Allahabad High Court NOMINAL INDEX Madhav Singh v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 94 Mohammad Niyaz v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 95 Shankar Varik @ Vikram v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 96 Monu Thakur v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 97 Ram Harsh v. Union of India and 4 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 98 Smt. Maya v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin....
Allahabad High Court
NOMINAL INDEX
Madhav Singh v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 94
Mohammad Niyaz v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 95
Shankar Varik @ Vikram v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 96
Monu Thakur v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 97
Ram Harsh v. Union of India and 4 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 98
Smt. Maya v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical Health And Ors 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 99
M/S V.K. Traders v. Union Of India And 3 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 100
Durgawati Singh and others v. Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits Lucknow and others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 101
Avneesh Kumar And 2 Others v. Union Of India And 4 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 102
Smt. Sharma Devi v. State Of U.P. Through Its Additional Chief Secretary, Food And Civil Supply Lko And Ors 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 103
Bharat Mint And Allied Chemicals v. Commissioner Commercial Tax And 2 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 104
Mohammad Azam Khan v. The State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 105
State of U. P. v. Brijesh and another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 106
Jatinder Pal Singh vs M/S Statcon Power Controls Ltd 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 107
Mohammad Azam Khan v. State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Home And Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 108
Shiv Kumar Bahadur Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy.Dairy Development And Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 109
Bhura v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 110
Judgments/Orders of the Week
1. Magistrate Has Duty To Ensure Fair Probe After Passing Order U/S 156 (3) CrPC: Allahabad High Court
Case title - Madhav Singh v. State of U.P. and Another
Case Citation:2022 LiveLaw (AB) 94
The High Court observed that the Magistrate cannot wash his hands of the case after passing an order under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C and that it is the duty of the Magistrate to ensure that investigation is done impartially and in a fair manner.
The Bench of Justice Umesh Kumar observed thus while referring to the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. & others, 2008 (60) ACC 689, wherein the Apex Court held thus:
"...there is an implied power in the Magistrate under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. to order registration of a criminal offence and/or to direct the officer-in-charge of the concerned police station to hold a proper investigation and take all such necessary steps that may be necessary for ensuring a proper investigation including monitoring the same."
Case title - Mohammad Niyaz v. State of U.P.
Case Citation:2022 LiveLaw (AB) 95
The High Court granted bail to a man who has been booked under Sedition Charges (Sedition 124-A IPC) as he allegedly supported and posted Flag of Pakistan on his Facebook I.D. and thereby tried to create any social disturbance in the country.
Having heard the counsel of the petitioner/Mohammad Niyaz, the Bench of Justice Om Prakash Tripathi, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, was of the opinion that it was a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application was allowed.
Case Title: Shankar Varik @ Vikram v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 96
"Evidence of a public officer cannot be thrown only on the ground that he is a police officer," the High Court held while denying bail to an accused allegedly involved in a case pertaining to recover of 1,025 kg ganja.
Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav discarded the argument that the arresting officials did not comply with the mandatory provisions of search and seizure under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.
Case title - Monu Thakur v. State of U.P.
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 97
The High Court rejected the reference made to it to confirm the death penalty awarded to a man accused of burning a 14-year-old girl alive after committing rape upon her.
Acquitting the accused of Rape and Murder charges, the Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Sameer Jain noted that that there was no worth-while evidence on record to prove the charges against the accused-appellant.
Case Title: Ram Harsh v. Union of India and 4 Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 98
The High Court made it clear that the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 cannot and does not oust the High Court's power of judicial review contained under Article 226 of the Constitution.
"The jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is extraordinary and discretionary in nature. It is also to be noted that the powers to be exercised by the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 are constitutional powers and the same cannot be excluded by legislation. The Armed Forces Tribunal Act cannot curtail the powers under the grundnorm being the constitution," a Bench of Justice Anjani Kumar Mishra and Justice Vikram D. Chauhan observed.
6. No Class-IV Employee Should Normally Be Transferred Out Of District: Allahabad High Court
Case Title - Smt. Maya v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical Health And Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 99
The High Court observed that no Class-IV employee should normally be transferred out of the district. The Bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary made this observation while setting aside a transfer order passed against a Class IV Employee as it noted that the same was punitive in nature.
Essentially, the petitioner Smt. Maya (a Class IV Employee) was transferred by State Medical Health Department from Lucknow to Kanpur by transfer order dated July 12, 2021, on administrative grounds, however, the officer responsible for her transfer did not give any reason whatsoever for transferring her.
7. Anticipatory Bail Plea Not Maintainable In Case Of A Bailable Offence: Allahabad High Court
Case title - M/S V.K. Traders v. Union Of India And 3 Others
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 100
The High Court held that an application for grant of Anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable in case of an offence that has been declared by the concerned statute as a bailable offence.
The Bench of Justice Samit Gopal further clarified that anticipatory bail does not arise for an offence that is bailable and a direction for the same can be issued only in respect of non-bailable and cognizable offences.
Case Title: Durgawati Singh and others v. Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits Lucknow and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 101
The High Court, sitting in Lucknow, reiterated that a Court, in exercise of its discretion, may refuse relief in a case where there has been a breach of principles of natural justice, if it is of the opinion that no "real prejudice" is caused to the affected party.
"Natural justice is a flexible tool in the hands of the judiciary to reach out in fit cases to remedy injustice. The breach of the audi alteram partem rule cannot by itself, without more, lead to the conclusion that prejudice is thereby caused," the bench comprising Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Jaspreet Singh reiterated.
Case title - Avneesh Kumar And 2 Others v. Union Of India And 4 Others
Case citation:2022 LiveLaw (AB) 102
In a relief to 3 candidates who participated in the 2018 Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) recruitment process but were denied employment on account of certain tattoos on a certain part of their hands (forearm), the High Court directed the Central Government to consider their candidature if they remove their tattoos.
The Bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma directed the Centre and the SSB that if the petitioners' tattoos are removed then that particular disability may not be considered as an obstacle for selection on the ministerial posts for which the petitioners had applied.
Case title - Smt. Sharma Devi v. State Of U.P. Through Its Additional Chief Secretary, Food And Civil Supply Lko And Ors
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 103
The High Court held that a daughter-in-law is very well entitled to allotment of a fair price shop on compassionate grounds.
The Bench of Justice Manish Mathur relied upon an earlier judgment of the High Court wherein it was held that a widowed daughter-in-law is eligible for allotment of a fair price shop on compassionate grounds.
Essentially, the Court was dealing with a writ plea filed by one Sharma Devi whose application for allotment of fair price shop on the compassionate ground had been rejected by the Government authority on the ground that she does not come within the definition of 'family' as described in paragraph IV(10) of the Government Order dated 5th August, 2019.
Case title - Bharat Mint And Allied Chemicals v. Commissioner Commercial Tax And 2 Others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 104
The High Court has directed the Proper Officers/Assessing Authorities in the State of Uttar Pradesh to follow the principles of natural justice as contemplated under Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax, 2017/ U.P. Goods and Services Tax, 2017.
The Bench of Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani and Justice Jayant Banerji observed thus in a Tax Writ filed by Bharat Mint And Allied Chemicals that had moved the Court after an assessment order was passed against it creating a demand of tax.
12. Allahabad High Court Grants Bail To MP Azam Khan In Case Over His Alleged Remarks Against RSS, BJP
Case title - Mohammad Azam Khan v. The State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.
Case Citation:2022 LiveLaw (AB) 105
The High Court granted bail to the Senior Samajwadi Party leader and a Member Of Parliament, Azam Khan in connection with a case registered against him for allegedly making derogatory statements against BJP, RSS by way of misusing his official letterhead and seal as a UP Minister.
Noting that Khan has been in jail since February 2020, a charge-sheet has been submitted against him and the trial Court has taken cognizance of it, the Bench of Justice Ramesh Sinha was of the view that his continued custody isn't necessary for the purpose of further investigation and trial in the instant case and therefore, he was granted bail.
Case title - State of U. P. v. Brijesh and another
Case citation:2022 LiveLaw (AB) 106
The High Court upheld an acquittal order of a trial court in a murder case after concluding that there was not sufficient evidence to prove that the accused persons had committed the murder of the deceased by administering poison to him.
With this, the Bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi rejected the application filed by the State Government seeking leave to file an appeal against the acquittal order. The appeal was also dismissed summarily at the admission stage.
Case Title : Jatinder Pal Singh vs M/S Statcon Power Controls Ltd
Citation:2022 LiveLaw (AB) 107
The High Court has held that a director, who is not involved in the day to day affairs of a company, cannot be prosecuted for the offence under section 138 (Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
'It is clear from the perusal of the complaint that there is no specific averment that applicant is involved in day-to-day affairs of the company. There is only general allegation that applicant is a Director of the company. The documents filed by the applicant establishes that the applicant was a nominee Director and who has now resigned. Considering the aforesaid facts and the law propounded on the point it is clear that in absence of specific allegations about the applicant he can not be prosecuted for any offence under section 138 N.I. Act," Justice Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi held.
15. Allahabad High Court Grants Bail To MP Mohammad Azam Khan In UP Jal Nigam Recruitment Scam Case
Case title - Mohammad Azam Khan v. State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Home And Anr.
Case Citation:2022 LiveLaw (AB) 108
The High Court granted bail to Senior Samajwadi Party leader and a Member Of Parliament, Mohammad Azam Khan in a case registered against him in connection with the 2016 Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam recruitment scam.
The Bench of Justice Ramesh Sinha noted that the State had failed to point out any clinching evidence from the charge sheet against Khan, which could show that he actively participated in the recruitment process in the U.P. Jal Nigam.
Case Title : Shiv Kumar Bahadur Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy.Dairy Development And Others
Citation:2022 LiveLaw (AB) 109
The High Court observed that the Precarious financial condition of a corporation can not be a ground to delay payment of pensionary benefits that are due to superannuated employees.
The Bench of Justice Irshad Ali made this observation on a plea filed by one Shiv Kumar Bahadur Singh who sought direction upon the Government authorities to make payment of him a full amount of gratuity to along with interest in view of the amended provisions of Section 4 of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
Case title - Bhura v. State of U.P.
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 110
The High Court modified the sentence of Life Imprisonment awarded to a 32-Year-Old Rape convict to Rigorous Imprisonment for 13 years, which the convict has already served out.
The Bench of Justice Suneet Kumar and Justice Om Prakash Tripathi ordered thus while observing that at the time of the incident, the prosecutrix was about 14 years and the convict was a 19-year-old, married man. The Court also noted that the prosecutrix married later on and is leading a peaceful married life.
Important Weekly Updates From the High Court/UP courts
Case title - Ashish Kumar Singh (In Person) v. U.O.I Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Law And Justice New Delhi And Ors
The High Court (Lucknow Bench) issued notice on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea seeking stipend for Junior Lawyers who are having initial practice up to 3 years
The Bench of Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan has issued notices to U.O.I, UP Bar Council and others.
The PIL has been moved by the petitioner-in-person Ashish Kumar Singh who has averred in the plea that the UP State Government had announced in the month of April of 2020 that a monthly stipend of Rs.5000/- would be paid to the junior Lawyers/Advocates, however, the announcement has not been implemented.
Case title - Surendra Koli v. State Thru C.B.I.
Days after the High Court slammed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for its failure to produce the post mortem reports of the victims of the Nithari case (also known as the 2006 Noida Serial Murders case), the CBI submitted the copies of the post-mortem reports before the HC.
The CBI has submitted the Post mortem reports in pursuance of the HC's previous order wherein the Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Sameer Jain, while hearing an appeal filed by accused Surinder Koli against his conviction and sentence of the death penalty, had asked the CBI to file autopsy reports of the victims.
Case Title: Abhinav Mishra v. Union Of India Thru. Secy. Dept. Of Personnel And Training New Delhi And Another
A Civil Services aspirant, who couldn't appear for a few papers of the Union Public Service Commission's (UPSC) Civil Services Main Examination 2021 due to COVID-19, has approached the High Court seeking an additional chance to write the remaining papers.
Hearing the matter on Wednesday, the Bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary deferred the hearing to March 30, 2022, as it sought details of an SLP pending before the Supreme Court for the same cause of action.
Case title - Mehek Maheshwari v. Union of India and others
The High Court restored a plea filed by a Lawyer, Mahek Maheshwari, seeking recognition of Mathura's Shahi Idgah Mosque site as Krishna Janam Bhoomi. This plea was earlier dismissed in default on January 19, 2021, on account of absence of the petitioner, who appears in person in the matter.
The Bench of Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Prakash Padia restored the plea as it noted that the application for restoration was filed immediately after it was dismissed in default.
5. Allahabad HC Grants Relief To Flipkart In A Case Over Sale Of Products In Violation Of Copyright Act
Case title - M/S Flipkart Internet Private Limited v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
In relief to Flipkart Internet Private Limited and its officials, the Allahabad High Court issued an order to stay any coercive against the company officials till the next date of hearing in a case related to the sale of counterfeit products on the company's website.
The bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rajnish Kumar also issued notices to State of Uttar Pradesh and other respondents and asked them to file a counter affidavit in the matter within six weeks.
6. Allahabad High Court Allows Jailed Man To Appear In LL.B Semester Exam Under Police Custody
Case title - Anjani Kumar Shukla v. State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And 4 Others
The High Court allowed a jailed man to appear for his LL.B Ist Semester exam under police custody. The bench of Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi and Justice Narendra Kumar Johari directed that the man be brought to the examination center for his participation therein and re-lodged in jail after the examination is over.
Essentially, Anjani Kumar Shukla (who is presently in jail/petitioner) is a student of LL.B Ist Semester enrolled in Rajendra Singh(Rajju Bhaiya) University, Prayagraj, U.P. and he approached the Court seeking permission to appear in his LLB Semester examination.
Bombay High Court
Sanjay v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Anurag s/o Jamnashankar Pandey Vs. State of Maharashtra
Savina R Crasto vs Union Of India
Pigments & Allieds Vs. Carboline (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.
Intezar Hussain Sayed vs Zee Studios & Ors
Shankar Bhimrao Kadam & Ors vs Tata Motors Limited
Basant Singh and Ors. v. Autar Kaur and Ors.
Janak Vyas vs State of Maharashtra
M/s. Royale Urbanspace and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.
Rajendra Goyal alias Raju Goyal vs PIO and connected matter
Ingram Micro INC. vs The Income Tax Officer, (International Taxation)
Case Title: Sanjay v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 69
The Bombay High Court recently considered the workings of the doctrine of pleasure, whereby authorities have a right to act as per their discretion. A bench of Justices S.V. Gangapurwala and S.G. Dige regarded that the doctrine of pleasure does not unable an authority to be arbitrary.
The petitioner was appointed as a part time Chairman of Aurangabad Housing and Development Board by the State Government under the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976, which was later cancelled. Aggrieved by this, the Petitioner submitted that as per section 7 of the said Act, his term was for three years and that powers of the State Government to remove President, Vice-President or any non-official member from his office prior to the stipulated period of three years were not unfettered and the State Government, while exercising its powers, had to notify the reasons.
The bench observed that no reason had been set out by the State Government for removal of petitioner, when the admitted position was that his removal was on account of Doctrine of Pleasure.
Case Title: Anurag s/o Jamnashankar Pandey Vs. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 70
The headmaster of a school cannot be prosecuted for cruelty under the Juvenile Justice Act (JJ Act) for a teacher's actions merely because he heads the institution in the absence of specific allegations of assault, connivance or wilful neglect on his part, the Bombay High Court's Nagpur bench held.
Justice Avinash Gharote allowed the headmaster's writ petition and discharged him of offences under Section 75 of the JJ Act (punishment for cruelty to child).
The court rejected the prosecution's contention that the headmaster was liable because he was the head of the institution and thus had overall control over the children wherein a dance teacher had beaten a child with an iron rod during practice, causing injuries.
Case Title: Savina R Crasto vs Union Of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 71
In a sign of accountability for all cab aggregators in Maharashtra like Uber India and Ola, the Bombay High Court directed them to apply for new licences from the State Government by March 16, 2022, based on rules framed by the Central Government under the Motor Vehicles Act 1988.
The Central Government's rules – Motor Vehicles Aggregators Guidelines 2020 – will be applicable till the State's rules come into effect based on a 2019 amendment to the MV Act.
"If rejected (application and appeal), such applying aggregator shall not be permitted to carry on further activities in the state of Maharashtra," a division bench led by Chief Justice Dipankar Datta observed.
Case Title: Pigments & Allieds Vs. Carboline (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 72
The Bombay High Court recently observed that once the parties have acknowledged that an arbitration clause was embodied in the substantive contract, insufficiency of stamps cannot prevent the court from disposing an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of arbitrators.
Justice AK Menon observed, "Arbitration is seen as a speedy remedy but if applicants and respondents who may have counter-claims, have to await the fate of adjudication of documents for stamping and conclusion of the statutory challenge, the purpose of arbitration may be defeated. In my view, once parties are ad-idem on the fact that they have signed the writing containing an arbitration clause, the parties having acknowledged that an arbitration clause was embodied in the substantive contract, cannot prevent the court from disposing an application under Section 11 and the High Court, in my view, need not await the decision of the claimant in the case at hand as to whether or not to pay stamp-duty, as adjudicated. If this is not to be so, a large number of arbitration proceedings will be held up right at the inception, which is not desirable."
5. Bombay High Court Dismisses Plea Against Movie 'The Kashmir Files'
Case Title: Intezar Hussain Sayed vs Zee Studios & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 73
The Bombay High Court dismissed a PIL seeking to stall the release of movie "The Kashmir Files" on the alleged grounds of hurting religious sentiments of the Muslim community and inflaming members of the Hindu Community with possibility of triggering communal violence. The film directed by Vivek Agnihotri features well-known actors like Anupam Kher and Mithun Chakraborty.
The bench led by Chief Justice Dipankar Datta noted that the Petitioner had not challenged the censor certificate issued by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC). The rule of exhaustion of an efficacious alternative remedy applies also in a public interest litigation as it does in respect of a litigation initiated in private interest.
Case Title: Shankar Bhimrao Kadam & Ors vs Tata Motors Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 74
In a dispute that spanned over 17 years, the Bombay High Court held Tata Motors liable for unfair labour practices under the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 for hiring hundreds of workmen in its manufacturing unit as temporaries to deprive them of the status and privilege of permanent workmen.
Justice Ravindra Ghuge directed the automobile major to pay compensation to the 52 petitioners and set aside the Labour Court's orders. The bench observed that the company had a monitoring department to ensure temporary workers were disengaged before they completed the mandatory days of continuous employment.
"I find that the respondent-management has systematically prevented these temporaries from completing 240 days in continuous employment and had foisted involuntary unemployment on these temporaries before they could complete 240 days only to paint an imperfect picture that the work had come to an end and, therefore, these temporaries were disengaged by efflux of time, which is an exception to retrenchment u/s 2(oo) (bb)," the bench observed.
Case Title: Basant Singh and Ors. v. Autar Kaur and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 75
The Bombay High Court reiterated that the supervisory, discretionary powers conferred upon it under Article 227 of the Constitution is to ensure proper administration of justice and the same cannot be exercised merely to correct an error on facts.
"The powers of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution are wide and the main object of it is to keep strict administration and judicial control on the administration of justice. Just because a party seeks to challenge an order of a subordinate Court merely due to some insignificant errors on facts, the discretionary powers cannot be exercised, " Justice Prithiviraj K Chavan observed.
The observation was made while dealing with a petition under Article 227, challenging the order of a single judge which had rejected the report submitted by the Court Commissioner in a case relating to partition of suit property.
Case Title: Janak Vyas vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 76
The Bombay High Court expressed anguish that two highest constitutional functionaries in Maharashtra, the Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray and Governor Bhagat Singh Koshyari "do not trust each other."
"The unfortunate part in Maharashtra is this that two highest Constitutional functionaries do not trust each other. You both please sit together and sort this out between yourselves. Here, the Governor and the Chief Minister, we all think, are not on the same page. But who is suffering in all of this?"
The bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice MS Karnik was referring to the Governor's inaction on the nomination of 12 members to the Maharashtra Legislative Council over eight months after the High Court's judgement.
Two PILs challenged certain amendments to the procedure for election of the speaker in the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly. The court lambasted the petitioners before dismissing petitions.
Case Title: M/s. Royale Urbanspace and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 77
The Bombay High Court bench of Justices SJ Kathawalla and Milind Jadhav, noted that the Supreme Court had enunciated in clear and unambiguous terms that excavation of ordinary earth for construction of building purposes/development would not attract levy of royalty and penalty under the provisions of Section 48(7) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 ("MLR Code, 1966"), especially when the excavated earth has been used for levelling and development on the same plot.
The Petitioners challenged two show cause notices, both dated 29.01.2021, hearing notice dated 30.06.2021, two final notices, both dated 23.08.2021 issued by the Tahasildar, Shahapur, demanding payment of royalty and penalty of Rs.1,07,12,000/- and Rs. 5,71,35,104/- and order dated 21.10.2021 calling upon the Petitioners to deposit an amount of Rs.1,09,18,000/- under the provisions of Section 48(7) of the MLR Code, 1966. The Respondent No.2 has issued the impugned notices and passed the impugned order against the Petitioners for extraction of minor minerals unauthorisedly.
Case Title: Rajendra Goyal alias Raju Goyal vs PIO and connected matter
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 78
Claims of being a "social activist" are not enough to get information under the RTI Act, the application must show details sought are bona fide in larger public interest, and without causing "unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual" under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, the Bombay High Court has held.
"The logic seems to be this: since Goyal (appellant) is a self-proclaimed activist, the provisions of Section 8 of the RTI Act will not apply to him. That is unacceptable," the court said.
A division bench of Justices Gautam Patel and Madhav Jamdar, in a judgement on March 3, observed that all that the petition filed by one Rajendra Goyal seeking implementation of the State Information Commissioner's order said was that Goyal was a "social activist." The bench, however, found that one of the paragraphs somewhere inside revealed that he was a developer – in the real estate business.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 79
The Bombay High Court has allowed PhonePe to file a fresh suit claiming trademark infringement against Resilient Innovations, the owners of PostPe.
Earlier a single judge of the High Court had granted leave to PhonePe to withdraw its suit and file a fresh one, which was challenged before a division bench, which has refused to interfere with the single judge's order.
A division bench of Justices SJ Kathawalla and Milind Jadhav, on Friday, dismissed as not maintainable an appeal by Resilient Innovations, which owns the rival brand PostPe. The court, however, refrained from making observations on the merits of the case.
Case Title: Ingram Micro INC. vs The Income Tax Officer, (International Taxation)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 80
The Bombay High Court held that even if a holding company was considered as an ultimate beneficiary of a share purchase transaction undertaken by its subsidiary company, it would still not be liable to deduct tax at source under section 195 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 if it did not make any payment to a non-resident under the transaction.
The bench, consisting of Justices KR Shriram and NJ Jamadar, ruled that the liability to deduct TDS under Section 195 of the Act is applicable only to a person who has paid any sum, or is responsible for paying any sum, to a non-resident.
The High Court observed that the conclusions drawn by the Assessing Officer (AO) regarding Ingram Micro Inc.'s liability to deduct TDS by placing reliance on the Annual Reports of the Ingram Group, which had mentioned the factum of Ingram Group's acquisition of Techpac Holdings, was misplaced. The High Court held that the comments mentioned in the said Annual Reports were with respect to the Ingram Group as a whole and were not restricted to the activity of the petitioner Ingram Micro Inc.
Calcutta High Court
Dharanidhar Ghosh Vs. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 71
Unisource Hydro Carbon Services Private Limited Versus Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 72
Sankar Mondal v. Swapan Debnath & Ors2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 73
Piyali Tewari Dey v. Baidyanath Dey & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 74
Ashlesh Biradar v. State of West Bengal 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 75
In the goods of Mahesh Kumar Agarwal and Anr. v. Meena Agarwal and Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 76
Tushar Kanti Das v. Kajal Saha 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 77
Anubrata Mondal v. Union of India & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 78
In Re : Bhajagobinda Roy alias Bhajan Roy2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 79
Orders/Judgments
1. Calcutta High Court Quashes Penalty Imposed By Customs Dept. Without Enquiry & Adjudication
Case Title: Dharanidhar Ghosh Vs. Union of India
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 71
The Calcutta High Court consisting of Justice Md. Nizamuddin, has quashed the penalty which was imposed by the customs department without initiating any enquiry or adjudication. The petitioner/assessee has challenged the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs which imposed several punishments including Punishment No. V, imposing a penalty of Rs.1 crore under Section 112 (b) of the Customs Act on account of some past offences without initiating any proceeding and any adjudication order. The court while criticising the act of the department said that how an authority like a Commissioner can pass order without initiating any proceeding and any adjudication order and it shows total non-application of mind on his part since order of punishment on the offence is not a part of subject matter of the adjudication proceeding. The court has held that the impugned order is bad, in total non-application of mind and on the face of it, is not sustainable in law; and accordingly, punishment order imposing penalty for alleged past offence without any enquiry and adjudication, is set aside.
Case Title: Unisource Hydro Carbon Services Private Limited Versus Union of India
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 72
The Calcutta High Court has ruled that the power of an Appellate Authority is much wider than that of a Revisional Authority and the Commissioner, in the exercise of his discretionary power of revision under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, cannot act as an Appellate Authority and go into the merits of the assessment by re-appreciating the facts and evidence. The single bench of Justice Md. Nizamuddin has observed that the petitioner/assessee has not filed any statutory appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) with the sole intention of avoiding the payment of a huge amount of tax determined in the assessment order. The court stated that the High Court, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot act as an Appellate Authority over the assessment order on merits, facts, and evidence involved in an assessment proceeding. The court noted that the petitioner has deliberately chosen the forum of revision under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act with a view to making out a case to come up before the Court again under Article 226 of the Constitution of India tactfully indirectly to get interference in the assessment order which the Commissioner in exercising the power under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act has refused.
Case Title: Sankar Mondal v. Swapan Debnath & Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 73
The Calcutta High Court imposed a stay on an ex-parte injunction issued by a trial Court in favour of the elder son of renowned illustrator Late Narayan Debnath against a publisher claiming infringement of copyright of several works of his deceased father. A Bench comprising Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee and Justice Soumen Sen was apprised by the appellant publisher that the injunction application was moved ex parte on February 24, 2022 with the oblique motive to prevent the appellant from selling books authored by Late Narayan Debnath just before the commencement of the International Kolkata Book Fair, 2022. The Bench observed that the concerned trial Court should not have issued the ex parte ad-interim order without giving an opportunity of hearing to the publisher especially considering the fact that the Book Fair was to commence shortly and that such an order of injection would cause irreparable injury to him. However, taking into consideration that the appellant is obligated to pay royalties to the legal heirs of the deceased illustrator unless their inter se disputes are settled, the Court ordered the appellant to pay an amount of Rs 7 lakhs by March 14, 2022. Imposing a stay on the impugned order of injunction, the Court observed further, "The order of stay of operation of the impugned order shall remain stayed unconditionally till 14th March, 2022 and in the event the said amount is deposited within the aforesaid period, the stay of operation of impugned order shall continue till the disposal of the appeal."
Case Title: Piyali Tewari Dey v. Baidyanath Dey & Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 74
The Calcutta High Court directed a daughter to allow her aged parents to reside with her in a residential flat which had been gifted to her by her parents and further restrained her from alienating the disputed flat during the life time of both her parents. She was also ordered to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs 10,000 to meet the basic needs and medical expenses of her aged parents. Justice Kesang Doma Bhutia observed at the outset that the instant case represents how dynamic human relationship can be in the present socio economic condition. She further observed while directing the daughter, "The petitioner is hereby directed to provide shelter to her parents in the flat where they are residing with her but in different mess during their lifetime and to see they live peacefully their remaining days in the house which originally belonged to them. She is further restrained from alienating the disputed flat during the life time of her both parents. She is further directed to pay Rupees Ten Thousand per month towards their maintenance to meet their basic needs and medical expenses." Pertinently, the Court observed that once a gift deed in respect of the transfer of any immovable property has been executed in favour of a child, such a gift deed cannot be cancelled or declared void under Section 23 in the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (Maintenance Act) unless the deed in question is conditional in nature.
Case Title: Ashlesh Biradar v. State of West Bengal
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 75
The Calcutta High Court on imposed a stay on an order dated March 3, 2022 issued by the State government temporarily suspending internet services in eight districts of West Bengal between March 7 and March 16. The decision was purportedly taken by the State in order to prevent mass cheating in the upcoming Class 10 State board (Madhyamik) examination.Pursuant to the perusal of the record, the Court noted that the impugned order for suspension of internet service in specified districts has been issued by the Additional Chief Secretary, Home & Hill Affairs Department, Government of West Bengal under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C. The Court opined that such an order under Section 144 CrPC can be issued only by a District Magistrate or Sub-Divisional Magistrate or any other Executive Magistrate empowered by the State Government. Reference was also made to the Supreme Court judgment in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India wherein the Apex Court had considered the scope of Rule 2(2) of the 2017 Rules by holding that such an order must be a reasoned order and reasoning of the authorities and officers should indicate unavoidable circumstances necessitating passing of such an order. In this regard, the Court observed that although the impugned order had made reference to 'intelligence inputs', the report of the Review Committee had made no such mention of intelligence inputs. The Bench held that no material had been placed by the State government to show that such an order suspending internet services was require on account of a 'public emergency' or 'public safety'. Reliance was also placed on the Supreme Court judgment in People's Union For Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India and Another in this regard.
Case Title: In the goods of Mahesh Kumar Agarwal and Anr. v. Meena Agarwal and Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 76
In an unprecedented development, Justice Shekhar B. Saraf of the Calcutta High Court on Friday recused from hearing a matter after alleging that a lawyer representing one of the parties had approached him personally to issue a favourable order. Calling the incident 'extremely unfortunate' Justice Saraf indicated to senior advocate Harish Salve who was appearing through video conferencing that the errant lawyer also belonged to the party the he was appearing for i.e. the petitioner. Consequently, senior counsel Salve underscored that he was returning the brief immediately by terming the entire incident to be 'obnoxious'. He also highlighted that unfortunately, this was not the first time that he was being made aware of such a complaint alleging corrupt practices. Recusing from hearing the matter, Justice Saraf recorded in the order, "Due to circumstances which are quite unfortunate, I release this matter on my personal ground".
Case Title: Tushar Kanti Das v. Kajal Saha
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 77
The Calcutta High Court has recently overruled its prior decision in a case by granting the custody of a four and a half years old girl child to her biological father instead of a family friend of her deceased mother. The Court issued the direction by relying upon the report of a clinical psychologist who had personally interacted with the child. The Court had earlier refused to grant custody of the minor girl to her biological father and had instead permitted the child to be in the care and protection of the family friend of her deceased mother. The biological father had however been granted visitation rights. Overruling the Court's prior direction, a Bench comprising Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee and Justice Soumen Sen opined that the family friend, Julie Roy, is incapable of taking care of the minor child in question and further remarked, "we were of the view that Julie Roy was unfit for the custody of the child. Her conduct does not make her fit to become a guardian of the child. She is neither financially capable of rearing of the child nor can provide the child with education. She has her own family along with grown up son. On the contrary, the biological father is an engineer and is financially sound. He also had an attachment towards his child, and over a period of time as the report would suggest a bonding has developed between the father and the child."
Case Title: Anubrata Mondal v. Union of India & Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 78
The Calcutta High Court on Friday dismissed a petition moved by Trinamool Congress (TMC) leader Anubrata Mondal seeking relief from appearing before the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in Kolkata for questioning in the ongoing cattle smuggling probe. Mondal had moved the High Court pursuant to the issuance of a CBI notice under Section 160 of CrPC directing him to appear before its investigating team for questioning in the CBI office at Nizam Palace, Kolkata. He had declined to appear before the CBI on three prior occasions citing various medical ailments. Mondal had also requested for the questioning to take place at a place nearer to his residence considering the ongoing pandemic.Justice Rajasekhar Mantha on Friday dismissed the plea of Mondal after noting that he had travelled outside Bolpur on several occasions and that his aliments as examined by the Medical Board are not that serious that would requirement confinement to his home or a hospital. "Having carefully heard the submissions of the parties, this Court notes that indeed the petitioner has been traveling outside Bolpur and on a couple of instances traveled all the way to Howrah. He has appeared in Kolkata before the Medical Board, the ailments referred to by the Medical Board are not as serious as to require the petitioner to remain confined to his home or a hospital", the Court recorded. The Court further observed that the instant case does not warrant an interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as an alternate remedy is available under Section 438 of CrPC.
Case Title: In Re : Bhajagobinda Roy alias Bhajan Roy
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 79
The Calcutta High Court came down heavily on a lawyer for having procured anticipatory bail before the concerned Sessions Court through 'fraud' and by making a 'brazen incorrect submission' that no such similar relief had been previously turned down by the same Sessions Court or the High Court. A Bench comprising Justice Bivas Pattanayak and Justice Joymalya Bagchi expressed displeasure at the conduct of the lawyer by underscoring that members of the legal profession are expected to perform their duties with utmost honesty. "Legal profession is a noble profession. Its members are expected to perform their duties with responsibility and honesty and uphold the high and moral ideals of the profession. The present case is one which exposes the unfortunate and deplorable sharp practices resorted to by a member of the said profession to procure an order of anticipatory bail in favour of his client by misleading the Court by making false submissions that no earlier prayer to an anticipatory bail had been turned down earlier either by the session court or the high court", the Court averred.Opining that the conduct of the concerned counsel was motivated to avoid any judicial scrutiny, the Court enumerated further, "In fact subterfuge and/or sharp practice resolved to procure the impugned order of bail is evident from the fact that the pleadings regarding rejection of similar prayer has not been pleaded in the body of the application but is surreptitiously couched in the affidavit accompanying the application so as to avoid judicial scrutiny by the presiding judge."
Important Developments
Case Title: Pratap Banerjee v. State of West Bengal and other connected matters
The Calcutta High Court on Monday adjourned the hearing of the plea moved by Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) seeking the deployment of central forces during the recently held elections to the 108 municipalities of the State on the ground that large scale violence had taken place during the elections to the four municipal corporations – Siliguri, Bidhannagar, Asansol and Chandernagore which took place on February 12. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj had earlier declined to entertain the plea for deployment of central forces and had instead directed the State Election Commission (SEC) to collect information in respect of the conditions prevailing in each of the Municipalities where the elections are scheduled and hold a joint meeting with the Home Secretary of the State and the Director General and Inspector General of the Police within 24 hours. The SEC had also been directed to examine the ground situation of each of the 108 Municipalities and take a decision in writing with respect to the deployment of central paramilitary forces. The matter had been listed for hearing on Monday in order to take on record the various compliance reports pursuant to the earlier directions of the Court. However, the Bench was informed by the State counsel that Advocate General S.N Mookherjee is unavailable to appear before the Court due to some personal difficulty and accordingly a short adjournment was sought. Granting the plea for an adjournment, the Division Bench adjourned the hearing of the matter to March 11.
Case Title: Visva Bharati and Anr v. State of West Bengal and Ors
The Calcutta High Court directed the Superintendent of Police, Birbhum to submit a report addressing the grievances expressed by the authorities of Visva Bharati University amid the ongoing protests by more than 200 students inside the University campus demanding the immediate reopening of hostels and the conduct of online examinations. Justice Rajasekhar Mantha had earlier granted police protection to the Registrar, Assistant Registrar and the management of the University so that they are able to carry out their day to day duties inside the campus without any obstruction from the agitating students. Taking cognisance of the grievance raised, the Court observed, "The Superintendent of Police, Birbhum shall in the meantime ensure that the University functions normally and without obstruction." The Superintendent of Police, Birbhum was also ordered to submit a physical report before the Court on the grievances raised and appear before the Court via virtual mode on March 8 at 10:30 am.
Case Title: Md. Abdul Gani Ansari v. The State of W. B. & Ors
The Calcutta High Court sought the personal appearance of the former Chairman of West Bengal Central School Service Commission Soumitra Sarkar while adjudicating upon a plea alleging illegal appointment of assistant teachers in State run schools in West Bengal pertaining to the State Level Selection Test (SLST). Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay had earlier ordered the cancellation of appointment of six assistant teachers in the Murshidabad district after noting that they had been illegally appointed pursuant to the illegal recommendation of the West Bengal School Service Commission (WBSSC). The Court had further directed that the illegally recruited teachers should not be paid any salary henceforth and further ordered that the salaries already paid to them must be recovered by the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Murshidabad. On Monday, the Court sought the personal appearance of the former Chairman of the School Service Commission, Programme Officer and the Ex-Advisor on March 9 by directing, "I direct the learned advocate for the School Service Commission to communicate this direction of personal appearance of Mr. Soumitra Sarkar, Ex-Chairman of the School Service Commission, Mr. Samarjit Acharya, Programme Officer and Mr. Shanti Prasad Sinha, Ex-Advisor on 9th March, 2022 at 2 p.m. and I also direct the petitioner to communicate this order to the School Service Commission."
Case Title: Ashlesh Biradar v. State of West Bengal
The Calcutta High Court sought response from the State government in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the decision of the State government to temporarily suspend internet services in eight districts of West Bengal between March 7 and March 16. The decision was purportedly taken by the State in order to prevent mass cheating in the upcoming Class 10 State board (Madhyamik) examination. A bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj directed the State government to file an affidavit containing the relevant documents relied upon, by March 10 at 10:30am. Pertinently, the Advocate General apprised the Bench that a meeting of the Review Committee constituted under Rule 2(6) of the 2017 Rules is scheduled to be held on March 10 at 11am. Accordingly, the Court listed the matter for further hearing on March 10 at 2pm after directing the State government to apprise the Court about the decision taken by the Review Committee.
Case Title: Visva Bharati and Anr v. State of West Bengal and Ors
The Calcutta High Court directed the Visva-Bharati University authorities to immediately open hostels for its students. The Court ordered that the police should break open the locks in hostel rooms in the presence of two student representatives and other university officials. The direction was issued amid the ongoing protests by more than 200 students inside the University campus demanding the immediate reopening of hostels and the conduct of online examinations. Justice Rajasekhar Mantha had earlier sought a report from the concerned police authorities while University's concerns over obstruction of its daily functioning by the agitating students.Opining that the locks in the hostel rooms should be broken in the presence of student representatives, police personnel and university authorities, the Court directed, "The students shall nominate two representatives to such committee. The presence of the students, police and the committee members is necessary while breaking open locks of some hostel rooms." The Court further ordered that the Officer-in-Charge, Santiniketan Police Station should also depute two constables for the aforesaid purpose. It was also directed that belongings inside the rooms should be inventoried and kept in a separate place. "The rooms shall then be made ready for the students. Priority for occupation shall be given to students in terms of examination schedule i.e. those students who have examinations coming immediately shall be given priority over those students whose examinations are scheduled later", the Court specified further.
Case Title: Md. Abdul Gani Ansari v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
The Calcutta High Court sought the personal appearance of a doctor on the basis of whose medical certificate the former advisor of the West Bengal Central School Service Commission Prof. Santi Prasad Sinha had sought the Court's leave to not appear before it despite a prior direction to this effect. The Court was adjudicating upon a plea alleging illegal appointment of assistant teachers in State run schools in West Bengal pertaining to the State Level Selection Test (SLST). Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay had earlier directed the former Chairman of the School Service Commission Soumitra Sarkar, Programme Officer Samarjit Achary to appear in person along with the former advisor of the Commission. On Wednesday the counsel appearing for the former advisor apprised the Court that his client is ill and further produced before the Court a medical certificate by a doctor one one Prof. (Dr.) Debasis Ray. Directing the concerned doctor to appear personally before the Court tomorrow i.e. on March 10 at 10:30am, the Court observed, "I direct the Registrar General to call the doctor over phone by 3:45 p.m. today, directing him to appear before this court personally at 10:30 a.m. tomorrow. Communication should also be made through email to the said doctor." The Court further underscored that if the doctor fails to appear before the Court then further steps would be taken to ensure his presence.
Case Title: Soumendu Adhikari v. State of West Bengal
The Calcutta High Court on Friday directed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to apprise the Court whether forensic audit of CCTV cameras used during the recently concluded Contai Municipality elections can be conducted by it through some independent agency. The Court was adjudicating upon a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition moved by BJP leader Soumendu Adhikari alleging that large scale violence and rigging of votes had taken place in the recently concluded Contai Municipality elections. Elections to 108 municipalities in the State including the Contai municipality took place on February 27. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj had earlier refused to grant a stay on the counting of votes pertaining to the Contai Municipality elections which took place on March 2. On Friday, the counsel appearing for the ECI apprised the Court that the central authority does not have the infrastructure or any prior experience in conducting such forensic audit of CCTV footage. To this, the Chief Justice remarked, "Can you get it done in your supervision by some independent agency?" Accordingly, a short adjournment was sought by the counsel for the ECI to come back before the Court with instructions in this regard.The Court further underscored that the State Election Commission must in the meantime take all possible measures to preserve the relevant CCTV footage and other records and keep them in safe custody in order to prevent any instance of tampering.
Case Title: Khokan Jana v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
The Calcutta High Court directed the concerned police authorities to take all possible steps to find out the whereabouts of a 17 year old girl who had allegedly been abducted, and further submit a report detailing the progress of the investigation. A Bench comprising Justice T. S. Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya were adjudicating upon a habeas corpus plea filed by the father of the minor girl. It was alleged that although an FIR has been registered against the accused persons, no progress has been made in the investigation. Directing the concerned police authorities to file a report in the form of an affidavit detailing the progress of the probe before the next date of hearing, the Court observed, "We direct the respondent police to take further effective steps in securing the missing minor girl and take all steps to arrest the respondent nos.4 to 7 and produce them before this Court at the earliest." The petitioner alleged that his minor daughter aged about 17 years had been abducted by the 4th respondent, who has been actively assisted by the respondent nos.5 to 7, who are none other than the father, mother and brother of the 4th respondent.
9. Anis Khan Death: Calcutta High Court Takes On Record Status Reports Filed By SIT & District Judge
Case Title: Salem Khan v. State of West Bengal and Ors
The Calcutta High Court on Friday took on record the status report submitted by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) in the ongoing probe into the death of 28 year old student leader of West Bengal's Aliah University, Anis Khan, under mysterious circumstances at Amta in Howrah district. The Court had earlier taken suo moto cognisance of the case after terming the incident as 'grave and shocking'. Justice Rajasekhar Mantha had earlier turned down a prayer for a CBI probe and had allowed the State government-appointed Special Investigation Team to continue with its probe but under the supervision of a Howrah district judge. The Court had also ordered for a second post mortem to be conducted by the SIT under the supervision of the Howrah district judge. "The Special Investigation Team (SIT) has filed a detailed report comprising of 20 pages. Concealing the names of certain persons, disclosure whereof, the SIT thinks may prejudice the investigation, let a copy of such investigation report be made available to Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya, learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner", the Court recorded in its order. The Court also took on record the progress report filed by the District Judge, North 24 Parganas appointed in the matter.
Delhi High Court
NOMINAL INDEX
Alapan Bandyopadhyay v. Union of India & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 172
Mujeeb Ur Rehman v. Registrar General, Delhi HC 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 173
Kurz India Private Limited Versus Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-5, New Delhi 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 174
Jai Singh Goel Versus Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax(Central) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 175
Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions) Delhi Versus Shugan Chandra Kothari Trust 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 176
Kailash Gahlot Vs. Vijender Gupta & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 177
BHAGWATI TRANSFORMER CORP. AND ORS v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 178
SHAHEED TEG BHADUR COLLEGE OF PHARMACY v. PHARMACY COUNCIL OF INDIA and other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 179
DEVINA SHARMA v. HIGH COURT OF DELHI THROUGH REGISTRAR GENERAL 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 180
PURAN CHAND GUPTA & ORS. v. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 181
SHRI ASHOK PANWAR & ANR v. BSES RAJDHANI POWER LIMITED & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 182
AMARJEET SINGH DAGAR v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 183
Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Taxation)-2 Versus Gracemac Corporation 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 184
DABUR INDIA LIMITED v. ASHOK KUMAR & OTHERS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 185
CAPT SIMRANJIT SINGH SAMBHI v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 186
DIGAMBER JAIN MAHILA ASHRAM v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 187
Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central)- 3 Versus M/s Agson Global Pvt. Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 188
ROSHAN LATA ARYA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 189
Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 190
NEETA BHARDWAJ & ORS. v. KAMLESH SHARMA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 191
X v. Y 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 192
Christian Michel James v. Directorate of Enforcement 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 193
Amit Sahni v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 194
La Mode Fashions Private Limited Vs Commissioner, Value Added Tax 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 195
ABHISHEK BANERJEE & ANR v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT and other connected matter 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 196
AKTIEBOLAGET VOLVO & ORS. v. LAMINA SUSPENSION PRODUCTS LIMITED 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 197
MANOHAR LAL SHARMA ADVOCATE v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 198
ANJANI GUPTA v. THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 199
DHRITIMAN RAY v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS. and other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 200
DR. BABA SAHEB AMBEDKAR HOSPITAL GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. v. DR. KRATI MEHROTRA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 201
JUDGMENTS/ ORDERS
1. Delhi High Court Dismisses Alapan Bandyopadhyay's Plea Challenging CAT's Order Transferring His Case To Delhi From Kolkata
Case Title: Alapan Bandyopadhyay v. Union of India & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 172
The Delhi High Court has dismissed the plea filed by Former West Bengal Chief Secretary Alapan Bandyopadhyay, challenging the order passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench which had transferred his petition filed before the Kolkata Bench to the Principal Bench at New Delhi.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh while pronouncing the order today observed that it sees no reason to interfere with the impugned order. However, the Court has not expressed any opinion on the disciplinary proceedings including competence of the Central Government to issue charge sheet.
2. "Considering Issue On Administrative Side": Delhi High Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Seeking To Adopt 'Virtual Hearings' As A Norm
Case Title: Mujeeb Ur Rehman v. Registrar General, Delhi HC
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 173
The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a public interest litigation, seeking to adopt virtual court hearings as a norm across all the Courts in the national capital.
The petitioner, Mujeeb Ur Rehman, stated that virtual court hearings are extremely convenient and time saving, hence, the Court should consider adopting it as a norm in all district courts as well as the High Court.
However, the Division Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna stated that the issue is being considered at the administrative side and thus, it sees no reason to entertain the PIL at this stage
3. "Considering Issue On Administrative Side": Delhi High Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Seeking To Adopt 'Virtual Hearings' As A Norm
Case Title: Kurz India Private Limited Versus Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-5, New Delhi
Citation: Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 174
The Delhi High Court has quashed the reassessment notice issued under Section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 on the grounds that the reason to believe was invalid, had no rational nexus to the belief for escapement of income and there was no fresh material on record to initiate reassessment proceedings.
The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain has opined that the reasoning "the contingent liability has been claimed as revenue expense" is contrary to the concept of contingent liability which is only required to be disclosed by way of a note in accordance with the requirement of applicable Accounting Standards.
4. Application For Compounding Of Offence Under Section 276CC Income Tax Act Cannot Be Rejected If Conviction Is Set Aside By The Special Judge:Delhi HC
Case Title : Jai Singh Goel Versus Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax(Central)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 175
A Bench of the Delhi High Court, consisting of Justices Manmohan and Navin Chawla, has ruled that an application seeking compounding of the offence under Section 276CC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 could not be rejected on the ground that the Assessee had not been acquitted of the criminal charges, if his conviction with respect to the given offence has been set aside by the Special Judge, CBI.
The Assessee had filed an application before the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CCIT(A)) seeking compounding of offence under Section 276CC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The said application was rejected by the CCIT (A) on the ground of expiry of limitation period and the conviction of the Assessee by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM), Delhi.
Thereafter, the Assessee had filed an appeal against the order of the ACMM before the Special Judge, CBI who had set aside the conviction order and had directed the ACMM to consider the fresh documents filed by the Assessee and pass a fresh order. Simultaneously, the Assessee had filed an application before the CCIT (A) seeking review of the order rejecting the application for compounding of offence, which was rejected by the CCIT (A) on the ground that the conviction of the Assessee was still open for adjudication and that he had not been acquitted of the criminal charges.
The Assessee had filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court against the impugned order of the CCIT (A) rejecting the review application.
5. Application For Compounding Of Offence Under Section 276CC Income Tax Act Cannot Be Rejected If Conviction Is Set Aside By The Special Judge:Delhi HC
Case Title: Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions) Delhi Versus Shugan Chandra Kothari Trust
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 176
The Delhi High Court has ruled that in an appeal to the High Court under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 there can be no interference with the finding of fact if it involves re-appreciation of the evidence.
The Division Bench, consisting of Justices Manmohan and Sudhir Kumar Jain, held that if a particular receipt has been disclosed in the income and expenditure account, the same cannot be considered as unaccounted income in the hands of the Assessee and be subject to proceedings under Section 263 of the Act.
6. 'Opposition Has Right To Question Govt Actions': Delhi HC Refuses Temporary Injunction In AAP Minister Kailash Gahlot's Defamation Plea Against BJP MLA
Case Title: Kailash Gahlot Vs. Vijender Gupta & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 177
The Delhi High Court has refused to grant temporary injunction in favour of Delhi Transport Minister Kailash Gahlot, who sued BJP MLA Vijender Gupta for allegedly making defamatory remarks about him over procurement of 1,000 low-floor buses.
Gupta had alleged that Gahlot had committed corruption in awarding the tender for maintenance of DTC buses to Tata Motors and JBM Auto Ltd and was aware of the entire terms and conditions of the tender, however, he chose to object to the said tender only after it was awarded.
Following this, Gahlot moved the High Court seeking damages of Rs. 5 crores for defaming him and causing loss to his reputation. Apart from this, mandatory injunction was also sought to immediately delete all the defamatory posts made against him on Twitter and Facebook.
7. 'Opposition Has Right To Question Govt Actions': Delhi HC Refuses Temporary Injunction In AAP Minister Kailash Gahlot's Defamation Plea Against BJP MLA
Case Title: BHAGWATI TRANSFORMER CORP. AND ORS v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 178
The Delhi High Court has refused to stay the order passed by Excise Department of the Delhi Government, prohibiting discounts on MRP of liquor by retail licensees in the national capital.
Justice V Kameswar Rao pronounced the order on interim applications filed by L7Z liqour licensees in the city.
The Single Judge heard at length Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Sajan Poovayya for the Petitioners. Senior Advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Rahul Mehra appeared for the Delhi government on advance notice.
The petition is filed in the backdrop of the new Delhi Excise Policy approved in June last year by the Delhi government for the year 2021-2022. This policy sets out the framework for various aspects pertaining to the liquor business.
8. Delhi High Court Sets Aside Pharmacy Council of India's Moratorium On Opening Of New Pharmacy Colleges For Five Years
Case Title: SHAHEED TEG BHADUR COLLEGE OF PHARMACY v. PHARMACY COUNCIL OF INDIA and other connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 179
Dealing with a batch of 88 petitions, the Delhi High Court has set aside the imposition of a moratorium issued by the Pharmacy Council of India (PCI) on opening of new pharmacy colleges for a period of five years with effect from the academic year 2020-21.
A single judge bench of Justice Prateek Jalan was dealing with the petitions challenging communications dated 17.07.2019 and 09.09.2019 addressed by the PCI to State Governments and Union Territory Administrations.
Vide impugned letter dated 17.07.2019, the decision of imposition of moratorium was communicated by PCI taken at its meeting held on 09.04.2019. The said letter dated 09.09.2019 conveyed the resolution providing certain exemptions to the aforesaid moratorium.
9. Delhi High Court Sets Aside Pharmacy Council of India's Moratorium On Opening Of New Pharmacy Colleges For Five Years
Case Title: DEVINA SHARMA v. HIGH COURT OF DELHI THROUGH REGISTRAR GENERAL
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 180
The Delhi High Court has ordered for postponement of the Delhi Judicial Service Examination 2022, as also the date of receiving of applications, while dealing with a plea challenging the upper age limit (of 32 years) for appearing in the exam.
A division bench comprising of Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma was dealing with a petition filed by a practicing advocate namely Devina Sharma, intending to appear in the examination.
Sharma sought relaxation in the upper age limit for the exam. While the last date of submission of application was March 20, the preliminary exam was scheduled for March 27.
10. Society Free Of Caste Based Discrimination Will Remain A Distant Dream Unless SC ST Act Provisions Are Enforced In True Letter & Spirit: Delhi HC
Case Title: PURAN CHAND GUPTA & ORS. v. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 181
The Delhi High Court has observed that unless the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are enforced in their true letter and spirit and the legislative intent underlying the Act is manifested, the vision of a society free of caste-based discrimination will only remain a distant dream.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh was dealing with a petition filed praying for quashing of an FIR bearing registered under sections 3(1)(r) and (3)(1)(s) of the Act.
Touching upon the legislative intent behind the SC ST Act, the Court said the object of the Act is to improve the socio-economic conditions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes as they are denied their civil rights.
"Thus, an offence under the Act would be made out whenever a member of the vulnerable section of the society is subjected to indignities, humiliations, and harassment," the Court said.
11. Mere Pendency Of Title Suit No Ground To Disentitle Person From Obtaining Electricity Connection When In Possession Of Property: Delhi High Court
Case Title: SHRI ASHOK PANWAR & ANR v. BSES RAJDHANI POWER LIMITED & ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 182
The Delhi High Court has observed that mere pendency of a Title Suit would not be a ground to disentitle a person from obtaining an electricity connection in their name, particularly, in view of the fact that such person is in possession of the subject property.
Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva was dealing with a plea seeking a direction to BSES Rajdhani Power Limited to grant a fresh electricity connection in the name of either of the two petitioners at a shop in property in question.
12. Employee In Transferable Job Has No Vested Right To Remain Posted At One Place, Courts Should Not Readily Interfere With Transfer Order: Delhi
Case Title: AMARJEET SINGH DAGAR v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 183
Emphasising that an employee in a transferable job has no vested right to remain posted at one place, the Delhi High Court has said that Courts should not readily interfere with the transfer order which is made in the public interest and for administrative reasons, unless the transfer order is made in violation of any mandatory statutory rule or on the ground of mala fide.
A division bench comprising of Justice Manmohan and Justice Navin Chawla added that if the Courts continue to interfere with day-to-day transfer orders issued by the Government or its subordinate Authorities, there will be complete chaos in the administration which would not be conducive to the public interest.
The Court was dealing with a plea seeking to set aside the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner.
13. Amount Received Under Distribution Agreement Of Computer Software Not 'Royalty' If No Right To Transfer Copyright: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Taxation)-2 Versus Gracemac Corporation
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 184
The Delhi High Court has ruled that an amount received under a distribution agreement with respect to a computer software did not amount to 'royalty' under the Income Tax Act, 1961, if the agreement does not create a right to transfer the copyright with respect to it.
The Bench, consisting of Justices Manmohan and Sudhir Kumar Jain, had observed that in view of the Supreme Court ruling in the case of Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited versus the Commissioner of Income Tax (2021), the said issue was no longer res integra.
14. "Complete Impersonation": Delhi High Court Passes John Doe Order For Blocking Websites Illegally Using 'DABUR' Trademark
Case Title: DABUR INDIA LIMITED v. ASHOK KUMAR & OTHERS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 185
Granting interim relief to Dabur India Limited, the Delhi High Court has ordered for blocking of certain websites (John Doe) illegally using 'DABUR' domain name. "The attempt is to not merely infringe and pass off, but to indulge in complete impersonation," it observed.
Justice Pratibha M Singh was of the view that DABUR India Limited made out a prima facie case for the grant of ex-parte injunction and the balance of convenience was also in it's favour.
"Irreparable loss would be caused to the Plaintiff if an ex-parte injunction is not passed in favour of the Plaintiff. The loss to the public is also incalculable," the Court said.
The order is John Doe since the owner name of the impugned domain names is hidden.
15. "Process Of Law Being Used As A Tool For Settling Personal Scores": Delhi High Court Quashes Rape FIR
Case Title: CAPT SIMRANJIT SINGH SAMBHI v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 186
The Delhi High Court has quashed an FIR registered by a woman alleging rape by a man at multiple occasions after noting that the prosecutrix was in a long term relationship of four years with him and that the FIR was only filed after the said relationship ended on hostile terms.
Justice Subramonium Prasad was dealing with a plea seeking quashing of FIR registered for offences under Section 376(2) (n), 354, 354A of Indian Penal Code.
In the complaint, the woman stated that she was in a relationship with the Petitioner for three years and when she was told by the Petitioner that he was a divorcee, she was shocked. It was stated that the Petitioner had promised to marry her while he was in a relationship with someone else and that he went to her house, abused and assaulted her.
16. CPC | Amendments To Pleadings Must Be Sought Within A Reasonable Time, Not To Stall Trial Itself: Delhi High Court
Case Title: DIGAMBER JAIN MAHILA ASHRAM v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 187
The Delhi High Court has observed that the amendments to pleadings must be sought by the party concerned within a reasonable time and should not sought to be introduced so as to stall the trial itself.
Justice Yashwant Varma was dealing with a plea challenging the order dated 13 February 2019 in terms of which the Estate Officer had rejected the applications made by the petitioners for amendment and for the issuance of interrogatories.
The Estate Officer was ceased of proceedings initiated by the respondents under Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 19711. The proceedings started after the cancellation of the lease granted in favour of the petitioner by the respondents on 11 January 2001.
17. Appeal U/S 260A Of Income Tax Act Can't Be Entertained Except On The Ground Of Perversity/Lack Of Evidence: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central)- 3 Versus M/s Agson Global Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 188
The Delhi High Court bench consisting of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Talwant Singh has dismissed the appeal against the deletion of income tax addition for share or bogus purchases or cash deposits and held that appeal under section 260A of Income Tax Act cannot be entertained by High Court except on the grounds of perversity or for the complete lack of evidence.
The appellant/department challenged the order of ITAT on the grounds that ITAT has failed to take into account the true import and effect of the statement made by an accommodation entry provider who had denied having made any investment in the assessee. The statement pointed in the direction that the money which had ostensibly been invested in the assessee in the form of share capital or share premium were unaccounted funds of the assessee routed through accommodation entry providers.
18. Delhi High Court Orders Videographed Autopsy Of India's Palestine Envoy Mukul Arya On Mother's Plea Alleging Foul Play
Case Title: ROSHAN LATA ARYA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 189
A plea was filed in the Delhi High Court to immediately constitute a panel of doctors from the AIIMS hospital for conducting a Post Mortem and Autopsy on IFS Mukul Arya, India's representative to Palestine who was found dead in his office premises in Ramallah last week.
Anurag Ahluwalia appearing for the Central Government, on instructions, informed the Court that the Ministry of External Affairs will faciliate the autopsy to be conducted at AIIMS as prayed for by the family.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the prayer to conduct autopsy of the deceased's body and ordered that the autopsy be videographed.
The plea was thus disposed off with liberty to the petitioner approach the court again in case of any grievance.
19. Delhi High Court Directs DMRC To Pay Decretal Amount Of Over Rs 6K Crores To DAMEPL In 2 Instalments By May 31, 2022
Case Title: Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 190
The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) to pay the decreetal amount to Reliance Infrastructure-promoted Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt Ltd (DAMEPL) in latter's plea seeking enforcement of the arbitration award dated May 11, 2017 in two installments by May 31, 2022.
The Court directed that part-payment must be paid within two weeks.
DAMEPL submitted that the the gross decreetal sum along with interest up to 14.02.2022 computed in accordance with the arbitral award is Rs. 8009.38 crores. Out of the said amount, only a sum of Rs. 1678.42 crores has been paid so far by DMRC. Thereby, as on 14.02.2022, the remaining decreetal amount payable with interest is Rs.6330.96 crores [Rs.8009.38 crores - Rs. 1,678.42 crores].
20. Kalkaji Temple Redevelopment: Delhi High Court Asks State To Consider Providing Alternate Accommodation To Evicted Jhuggi Dwellers
Case Title: NEETA BHARDWAJ & ORS. v. KAMLESH SHARMA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 191
The Delhi High Court has observed that wherein a land is being used for public purposes, if occupants of jhuggis or slums are evicted, it is the State's objective to provide them alternative accommodation after conduct of requisite surveys and collection of data.
Justice Pratibha M Singh reiterated the said observation while dealing with a bunch of pleas concerning the aspect of maintenance and redevelopment of city's Kalkaji temple.
While the Court had earlier clarified that none of the occupants who are in illegal occupation of the temple premises can remain in possession, it noted that there were some jhuggi dwellers and Dharamshala occupants who had not vacated the said premises.
21. "Wife Filed Unsubstantiated Criminal Complaint Against Husband, His Family Causing Immense Mental Cruelty": Delhi HC Dissolves Marriage
Case Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 192
The Delhi High Court has dissolved marriage between a couple living separately for 12 years taking note of the fact that the wife had filed an unsubstantiated criminal complaint against the husband and his family members which caused them immense mental cruelty and agony.
Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh dissolved the marriage by decree of divorce under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
The Bench was of the view that there was no chance of reconciliation between the parties and that the marriage was irretrievably broken down. It also noted that no useful purpose would be served by maintaining the matrimonial bond and the insistence to continue the relationship would only be inflicting further cruelty upon both the parties.
22. Delhi High Court Denies Bail To Alleged Middleman Christian Michel In AgustaWestland Case
Case Title: Christian Michel James v. Directorate of Enforcement
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 193
The Delhi High Court has dismissed the bail applications filed by Christian James Michel, facing investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation and the Directorate of Enforcement in connection with Augusta Westland case. The bail pleas were moved in July last year.
Justice Manoj Ohri pronounced the order today after hearing Advocate Aljo K Joseph for Michel, Advocate DP Singh for CBI and ASG SV Raju for the ED. Detailed order is yet to be uploaded.
The CBI has opposed Michel's bail saying that he is a British national not having roots in India, and is at flight risk. It was also stated that he acted as a middleman, received money pursuant to certain contracts concerning the scam, and is not cooperating in the investigation.
23. 'What About Those Who Commit Offences At Advance Age?': Delhi HC Refuses To Entertain PIL For Premature Release Of Old Aged Prisoners
Case Title: Amit Sahni v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 194
The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a PIL seeking premature release of old aged and infirm prisoners in terms of recommendations made by Mulla Committee (1980-83) and the Model Prison Manual (2003).
While expressing disinclination to even issue notice in the matter, the Division Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna remarked,
" This is a policy decision. People sometimes commit offences at an advance age, what about them? They have to remain in prisons."
The plea was filed by Advocate Amit Sahni, stating that the aforesaid recommendations were made in larger perspective of the prisoners' welfare, keeping in view the overall objective of protecting the society and rehabilitating the offenders. They make provision for specialized treatment of women, old aged and infirm prisoners compatible with dignity of life. However, such recommendations are not implemented by Delhi Jails.
24. Challan Can Be Rectified To Correct Bonafide Errors: Delhi High Court Directs VAT Dept. To Allow Changes in Tax Period
Case Title: : La Mode Fashions Private Limited Vs Commissioner, Value Added Tax
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 195
The Delhi High Court bench, consisting of Chief Justice Dhirubhai Naranbhai Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh, directed the Value Added Tax (VAT) department to allow rectification of bonafide errors in the tax period of the challan.
The petitioner submitted that in respect of the second quarter of 2015-2016, i.e., from 1.07.2015 to 30.09.2015, the petitioner filed its returns on 31.03.2017. The VAT liability for the period was Rs. 7,87,038/-whereas the liability under the CST Act was Rs. 37,381/-. The petitioner deposited Rs. 10,44,118 towards DVAT and Rs. 37,381 towards CST through challans, and, therefore, a sum of Rs. 2,58,912 was deposited in excess for the second quarter of 2015-2016.
25. West Bengal Coal Scam Case: Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea By TMC MP Abhishek Banerjee, His Wife Seeking Quashing Of Summons
Case Title: ABHISHEK BANERJEE & ANR v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT and other connected matter
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 196
The Delhi High Court has dismissed the plea by All India Trinamool Congress MP Abhishek Banerjee and his wife seeking quashing of summons issued to them by Enforcement Directorate in connection with West Bengal coal scam case.
Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar also dismissed the plea by Banerjee's wife Rujira Banerjee assailing the complaint filed by Enforcement Directorate against her in the money laundering case and the Trial Court order taking cognizance of the said complaint. The plea also assailed the subsequent issuance of summons against her for physical appearance.
The CBI had registered an FIR in respect to alleged offences of illegal mining and theft of coal from the leasehold areas of Eastern Coalfields Ltd committed in the state of West Bengal by certain individuals. Pursuant to this, ED has registered an ECIR in the Head Investigative Unit located in New Delhi.
26. 'Prima Facie Infringement Of Common Law Rights': Delhi HC Grants Ex-Parte Injunction In Trademark Infringement Suit By 'VOLVO'
Case Title: AKTIEBOLAGET VOLVO & ORS. v. LAMINA SUSPENSION PRODUCTS LIMITED
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 197
Granting interim relief to owners of registered trademarks 'VOLVO' and 'FMX', the Delhi High Court has restrained Lamina Suspension Products Limited from using the the said trademarks or any other mark confusingly or deceptively similar to it, in relation to leaf springs and other parts used in the heavy vehicles or other goods or services, including on its websites, social media accounts and other third party websites.
Justice Jyoti Singh granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction to the plaintiffs who offered a wide spectrum of transportation related products and services with a strong foothold in luxury buses and related services.
27. Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking CBI Probe In DMRC-DAMEPL Agreement For Allegedly Siphoning Off Public Money
Case Title: MANOHAR LAL SHARMA ADVOCATE v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 198
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea seeking investigation by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in a 2008 agreement between Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) and Reliance Infrastructure-promoted Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt Ltd (DAMEPL) alleging siphoning off public money.
Justice Manmohan and Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain was dealing with a plea filed by Advocate Manohar Lal Sharma seeking a direction to CBI to register an FIR under Sections 409, 420, 120B of IPC read with Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to investigate and prosecute the accused persons for allegedly siphoning off the public money under the garb of illegal and void ab initio agreement dated 25th August, 2008.
28. Prima Facie Appreciation Of Evidence & Application Of Judicial Mind Must For Summoning Order To Be Just And Legal: Delhi High Court
Case Title: ANJANI GUPTA v. THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 199
The Delhi High Court has observed that while issuing summons, a prima facie appreciation of evidence coupled with application of judicial mind needs to be carried out for a summoning order to be just and legal.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh was dealing with a petition filed under Section 482 of CrPC against the impugned order dated 17th March, 2018 passed in a Revision Petition arising out of Summoning Order dated 20th June, 2015 passed in a case registered under Section 380 of IPC.
The marriage between the Petitioner and the son of the Respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 30th January, 1990 and the relationship between the couple was cordial in the beginning, however, it started to deteriorate with time.
29. High Court Directs Delhi University To Devise Mechanism For Issuance Of Attested Marksheet Manually To Students In Urgent Need
Case Title: DHRITIMAN RAY v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS. and other connected matters
Citation:2022 LiveLaw (Del) 200
The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi University to put in place a mechanism so that in case of any urgency, a student can write an email to the concerned Dean of Examinations who shall then consider the said request and issue the attested marksheet or transcript manually within a period of 5 working days.
Justice Pratibha M Singh issued a slew of other directions in a bunch of pleas filed by students of the University of Delhi studying various courses who graduated in the year 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020.
The petitions were filed in 2020 during the Covid-19 pandemic with a grievance that the petitioners were unable to get original degree certificates and transcripts issued from the University. The Petitioners had approached the Court as there was an unreasonable delay in the issuance of the transcripts and the degree certificates.
30. Woman Entitled To Maternity Benefits As Long As Conception Occurs Before Tenure Of Contract Executed Between Her & Employer Expires: Delhi High Court
Case Title: DR. BABA SAHEB AMBEDKAR HOSPITAL GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. v. DR. KRATI MEHROTRA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 201
The Delhi High Court has observed that as long as conception occurs before the tenure of the contract executed between a woman-employee and her employer expires, she should be entitled to maternity benefits as provided under Maternity Benefits 1961 Act.
A division bench comprising of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Talwant Singh observed that the Act seeks to regulate the employment of women in certain establishments for given periods before and after child-birth, and, in particular, endeavours to provide for maternity benefit.
"Clearly, the provisions of the 1961 Act seek to invest a woman with a statutory right to take maternity leave and seek payment for the period that she is absent from duty on account of her pregnancy, albeit in accordance with the provisions of the 1961 Act," the Bench said.
Gujarat High Court
Nominal Index
State Of Gujarat v. Ugamsinh Dhanrajsinh 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 70
Raghuversinh Chandrasinh Sarvaiya v. State of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 71
Archana Mukesh Raval v. State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 72
Mohsin Salimbhai Qureshi v. State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 73
State Of Gujarat vs Natvarsinh Prabhatsinih Rathod 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 74
Sunilkumar Rajeshwarprasad Sinha v. State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 75
Sacha Adivasi Adhikar Trust v. State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 76
Chandubhai Punjabhai Talpada v. Deputy Executive Engineer 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 77
Judgments/Orders of the Week
Case Title: State Of Gujarat v. Ugamsinh Dhanrajsinh
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 70
The High Court dismissed the appeal of the Appellant-Authorities and confirmed the order of the acquittal by the lower Court on the grounds that the Respondent-Accused was not made aware of his right for being searched before the Magistrate, thereby breaching Section 50 of the NDPS Act.
The Bench comprising Justice SH Vora and Justice Sandeep Bhatt said,
"IO while acting on prior information and before making search of a person, it is imperative for him to inform the respondent-accused about his right to sub-section (1) of Section 50 of the NDPS Act for being taken to the nearest Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate for making search in their presence. It also appears that neither such procedure is followed..."
Case Title: RAGHUVERSINH CHANDRASINH SARVAIYA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 71
"While conferring benefits viz. pensionary benefits, calculation of the entire service rendered even prior to the benefit of the regular pay scale being conferred needs to be considered for the purpose of awarding pensionary benefits (from the date of initial appointment as a daily wager)," the High Court affirmed in reference to Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act.
The Bench comprising Justice Biren Vaishnav was hearing a Special Civil Application under Article 226 wherein the Petitioner sought direction to Respondent Authorities to consider him as permanent workman and clear arrears of monthly wages, revision of 6th and 7th Pay Commission pay-scale benefits along with 12% simple interest per annum.
Case Title: Archana Mukesh Raval v. State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 72
"Corruption is not to be judged by degree, for corruption mothers disorder, destroys societal will to progress, accelerates undeserved ambitions, kills the conscience, jettisons the glory of the institutions, paralyses the economic health of a country, corrodes the sense of civility and mars the marrows of governance", the High Court reiterated.
In observing so, it has refused to grant anticipatory bail under Section 438 of CrPC to the Applicant accused of offences under Sections 384, 114 and 294B and 506(2) of IPC and Sections 7,12,13(1)(a) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988.
Case Title: Mohsin Salimbhai Qureshi v. State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 73
The High Court affirmed that "in deciding the bail applications an important factor which should certainly be taken into consideration by the court is the delay in concluding the trial."
Observing thus, the Bench comprising Justice Gita Gopi granted bail to an accused under the Central Goods & Services Act, 2017.
"Here, taking into consideration the course of investigation adopted by the Department, the evidence, so collected, the trial will take considerable time and it may happen, if denied bail, the judicial custody be prolonged beyond the statutory period of punishment which is for five years," it remarked.
5. First Version Of The Story Reliable; Exaggeration May Occur With Passage of Time: Gujarat High Court
Case Title: State Of Gujarat vs Natvarsinh Prabhatsinih Rathod
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 74
"In normal circumstances, we believe that, the first version is showing the true story of the complaint. If the version is changed at the time of deposition, it means there may be exaggeration in the version by passage of time," the High Court opined in connection with a challenge to the acquittal order of the Sessions Court.
It was the Complainant's case that Accused armed with an axe, stick, spear, sharp-edged weapon came to the house of the Complainant and tried to loot a water tanker worth INR 20,000 belonging to the Complainant. When the Complainant tried to prevent them, the Accused got provoked and demolished the household times, beat the family members of the Complainant and threatened to kill them. Accordingly, an FIR was filed under Sections 395, 427, 506(2) and 509 of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, during the trial, the prosecution presented 13 witnesses to bring home the charges. However, the trial court, after examining various evidence, acquitted the Accused.
Case Title: Sunilkumar Rajeshwarprasad Sinha v. State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 75
"It is settled law that, in order to bring a case within provisions of Section 306 of the IPC, there must be a case of suicide and in commission of the offence, person who is said to have abetted the alleged suicide, must have played an active role by an act of instigating or by doing a certain act to facilitate commission of suicide", the High Court held.
The Bench of Justice Ilesh Vora was hearing an application under Section 438 of CrPC praying for anticipatory bail in connection with an FIR for offences under Sections 306, 498-A and 114 of IPC and Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Case Title: Sacha Adivasi Adhikar Trust v. State Of Gujarat
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 76
The High Court dismissed a PIL challenging a government order which permitted Taluka Development Officer, who is an officer under the Panchayat Department, to issue caste certificates under the Gujarat Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes (Regulations of Issuance and Verification of Caste Certificates) Act, 2018.
The petitioner-Trust had challenged the GO stating that caste certificate can be issued only by the Revenue Authorities not below the rank of Mamlatdar. It was argued that by way of the impugned order of the State authorities, there was a dilution of the stringent provisions of law in issuing caste certificates.
Case Title: Chandubhai Punjabhai Talpada v. Deputy Executive Engineer
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 77
The High Court has affirmed the order of the Labour Court determining that the Petitioner-workman was not entitled to reinstatement on the ground that there was discrepancy in his deposition and the documents produced by him.
The Petitioner herein had claimed that he had joined the services of the Respondent in 1983 and was performing the duties of the labourer/table work as a daily wager. Since he possessed educational qualifications, he was also given office table work. However, it was alleged by him that he was terminated orally in September 1988 without due process under the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. Aggrieved, he approached the Labour Court which dismissed his application in December 2007.
Important Weekly Updates From High Court
1. Gujarat High Court Grants Interim Relief To Lawyers Against Service Tax/ GST Payment Notices
Case title - GUJARAT HIGH COURT ADVOCATES ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA
Granting interim relief to Lawyers, the Gujarat High Court has stayed coercive actions against the lawyers in connection with demand notices by the CGST (Central Goods and Services Tax) Department with regard to the levy of GST/Service tax.
The bench of Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice Nisha M. Thakore passed this ad-interim order as it took note of an order of the Orissa High Court that was passed last year directing the Commissioner GST to issue clear instructions to all the officers in the GST Commission rates in the state not to issue any notice demanding payment of service tax/GST to practising lawyers.
Case title - JANARDHANA RAMKRISHNA SHARMA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT
The High Court asked the two sisters, who fled India after going missing from Rape Accused and self-styled Godman, Nithyananda's ashram in 2019, not to leave Jamaica without intimation to the Court.
This order came from the bench of Justice Sonia Gokani and Justice Mauna M. Bhatt which is presently hearing a Habeas Corpus plea filed by the father of two sisters seeking their custody alleging that they fled the country under the influence of Nithyananda.
Case Name: Jaideep Bhanushankar Verma vs Union of India
Before hearing the PIL challenging the constitutionality of Exception 2 to Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code pending before it any further, the Gujarat High Court has decided to wait for Delhi High Court Judgment on this issue.
Essentially, the Delhi High Court is expected to deliver its verdict in a batch of petitions challenging the exception to Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, which exempts forceful sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife from the offence of rape. It may be noted that a bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice C. Hari Shankar of Delhi HC had reserved the verdict in the matter last month after hearing the matter for several days.
Case title - STATE OF GUJARAT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v. JAHID @ JAVED KUTUBUDDIN SHAIKH
The Gujarat High Court on Wednesday issued notice to the 38 convicts who were sentenced to death by a special court last month in connection with the 2008 Ahmedabad serial blast case.
The Bench of Justice Sonia Gokani and Justice Mauna Bhatt issued the notice on a plea moved by the State Government to confirm their death sentence in accordance with Section 366 of CrPC, which says that when the Court of Session passes a sentence of death, the proceedings shall be submitted to the High Court and it can't be executed unless confirmed by the HC.
Jharkhand High Court
Case Title: Ganesh Choudhary & Anr v. The State of Jharkhand
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 25
The Jharkhand High Court recently allowed an appeal against conviction under Sections 324 and 326 of IPC for causing grievous hurt by use of dangerous weapons, and set aside the order of Sessions Judge following compromise between the parties.
Justice Navneet Kumar noted,
"In a criminal case where offences are of pure personal nature, not heinous or brutal and not adversely affecting the society at large being a private nature and the parties concerned have willingly and voluntarily settled their differences amicably, it would be in the fitness of things that non-compoundable offences can be allowed to be compounded, of course with righteousness and probity irrespective of the fact that the trial has already been concluded and the post conviction compromise has taken place at the appellate stage."
Karnataka High Court
K T Naveen Kumar And The State of Karnataka 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 61
Dr S Srinivasa v. Mandya University 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 62
Devendra Pai Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 63
Dr Shantha Raj T R v. The State By Sub Inspector of Police 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 64
M/s. Prashanthi Affiliates Versus Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 65
Meera Ajith v. John Doe Alias Ashok Kumar 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 66
Thippeswamy @ Thipeshi v. State By Jagalur P.S 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 67
Kumari M. v. The State Of Karnataka 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 68
Chiranjeevi M. Kulkarni v. Karnataka State Law University 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 69
Amol Kale v. State of Karnataka 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 70
Darshan And State of Karnataka 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 71
Kum. Mayavathi v State of Karnataka 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 72
Union of India and Ors. v. M/s Bundl Technologies Pvt. Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 73
Judgements/reports
Case Title: K T Naveen Kumar And The State of Karnataka Case no: Criminal Petition 10232/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 61
The Karnataka High Court has directed the Superintendent of Jail to shift and provided treatment to K T Naveen Kumar, an accused in the journalist Gauri Lankesh murder case, in a private hospital.
A single judge bench of Justice K Natarajan while allowing the petition, set aside the order of Special Court dated December 31, 2021 and said, "The Superintendent of jail is directed to provide treatment to the petitioner in the Columbia Asia hospital HSR Road, Bengaluru which is situated 7.7 kms from Parappana Agrahara Jail. The petitioner is also directed to bear the entire medical expenditures which will be charged by the hospital authority. The jail Superintendent is directed to provide sufficient security forces during the treatment and shifting the petitioner to the hospital and back."
Case Title: Dr S Srinivasa v. Mandya University Case No: WA 105/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 62
The Karnataka High Court recently directed the Mandya University to continue the services of guest lecturers for another academic year, until the recruitment of full time lecturers as initiated by the University is completed.
A Division bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice Suraj Govindaraj while allowing an intra-court appeal filed by Dr S Srinivasa and others challenging the order of the single judge bench dated December 21, 2021, said, "The Guest Lecturers now working shall be entitled to the benefit of the Notification dated 7.10.2021 for extension of service by one more academic year until the recruitment of lecturers is completed."
Case Title: Devendra Pai Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Case No.: Writ Petition No. 52305/2018 (T-IT)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 63
A bench of Karnataka High Court consisting of Justice Sunil S.Yadav has condoned the delay of 6 years in filing revised Income Tax Return (ITR). A single judge bench of Justice Sunil S.Yadav has observed that the intention of Circular No.014 (XL-35) dated 11.04.1955 was not that tax due should not be charged or that any favour should be shown to anybody in the matter of assessment, or where investigations are called for, they should not be made. Whatever the legitimate tax it must be assessed and must be collected. The purpose of the circular is merely to emphasise that the tax officer should not take advantage of an assessee's ignorance to collect more tax out of him than is legitimately due from him.
Case Title: Dr Shantha Raj T R v. The State By Sub Inspector of Police Case No: Criminal Petition 7980/2014
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 64
The Karnataka High Court has held that the Scheduled Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, is prospective in nature and alleged acts committed before its enactment cannot be an offence. A single judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit said, "The offences allegedly been committed ago i.e., on 18.10.1975; complaint was filed with inordinate delay with no plausible explanation for the same. Ordinarily, the stale claims would not be entertained."
Case Title: M/s. Prashanthi Affiliates Versus Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Case No: Criminal Revision Petition No.921/2012
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 65
The Karnataka High Court has held that the District Magistrate is empowered to attach the property and not the Commissioner of Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Commissioner (BBMP).
The single bench of Justice S.P.Sandesh has observed that the Commissioner of BBMP, has no authority to attach the property as ordered by the Special JMFC (Sales Tax) Court and it ought to be enforced under Section 421(1)(b) of Cr.P.C, through the collector of the District.
Case Title: Meera Ajith v. John Doe Alias Ashok Kumar Case No: MFA 806/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 66
The Karnataka High Court has passed an order of temporary injunction restraining unknown persons (also known as John Doe order) from interfering with the peaceful possession of the property owned by a woman in Bengaluru.
Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar while hearing an appeal filed by one Meera Ajith, said, "Order XXXIX Rule 1(a) CPC states that an order of temporary injunction may be granted against any party to the suit. According to Clauses (b) & (c), injunction may be granted in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. The plaint must disclose the names and identity of the parties. But in a situation as has been made out in this case, if there is a threat to the possession of the plaintiff by unknown person/s, is it possible to say that injunction cannot be granted. I do not think that injunction can be denied if circumstances are as such that there is a serious threat to the possession of the plaintiff by unknown persons."
Case Title: Thippeswamy @ Thipeshi v. State By Jagalur P.S Case No: Criminal Petition No.9980/2021
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 67
The Karnataka High Court has directed the Principal Secretary, Health Department to issue a circular and a direction to all Medical officers working in the state, prescribing their duties and responsibilities towards a child victim of sexual assault, who is produced before them.
A single judge bench of Justice H P Sandesh also directed the Principal Secretary to take action against a doctor working in the Taluk Government Hospital, Jagalur, Davanagere District, who conducted medical examination of the victim in this case and issued a Sexual Assault certificate in this case, without giving any opinion.
Case Title: Kumari M. v. The State Of Karnataka Case No: Writ Petition No.100875/2022
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 68
The Karnataka High Court recently permitted a minor rape victim to terminate her 22 weeks 3 days old pregnancy, upon noting that continuation of the same can develop anxiety, which could lead to depression effecting her mental health.
A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj said, "I am of the opinion that, it would be in the interest of the petitioner-victim, that the pregnancy is terminated." Following which it directed the District Civil hospital (Belagavi) to medically terminate the pregnancy of the petitioner by adopting all required safety considerations for such a procedure.
Case Title: Chiranjeevi M. Kulkarni v. Karnataka State Law University Case No: Writ Petition No.100869/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 69
The Karnataka High Court has directed the Karnataka State Law University to conduct offline examinations for students of 3 years LLB Course, studying in the 2nd and 4th semester, twice— once from March 7 onwards and next from May 16 onwards. The direction has been passed as a one time measure, only for this academic year taking into account the various litigations as also the Covid-19 Pandemic.
Case Title: Amol Kale v. State of Karnataka Case No: Criminal Appeal No.537/2019
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 70
The Karnataka High Court recently dismissed an appeal filed by 10 accused allegedly involved in the murder case of journalist Gauri Lankesh, challenging an order rejecting their application for default bail by the special court.
A single judge of Justice K.S.Mudagal while dismissing the appeal filed by prime accused Amole Kale and others said, "The attack on the impugned order was that the charge sheet was not filed on 23-11-2018, but that was ante-dated. The trial Court rejected the said contentions. The appellants did not seek any administrative action against the Ministerial officer who allegedly interpolated the date 23-11-2018 nor the presiding officer on the ground of judicial impropriety. Under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 illustration (e) there is presumption that judicial acts or official acts have been regularly performed. Except for scandalising the office staff and the Judge, nothing was done to rebut the said presumption."
Case Title: Darshan And State of Karnataka Case No: Criminal Petition/ 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 71
The Karnataka High Court recently permitted a 19-years old, who is in judicial custody in connection with the rape of a minor girl, to appear for his annual examination by physically attending the examination centre.
Justice V Srishananda while disposing of the petition filed by the accused said, "Just because, the case is pending against the petitioner herein, which is being investigated in Crime No.8/2022, his future cannot be put to jeopardy."
12. Karnataka High Court Quashes 8 Year Old Case Against BSP Chief Mayavathi
Case Title: Kum. Mayavathi v State of Karnataka Case no: CRIMINAL PETITION No.7626/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 72
The Karnataka High Court recently set aside an eight year old criminal case pending against Mayavathi, Former Chief Minister & President Of Bahujan Samaj Party and Sathish Chandra Mishra National General Secretary & Member of Parliament, Bahujan Samaj Party.
A single Judge bench of Justice Sunil Dutt Yadav said "In view of the explanation of the petitioners having been accepted by the Election Commission of India, the continuance of the present proceedings would not secure the ends of justice."
13. Karnataka High Court Orders GST Refund of Rs. 27 Crores Illegally Collected from Swiggy
Case Title: Union of India and Ors. v. M/s Bundl Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Case no: W.A. No.1274 OF 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 73
The Karnataka High Court has ordered the Goods and Service Tax (GST) department to refund Rs. 27 crore, which was illegally collected from Swiggy. The division bench of Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice M. G. S. Kamal, while dismissing the appeal of the Central Government, observed, "Article 265 of the Constitution mandates that the collection of tax has to be by the authority of law."
Other reports:
Case Title: High Court Legal Services Committee v. State Of Karnataka Case No: WP 18628/2019
The Karnataka government on Saturday informed the High Court that it has issued a government order making provisions for establishment of Goshalas in each district. A division bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice S R Krishna Kumar were informed that, "The State Government has issued a government order making provision for establishment of the 'Goshala' in each district. A budget provision allocation has been done in the current budget for that purpose."
Case Title: High Court Of Karnataka v. The State Of Karnataka Case No: WP 10240/2020
The Karnataka High Court on Saturday directed its Registrar General to furnish fresh information regarding the cases in which the State Government has filed application under Section 321 of Cr.P.C, for withdrawing cases against Member of Parliament, Member of Legislative Assembly/Council. A division bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice S R Krishna Kumar also called for records of four cases involving MP Prathap Simha and MLA M P Renukacharya, that were withdrawn by the Government in 2020. The case against Simha, stood withdrawn on October 19, 2020, while three cases against the MLA Renukacharya, came to be withdrawn by order dated November 19, 2020.
3. No Compulsion Of Any Language In National Education Policy 2020: Centre Tells Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Samskrita Bharati Karnataka Trust v. Union Of India Case No: WP 18156/2021
The Union government has informed the Karnataka High Court that there is no mention of any compulsion of language in the National Education Policy 2020 and the policy is to be understood, interpreted and implemented keeping in mind broad objectives enshrined in the Constitution.
In an affidavit filed by Dinesh T Pali, under secretary in the Department of Higher Education, the Ministry of Education has said the National Education Policy is classified in 4 parts. As per NEP 2020, higher education institutions may offer medium of instruction or programmes in local/indian languages.
Case Title: Geetha Misra v. State Of Karnataka Case No: WP 6586/2021
The Karnataka High Court on Thursday disposed of a public interest litigation seeking to quash the order passed by the Commissioner of Police, forming a Special Investigation Team (SIT) comprising of Six (6) police officers to conduct investigation in the alleged sex CD case, involving former Minister Ramesh Jarkiholi.
A division bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice S R Krishna Kumar in its order said, "The PIL, was the first petition filed on the issues involved. Subsequently the victim herself has approached the court by filing the petition. The order under challenge in PIL is also under challenge in the subsequent writ petition. With the consent of the parties, once the victim has challenged the constitution of SIT, there is no purpose of keeping the PIL alive. Accordingly the PIL is disposed of."
Case Title: K C Rajanna v. State of Karnataka Case No: WP 4021/2022
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday directed the State government to place on record in two weeks, the effective steps that are being taken to ensure that children do not escape from the government run child care institutions.
A division bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice S R Krishna Kumar said, "AGA shall also seek instructions as to what effective steps are being taken to ensure that children do not escape from the government child care institutions and the same may be brought on record."
Kerala High Court
Sanjeev Hansda & Ors v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 114
Deputy Director of Education & Ors v. P.A Suhura, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 115
M/s Devchand Construction v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 116
K. Jaya Kuma v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 117
P. Gopalakrishnan alias Dileep v. State of Kerala & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 118
Union Bank of India v. K.J. Jose & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 119
Harikrishnan & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 120
Karvy Innotech Ltd Vs Deputy Commissioner (ASSMT) SGST Department, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 121
Dr. Sonia K Das v. Cochin University of Science and Technology & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 122
YYY v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 123
Nico Tiles v. State Tax Officer & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 124
Krishna Moorthy Rao v. S. Bhanumathi @ Lakshmi & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 125
B.S. Syamkumar v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 126
Kerala High Court Judgments This Week
Case Title: Sanjeev Hansda & Ors v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 114
The Court deleted the condition imposed by a Judicial Magistrate of producing sureties from Kerala on the bail granted to a group of migrant labourers. In a plea moved by the workers, Justice K. Haripal observed that it was unwholesome to insist them to produce sureties from the State itself while deleting the condition that sureties must belong to the State of Kerala. However, since the specific allegation against the accused was that they caused damage to the State to the tune of Rs.12 lakhs, it was held that they are liable to bear a portion of the damage sustained by the State.
2. Temporary Relinquishment Of Promotion Can Extend Beyond One Year: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Deputy Director of Education & Ors v. P.A Suhura
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 115
The Court has ruled that the Government Order issued in 1991 mandating that temporary relinquishment of promotion shall be for a minimum period of one year only implies that it should be at least for a minimum period of one year and that it can go beyond one year. A Division Bench of Justice Alexander Thomas and Justice Viju Abraham observed that the said Order was issued considering the administrative inconvenience caused due to repeated temporary relinquishment of promotion by employees for short periods to the same grade to suit their convenience.
Case Title: M/s Devchand Construction v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 116
The Court has ruled that in the case of a breach of contract, no compensation can be granted under Sections 73 and 74 of the Indian Contract Act unless such breach resulted in an actual loss or damage to the opposite party. Justices P.B. Suresh Kumar and C.S. Sudha opined that the words 'loss or damage' would necessarily indicate that the party who complains of breach must have really suffered some loss or damage apart from being faced with the mere act of breach of contract since every breach of every contract need not necessarily result in actual loss or damage.
Case Title: K. Jaya Kuma v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 117
The Court dismissed a petition filed by a retired Superintendent of Police (Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau) seeking to quash a case registered against him by the Vigilance Special Investigation Unit. Justice Sunil Thomas gave green light to the VACB to continue with its probe against the petitioner finding that the offences alleged against him were not covered by the protection under section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Case Title: P. Gopalakrishnan alias Dileep v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 118
The Court while dismissing the plea moved by actor Dileep seeking to suspend further investigation into the 2017 sexual assault case ruled that Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not restrict the investigating agency from conducting a further probe into a crime when it is notified of new information. Justice Kauser Edappagath observed that Section 173(8) of CrPC does not imply that further investigation could be conducted only after getting further materials in connection with the crime.
Also Read: Kerala High Court Dismisses Dileep's Plea To Suspend Further Probe In Sexual Assault Case
6. Maintainability Of A Petition Can Be Contested Long After Its Admission: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Union Bank of India v. K.J. Jose & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 119
The Court ruled that the question of maintainability of a writ petition can be raised by the respondents years after its admission and even if an interim relief has been granted on the plea. However, Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan clarified that a high court while exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution should ensure that its decision is equitable to both the parties involved. The Court also suggested some of the relevant factors for high courts to exercise their discretionary power when a petition is admitted, despite there being an alternative remedy available
Case Title: Harikrishnan & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 120
The Court directed five college students of TKM Engineering College to engage in social service for two weeks, to quash the proceedings pending against them for ragging two junior students. Arguing that they had settled the matter among themselves, the accused had sought to quash the proceedings pending against them. While agreeing to quash the proceedings against them, Justice K. Haripal ordered the petitioners to undergo some kind of social service preferably in the General Hospital for two weeks.
Case Title: Karvy Innotech Ltd Vs Deputy Commissioner (ASSMT) SGST Department
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 121
The Court has held that the failure of a dealer to attend assessment proceedings cannot be regarded as the violation of principles of natural justice. The single bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas has observed that petitioner/dealer was granted sufficient opportunity to contest the assessment proceedings and the failure to do so cannot be regarded as a violation of the principles of natural justice to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Case Title: Dr. Sonia K Das v. Cochin University of Science and Technology & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 122
The Court has upheld the appointment of Cochin University of Science and Technology (CUSAT) Director of Legal Studies- Dr. Vani Kesari A, by dismissing a petition challenging the selection process. A Division Bench of Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Mohammed Nias C.P observed that it was up to the court to decide if the procedure followed by the statutory selection committee was legal, even if it was deviant from the one prescribed by the statute.
10. Kerala High Court Aids 10 Year Old Rape Survivor To Terminate 30 Weeks Pregnancy
Case Title: YYY v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 123
The Court came to the aid of a 10-year old girl who was allegedly sexually abused by her father, by permitting her to undergo medical termination of her 8-month (30 weeks) old pregnancy. Finding the plight of the girl who became pregnant at such a tender age 'unfortunate', Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan allowed the plea for medical termination of pregnancy moved by the girl's mother.
Case Title: Nico Tiles v. State Tax Officer & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 124
The Court has recently held that a taxpayer cannot seek to avoid mandatory pre-deposits as a remedy to an appeal under Section 107 of the State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that granting such relief would render the provisions of the Act redundant. The Court also noted that this appeal was preferred as early as March 2020, so the liability to make the pre-deposit befalls on the date of filing of the appeal. This liability cannot be eschewed from reckoning on the basis of subsequent events, which as claimed by the petitioner to be beneficial to it, the Judge noted.
12. Suit Filed By Minor Without Appointing Next Friend Is A Curable Irregularity: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Krishna Moorthy Rao v. S. Bhanumathi @ Lakshmi & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 125
The Court held that a suit filed by a minor without a next friend need not be taken off from the file since the same is a curable irregularity and by filing a subsequent application, the defect can be cured. Justice A. Badharudeen held that the defect can be cured by filing a separate petition for the same and that the suit can be proceeded thereafter. As such, it was held that the appointment of a next friend subsequent to the filing of the suit is not bad in law.
13. Kerala High Court Reinstates Its Directions On Use Of Flex Boards In State
Case Title: B.S. Syamkumar v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 126
The Court has reiterated the extensive set of directions it had issued last year on the issue of the use of plastics/flex boards in the State. A Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly recalled the directions in a petition challenging the State's inaction in taking effective measures to prohibit the manufacture, storage, sale and usage of Poly Vinyl Chloride (PVC) Flex.
Other Significant Developments
14. Full Bench Of Only Women Judges, For The First Time, In Kerala High Court
Incidentally, on international women's day, a full bench comprising only women judges will hear a case in the Kerala High Court. This is the first time in the history of the Court that a full bench comprising only women judges has been constituted. The cause list showed Justices Anu Sivaraman, V Shircy and M.R Anitha as members of the women's only full bench.
15. Hotel No.18 POCSO Case: Kerala High Court Denies Pre-Arrest Bail To Accused Roy Vayalat
Case Title: Roy J. Vayalat v. State of Kerala
The Court dismissed the anticipatory bail applications moved by No.18 hotel owner Roy J Vayalat and his friend Syju M.Thankachan in a POCSO case where they have been accused of sexually assaulting a minor girl at the hotel. However, the third accused Anjali has been granted pre-arrest bail. Justice Gopinath P granted pre-arrest to the third accused subject to conditions considering the fact that she is a woman aged 24 years.
Case Title: Mathew Z Pulikunnel v Chief Justice of India
The Court directed its Registrar (Judicial) to explain why a couple of writ petitions were not listed before a Bench on time despite all the defects being cured and recurring requests from the counsel for the petitioner. A Division Bench of Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Mohammed Nias C.P sought a response from the Registry having found force in the submission of the petitioner that such delay could be fatal to the litigant's right to access to justice.
Case Title: Edadan Chindan Nair & Ors v. Union of India & Ors.
The Court directed the State government to reconsider the application moved by an Indian National Army (INA) veteran for a Central government pension scheme on the ground that his application was rejected for hypertechnical grounds. Justice Murali Purushothaman recorded that the petitioner's application was rejected mechanically without any application of mind. The Court also added that there were many freedom fighters whose sacrifices and names were not known to the common man.
Case Title: A.D. Johnson & Ors v. State of Kerala & Ors.
The Court while dealing with a batch of petitions seeking expeditious distribution of available land to the landless Scheduled Caste and Tribe families at Chengara expressed its apprehension over the State's submission that there was a scarcity of assignable lands. Justice Devan Ramachandran noted that this was a cause of concern particularly since these issues arose out of an agitation that had its own sordid consequences and that steps should be taken to prevent such events from happening again.
19. Can State Fix RT-PCR Rates For Private Labs? Kerala High Court Refers Issue To Division Bench
The Court referred the issue relating to the fixation of charges for the RT-PCR test, as he held a divergent view from another judge who ruled that the government had no power to regulate the price of the test to a Division Bench. Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan opined that after going through the relevant statutory provisions that there is sufficient source of power to the State to regulate the price rate of RT-PCR tests, thereby dissenting with a previous decision of a Single Judge.
Madhya Pradesh High Court
NOMINAL INDEX
Mohd. Adil Vs. State Of Madhya Pradesh; 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 62
Himanshu @ Mintu Day V. The State Of Madhya Pradesh; 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 63
Dileep Kumar Yadav S/O Mohan Yadav V. The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors.; 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 64
Vidhi ka Ulaghan Karne Wala Balak Versus State of M.P. & Anr.; 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 65
Kalla @ Vidyaram Vs. State of M.P.; 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 66
Pramod Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh; 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 67
Adam Khan v. State of MP& Ors.; 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 68
Raghunandan Dhakad Vs. The State of M.P.; 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 69
Ramdayal Charmkarr v State of Madhya Pradesh; 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 70
Siddhi Gupta v State of Madhya Pradesh; 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 71
Krishnapal Singh Kansana Vs. State of MP and Anr.; 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 72
Pawan Kumar Jain V State Of Madhya Pradesh; 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 73
People's College of Medical Sciences and Research Center and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.' 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 74
Jahar Singh Gurjar Vs. The State of M.P. & Another; 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 75
Deepali Jadhav V. The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Anr.; 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 76
Case Title: MOHD. ADIL Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 62
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh recently denied bail to the Appellant convicted for offences punishable under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, observing that the contentions put forth by the Appellant would have to be considered at the later stage of final hearing.
The division bench of Chief Justice Ravi Malimath and Justice Dinesh Kumar Paliwal was dealing with an application U/S 389 CRPC for suspension of sentence and grant of bail, filed by the Appellant convicted by the trial court U/S 16(B), 18 UAPA, and U/S 6 Explosive Substances Act.
Case Title: HIMANSHU @ MINTU DAY v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 63
The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently directed the Director General Of Police to seek explanation from an Investigating Officer, for 'wasting his time and resources in a wrong direction', while investigating a case.
Justice Vivek Agarwal was dealing with a bail application moved by the Applicant accused for offences punishable under Section 363, 366A, 376(2)(n) IPC and also under Section 5, 6 of POCSO Act.
Case Title: DILEEP KUMAR YADAV S/O MOHAN YADAV v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 64
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh recently set aside an order passed by the Collector, terminating the contractual services of a Gram Rojgar Sahayak, by observing that the said order was passed without following the principles of natural justice.
Justice Sanjay Dwivedi was essentially dealing with a writ petition, wherein the Petitioner was challenging the order passed by the Collector, District Betul, whereby his contractual service as Gram Rojgar Sahayak was terminated for his alleged actions of misappropriating government money.
Case Title: Vidhi ka Ulaghan Karne Wala Balak Versus State of M.P. & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 65
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior Bench recently held that a Child in Conflict with Law (CCL) cannot be treated as an undertrial prisoner as contemplated under Section 436-A CrPC, since arrest/ confinement/ apprehension are not contemplated in Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
Justice Anand Pathak was essentially dealing with a criminal revision preferred by a CCL, challenging the order passed by the lower court, whereby his appeal was dismissed and the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board was affirmed.
Case Title: Kalla @ Vidyaram Vs. State of M.P.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 66
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior Bench recently directed a Bail Applicant to plant five saplings of any 'fruit bearing tree' or 'Neem/Pipal tree', as one of the conditions for granting him bail.
Justice Anand Pathak however made it clear that the bail plea was allowed based on the merits of the case and not in exchange for any social service.
"Bail is granted once the case is made out for bail and thereafter, direction for plantation of saplings is given and it is not the case where a person intends to serve social cause can be given bail without considering the merits," the Bench said.
Case Title: Pramod Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 67
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench recently dismissed two petitions in the nature of Public Interest Litigation, seeking action against a government hospital for its alleged negligence that led to disruption of oxygen supply, causing death of its 17 patients.
The division bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Amar Nath (Kesharwani) was dealing with two writ petitions in the nature of PIL, whereby the Petitioners were seeking criminal as well as disciplinary action against the persons responsible for the death of innocent people along with a heavy amount of compensation to family members of the victims. By way of interim relief, they had also sought for an investigation/inquiry by an independent agency, headed by a retired High Court Judge.
Case Title: Adam Khan v. State of MP& Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 68
The Madhya Pradesh High Court on Tuesday held that the candidates belonging to other states will also be permitted to participate in the MP State Civil Services Exam (MPSC). It further directed the MP Public Service Commission to make adequate improvisation in its website to permit such candidates to submit their application forms.
Justice Vivek Agarwal was essentially dealing with a writ petition filed by a resident of Jharkhand who was unable to register himself for the MPSC exam. He sought for a direction to the authorities to open application forms for the MPSC Examination, 2021, for which the last date for submission is March 12, to all the candidates irrespective of the domiciles..
Case title : Raghunandan Dhakad Vs. The State of M.P.
Citation :2022 LiveLaw (MP) 69
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior Bench recently held that the paramour of mother-in-law of the deceased would not come within the ambit of Section 304-B IPC, since he cannot be considered to be a family member of the husband of the deceased for the purpose of Section 304-B and 498-A IPC.
Justice Anand Pathak was dealing with a criminal revision preferred by the Applicant, challenging the order passed by the trial court, whereby the court framed charges against him for offences punishable U/S 304-B R/W 109 IPC.
Case title : Ramdayal Charmkarr v State of Madhya Pradesh
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 70
The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently directed an Additional Sessions Judge to conclude the remaining trial of a murder case within 30 days or else he would be liable to provide a detailed explanation for each days' delay.
The single bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal directed as follows-
Let trial be now concluded within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order being passed today i.e. on or before 8th April, 2022, otherwise Presiding Officer will be liable to give explanation for delay of each and every day along with the fact that why he is shy of exercising his authority in terms of the provisions contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Case title: Siddhi Gupta v State of Madhya Pradesh
Citation:2022 LiveLaw (MP) 71
The Madhya Pradesh High Court on Wednesday refused to accede to the request of a family to bring their adult daughter (Petitioner) back to them, under police custody, and to further hand her over to them. The Petitioner, who eloped from her house to pursue further studies and aspired to be an IAS Officer, had approached the Court seeking protection from her family
Justice Nandita Dubey was dealing with a writ petition filed by a 20-year-old woman who was worried about her safety, pursuant to an F.I.R. lodged by her uncle, from whose house she went missing.
Case Title: Krishnapal Singh Kansana Vs. State of MP and Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 72
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior Bench recently quashed the F.I.R. and further criminal proceedings against the Applicant accused for offences under the Essential Commodities Act and Indian Penal Code, holding that prosecution launched by Police was not in accordance with law as they registered the case at their own instance, without taking permission of the Collector concerned or mentioning the Control Order violated by the Applicant.
Justice R.K. Shrivastava was dealing with an application under Section 482 CrPC, moved by the Applicant seeking directions of the Court to Quash the F.I.R. and further proceedings against him for offenses punishable under Section 3, 7 Essential Commodities Act, 1955 ("EC Act") and under Section 353, 186, 34 IPC.
Case Title: Pawan Kumar Jain V State Of Madhya Pradesh
Citation:2022 LiveLaw (MP) 73
The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently held that a perusal of the Scheme of the Arms Act, 1959 nowhere suggests that the renewal of license can be refused on the grounds of registration of a criminal case.
Justice P.K. Kaurav was dealing with a writ petition, wherein the Petitioner was challenging the order of dismissal of his appeal under Section 18 Arms Act, whereby the order of the Licensing Authority was affirmed.
Case Title: People's College of Medical Sciences and Research Center and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 74
The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently set aside the decision of the Appellate Authority to reduce seats in a medical course, observing that Section 28 of the National Medical Commission Act, 2019 does not permit the Appellate Authority to act as Medical Assessment and Rating Board, for the purpose of reduction of seats unilaterally.
The division bench of Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice D.D. Bansal was dealing with a writ petition filed by the Petitioner/College, aggrieved by the decision of the Appellate Authority under the 2019 Act, whereby the seats in a medical course were reduced from 7 to 5
Case Title: Jahar Singh Gurjar Vs. The State of M.P. & Another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 75
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior Bench recently dismissed an application moved by a Complainant in a dacoity case, seeking custody of the recovered stolen cash to the tune of Rs. 45 Lakhs.
The Court held that since the said amount was not disclosed before the Income Tax Department (IT Department) prior to the incident, the same was liable to be handed over to the IT Department for assessment.
Case Title: DEEPALI JADHAV v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 76
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh recently held that a Tehsildar, alleged to have misused her position by extending undue benefit to her husband as well as her servant was not entitled for protection under the Judges Protection Act, 1985.
The division bench of Chief Justice Ravi Malimath and Justice V.K. Shukla was dealing with a criminal revision, wherein the Applicant was challenging the order passed by the lower court, whereby she was denied protection under the Judges Protection Act, 1985 ("Act of 1985").
Madras High Court
NOMINAL INDEX
D.Balasubramanian v. The Commissioner, HR & CE Department & Ors and Prabhu Nambiappan v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Lalgudi Taluk & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 88
Immaculate College Of Education For Women v. Pondicherry University & Anr. and Connected Matters, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 89
M/s Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd., rep.by its Deputy General Manager v. Rajeswari & Ors and Connected Cases, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 90
P. Pugalenthi, Director, Prisoners Rights Forum v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 91
Ashraf & Ors. v. State Represented by Inspector of Police 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 92
T. Akshaya & Ors v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 93
S. Meena & Anr. v. Sivakumar & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 94
Pueblo Holdings Limited v. Emirates Trading Agency LLC & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 95
N. Rahul Kumar v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 96
Air India Corporation Employees Union v. Union of India & Ors. & Connected Matte, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 97
M/s. V.R.S. Traders Versus Assistant Commissioner (State Taxes), 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 98
G.Joseph Jeyaseelan v. The Director of Elementary Education & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 99
Case Title: D.Balasubramanian v. The Commissioner, HR & CE Department & Ors and Prabhu Nambiappan v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Lalgudi Taluk & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 88
Madras High Court has observed that the temple car procession/ festival in Achiramavalli Amman Kovil at Jangamarajapuram cannot be allowed this year since it has the potential to stoke communal tension like in 2021.
The court was hearing two separate writ petitions filed in 2021 and 2022 about the conduct of the Temple/ Car Festival in the Trichy District .
In the common order, the single-judge bench of Justice C. Saravanan added that the reports submitted by the Tahsildar and Deputy Inspector of Police indicated that the temple/car festival was not conducted in a peaceful manner in 2021, which saw partial boycott and pelting of stones, injuring public and police.
Case Title: Immaculate College Of Education For Women v. Pondicherry University & Anr. and Connected Matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 89
Madras High Court has dismissed a batch of writ appeals filed against the single judge bench order dated 05.01.2022 in favour of Pondicheryy University collecting University Development Fund paid by students from the Individual colleges.
The first bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that the University can demand 'other charges' in addition to the fees stipulated in Section 27(e) Pondicherry University Act,1985. Therefore, the court dismissed the appeal by saying that the demand notices issued to colleges for University Development Fund are not beyond the University's competency since it is covered by Section 5(20) of the Act.
"The appellant counsel referred to Section 27 of the Act by taking note of the subject matters mentioned therein with regards to ordinances and not the powers of the University under Section 5 of the Act", the court pointed out.
The single bench judgment in 2020 had dismissed the plea by the appellant colleges filed in 2010 which challenged the imposition of Rs 1000/- as University Development Fund.
Case Title: M/s Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd., rep.by its Deputy General Manager v. Rajeswari & Ors and Connected Cases
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 90
While upholding the additional compensation per Are granted by a Reference Court under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter 'Act') , Madras High Court has held that interest for Solatium is a mandatory component as per Section 28 of the Act.
The single Bench of Dr Justice G. Jayachandran was hearing a batch of appeal suits preferred by Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (ONGC) under Section 54 of the Act.
With respect to the interest that must be paid on Solatium, the court observed that there was an omission from the Reference Court since Section 28 of the Act [Collector may be directed to pay interest on excess compensation] and Supreme Court Judgments mandate such interest even if the landowners have not preferred any cross objection or appeal for the interest portion on the solatium.
"...their right to seek interest to solatium in the appeal filed by the third party/Requisition Authority has to be entertained. The cardinal principle in land acquisition is, when a person is deprived of his Constitutional Right to hold property, he must be paid just and fair compensation. Therefore, when the statute prescribes interest to compensation at a particular rate (i.e) 9% p.a., from the date of award, till the date of possession plus one year and at the rate of 15% thereafter, the same has to be applied on the solatium also, as mandated under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894", the court underscored.
Case Title: P. Pugalenthi, Director, Prisoners Rights Forum v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 91
In a plea seeking direction upon the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption to investigate the alleged scam in the supply of stationery articles by the officials of Madurai Central Prison, the Madras High Court has asked the petitioner to seek registration of FIR or to file a private complaint invoking Section 190 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
The first bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy observed,
"The prayer has been made to direct the fourth respondent to cause investigation pursuant to the complaint made by the petitioner without realizing that the investigation into the matter can be conducted by the Police or Anti-Corruption Department only after registration of the First Information Report."
The Court was hearing a petition filed by the Director of Prisoners Rights Forum, P. Pugalenthi.
5. IIT-Madras Student Suicide: High Court Quashes FIR Against Protesters From Campus Front Of India
Case Title: Ashraf & Ors. v. State Represented by Inspector of Police
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 92
Madras High Court has quashed an FIR registered against some office bearers and members of 'Campus Front of India' who organised a protest in front of IIT-Madras seeking justice for a suicide victim.
Admittedly, the members assembled and protested for arresting the faculty implicated in the suicide note of Fathima Latheef, a first-year Humanities student who hung herself in a ceiling fan in her hostel room in November 2019.
The single bench of Justice A.D Jagadish Chandira observed that no act of violence has occurred during the protest and no untoward incident has taken place, which warrants the quashing of the FIR registered against the protesters.
While allowing the criminal original petition, the court noted as below:
"...admittedly, no violation is reported in this case and the protest has also not ended in any violence. Therefore, this Court, is of the considered view that further proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.2962 of 2020 pending on the file of the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai is liable to be quashed".
Case Title:T. Akshaya & Ors v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 93
Madras High Court has recently refused to entertain a writ appeal challenging the laying of high tension transmission lines at Sevaganappalli in Krishnagiri, allegedly contravention of distance norms and disregard for potential health hazards.
The appellants argued that the sub-station would be supplying electricity solely to Exide Industries Limited while the State submitted that the project will be equally beneficial to the nearby villages that experience electricity deficit. Apart from challenging the grant of approval by pitting it against Article 14, the writ appellants/ petitioners further submitted that realigning the 110 KV DC lines or laying underground transmission lines like in Gujarat will be a plausible alternative.
About the alternatives proposed by the appellants, the court noted in the judgment that the 'Gujarat Model' cannot be imposed on the Respondent Authorities, especially when 24 towers have already been erected and transmission lines are being laid.
"A reference of Gujarat model has been given, but it cannot be imposed on the respondent authorities because they have wisdom to decide as to whether to go with underground transmission lines or overhead lines. This court cannot thrust the opinion of the appellants upon the respondents to go for underground transmission lines for the remaining towers...", the court noted.
Case Title: S. Meena & Anr. v. Sivakumar & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 94
While dismissing an appeal suit filed by a woman claiming 1/7th share for herself and her son in the ancestral property of her deceased husband's family, Madras High Court has underscored that the factum of marriage cannot be inferred from a single photograph where both are seen together.
The single-judge bench of Justice G. Jayachandran added that though the courts should generally 'lean upon legitimacy and frown upon bastardy' [as laid down in Badri Prasad v. Dy. Director of Consolidation and others] it can also not consider a deceased person as responsible for the birth of the minor appellant. Attempts made to obtain the property of a deceased person by claiming parentage must be equally frowned upon, the court remarked.
Before the bench, an appeal suit under Section 96 CPC was filed by submitting that the appellants are the widow and son of one late Sakthivel. They contended that they are the legal heirs of Sakthivel, and therefore, they are legally entitled to 1/7th share in the ancestral property jointly held by defendants who are the brothers, mother and father of the deceased Sakthivel.
"The factum of marriage and long cohabitation are not matters, which can be inferred through a single photograph, where a male and female are seen together. More so, when only the positive is filed without negative and the person, who took the photograph not examined. The Ex.A-1, the photograph is in colour and new...", the court said while clarifying that the photo and the CD that contains the photograph will not be admissible in evidence.
8. Madras HC Holds Execution Petition Over Beneficial Ownership Of Award Debtor In Shares Held Ostensibly By Third Parties Maintainable
Case Title: Pueblo Holdings Limited v. Emirates Trading Agency LLC & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 95
Madras High Court has recently held that the execution petition filed by a company incorporated in the Republic of Marshall Islands, in pursuance of a foreign arbitral award in its favour, against another company with its registered office in Dubai is maintainable before it.
The single-judge bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy has held that the consecutive third execution petition filed by Award Holder, Pueblo Holdings Limited, seeking the enforcement of the decree against UAE based Award Debtor, Emirates Trading Agency LLC, by attaching the assets held ostensibly by third parties in the prominently Chennai based ETA Group is maintainable.
Case Title: N. Rahul Kumar v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 96
Madras High Court has recently iterated that when two posts carry equivalent scale of pay and are treated as equal categories under the Rules, the petitioners have no right to claim a particular post as a matter of right or choice.
The Madurai bench of Madras High Court underscored that when the service conditions are not infringed from and out of the administrative transfers effected, the Government employees have no right to claim a specific post as their choice.
Justice S M Subramaniam was hearing a plea made by petitioners who were initially appointed as B.T.Assistants (Bachelor of Teaching) and some others who were promoted as B.T. Assistants from the post of Secondary Grade Teacher. Petitioners belonging to both categories has passed the Deputy Inspector's Test and were qualified to be transferred and appointed as Deputy Inspector of Schools, an equivalent cadre carrying identical pay scale. Since they met the requirements under Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Educational Subordinate Service, they were appointed as Deputy Inspectors.
The petitioners were challenging the 6th January notification by the Joint Director of School Education directing the District level Chief Educational Officers to make administrative transfers and accordingly post these Deputy Inspectors as B.T Assistants by 7th January.
Case Title: Air India Corporation Employees Union v. Union of India & Ors. & Connected Matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 97
Madras High Court has dismissed a plea filed by the Air Corporation Employees Union challenging Air India disinvestment, who feared that certain terms and conditions of service enjoyed by the employees under the erstwhile public sector management will be severely affected.
"Considering the fact that Air India Ltd prior to the disinvestment initiative was a sinking company, a fortuitous transformation has happened for their own good. In the opinion of this Court, various conditions of service under the SPA are the best that the Government could wrangle out from the fourth respondent towards ensuring protection of the employees' interest. Therefore, the employees conjecturing they have been treated unfairly and unjustly is misplaced and misconceived", Justice V. Parthiban observed.
On the Petitioner's apprehension regarding alteration of service conditions, the Bench said,
"...Any decision concerning the service conditions would obviously be taken within the framework of the existing laws on the subject. In case of any infraction, deviation or violation of any existing laws, the employees always have a recourse to judicial mechanisms. This Court, therefore, need not assume any advisory role in emphasizing the sacrosanct legal position as every private or public entity is mandated to act in accordance with law."
Case Title: M/s. V.R.S. Traders Versus Assistant Commissioner (State Taxes)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 98
The Madras High Court has held that the DRC-01 notice under Section 74(1) of the CGST Act must be issued before passing the assessment order.
The single bench of Justice R. Suresh Kumar has remitted the after back to the respondent/department for reconsideration and directed that the department to issue DRC-01 notice to the petitioner and after giving a fair opportunity of being heard to the petitioner/assessee, necessary orders shall be passed with regard to the assessment.
If any taxpayer has to pay tax, interest and penalty under sub-section (1) of section 73 or 74 of the CGST Act then, the authorised officer should first communicate the details of the tax, interest and penalty ascertained in Form GST DRC-01A to the taxpayer.
12. 'Shocking To The Conscience': Madras HC Orders Registration Of FIR Against Headmaster For Alleged Sexual Harassment Of Teachers
Case Title: G.Joseph Jeyaseelan v. The Director of Elementary Education & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 99
The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court observed yesterday that the frequent allegations of sexual harassment inside educational institutions are troublesome and warrant immediate intervention.
Justice S.M Subramaniam was hearing a petition filed by the Headmaster of a school, calling for the records relating to the order cancelling the deputation of two women teachers by the District Educational Officer, Thallakulam, Madurai District.
Previously, the respondent teachers had sent representations to the Educational authorities alleging sexual harassment by the petitioner Headmaster. The same Headmaster impleaded the two teachers as respondents in the current proceedings initiated against the cancellation of their deputation.
Taking note of the rampant untoward incidents in educational institutions, the single-judge bench directed that the letters sent by the teachers to Educational Authorities alleging sexual harassment at the workplace must be registered as complaints by All Women Police Station, Keerathurai. The bench has also given an instruction to commence investigation while also directing the jurisdictional police to submit copies of the FIR on the next date of hearing.
Other Developments
Case Title: R.Palaniselvi v. The Tamilnadu State Election Commission & Ors.
The returning officer of Ward No.10 of Kallupatti in Madurai District has submitted before the Madras High Court that he illegally modified the election results and declared a DMK candidate as the winner due to external pressure by a group of persons.
The First Bench comprising of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy was hearing a case filed by an independent candidate named R. Palaniselvi who claimed to have won the urban local body polls in Ward No. 10. The court had earlier taken cognisance of the grave allegation against the Returning Officer and the DMK Candidate K. Subbulakshmi, who changed the result of the election after its declaration.
During the last hearing, the court had mandated the Returning Officer who was suspended by the State Election Commission to appear before the Court. Taking note of the manipulation in changing results, the bench has directed the Returning Officer to file an affidavit detailing the entire incident as well as details about the persons who allegedly exerted undue pressure upon the former. The affidavit must be submitted to the court within ten days. The DMK candidate who was declared as the winning candidate may also file a counter-affidavit to the writ petition within ten days, the court clarified.
Case Title: S.Ramalingam v. The Union Of India & Another
In the plea challenging vires of the Dam Safety Act, the Central Government has filed a counter-affidavit before the Madras High Court, claiming that the 2021 legislation does not seek to alter the existing ownership and water rights of the states. The law is merely intended to create a mechanism for proper surveillance, inspection, operation and maintenance of Dams.
"The Dam Safety Act, 2021 does not alter any existing arrangements with regard to dam ownership, operation and maintenance (O&M), project benefits and water rights of Tamil Nadu. Hence stated apprehensions are unfounded," the reply filed by the Deputy Commissioner in the Department of Water Resources states.
The writ petition was filed by DMK MP S. Ramalingam from Mayiladuthurai, stating that the Parliament lacks the legislative competence to enact the impugned legislation since States have the authority to make laws on "Water, water supplies, irrigation and canals, drainage and embankments, water storage and water power subject to the provisions of Entry 56 of List I".
Defending the Act, the Central government has claimed that most of the Dams in the country are across interstate rivers and states can't legislate beyond their territories. Thus, it is imperative for the Central government to exercise its prerogative in the national interest and legislate on the subject of dam.
Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case title - Ankit And Others v. State Of Haryana
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 33
In a significant observation and widening the scope of Section 377 of IPC (Unnatural offences), the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that this offence is attracted even in a situation where the penetration happens to be on any other part of the body of a victim (other than Vagina) with sexual intent.
The Bench of Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj further observed that Section 377 is to be attracted in the event of penetration with sexual intent, other than what is contemplated under Section 375 IPC (Rape/penile-vaginal penetration).
Case Title: Vijay Mamgain Vs State of Haryana
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 34
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the owner of the vehicle who is seeking only release of the vehicle is not liable to pay fine for the confiscated goods.
The division bench of Justice Ajay Tewari and Pankaj Jain has observed that to force the owner of the vehicle to pay the tax, penalty and fine on the goods would mean that the owner of the vehicle is also foisted with the vicarious liability of any mis-declaration/fraud by the owner of the goods despite the proviso engrafted on to Sub Section 2 of Section 130 of the CGST Act.
Rajasthan High Court
Gajendra Purbia & Anr. v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 88
Sawai Singh Sodha & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 89
Dharmender Kumar Sharma v. Union of India & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 90
Shri Labana Gawaria Sikh Samaj Sewa Samiti v. State Of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 91
G.k. Construction Company, Through Its Owner Govind Katariya v. Balaji Makan Samagri Stores, Through Its Proprietor Mallaram Patel 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 92
Bot Lal v. State of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 93
Loonkaran v. State of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 94
Nisha v. State of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 95
Chandrakant Jain v. Veermati Jain 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 96
Ajit Singh v. State of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 97
Judgments/ Orders of the Week
1. Proper Facts & Evidence Must Be Placed Before Court To Invoke PIL Jurisdiction: Rajasthan High Court
Case Title: Gajendra Purbia & Anr. v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 88
The Rajasthan High Court has observed that a citizen approaching the court in a public interest jurisdiction holds greater duty to make full research and present necessary facts before the court to cause further investigation.
In the present matter, serious allegations were made by the petitioners with respect to mis-management of the respondent No. 2, Arth Credit Cooperative Society.
A division bench of Chief Justice Akil Kureshi and Justice Rekha Borana, while disposing of the petition, observed, "A citizen approaching the Court in a public interest jurisdiction holds a greater duty to make full research and present necessary facts before the Court to cause further investigation."
Case Title: Sawai Singh Sodha & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 89
The Rajasthan High Court on Monday refused to entertain a public interest litigation alleging corruption in MGNREGA. The court observed that there is no prima facie material in the petition to sustain the allegations levelled by the petitioners.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Madan Gopal Vyas, observed, "After going through the petition, we find that though there are allegations made in the petition, there is no prima facie material along with the petition to sustain the allegations of the petitioners."
3. YouTube Is A Private Entity, Not Amenable To Writ Jurisdiction: Rajasthan High Court
Case Title: Dharmender Kumar Sharma v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 90
The Rajasthan High Court on Monday dismissed as non-maintainable, a writ petition seeking various reliefs qua online video sharing platform, YouTube.
Justice Mahendar Kumar Goyal refused to accept the submission of the petitioner that Youtube discharges the functions of a 'State', considering the public nature of the functions it performs.
"There is not a whisper of averment in the entire writ petition as to true nature of functions being discharged by the respondent No.2 (YouTube) or the same being of public importance. In absence of any factual foundation to substantiate the submission that the respondent No.1 has deep and pervasive control over the affairs of the respondent No.2 or it discharges the public functions which are akin to the Government functions, this Court is not persuaded to accept the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner."
Case Title: Shri Labana Gawaria Sikh Samaj Sewa Samiti v. State Of Rajasthan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 91
The Rajasthan High Court has directed Reliance Jio to shift its 4G mobile tower from the existing place to 15-20 feets away from the gate of a Gurudwara within a period of two months. The plea was filed by Shri Labana Gawaria Sikh Samaj Sewa Samiti, Jodhpur through Its Secretary - Kripal Singh Sodhi.
Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur, ordered, "In such circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No. 5 to shift the tower from the existing place to 15-20 feets away from the gate of Gurudwara within a period of two months. It is made clear that except the erection of the tower, no other attachment including generator can be placed near the tower."
Case Title: G.k. Construction Company, Through Its Owner Govind Katariya v. Balaji Makan Samagri Stores, Through Its Proprietor Mallaram Patel
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ra) 92
The Rajasthan High Court observed that if modal auxiliary verbs or imperative words such as 'may', 'should' etc. are followed by the provision/expression prescribing lower bar/limit such as 'minimum', 'not below', etc. then, these words ('may', 'should', etc.) are required to be read as 'shall'.
The court dealt with the question whether the usage of word 'may' in section 148 of Negotiable Instruments Act provides a discretion to the Court to impose or not to impose the condition of depositing minimum 20% of the fine amount.
Section 148 provides that in an appeal by the drawer against conviction under section 138, the Appellate Court may order the appellant to deposit such sum which shall be a minimum of twenty per cent of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial Court.
Case Title: Bot Lal v. State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 93
The Rajasthan High Court has observed that unless the orders of eviction are set aside or stayed in any proceedings, eviction must follow.
Essentially, the present public interest litigation was filed seeking issuance of directions to the authorities to remove encroachments from the disputed land, which, according to the petitioner, was a playground of the school.
A division bench of Justice Madan Gopal Vyas and Justice Manindra Mohan Srivastava, while partly allowing the plea. ruled, "Therefore, subject to any remedy that the aforesaid respondents may have taken against the orders of eviction including order passed in appeal, the State authorities are duty bound to remove them from the land in question as they all suffer orders of eviction passed by an authority constituted under the law. Unless the orders of eviction are set aside or stayed in any proceedings, eviction must follow"
Case Title: Loonkaran v. State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 94
The division bench of Rajasthan High Court ordered that buses shall be seized of those bus operators who are found picking and dropping passengers in violation of relevant rules and regulations framed under the Motor Vehicles Act as also under the local laws.
Essentially, the public interest litigation has been filed praying that instead of making operational bus-stand at the place donated by the petitioner, as per decision already taken, buses are operating from the main road seriously affecting the movement of the vehicles and also giving rise to apprehension of the accidents.
Acting Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Madan Gopal Vyas, ruled, "Those bus-operators, who are found picking and dropping passengers in violation of relevant rules and regulations framed under the Motor Vehicles Act as also under the local laws, shall be proceeded against them and the buses shall be seized. This petition stands disposed off accordingly."
Case Title: Nisha v. State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 95
The Rajasthan High Court, while observing that ShootingBall Federation of India's circuitous affiliation with the Indian Olympic Association through Rajasthan State Olympic Association cannot be recognized, upheld the rejection of petitioner's candidature under Outstanding Sports Person category for appointment for the post of Compounder.
Justice Arun Bhansali, while dismissing the petition, opined that there is no substance in the writ petition and thereby, ruled, "Admittedly, ShootingBall Federation of India is not affiliated to Indian Olympic Association and therefore, it can not be said that the respondents committed any fault in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner as a Outstanding Sports Person. The plea raised, that as the Association is affiliated with the Rajasthan State Olympic Association, which in turn is affiliated to the Indian Olympic Association and therefore, the condition is fulfilled, has been noticed for rejection only, as the stipulation requires direct affiliation and not via/through some other Olympic Association."
Case Title: Chandrakant Jain v. Veermati Jain
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 96
The Rajasthan High Court observed that the husband, who admittedly earns Rs.40,000/- per month, cannot be absolved of his obligation to pay interim maintenance, merely because the wife has chosen to file the application after 36 years of marriage.
Essentially, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the order passed by Gram Nyayalay, Aspur, District Dungarpur ("Trial Court"), whereby the Trial Court had partly allowed the application for interim maintenance filed by the respondent-wife. The Trial Court had directed the petitioner-husband to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month as interim maintenance.
As per the petitioner, the couple got married on 17.02.1976 and have been living separately since 1986.
Justice Dinesh Mehta, while dismissing the petition, opined, "In the opinion of this Court, an order under section 125 of Cr.P.C. is in the nature of interim maintenance and husband, who admittedly earns Rs.40,000/- per month cannot be absolved of his obligation to pay interim maintenance, merely because the respondent – wife has chosen to file the application after 36 years of marriage."
Case Title: Ajit Singh v. State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 97
The Rajasthan High Court has quashed the recommendation of the respondent-state, which rejected a rape convict's application for being sent to Open Air Camp.
The Superintendent of Jail had not recommended the case of the petitioner for being sent to the Open Air Camp as he was of young age and that other convicts are residing in the Camp with their wives and daughters. The Committee also recommended that the convict is not liable to be sent to the Open Air Camp as he is convicted under Section 376 of IPC for which life imprisonment has been awarded to him.
A division bench of Justice Rekha Borana and Justice Sandeep Mehta, opined, "We are of the firm opinion that this observation made by the Committee in the adverse recommendations is absolutely extraneous and unwarranted. Merely because the convict is of young age and other ladies/ girls are living in the Camp, that by itself would not imply that the accused would misbehave with them."
Other Important Updates
Case Title: Miss Ikshita Jain v. Cambridge Court High School
The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur observed that it was expected from the parents to pay necessary fees or at least some installments, if their children are enrolled in private schools which have settled fee structure after Apex Court's decision.
In this matter, petitioners are students of respondent No.1-Cambridge Court High School, which have allegedly deprived the petitioners to write their examination starting from 03.03.2022. Their parents gave several representations to the Authorities and requested to fix the fees as per the directions of the Apex Court, but did not receive any response. It was informed that the District Education Officer also sought explanation from the respondent school, however, no such intimation has been given by them.
Justice Ashok Kumar Gaur, ruled, "The children or their parents, if they have enrolled in private schools and the fees structure after decision of the Apex Court, is settled by the School, it was expected from the parents that the necessary fee or at least some installments, should have been paid by them."
Case Title: Bhagirath Rathore & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
The Rajasthan High Court has, for the time being, refused to pass any order in a writ petition filed by two residents of Rajasthan's Baran district, seeking evacuation of their children stranded in Ukraine, amid Russian invasion. The court observed that a similar issue is pending before the Apex Court.
The plea averred that the petitioners had contacted the National Human Rights Commission to draw their attention to the "heart shaking" problems with their children, but the NHRC instead of providing immediate relief gave 8 weeks' time to the authorities.
However, Justice Ashok Kumar Gaur refused to pass any orders at this stage.
"This Court, in view of pendency of similar issue before the Apex Court, does not intend to pass any order, at this stage."