Recovered From Candidate Who Resigns: ECI, State Govt To Calcutta HC
Case Title: Sayan Banerjee v. Election Commission of India and Ors
The Calcutta High Court was apprised by both the Election Commission of India (ECI) and the State government that expenditure incurred by the State exchequer in conducting an election cannot be recovered from a candidate even if he resigns from his constituency before completion of his term in order to enable another person to contest the election from that constituency. The Court was adjudicating upon a suo-moto issue framed by a Bench comprising former Acting Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition challenging the decision of the Election Commission of India to prioritize the bye-elections of Bhabanipur Assembly Constituency from where the Chief Minister of West Bengal Mamata Banerjee had contested elections on September 30, 2021, and had subsequently won. The Court vide order dated September 24, 2021 had farmed the following issue for consideration, "It is a matter of common knowledge that it costs crores of rupees to the public exchequer to hold elections. It should not be taken merely at the whims and fancies of the persons who are in power or otherwise elected or losing candidates. In case an elected candidate resigns from his constituency before completion of term without there being any legal disability, to enable another person to contest the election from that constituency as to who should bear the cost to be recurred by the State exchequer is a larger issue which is required to be considered."
A Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj was informed by advocate Siddhant Kumar appearing for the ECI that the issue in consideration had been squarely settled by the Madras High Court in the case of K.K Ramesh v. NHRC and Ors. Advocate General S.N Mookerjee appearing for the State government submitted before the Court that even for by-polls, expenses incurred cannot be recovered from a candidate and that the State has to bear all such expenditure. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court judgment in Pramod Laxman Gudadhe v. Election Commission Of India in this regard. Reliance was further placed on Section 151A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 which stipulates that a bye-election for filling any vacancy shall be held within a period of six months from the date of the occurrence of the vacancy. The Advocate General further remarked, "The principle which emerges is that no constituency should go unrepresented for a long period of time".
Case Title: Lindsay International Private Limited v. Laxmi Niwas Mittal
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 14
The Calcutta High Court on Friday had the opportunity to expound on the issue as to whether Courts should consider the dictum of the Supreme Court as laid down in Sukanya Holdings (P) Ltd. v. Jayesh H. Pandya regarding non-permissibility of bifurcation of subject-matter or causes of action in a suit while adjudicating upon an application filed under section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act). Section 8 of the Arbitration Act as amended with effect from October 23, 2015, mandates a judicial authority to refer parties to arbitration 'unless it prima facie finds that no valid arbitration agreement exists. Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya ruled that 'without a doubt' the dictum as laid down in Sukanya Holdings is no longer a relevant factor for the Court to consider at the stage of reference in an application under section 8 of the Arbitration Act."The Court is not even under a mandate, post amendment, to adjudicate on the bifurcability of the causes of action or the presence of parties who are necessary parties to the action but not to the arbitration. The only brake in the momentum of reference is the court finding, prima facie, that no valid arbitration agreement exists", the Court emphasised.
5. POSH Act Applicable To Girl Students Of A School
Case Title: Pawan Kumar Niroula v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 15
The Calcutta High Court observed that the provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (2013 Act) is applicable to girl students of a school. A Bench comprising Justice HarishTandon and Justice Rabindranath Samanta placed reliance on the definition of 'aggrieved woman' as provided under Section 2 (a) of the 2013 Act and accordingly ruled, "As per Section 2 (a) an aggrieved woman means in relation to a workplace, a woman, of any age whether employed or not, who alleges to have been subjected to any act of sexual harassment by the respondent. That being so, the provisions of the Act squarely apply to the students of the school." The petitioner, a teacher by profession, had been appointed by the Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti on November 17, 1997, as a Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT), Nepali. On February 15, 2020, the principal of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Ravangla, South Sikkim had filed a written complaint with the Officer-in-Charge of Ravangla Police Station stating that he had received several complaints from students of the school alleging that the petitioner had committed sexual harassment. In the complaint lodged with the police station, it had been further averred that around 67 students had complained of sexual harassment against the petitioner.
Case Title: Ashis Mondal v. Union of India and others
The Calcutta High Court came down on the State government for not filing its response in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition alleging that the State government is yet to notify the appointment of an appellate authority as prescribed under Section 18 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (2013 Act). Section 18 of the 2013 Act stipulates that an aggrieved person can prefer an appeal before the concerned appellate authority within a period of 90 days. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj had provided the State government three prior opportunities to place its stand on record in respect of the appointment of appellate authority under the 2013 Act. However, on Tuesday, the counsel appearing for the State government sought further time to submit an affidavit-in-opposition in this regard. Accordingly, the Bench observed with dismay, "In spite of repeated opportunities, the State has not placed its stand on record by filing the affidavit-in- opposition." "Last opportunity is granted to learned counsel for the State to file the affidavit-in-opposition within two weeks", the Court underscored.
Case Title: Ambooj Sharma v. State of West Bengal
The Calcutta High Court sought response from the Howrah Municipal Corporation in a plea seeking relocation of Howrah's Mangla Haat- one of the largest garments market in the State. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj was apprised by the petitioner that the Manga Haat has now expanded further and is currently being organised inside the Howrah District Court premises. "The supplementary affidavit in pursuance to the previous order of this Court has been filed by learned counsel for the petitioner stating that 'Mangla Haat' is being held inside the Howrah District Court premises. Supporting photographs have been enclosed with the affidavit", the Court recorded in its order. Accordingly, the Court sought response from the Howrah Municipal Corporation and directed the Corporation to file a report in the form of an affidavit within a period of 3 weeks. The petitioner was permitted to file a reply thereafter within a week.
8. Calcutta High Court Seeks State Response To Plea Seeking Reopening Of Schools & Colleges In WB
Case Title: Soumen Halder v. State of West Bengal and other connected matters
The Calcutta High Court sought response from the State government on a batch of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petitions seeking reopening of schools and colleges in the State. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj directed the State government to place its stand on record regarding the opening of schools and colleges before the next date of hearing which is slated to take place on February 14. Senior advocate Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya appearing for one of the petitioners submitted before the Court that it is high time that schools and colleges in the State are reopened in compliance with the guidelines relating to Covid-19 norms since the students and children are being adversely affected on account of closure of educational institutions. Advocate General S.N Mookherjee appearing for the State government submitted a detailed report before the Court which included a chart wherein it was stipulated that out of the targeted population of 45,39,811 students only 33,99,170 students have been given the first dose of the vaccine as of January 25, 2022. He further informed the Court that the State government is aiming to vaccinate at least 85 percent of students before taking a decision to reopen educational institutions.
Case Title: Akshya Kumar Sarangi v. State of West Bengal
The Calcutta High Court on Friday directed the State government as well as the Kolkata Municipal Corporation to apprise the Court before the next date of hearing about the progress made with regards to the implementation of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj was adjudicating upon a Public Interest Litigation petition seeking direction upon the authorities to implement provisions of the 2014 Act and the 2018 Rules framed thereunder.During the proceedings, Advocate Srikanta Dutta appearing for the petitioner submitted before the Court that more than 7 years have passed and yet no steps have been taken by the respondent authorities in respect of constitution of Town Vending Committees as necessitated under the 2014 Act. On the other hand, Advocate General S.N Mookherjee appearing for the respondents apprised the Bench that he will issue necessary communication to all concerned local bodies in respect of implementation of the 2014 Act and also gather information about the stage up to which progress has been made by each of the local bodies.
Case Title: Dr. Nazrul Islam v. Basudeb Banerjee & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 16
In a significant development, the Calcutta High Court on Thursday observed that a prior sanction for prosecuting public servants is required before setting in motion even the investigative process under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). The Court was adjudicating upon an appeal moved by former IPS officer Nazrul Islam seeking initiation of criminal proceedings against Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and other top officials of the State for purportedly forging a Supreme Court verdict in order to deprive him of his promotion. Justice Tirthankar Ghosh observed, "Having regard to the subject matter by way of which the petitioner has attempted to invoke the provisions of Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the public servants this Court is of the opinion that as the provision of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been incorporated in the statute, the same has been for a meaningful purpose of allowing the public servants to discharge their duties without fear or favour or without any anticipation of being harassed because of the rigours of law. Therefore, ordinarily a valid sanction would be required in a proceeding where the provisions of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. are invoked against public servants". The Court also noted that the issue in consideration as to whether prior sanction for prosecution qua allegation of corruption in respect of public servants is required before setting in motion the investigative process under Section 156(3) CrPC has been referred to a Larger Bench vide the Supreme Court judgment in Manju Surana v. Sunil Arora & Ors. Justice Ghosh opined that the Supreme Court in Manju Surana v. Sunil Arora & Ors had not declared the dictum laid down in two earlier judgments i.e. in L. Narayana Swamy v. State of Karnataka & Ors and Anil Kumar & Ors v. M.K. Aiyappa & Anr to be either per incuriam or a bad law.
Case Title: Amirul Gazi v. State of West Bengal
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 17
The Calcutta High Court upheld the conviction of a man for the offence of rape after observing that the consent of the minor victim is immaterial as she was below 16 years of age at the time of the alleged incident. It was alleged that there was an ongoing love affair between the accused and the victim and that the alleged sexual intercourse was consensual. It may be noted that pursuant to the Criminal Law Amendment of 2013, the age of consent in India has been increased from 16 years to 18 years. A Bench comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Bibhas Ranjan De observed, "With regard to the issue whether the victim was a consenting party, I note such plea is of little consequence. As discussed above, the prosecutor has established she was below 16 years at the time of the incident and her consent was immaterial in view of 6th clause of section 375 IPC. In the backdrop, even if we assume that sexual intercourse was with the consent of the victim, we cannot consider such consent as a valid one as the age of the victim as below 16 years. Hence, the offence of rape is proved beyond doubt."
Other Development
Calcutta High Court Sets Up 7 'VC Kiosks' To Aid Advocates In Virtual Hearings
The Calcutta High Court has established seven Virtual Court Kiosks (VC Kiosks) in order to enable counsels to participate in virtual hearings as an urgent measure. The VC Kiosks have been set up pursuant to the order of Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava.The VC Kiosks have been set up in the following places, 3 (three) VC KIOSKS at the Ground Floor of the Main Building (Beside the staircase of Gate B), I (one) VC KIOSK at Gate E of the Main Building, 2(two) VC KIOSKS at the Ground Floor of the Centenary Building, 1(one) VC KIOSK at the Sesquicentenary Building (at e-Seva Kendra). The VC Kiosks have been functional from January 20 and will continue to do so until further orders. Furthermore, a notification released to this effect further stipulates, "The Ld. Advocates are requested to join virtual hearing utilizing the Zoom Meeting ID and Passcode of the respective Court received through email. The Ld. Advocate shall vacate the KIOSK immediately after his/her matter gets over providing access to the next one."
Chhattisgarh High Court
Case Title: Laxman Singh v. the State of Chhattisgarh
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Chh) 5
The Chhattisgarh High Court has observed that to constitute an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the prosecution must prove that there was a demand for money, and the same was voluntarily accepted by the accused. Mere recovery of tainted note from the possession of accused is not enough, it added. Accordingly, Justice Rajani Dubey set aside the conviction of the appellant, a Police Head Constable, alleged to be involved in bribery.
Case Title: Akash Chandrakar & Ors v. State of Chhattisgarh
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Chh) 6
The Chhattisgarh High Court has recently observed that while hearing the application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail under Section 389(1) of the CrPC for offences punishable under the POCSO Act, a notice to the victim/complainant / her parents is necessary.
A Division Bench of Justices Sanjay K. Aggarwal and Arvind Singh insisted that while serving notice, "the principles relating to the protection of dignity and privacy and modality of ensuring those values, as delineated by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of Nipun Saxena and another v. Union of India and others, are scrupulously adhered to and followed religiously."
Case Title: Reshamlal v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Chh) 7
The Chhattisgarh High Court recently held that in case of acquittal of an employee based on the benefit of doubt, Railway authorities are justified in not granting him full wages during the suspension period.
Dismissing the petition filed by one such employee seeking full back wages, Justice Sanjay Kumar Aggarwal observed, "Since the petitioner has been acquitted giving the benefit of doubt, which goes to show that the Railway authorities were justified in placing the petitioner under suspension and as such, placing the petitioner under suspension was not without material, therefore, his suspension cannot be held to be wholly unjustified to hold him entitled for full pay and allowances during the period of suspension."
Case Title: Mamni Pradhan v. South Eastern Coal Feilds Ltd & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Chh) 8
The Chhattisgarh High Court has recently held that a clause in an agreement under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which only entitled a male dependent for compensatory recruitment, should be read in such a manner that it includes female dependents also.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Arup Kumar Goswami and Justice N.K.Chandravanshi noted, "It is apparent that clause 9.5.0(iii) of the NCWA-IV is clearly violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India because discrimination is made on the basis of gender inasmuch as while the name of a male dependent of the deceased worker who is 12 years and above is kept in a live roster until he attains the age of 18 years when his case would be considered for compassionate appointment commensurate with his skill and qualifications, no such provision is made for a female dependent."
Case Title: Ganesh Ram & 3 Ors v. The State Of Chhattisgarh
The High Court has refused to grant bail to four men arrested on the charges of killing a female Sambar Deer in the reserved forests of Chhattisgarh.
Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas observed that the place of offence is a reserved forest that falls within Section 51(1A) of the Wildlife Protection Act; thus, the alleged offense is non-bailable. He noted, "Therefore, it is crystal clear that Arjuni Parikshetra falls within the category of Reserve Forest. The applicants were involved in haunting an animal which falls under item 16 of the Schedule III of the Wild Life (Protection) Act in reserve forest; therefore, the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the applicants in the case of Arjun Singh (Supra) is not applicable in the facts of the case."
Case Title: Purendra Kumar Sinha v. State of Chhattisgarh
Can the Court order an inquiry to ascertain if the person claiming compassionate appointment is financially dependent on another member of the family who is already in government service? The Chhattisgarh High Court recently referred this issue to a larger bench.
Justice Sanjay K. Aggarwal found conflicting precedents in the matter and framed the issue as follows for the larger bench reference: "Whether this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is empowered to direct the State Government to hold an enquiry qua the dependency / financial support by one of the family members of the deceased Government servant, who is already in Government service, to the dependent of the deceased Government servant claiming compassionate appointment whereas, the policy dated 29-8- 2016 does not stipulate any such enquiry and then consider the application for compassionate appointment, as bar being absolute?"
1. Family Courts Expected To Bring About Settlement, Endeavour Can't Be To Simply Dispose Of Cases At Cost Of Justice: Delhi High Court
Case Title: COMMODORE PAVAN CHAUHAN v. ANUSHA CHAUHAN
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 38
The Delhi High Court has observed that the Family Courts are expected to function so as to bring about a settlement between the parties if possible, adding that the endeavour of the Court cannot simply be to dispose of the matters, one way or another at the cost of sacrificing the cause of justice.
A Bench of Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh set aside an order passed by a Family Court which had dismissed the divorce petition filed by the appellant husband under sec. 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
The Family Court had dismissed the said application after observing that the appellant had failed to lead evidence, closing the right to the appellant to lead evidence.
2. Public Company Employees May Be Subject To Disciplinary Proceedings By Authorities Other Than Appointing Authority: Delhi High Court
Case Title: SHRI FAJALUR RAHAMAN v. I.P.G.C.L. THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR AND ORS. (W.P.(C) 890/2020) and B S PURIA v. INDRAPRASTHA POWER GENERATION CO. LTD. & ANR. (W.P.(C) 3495/2021)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 39
The Delhi High Court has held that the Disciplinary Authority, though not competent to impose major penalties of compulsory retirement, dismissal and removal, can initiate disciplinary proceedings for imposition of the same.
It noted that there is nothing to suggest that the Appointing Authority alone would be the Competent Authority to institute the disciplinary / major penalty proceedings.
The Court indicated that the Director (Technical), being the "Officer (Concerned)" of the Petitioners, designated with issuing major and minor penalties per the DOP, was eligible to issue charge sheet, notwithstanding him not being the Appointing Authority.
3. Limitation Period For Seeking Appointment Of Arbitrator Commences After Expiry Of 30 Days From Issuance Of Notice Invoking Arbitration: Delhi HC
Case Title: Huawei Telecommunications (India) Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Anr v. WIPRO Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 40
The Delhi High Court has held that the Limitation-period of 3 years for seeking Appointment of Arbitrator commences from the date of expiry of 30 days period, reckoned from date of issuance of the notice invoking arbitration.
Holding thus, it has allowed the Petitioner, Bharat Sachar Nigam Limited (BSNL), to proceed with Arbitration against the Respondent, WIPRO Limited.
4. Street Vendors, Hawkers Can't Fix Any Place Or Erect Permanent/ Temporary Structures: Delhi High Court
Case Title: SULEMAN ABBAS & ORS. Vs. NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS.
Citation: Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 41
The Delhi High Court on Monday observed that the concept of tehbzaari, street hawking and vending does not envisage that the hawker or vendor would fix himself to any particular place or erect any structure whether permanent or temporary on it's own.
Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh also added that there is no question of any hawker or vendor staking a claim to occupy any public space in the name of hawking and vending round the clock by placing a structure, temporary or otherwise, at the site and converting the same into a shop where the hawker or vendor and his goods can permanently remain.
The Court was dealing with a petition seeking directions on North Delhi Municipal Corporation not to disturb or create obstacles in the business activities of the petitioners, a total of 20 traders, on the alternate tehbzaari sites allotted to them vide order dated December 29, 2021.
5. Delhi High Court Disposes PIL Against Unnecessary Blockade Of Roads For Alleged Political Protests
Case Title: Ankur Bhasin v. Union of India & Ors., WP (C ) 632/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 42
The Delhi High Court has disposed of a PIL seeking necessary action against frequent blockade of roads in the national capital, in the name of protests.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh directed the concerned Respondents to look into the grievance raised by the Petitioner and decide his representation in according with the law, rules, regulations and government policies, as early as possible.
Moved by lawyer Ankur Bhasin, the petition, while citing various recent events, stated that the city has become a "symbolic protest site" for various pressure groups causing great inconvenience to the common masses by hampering their daily routine.
6. Filing Affidavits Of Personal Assets Not Permitted Under Order XXI Rule 37 CPC: Delhi High Court
Case Title: GS Sandhu & Anr vs Geeta Aggarwal
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 43
The Delhi High Court has held that Order XXI Rule 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not provide for a judgment debtor (company) or its directors to file their list of assets.
Justice Amit Bansal thus set aside the order of the District Judge, Patiala House Courts directing the Directors of the Judgement-Debtor Company ('Petitioner') to file affidavits of personal assets.
" Just because the petitioners are directors of the judgment debtor company, they cannot be directed to disclose their personal assets."
7. Delhi High Court Grants Interim Relief To Owner Of 'Cars 24' In Trademark Infringement Suit
Case Title: Global Car Group Ltd. & Anr. V. Mohit Goyal & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 44
The Delhi High Court has granted interim relief to Global Car Group Ltd., owner of the brand Cars 24, against alleged infringement of its trademarks by the Defendants.
Finding a prima facie case in favour of the Plaintiff, Justice Sanjeev Narula granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of Global Car under Order 39 Rules 1, and 2 r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
The Court further directed the Defendants are directed to remove/ delete the social media accounts and listings on third-party e-commerce websites maintained under the infringing marks which are identical or deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs'.
8. Can't Examine Sufficiency Of Evidence While Deciding Plea For Rejection Of Plaint Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Capital Land Builders Pvt Ltd and Ors vs Shiva Kumar Jindad and Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 45
The Delhi High Court has held that sufficiency of evidence placed on record by the plaintiffs is required to be considered during trial and not while deciding an application for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.
Holding thus, Justice Prateek Jalan upheld the order of the Civil Judge at Karkardooma Court, refusing to look into the documents produced by plaintiff to establish his claim of title over a disputed land and dismissing the Defendant's application for rejection of plaint.
The Bench observed,
" It is well settled that, for the purposes of rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, the Court is duty bound to consider the contents of the plaint, and not to examine the sufficiency of the evidence or the defence put forth by the defendant."
9. Civil Services| DoPT Entitled To Seek Info From Credible Sources Before Concluding If Candidate Correctly Claimed EWS Reservation: Delhi HC
Case Title: AASHIMA GOYAL v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 46
The Delhi High Court has observed that the Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT) is entitled to seek information from credible sources before concluding, as to whether or not the concerned candidate for civil services has correctly claimed reservation under the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) category.
Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Talwant Singh was dealing with a petition filed by one Aashima Goyal challenging an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. The petitioner had approached the Tribunal to challenge the decision of DoPT whereby her candidature for Civil Services Examination, 2019 was cancelled.
According to the petitioner, she became aware of her candidature being cancelled only when she received information in December 2020 in response to her RTI application.
10. Probationer's Performance Assessment Is The Function Of Employer,Judicial Review Not Warranted Unless It Is Arbitrary and Capricious: Delhi High Court
Case Title: J. S. Arora v. DVC & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 47
The assessment of work and performance of a probationer is the function of the employer and the Court should only invoke its power of Judicial Review where such action is tainted by arbitrariness and capriciousness and the courts should be wary of substituting their opinion on such questions, Delhi High Court noted.
Justice Yashwant Varma, in a case pertaining to alleged unlawful termination of services of a probationer as Director (HRD) of Damodar Valley Corporation, further noted that even the Union government can only interfere in respect of matters which are not provided for in the Regulations framed by the Corporation and where the regulations clearly make provisions for the stipulation of work and assessment of such work and do not envisage any role to be played by Union government with regard to the same, only the corporation itself has the mandate to govern on such issues.
11. "Merely Trivializes The Offence Of Sexual Harassment": Delhi High Court Expresses Anguish Over False Invocation Of S. 354A, 506 IPC
Case Title: DR KARUNAKAR PATRA v. State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 48
The Delhi High Court has expressed its anguish at how Sections 354A and 506 of IPC were falsely invoked in an FIR at the drop of a hat to register one's displeasure at the conduct of another individual, observing that the aforesaid merely trivializes the offence of sexual harassment.
Justice Subramonium Prasad also added that such false invocation of the said provisions casts a doubt on the veracity of the allegations filed by every other victim who has in reality faced sexual harassment, thereby setting back the cause of women empowerment.
The Court made the said observations while quashing an FIR registered under Section 354A (sexual harassment) and 506 (punishment for criminal intimidation) against an Assistant Professor at the University of Delhi, petitioner in the matter.
12. CPC Order VIII Rule 1| Belated Filing Of Documents By Defendant Not Permissible Without Leave Of Court: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Jindal Stainless (Hisar) Ltd. v. Sourabh Jinal & Ors., CS (Comm) 247/2019
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 49
The Delhi High Court recently reiterated that "provisions of Order VIII Rule 1(3) CPC make it clear that a document which ought to be produced in Court by the defendant under this rule, but, is not so produced shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit".
The observation was made by Justice Suresh K Kait, while hearing an application filed by the defendant in a trademark infringement suit, seeking to bring on record certain additional documents.
It may be noted that Order VIII Rule 1(1) provides that the defendant shall, at or before the first hearing or within such time as the Court may permit, present a written statement of his defence.
13. Delhi High Court Expunges Adverse Remarks Against Actress Juhi Chawla In Case Against 5G Rollout, Reduces Cost To Rs. 2 Lakhs
Case Title: Juhi Chawla and others v Science and Engineering Research Board and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 50
The Delhi High Court has expunged the remarks made by the Single Judge against Bollywood and environmentalist Juhi Chawla while dismissing her civil suit against 5G Roll.
Modifying the impugned order, Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh also reduced the cost imposed vide the impugned order from Rs. 20 Lakhs to Rs. 2 Lakhs, observing that the same may be retained as some of the applications filed in the civil suit were indeed completely meritless.
The Court was hearing a plea filed by Chawla and others challenging the single judge decision which had dismissed the civil suit as being defective and not maintainable with a cost of Rs. 20 lakhs.
14. No Bar On Pursuing Criminal Proceedings After Arbitration Has Commenced: Delhi High Court
Case Title: M/S. Hero Fincorp Limited v. The State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 51
Observing that commencement of arbitration does not bar a party from pursuing criminal proceedings, the Delhi High Court directed the Police to investigate the complaint lodged by a Non-Banking Finance Company against one of its defaulting borrowers.
Justice Subramonium Prasad observed, " there is no bar of pursuing criminal proceedings once arbitration has commenced."
In the instant case, the Bench noted that the facts on the face of it prima facie discloses commission of a cognizable offence. It thus added, "Section 154 Cr.P.C provides for the registration of the First Information Report in respect of cognizable offences, which the police is mandated by law to register in writing and thereafter investigate into it."
15. Plaintiff Quoting Wrong Statutory Provision In Application Doesn't Bar Court From Considering It: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Vijay Kumar Nagpal v. Parveen Kumar Nagpal
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 52
The Delhi High Court recently decided an application that was filed under a wrong statutory provision, stating that quoting a wrong provision does not create a bar or stand in the way of Court considering the application.
Justice Suresh Kumar Kait relied on Gotham Entertainment Group LLC & Ors. Vs. Diamond Comics Pvt. Ltd. 2009 SCC OnLine Del 4009 and Nitish Arora vs. State of Delhi, 2007 (141) DLT 21, to observe, "...under Section 151 of CPC, this Court has inherent power to consider an application wherein a wrong provision is mentioned. It cannot be an obstacle for granting the relief".
16. 'School Authorities Bypassed Statutory Procedure': Delhi HC Vindicates Rusticated Probationer In Cheating Case, Orders ₹15 Lakh Compensation
Case Tile: Chairman, Arya Girls Senior Secondary School v. Director and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 53
In a ruling that vindicates a terminated probationer battling civil and criminal proceedings by a private aided school for 26 years, the Delhi High Court has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 15 lakhs.
Justice Jyoti Singh upheld and partly modified the Order of Delhi School Tribunal, quashing the dismissal order of the School Authorities due to not adhering to the relevant statutory requirements.
The School had failed to conduct an inquiry before termination on allegation of serious Misconduct and did not seek prior permission of the DoE, which is mandatory under Rule 105(1) of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973.
The probationer was terminated for allegedly forged and fabricated school certificates and graduation degree.
17. Under Maintenance Proceedings Under Sec. 125 CrPC Court May Not Usurp Jurisdiction Of Civil Courts: Delhi High Court
Title: MOHD SHAKEEL @ SHAKEEL AHMED v. MST SABIA BEGUM & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 54
The Delhi High Court has observed that while the task of deciding the marital status of the parties has been conferred with Civil Courts, the Court under maintenance proceedings under sec. 125 of the Cr.P.C. may not usurp the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh added that in order to preserve the social intent of sec. 125 of the Cr.P.C., the Magistrate can render the prima facie finding about the factum of marriage, which will not be a conclusive finding for any other purpose apart from the order on maintenance.
"Thus, the litmus test for determining the marital status of the parties in maintenance proceedings is prima facie satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate and nothing more. It is also pertinent to note that the abovementioned decisions bring out the fact that the proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. are designed to reduce the vagaries of the neglected wife and children," the Court said.
18. Prosecution Must Prove 'Nature Of Weapon' Used During Robbery Was Deadly For Upholding Conviction U/S 397: Delhi High Court
Case Title: ASIF v. STATE (N.C.T OF DELHI)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 55
The Delhi High Court has modified the conviction and sentence of a man from sec. 397 of Indian Penal Code to sec. 392 as the prosecution had failed to prove the use of a deadly weapon.
Justice Mukta Gupta was of the view that the prosecution is required to prove the nature of the weapon of offence used specially in the case of knife or blade.
"In the absence of the use of a deadly weapon being proved by the prosecution, the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Section 397 IPC cannot be sustained and is required to be modified to an offence punishable under Section 392 IPC," the Court said.
19. Accused Can't Use His Power Of Attorney Holder To File Petition U/S 482 To Quash Criminal Proceedings: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Amrinder Singh & Raja Through: Spa Holder Sukhjinder Singh v. The State of NCT of Delhi
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 56
The Delhi High Court has held that the accused cannot recourse to a third party, such as a Power of Attorney holder, to represent him in criminal proceedings.
Citing the mandatory requirement of personal appearance of the accused in the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court noted that the presence of third parties in criminal cases would defeat the very purpose of the criminal justice system.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed a petition under Article 227, Constitution of India read with Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, seeking quashing of proceedings through the Petitioner's Representative holding his Special Power of Attorney (S.P.A.).
20. S. 20 CPC| Company Presumed To Operate From Where Principal Office Is Located In Absence Of 'Exclusion Clause': Delhi High Court
Case Title: Bela Goyal Proprietor of Ispat Sangrah (India) v. VIIPL – MIPL JV (Jaipur) & Ors.,
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 57
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that for the purposes of determining territorial jurisdiction of Courts, a company is presumed to carry its business from where its principal office is located.
In the present case, where the Defendant-company claimed to operate from Jaipur, Justice Yogesh Khanna further made it clear:
" the company has its principle office at Delhi; this Court shall have the jurisdiction. Merely by mentioning on the invoices viz. the disputes shall be subject to the jurisdiction at Jaipur would not snatch away the jurisdiction of this Court as there was no exclusion clause in the invoices."
21. Service Recruitment| Appeal Against Medical Exam Report May Be Filed On Same Day, Review Board Not For Giving Time To Rectify Ineligibility: Delhi HC
Case Title: Avin Dalal v. Union of India & Ors., WP (C ) 15179/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 58
The Delhi High Court recently held that merely because the Petitioner was not granted 15 days' gap between his Detailed Medical Examination and Review Medical Examination for recruitment in the Police force, it cannot be said that there was any fault in the procedure adopted.
The Petitioner, a CAPF aspirant, had claimed that even though candidates are granted 15 days period to the candidate to make an appeal before the Review Medical Board, he was forced to submit his appeal on the very same day on which the DME was conducted.
As a consequence, the petitioner could not bring his weight within the permissible limit, thereby being denied an opportunity to be selected.
IMPORTANT WEEKLY UPDATES
1. Marital Rape Exception Based On Intelligible Differentia Of Marriage: Men Welfare Trust Argues Before Delhi HC
The Delhi High Court this week continued hearing a batch of petitions challenging the exception to Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, which exempts forceful sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife from the offence of rape.
Advocate J Sai Deepak representing Men Welfare Trust today concluded the rejoinder submissions opposing the criminalisation of marital rape before a bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice C Hari Shankar.
Deepak clarified the stand of Men Welfare Trust by arguing that the entity was not against the legal recognition of spousal sexual violence. He added that its focus has been on three aspects: one, regarding proper forum; two, whether existing law is inadequate and three, on gender neutrality in which the law is moving.
He submitted that the fact that the petitioners have challenged exception 2 of Section 375, Section 376B of IPC and Section198B of CrPC, shows that they were aware of the existence of specific and special treatment in the legislation, the basis of which is the existence of marriage.
Also Read: Men Welfare Trust Opposes Judicial Intervention To Criminalize Marital Rape
Also Read: Marital Rape - Forcible Sex By Husband Can't Be Labelled Rape; At Worst Sexual Abuse; Wife Has Other Remedies: NGO Tells Delhi High Court
Also Read: Section 498A IPC Not A Remedy Against Marital Rape: Amicus Curiae Rebecca John To Delhi High Court
2. Delhi High Court Directs CBI To Recall Lookout Circular Against Businessman Sathish Babu Sana In Corruption Case
The Delhi High Court this week directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to recall the lookout circular issued against Businessman Sathish Babu Sana in relation to a corruption case involving meat exporter Moin Qureshi and other persons.
Justice Mukta Gupta however added that Sana will continue to join the investigation as and when directed by the Investigating Officer.
"The petitioner thus satisfies the test laid down by this Court in Sumer Singh Salkan (supra) as he has neither deliberately evaded arrest nor failed to appear before the Trial Court despite the non-bailable warrants nor has any coercive action been taken against him and he has travelled abroad number of times with the permission of the Court, which concession he did not misuse and therefore there is no justification in continuing with the LOC opened against the petitioner," the Court said.
3. Right To Be Forgotten: Delhi High Court Asks Indian Kanoon To Consider Blocking Judgment Concerning Matrimonial Dispute
The Delhi High Court has asked Indian Kanoon to consider blocking access of a trial court judgment concerning a matrimonial dispute in a plea invoking the right to be forgotten.
Justice V Kameswar Rao issued notice on the petition which had sought removal of the said judgment and posted the matter for further hearing on February 17 along with other similar matters involving the question of right to be forgotten.
4. Delhi Riots| Investigation Pending In 384 Out Of 758 FIRs: Police Tells High Court
The Delhi Police has informed the High Court that out of the 758 FIRs registered in connection with North East Delhi riots cases, investigation is pending in a total of 384 cases.
The development came in an affidavit that was filed by the Delhi Police in a clutch of petitions filed by Ajay Gautam, regarding the violence due to Delhi riots and alleged hate speeches by political leaders.
The police has stated that chargesheets have been filed in 367 cases, cancellation report has been filed in 3 cases and the a total of 4 cases have been quashed by the High Court.
5. "Delhi Riots & Farmers Protests Disturbed Public Order, Matters Of National Importance": Centre Defends LG Appointed Prosecutors
Defending the Delhi Lieutenant Governor's appointed Special Public Prosecutors to argue cases related to Farmers Protest and Delhi Riots, Centre has told the Delhi High Court that the cases, being highly sensitive in nature, are matters of national importance.
In a common counter affidavit submitted by the Centre and Delhi LG, it has further been submitted that both Delhi riots and farmers agitation cases led to disturbance of public order which prompted a need for efficient, fair and just prosecution of the FIRs in order to retain the faith in the country's law and order machinery.
"Merely because the incidents took place within the geographical jurisdiction of the Union Territory of Delhi, would not suffice to treat those matters as falling under direct control of the Petitioner," the affidavit reads.
6. First Conviction Not Final, Presumption Of Innocence Continues Till Last Court Of Appeal: Arguments For Ansal Brothers In Delhi HC, Order Reserved
The Delhi High Court has reserved its judgment in the plea filed by real estate barons, Sushil Ansal and Gopal Ansal, seeking suspension of their seven-year jail term in the evidence tampering case in connection with the Uphaar fire tragedy that happened in the year 1997.
Justice Subramonium Prasad on Thursday heard Senior Advocates Dr. AM Singhvi and Arvind Nigam for the duo.
7. Delhi High Court Has Territorial Jurisdiction To Hear Plea Against UAPA Sanction: Ex-Mumbai Cop Sachin Waze Claims
Dismissed Mumbai police officer Sachin Waze on Monday claimed before the Delhi High Court that it has the territorial jurisdiction to hear his challenge to the sanction granted under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) in order to prosecute him in connection with Antilia bomb scare case.
The case pertains to the recovery of 20 gelatine sticks (explosives) and a threat note in a Mahindra Scorpio vehicle near industrialist Mukesh Ambani's house in Mumbai on February 25 last year and the subsequent murder of businessman Mansukh Hiran.
8. Distinction Between Doctors, Paramedic Staff For Granting COVID Ex Gratia Amount By Delhi Govt Not Justified: High Court
The Delhi High Court has prima facie observed that the distinction drawn by the Delhi Government between doctors and paramedic staff working in either Government or Private Hospitals requisitioned by the State with other nursing homes which may not have been requisitioned on account of their capacity, is not justified.
Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh also observed that only because some nursing homes may not have been requisitioned due to their bed capacity, does not ignore the fact that the doctors and paramedic staff working at such nursing homes were also exposing themselves to the risk of contracting covid and suffering death on that account.
9. All District DCPs Sensitized For Sharing Data Of Cases Pertaining To Sexual Offences With DSLSA: Delhi Police To High Court
The Delhi Police has informed the Delhi High Court that all the Districts' DCPs have been sensitized and necessary Standing Orders have been issued so that the entire data with respect to the cases pertaining to sexual offences can be shared with the Delhi State Legal Services Authority (DSLSA).
The development came after Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri earlier sought to streamline the process of supplying FIRs pertaining to commission of sexual offences DSLSA for the purposes of granting interim compensation to the victims.
10. Examine Possibility Of Creating A Ballistic Database: High Court Tells Delhi Police
The Delhi High Court has told the Delhi Police to examine the possibility of creating a ballistic database, storing reports of all firearms for which licenses are issued or endorsed to public, which may be accessed in case of an investigation.
Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva asked the Committee appointed by the Police Commissioner to also consult the technical experts of CFSL with regards to the same.
"The Committee appointed by the Police Commissioner referred to above, may also examine the possibility of creation of a Ballistic Database, where ballistic reports of all firearms, in respect of which licences are issued or which are endorsed on the licences issued to public, can be stored so that said database can be accessed in case of an investigation," the Court ordered.
Gujarat High Court
1. PIL Moved In Gujarat High Court Seeking Appointment Of Presiding Officer In DRT-I, Ahmedabad
Case title - Nipun Praveen Singhvi v. Union Of India
A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea has been moved in the Gujarat High Court seeking a direction for filling up posts of Presiding Officer in the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Ahmedabad in terms of Section 4 of the Recovery of Debt and Bankruptcy Act, 1993.
The plea, which has been moved by Advocate Nipun Singhvi through advocates Vishal J Dave, Dr. Avinash Poddar and Hiral U Mehta, also avers that the vacancy is causing a violation of legal rights of representation to the bankers/lenders, borrowers, guarantors, and other stakeholders.
Case title - SUJAL JAYANTIBHAI MAYATRA Versus NA
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 4
The High Court upheld an order of the family court refusing to waive off the statutory 6 months cooling period in a plea by a couple seeking a mutual divorce who lived with each other for a period of 12 days only.
The Bench of Justice A. C. Joshi observed that the family court rightly passed the order refusing to waive off the cooling period therefore, there was no requirement to interfere in the impugned order of the Court.
Title: Rajendrabhai Maganbhai Koli vs Shantaben Maganbhai Koli
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 5
The Bench comprising Justice Ashok Kumar Joshi at the Gujarat High Court has held that the maximum limit of 90 days for filing the written statement as under Order VIII Rule 1 is directory and not mandatory in nature. However, the Courts must exercise this discretion sparingly and not in the routine course.
Also Read: Gujarat High Court Designates Four Lawyers As Designated Senior Advocates
4. Difference Between Article 226 & Article 227 Of Constitution: Gujarat High Court Explains
Case Title: Mukeshbhai Jayantilal Jayswal vs Alarakhbhai Yusufbhai Juneja
Case No.: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 6
The High Court has held that the High Court must exercise its Supervisory powers under Article 227 of the Constitution sparingly. Justice Ashok Kumar C. Joshi also discussed the difference in the exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 in detail. Justice Joshi termed the exercise of power under Article 227 as 'discretionary' while the jurisdiction under Article 226 as 'a matter of right.'
Case title - HAMIM HABIBBHAI KHAMBHATI v. STATE OF GUJARAT
Case Citaiton: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 8
The High Court granted relief to an interfaith married couple, and sternly asked the parents of the girl, who are opposed to the inter faith marriage and their relationship, not to misbehave.
The Bench of Justice Sonia Gokani and Justice Mauna M. Bhatt was hearing the Habeas Corpus plea by one Hamim Habibbhai Khambhati who filed a writ of habeas corpus for production of his wife with whom he got married under the Special Marriage Act.
Case Title: State of Gujarat v. PWD & Forest Employees Union
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 9
The High Court held that the benefits flowing from a Resolution applicable to the State Government employees cannot be automatically claimed by the employees of the autonomous body.
The bench comprising Justice A. P. Thaker and Justice N.V. Anjaria discarded the plea of discrimination asserted by the employees of Gujarat State Forest Development Corporation insofar as they were denied the benefit of a Resolution of the Public Works Department of the Government of Gujarat, whereby scheme was launched for the daily wagers working in the departments of the Government and under which the daily wagers came to be granted the benefits depending upon the completion of their service.
Case Title: State of Gujarat vs Gautambhai Devkubhai Vala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 10
While explaining that to prove an offence under Section 306, the Prosecution must satisfy the ingredients of Section 107 first, Justice Sandeep N Bhatt of the Gujarat High Court refused to interfere with the impugned judgement and quash the order of acquittal. While doing so, the Bench delved into the terms 'abetment' and 'instigation' under Sections 306 and 107 of the IPC, at length.
Case Title: All Assam Transgender Association v. Mukesh C Sahu and Ors
The High Court issued contempt notices to the Secretary and the Director of the Social Welfare Department of the Assam government for non-compliance of the Court's earlier order dated September 22, 2021, wherein the government had been instructed to make arrangements for funds for three shelter homes catering to members of the transgender community.
A Bench comprising Justice N. Kotiswar Singh and Justice Malasri Nandi sought the personal appearance of Mr. Partha Pratim Mazumdar, Secretary to Govt. of Assam, Social Welfare Department, Dispur (respondent 2) and Mr. Bibhash Modi, Director to Govt. of Assam, Social Welfare Department, Uzanbazar (respondent 9)
Case Name: Mukti Nath Gogoi v. The State of Assam And Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Gau) 3
On Friday, the Gauhati High Court observed that disputes pertaining to the internal affairs of an unaided private Educational Institution are not amenable to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court clarified that a mandamus can be issued against such an institution only if it performs public function and the grievance relates to discharge of such public function.
Jharkhand High Court
Case Title: Phoda Devi & Ors. v. Ganesh Mahto
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jhar) 7
The High Court has held that the primary condition for claiming adverse possession of immovable property is that the party claiming it must first acknowledge the title of the party against whom it is being claimed. The pleas regarding claiming the title on inheritance and title by adverse possession are mutually inconsistent, Justice Gautam Kumar Chowdhary added.
Case Title: Shekhar Suman v. The State of Jharkhand
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 8
Refusing to interfere with the decision of the Jharkhand Public Service Commission on disputed answers of the 2021 Preliminary Test, the Jharkhand High Court observed that, "Merely because the experts were not of the choice of the petitioner, the same cannot be a ground to doubt the decision of the subject expert committee."
In a matter seeking re-examination of the JPSC PT answer sheets, Justice Rajesh Shankar took the view that if the plea is entertained, it will result in an 'endless exercise' leading to unnecessary litigations at the instance of dissatisfied candidates.
3. Defence Of Accused Cannot Be Put Forth At The Stage Of Framing Of Charges: Jharkhand High Court
Case Title: Pushpendra Kumar Sinha v. The State of Jharkhand
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 9
The Jharkhand High Court recently refused to quash criminal proceedings against a public servant, where the trial has already begun noting that at the stage of framing of charge, the defence of the accused cannot be put forth.
Referring to the case of Supdt. And Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, W.B. v. Anil Kumar Bhunja, Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary held, "At the stage of framing the charge, the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. At this stage, even a very strong suspicion founded upon materials before the Special Judge, which leads him to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged, may justify the framing of charge against the accused in respect of the commission of that offence."
Case title - Yogendra Saw and another v State of Jharkhand
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 10
The High Court has held that the officer of the Railway Protection Force (RPF) can also conduct a house search during an inquiry under the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act without a search warrant under certain conditions as laid down under Section 165 of the CrPC.
However, when such an officer is not enquiring into a case, he has to obtain the prior permission of the Magistrate of the area as envisaged in Section 10 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, the Bench of Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary held.
1: Breaching Promise To Marry Will Not Amount To Offence Of Cheating Under IPC : Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Venkatesh And State of Karnataka Case No: Criminal Petition No 5865/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 25
The Karnataka High Court while quashing the FIR registered against a man and his family has reiterated that not abiding with the promise of marriage will not amount to the offence of cheating under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. A single-judge bench of Justice K Natarajan while allowing the petition filed by Venkatesh and others said "Absolutely there is no ingredient stated by her in order to show that there is a criminal intention of cheating by petitioner No.1 and thereby, he has promised to marry her but has broken his promise."
Case Title: Amrusha Das v. State Of Karnataka Case No: Writ Petition No.19057 of 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 26
The Karnataka High Court has said that estrangement between a couple should not affect their child's education prospects. Justice Krishna S Dixit thus allowed the petition filed by a mother and her 8-year old daughter, seeking directions to a school in Bengaluru to issue her Transfer certificate.
Case Title: Virendra Khanna v. State of Karnataka Case No: Writ Petition No.1983 of 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 27
The Karnataka High Court has said that further investigation conducted under Section 173(8) of CrPC must always relate to the incident of alleged crime in respect of which the charge sheet has been filed already. It is not reinvestigation. Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar while quashing two cases registered under the NDPS Act, against party organiser Virendra Khanna said, "Further investigation is always in accordance with Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C,with a view to collecting further evidence supplemental to the evidence already on record. It is not reinvestigation."
Case Title: Gaurav Raj Jain V. State Of Karnataka Case No: Writ Petition (HC) No.109/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 28
Observing that "Litigants and members of the Bar appear to have not understood the importance and seriousness of this extraordinary writ of Habeas Corpus," the Karnataka High Court recently dismissed a petition filed by a father seeking directions to produce his 2 year old girl before the court, who is in safe custody of her mother. A division bench of Justice B Veerappa and Justice M G Uma while dismissing the petition filed by Gaurav Raj Jain, imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on him, stating that no ground to allow the writ petition is made out and (petitioner) has abused the judicial process. The amount is payable within a month to the Police Welfare Fund.
5: Motor Accident| Courts Can Award Compensation Higher Than What Is Claimed: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Basavaraj v. Umesh Case No: M.F.A. No.103473/2017
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 29
Coming to the aid of a 14-year old (at the time) who suffered permanent disability to his pelvic region in an accident, the Karnataka High Court recently modified the order of the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, awarding compensation of Rs 50,000 under the head loss of amenities and enjoyment in life and increased it to Rs 10 lakhs.
A division bench of Justice S.G. Pandit and Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde said, "Since the marriage prospect of the claimant is wiped out, the claimant is deprived of all the pleasure and benefits of married life. The mental trauma of having to remain single, and answering the curious questions posed by the people around throughout life, for not getting married, are some of the things not easy to cope with. The trauma is going to be perennial and unabated."
Case Title: Canara Bank (E-Syndicate Bank) v. Shekar B S Case No: WA 12/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 30
The Karnataka High Court on Thursday dismissed an appeal filed by Canara Bank (E-Syndicate Bank) challenging an order of the Single judge by which it was directed to grant benefit of reduction of interest rate on Home loan to a customer from the date of issuance of the circular for reduction, instead of when the customer applied for seeking reduction. A division bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice Suraj Govindaraj was informed by the bank that the circular dated June 30, 2010 was pasted on the notice board of the bank and as such there was due communication to the customers of the bank.
Case Title: Ramesh v. State Through Dy RFO Case No: Criminal Petition No.9975/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 31
The Karnataka High Court has said that once an accused has appeared before the court, either personally or through his counsel, he cannot seek anticipatory bail by invoking section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). Justice H P Sandesh thus dismissed the anticipatory bail petition filed by one Ramesh and granted him liberty to approach the Trial Court by filing the necessary application for recalling the warrant issued against him.
8: Being Govt Employee Not A Ground For Grant Of Bail In Rape Case: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Srinivas Murthy H.N. And State Of Karnataka Case No: Criminal Petition No.9831/2021
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 32
The Karnataka High court has said that being a government employee is no ground to grant bail to an accused alleged of committing rape. Justice H P Sandesh while dismissing the petition filed by one Srinivas Murthy H.N. said "The fact that petitioner is a Government employee is not a ground to enlarge him on bail, when the serious offence of rape is alleged against the petitioner."
Case Title: Mrs Kiran Iccha Kaur Bhasin And Director-General Case No: WPHC 123/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 33
The Karnataka High Court has held that grounds on which subjective satisfaction is based while passing a detention order by the authority under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (COFEPOSA), cannot be challenged in a court of law, except on the grounds of malafides. A division bench of Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice M G S Kamal while dismissing a petition filed by the daughter of a detenu Gurmeet Singh Kohli said, "It is well settled in law that the reasonableness of satisfaction of detaining authority cannot be questioned in a court of law, for the reason that satisfaction of detaining authority to which Section 3(1)(a) of the Act refers to be subjective satisfaction of the Authority."
Other reports:
Former Prime Minister H D Deve Gowda has appealed to Prime Minister Narendra Modi to drop the proposed Amendment to Section 5 of the Notaries Act, 1952, which seeks to restrict the term of a Notary is to 5 years and further imposes a limitation on the number of terms a Notary's certificate of practice can be renewed. The proposed amendments would mean that the maximum term of a Notary will be 15 years. The existing law does not impose any limit on the number of times the extension of appointment can be sought by a notary.
Case Title: Peoples Movement Against Sexual Assault (PMASA) v. State Of Karnataka Case No: WP 6301/2017
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday directed the State Government to ensure the release of Rs. 7 crore to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority at the earliest. The amount is to be disbursed to victims under the Victim Compensation Scheme. A division bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice Suraj Govindaraj noted in its order, "It is informed that Rs. 13 crore has been released to KSLSA and the requisition for remaining Rs. 7 crore has not been received. As soon as the requisition is received the remaining amount will be released as arrangements are made and orders for release have been passed."
Case Title: Vijayan Menon v. Secretary Urban Development Department Case No: WP 42927/2015
The Karnataka High Court on Thursday took strong exception to the oral claim made by Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) that it has filled up all the potholes across the city. A division bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice Suraj Govindaraj orally observed, "We personally feel that you have not done anything...Don't say anything which we ourselves feel is wrong."
Kerala High Court
Case Title: Mathrubhoomi Illustrated Weekly & Ors. v. P. Gopalankutty & Anr
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 37
The Court has ruled that a complaint filed by the State Secretary of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) against a defamatory article published in a newspaper about the RSS is maintainable under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Justice Sophy Thomas noted that since the RSS is a definite and identifiable body, any individual member of RSS has the locus standi to maintain a complaint against an article defaming the organisation.
Case Title: V. Vijayakumar & Anr v. SNDP Yogam & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 38
Justice T.R. Ravi annulled the order issued by the Central Government in 1962 which upheld representation voting at the Sree Narayana Dharma Paripalana (SNDP) Yogam elections.
Unlike the past 46 years, now all members will have the right to vote in the elections. This decision comes in the backdrop of the next election scheduled to take place on February 5.
3. Kerala High Court Holds First Urgent Late Night Hearing To Arrest Vessel In Admiralty Suit
Case Title: Grace Young International Co.Ltd v. Owners & Parties Interested in Vessel MV Ocean Rose
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 39
In a first, the Court held a late-night hearing of an admiralty suit to arrest a vessel, MV Ocean Rose, from leaving the Cochin Port Trust. Justice Devan Ramachandran convened the hearing at 11.30 pm after the plaintiff in the suit approached the Court to prevent a ship from leaving the Cochin port, which was scheduled to leave at 5 am the next morning.
4. Kerala High Court Issues Directions To Regulate Crowd Funding For Treatment Of Rare Diseases
Case Title: Arif v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 40
The Court has issued a set of directions to the State and the Central governments in an attempt to make available adequate funds for treating patients suffering from rare diseases, particularly for those who cannot afford such expenses, to enforce the rights guaranteed to the citizens under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar directed the Centre and State to file affidavits within a month indicating inter alia the progress of the crowdfunding scheme sought to be established in the State.
Case Title: Dileepkumar v. Sriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 41
The Court has recently held that if a judgment debtor appears before the court when served with a notice and contends that he has no means to pay off the decreed debt, the Court is bound to enquire into this contention before issuing a warrant of arrest under Order XXI Rule 40 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Justice A. Badharudeen was exploring the procedure to be followed before issuance of an arrest warrant in the execution of a decree for payment of money.
Case Title: Thadiyantevida Nazeer v. State of Kerala & connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 42
The Court while acquitting the prime accused Thadiyantevida Nazeer and Shafas in the infamous Kozhikode 2006 twin bomb blast case observed that the National Investigating Agency (NIA) had failed to produce credible evidence.
A Division Bench of Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Ziyad Rahman also found that had it not been for the agency's hurry to wind up the investigation, there may have been more compelling evidence to find the accused guilty.
Case Title: P.O Meera & Anr. v Ananda P Naik & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 43
The Court recently ruled that the multiplier to be used while computing compensation in motor accident claims has to be determined on the basis of the age attained by the deceased/injured and not based on the running age.
Therefore, Justice C.S Dias observed that when a person aged 50 years and 7 months dies in a motor accident, the multiplier applicable to the age bracket of 46-50 will apply and not the one applicable to the age bracket of 51-55.
Case Title: Mary Margret v. Jos P Thomas
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 44
While upholding a divorce decree, the Court recently observed that not taking treatment for mental issues in order to bring out a peaceful and harmonious family atmosphere, amounts to cruelty to the persons at the receiving end i.e., the Spouse.
A bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Sophy Thomas dismissed the wife's appeal as it came to the conclusion that the appellant was treating her husband with cruelty both physical and mental, and in the year 2005, she had deserted him.
Case Title: P. Gopalakrishnan alias Dileep & Ors v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 45
The Court held that the prosecution has every right to seek that the accused should surrender mobile phones for forensic examination under Section 79A of the Information Technology Act.
Justice Gopinath P. rejected the argument that the surrender of mobile phones will infringe the fundamental right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India after referring to a couple of landmark decisions in this area.
Other Developments
Case Title: Peter Myaliparampil v. Union of India & Anr.
The Court dismissed an appeal challenging the Single Judge order that rejected the plea challenging the photograph of Prime Minister being affixed on the Covid-19 vaccination certificates issued to citizens. The Single Judge had also imposed a whopping cost of 1 lakh on the appellant herein by the impugned order.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly, while dismissing the appeal, noted that a photo is not an advertisement and that the Prime Minister has a right to give a message.
Case Title: P. Gopalakrishnan alias Dileep & Ors v. State of Kerala & Anr.
The Court directed actor Dileep and the other accused to hand over six mobile phones to its Registrar General in a sealed box by 10.15 am on Monday in the alleged criminal conspiracy to kill police officers investigating the sensational 2017 sexual assault case.
Justice Gopinath P. relying on the Supreme Court decision in State of Bombay vs Kathi Kalu Oghad & Ors and a Karnataka High Court decision, observed that such surrender will not amount to an infringement of Article 20(3).
Also Read: Kerala High Court Expresses Discontent With Dileep Refusing To Hand Over His Phone To Prosecution
Case Title: Pauly Vadakkan v. Lulu International Shopping Mall Pvt Ltd.
The Court reiterated its prima facie view that the collection of parking fees by Lulu International shopping mall is not appropriate. It was adjudicating upon a couple of pleas alleging that the mall collecting parking fees from its customers was illegal.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan while adjourning the matter to next month repeated its prime facie stand and directed the respondents to file a counter affidavit in the matter and added that if this was allowed, they will soon start charging for their lift services.
13. Kerala High Court Grants State 3 More Weeks To Frame Comprehensive Policy On Illegal Flag Masts
Case Title: Vishnu T.K. v. State of Kerala & Ors
The Court granted three more weeks time to the State government to draw up a comprehensive policy to deal with the menace of illegal flag masts in the State.
Justice Devan Ramachandran granted the extension upon noting that it is a matter of policy and since the Additional Advocate General was not keeping well at present:
The Court held yet another night hearing at 9 pm to attend a matter where a NEET candidate sought an extension of time to file his documents. This is the second night hearing this week.
Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan granted an interim order in favour of the petitioner noting that the student is a meritorious candidate and that he was at the risk of losing a seat merely because he had failed to produce the original of a document.
Case Title: State of Kerala v. Sunil N.S & Ors
The Court granted the prosecution 10 more days from January 27 to complete the examination of witnesses before the trial court in the sensational 2017 actor sexual assault case. Earlier, the Court had partly allowed the application filed by the State, permitting it to summon 5 additional witnesses. In this order, the Court had directed a new Special Public Prosecutor be deputed to conduct the case and to complete the examination of the witnesses within ten days.
Justice Kauser Edappagath was inclined to grant the extension upon being informed that out of the five witnesses, three had already been examined.
Case Title: Film Exhibitors United Organisation of Kerala v. State of Kerala & Ors.
A plea has been moved in the Court seeking approval to run cinema halls in the State with 20% intake and strict adherence to Covid-19 protocol citing that other sectors are still functioning without any interdictions. Justice N. Nagaresh directed the Government Pleader to get instructions and posted the matter for consideration on January 27.
The petition was filed by an organisation of film exhibitors in the State challenging the recent Government Orders dated 20th and 24th January 2022 which imposed restrictions on the functioning of movie theatres in the State in the wake of rising Covid-19 cases.
Case Title: Sajitha Sajeevan v. Station House Officer & Ors.
The Court disposed of the habeas corpus plea moved by a CPM worker's wife alleging that her missing husband was abducted for reasons associated with the upcoming CPM branch election, recording that the investigation was progressing in the matter.
A Division Bench comprising Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice C. Jayachandran closed the writ petition after the respondents submitted a report indicating that they are carrying on with the investigation and that a man missing case was registered in the matter.
Case Title: Hindu Seva Kendram v. State of Kerala
The Court heard a plea alleging that the State auctioned a Mahindra Thar vehicle dedicated to the deity of Sree Krishna in Guruvayoor Temple in total violation of the provisions of the Gururvayoor Devaswom Act and the general principles of auction.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.G. Ajithkumar directed the Guruvayur Devaswom Board to produce the details of the Mahindra Thar including its price by the next hearing date.
Case Title: P Gopalakrishnan alias Dileep & Ors. v State of Kerala & Ors.
In the application seeking anticipatory bail from the Court, Malayalam cinema actor Dileep has made several allegations against director Balachandrakumar.
In his reply to a recent statement filed by the Crime Branch before the Kerala High Court, Dileep alleges that the director assured that he was close to the Bishop of Neyyattinkara, who was quite influential and had strong associations with the Chief Minister and senior police officers.
Also Read: Kerala High Court To Hear Actor Dileep's Pre-Arrest Bail Plea On February 2: Interim Order To Continue
20. Vlogger Sreekanth Vettiyar Approaches Kerala High Court Seeking Pre-Arrest Bail In Rape Case
Case Title: Sreekanth Vettiyar v. State of Kerala
Popular content creator and vlogger Sreekanth Vettiyar has moved the Court seeking anticipatory bail after a woman filed an official complaint accusing him of rape. Justice Gopinath P. directed the Public Prosecutor to get instructions and posted the matter to be taken up again on February 2.
Vettiyar, known in the State for his 'woke humour', was accused of having raped a woman on the pretext of marrying her. He was thereby booked under Section 376 (2)(n) of IPC.
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Sukhendra Chaturvedi v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 11
The High Court ordered enquiry against a Station House Officer (SHO) for not producing case diary in a case despite being repeatedly ordered to do so.
Justice Vivek Agarwal also took exception to the "lame excuse" given by the officer that the case diary could not be produced as he had forgotten about the same given his busy schedule.
"This explanation given by the Incharge Station House Officer Satish Mishra S/o.Santosh Mishra reveals that prima facie he is not fit to continue in police service because his memory is weak and he could not produce the case diary despite several reminders, which were sent from of the Office of the Advocate General..." the Bench observed.
Case Title: Dr Neha Padam v. Central Bureau of Investigation
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 12
Amending one of the conditions for her bail, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior Bench, ordered the Applicant, a Medical Student, to tender her services biweekly, either at a District Hospital or a Community Health Centre.
The division bench of Justice Anand Pathak and Justice G.S. Ahluwalia was essentially dealing with an application moved by the Applicant U/S 482 CRPC, to amend one of the conditions under which the Court had previously allowed her application for anticipatory bail.
Case Title: Surajbhan Singh v. State of M.P.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 13
A peculiar criminal appeal recently reached the Gwalior Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court, where surprisingly the Trial Court had passed an "incomplete judgment" of conviction for the offence of Murder.
The Division Bench of Justice G.S. Ahluwalia and Justice Deepak Kumar Agarwal noted that whereas the Appellant before it was on trial for murder of two, he was punished only on one count and there was no mention, whether of acquittal or of conviction, with respect to the second murder.
Case title - Cycle Yaatri Samooh and others v. Union of India and others
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 14
Noting that at some places the general public is using footpaths for the purpose of parking, putting the signing board, or for business purposes, the Madhya Pradesh High Court recently said that the public needs to be educated not to use the footpath and dedicated track for other purposes.
This assertion came from the Bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Rajendra Kumar Verma which was hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea seeking a direction to Indore Municipal Corporation and others to provide a dedicated way to the pedestrians, cyclists, and also the physically challenged persons by way of developing, designing and widening the roads in the city.
Case title - SURENDRA DHAKAD Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 15
The High Court has said that merely on the ground that the vehicle is liable to confiscation under Section 60 of the NDPS Act, it cannot be held that once the vehicle is seized for the commission of offence under the NDPS Act, interim custody cannot be granted.
The Bench of Justice Deepak Kumar Agarwal further observed that the NDPS Act does not contain any bar regarding the grant of interim custody as contained in Section 52C of the Indian Forest Act, 1927.
Case Title: Mamta Gupta vs. State of MP & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 16
The High Court has held that if prima facie ingredients of the offence alleged are satisfied, then criminal proceedings need not be quashed in a case involving encroachment upon Government land. The Bench comprising Justice Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava further observed that criminal complaint cannot be quashed only on the ground that the allegations made therein appear to be of a civil nature.
7. What Constitutes 'Dispute' Under Arbitration & Conciliation Act? Madhya Pradesh High Court Explains
Case Title: Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and others v. M/s Tatpar Petroleum Centre
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 17
Surprised over the fact that the word 'Dispute' is not defined under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 even though its object is to "resolve disputes" between rival parties, the High Court explained as to what may constitute a 'dispute' for the purpose of invocation of the provisions contained in the Act.
The division bench comprising of Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav observed, "for a dispute to arise there should exist an assertion/claim which is refuted by the other side."
Case title - M/s Gayatri Project Ltd. Vs. Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation Limited
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 18
The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently said that in the State, the dispute of 'works contract' could be raised before the Tribunal constituted under the M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 alone, and in such disputes, the applicability of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 is barred.
The Bench of Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav further ruled that if an arbitration award is passed with respect to 'work contract' disputes, then such an award can be set aside under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996.
Case title - Balli Chaudhary alias Rakesh v. State of MP
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 19
The Madhya Pradesh High Court (Gwalior Bench) recently observed that the opinion of a doctor is relevant evidence under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, but it can rarely take the place of substantive evidence and it cannot be conclusive because it is only opinion evidence.
The Bench of Justice Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava observed thus as it dismissed a criminal revision plea filed by one Balli Chaudhary against the order of framing of charges agaisnt him under Sections 307, 34, and 452 of IPC.
Case Title: Guljar Khan Vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 20
Deciding a Habeas Corpus petition, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh upheld the constitutional right of major persons to stay together, either by way of marriage or live-in relationship.
Justice Nandita Dubey was essentially dealing with a petition moved by a husband who alleged that the parents of his wife have forcibly taken her to Banaras and have illegally detained her. The Petitioner submitted that he married his wife with her consent and that she willingly embraced Islam.
Case title - Aadil v. Union of India and others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 21
The High Court (Indore Bench) observed that a Kazi can entertain a dispute and acts as a mediator to settle the dispute between the members of the Muslim community but he cannot adjudicate the dispute like a court and pass an order like a decree.
With this, the Bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Rajendra Kumar Verma noted that an order of the Kazi granting Talaq (divorce) by way of Khula has no legal sanctity and can simply be ignored.
Case Title: Smt. Nandni Kewat v. State of M.P
The High Court, Gwalior Bench, while hearing a bail application, lamented at the state of affairs with respect to record-keeping and execution of summons/bailable warrants/warrants by the Police department.
Justice G.S. Ahluwalia was essentially dealing with a bail application, wherein the Applicant made the court privy to the fact that one of the prosecution witnesses in her case, a Police Officer, did not produce himself before the Trial Court to testify on six consecutive hearings.
Case Title: M v. The Director-General of Police & Ors.
In a petition filed for transfer of investigation pertaining to the demise of a 17-year-old girl to CB-CID or other independent investigating agencies, Madurai bench of Madras High Court asked the police authorities to focus on the circumstances that led to her suicide.
The court said so in light of allegations that the police was harassing the person who allegedly videographed the girl while she was making allegations about pressure exerted on her for religious conversion. Since there has been no doubt as to the credibility of postmortem conducted by doctors from Thanjavur Medical College, the bench of Justice G.R Swaminathan asked the District Collector to make necessary arrangements to transfer the body to the deceased child's native place.
Case Title: Dr.M.Nakkeeran v. The State Election Commissioner & Ors. & Connected Matters
The Madras High Court expressed its difficulty in allowing the plea for postponing the urban local body polls in light of the worsening pandemic situation, given the prevailing Supreme Court order requiring the State Election Commission to notify the polls within four months, latest by January 27.
The Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice P.D Audikesavalu orally remarked that it cannot go against the Supreme Court order mandating the notifying of elections within four months.
Case Title: M.Sornam v. The Union Of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 27
In a writ petition filed by the widow of a freedom fighter for grant of Family Freedom Fighters Monthly pension, Madras High Court set aside the rejection order by Freedom Figher Revenue Division (F.F.R) and directed the processing of Petitioner's application under Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980.
While allowing the plea of the petitioner wife, the court also made some stringent remarks about bureaucrats denying the freedom fighters pension on flimsy, technical grounds.
The single-judge bench of Justice C.V Karthikeyan was adjudicating a plea filed by the widow of E. Muthiya, a freedom fighter who was a Sepoy in the Indian National Army (INA) and served under the late lamented Nethaji Subhas Chandrabose. According to the wife's petition, her late husband was taken to detention in Burma (May 1945- July 1945) and incarcerated in Rangoon Central Jail (August 1945- July 1946) while he was retreating with the INA
4. Tanjavur Girl's Suicide: Madras High Court Orders Forensic Analysis Of Video Containing Her Statements
Case Title: Muruganantham v. The Director-General of Police & Ors.
In a petition filed for transfer of investigation pertaining to the suicide of a 17-year-old girl to CB-CID, the Madurai bench of Madras High Court ordered the forensic analysis of the viral video in which the deceased had allegedly spoken about the forced attempts of the school authorities to convert her to Christianity.
However, the court opined that the confirmation by investigating officer about the voice of the deceased alone was not sufficient. Therefore, the court has directed the person who filmed the video to appear in person before the investigating officer on 25th January.
When the matter was taken up, Justice GR Swaminathan was informed that both the petitioner and his wife recorded their statements under Section 164 CrPC before the Judicial Magistrate, pursuant to the order issued by the high court on Saturday. The High Court was also able to confirm that the recorded statements were handed over to the current investigation officer. Perusing the statements made, the court inferred that both of them iterate about the attempts made to convert the petitioner's girl child to Christianity.
5. Madras High Court Expunges 'Scathing' Remarks Against Actor Vijay In Entry Tax Case
Case Title: C. Joseph Vijay v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 28
In an appeal filed by Actor Vijay to remove the scathing remarks made by the single judge bench while dismissing his petition for tax exemption on a Rolls Royce Ghost Motor Car, Madras High Court has expunged the observations made by single judge bench in paras 3,4,7,8, 11 and 12 of the original order.
A Division Bench of Justices Pushpa Sathyanarayana and Mohammed Shaffiq allowed the writ appeal filed by Actor Vijay and disposed off the connected miscellaneous petition with no costs.
The actor was challenging the order passed by a single bench of Justice SM Subramaniam on July 13, dismissing a writ petition filed by Vijay in 2012. In the judgment, the single bench had made observations to the effect that one becomes a 'real hero' by promptly paying tax. The single bench had also taken a dig at the actor by saying that while his reel life characters were preaching tax compliance, in real life he was seeking exemption.
Case Title: Arjunan Elayaraja v. The Secretary & Ors.
In a plea filed for implementation of National Education Policy (NEP), 2020 in the State of Tamil Nadu, Madras High Court orally observed that it wouldn't be harmful if Hindi is taught in educational institutions as a third language, along with Tamil and English.
The first bench of Acting Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice PD Audikesavalu has ordered notice in the matter returnable by four weeks.
The bench was hearing a public interest litigation filed by Arjunan ELayaraja seeking directions for the implementation of NEP, 2020 in educational institutions across Tamil Nadu. He contended that the state cannot opt out from promoting Hindi and Sanskrit in the State in light of NEP, 2020. The bench opined that the state has the discretion to decide on such issues. However, the court noted that the people of Tamil Nadu will be at a disadvantage when they go outside the State without knowing Hindi language.
7. Madras High Court Refuses To Defer Urban Local Body Polls Amid Covid Third Wave
Case Title: Dr.M.Nakkeeran v. The State Election Commissioner & Ors. & Connected Matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 29
The Madras High Court refused to postpone the urban local body polls likely to be notified by the State Election Commission before January 27, even though the petitioners vehemently opposed conducting elections in light of the third wave of the pandemic. The order was passed after hearing all the counsels appearing for the petitioners in a course of three days.
The first bench of Acting Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice PD Audikesavalu noted that it cannot go against the direction given to the Tamil Nadu State Election Commission (TNSEC) by the apex court to abide by the constitutional mandate to conduct elections every five years. On 27th September 2021, Supreme Court had directed the TN SEC to notify the polls within four months based on the undertaking given by the Commission.
The court accepted the petitioners' contention that the High Court has vast powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. However, the court observed:
"...The question however would be, in the exercise of said jurisdiction, can we go against direction of the apex court? This is not a case here we have refused to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 in reference to the bar under any statute, but to maintain judicial discipline and not to pass an order contrary to an apex court order".
Case Title: P. Babu v. Ministry of Defence & Ors.
Madras High Court has refused to entertain a public interest litigation filed by Advocate P. Babu against the exclusion of Tamil Nadu's Tableau for participation in 73rd Republic Day Parade scheduled for tomorrow.
The first bench of Acting Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice PD Audikesavalu noted that the petitioner has failed to submit all relevant documents other than a few news items which cannot be the basis for the directions sought.
Case Title: G.Sivarajaboopathi v. State & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 30
The Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) quashed an FIR registered against a man over a Facebook post made by him against Late CDS General Bipin Rawat soon after his death in the helicopter crash on December 8, 2021.
The single bench of Justice GR Swaminathan condemned the act of the accused G.Sivarajaboopathi in harsh terms but quashed the FIR observing that the post did not amount to a criminal offence under the Indian Penal Code.
The subject matter of the case was the post which said "it is disgrace to shed tears for "Dictator Bipin Rawat", the mercenary of the fascists". Based on a complaint, the Cyber Crime Police Station Nagercoil registered an FIR invoking Sections 153, 505(2) and 504 of IPC on December 15 against the author of the post and others who shared the post.
Case Title: Rt.Rev.Timothy Ravinder Dev Pradeep, The Bishop, CSI Coimbatore Diocese v. Rev.Charles Samraj.N & Anr
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 31
In civil revision petitions filed challenging an order passed by Coimbatore Principal District Munsiff, Madras High Court has held that the power to issue writ under Article 226 or Article 227 is subject to the court's discretion even when an alternative remedy is available. The alternative remedy in itself won't constitute a bar for the High Court to exercise its revisional powers under Article 227.
The court also made a clarification that the Registry shouldn't have queried about the maintainability of the revision petitions in light of alternative remedy under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, as against the order passed in the interim application by the Munsiff. Registry does not have such powers to raise objections on the ground of availability of alternative remedy under the Code of Civil Procedure or under any other statute.
The single-judge bench of Justice R. Subramanian was considering the revision petitions arising out of an order granting temporary injunctions restraining administrative committee from taking any policy decisions on appointments, change of correspondents and carrying out the day-to-day affairs of CSI Diocese until the conduct of 34th CSI Coimbatore Diocesan Council and interfering with the functions carried out by the current Presbyter and Chairman of the CIS All Souls' Church, Coimbatore.
Case Title: Meharaj v. The State Rep By Its Secretary & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 32
In a pertinent judgment, Madras High Court has answered i) whether the denial of conjugal rights to a convicted prisoner would be violative of Article 21 and, ii) whether the state can be directed to consider the request made by convict for emergency leave or ordinary leave for the said purpose.
Since the right of their spouses to have conjugal rights are also indirectly curtailed by such denial, Madras High Court has examined the scope of treating conjugal rights of a convict/ prisoner as a fundamental right, and in case there is such a right, whether it would be unconditional or subject to other restrictions. The court answered the above questions while deciding upon the propriety of directing the state to grant emergency leave or ordinary leave to a convict for the purpose of having a conjugal relationship with the spouse.
In a reference made by the Division Bench of High Court over the dilemma that there is no specific provision in Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982, for availing leave to have conjugal relationship with the spouse, a three-judge bench of Acting Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari, Justice PD Audikesavalu and Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana answered in the affirmative that prisoners/ convicts can claim such a right if there is a ground of 'extraordinary reason' and infertility treatment falls within the definition of 'extraordinary reasons' as envisaged in the Act.
The bench opined that the prayer of the petitioner to undergo infertility treatment when the convict and the spouse do not have a child in the wedlock forms 'extraordinary reason' under Rule 20 (vii) of 1982 Rules. However, the court made a clarification that if the couple had a child in the wedlock, then seeking leave for infertility treatment would not have been considered as an 'extraordinary reason'. The convict/ prisoner cannot seek leave over and over for the same ground in the category of 'extraordinary reason', the court added.
Case Title: Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company v. Director General of Police & Ors
Taking note of allegations about numerous fake motor accident claims, the Madras High Court has ordered a detailed probe into 84 cases claiming a total of Rs.11.70 Crores, that were withdrawn after the complaint.
Justice N. Anand Venkatesh observed, "This is not merely coincidental and it is more a knee-jerk reaction after complaints were made to the effect that claims have been filed with false and fabricated medical and hospital records of Cavery Hospital, Hosur. It is not clear as to whether the concerned Judges before dismissing the 84 claims as not pressed, even conducted any preliminary enquiry to ascertain as to why so many claims are not pressed."
The Court thus suo motu impleaded Secretary, Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority to enquire into the 84 claims, previously pending before ADJ, Hosur and PSJ, Hosur.
The High Court wants to ascertain whether the claims have been not pressed with the knowledge of the concerned claimants.
Case Title: Amica Financial Technologies Pvt.Ltd. v. Hip Bar Pvt.Ltd. & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 33
Madras High Court has recently refused to grant an interim injunction to Amica Financial Technologies, restraining the respondents including Hip Bar and Dreaming Technologies Pvt Ltd from undertaking any business in connection with the pre-paid instruments license (PPI License). While vacating the ex-parte order of status quo from December, 2021, the court observed that there is not even a semblance of prima facie case made out by the applicant for grant of interim injunction.
"To claim such protection, the applicant must, at least prima facie, establish through some material that such information was communicated or imparted to the 1st (Hip Bar) and 2nd respondents. The applicant must also, prima facie, establish that the information in question is confidential in nature. Further, the applicant must also show that the confidential information is under a threat of being unauthorizedly used by the respondents for wrongful gain", the court noted.
The matter pertains to the trade secrets, including business plans and objectives, in respect of the proposed PPI business by Amica which was allegedly shared with Hip Bar. The plaintiff/applicant submitted before the court that Dreaming Technologies Private Limited is in the process of acquiring Hip Bar.
The bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh also discarded the request of the plaintiff to constitute a confidentiality club by noting that it cannot be done in a hasty manner merely based on the ipse dixit of the plaintiff. First of all, the Court must be satisfied based on materials and the plaintiff must necessarily lay a foundation before making such a request, the bench added. The plaintiff sought the constitution of confidentiality club for the reason that it cannot divulge the nature of trade secret either in the plaint or in the interim application for injunction; it further added that such an act would expose the sensitive confidential information to everyone and detrimentally affect the uniqueness of the business model followed by the applicant.
14. Madras High Court Issues Slew Of Directions To Remove Encroachments From Water Bodies
Case Title: K.K Ramesh v. the State of Tamil Nadu & Ors and Other Connected Matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 34
Issuing a slew of directions on top of the directions already in force, the Madras High Court has underscored that there will be no leniency towards waterbody encroachers and land grabbers.
The court has made it clear in a batch of writ petitions seeking directions to prevent widespread encroachment that- it won't allow the encroachers to peacefully enjoy the properties listed as water bodies on the 'Tamil Nilam' Website.
The first bench of Acting Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice PD Audikesavalu has directed that no registering authority under the Registration Act, 1908, shall register any document pertaining to lands classified as water bodies in the revenue records as shown in the Tamil Nilam Website.
Additionally, the court made the following directions:
1) The registering authority must obtain a declaration from every such applicant seeking land registration, plan approval, electricity/ water connection or assessment of property tax that their lands are not situated in waterbodies.
2) Moreover, the authority allowing the requests in such applications should ensure that the property has not been identified as a waterbody by the State Government in Tamil Nilam Website. To ascertain the status of the land concerned, physical inspection at the property must also be carried out for ensuring the same and an office note about the same must be kept on record.
3) The court has also given an ultimatum to aiding/ abetting officials who circumvent law to facilitate encroachment of water bodies.
15. Tanjavur Girl's Suicide: Madras High Court Reserves Order On Plea For CBI Probe
Case Title: Muruganantham v. The Director-General of Police & Ors.
In a petition filed for transfer of investigation pertaining to the suicide of a 17-year-old girl, the Madurai bench of Madras High Court on Friday reserved the orders after hearing parties at length.
The petition, filed by the father of the deceased girl, originally sought for investigation by the CB-CID. Today, the petitioner's counsel made an oral plea for CBI investigation, expressing lack of confidence confidence with the state police.
The single-judge bench of Justice G.R Swaminathan also heard the counsel appearing for the intervenor School, Senior Advocate Fr. Xavier Arulraj.
At the outset, the Additional Public Prosecutor for the state informed the court that Muthuvel, who shot the video of the girl making statements, is not cooperating with the investigation. Though he handed over the mobile phone to the investigation agency on 25th January as per the court order, he has refused to throw light into the number of videos recorded and the recipients of video so recorded. The prosecutor also remarked in the beginning that the deceased had made a phone call to a helpline two years back due to the ill-treatment meted out to the child by her parents. The prosecutor submitted that 63 witnesses have been examined so far to ensure a comprehensive and fair investigation.
The court also court also heard the Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the School Management accused of attempting to convert the deceased girl child.
Case Title: M/s.CSCO LLC & Anr. v. M/s.Lakshmi Saraswathi Spintex Limited, Rep.by its Managing Director & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 35
In a significant decision, the Madras High Court recently held that the mandatory time limit of 120 days to file a written statement in a commercial suit is not applicable to written statement to a counter-claim.
"... this Court holds that the Proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, which fixes the maximum period for filing the written statement as 120 days and which was held to be mandatory by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SCG Contracts India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. K. S. Chamankar Infrasturcture Pvt. Ltd. and Ors., reported in 2019 (2) CTC 294, beyond which the right to file the written statement will stand forfeited, will not apply to a written statement filed by the plaintiffs for the counter claim made by the defendants and such cases will be governed only by the time period fixed by the Court under Order VIII Rule 6 A(3) of CPC".
Justice N. Anand Venkatesh was considering if it would be prudent according to the provisions of Civil Procedure Code and Madras High Court Original Side Rules to condone the delay of 563 days in filing the Written Statement of the Plaintiffs for a Counter Claim filed by Defendant.
Case Title: Palaniyappan & Ors. v. State & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 36
The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court has recently quashed an FIR registered against protesters who assembled before a TASMAC Shop in 2017 and demanded that it must be shifted for the sake of young generation.
While quashing the FIR registered based on the complaint of Village Administrative Official and taken on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Justice K. Murali Shankar observed that the prosecution has failed to establish that the ingredients of the offences under which they were booked are made out.
The court, after placing reliance on the Supreme Court judgment in C. Muniappan & Ors vs State Of Tamil Nadu (2010), noted its findings that Section 195 Cr.P.C bars taking cognizance of any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 I.P.C., except on a complaint in writing given by the public servant concerned or some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate.
The petitioners had filed a petition seeking quashing of the FIR registered under Sections 143 [Unlawful Assembly], 188 [Contempt of lawful authority of public servants], 341 [Wrongful Restraint] and 353 I.P.C [Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty].
The court observed that the FIR was registered against 23 persons including 14 women without considering the clear bar on taking cognizance of an offence under Section 188 I.P.C. without a complaint, as contemplated under Section 195 Cr.P.C.
Meghalaya High Court
Case Title: Benedic R. Marak v. State of Meghalaya & Ors.
The Meghalaya High Court has refused to interfere with a notice issued by the Governor of Meghalaya under Rule 36(5) of the Assam and Meghalaya Autonomous Districts (Constitution of District Councils) Rules, 1951 ("the Rules"), whereby the District Council had been summoned to take up a no-confidence motion against the Executive Committee of the Garo Hills Autonomous District Council ("ADC").
Orissa High Court
Orissa High Court Upholds The Validity Of Odisha Universities (Amendment) Act, 2020
Case Title: Kunja Bihari Panda & Ors. v. State of Odisha & Ors. and other connected matters.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 7
The High Court while upholding the constitutional validity of the Odisha Universities (Amendment) Act, 2020 ("the OUA Act"), held that in the absence of legislation by the central government under Entry 25 List III, the subordinate legislation under Entry 66 List I will have to yield to the plenary jurisdiction of the State Government under List III Entry 25 of the seventh schedule.
A Division Bench comprising of Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar and Justice A.K. Mohapatra was hearing a batch of writ petitions which challenged the validity of the OUA Act, 2020 under several grounds. The Amendment Act amended multiple provisions of the Odisha Universities Act, 1989.
Case Title: Ramani Ranjan Mohanty v. W.V. Raja
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 6
The High Court has held that a party cannot file an appeal against a mere finding / observation of the Trial Court, when the decree has not in any way gone against such a party.
Justice Debabrata Dash observed,
"No Appeal lies against a mere finding. Section-96 and 100 of the Code provide for an Appeal against decree and not against judgment. No Appeal lies against a finding / observation when the decree has not gone in any way against that person coming to file the Appeal."
Case Title: Surendra Kumar Sahoo v. State of Odisha
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 5.
The Orissa High Court on Monday held that the Tata Power Company Limited ("TPCL") is an "authority" within the meaning of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Justice B.R Sarangi noted that TPCL although a company has engaged in the distribution of electricity in four distribution areas of the State under different names. It was further noted that its management is also controlled by the State through GRIDCO (Grid Corporation of Odisha).
Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case title - NARENDRA SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (P&H) 10
Stressing that law acknowledges a woman's right to have a sexual relationship, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has recently observed that the consent given during prior sexual acts won't extend to future occasions.
The Bench of Justice Vivek Puri further remarked that the withdrawal of the consent for sexual act effectively nullifies the earlier consent and therefore, forcibly sexual intercourse becomes non-consensual attracting the penal provisions of Section 376 IPC.
Case Title: Ramprastha Promoters And Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Union Of India and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 11
Mere hardship in making pre-deposits which include diverting funds is not an arduous circumstance in any manner and does not necessitate waiver of a statutory mandate, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held.
In a case about a batch of petitions filed by several real estate developers against orders passed by the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority involving common questions of law regarding S.43(5) of RERA Act, 2016, which sought to get a relaxation from High Court under A.22, in making pre-deposits, Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj has observed that "A Petitioner seeking the indulgence of Writ Court to seek exemption from statutory mandate must establish strong reasons and to establish a deprivation of its statutory remedy of appeal by demonstrating to the satisfaction of Court, it's inability to arrange for pre-deposit despite all reasonable efforts."
Case title - Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 12
The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Thursday granted bail to former Punjab MLA and Congress leader, Sukhpal Singh Khaira in connection with a money laundering case, registered against him in January 2021 on account of his alleged involvement in the smuggling of heroin, gold, and, illegal weapons.
The Bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur was of the opinion that at this stage, it can't be concluded that the Khaira has committed the offence under the PML Act.
Case Title: Maam Gujjar @ Maam Hussain v. State of Punjab
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 13
If there is no prima facie case against the wife and no dying declaration or suicide note alleging the same, just the fact that she is allegedly a woman of easy character is not indicative of the wife abetting and inciting suicide of her husband, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held.
In a case pertaining to a husband committing suicide and snuffing the life of his son, leaving behind a note about his wife's illicit affairs, Justice Vikas Bahl has noted that even if the wife has been alleged to be of easy virtue, it is not indicative of her instigating or abetting or aiding the commission of suicide by her husband.
Case Title: Anupama Singh v. Badri Narayan Sharma & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 33
The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench has observed that a contempt proceeding would not be maintainable, if two interpretations are possible, and if the action in question is not contumacious.
Justice Sudesh Bansal, ruled, "It is not in dispute that as far as directions to allow the petitioner to join services as Female Health Worker had already been complied with and further according to the respondents, the consequential benefits flowing pursuant to the order of appointment of petitioner dated 08.07.2000 have also been accorded vide order dated 25.10.2011".
Case Title: M/s Triveni Electrodes v. Union Of India and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 34
The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench has upheld the vires of Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The same pertains to Refund of tax.
" We may note one development, namely, that the Supreme Court in the Union of India and others Vs. VKC Footsteps India Pvt.Ltd. , has upheld the vires of the statutory provisions under consideration. That being the situation, the petitioner's challenge to the statutory provisions must come to an end ".
Case Title: United India Insurance Company Ltd v. Smt Soniya
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 35
The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur upheld the decision of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Alwar which, while relying on the 'principle of pay and recover', directed the insurance company to first pay compensation to the claimants and then recover the same from the vehicle owner.
Justice Sudesh Bansal, observed, "Insurance Company has miserably failed to prove that the declaration of cancellation/ nullifying the driving licence of the Driver was ever brought to the knowledge of the owner of vehicle and it is not proved that the owner was guilty of negligence in not following the due care and caution to fulfil the conditions of the insurance policy, therefore, the Tribunal has not committed any error of law in following the principle of "pay and recover".
Case Title: Mohan Lal S/o Okha Ram v. State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 36
The Rajasthan High Court observed that the burden on the defence to prove the plea of insanity is only to the extent of establishing the same by preponderance of probabilities and such a defence need not be proved beyond all manner of doubt.
The observation was made while hearing an appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C against the judgment of the trial court, whereby appellants were convicted and sentenced with life imprisonment.
A division of Justice Sameer Jain and Justice Sandeep Mehta, observed, "It is clear that the burden on the defence to prove the plea of insanity is only to the extent of establishing the same by preponderance of probabilities and such a defence need not be proved beyond all manner of doubt. Thus, the conclusion drawn by the trial court that the defence failed to prove that the accused was affected with such mental ailment, which prevented him from understanding the consequences of his acts, is totally unjustified".
Case Title: Parul Khurana v. The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 37
The Rajasthan High Court observed that there is nothing in law that permits a candidate to apply in the 'Divorcee Female' category in the expectancy that a divorce decree would be granted by the Court.
A division bench of Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani and Justice Sandeep Mehta, observed, "For a person, applying in the said category, the status of being divorced was imperative. There is nothing in law which can permit a candidate to apply in the said category in the expectancy that a decree would be granted".
The petitioner had filed a writ petition assailing the notice whereby her candidature was rejected as she did not possess the decree of divorce on the last date of submission of the online application form for the post of Stenographer Grade-III (Hindi and English) in the District Courts and the District Legal Services Authorities.
Case Title: M/s S.k. Metal v. Assistant Commissioner, B II Enforcement Wing II, Department Of Commercial Taxes
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 38
The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a plea challenging the vires of Section 70 of Rajasthan GST Act, 2017 which provides for Power to summon persons to give evidence and produce documents.
After perusing the provision, the division bench of Chief Justice Akil Kureshi and Justice Sameer Jain ruled, " The provision thus while empowering the proper officer to summon a person to give evidence or to produce documents, controls such exercise of powers by providing that the summons may be issued where a proper officer considers it necessary that such person is required to give evidence or to produce certain documents. These powers are not thus unguided or uncanalised."
The court recalled that Section 14C of the Central Excise Act and Section 108 of the Customs Act contain similar provisions authorizing the appropriate officer with the power to summon attendance of a witness for recording statement or for production of documents.
Case Title: Dr. Neha Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 39
A division bench of Rajasthan High Court dismissed an appeal filed by several doctors directing the respondent authorities to consider their experience of service in Government hospitals of remote and difficult areas till 31.10.2021, instead of 30.09.2021.
Chief Justice Akil Kureshi and Justice Sameer Jain, observed, "The policy of the State is to grant incentive. No candidate has a vested right to claim such incentives, that too dehors the State policy. Such cut off date cannot be kept fluctuating. The date of counselling would depend on several factors. The suggestion that experience gained by the candidate right till the first date of counseling is therefore not acceptable. There is yet another angle to this issue."
The court opined that grant of incentive itself is a policy matter and based on the discretion of State authorities and any extension for considering the experience is also part of such discretionary exercise of the powers. The court added that unless it is shown that such discretion is exercised arbitrarily or malafidely this Court would not interfere in such policy matters.
8. Rajasthan Judicial Services: High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Answer Key Of 2021 Prelims Exam
Case Title: Ashwini Chaturvedid v. High Court Of Judicature For Rajasthan, Jodhpur, Through Its Registrar General
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 40
The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a plea challenging the final results of the Civil Judge Cadre of Rajasthan Judicial Services (Preliminary Examination).
The exam was conducted on 28.11.2021 and the final result for the same was declared on 11.01.2022.
The present plea was filed by one Ashwini Chaturvedi. She had challenged the administration's decision on the correct choice in relation to question No.80 and its decision to delete question No.81, through which the petitioner missed out clearing the RJS preliminary examination's cut-off only by 1 mark.
A division bench of Justice Akil Kureshi and Justice Madan Gopal Vyas, observed, " We do not think that the petitioner has made out any case for interference. As is well settled through series of judgments of the Supreme Court, interference by the High Court in specialized fields where recruitment is being made through specialized agencies, should be the minimum."
Case Title: Sudesh Taneja v. Income Tax Officer, and connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 41
Providing relief to a batch of petitioners, the division bench of Rajasthan High Court quashed notices issued by the Assessing Officers under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act of 1961) for reopening assessments for various assessment years.
The petitioners have also challenged portions of two notifications issued by CBDT clarifying that provisions of Sections 148, 149 and 151 of the Act as on 31.03.2021 shall apply for the purpose of issuance of notice under Section 148 for the past period. According to the petitioners, this explanation is beyond the jurisdiction of CBDT.
Chief Justice Akil Quresh and Justice Sameer Jain ruled, "A notice which had become time barred prior to 01.04.2021 as per the then prevailing provisions, would not be revived by virtue of the application of Section 149(1)(b) effective from 01.04.2021. All the notices issued in the present cases are after 01.04.2021 and have been issued without following the procedure contained in Section 148A of the Act and are therefore invalid."
Other Important Updates
The Rajasthan High Court has conferred senior designation on 26 Advocates in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961 and the Rajasthan High Court (Designation of Senior Advocates) Guidelines- 2019.
The list comprises of only one women Advocate, i.e. Gayatri Rathore, who is designated from Jaipur Bench.
Moreover, 11 Advocates are from the Principal Bench of Jodhpur, while 15 Advocates are from Jaipur Bench.
Case Title: Samriddhi Saraswat v. National Medical Commission
The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, has issued notice on a plea challenging regulations of the Medical Council of India (MCI) for foreign medical students, requiring them to compulsorily undergo minimum 54 months medical education for grant of permanent registration in India.
A division bench of Chief Justice Akil Kureshi and Justice Sameer Jain were hearing the plea filed by one Samriddhi Saraswat, who is pursuing a medical course in an institution situated in Philippines. She claimed that her institution is recognized as per Section 39 of the National Medical Commission Act, 2019.
Medical Council of India has now framed regulations, namely of National Medical Commission (Foreign Medical Graduate Licentiate) Regulations, 2021, in which regulation 4 provides inter-alia that no medical graduate shall be granted permanent registration unless he has undergone a course leading to foreign medical degree with minimum duration of 54 months.
Amidst the rising threat of the third wave of Covid-19, the Rajasthan High Court has further extended its decision of functioning of its Principal Bench and Jaipur Bench only through virtual mode till 5 February 2022.
In addition, the Registrar General of the Rajasthan High Court also issued a circular notifying the extension of virtual hearing at Subordinate Courts, Special Courts and Tribunals in Rajasthan till 5 February 2022.
The circular reads, "Considering the prevailing situation and spread of Covid-l9, for safety and security of aII concerned, it is hereby notified that aII the Subordinate Courts/Special Courts/Tribunals shall continue to function only through virtual mode till 05.02.2022 in terms of Circular No. 03/P.I./2022 dated 11.01'2022."
Case Title: Pratip Chadhuri S/o Shri Pramada Nath Chaudhuri v. State of Rajasthan
The Rajasthan High Court has stayed criminal proceedings against former SBI Chairman Pratip Chaudhuri, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaisalmer in connection with the Loan Scam Case.
Chaudhuri was arrested in November last year by the Jaisalmer Sadar Police from his house in Delhi. The arrest relates to seizure of two hotels of the Godawan Group by SBI during Chauhuri's tenure over non-repayment of Rs. 24 Crore loan, and their subsequent loan to Alchemist ARC company, which he joined as Director after his retirement.
The trial court took cognizance against the petitioner and other co-accused persons for the offences under Sections 420, 409 read with Section 120-B IPC.
Telangana High Court
1. State Govt Can't Transgress Fees Fixed By Fee Regulatory Committee: Telangana High Court
Case No: W.P (PIL) Nos.130 & 133 of 2017 and W.P.Nos.13852 of 2020 & 673 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 4
The Telangana High Court has held that once a fee regulatory committee (an expert body) has been formed by the State government to deal with the job of fixing fees and that Committee does its job, the State government then cannot transgress its jurisdiction by doing the job that was assigned to the expert body. In a case pertaining to fee fixation by the government of Telangana without any recommendation in that regard by the Fee Regulatory Committee, which had already fixed the fee for the same period.
Case Title:Sirpur Paper Mills Limited & Another. V. Union of India & Two Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 5
The High Court of Telangana in a Bench consisting of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Chillakur Sumalatha in Sirpur Paper Mills Limited & Another. V. Union of India & Two Others held that for the period covered by the Resolution Plan, Income Tax Department cannot carry out any scrutiny or assessment in respect of the Corporate Debtor regarding carry forward of losses and set off against future profits under Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. Accrued Rights Of Individuals Cannot Be Taken Away By A Prospective Amendment: Telangana High Court
Case Title: D. Swamy Joshua v. State of Telangana & Ors.
Citation- 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 6
A right once accrued cannot be wiped out by a prospective amendment and the benefits that were acquired under existing rules cannot be taken away by an amendment with retrospective effect, Telangana High Court has held.
The observation was made while disposing of a batch of petitions challenging a government order amending the Telangana Police (Civil) Subordinate Services rules because of which the petitioners were deprived of their accrued right for promotion.
Case Title: Sri. Mettu Krishna Reddy v. The State of Telangana
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 7
The Telangana High Court recently ruled that the discretion conferred upon a Court by virtue of Section 256 of Cr.P.C. should be exercised "judiciously".
Section 256 CrPC contemplates dismissal on default of complainant. It provides that the Court may, after issuance of summons, if the complainant does not appear, acquit the accused unless for some reason it thinks it proper to adjourn the hearing of the case to some other day.
In this light, Justice Lalitha Kanneganti observed, "This Court is of the view that just because the power is vested with the Court under Section 256 Cr.P.C. on the ground of absence of complainant, the complaint shall not be dismissed. The learned Judge has to exercise the discretion judiciously by looking at the facts of the case and the Courts need not be so harsh on the complainant."
Case Title: Mohamed Abdul Nayeem Zakee v. The State of Telengana
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 8
The Telangana High Court recently ruled that executive instructions check on ground realities advance the purpose of statute and act as a guiding factor for effective implementation. Furthermore, reasonable restrictions can be imposed by the State Government to protect life of a common man and it is not an infringement of a person's constitutional right to carry on trade under Article 19(1)(g).