Allahabad High Court NOMINAL INDEX Madhusudan Shukla Vs. State Of U.P.And Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 299 M/S Ramom Motion Auto Corp. Pvt. Ltd. Thru.Dir.Krishna Agarwal And Others v. Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal Thru.Registrar And Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 300 Rajani v. Vipul Mittal And 4 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 301 Malhan And 17 Others Vs. State Of U.P. And...
Allahabad High Court
NOMINAL INDEX
Madhusudan Shukla Vs. State Of U.P.And Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 299
M/S Ramom Motion Auto Corp. Pvt. Ltd. Thru.Dir.Krishna Agarwal And Others v. Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal Thru.Registrar And Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 300
Rajani v. Vipul Mittal And 4 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 301
Malhan And 17 Others Vs. State Of U.P. And Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 302
ORDERS/JUDGMENT OF THE WEEK
Case title - Madhusudan Shukla Vs. State Of U.P.And Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12409 of 2022]
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 299
The High Court has observed that a delay in the conclusion of the proceedings/trial should not be the reason for the rejection of an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C.
The bench of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav observed thus as it quashed an order of the Trial Court wherein an application moved under Section 311 CrPC was rejected noting that the case had been pending for a substantial amount of time.
Case title - M/S Ramom Motion Auto Corp. Pvt. Ltd. Thru.Dir.Krishna Agarwal And Others v. Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal Thru.Registrar And Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 300
The High Court has clarified that a party has the option to attract the jurisdiction of the Lucknow seat of the Allahabad High Court even if a part of the cause of action arises in the specified Oudh areas.
It is important to note that Oudh areas are those areas of the Uttar Pradesh State where the Lucknow Seat of the HC has the jurisdiction. Earlier, the Lucknow seat was known as Chief the Court in Oudh, and vide The United Provinces' High Courts (Amalgamation) Order, 1948, the Chief Court of Oudh (Presently Lucknow Seat) and Allahabad High Court were amalgamated.
Case title - Rajani v. Vipul Mittal And 4 Others [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3265 of 2022]
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 301
The High Court has observed that the work of a Court can not be brought to a grinding halt on account of the fact that the elections of a registered society are to be held.
The Bench of Justice J. J. Munir further said that the Bar Association is not established to obstruct the functioning of the Court and interfere with the discharge of its sovereign functions.
Case title - Malhan And 17 Others Vs. State Of U.P. And Another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 302
In a significant remark, the High Court has said that an advocate should not give such a piece of advice when there is no error apparent on the face of the record nor was there any other reason why the matter be re-agitated after it was finally decided.
The Bench of Justice Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Justice Vivek Varma observed thus while dealing with a civil review application wherein the advocate concerned advised his client to take a chance by filing the instant review application after a period of six years.
OTHER UPDATES FROM THE HC
1. Gang Rape Convict Who Underwent Over 20 Years Of Imprisonment Granted Bail By Allahabad High Court
Case title - Collector And Another Vs. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5815 of 2007]
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to one 'Collector' who underwent over 20 years in jail after being convicted for the offence of Gang Rape.
It was the convict's primary submission that since he has already undergone over 20 years of imprisonment and thus, in view of SC's ruling in the case of Saudan Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (Crl.Appeal No.308/ 2022), he is entitled to be released on bail.
Bombay High Court
Nominal Index [2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 221 – 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 232]
Priya Rishi Bhuta & Anr. vs Vardhaman Engineers and Builders & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 221
Mr. Nikhil Shyamrao Bhamare vs State of Maharashtra and another 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 222
Bhanushali Studios Ltd. & Ors vs Telegram Messenger LLP & Anr 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 223
HMG Industries Ltd vs Canara Bank 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 224
Raymond Ltd. & Anr vs New Sarnath Co-op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 225
Anil Chandravadan Mistry vs The State of Maharashtra & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 226
Mr. Sunil vs Union Bank of India 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 227
M/s Angerlehner Structural and Civil Engineering Company vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 228
Kaalkaa Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 229
M/s Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. vs The Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 230
Shri. Kiran Damodar Paygode and Anr vs The Union of India represented by the General Manager 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 231
Vijay and ors vs Ravindra Ghisulal Gupta 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 232
Judgements/Orders
Case Title: Priya Rishi Bhuta & Anr. vs Vardhaman Engineers and Builders & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 221
The High Court of Bombay held that mere pendency of a Civil Suit is not an absolute bar to a petition under Section 11 of the A&C Act as long as the petitioner can withdraw its suit before the defendant files its statement on the issue.
A single bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni held that it is also permissible for the Civil Court to consider an application of the plaintiff to permit withdrawal of the suit when there is an arbitration agreement, and refers the parties for arbitration.
The Court held the rights accrued to a party as the legal heir of its deceased parents in their estate are independent of its right which is recognized by a partnership deed as a legal heir of the deceased partners.
Case Title: Mr.Nikhil Shyamrao Bhamare vs State of Maharashtra and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 222
The Bombay High Court granted bail to 21-year-old pharmacy student Nikhil Bhamre, who was arrested for defamatory posts allegedly aimed at NCP president Sharad Pawar.
The division bench of Justices Nitin Jamdar and NR Borkar orally observed, "He is a student; he is in custody since a month. We will pass an order granting him bail." The Court further ordered that no coercive action be taken against him in cases he hasn't been arrested.
Case Title: Bhanushali Studios Ltd. & Ors vs Telegram Messenger LLP & Anr
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 223
The Bombay High Court passed a John Doe order directing police assistance in removing all links or pirated copies of the movie "Janhit Mein Jaari" in a copyright Infringement case filed producers Bhanushali Studios Ltd.
Justice Riyaz Chagla granted ad-interim relief against unknown parties for removing unauthorised online links and pirated copies of the film online.
The film starring actor Nushratt Bharuccha traces the journey of a woman on a mission to sell condoms in a small town in Madhya Pradesh amidst the social taboos around sex.
Case Title: HMG Industries Ltd vs Canara Bank
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 224
The Bombay High Court held that even though a Scheme of Compromise entered into under Section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956 overrides all the agreements between the affected parties, arbitral proceedings cannot be imposed by a Company on a Debenture Trustee by virtue of the said Scheme only, in the absence of an arbitration agreement between them.
A single bench of Justice A.K. Menon ruled that the Debenture Trustee was an independent obligation of the Company and thus, the arbitration clause contained in the Scheme was not binding on the Debenture Trustee.
Case Title: Raymond Ltd. & Anr vs New Sarnath Co-op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 225
In a relief for flat purchasers of one of the two buildings constructed by Raymond Ltd in the 1960-70's, the Bombay High Court upheld certain amendments in a suit filed against the company and its chairman Gautam Singhania.
The amendments to the plaint pertain to Raymond's alleged failure to obtain an occupation certificate (OC) even after 50-years, non-execution of a conveyance or lease deed in favour of the plaintiff society, access to the common terrace, restrictions on using the garden.
Justice Anuja Prabhudessai held that the amendments were not malafide or irrelevant and did not cause any prejudice to Singhania. In fact, they were "relevant to decide the controversy between the parties."
Case Title: Anil Chandravadan Mistry vs The State of Maharashtra & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 226
The Bombay High Court refused to modify the maintenance amount payable by a father to his major daughter observing that her 'glossy' Instagram photographs weren't sufficient proof of her income.
"It is a well-known fact that it is the habit of the youth of today to project a glossy picture and post the same in the social media though its contents may not always be true,'' Justice Bharati Dangre observed.
After perusing printed copies of the daughter's Instagram profile where she claimed she earned Rs. 72–Rs 80 lakh as a model, the court upheld the family court's observation that "photographs of instagram and her instagram biography is not sufficient to hold that she has independent and sufficient income."
Case Title: Mr. Sunil vs Union Bank of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 227
A bank cannot retain title documents of a borrower's house after repayment of a loan, citing general lien on documents, merely because of pendency of another loan, the Bombay High Court held.
The bench partly-allowed a borrower's writ petition and directed Union Bank of India to handover title documents of his flat despite recovery proceedings, for another unpaid loan by the petition's company, pending before the DRT.
A division bench of Justice AS Chandurkar and Urmila Joshi Phalke observed that the bank's general lien on security (title document) under section 171 of the Indian Contracts Act, wouldn't apply after closure of the loan account.
Case Title: M/s Angerlehner Structural and Civil Engineering Company vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 228
The Bombay High Court held that the service recipient is liable to pay GST to the government on interest under an arbitrary award and it cannot be deducted from the dues payable to the service provider.
A single bench of Justice B.P. Colabawalla observed that service tax is an indirect tax, and it is possible that it may be passed on. Therefore, an assessee can certainly enter into a contract to shift its liability for service tax.
Case Title: Kaalkaa Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 229
In a set-back for Union Minister Narayan Rane, the Bombay High Court dismissed a petition seeking regularisation of illegal portions of the plush 8 storey building in Juhu where the BJP leader resides with his family.
The court, however, granted a six week stay on the order to approach the Supreme Court.
A division bench of Justices RD Dhanuka and MG Sewlikar observed, "Since (prima facie) construction carried out is totally unauthorised, the question of political rivalry does not arise."
Case Title: M/s Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. vs The Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 230
The Bombay High Court held that a person who may not be an importer or exporter can still file an application under section 127-B of the Customs Act, 1962 before the Settlement Commission if he is served with a show-cause notice charging him with customs duty.
A division bench of Justice K.R. Sriram and Justice Prithviraj K. Chavan observed that the term "any other person" appearing in Section 127-B of the Customs Act, 1962 should be interpreted to mean in its literal sense. The proviso to Section 127-B provides that a bill of entry must be filed, not necessarily by the person who approaches the settlement commission, provided the person is served with a show-cause notice charging him with customs duty.
Case Title: Shri. Kiran Damodar Paygode and Anr vs The Union of India represented by the General Manager
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 231
Children can seek execution of Railway's compensation award on behalf of their deceased mother, even after receiving their own share of compensation, the Bombay High Court held.
The court set aside the Railway Claims Tribunal's order which held that the petitioner-sons were not eligible to receive compensation awarded to their deceased mother and grandmother, having already received their share of compensation, after their father's demise in a Railway accident.
"I hold, appellants were entitled to recover the compensation that had fallen due to Lakshmibai and Indubai, but remained unpaid," Justice SK Shinde observed.
Case Title: Vijay and ors vs Ravindra Ghisulal Gupta
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 232
A factual news report on the contents of an FIR is not defamatory and initiating criminal action against the reporter in such a scenario is nothing but an attempt to stifle the scribe and coerce him to withdraw the report, the Bombay High Court's Nagpur bench said.
Justice Vinay Joshi quashed an FIR against the Chairman of Lokmat Media Private Limited Vijay Darda and the Editor-in-Chief Rajendra Darda, accused of defamation under section 500 of the IPC for a report published in 2016.
The court observed that journalists wouldn't be able to report till the final outcome of a case if they were barred from reporting on the FIR, which in turn would deprive the public their right to learn about happenings.
Calcutta High Court
Nominal Index [2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 248 - 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 257]
In the matter of : Ved Prakash Arya v. State 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 248
Ramesh Malik & Ors v. The State of West Bengal & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 249
Sk. Manowar Ali & Ors v. The State of West Bengal & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 250
Salem Khan v. The State of West Bengal & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 251
Ramesh Malik & Ors v. The State of West Bengal & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 252
Maleka Khatun v. The State of West Bengal and others 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 253
Siliguri Jalpaiguri Development Authority v. Bengal Unitech Siliguri Projects Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 254
In the matter of : Kalu Sk. @ Kuran v. State 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 255
Md. Safique Mallick v. The State of West Bengal & Anr 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 256
Central Bureau of Investigation v. Sanjib Halder 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 257
Orders/Judgments
Case Title: In the matter of : Ved Prakash Arya v. State
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 248
The Calcutta High Court has recently expressed its displeasure at the way cases involving sex trafficking of minor girls are being conducted in the State and has accordingly directed the Director General of Police, West Bengal to ensure that such cases are transferred to the Anti Human Trafficking Unit so that they can be investigated by specialised officers, preferably lady officers.
Opining that victims require psychological counselling which the investigating agencies have failed to provide, a Bench comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay underscored, "We note with anguish indifferent manner in which cases involving sex trafficking of minor girls are being conducted. These cases require to be investigated by a specialised agency manned by police personnel who are duly sensitised in the matter. Victims in such cases are either women or minor coming from weak and marginal sections of society. They require proper protection, support and assistance including psychological counselling. We notice no steps are taken by the investigating agencies in this regard." The Court thus directed the Director General of Police, West Bengal to take necessary steps so that cases involving trafficking of women particularly minors for sexual exploitation are transferred to the Anti Human Trafficking Unit for investigation and to ensure that victims are granted interim compensation and psychological support.
Case Title: Ramesh Malik & Ors v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 249
The Calcutta High Court observed that a Special Investigation Team (SIT) of the CBI which is probing into the alleged illegal appointment of teachers in West Bengal government-sponsored and aided primary schools, will also look into the cases of irregularities in recruitment of teaching and non-teaching staff in secondary schools on the purported recommendation of the school service commission (SSC). The counsel appearing for the CBI apprised Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay about the constitution of the SIT in accordance with his earlier order. The CBI submitted the names of six SIT members, who will be investigating the cases under close supervision of its anti-corruption branch's superintendent of police, and its joint director. The Court further ordered that CBI Joint Director N. Venugopal shall head the SIT and supervise the whole investigation. "..I want to make it clear that the Joint Director Mr. N. Venugopal shall be the head of the SIT meaning thereby he will supervise the investigation of SIT for the purpose for which it has been constituted", the Court underscored.
3. 'No Illegality': Calcutta High Court Upholds State Govt's Door Step Ration Delivery Scheme
Case Title: Sk. Manowar Ali & Ors v. The State of West Bengal & Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 250
The Calcutta High Court has held that there is no illegality in the West Bengal Duare Ration scheme, under which the State government delivers foodgrains through the public distribution system at the doorsteps of beneficiaries. Justice Krishna Rao was adjudicating upon a plea wherein a prayer had been made stipulating that a notification by the state government on September 13, 2021, which amended Clause 18 of the West Bengal Public Distribution System (Maintenance and Control) Order, 2013, be declared as unconstitutional and ultra vires to Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and National Food Security Act, 2013 (NFSA, 2013). Upholding the constitutional validity of the impugned notification, the Court ruled, "On conjoint reading of Section 24 (2) (b) and Section 32 of NFSA 2013 and clause 35 of the West Bengal Public Distribution System (Maintenance and Control) Order, 2013 this Court hold that there is no illegality in amending clause 18 of West Bengal Public Distribution System (Maintenance and Control) Order, 2013 by notification dt. 13th September, 2021." The Court averred further, "Section 24 (2) (b) of the NFSA obliges the State Governments to ensure actual delivery of supply of food grains to the entitled persons at the prices specified in Schedule-I. Therefore, the State Government wishes to travel the extra mile to deliver the foodgrains at the doorsteps of the beneficiaries, such an endeavor cannot be said to fall foul of any provisions of NFSA, the rules framed there under or the orders issued under the ECA, 1955".
Case Title: Salem Khan v. The State of West Bengal & Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 251
The Calcutta High Court refused to transfer to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) the investigation into the death of student activist Anis Khan. Anish Khan was found dead at his home in Amta block in Howrah district in the early hours of Saturday, February 19, 2022 under mysterious circumstances. Justice Rajasekhar Mantha refused to transfer the investigation to the CBI by opining that the SIT in its investigation report has itself implicated some police officials and thus the apprehension that the accused police officers wold be shielded by SIT is unfounded. "In the instant case, the SIT itself has implicated some police officials in its investigation report, finding fault with the manner and conduct of raid. The petitioner's apprehension that the accused police officers would be shielded by the police, is therefore devoid of merit. In the facts of the case, merely because some police officers are involved there is no need for apprehending of impropriety in the investigation or the trial as the SIT is comprised of very highly ranked police personnel. Any other omission or mistake in future can be addressed under the provisions of the Cr.PC", the Court ruled. Justice Mantha further averred that it is expected that the charge-sheet is put up for committal and the trial is commenced and concluded expeditiously, but not later than six months from the date of committal.
Case Title: Ramesh Malik & Ors v. The State of West Bengal & Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 252
The Calcutta High Court removed Trinamool MLA Manik Bhattacharya from the post of Chairman of the Board of Primary Education with immediate effect in connection with alleged irregularities in the recruitment of teachers in state government-sponsored and aided primary schools. Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay had earlier ordered a court-monitored probe by a special investigation team of the CBI into the alleged illegal appointments of at least 269 primary teachers. The Court further ordered that Ratna Chakraborty Bagchi, the Secretary of the Board, would remain in charge till a new appointment is made to the Chairman of the Board. Furthermore, Bhattacharya was instructed to appear in person before the Court by 2pm on Tuesday for further interrogation.
Case Title: Maleka Khatun v. The State of West Bengal and others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 253
The Calcutta High Court came down heavily on the State Legal Services Authority (SLSA) for not having enough funds to provide compensation to victims as per the West Bengal Victim Compensation Scheme, 2017 and thus directed the State government to ensure disbursal of adequate funds within 6 weeks. Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya observed, "This court has noted in other matters of similar nature that the SLSA has not been provided with the funds for disbursement towards victim compensation. In a similar matter of 2021, SLSA has submitted before this court that it had funds only of an amount of Rs.5,000/- and was hence not in a position to disburse the victim compensation. This is a sorry state of affairs to say the least." Opining that the current state of affairs cannot be permitted to continue indefinitely, the Court ruled, "The Code of Criminal Procedure as well as the Notification published by the State in 2017 makes it mandatory on the State Government not only to make a separate budget for victim compensation but also to constitute a fund with the specific nomenclature of "Victim Compensation Fund" for disbursing amount to the victims who need rehabilitation. This state of affairs cannot surely be permitted to continue for an indefinite period of time. Victims who have suffered loss or injury or any kind of physical or mental agony have been brought within the purview of The Code of Criminal Procedure for a stated purpose. The State or the SLSA cannot take the position that it does not have funds to compensate the victims."
Case Title: Siliguri Jalpaiguri Development Authority v. Bengal Unitech Siliguri Projects Limited
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 254
The Calcutta High Court observed that an award holder has the statutory safeguard under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act) to secure the entire arbitral award amount even during the pendency of an application for setting aside of the award and that such a security must be real and not illusionary or insignificant. Justice Shekhar B. Saraf was adjudicating upon a petition filed under Section 34 of the Act along with an application under Section 36 (2) of the Act praying for stay of the award passed by the arbitral tribunal on December 27, 2021. Dismissing the contention of the petitioner that the land in possession of the respondent must be considered as sufficient security under Section 36 of the Act, the Court underscored, "Lastly, it is my view that the amended Section 36 of the Act, provides for securing the award holder for the entirety of the award value. It should also be noted that the security must be real and not illusionary or insignificant. Thus, the argument by the senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that the land in possession of the respondent must be considered as sufficient security under Section 36 does not hold water. The land offered for the purpose of security is part of the dispute between the parties. Furthermore, no document has been placed before this court to indicate that the value of the land would cover the entirety of the award. Ergo, the same cannot be accepted for securing the interest of the award holder." Accordingly, the Court directed the petitioner to deposit 50% of the arbitral award (including interest calculated till June, 2022) by way of cash security or its equivalent to the satisfaction of the Registrar Original Side, High Court at Calcutta.
Case Title: In the matter of : Kalu Sk. @ Kuran v. State
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 255
In a significant judgment, the Calcutta High Court directed that in all cases involving recovery of narcotic substances, seizing officers shall make a video recording of the entire procedure and that reasons for failing to videograph the recovery must be specifically stated in the investigation records. A Bench comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay opined that all police officers are ordinarily equipped with smartphones and other electronic gadgets which would enable them to videograph such a recovery procedure. It was further observed that reliance on such technology must be placed to instil fairness, impartiality and confidence in the investigative process. Highlighting the importance of a legitimate recovery procedure, the Court averred, "While a strict law is necessary to control organized crime like drug trafficking and protect the youth from the menace of drug abuse, its draconian provisions are sometimes misused by investigating agency leading to false implication and prolonged unjustified detention of individuals. Most of the cases registered under the N.D.P.S. Act revolve around recovery of narcotic substance from the accused. Heart and soul of the prosecution is the legitimacy of such recovery. Prosecution in such cases primarily relies on the evidence of official witnesses particularly seizing officers to prove lawful recovery of contraband. In most cases as in the present case, independent witnesses are either not examined or turn hostile. There may be myriad reasons for that ranging from false implication to winning over of such witnesses by resourceful accuseds." Thus, the Court proceeded to issue a host of directions in this regard.
Case Title: Md. Safique Mallick v. The State of West Bengal & Anr
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 256
The Calcutta High Court observed that denial of economic support to the wife and the minor son constitutes 'domestic violence' under Section 3 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act, 2005) and that it is immaterial whether the parties are still residing in a shared household or not. Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee was adjudicating upon a plea seeking quashing of criminal proceedings against the petitioner under Section 12 of the DV Act pending before the concerned Judicial Magistrate. Opining that denial of economic support would constitute domestic violence, the Court underscored, "Denial of economic support to petitioner as well as their minor son, who has been brought up by the opposite party no. 2 may amount to "economic abuse" as per definition of "domestic violence" under the Act and for that purpose it is not material whether parties are still residing jointly in a shared household or not. In such case, even if opposite party No.2, might have been a working lady, even then whether her earning is adequate, fair and consistent with the living up bringing of their son to which the parties are accustomed is also to be looked into to decide the issue of economic abuse." Accordingly, the Court refused to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioner by observing, "Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and that prayer for the cancellation of Talak is still sub-judice and not yet finalised and also considering the fact that under Section 3 of DV Act, 2005, "domestic violence" includes emotional abuse as well as economic abuse, it can hardly be said at this stage that even though both the parties are residing separately the opposite party no. 2 cannot be categorised as "aggrieved person".
Case Title: Central Bureau of Investigation v. Sanjib Halder
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 257
The Calcutta High Court reiterated its recommendation of amending the Crime Manual, 2022 of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to empower the Additional Solicitor General of the High Court to give his opinion on filing appeals challenging court orders and on the basis of such an opinion, the zonal office of the CBI may be permitted to file an appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. Justice Bibek Chaudhuri noted that despite prior directions of the Supreme Court the central agency always files appeals after the expiry of the period of limitation and that an inordinate delay is caused for filing appeals especially against orders of acquittal passed by Trial Courts. Opining that the CBI should trust the expert opinion of the Additional Solicitor General more than the Director of CBI as the former has a better legal acumen, the Court underscored, "In case of the High Court, the learned Additional Solicitor General is the authorized legal representative of the Central Government. His opinion may be obtained by the CBI to come to a decision as to whether an appeal should be preferred against a judgment and order of acquittal or for enhancement of sentence by the CBI or not. This Court fails to understand why the case record will travel to Delhi to obtain formal permission of the Director of CBI for filing an appeal before this Court when the Director of CBI is after all a senior police officer. This Court obviously trusts and hopes that the Central Government in its executive branch will also trust the expert opinion of the learned Additional Solicitor General more than the Director of CBI who may have varied experience in investigation but he does not have better legal acumen than the Additional Solicitor General."
Important Developments
1. Calcutta High Court Seeks State Govt's Response On Plea Seeking CBI Probe Into Singer KK's Death
Case Title: Imtiaz Ahmed v. State of West Bengal and other connected matters
The Calcutta High Court sought the State government's response on a batch of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petitions seeking an investigation into the death of singer-composer Krishnakumar Kunnath popularly known as KK, who passed away on May 31, 2022, hours after performing in a concert at Kolkata. The leading playback singer was in the city for a two-day concert at Nazrul Mancha as part of the Gurudas College fest organized by the TMC's student union. One of the PILs also sought for a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on the ground that there had been utter mismanagement by the authorities at Nazrul Manch and that negligence on the part of the local administration was one of the reasons behind the chaos. Advocate General S.N Mookherjee appearing for the State government however questioned the maintainability of the petitions by contending that not a single complaint had been lodged by the family members of the deceased singer against the progress of the investigation as a result of which the demand for a CBI enquiry does not stand. Pursuant to the rival submissions, a Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj directed the State government to file an affidavit-in-opposition responding to the allegations within a period of 3 weeks. Any reply was directed to be filed within one week thereafter.
Case Title: Anindya Sundar Das v. Union of India and other connected matters
The Calcutta High Court directed the State government and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to place their respective positions on record on the plea moved by the CBI seeking to take over the investigation into the incident of firing by CISF personnel on April 10, 2021, at Sitalkuchi in Cooch Behar district during the West Bengal Assembly polls. Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju appearing for the CBI submitted before a Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj that pursuant to the order of the 5 judge Bench of the High Court dated August 19, 2021, the investigation of 2 cases pertaining to the incident of alleged firing by CISF personnel must be transferred to the CBI. The two cases are- (1) Mathabhanga PS FIR No.180/2021 dated 10.04.2021 and (2) Mathabhanga PS FIR No.181/2021 dated 12.04.2021. On the other hand, Advocate General S.N Mookherjee opposed the prayer made by the CBI for transfer of investigation by contending that the concerned incident did not take place subsequent to the Assembly polls and is thus not the subject matter of the category of cases that the CBI has been instructed to probe by the 5-judge Bench order of the Court. He further argued that it is an admitted fact that the firing had taken place by CISF personnel and thus there are no allegations against the State police authorities. Pursuant to the rival submissions, the Court directed the State government as well as the CBI to place their respective stand on record before the next date of hearing which is slated to take place on July 11.
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 the cases of violence that had allegedly taken place post the declaration of the West Bengal assembly elections in May 2021.A Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajrashi Bharadwaj took on record the seventh status report filed by Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju on behalf of the CBI. The Court also took on record the latest status report filed by the SIT. The counsel appearing for the SIT informed the Bench that 50 cases had been received from the CBI for investigation out of which in 41 cases chargesheets have been filed. It was further submitted by the SIT that in 2 cases non-cognisable reports have been filed and in one case final report has been filed. One case pertains to unnatural death and 3 cases are under investigation, the counsel averred further.
Case Title: Anindya Sundar Das v. State of West Bengal & Ors
The Calcutta High Court was apprised by the State government that the selection process for the appointment of a technical member to the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal has been completed and that the name of the appointee has been forwarded to the Governor for his consideration. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj was adjudicating upon a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition seeking directions upon the State government to notify the name of the Chairman of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal and to immediately appoint a technical member to the Tribunal. The Bench was informed by Advocate General S.N Mookherjee that Government of West Bengal vide notification dated June 18, 2022, had notified the appointment of the new Chairman. "So far as the first prayer is concerned, the same stands complied with pursuant to the notification issued by the Government of West Bengal dated 18th June, 2022 and the appointment of the Hon'ble Chairman has been notified", the Court recorded in the order. The Court further directed the State government to file a report indicating further developments in the matter on the next date of hearing which is slated to take place on July 4.
Case Title: Prasenjit Bose v. State of West Bengal
The Calcutta High Court sought response from the State government and the West Bengal Power Development Corporation Limited (WBPDCL) in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition challenging the ongoing land acquisition for the Deocha-Pachami-Dewanganj-Harinsingha (DPDH) coal mine project on the ground that it violates Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency as prescribed under the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Land Acquisition Act, 2013) and the Rules made thereunder. The petition moved by activist and economist Prasenjit Bose through advocate Jhuma Sen alleges that the proposed project breaches the Land Acquisition Act, 2013 and Rules framed thereunder, the West Bengal Land Reforms, Act, 1955 and the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006.
Delhi High Court
NOMINAL INDEX
Citations 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 578 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 593
A-ONE REALTORS PVT.LTD. v. ENERGY EFFICIENCY SERVICES LTD. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 578
SAJID KHAN v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 579
AMAZON SELLER SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. v. AMAZONBUYS.IN & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 580
Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 581
SAMRIDDHI KHANDELWAL v. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FASHION TECHNOLOGY 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 582
ANISH SINGH THAKUR v. THROUGH ANUBHAV GUPTA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 583
M/S K.B.G. ENGINEERS v. DELHI TOURISM AND TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 584
HAVELLS INDIA LIMITED v. PANASONIC LIFE SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT LTD & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 585
Ernst & Young, US LLP Versus ACIT 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 586
VINDHYA GURUKUL COLLEGE & ANR. v. NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 587
SWASTIKA GHOSH v. TABLE TENNIS FEDERATION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 588
BABA RAHIM ALI SHAH & ANR. v. SH. ATUL KUMAR GARG 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 589
INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS PRIVATE LIMITED v. INTRA LIFE PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 590
HEETICH MARKETING-UND VERTRIEBS GMBH & CO. KG., & ANR v. GUPTA STORE 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 591
DR. MAHENDRA SINGH RANA v. ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 592
Shubham Thakral Vs ITO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 593
1. Plaintiff Not Entitled For Refund Of Court Fees If Parties Are Referred For Arbitration: Delhi High Court
Case Title: A-ONE REALTORS PVT.LTD. v. ENERGY EFFICIENCY SERVICES LTD.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 578
The Delhi High Court has observed that a plaintiff cannot be entitled for refund of court fees in the event of an application under sec. 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act being allowed and the parties being referred for arbitration.
Justice Amit Bansal reiterated that a litigant is not entitled to refund of court fees in case of rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC where the plaint does not disclose a cause of action.
"On the same analogy, the plaintiff cannot be entitled for refund of court fees in the event of an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act being allowed and the parties being referred for arbitration. The rationale being that the plaintiff has invoked a wrong remedy of filing the suit when it should have invoked the arbitration proceedings," the Court observed.
2. Role Of Accused & Their Position In Relation To Incident & Victim Is Of Utmost Importance In Deciding Case Of "Parity": Delhi High Court
Case Title: SAJID KHAN v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 579
The Delhi High Court has observed that in deciding the case of parity, the role attributed to the accused, their position in relation to the incident and to the victim is of utmost importance.
Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta denied bail to one Sajid Khan accused in an FIR registered under sec. 392, 397, 411 and 34 of Indian Penal Code along with sec. 25 and 27 of Arms Act.
It was the case of the prosecution that in April last year, a PCR call was received regarding robbery at gunpoint. During investigation, the complainant informed that while he was present in the office at about 10 AM, 3 boys entered into the office and robbed an amount of Rs.9,98,170 from Mannapuram Finance Ltd. with the help of gun and knife and thereafter fled from the spot.
3. "Causing Financial Loss To Public": Delhi High Court Restrains Rogue Websites From Using "Amazon" Trademark
Case Title: AMAZON SELLER SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. v. AMAZONBUYS.IN & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 580
The Delhi High Court has granted ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of online marketplace Amazon by restraining various vogue websites from using its trademark 'AMAZON'.
Justice Jyoti Singh restrained websites namely https://amazonbuys.com, its Facebook page by the name of Amazon Franchise' and https://estoreamazon.in.
The Court was dealing with a suit filed by Amazon Sellers Services Private Limited and its affiliate arguing that its copyright subsisted in its Website and Domain Name i.e., amazon.in as well as in the overall 'look and feel' of the website 'www.amazon.in'.
4. Delhi High Court Grants Time To DMRC For Payment Of Outstanding Amount Of Arbitral Award To DAMEPL Till August 5
Case Title: Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 581
The Delhi High Court has granted time to Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) to ensure payment of the outstanding decreetal amount to Reliance Infrastructure-promoted Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt Ltd (DAMEPL) on or before August 5.
The development came in connection with the plea filed by DAMEPL seeking enforcement of the arbitration award dated May 11, 2017.
The High Court on March 10 had directed DMRC to pay the entire decreetal amount of over Rs 4,600 crore along with interest in two equal instalments in two months. The said order was upheld by the Supreme Court on May 5.
DAMEPL had then approached the High Court claiming that despite the direction of payment of the awarded amount, DMRC had paid only a sum of Rs. 166.44 crores to DAMEPL on March 14, 2022, and had not paid any amount thereafter.
5. 'Momentary Lapse, Can't Affect Future Perversely': Delhi HC Grants Relief To NIFT Aspirant Who Inadvertently Disclosed Identity In Entrance Exam
Case Title: SAMRIDDHI KHANDELWAL v. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FASHION TECHNOLOGY
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 582
The Delhi High Court has observed that a momentary lapse on the part of the candidate must not be met with such a severe punitive action which would cause grave and irreparable prejudice and affect the candidate's future perversely.
Justice Sanjeev Narula granted relief to a candidate namely Samriddhi Khandelwal by directing National Institute of Fashion Technology (NIFT) to allow her to join the counselling on the basis of her results of the online invigilated or remote proctored NIFT Entrance Exam, 2022.
The said Exam was divided into two parts – a written exam which was held on 06th February and a Situation Test which was to be held from 2nd April 2022 onwards.
6. Delhi High Court Restrains Youtube Channel "Bear & Bulls Capitals" From Posting Defamatory Material Against "Booming Bulls Academy"
Case Title: ANISH SINGH THAKUR v. THROUGH ANUBHAV GUPTA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 583
The Delhi High Court has restrained a YouTube channel "Bear & Bulls Capitals" from posting any defamatory or derogatory material against another channel "Booming Bulls Academy", in any manner on any media platform till November 28th, 2022.
Justice Amit Bansal was dealing with a suit filed by Anish Singh Thakur, the proprietor of "Booming Bulls Academy" which runs an academy that gives training on how to trade in the share market. The plaintiff had a channel on YouTube where the training videos are posted.
It was the case of the plaintiff that the defendant Anubhav Gupta also ran a channel on YouTube in the name "Bear & Bulls Capitals", which was its competitor.
7. Delhi High Court Appoints Ex-SC Judge Madan Lokur As Arbitrator In Dispute Between Construction Firm & DTTDC
Title: M/S K.B.G. ENGINEERS v. DELHI TOURISM AND TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 584
The Delhi High Court has appointed former Supreme Court Judge, Justice Madan B. Lokur as sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes between a partnership firm namely M/S K.B.G. Engineers and Delhi Tourism and Transportation Development Corporation Ltd (DTTDC) from five different tenders for construction and renovation work in relation to various projects.
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani was of the view that there was a valid and subsisting arbitration agreement between the parties and that none of the disputes sought to be raised by the firm were ex-facie non-arbitrable.
The petitioner firm had approached the High Court by way of filing five petitions under sec. 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996 seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes in question.
8. Plea Of 'Passing-Off' Can't Be Negated Solely On Ground That Plaintiff Had Asserted Trademark Rights In Registered Designs: Delhi High Court
Case Title: HAVELLS INDIA LIMITED v. PANASONIC LIFE SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT LTD & ANR.
Citation: Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 585
The Delhi High Court has held that a plea of passing-off cannot be negated solely on the ground that the Plaintiff had asserted trademark rights in the registered designs. A composite suit seeking action in respect of both design infringement and passing off is maintainable.
A single judge bench comprising Justice Jyoti Singh observed that while it is trite that asserting trademark rights in registered designs makes the designs vulnerable, however, where the elements of the design are used as a larger trade dress get-up, presentation through its packaging etc., the passing off claim shall lie.
9. Right To File Objection To SCN Can't Be Denied Due To One Day Delay: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Ernst & Young, US LLP Versus ACIT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 586
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora ruled that the right to file an objection to the Show Cause Notice cannot be denied owing to a one-day delay.
The petitioner has challenged the order passed under Section 148A (d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the notice passed under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act.
The petitioner was given time till April 8, 2022, to reply to the show cause notice dated March 30, 2022. The order under Section 148A(d) was issued without taking the petitioner's request for adjournment or detailed response to the Show Cause notice into account.The order proceeded on the basis that the petitioner did not file any reply to the show cause notice.
10. Practice Of Filing Representations In An Attempt To Extend Cause Of Action To Overcome Delay Should Be Discouraged: Delhi High Court
Case Title: VINDHYA GURUKUL COLLEGE & ANR. v. NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 587
The Delhi High Court has observed that the practice of filing representations, in an attempt to extend the cause of action as a ground to overcome the delay, should be discouraged.
Justice Sanjeev Narula made the observation while dismissing a petition filed by Vindhya Gurukul College against the decision taken by Northern Regional Committee of NCTE in its 266th meeting wherein it was granted recognition for only 50 seats (one basic unit) of B.Ed. course, as opposed to the original decision taken in an earlier meeting wherein recognition was granted with an annual intake of 100 seats (two basic units).
The Petitioners had thus sought a direction to restore the recognition in terms of the original decision dated 20th May, 2016 or in the alternative, a direction to the Respondents to decide it's representations.
11. No Arbitrariness: Delhi High Court Dismisses Pleas By TT Players Swastika Ghosh & Manush Shah Challenging Their Exclusion From CWG 2022
Case Title: SWASTIKA GHOSH v. TABLE TENNIS FEDERATION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 588
The Delhi High Court has dismissed the pleas filed by table tennis players Swastika Ghosh and Manush Shah seeking their inclusion in the list of 4 selected players for the men's and women's team for the Commonwealth Games 2022.
It was the case of the petitioners that their names were not included in the final selection list by the Selection Committee and the Committee of Administrator despite fulfilling the selection criteria as laid down by the federation.
Taking note of the fact that the Committee of Administrator had weighed different factors, Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma refused to interfere in the same while in exercise of its power of judicial review
12. Rent Controller Cannot Call Upon Landlord To Carry Out Repairs Of Tenanted Premises Under Delhi Rent Control Act: High Court
Case Title: BABA RAHIM ALI SHAH & ANR. v. SH. ATUL KUMAR GARG
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 589
The Delhi High Court has observed that there is no provision in the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 whereby the Rent Controller can call upon the landlord to carry out repairs of the tenanted premises.
Justice C Hari Shankar added that the Rent Controller may permit the tenant to carry out repairs under sec. 44(3) if, after receipt of notice from the tenant in that regard, the landlord fails to repair the premises. The expenses may then be deducted from the rent payable to the landlord or be recovered from the landlord.
The Court thus dismissed a plea challenging an order dated 26th May, 2022 passed by the Additional District Judge whereby an application under sec. 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with sec. 50 and 44 of the Delhi Rent Control Act filed by the petitioners (landlord), as the defendants in the civil suit, was dismissed.
13. Delhi High Court Permanently Restrains Pharmaceutical Products Manufacturers From Using LOOZOUT Trademark, Imposes Rs. 2 Lakhs Cost
Case Title: INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS PRIVATE LIMITED v. INTRA LIFE PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 590
The Delhi High Court has permanently restrained two manufacturers of the pharmaceutical products from manufacturing, selling, advertising and promoting the products using the trademark 'LOOZOUT', which was deceptively similar to the registered trademark 'LOOZ'.
Justice Jyoti Singh also restrained the manufacturers from manufacturing and selling products under any other mark which was identical or deceptively similar to 'LOOZ' or its variants so as to amount to infringement or passing off.
The suit was filed by Intas Pharmaceuticals Private Limited regarding trademark infringement by three defendants. While the suit was settled qua defendant no. 1, there was no appearance on behalf of the two manufacturers, who were defendant no. 2 and 3.
14. Delhi High Court Permanently Restrains Retail Store From Selling Any Counterfeit Product Under 'Hettich' Trademark & Logo
Case Title: HEETICH MARKETING-UND VERTRIEBS GMBH & CO. KG., & ANR v. GUPTA STORE
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 591
The Delhi High Court has restrained a retail store from selling any counterfeit product or any other related goods under the trademark and trade name HETTICH and HETTICH Logo.
Justice Jyoti Singh was dealing with a suit filed by Heettich Marketing-Und Vertriebs Gmbh & Co. against a retail store namely Gupta Store seeking to restrain it from infringing the trademarks 'HETTICH' and its logo.
It was the case of the Plaintiffs that the trade name and trademark HETTICH owes its origin to its founding father, way back in the year 1888. The Plaintiffs were a part of diversified group of companies, having operations in multiple countries across the world and engaged in manufacturing, marketing and selling furniture, fittings, door hinges, runners, etc., which had led to the said mark becoming distinctive of their products and immense goodwill.
15. Letting Seat In Super-Speciality Course Go Vacant Won't Serve Anyone's Interest: Delhi High Court Grants Relief To Doctor Seeking Admission In AIIMS
Case Title: DR. MAHENDRA SINGH RANA v. ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 592
The Delhi High Court has directed All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) to admit a doctor in its specialised course, namely M. Ch. Minimal Access Surgery & General Surgery, in the next academic session, commencing from July, 2022.
Justice Sanjeev Narula was of the view that justice would be served in allowing the doctor to join the said course and that to allow the seat to remain vacant for a super-speciality course would serve the interests of none.
"If a doctor, like the Petitioner, undergoes training for such a course, it would only prove a valuable addition to the healthcare system. This weighs heavily with the Court for granting the relief as prayed for," the Court said.
16. Just 3 Days' Time Granted To Respond To The Income Tax Notice: Delhi High Court Remands The Matter Back To Assessing Officer After Setting Aside
Case Title: Shubham Thakral Vs ITO
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 593
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has remanded the matter back to the assessing officer as just 3 days' time was granted to respond to the income tax notice.
The petitioner/assessee has assailed the notice issued under Section 148A (b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the order passed under Section 148A (d) for the Assessment Year 2018–19.
The assessee contended that only three days' time was granted to the assessee to respond, as against the mandatory statutory period of at least seven days. Despite the fact that the annexure attached to the notice gave the petitioner eight days to respond, the e-filing submission portal was closed earlier, in violation of Section 148A (b) of the Income Tax Act.
Gauhati High Court
1. Accused Being Harassed By Investigating Officer In A Bid To Purchase His Land In Tribal Belt: Gauhati High Court Orders Change Of IO
Case Title : BIJU KATHAR v THE STATE OF ASSAM
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Gau) 43
The Gauhati High Court directed the Commissioner of Police to change the investigating officer of a theft case, after the accused alleged that the present IO was acting out of personal vendetta against him due to a dispute between them over a tribal land.
2. Gauhati High Court Quashes Poll Code Violation Case Against Assam CM HB Sarma, Stresses On Need To Revisit S. 126 Of RP Act
Case title - DR. HIMANTA BISWA SARMA v. THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Gau) 44
In a significant observation, the Gauhati High Court has said that it is high time to re-visit the provision enunciated in Section 126 of the Representation of People Act which deals with the prohibition of public meetings/election campaigning during a period of forty-eight hours ending with hour fixed for conclusion of poll.
Gujarat High Court
NOMINAL INDEX
Thakarshibhai Bhurabhai Jajal Versus Gujarat State Information Commissioner 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 227
Sadbhav Engineering Limited V/S Ghanshyambhai B Pandya & 1 Other(S) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 228
M/S. Kushal Limited Through Auto. Sign. And Managing Director Mr. Yogesh Ghanshyambhai Patel v. M/S. Tirumala Technocast Private Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 229
Lords Inn Hotels And Developers Ltd. V. Raysons Residency Pvt. Ltd 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 230
Pratapdan Shamaldan Gadhv V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 231
Nileshbhai Narayanbhai Mistry V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 232
Ramilaben Vijaykumar Patel Versus Na 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 233
Anopsinh Harisinh Bhagora V/S State Of Gujarat & 2 Other(S) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 234
Gemalbhai Motibhai Solanki V/S Deputy Executive Engineer 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 235
Darul Ullunarabiyyah Islamiyyah V/S Maulavi Mahmrudul Hasan & 1 Other(S) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 236
Balkrishna Spintex Private Limited versus The New India Assurance Company Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 237
Kirankumar Vanmalidas Panchasara V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 238
Mahendrasinh Himmatsinh Chauhan V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 239
Kajalben Rakeshbhai Bhadiyadra V/S The Registrar, Registration Of Birth And Death 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 240
Madhusudan Gunvantray Pandya Versus Saurashtra University 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 241
Adi Enterprises Versus Union Of India 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 242
ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE WEEK
Case Title: Thakarshibhai Bhurabhai Jajal Versus Gujarat State Information Commissioner
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 227
The Gujarat High Court has held that where any information sought under the Right to Information Act is destroyed and it is not the case of malafide destruction of information, penalty under Section 20(2) of RTI Act shall not be attracted.
Section 20 stipulates disciplinary action against a Public Information Officer where information sought is not supplied within the time specified, or is malafidely denied or incorrect information is knowingly given or information is destroyed.
Case Title: Sadbhav Engineering Limited V/S Ghanshyambhai B Pandya & 1 Other(S)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 228
The Gujarat High Court has made it clear that Section 33C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is for the purpose of execution of the award or dealing with the pre-existing right or benefit arising out of the settlement of a workman against his employer. The same does not make way for a Labour Court to enter into an adjudicatory process, giving a finding on disputed facts between the parties.
The Bench comprising Justice AY Kogje was hearing a challenge to a Labour Court's order directing the Petitioner-organisation to pay full wages to the respondent-workman from 2006-2013.
Case Title: M/S. Kushal Limited Through Auto. Sign. And Managing Director Mr. Yogesh Ghanshyambhai Patel v. M/S. Tirumala Technocast Private Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 229
The Gujarat High Court has held that the acid test to determine whether or not a dispute relating to property is a "commercial dispute" under Commercial Court's Act, 2015 is that the property in question is used "exclusively" in trade or commerce.
The Bench comprising Justice NV Anjaria and Justice Samir Dave observed, "Dispute arising out of agreements relating to property used exclusively in trade and commerce would constitute a commercial dispute...a commercial dispute would otherwise not cease to be commercial dispute merely because action involves recovery of immovable property or realisation of money out of immovable property or involve any other relief pertaining to immovable property."
Case Title: Lords Inn Hotels And Developers Ltd. V. Raysons Residency Pvt. Ltd
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 230
High Court cannot decide disputed questions of facts in a petition filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for the appointment of arbitrator, the Gujarat High Court has held.
The Bench comprising Chief Justice Aravind Kumar observed, "All these issues including arbitrability can be examined by the Arbitral Tribunal itself."
The observation was made while deciding the application preferred by the Petitioner for appointment of sole arbitrator in connection with a dispute arising from agreement relating to operation of a restaurant owned by the respondent.
Case Title: Pratapdan Shamaldan Gadhv V/S State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 231
The Gujarat High Court granted anticipatory bail to a public servant employed in the Police force and his wife, in a case of dowry harassment initiated at the instance of their daughter in law.
Justice Nikhil S Kariel observed that merely because the accused father-in-law is in Police is no ground to deny him anticipatory bail and adequate conditions can be imposed to prevent tampering of evidence. In fact, the bench was of the view that the father-in-law being a public servant, there could not be any apprehension that he would flee from trial.
Case Title: Nileshbhai Narayanbhai Mistry V/S State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 232
The Gujarat High Court dismissed a PIL filed by a freelance reporter and RTI activist, seeking removal of alleged encroachments on plots reserved for developing public gardens, citing inordinate delay in approaching the Court.
The Bench comprising Chief Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Ashutosh Shastri observed that the petition came to be filed 16-19 years after the allotment of the plots had been made and there was not even a whisper in the petition as to why the petitioner did not raise his "little finger" from 2003 / 2006, particularly when he claims to be an RTI activist, a public spirited person and espousing the cause of the public.
Case Title : Ramilaben Vijaykumar Patel Versus Na
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 233
The Gujarat High Court has held that even if a mother seeks to sell off the property of her minor child, despite her being a natural guardian, she can be looked at with suspicion and be denied permission to sell off such property if relevant material details are not provided.
Case Title: Anopsinh Harisinh Bhagora V/S State Of Gujarat & 2 Other(S)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 234
Emphasising on the principles of proportionality and parity while determining punishment, the High Court has reduced punishment of deduction of pension from 100% to 25% imposed on a sub-inspector accused of aiding an under-trial to escape police custody.
The Petitioner-accused challenged the order of 2015 passed by the Respondent-State wherein the Petitioner's monthly pension was deducted 100%. The Petitioner also challenged the order where the Respondent-State had refused to reconsider the impugned order.
Case Title: Gemalbhai Motibhai Solanki V/S Deputy Executive Engineer
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 235
The Gujarat High Court has said that where the service of a workman is terminated in violation of the procedure for Retrenchment & Re-Employment provided under Sections 25(G) and 25(H) of the Industrial Disputes Act, an order of reinstatement ought to follow.
Holding thus, Justice Biren Vaishnav set aside the order of the Labour Court which granted backwages worth Rs. 72,000 to the terminated workmen, and directed their reinstatement in service, with continuity of service. It said,
"Compensation in lieu of reinstatement will be detrimental to the petitioners who have worked for over a period of 20 years."
Case Title: Darul Ullunarabiyyah Islamiyyah V/S Maulavi Mahmrudul Hasan & 1 Other(S)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 236
The Gujarat High Court has held that an institution registered under the Wakf Board, indulging in commercial activities such as printing magazines apart from imparting religious education, is an 'industry' for the purposes of the Industrial Disputes Act.
It added that a 'Maulvi' who is entrusted with the management of such commercial activity, in the present case managing all the printing material, etc., is a 'workman' under the Act and thus, the provisions under the Act relating to termination of service will be attracted.
Case Title: Balkrishna Spintex Private Limited versus The New India Assurance Company Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 237
The Gujarat High Court has ruled that a party is not entitled to invoke the arbitration clause after it had signed the discharge voucher without any protest or demur, since no arbitrable dispute could be said to subsist.
The Single Bench of Chief Justice Aravind Kumar held that an application for referring the dispute to arbitration could not be entertained merely on the ground that the party had, within 15 days from the receipt of an amount, contended that the said amount was received by it under duress.
Case Title: Kirankumar Vanmalidas Panchasara V/S State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 238
A single judge bench of the Gujarat High Court consisting of Justice Niral R. Mehta held that while exercising its powers under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., the court could not impose any condition which amounted to it exercising powers envisaged under some other enactment. The court held that any such condition imposed would be completely beyond the court's jurisdiction.
Case Title: Mahendrasinh Himmatsinh Chauhan V/S State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 239
The Gujarat High Court has refused to quash a FIR lodged for violation of the Environment (Protection) Act against a factory owner for allegedly dumping chemicals in open land by excavating pits.
Remarking that the case is nothing but a glaring example of "horrifying side effects of industrial growth", Justice Niral R. Mehta refused to exercise the limited jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC. The bench observed,
"In my considered opinion, the present case is a glaring example of horrifying side effects of industrial growth, wherein not only society at large is being affected, but it is prejudicial to the cattle as well. Therefore, in my view, when the industrialization is achieving its peak, then our eyes must not be closed against those errant, who, for the sake of their meager profit, manipulating with the nature and life of human."
Case Title: Kajalben Rakeshbhai Bhadiyadra V/S The Registrar, Registration Of Birth And Death
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 240
The Gujarat High Court has reiterated that a Registrar under the Births and Deaths Registration Act is bound to issue certificate in the name of adoptive father where there is no rebuttal to the adoption deed of the Applicant.
The observation was made by Justice AS Supehia in a petition moved by the mother of one 'Nidhi', seeking to include her second husband/ Nidhi's adoptive father's name in Nidhi's birth certificate. The bench observed that the Registrar cannot insist on a decree of the Court with regard to the adoption since as per Section 16 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, a "presumption" is drawn in favour of the Petitioner under Section 16 of the Adoptions Act, since there is no rebuttal to the adoption deed of her daughter "Nidhi".
Case Title : Madhusudan Gunvantray Pandya Versus Saurashtra University
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 241
A single-judge bench of Justice Vaibhavi D. Nanavati of the Gujarat High Court held that in terms of conduction of examination and results for admission to LLB course, the rules of a University would prevail over the Rules of Bar Council of India.
In this case, the High Court upheld Saurashtra University rules that prohibited admission for an LLB course in cases where the graduate had not passed their examination in a single attempt.
Gujarat High Court Directs Dept. To Refund IGST On Ocean Freight Along With The Interest
Case title: ADI Enterprises Versus Union Of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 242
The Gujarat High Court bench of Justice A.J. Desai and Justice Bhargav D. Karia has directed the department to refund IGST on ocean freight along with the interest.
The applicants/petitioners have sought the direction to the respondents/department to grant a refund of the amount of IGST already paid by the applicants pursuant to Entry No.10 of Notification No.10/2017-IGST (Rate) dated 28.6.2017 with appropriate interest on the refund.
Himachal Pradesh High Court
Case Title: M/s V. Kare Biotech and Ors v. Hemant Aggarwal and Anr. CIVIL MISC. PETITION MAIN (ORIGINAL) NO. 130 OF 2022.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (HP) 12
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a writ petition would be non-maintainable against an order of the arbitrator dismissing the application for interrogatories.
The Single Bench of Justice Satyen Vaidya held that the arbitration act is a complete code in itself and prohibits judicial interference except where so provided under the Act.
The Court held that non-availability of an immediate remedy is not a ground to maintain a writ petition and the aggrieved party has the option to challenge such an award under Section 34 of the Act and raised all such objections at that stage.
2. Extension Of Parole Can't Be Sought From High Court U/S 482 CrPC: Himachal Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Mohd. Margoob (In Jail) v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (HP) 13
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a prisoner/convict cannot be granted extension of parole while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.'). A Single Judge Bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur also suggested that such cases can be entertained under the jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Case Title: Backend Bangalore Pvt. Ltd. v. Chief-Engineer-Cum-Project Director, HPRIDC, Arbitration Case No. 61 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (HP) 14
The High Court of Himachal Pradesh has held that pre-arbitration reference to the adjudicator in terms of arbitration clause is only directory and cannot be held to be a bar to the appointment of an arbitrator by the Court.
The Single Bench of Chief Justice Mohammed Rafiq held that the respondent could not object to the maintainability of the petition, merely on the ground that the pre-condition of reference to adjudicator was not met if it also did not make efforts to settle the dispute but proceeded to terminate the agreement.
Jharkhand High Court
Case Title : Jharkhand Public Service Commission v Dr. Mrs. Vanmala Choudahry and anrs
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 59
The Jharkhand High Court has held that the issuance of PhD degree to a research student is not a requisite condition for promotion of his Lecturer or Reader to the post of University Professor. A single judge bench of Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary observed the "experience of guiding research at doctoral level", which may or may not lead up to the student being awarded a PhD degree, is sufficient for the purpose.
Case title - Hazari Prasad v. The State of Jharkhand and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 60
The Jharkhand High Court has observed that the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act is akin to the general rule of evidence incorporated in Section 106 of the Evidence Act.
The Bench of Justice Shree Chandrashekhar further said that the accused has the right to show that there is a possibility that the case pleaded against him is not correct. However, this stage would come only when a prima facie case is established by the complainant.
Case title - Mahesh Kumar Chaudhary and others v. State of Jharkhand and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 61
In an important order, the Jharkhand High Court has asked the State of Jharkhand to consider framing appropriate guidelines regarding issuance of notice of appearance before police officers under Section 41A CrPC so that Jharkhand Police may be referred to as a Model Police.
The bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi also referred to the Delhi High Court's 2018 ruling [Amandeep Singh Johar V. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr] wherein guidelines for issuing a notice of appearance before police officers under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal procedure were laid down.
Karnataka High Court
Nominal Index:
RATHNAMMA v. STATE REPRESENTED BY PSI, CHANNAGIRI POLICE STATION, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 216
Umapathi S. v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 217
VISHWAS V v THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 218
Lakshi Venkateshwara Kallu Kutukara Bhovi Shakhara Sangha v. The State Of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 219
Vikas Verma & Others v. Union of India & Others, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 220
RITHESH PAIS v. STATE OF KARNATAKA, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 221
ARCHANA GIRISH KAMATH v. UNION OF INDIA, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 222
V.KRISHNAMURTHY v. DIARY CLASSIC ICE CREAMS PVT. LTD, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 223
B.DURGA RAM v. The State By BENGALURU CITY CENTRAL P.S.=, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 224
PUBLIC TV (KANNADA NEWS CHANNEL) and ANR v. BANNADI SOMANATH HEGDE, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 225
XXX versus STATE OF KARNATAKA, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 226
D M Deve Gowda v. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 227
REKHA & Others versus LALITHAMMA & Others, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 228
Judgments/Orders/Reports
Case Title: RATHNAMMA v. STATE REPRESENTED BY PSI, CHANNAGIRI POLICE STATION.
Case No: CRL.P No.3571/2021
Citation no: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 216
The Karnataka High Court has held that a Magistrate or the Special Court (under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act) is conferred with the power/jurisdiction to consider the application for 'interim custody' of the conveyance/vehicle under the provisions of Sections 451 and 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in cases arising out of the provisions of NDPS Act.
Case Title: Umapathi S. v. State of Karnataka
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.10789 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 217
The State Government informed the Karnataka High Court about the appointment of former judge of the High Court, Bhimanagouda Sanganagouda Patil, as the Lokayukta of Karnataka.
Case Title: VISHWAS V v THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.5609 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 218
The Karnataka High Court recently quashed criminal proceedings pending against an Architect, observing that it would be too far to stretch Section 304A of the IPC to contend that a person who had designed the house is responsible for death of a worker while undertaking construction under a contractor.
Case Title: Lakshi Venkateshwara Kallu Kutukara Bhovi Shakhara Sangha v. The State Of Karnataka
Case No: WP 11537/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 219
The Karnataka High Court has directed the state government to consider the representation to be made by members of the Bhovi Community, who are involved in traditional stone cutting work and take an appropriate decision in accordance with law, in respect of allowing them to continue their work in Meesaganahalli village.
Case Title: Vikas Verma & Others v. Union of India & Others.
Case No: WA 5651/2017
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 220
The Karnataka High Court has upheld the dismissal from service order passed by the Disciplinary Authority against eight constables of Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), for allegedly blackmailing and repeatedly raping the wife of another constable. The order was passed without holding regular inquiry.
Case Title: RITHESH PAIS v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.3597 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 221
The Karnataka High Court has quashed proceedings initiated against an accused under provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015, holding that alleged abuses hurled by him to the complainant were in the basement of a building which was not a place of public view or a public place.
Case Title: ARCHANA GIRISH KAMATH v. UNION OF INDIA
Case No: WP 11644/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 222
The Karnataka High Court dismissed a petition filed by Table Tennis Player Archana Kamath, questioning the decision of the Table Tennis Federation in not selecting her in the team which would represent India in the upcoming CommonWealth Games, 2022, to be held in England.
Case Title: V.KRISHNAMURTHY v. DIARY CLASSIC ICE CREAMS PVT. LTD
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.632 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 223
The Karnataka High Court has directed Magistrate courts to take into consideration conduct of the accused while deciding application filed by drawee in a cheque dishonour case, seeking interim compensation under section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Case Title: B.DURGA RAM v. The State By BENGALURU CITY CENTRAL P.S.
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2072 OF 2017
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 224
The Karnataka High Court has quashed criminal proceedings pending against a man holding that the FIR lodged by the complainant was 45 days after the alleged incident of assault and no plausible explanation was given for the delayed filing of FIR.
Case Title: PUBLIC TV (KANNADA NEWS CHANNEL) and ANR v. BANNADI SOMANATH HEGDE
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.10262 OF 2019
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 225
The Karnataka High Court has quashed defamation proceedings initiated against Public TV, a Kannada news channel, and HR Ranganath, Chief Patron of the channel, initiated based on a private complaint filed alleging that several media entities has spoken ill about the advocate's fraternity at large.
Case Title: XXX versus STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2743 OF 2017
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 226
The Karnataka High Court has quashed an FIR registered against a woman under sections 498-A, 506, 504 and 34 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act by another woman alleging that the accused was having an illicit relationship with her husband.
Case Title: D M Deve Gowda v. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests
Case No: WP 10502/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 227
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that a land can either be a "forest" or a "forest land", but there cannot be any "deemed forest" in absence of any provision under the Forest Conservation Act.
Case Title: REKHA & Others versus LALITHAMMA & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 55337 OF 2018(GM-CPC)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 228
The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that a plaintiff's request for amendment of plaint can be considered even after commencement of trial, in case the fundamental character of the suit is not changed and no prejudice is caused to the responding party.
Other reports
1. Karnataka HC To Hear Objection To Maintainability of Petition Filed By Google India On July 8
Case Title: GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & others versus COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA & others
Case No: WP 9399/2022
The Karnataka High Court said it would on July 8, hear the application filed by Alliance of Digital India Foundation questioning the maintainability of the petition filed by Google India Pvt Ltd seeking to restrain the Competition Commission of India (CCI) from divulging confidential information of the company to the complainant Alliance Of Digital India Foundation.
Kerala High Court
Nominal Index [Citations 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 288- 303]
Neethu v. Trijo Joseph, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 288
T.K Pradeep v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 289
XXX v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 290
Suresh Raj v. National Investigation Agency, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 291
Vijay Babu v. State of Kerala & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 292
M/S C.S Company & Ors v. Kerala State Electricity Board & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 293
Subaida Ebrahim v. Moosa C & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 294
Arun P. v. State of Kerala & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 295
Jayachandran V. v. State of Kerala & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 296
Sister Sephy v CBI, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 297
Rakhi Bose & Anr. v Union of India & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 298
Furseen Majeed & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 299
Sujith Narayanan v. State of Kerala & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 300
Kerala Private Hospitals Association v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 301
Abdul Ansar v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 302
Southern Dredging Co (P) Ltd v. K. Muhammed Haji, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 303
Judgments/Orders This Week
Case Title: Neethu v. Trijo Joseph
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 288
It has been ruled that a Court can strike off the defence of the defaulter if they deliberately or willfully refuse to comply with its order directing payment of interim maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (DV Act). Justice Kauser Edappagath held so after observing that in Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr, the Supreme Court had upheld the power of the court to strike off the defence if there was willful and contumacious non-compliance with the order of payment of maintenance.
Case Title: T.K Pradeep v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 289
The High Court asked Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) to produce a foolproof mechanism it uses to schedule its trips after a plea complained of employees being forced to work more than eight hours. Justice Devan Ramachandran directed the KSRTC to revert back with proper instruction on the same before going into the merits of the case. The Court deemed it appropriate that KSRTC be given time to produce before it a foolproof mechanism for fixing the Schedules of their trips, which does not violate the statutory scheme either.
Case Title: XXX v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 290
The Court has directed the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade to consider compulsory licensing of Ribociclib, a life-saving breast cancer drug considering the alarming number of women who succumb to the disease merely because they could not afford treatment. Justice V.G. Arun found this issue to be demanding serious consideration at the hands of the concerned authorities and issued an interim direction to the Department to pass a reasoned order on this issue after consulting with the relevant authorities.
Case Title: Suresh Raj v. National Investigation Agency
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 291
The Court has held that under Sections 306 and 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), a pardon can be granted to any person even if they have not been arraigned as an accused in the final report, as long as they were privy to the offence. A Division Bench of Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice C. Jayachandran opined so after observing that the language employed in Sections 306 and 307 is not 'an accused person' but 'any person', which implies that the person to whom pardon is to be tendered need only be 'directly or indirectly concerned in or privy to' the offence.
Case Title: Vijay Babu v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 292
The High Court granted pre-arrest bail subject to conditions to Malayalam actor-producer Vijay Babu's plea in the case where an actress accused him of sexually exploiting her. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas allowed the anticipatory bail plea with a condition that limited custody of the actor shall be available to the investigating officer.
Case Title: M/S C.S Company & Ors v. Kerala State Electricity Board & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 293
The Court has held that a suit instituted by or against a firm is a suit by or against all the partners of the firm and that the firm's name stands for all who were partners at the time when the cause of action arose. A Division Bench of Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Justice C.S. Sudha pointed out that the policy underlying Order XXX (Suits by or against firms and persons carrying on business in names other than their own) CPC, is to avoid a long array of parties and to allow a convenient mode of institution of suits by/against partners collectively, who carry on business under a particular name.
Case Title: Subaida Ebrahim v. Moosa C & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 294
The Court recently ruled that under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), when there is an order of rateable distribution for a property in favour of separate decree holders, one of them cannot claim to set-off their entire debt from the sale proceeds. A Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.G Ajithkumar held that in a case where rateable distribution is ordered by the Court, the decree-holder only has the right to set off a proportionate amount he is entitled to.
Case Title: Arun P. v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 295
The Kerala High Court denied anticipatory bail to a man accused of obstructing a doctor from performing her official duty finding that under the Kerala Healthcare Service Persons and Healthcare Service Institutions (Prevention of Violence and Damage to Property) Act, even an obstruction or hindrance committed on a healthcare person is a grave offence. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that violence against a medical professional was a non-bailable offence and granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner would defeat the legislative mandate.
Case Title: Jayachandran V. v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 296
The Court has held that a delinquent's right to receive the enquiry report is considered an essential part of a reasonable opportunity to be extended to them and a refusal to furnish the report amounts to a denial of their right to defend themselves in the disciplinary proceedings. A Division Bench of Justice A.K Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Mohammed Nias C.P also held that even if such a right is not explicitly stated in the statute, being a fundamental and essential part of the natural justice, it must be read into every statute.
Case Title: Sister Sephy v CBI
Citation:2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 297
The Court allowed the applications filed by convicts Sister Sephy and Father Thomas Kottoor seeking suspension of the life sentence imposed on them in the sensational Sister Abhaya murder case. A Division Bench of Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice C. Jayachandran thereby granted bail to the convicts with the condition to execute bonds of Rs. 5 lakh each and two solvent sureties. If their conviction and sentence were upheld or even modified, the time during which they are so released was to be excluded in computing the term of their sentence as provided in Section 389(4) CrPC.
Case Title: Rakhi Bose & Anr. v Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 298
The Court ruled that the right of a frozen embryo to develop into a foetus and then be born cannot be obstructed by relying on provisions in the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021. Justice V.G Arun observed that the main objective of the Act was to prevent abuse of assisted reproductive procedures and not to pose hurdles in the way of aspiring parents.
12. In-Flight Protest Against Chief Minister: Kerala High Court Grants Bail To 2 Youth Congress Workers
Case Title: Furseen Majeed & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 299
The High Court granted bail to two Youth Congress workers, Furseen Majeed and R.K Naveen, who were arrested and remanded following their protest against Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan on a flight at the Thiruvananthapuram airport. Justice Viju Abraham granted bail to the petitioners noting that considering the nature of the allegations, further custodial interrogation of the petitioners did not seem necessary.
13. In-Flight Protest Against Chief Minister: Kerala High Court Grants Pre-Arrest Bail To 3rd Accused
Case Title: Sujith Narayanan v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 300
The High Court granted pre-arrest bail to a Youth Congress worker Sujith Narayanan who has been accused of conspiring to protest against Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan on a flight at the Thiruvananthapuram airport. Justice Viju Abraham granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner observing that while the first two accused allegedly involved in the incident were arrested, there was no attempt at all to arrest him.
Case Title: Kerala Private Hospitals Association v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 301
Stating that reports of attacks on healthcare persons have become a routine, the Kerala High Court asked the State government to consider its suggestion of placing police presence in hospitals, at least in the most sensitive areas for now, which can later be extended to other places in due time. A Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice Kauser Edappagath also said that while statutory provisions provide for stringent penalties, this does not seem to be a sufficient deterrent for the assailants.
Case Title: Abdul Ansar v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 302
The Court recently ruled that a conductor of a stage carriage bus, ringing its bell and signalling the driver to move forward when a passenger was boarding it thereby causing serious injury to the passenger is an act punishable under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 308 punishes the attempt to commit culpable homicide. Justice P.G. Ajithkumar held so after finding that the conductor has a statutory duty to ensure the safety of the passengers and that he would thereby have sufficient knowledge that his action of ringing the bell could have fatal consequences.
16. Plea Of Adjustment Should Be Raised Before Institution Of Suit: Kerala High Court Reiterates
Case Title: Southern Dredging Co (P) Ltd v. K. Muhammed Haji
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 303
The High Court has reiterated that a plea of adjustment can be pressed into service only if raised before the institution of the suit and not afterwards, unlike a plea for set-off. Justice A. Badharudeen also noted that leave for filing additional written statements is usually not granted by courts if they are filed after a long delay. The Judge added that to determine whether a plea raised in defence is a plea of set-off or of payment by adjustment it has to be ascertained as to whether a separate action could be maintained by the defendant on the basis of his claim.
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case title - DILEEP v. M.P. STATE ELECTION COMMISSION
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 161
The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently gave liberty to a man who intended to contest local elections to approach the state election commission with his grievance regarding removal of his name from the voter list. The Bench of Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari directed the State Election commission to pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within 24 hours, in case the petitioner approaches it.
Case Title: Sanjay Trading Company Versus State Of Madhya Pradesh
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 162
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has refused to direct the re-measuring of the stock of coal lying in the premises as the search team has obtained the signatures of the persons present while carrying out the Panchanama. The division bench of Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Maninder S. Bhatti perused the panchanama and observed that on the date of search itself, the amount of tax and a penalty were deposited by the petitioner as discrepancies were found in the stock, and thus there was no question of any kind of seizure.
3. Advance Ruling Can't Be Sought After The Receipt Of The Notice: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case Title: M/s Saisanket Enterprise Versus Authority of Advance Ruling
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 163
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that the application under section 97 of the CGST Act for obtaining the advance ruling cannot be made before the Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) during the pendency of the issue before the authority and after the receipt of the notice.
Case Title: M/S Ujas Associates versus M/S KJS Cement (India) Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 164
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), including Section 9, would come into operation only after the termination of the conciliation proceedings under Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act), in the absence of an arbitration agreement between the parties.
5. 'Insurer Did Not Exercise Ordinary Care': MP High Court Upholds Compensation To LRs Of Deceased Despite Policy Being Bought After Her Death
Case Title : NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD v SMT. GUDDI BAI AND ANRS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 165
The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently upheld the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, whereby the Insurance Company was directed to pay compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased, despite the insurance policy being bought after the death of the policy owner. Deciding the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company against the impugned award, Justice Vishal Dhagat held that the Company did not exercise ordinary care and diligence in the case-
Madras High Court
NOMINAL INDEX
A. Shaamsudeen Raja v Raneesha P.V., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 258
K.Sadagopan v. State Rep.by, Inspector of Police and ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 259
D.Chandra v. The Tahsildar, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 260
Ponvelraj v. The State Information Commissioner and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 261
B Nagaraj v. The State and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 262
P Benjamin v. The Director General of Police and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 263
Bapuji Murugesan v. Mythili Rajagopalan, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 264
P Venkatachalam v. The Tahsildar (Batch), 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 265
N Syamasundara Naidu v. V Dakshinamoorthy and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 266
K Kumaradoss v. The Principal Secretary to Government and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 267
P Maheswari v. The Secretary to Government, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 268
Dharampal R. Pandia versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 269
REPORTS
Case Title: A. Shaamsudeen Raja v Raneesha P.V.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 258
While allowing an appeal by a father seeking custody of his minor child, the Madras High Court bench of Justice M.Duraiswamy and Justice Sunder Mohan, observed that the order of the single judge was passed without affording an opportunity to the parties to let in oral and documentary evidence.
"It is settled law that while deciding the Original Petition to appoint the guardian the courts should allow the party to let in oral and documentary evidences. In such view of the matter, on that ground alone, the order passed by the learned Single Judge in O.P.No.423 of2020 is liable to be set aside." the court observed.
Case Title: K.Sadagopan v. State Rep.by, Inspector of Police and ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 259
While dismissing a petition for interim custody of Rs.10 lakhs seized in a job racketing case, the Madras High Court bench of Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy expressed his displeasure at the way people were willing to pay huge sums of money for getting a job. He enunciated that public appointments were made through a selection procedure and could not be obtained by paying bribes. He highlighted that such persons did not realise that it took years of work to earn such salaries and gave no thought to the plight of persons who scored more marks than them.
3. No Prohibition For Issuance Of Legal Heirship Certificate To Class-II Legal Heirs: Madras High Court
Case Title: D.Chandra v. The Tahsildar
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 260
While allowing a petition filed by a woman for issuing a legal heir certificate for her deceased brother, the Madras High Court bench of Mr. Justice Abdul Quddhose reiterated that there was no bar to issuing a legal heir certificate to a class-II heir.
The court thus directed the respondent Tahsildar to consider the petitioner's application on merits and after affording her a fair hearing and after hearing any such other person that the respondent deems fit to inquire. The Tahsildar was also directed to pass the final orders within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of the order.
Case Title: Ponvelraj v. The State Information Commissioner and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 261
The Madras High Court recently allowed a petition filed by a Sanitation Inspector for quashing an order imposing a penalty of Rs. 25000 (highest under the Right to Information Act) for providing inadequate reply in an RTI Application.
The bench of Justice S. Srimathy observed that the petitioner was only providing reply upon the directions of the Municipal Commissioner and was himself not a designated Public Information Officer.
The court observed as under:
"This Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner was not designated as Public Information Officer and has not acted as in-charge Public Information Officer. In such circumstances, the information furnished by the petitioner is only based on the direction of the Municipal Commissioner that is the second respondent, without assigning any designation as in-charge Public Information Officer. Therefore, the punishment imposed on the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs 25,000/-, as penalty, which is the maximum punishment that is prescribed under the Act is liable to be interfered and the impugned order is quashed. If any amount is recovered based on the impugned order, the same shall be refunded to the petitioner."
Case Title: B Nagaraj v. The State and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 262
The Madras High Court recently observed that a person who purchases a piece of land after the issuance of notification for its acquisition by the government under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, has no right to challenge the acquisition proceedings.
The bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice N Mala dismissed the appeals filed by subsequent purchasers of a property, who were challenging the acquisition after twenty years. The court relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Meera Sahni v. Lt. Governor of Delhi (2008 (9) SCC 177) which held that any purchase, after the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894 is "void ab-initio" and thus, subsequent purchasers cannot challenge acquisition proceedings.
Case Title: P Benjamin v. The Director General of Police and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 263
While allowing a petition seeking police protection for the Executive Council and General Council Meeting of All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) to be held on June 23, the Madras High Court observed that the State had a duty to provide necessary protection and to prevent any untoward incident in the form of violence.
The bench of Justice N Sathish Kumar made the observations on a petition preferred by P Benjamin, District Secretary of Tiruvallur District and member of the AIADMK.
7. Orders Passed U/S 148 NI Act Are Interlocutory In Nature, Not Revisable: Madras High Court
Case Title: Bapuji Murugesan v. Mythili Rajagopalan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 264
While discussing the scope of revision in case of orders passed under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the Madras High Court recently observed that such orders are interlocutory in nature and are outside the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court.
The bench of Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy was hearing a criminal revision petition against an order of the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai which in exercise of powers under Section 148 of the Act, suspended the order of imprisonment (till the disposal of appeal) for cheque dishonour, subject to a deposit of 15% of the cheque amount.
The court opined that the order for deposit under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was not a precondition for the appeal to be taken on file and therefore will not result in a final order deciding appeal. It was only a direction to deposit subject to the final outcome of the appeal and as such was only a matter of procedure. The court highlighted that such orders did not determine the rights of the parties. It was also observed that non passing of such order or accepting any application by the accused would not result in culmination of proceedings
Case Title: P Venkatachalam v. The Tahsildar (Batch)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 265
A three-judge bench of the Madras High Court recently decided upon the powers of a Tahsildar to issue a Legal Heirship Certificate in matters of intestate-succession for Class-II heirs.
The bench of Justice PN Prakash, Justice R Hemalatha, and Justice AA Nakkiran opined that the concept of heirship is determined through the various personal laws. Thus, the Legal Heirship Certificate issued by the Tahsildar has no effect on the legal right of any party which was conferred to him/her under the personal laws.
The Court was of the opinion that the prefix "legal heir" used in the certificates issued by the Tahsildar is clearly a misnomer and that these are merely "relationship certificates" reflecting the opinion of the Tahsildar on the relationship of the applicant and the persons named therein with the deceased; They cannot alter the status of a legal heir which is conferred on an individual under his/her personal law.
Case Title: N Syamasundara Naidu v. V Dakshinamoorthy and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 266
The Madras High Court recently set aside the order of Judicial Magistrate, wherein it was held that a Private Pleader, who was appointed by the complainant to assist the Public Prosecutor, could not conduct an independent prosecution under Section 301(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and therefore had no locus standi to plead on behalf of the prosecution and conduct the case.
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that the order of the Magistrate was unsustainable since Section 301 of CrPC is not applicable to Magistrate Courts. Further, it observed that merely because the said application was not emanating from the Public Prosecutor/Police, is not a ground to throw it out.
10. Take Criminal Action Against Police Officials Receiving 'Mamool': Madras High Court
Case Title: K Kumaradoss v. The Principal Secretary to Government and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 267
While dismissing a retired sub-Inspector's plea challenging the order of punishment of reduction in the time scale of pay by three stages for three years, the Madras High Court expressed its concern over police officers taking bribes and thereby affecting the welfare of people.
Justice SM Subramaniam was of the view that whenever receiving bribes is traced out, criminal cases should be registered against the police officials. These offences had to be dealt with without showing any leniency or misplaced sympathy.
The court also observed that the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution was to ensure that the process through which a decision was taken was in consonance with the rules in force and not the decision itself. In the present case, the court did not find any infirmity with reference to the quantum of punishment imposed.
Case Title: P Maheswari v. The Secretary to Government
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 268
The Madras High court bench of Justice S.S.Sundar and Justice S. Srimathy recently set aside the order of the District Collector, Theni District wherein the Collector had adjudicated upon the genuineness of a community certificate based upon the report of an Anthropologist and the enquiry report of the Sub-collector.
The court observed that the fact that the District Collector has passed the impugned order without following the procedure as contemplated under the two Government Orders referred to above, is not in dispute
12. Deliberately Concealing The Income, Assessee Can Be Prosecuted: Madras High Court
Case Title: Dharampal R. Pandia versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 269
The Madras High Court has ruled that an assessee can be prosecuted for willfully and deliberately concealing his income by not filing his income tax return within the stipulated time, even after the return belatedly submitted by the assessee is accepted by the revenue authorities on the basis of which an assessment order is passed.
The Single Bench of Justice G. Chandrasekharan observed that the concealment and suppression of income by the assessee came to light only after a survey operation was conducted and that the assessee had filed his return only after a statutory notice was issued to him under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the Court held that the assessee had willfully and deliberately concealed his true income by not filing his income tax return within the stipulated time.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
The Madras High Court conducted a midnight hearing to decide upon the appeals preferred by M Shanmugham, AIADMK's general council member against the single judge order passed earlier in the day where the single judge refused to restrain the party from making any amendments to its bye-laws.
The appeals were heard by Justice Sunder Mohan and Justice Duraiswamy at the former's residence. The bench restrained the party from making any resolutions other than the 23 resolutions already approved. The court observed that it was important for the members to be informed about what was going on and no resolutions could be passed without such an agenda.
The hearing commenced at around 12.30 am and the interim order was pronounced around 4.30 am.
Earlier, Justice Krishnan Ramasamy had refused to restrain the party from amending its bylaws. The court had observed that it was a settled principle that the courts cannot interfere in the internal affairs of a party/association. It was open for the association/party to pass resolutions and frame bye-laws.
2. NEP Not Backed By Statute, State Not Obligated To Implement It: TN Govt Tells Madras High Court
Case Title: Arjunan Elayaraja v. The Secretary & Ors.
Case No: WP No. 818 of 2022(PIL)
The Tamil Nadu government has told the Madras High Court that the National Education Policy does not have any statutory backing and hence, there is no statutory obligation on the state to implement the same.
The development comes in a counter affidavit filed by the Joint Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department in response to a plea filed by one Arjunan Elayaraja seeking implementation of NEP in Tamil Nadu.
As per State, the proposed NEP 2020 had strong centralising tendencies which could have a destabilizing effect on the federal characteristics of the Indian Union. It also said that a bare reading of the NEP would make it clear that it did not have any statutory backing and remained only as a policy as on date. As such, there was no statutory obligation on the state to implement the same and for this very reason the petition is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable.
3. Consider Implementing Empty Liquor Bottle Buy-Back Scheme Across Tamil Nadu: High Court Tells TASMAC
Case Title: G.Subramania Koushik v. The Principal Secretary and others
Case No: WP 15120 of 2019
The Madras High Court opined that TASMAC's buy-back scheme implemented in the Nilgiris region should be implemented across the state of Tamil Nadu. The observations were made by Justice N Sathish Kumar and Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy in a batch of pleas for protection of the Western Ghats area.
When the matter was being heard, the Managing Director of TASMAC submitted a status report according to which 63% of the bottles sold in the region came back. Seeing this, the court observed as under:
On seeing the report that 63% bottles have come back, we are of the opinion that the buy back scheme should be implemented in the entire state so that damage to environment can be controlled.
Orissa High Court
Case Title: Subash Mohapatra & Ors. v. State of Odisha & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 104
In a significant decision, the Orissa High Court has held that the Vigilance Department of the State cannot be completely exempted from the operation of the Right to Information Act, 2005 ('RTI'). It directed that information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violations and also information pertaining to activities undertaken by the Department, which are not sensitive or confidential, should be disclosed under the RTI.
Case Title: Dillip Kumar Baral v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 105
The Orissa High Court has disposed of the pending writ petition challenging Puri Shree Jagannath Temple Corridor Project, in view of the recent decision of the Apex Court in Ardhendu Kumar Das v. State of Odisha. Notably, in that case, the Supreme Court dismissed two petitions filed against some construction works undertaken by the Odisha Government in the adjacent area of the centuries-old holy shrine. Not only those petitions were dismissed, but heavy costs of one lakh each were imposed on both the petitioners.
The Orissa High Court has reiterated that an arbitral award cannot be set aside on the ground of breach of fundamental principles of justice, if the findings of the Arbitral Tribunal do not shock the conscience of the Court.
Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case Title: Gulam Deen and another v. State of Punjab and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 157
The Punjab and Haryana High Court granted protection to a Muslim Girl (16 Year Old) who married a Muslim boy (21 years old) while noting that she is of Marriageable Age under Muslim Personal Law. Essentially, the Bench of Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi was hearing a protection plea filed by the couple (both Muslims) who solemnized their marriage as per Muslim rites and ceremonies. The couple contended before the Court that in Muslim law, puberty and majority are one and the same and that there is a presumption that a person attains majority at the age of 15 years.
Case Title: Neelam Kumari Versus Chief Administrator, Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran, Panchkula & another
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 158
The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently upheld the auction policy of Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran, Panchkula which provided for non-disclosure of the reserved price. The bench comprising Justice Amol Rattan Singh and Lalit Batra held that the reserved price was not disclosed for confidential reasons and to ensure transparency process of allotment via e-auction.
Case Title : Ajaib Singh v. State of Punjab
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 159
The Punjab and Haryana High Court while denying anticipatory bail to the father in a case where he was allegedly acting in connivance with his son who solemnized various marriages without getting divorce from his disabled spouse, held that in view of the seriousness of the allegation and to unravel the truth, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary. Thus, in view of the seriousness of the allegation as also to unravel the truth regarding the multiple marriages of his son, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary.
Case Title: Pooja Rani v. State of Punjab and Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 160
The Punjab and Haryana High Court while dealing with a case of adoption of an unborn child, held that no such provision as to give effect to adoption of an unborn child is envisaged under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 does not envisage an agreement to adopt a child, who is not yet born.
Case Title: Dr. Sangeeta Aggarwal and others v. State of Punjab and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 161
The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently reiterated that the law helps those who are vigilant about their rights and not those who sleep over it. The bench comprising Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Vikas Suri further added that acquiescence, delay and laches are well recognised exceptions to dismiss the claim sought to be raised at a belated stage.
Rajasthan High Court
The Rajasthan High Court has observed that if any legal advice rendered by an Advocate goes wrong, the same would not subject him to criminal prosecution, as a lawyer. At most, he may be held liable for gross negligence or professional misconduct, if it is established by placing cogent evidence on record.
Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati observed, "If any legal advice rendered by an Advocate goes wrong, the same would not subject him to criminal prosecution, as a lawyer. As observed above, an Advocate, at the most, may be liable for gross negligence or professional misconduct, if it is established by placing a cogent evidence on record, but an Advocate cannot be charged for the offences, as alleged herein, alongwith other conspirators."
Case Title: Pradeep Kumar Sharma & Anr. v. Municipal Corporation, Jaipur
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 198
While hearing a PIL for removal of statue of Shri Babasaheb Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar allegedly causing obstruction, the Rajasthan High Court recently observed that the placement of the statue and free flow of the traffic both are matters, which can be looked into by the authorities and not by the court. The court opined that the petitioners have chosen only a particular spot in the city rather than coming out with general prayer for removal of unauthorised statues in the city. The court remarked that the petition appears to be only for personal interest, not for public interest.
Telangana High Court
Case Title: Mrs. Sumana Paruchuri v.Jakka Vinod Kumar Reddy
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 51
Recently, the Telangana High Court ruled that a private complaint for fraud under Section 447 of Companies Act, 2013 is not maintainable before the Special Court. Section 212(6) of the Companies Act ensures that prosecution for fraud can only be launched after due investigation. This provides a safeguard against frivolous complaints from millions of shareholders of various companies.
"If the contention of the complainant that any shareholder can file a complaint for fraud is accepted, it would open flood gates for any person commencing criminal proceedings merely by filing a complaint."
Case Title: Naveen P Malvay v. Samskruthi Shelters, Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 32 of 2019.
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 52
The Telangana High Court has held that having regards to the object of the A&C Act, the delay of 435 days in filing an appeal is too long to exercise discretion. The Division Bench of Justice P. Naveen Rao dismissed an appeal that was filed after a long delay of 435 days on the ground that no sufficient reason is assigned for delay in filing appeal. It held that when the delay is long, a heavy burden is placed on the applicant to give cogent reasons to satisfy the court for condonation of delay.
Case: Terra Infra Development Ltd. v. NCC Ltd. Arb. Application No. 113 of 2021
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 53
The Telangana High Court has held that the parties cannot be said to be negotiating when the respondent did not reply to the letters of the applicant and the period of limitation for invoking arbitration would not be extended in such a scenario. The Single Bench of Justice K. Lakshman held that the period of limitation would begin to run when the liability to pay is disputed by a party and mere writing of letters and correspondences will not extend the limitation period.
Tripura High Court
Case title - Rasheda Khatun and others v. State of Tripura and others
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Trip) 14
The Tripura High Court directed the state government to pay a compensation of Rs 10 lakh to the family members of Jamal Hossain, who allegedly died due to custodial torture in police lockup. The Bench of Chief Justice Indrajit Mahanty and Justice Satya Gopal Chattopadhyay ordered that the widow, children, and mother of the deceased shall be entitled to an equal share of the amount of compensation.
Uttarakhand High Court
1. Uttarakhand High Court Partially Allows Proposed Felling Of Trees For Widening Sahastradhara Road
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Abhijay Negi, Advocate
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Utt) 21
The Uttarakhand High Court has partially allowed the proposal to cut thousands of trees to widen the road connecting an important tourist destination in Uttarakhand, i.e. Sahastradhara. A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjaya Kumar Mishra and Justice Ramesh Chandra Khulbe cleared the proposal on the condition that the valuable trees shall be re-planted and duly taken care of by the State.