Allahabad High Court1. Interim Maintenance- Extremely Difficult For Woman To Maintain Herself With ₹1500 Per Month: Allahabad High Court Case title - Sanjeev Rai v. State of U.P. and AnotherCase citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 14Emphasizing that it is the duty and responsibility of the husband to maintain his wife with all dignity, the High Court recently observed that nowadays, it...
Allahabad High Court
Case title - Sanjeev Rai v. State of U.P. and Another
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 14
Emphasizing that it is the duty and responsibility of the husband to maintain his wife with all dignity, the High Court recently observed that nowadays, it is extremely difficult to conceive that a woman would be in a position to maintain her with the amount of Rs. 1500/- per month.
The Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh further remarked that the amount of ₹1500 as interim maintenance is not only a meager amount but also insufficient for the wife to maintain herself.
Case title - Gulfam v. State of U.P. and Another
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 15
The High Court has observed that a Special Judge (E.C. Act)/Additional District and Sessions Judge has jurisdiction to take cognizance of offences under the Electricity Act, 2003 notwithstanding Section 193 of CrPC by virtue of Section 153 of the Electricity Act.
The Bench of Justice Rajeev Misra concluded thus while hearing a Section 482 application filed by one Gulfam challenging the charge sheet filed against him under Sections 135-1(A) Electricity Act [Theft of Electricity] and cognizance taking the order of the Special Judge (E.C. Act)/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad.
Case title - Suresh Yadav @ Suresh Kumar Yadav v State of U.P. and Another
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 16
The High Court granted bail to 2 real brothers who have been accused of committing gang-rape upon a victim as the Court noted that she, after leveling the allegations, never admitted for any medical examination so as to establish the fact of gang rape upon her.
"This is the serious matter wherein the attending circumstances, it is required to establish the authenticity of the allegations. It is mandatory and obligatory on the part of the victim to get herself medically examined so as to substantiate the allegation of rape. It is not her choice to admit or not to admit for the medical examination," the bench of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi observed while granting bail to 2 real brothers/accused.
Case title - Atul Kumar and another v. Election Commission of Bharat
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 17
The High Court refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea filed in the Allahabad High Court seeking postponement of elections for the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly (scheduled to be held in Feb-March 2022) in view of the COVID surge.
The bench of Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi and Justice Narendra Kumar Johari heard the case and after the arguments, the court refused to entertain the PIL and said that reasons for the same shall be recorded later on.
Case title - Anoop Kumar Mishra State Of U P And 8 Others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 18
Observing that the railways' administration has miserably failed in its duty to prevent encroachment over its land, the High Court today issued a slew of directions to eradicate the menace of encroachment over the Railway land.
The Bench of Justice Pritinker Diwaker and Justice Ashutosh Srivastava perceived the encroachment over the Railway land as a menace/hindrance to development which ultimately results in the average Indian citizen being deprived of better amenities and experiences.
Case title - Rajneesh Kumar Gupta Second Bail v. U.O.I. Through Intelligence Officer N.C.B. Lucknow
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 19
While granting bail to an accused booked under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, the High Court recently imposed directed him to deposit a bank draft of ₹5 Lacs in the account of 'Army Battle Casualty Welfare Fund'.
The Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh has asked the accused, Rajneesh Kumar Gupta to deposit the said amount and submit a receipt thereof before the trial Court.
7. Magistrate Can 'Monitor' An Investigation In Exercise Of Power U/S 156(3) CrPC: Allahabad High Court
Case title - Satyaprakash v. State Of U.P And 6 Others
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 20
The High Court has observed that the Magistrate has the power to monitor investigation in the exercise of his power under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
The Bench of Justice Anjani Kumar Mishra and Justice Deepak Verma observed thus while referring to Supreme Court's 2016 ruling in the case of Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe Vs. Hemant Yashwant Dhage, (2016) 6 SCC 277, wherein it was explicitly observed that a person aggrieved with the way investigation being done in a matter, can move an application before the Magistrate under section 156 (3) CrPC as the Magistrate is empowered to even monitor an investigation under the said provision
Case title - Najeeruddin v. State of U.P
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 21
The High Court rejected the reference made to it to confirm the death penalty awarded to an accused in connection with a rape and murder case and directed the Sessions Court to conduct a retrial in the matter.
The Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Sameer Jain was dealing with the appeal of one Najeeruddin, who had been held guilty of murdering 3 persons from the same family and also raping a minor girl.
Important Weekly Updates From the High Court/UP courts
The High Court today concluded the final hearing in the bail plea filed by Ashish Mishra, prime accused in the Lakhimpur Kheri incident. Appearing for him, Senior Counsel GD Chaturvedi argued that Mishra was not driving the car which allegedly mowed down farmers/protestors on October 3, 2021.
Restoring a suo moto case registered in the year 2020, the High Court last week extended the life of all interim orders passed by the High Court and courts subordinate to it, including the Tribunals till February 28, 2022, in light of the Covid-19 situation in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
A letter petition has been filed before the High Court alleging that Allahabad, Allahabad, Mangla Prasad Tripathi was cremated without proper investigation by the police department on January 18, 2022, and further seeking CBI inquiry into the matter.
The letter petition has been moved by Advocates, Gaurav Dwivedi, Rajneesh Kumar Singh, O.P. Singh, Saurabh Singh, Rohit Pandey and Prabhakar Jaiswal, who all are currently practicing at the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.
4. Step-Motherly Treatment Being Given To 'Sanskrit' Language In Uttar Pradesh: Allahabad High Court
Case title - Badri Nath Tripathi v. State Of U.P. Through Its Secretary, And 4 Others
The High Court has observed that in the State of Uttar Pradesh, the state is giving stepmotherly treatment to the Sanskrit Language and further, sought a response from the UP Government as to why it is not creating a regular post of Sanskrit Teacher in the state.
The bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal observed thus as it noted that in the state of UP, no post of Lecturer (Sanskrit) has been sanctioned and the Lecturer appointed for teaching Hindi, having studied in High School, Intermediate and in Graduation with subject 'Sanskrit', is being made to teach Sanskrit.
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Smt. Peddisetti Anitha Sree @ Yenepalli Anitha Sree v. The State of Andhra Pradesh
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 4
Justice Ninala Jayasurya of Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a married daughter is also entitled to compassionate appointment. Her marital status will not be a bar to claim the welfare scheme based on the facts and circumstances. This Writ Petition was filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the proceedings in rejecting the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, to quash the same and for consequential direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner, in any suitable post, on compassionate grounds.
Case Title: Thammisetti Narasimha Rao Versus The State of AP
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 5
The Andhra Pradesh Court recently ruled that in a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C the Court cannot appreciate the evidence on record in exercise of its inherent powers. The Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the CrPC, 1973 was filed seeking to quash the charge sheet. The petitioner who was one of the accused was undergoing prosecution for the offences punishable under Section 498A r/w 34 IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
Case Title: Marri Gopi v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 6
The High Court ruled that the action of the police in continuing the rowdy sheet when the petitioner is acquitted in sole crime registered against him is unconstitutional. Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy relied on his recent order in Tadiboyina Peraiah v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, W.P. No. 24672 of 2020 wherein the Court held that:
"when in a sole crime that was registered against the petitioner, he was acquitted and no other crime was registered against him and when there is no material on record placed by the police to show that the activities of the petitioner are prejudicial to the interest of the public and that no person is coming forward to complain against him, that the continuation of rowdy sheet in the said facts and circumstances of the case, is not sustainable under law."
Case Title: T. Mahaboob Basha Versus Dowlath Bee
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 7
The High Court stated that the plaint cannot be rejected under an application filed by defendant in Order VII Rule 11, CPC if none of the clauses set out under Order VII Rule 11 are applicable to the pleadings strictly mentioned in the plaint.
Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-paper, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff
Other Developments:
A writ petition has been filed before the Andhra Pradesh High Court challenging the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act, pertaining to cancellation of FCRA certificate. The petition seeks declaration that Sections 14(1) (d), 14(3) and 15 of Foreign Contribution Regulation Act, 2010 and Rule 15 of the Foreign Contribution Regulation Rules, 2011 are ultra vires Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution and consequently for quashing of the aforementioned provisions as null and void.
Bombay High Court
Case : Renuka & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 10
Sixteen years after the Supreme Court upheld the death penalty of half-sisters Renuka Shinde and Seema Gavit for kidnapping 13 children and murdering at least five of them, the Bombay High Court has commuted their sentence to life imprisonment, due to the 7 years, 10 months and 15 days delay in deciding their mercy petitions.
"Despite this legal position only due to the casual approach of the officers of the respondent state (Maharashtra) the mercy petitions were not decided…Though the procedure for deciding mercy petitions mandates speed and expediency the state machinery showed indifference and laxity at each stage. That it took seven years only for the movement of files of such a grave issue is unacceptable when electronic communications were available to be used."
Case Details: Mulchand Dhanji Shah & Anr. V. Mr. Noordam Iraj Ahmad & Ors., First Appeal No. 1005/2019 (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 11
The Bombay High Court ruled that lack of evidence supporting the income of the deceased does not justify ascertaining notional income at the minimum tier of wage in determining compensation.
It partly allowed an order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mumbai, in an appeal against the compensation awarded to kin of a deceased of a motor accident.
4. Transfer Of Tenancy Does Not Amount To Creation Of New Tenancy: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Alice Realities Pvt Ltd v State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 12
A Bench of Justices G.S.Patel and Madhav J.Jamdar of the Bombay High Court observed that the transfer of tenancy would not amount to the creation of a "new" tenancy under the MHADA Act and Development Control Regulations, 1991.
The Court held that in cases of mere transfer of tenancy, which is not the same as creation of new tenancy, the prohibition in DCR 33 (7) and Appendix-III would not apply. It also holds that the only concern under the Rent Act and DC Regulations should be whether a new tenancy has been created and not whether the entities which have acquired tenancy are connected to one another.
Case Title: Smt. Harvinder Kaur Vishakha Singh vs Tarvinder Singh K. Singh
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Bom) 13
The Bombay High Court directed an employer to compensate the kin of a truck driver, observing that the stress and strain caused during his employment had ultimately led to his demise.
Justice NJ Jamadar held that the deceased driver's heart attack could be termed an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, as contemplated under Section 3 of the Workman's Compensation Act.
"I am persuaded to hold that in the facts of the instant case, the death of the deceased can be said to have been accelerated on account of the stress and strain associated with the long distance driving for almost 18 days in trying circumstances. Any other view of the matter would defeat the beneficial object of the provisions contained in Section 3 of the Employees Compensation Act,1923."
Case Title: Murli Industries Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors.
Citation: 2022 Live Law (Bom) 14
The Bombay High Court ruled that no statutory authority, including the Income Tax authorities, can raise a fresh claim against a Corporate Debtor after the Resolution Plan was finalized and approved.
A division bench of Justices Sunil Shukre and Anil Pansare of the Nagpur Bench of High Court observed that entertaining undecided claims after the Resolution Plan was submitted, would lead to uncertainty about the amount payable by the prospective Resolution Applicant who would've successfully taken over the business of the Corporate Debtor.
Case Title - Mosa Anand Rajulu vs. M/s. V. Ships Monaco and Another
Citation – 2022 LiveLaw(Bom) 15
An unregistered agreement between an employer and employee cannot be enforced to seek more compensation than what is already prescribed for cases of disability under the Employees Compensation Act 1923 (ECA), the Bombay High Court held.
"Section 29 thus reinforces the principle that compensation is required to be paid in accordance with provisions of the Act, 1923, save and except in a case where the agreement is registered under section 28," the court held.
Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Ahamadur Rahaman v. State of West Bengal and Ors
The Calcutta High Court sought response from the State government in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition seeking the establishment of Special Courts which would deal exclusively with offences under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) pursuant to the directions issued by Supreme Court in the case of Thana Singh v. Central Bureau of Narcotics. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj was apprised by the counsel appearing for the High Court administration that despite the directions issued by the Supreme Court vide order dated January 23, 2013, till date no effort has been made by the State government to establish such Special Courts for exclusively trying offences under the NDPS Act.
Case Title: Mousumi Roy v. The West Bengal State Election Commission & Ors and other connected matters
The Calcutta High Court recently declined a plea to initiate suo moto proceedings against Advocate General S.N Mookherjee for purportedly 'misleading the Court' by making an incorrect averment that a Bill passed in the West Bengal assembly to bifurcate Howrah Municipal Corporation into Howrah Municipal Corporation and Bally Municipality had received the assent of the Governor of West Bengal. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Kesang Doma Bhutia observed, "Having regard to the fact that a bona fide mistake of making incorrect statement was made by the learned Advocate General, we are not inclined to initiate the suo moto proceedings against the Advocate General or any other authority." The Court was adjudicating upon a batch of petitions questioning as to why the Howrah Municipal Corporation has been excluded from the election schedule notified on December 28, 2021.
Case Title: Aminuddin Khan v. Union of India and other connected matters
The Calcutta High Court sought response from the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) in a batch of petitions pertaining to the incident of alleged firing by CISF personnel on April 10, 2021, at Sitalkuchi in Cooch Behar district during the West Bengal Assembly polls which claimed the lives of four persons. The petitions alleged that the incident was a result of police firing in the course of electioneering. As a result, an independent probe into the matter had been sought. Consequently, the investigation had been transferred to West Bengal's Criminal Investigation Department (CID). On the previous date of hearing, a Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj had taken on record the interim status report filed by West Bengal's Criminal Investigation Department (CID) on the ongoing investigation. "Learned Additional Solicitor General has also raised a preliminary ground about maintainability of the petition by submitting that the petitioners are residing about 600 kilometers away from the place of incident and they have sworn in their affidavit on the basis of their personal knowledge which is incorrect. He is permitted to raise objection about maintainability in the affidavit-in-opposition, which may be filed before the next date of hearing", the Court recorded in its order.
Case Title: Amit Kumar Das and Ors v. State of West Bengal
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 5
The Calcutta High Court directed the District Magistrate, Purba Medinipur to conduct an enquiry into the alleged defalcation of funds allocated under the Pradhan Mantri Awaas Yojana and also the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) scheme. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj was adjudicating upon a plea alleging misappropriation of funds allocated under the aforementioned schemes. Furthermore, the Bench was apprised that the funds had not only been misappropriated but that payments have been shown to be made to deceased persons and those who are in custody. "Hence, we dispose of the present petition by directing the respondent no.2/District Magistrate, Purba Medinipur to duly consider the petitioners' representation in accordance with law and conduct enquiry after giving opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties and take an appropriate decision in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order", the Bench directed.
Case Title: Bagaria Properties and Investment Pvt. Ltd. & Anr v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 6
The Calcutta High Court allowed a batch of writ petitions seeking quashing of impugned re-assessment notices issued post March 31, 2021 by the concerned Income Tax Authority under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Justice Md. Nizamuddin was adjudicating upon a batch of petitions challenging the impugned notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground that the same are barred by limitation and that the concerned Income Tax Authority had not complied with statutory formalities under Section 148 A of the Income Tax Act as prescribed by the Finance Act, 2021 which are applicable with effect from April 1, 2021 before issuance of such notices. Setting aside the impugned re-assessment notices, the Court observed, "All the impugned notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act are quashed with liberty to the Assessing Officers concerned to initiate fresh re-assessment proceedings in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act as amended by Finance Act, 2021 and after making compliance of the formalities as required by the law." The Court further observed, "Respectfully agreeing with the reasonings and views taken by the Allahabad High Court, Rajasthan High Court and Delhi High Court in the cases referred hereinabove, all these Writ Petitions herein are disposed of by allowing the same. Explanations A(a)(ii)/A(b) to the Notifications dated 31st March, 2021 and 27th April, 2021 are declared to be ultra vires the Relaxation Act, 2020 and are therefore bad in law and null and void."
Case Title: The Court On Its Own Motion In Re Monitoring Of Pending Criminal Trials Against MPs and MLAs v. State of West Bengal
The Calcutta High Court took on record an affidavit filed by the High Court administration detailing the status of pending criminal cases against MPs and MLAs in various courts across the State of West Bengal. The Court was hearing suo-motu petition initiated in view of the directions issued by the Supreme Court asking the Chief Justices of the High Courts to formulate an action plan to rationalize the disposal of criminal cases pending against legislators. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj recorded in its order, "The response in the form of affidavit in pursuance to the order dated 15.12.2021 has been filed by the Registrar General today. In that response, it has been disclosed that 244 criminal cases relating to MPs/ MLAs were pending in the State of West Bengal and Union Territory of Andaman & Nicobar Islands as on 31st December, 2021. It has been pointed out that out of these 244 cases there are 130 cases pending in the Special Court at Mayukh Bhawan, Salt Lake City and in other courts of the State 114 cases are pending". Furthermore, the Court observed, "Learned counsel for the High Court Administration has drawn the attention of this Court to the suggestions given in the response relating to the cases not only in the Special Court but in the other Courts of the State. The suggestion relates to appointing the Nodal Officer if any, in the rank of Deputy Commissioner of Police exclusively for this purpose and that timely production of witnesses, expeditious examination of investigating officer and improvement in infrastructural facilities."
Case Title: Farid Mollah v. State of West Bengal and Anr
The Calcutta High Court sought the State government's response in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition the issuance of directions to the State government to ensure garlanding of the statue of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose in District Head Quarters and also to ensure that the tune of Kadam Kadam Badhaye Jaa is played on January 23 (Desh Prem Divas) every year in accordance with its 2011 memorandum. It may be noted that January 23 is also known as Netaji Jayanti as he was born on 23 January 1897. The memorandum stipulated that 'Desh Prem Divas' would be celebrated every year on January 23 by garlanding statutes of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose in the District Head Quarters by the concerned District Magistrates, the Bench was informed further. Taking cognisance of the grievance raised, the Bench directed the counsel appearing for the State to obtain instructions in the matter and apprise the Court within a period of 2 days. "Affidavit of service has been filed by the petitioner. State prays for 2 days time to obtain instructions", the Court recorded in its order.
Case Title: In Re: Matters pending with interim orders in the High Court at Calcutta and Courts subordinate to it including the Tribunals within the State of West Bengal and Union Territory of Andaman & Nicobar Islands during the prevailing COVID-19 situation related non-availability of access to Courts
Restoring a suo moto case registered last year, the Calcutta High Court on Tuesday extended the life of all interim orders passed by the High Court and courts subordinate to it, including the Tribunals till February 28, 2022 in light of the Covid-19 situation in West Bengal. A five-judge Bench of the High Court placed reliance on the order passed by the Supreme Court last week relaxing the limitation period to file cases under all general and special laws across the country till February 28, 2022 in view of the surge in COVID-19 cases. The Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justices TS Sivagnanam, IP Mukerji, Harish Tandon and Tapabrata Chakraborty issued the following directions, " i. The order dated 24th of March, 2020 as modified and continued by the subsequent orders is restored with the condition that interim orders in matters which are subsisting as on today i.e. 17th of January, 2022 and are due to expire on or before 28th of February, 2022 will stand extended till 28th of February, 2022 or until further order of the Court, unless specifically dealt with by any judicial order to the contrary. All parties affected by the continuation of the interim orders will be at liberty to apply for vacating or variation of such orders. This order will also apply to orders pertaining to the Original Side of this Court. ii. Conditional orders of Courts allowing occupation of any premises subject to payment of rent or occupational charges will continue, notwithstanding the non-deposit of rent or occupational charges during the period 17th of January, 2022 till 28th of February, 2022. Similarly, rent or occupation charges not deposited in terms of the rent control legislations will not immediately make the tenant or occupant liable for eviction till 28th of February, 2022 or earlier orders of this Court. iii. All other conditional orders of Courts will continue to remain inoperation until 28th of February, 2022, notwithstanding the nonfulfilment of the conditions imposed. This will apply to nonfulfilment of the conditions for the period from 17th of January, 2022 till 28th of February, 2022 or earlier order of Court."
Case Title: Sumit Roy v. The Union of India & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 7
The Calcutta High Court expressed displeasure at the manner in which the Enforcement Directorate (ED) is investigating a money laundering case linked to the alleged coal scam in West Bengal. The Court was adjudicating upon the plea of Sumit Roy, who is the secretary to All India Trinamool Congress MP Abhishek Banerjee.Roy had challenged the jurisdiction of the Enforcement Directorate to register a case in New Delhi when the offence has been allegedly committed within the territory of West Bengal and a specific case was registered by the CBI in the State. Justice Rajasekhar Mantha on Tuesday was apprised by the petitioner that although he is cooperating with the investigation, not a single summons has been issued to him till date. However, the counsel appearing for the Enforcement Directorate submitted that summons were issued initially asking the petitioner to appear for interrogation at New Delhi. Expressing reservation to such a submission, the Court remarked further, "This Court is unable to appreciate as to why the interrogation cannot be done at Kolkata at least in the interregnum." However, the Court observed that the interim order issued vide order dated November 9, 2021 would continue for a period of 2 months.
Case Title: People For Ethical Treatment Of Animals (PETA) v. State of West Bengal and Ors
The Calcutta High Court directed the State government to frame a policy to address the deplorable condition of horses used to haul tourist carriages near Victoria Memorial in Kolkata. The West Bengal Department of Home Affairs was ordered to place on record such a policy before the next date of hearing which is slated to take place on February 28. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj was adjudicating upon a batch of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petitions moved by PETA India and CAPE Foundation seeking an end to the use of horses for carriage rides near the memorial. "Learned counsel for the State has submitted that he has a meeting with learned counsel for the petitioners after the previous order and suggestions have been received to take care of the miserable conditions of horses near the Victoria Memorial. He submits that the issue has now been referred to the Home Department of the State and a policy decision is required in this regard which will be taken by the Home Department considering all the relevant material", the Bench recorded in its order. The Court adjourned the matter for further hearing on February 28 by directing, "Let the policy so formulated by the State be placed on record before the next date of hearing."
Case Title: Raich Laskar v. State of West Bengal and Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 8
The Calcutta High Court directed the District Magistrate, South 24 Parganas to conduct an enquiry into the alleged misappropriation of funds allocated under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana scheme and pass a reasoned order within a period of 3 months. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj was adjudicating upon a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition alleging that the Facilitator of the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana had allegedly misappropriated funds allocated under the government scheme. "Hence, we dispose of the present writ petition directing the respondent No.2, District Magistrate, South 24 Parganas, to duly consider the petitioner's representation and conduct an enquiry in respect of the allegation made therein and pass a reasoned speaking order and in case if any defalcation is found, then to take an action in accordance with law without any delay. Let this exercise be completed within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order", the Court directed.
Case Title: Pradip Kumar Das v. Partha Ghose & Anr
The Calcutta High Court came down heavily on the District Magistrate, Purba Medinipur for failing to comply with a direction of the Court issued nearly two years ago regarding removal of unauthorized constructions on a public highway. A Bench comprising Chief Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj on Thursday enquired from the counsel appearing for the District Magistrate, Purba Medinipur, "Why has the order of the Court not been complied with even after 2 years?" Accordingly, the Court recorded in its order,"In this view of the matter, we are prima facie of the opinion that the order of this Court has not been complied with." Accordingly, the District Magistrate, Purba Medinipur was directed to place his stand on record before the next date of hearing which is slated to take place on January 27. "Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that there was a clear direction to the respondent District Magistrate, Purba Medinipur to file an affidavit of compliance with the Registrar General within three months of receipt of a copy of this order. He has pointed out that a copy of the order was duly delivered to the District Magistrate, Purba Medinipur on 03.02.2020 and thereafter again on 16.09.2020 but till now neither affidavit of compliance has been filed before the Registrar General of this Court nor the requisite action as stated by the counsel for the State before this Court has been taken", it was further recorded in the order.
Case Title: Suvendu Adhikari v. State of West Bengal
The Calcutta High Court issued a host of directions to address a plea moved by BJP MLA and Leader of the Opposition Suvendu Adhikari alleging that the State government has failed to provide him with adequate security measures and that taking advantage of the loopholes in the security arrangements third parties are continuously infringing upon his privacy. Justice Rajasekhar Mantha underscored, "The respondents shall bear in mind that the petitioner is the Leader of Opposition in the State and is entitled to the same privileges as that of a Cabinet Minister." The Court further affirmed that admittedly the petitioner is mandatorily entitled to "Z" category security. "The placing of CCTV Cameras is essentially and exclusively a matter within the purview of the authorities responsible for the security of the petitioner. The invasion of privacy by reason of the placement of the security cameras must be addressed by the CRPF. The placement of the CCTV Cameras and petitioner's privacy shall be addressed, in a joint meeting between CRPF and the State police", the Court directed. The Court further ordered that there shall be no loudspeakers in and around the residence of the petitioner after 8 p.m. The State was further instructed to come up with appropriate suggestions regarding the concern raised about political rallies, meetings and functions, being held in the vicinity of the petitioner's residence.
Case Title: Durgabala Mandal v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 9
The Calcutta High Court observed in a case that the daughter-in-law is bound by the undertaking given while obtaining a compassionate appointment to maintain and extend medical assistance to the mother-in-law. The Court was adjudicating upon a plea moved by an 80 years old widow (appellant) whose husband had passed away a long time back. Her son Bajadulal Mandal who was working as a Primary School Teacher had also unfortunately passed away on October 14, 2014. Thereafter, the daughter-in-law (respondent no.9) had applied for a compassionate appointment in the school and had also given an undertaking dated July 25, 2016, stating that she will bear the responsibility of maintaining and providing medical assistance to the appellant in the future. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj observed, "Once the respondent no. 9 had obtained the compassionate appointment by giving an undertaking as above to maintain and extend medical assistance to the appellant, then she is bound by that."
Case Title: Radharani Saha v. The State of West Bengal and Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 10
The Calcutta High Court granted police protection to a senior citizen against the alleged harassment perpetrated by her son and daughter-in-law. Justice Rajasekhar Mantha was adjudicating upon a plea moved by a senior citizen, one Radharani Saha seeking the Court's intervention since her complaint of harassment against her son and daughter-in-law had not been addressed by the Dumdum Police Station. Taking cognisane of the grievance raised, the Court directed, "Considering the above, the Officer-in-Charge, Dumdum Police Station shall ensure that there is absolutely no breach of peace in the area and maintain strict vigil in the said premises and address any threat of peace immediately." In the instant case, the Court was informed that the son of the petitioner does not reside with her and further it was informed that there exists a serious matrimonial discord between the petitioner's son and daughter-in-law. It was further submitted that the daughter-in-law had forcefully occupied some portions of the petitioner's residential premises.
Case Title: The Court in its own motion: In re: Overcrowding in prisons
The Calcutta High Court directed the State government to file a detailed affidavit stipulating the status of prisoners with regards to the following concerns- overcrowding in prisons, mental health problems faced by prisoners, and the issue relating to non-functioning of bodies and filing up of vacant posts in prisons across the State. The Court directed such an affidavit to be filed before the next date of hearing which is slated to take place on March 7. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj was adjudicating upon a suo-moto case (In re: Overcrowding in prisons) dealing with the issue related to the manner in which Terminally Ill Prisoners (TIPs) are required to be dealt with. The suo moto case was registered pursuant to a directive issued by the Supreme Court in 2018 the case of Re: Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons. The Court further directed the State government to undertake a fresh exercise to find out the current status of Terminally Ill Prisoners lodged in prisons across the State and duly file a fresh report in this regard before the next date of hearing.
Case Title: Buddhadeb Bhowmick v. The State of West Bengal & Ors
The Calcutta High Court appointed Advocate General S.N Mookherjee to conduct a thorough probe into the case wherein an undertrial had allegedly gone missing from judicial remand at the Presidency Correctional Home. The Court was adjudicating upon a Habeas Corpus Plea filed by one Buddhadeb Bhowmick alleging that his father (an accused in a criminal case) had gone missing from the Presidency Correctional Home just before he was scheduled to be released on bail under the Court's order. A Bench comprising Justices T. S. Sivagnanam and Hiranmay Bhattacharyya observed that an independent person was required to probe into the matter and accordingly remarked, "Considering all these factors, we are of the opinion that an independent person should probe into the matter as the famous the adage goes "that the police cannot be polished". Therefore, we entrust this responsibility to the learned Advocate General of the State of West Bengal." The Bench further opined that in case the Advocate General finds it difficult to probe into the matter on account of his busy schedule, he should nominate an officer in the rank of the Director-General of Police, who does not exercise any control over the correctional home in question. "In our prima facie view, much importance and credence cannot be given to the registers as the registers were in the custody of the Superintendent of the Presidency Correctional Home and his officers. We are not here to say that there has been an insertion but we can always say that there is a good possibility of an insertion being made. Therefore, unless the other records are compared to examine as to whether the stand taken by the respondent is factually correct or not, a conclusion cannot be arrived at", the Bench observed further.
Case Title: Suhana Khatun v. State of West Bengal
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 11
The Calcutta High Court referred to a larger bench the legal issue as to whether an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) at the behest of a juvenile is maintainable. A Bench comprising Justice Arijit Banerjee and Justice Bivas Pattanayak was adjudicating upon an application for anticipatory bail sought by four minors accused of offences under the Indian Penal Code pertaining to wrongful restraint, causing grievous hurt, attempt to murder, and murder. The Bench ruled that sufficient safeguards have been provided to a child in conflict with the law should they be apprehended by the police under the Juvenile Justice Act of 2015 and thus an application for anticipatory bail is not maintainable. "Taking into consideration the safeguards provided under the 2015 Act and in the light of the legal position that a child in conflict with law cannot be arrested, the question of granting bail in anticipation of arrest of a child in conflict with law does not arise at all. In the 2015 enactment the legislature did not, consciously, empower the police to arrest a child in conflict with law. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that an application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code at the instance of a child in conflict with law is not maintainable," the Bench observed.
Case Title: Pabitra Rajbanshi and Ors v. The Chief Secretary, Government of West Bengal and Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 12.
The Calcutta High Court directed the District Magistrate, Malda to conduct a probe into alleged irregularities and defalcations in the funds allocated under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act 2005 (MGNREGA) scheme in the Gazole Development Block. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj was adjudicating upon a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition wherein it had been alleged that there has been embezzlement of huge public money in respect of funds allocated under the MGNREGA scheme. "Having regard to the nature of allegation, we are of the opinion that the respondent No.6, District Magistrate, Malda should look into the matter. Hence, we dispose of the present petition with direction to the respondent No.6 to conduct an enquiry in respect of the allegations contained in legal notice dated 14.01.2021 and if the allegations are found to be correct, then to take an action against the erring officers/parties in accordance with law", the Bench directed.
Chhattisgarh High Court
Case title - Jyoti Nair and others v. State of Chhattisgarh and others
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Chh) 2
Stressing that the Police are one of the most ubiquitous organisations of the society, the Chhattisgarh High Court recently observed that the police are expected to be the most accessible, interactive and dynamic organisation of any society.
The Bench of Justice Rajani Dubey further emphasized that in an hour of need, danger, crisis, and difficulty, when a citizen does not know, what to do and whom to approach, the police station and a policeman happen to be the most appropriate and approachable unit and person for him.
Case Title : Khuku Biswas v State of Chattisgarh
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Chh) 3
The High Court has held that self-preservation is a facet of the right to health, a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Directing the authority to consider the request of the petitioner for post-facto medical reimbursement, Justice Sanjay Kumar Agarwal held that the provisions relating to reimbursement of medical treatment have to be construed liberally.
The Court held that "right to health" includes "right to affordable treatment" and that "the provisions relating to reimbursement of medical treatment has to be construed liberally".
1. Look Out Circular Curbs Right To Travel, Should Be Issued Only In Exceptional Circumstances & On Cogent Reasons: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Vikas Chaudhary v. Union of India & Ors.;
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 21
The Delhi High Court has held that the State was unjustified in restricting an individual's right to travel abroad by issuance of a Look Out Circular when it could not establish any evidence that the right would be 'detrimental to the economic interests of India'.
Justice Rekha Palli was hearing a Writ Petition filed by a businessperson of garment manufacturing based in Delhi to quash a Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against him by the Respondents, the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Income Tax Department.
The Court noted that the LOC had remained in force for almost three years, during which period, the respondents have admittedly not taken any further action against the petitioner.
2. Look Out Circular Curbs Right To Travel, Should Be Issued Only In Exceptional Circumstances & On Cogent Reasons: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Union of India v. Hemant Kumar
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 22
The Delhi High Court has clarified that the extension of limitation by the Supreme Court would apply to decisions rendered by the Authorities under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
While hearing an appeal filed against an order of the Appellate Authority which had dismissed an appeal filed by the Petitioner on the ground that the appeal was barred by limitation, Justice Pratibha M Singh clarified that the extension of limitation by an order of the Supreme Court dated 23.09.2021 would apply to decisions of the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act.
It further directed that the same be communicated to all the other authorities under the Act, so that the benefit of the computation of the period of limitation is extended to all and multiplicity of proceedings as has happened in the present case is avoided.
3. Permitting Use Of Illegally Intercepted Conversations In Court Would Violate Citizens' Fundamental Rights: Delhi High Court
Case Title: JATINDER PAL SINGH v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 23
The Delhi High Court has observed that if illegally intercepted messages or audio conversations pursuant to an order having no sanction of law are permitted, it would lead to manifest arbitrariness and would promote scant regard to the procedure and fundamental rights of the citizens.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh thus set aside two orders passed by Special Judge which had framed charges against one Jatinder Pal Singh in 2012 in a case registered by CBI, on the basis of evidence gathered through such illegal means.
The case alleged that there was a criminal conspiracy with the object to show favor qua recognition of the courses and grant of permission pertaining to Gian Sagar Medical College and Hospital, Patiala as mandated by the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and the relevant MCI Regulation and Rules for admission into 4th year of the MBBS course for the academic session 2011-2012.
4. Insurance Company Can't Avoid Liability If Offending Vehicle Is Stolen & Unauthorisedly Driven By Someone Else: Delhi High Court
Case Title: UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD v. SMT ANITA DEVI AND ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 24
The Delhi High Court has observed that the insurance company cannot avoid it's liability of compensating the deceased's family, even if the offending vehicle was stolen and was being unauthorisedly driven by someone else.
Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva added that in order to avoid the liability, the insurer must establish that there was a willful breach on the part of the insured.
Accordingly, the Court upheld the order passed by the Tribunal which had directed the insurance company pay the compensation amount and recover the same from the driver who had stolen the vehicle.
5. "Sending Photograph Of Summons Through WhatsApp Not Overreach Of Judicial System": Delhi High Court
Case Title: ICICI BANK LIMITED v. RASHMI SHARMA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 25
The Delhi High Court has set aside an order passed by a Commercial Court to the extent of issuing a show cause notice of criminal contempt after a plaintiff had sent the photograph of summons to the defendant through WhatsApp.
The Court said that the same cannot amount to overreaching the judicial system or running a parallel system with the judicial system.
Justice Amit Bansal was dealing with a plea challenging the Commercial Court order wherein notice was directed to be issued to the ICICI Bank Ltd., the petitioner, through the Chairman, as to why criminal contempt should not be initiated against him for overreaching the process of the Court.
Also Read: Subordinate Courts Can't Assume Jurisdiction & Issue Contempt Notices, Power Rests With HC Alone: Delhi High Court
6. "Complete Forgery Of Documents": Delhi High Court On UP Police Manipulating Records Following Illegal Arrest
Case Title: Teenu & Anr. v. GNCTD
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 26
The Delhi High Court has rapped the Uttar Pradesh police for "complete forgery of documents" regarding place of arrest of two individuals who were family members of a man, who had married a woman against her family's wishes.
The father and brother of the man, who married a woman against her family's wishes, were arrested by the UP Police for kidnapping. The couple, a major, claimed to have married out of their own free will. They alleged that the arrests were made from their residence in Delhi, without informing the Delhi Police.
The Uttar Pradesh government had earlier informed the Court that it had suspended the concerned SHO and Sub Inspector and that a SIT was formed to probe the matter.
7. 'Magnitude Of Offence Can't Be Only Criterion For Denial Of Bail': Delhi High Court Grants Relief To Accused In Hello Taxi Scam Case
Case Title: Surendra Singh Bhati v. State (NCT of Delhi) and other connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 27
While granting bail to two men accused of a multi-crore scam, the Delhi High Court recently observed that the magnitude of the offence cannot be the only criterion for denial of bail.
Justice Subramonium Prasad observed,
"The object of bail is to secure the presence of the accused at the time of trial; this object is, thus, neither punitive nor preventative, and a person who has not been convicted should only be kept in custody if there are reasons to believe that they might flee from justice or tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses."
8. 'Can't Enact Laws': Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking 'One Person One Tree' Policy For Sustainable Development
Case Title: Rahul Bhardwaj v. State, WP (C) 14483/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 28
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation seeking sustainable development in the national capital, by formulation of a 'One Person One Tree' policy.
Noting that the subject matter of drafting policies lies exclusively within the domain of the legislature, the Division Bench comprising of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh dismissed the petition. It observed,
" It ought to be kept in mind that predominant role of this court is to interpret the law and not enact the law, except in exceptional cases. Drafting of policy is within the domain of the Respondent. Hence, no case is made out by the Petitioner for issuing a writ of mandamus for drafting a policy."
9. Letters Patent Appeal Against Division Bench Order Not Tenable In Law: Delhi High Court Imposes Cost
Case Title: Shafiq Khan & Ors. v. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 29
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a Letters Patent Appeal, filed against an order passed by the division bench, with Rs. 5,000 cost.
The Bench comprising of Chief Justice D. N. Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh made it clear that a "LPA against a division bench order is not tenable in law."
"File the appropriate remedy. A Special Leave Petition or whatever recourse is permissible in law," it orally told the Appellant.
The observation was made in appeal filed against an order dated 12.10.21 passed by the bench in Yuva Sangharsh Samiti v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors., WP(C) 6649/2021.
10. Unilateral Appointment Of Arbitrator Not Permissible: NTPC Loses To Its Contracting Party In Delhi High Court
Case Title: ENVIRAD PROJECTS PVT. LTD. v. NTPC LTD.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 30
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that no single party can be permitted to unilaterally appoint an Arbitrator, as it would defeat the purpose of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, i.e., unbiased adjudication of dispute between the parties.
Accordingly, Justice Suresh Kumar Kait dismissed a unilateral arbitral clause imposed by NTPC, a Public Sector Undertaking, in its contract with the petitioner-company for a power project.
The Court held that the power to appoint an arbitrator in such a circumstance devolves on the Court.
11. Constitutional Duty Of Court To Prevent Arbitrary Deprivation Of Personal Liberty By Excess Of State Power: High Court In Delhi Riots Case
Case Title: Mohd. Tahir & other connect bail pleas v. State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 31
"It is the Constitutional duty of the Court to ensure that there is no arbitrary deprivation of personal liberty in the face of excess of State power," observed the Delhi High Court while granting bail to 6 accused persons in a riots case.
Justice Subramonium Prasad granted bail to Mohd. Tahir, Shahrukh, Mohd. Faizal, Mohd. Shoaib, Rashid and Parvez in a case alleging that a mob caused vandalism, put on fire a sweet shop as a consequence of which a 22 year old boy namely Dilbar Negi died after sustaining burn injuries. (FIR 39/2020 PS Gokulpuri)
12. Filling Of Claim Before IRP Does Not Absolve Director From Liability Under Settlement Decree Signed In Personal Capacity: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Naresh Kumar Gupta v. Satya Pal & Ors., CM (M) 66/2022 and connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 32
The Delhi High Court recently observed that filling of claim before Interim Resolution Professional ('IRP') does not absolve the Director from his liability under a Decree when he is party in person as well.
The Petitioner, Managing Director of company Shree Shyam Pulp and Board Mills Ltd. had signed a Settlement Agreement where he and the Company were jointly described as "the second party".
The Agreement was to fix non-payment of rent by the Company and vacate the lease premises. When the Company failed to vacate the premises, the Landlords filed execution petitions.
13. Woman Marries Against Wishes Of Parents: High Court Directs Delhi Police To Provide Safe Travel Passage For Uniting Her With Husband
Title: NEMI CHAND GOD v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 33
The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Police to provide a safe travel passage to a woman who had married a man against the wishes of her family. The husband was employed in Chennai.
Uniting the woman with her husband, Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Anup J. Bhambhani took note of the fact that both were major individuals and that the woman had married with her own free will and volition, although against the wishes of her parents.
The Court also took note of the marriage certificate dated November 22, 2021 issued by an Arya Samaj Mandir as an evidence of their marriage.
Title: MOHIT BANSAL v. INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 34
The Delhi High Court has observed that there is a clear need for the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India to create a framework wherein there is proper disclosure by candidates who apply to become Chartered Accountants, at the inception itself.
Justice Pratibha M Singh said that there is also a need for a continuing disclosure, may be on an annual basis for members to inform the ICAI if there are any criminal cases or conviction against them, so that the ICAI is not kept in the dark.
"The power, discretion and duty of ensuring the purity of the Register of Members is upon the ICAI. Thus, in the case of convictions, the factum of the said conviction and the offences qua which the applicant was convicted ought to be disclosed," the Court said.
15. Woman Marries Against Wishes Of Parents: High Court Directs Delhi Police To Provide Safe Travel Passage For Uniting Her With Husband
Case Title: THE STATE, GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI v. UNIQUE IDENTIFICATION AUTHORITY OF INDIA (UIDAI)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 35
The Delhi High Court has directed the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) to disclose information of over 400 aadhar card holders who were allegedly issued fake aadhar card certificates for the purpose of enrolment in civil defence training in the city.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh was dealing with a case wherein the investigation revealed that in the year 2019, the then District Magistrate of Shahdara, along with others public servants had committed criminal misconduct by abusing their official position with an ulterior motive to give benefit to ineligible persons, approximately 450 candidates with fake Aadhar Cards who had enrolled for training in Civil Defence.
The case emerged after a complaint was received by city's Anti Corruption Branch alleging that the manner of recruitment of marshals for DTC buses was illegal. It was alleged that the recruitment process was manipulated by the District Magistrate who had issued fake certificates, certifying as Delhi residents for making Aadhaar Cards, to over 400 people from his home state of Rajasthan.
16. S. 37 NDPS Act| Court's Prima Facie Satisfaction In Favour Of Accused Must Be Based On 'Reasonable Grounds': Delhi High Court
Case Title: PRAMOD v. STATE OF NCT DELHI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 36
The Delhi High Court has observed that while granting bail under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, a Court must have "reasonable grounds" to believe prima facie innocence of the accused and that the accused will not commit a similar offense while on bail.
Section 37 of the Act deals with classification of the offences contained within the Act and provides for cases where bail can be granted to the accused person. It provides dual conditions for bail in case of certain offences: one, prima facie opinion of the innocence of the accused and two, the accused will not commit a similar offense while on bail.
17. S. 37 NDPS Act| Court's Prima Facie Satisfaction In Favour Of Accused Must Be Based On 'Reasonable Grounds': Delhi High Court
Title: FLICK STUDIOS PVT. LTD v. GRAVITY ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 37
The Delhi High Court has held that unsigned invoices can be a valid basis to file suit under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Order 37 of the Code talks about summary procedure and institution of summary suits.
Justice Amit Bansal was dealing with a petition challenging the order dated 12th October, 2021 passed by the District Judge of the Saket Courts whereby the commercial suit filed on behalf of the petitioner was converted from a suit under Order XXXVII of the CPC to an ordinary suit for recovery.
This was done on the ground that the invoices raised by the petitioner on the respondent did not bear the signatures of either parties.
IMPORTANT WEEKLY UPDATES
1. Marital Rape - Expectation Of Sexual Relations Cannot Lead To Husband Having Forcible Sex With Wife: Rebecca John To Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court this week continued hearing a batch of petitions challenging the exception to Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, which exempts forceful sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife from the offence of rape.
Senior Advocate Rebecca John appearing as amicus curiae in the matter told a bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice C Hari Shankar that expectation of sexual relations in a marriage cannot lead to a husband having forcible sex with his wife.
Adding that both the parties in a marriage may have expectations of conjugal relations, however, John argued that such expectation cannot result in the husband having forcible sex with wife.
Also Read: Marital Rape - Removal Of Exception From Sec 375 IPC Will Uphold Woman's Bodily Integrity: Rebecca John To Delhi High Court
Also Read: Marital Rape| 'Consent' An Implicit Condition In Exceptions To S. 375 IPC: Amicus Curiae Rebecca John To Delhi High Court
Also Read: Marital Rape - Striking Off Exception To Sec 375 IPC Won't Amount To Court Creating A New Offence : Amicus To Delhi HC
Also Read: Marital Rape : Are There Precedents Of Courts Striking Down A Provision To Create An Offence? Delhi High Court Asks
2. Delay In Constitution Of State Consumer Welfare Fund Is A Violation Of Statute, Causing Inconvenience To Public At Large: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has observed that the delay in constitution of State Consumer Welfare Fund is a violation of the statute which is causing inconvenience to the public at large.
Perusing the status report as well as the correspondence exchanged between the Delhi Government and the Centre, Justice Manmohan and Justice Navin Chawla observed thus:
"…it seems that none of the parties is cognizant of the fact that the State Consumer Welfare Fund is a statutory fund which is urgently required to be incorporated."
It added:
"Delay in its constitution is a violation of the statute and is causing inconvenience to public at large. The stop gap arrangements now suggested by GNCTD in its status report is not sanctioned by the statute and cannot be countenanced by the Court."
3. Delay In Constitution Of State Consumer Welfare Fund Is A Violation Of Statute, Causing Inconvenience To Public At Large: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court will hear on February 3, a plea filed by Delhi State Legal Services Authority (DSLSA) seeking recovery of Rs. 20 lakh cost imposed on Bollywood actress and environmentalist Juhi Chawla and others dismissing their civil suit against 5G Roll out as being defective and not maintainable.
Hearing in the execution petition, which was listed before Justice Amit Bansal, was deferred after the counsel appearing on behalf of Chawla apprised the Court that an appeal against dismissal of the said suit is pending before a division bench and the same is to come for hearing next on January 25.
4. "Liberty Of Individuals Gets Hampered": Delhi High Court Expresses Concern Over Non-Filing Of Status Reports In Bail Pleas
The Delhi High Court has expressed its concern over the non filing of status reports by the concerned officers in the pending bail applications, orally remarking that delay in the same hampers the liberty of an individual.
Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri was hearing two matters wherein the Court had earlier adjudicated upon the aspect of filing of status reports by the prosecuting agencies so as to ensure that there is no delay in the same. Earlier, the Court was informed that necessary sensitization programmes of the Investigating Officers with respect to timely filing of Status Reports had been carried out.
5. District Courts Expected To Follow Orders Regarding Virtual & Hybrid Hearings In Letter & Spirit: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has said that it expects the judicial officers of the district and sessions courts to follow the order passed by it regarding holding of virtual and hybrid hearings in letter and spirit.
A Bench of Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh also said that all such courts should keep their weblinks open on every working day from the start of the Court functioning i.e. 10 AM till such Court holds its sittings, so that any counsel or party wishing to join virtually is able to join the proceedings even without any prior intimation.
6. VVIP Chopper Scam: Delhi High Court Inquires How Christian Michel's Presence Can Be Secured If He Is Released On Bail
The Delhi High Court this week inquired from the CBI how the presence of Christian James Michel, accused in the Rs 3,600 crore AgustaWestland Chopper Scam, can be secured in case he is released on bail.
Justice Manoj Ohri asked CBI's counsel DP Singh to submit, without prejudice to his arguments on merits, the bail conditions that can be imposed on Michel. The development ensued during hearing of the British national's bail plea.
7. "Redevelopment Activity Falling In Disrepair, Bus Stop Converted Into Vending Zone": Delhi High Court On Chandni Chowk Encroachment
The Delhi High Court this week expressed its concern over the rampant illegal encroachment by the hawkers and vendors in city's Chandni Chowk area. It remarked that the redevelopment activity of the area is already 'falling in disrepair'.
A Bench of Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh was dealing with a plea concerning illegal encroachments in Chandni Chowk area, being a no hawking and no vending zone.
8. Uphaar Tragedy- Should Ansal Brothers Be Out During Pendency Of Appeal When A Court Has Already Found Them Guilty?: Delhi HC
The Delhi High Court this week continued the hearing in the plea filed by real estate barons Sushil Ansal and Gopal Ansal, seeking suspension of their seven-year jail terms in the evidence tampering case in connection with the Uphaar fire tragedy that happened in the year 1997.
During the course of the hearing, the Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad stressed that the instant case related to the tampering with the evidence inside the court and that too, by the persons who belong to rich and powerful strata of society.
Gujarat High Court
1. Gujarat High Court Issues Notice To Centre On PIL Seeking Establishment Of NCLAT Bench At Ahmedabad
Case title - AHMEDABAD NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL PRACTITIONERS ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA
The High Court issued a notice to the Central Government on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea filed seeking the establishment of a circuit/regional bench National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Ahmedabad as per the Supreme Court's order. The Bench of Chief Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Ashutosh J. Shastri was hearing the plea filed by the Ahmedabad National Company Law Tribunal Practitioners Association through its chairman Mihir J. Thakore.
The High Court sought assurance, by way of an affidavit, from the Central Board Of Direct Taxes (CBDT) that they would attend to the problems of the assessees who are unable to file Tax Audit Reports and Income Tax Returns due to the technical glitches in the IT Portal. The Bench of Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice Nisha M. Thakore was hearing the plea filed by Vikash Jain and Southern Gujarat Income Tax Bar association who sought a waiver of interest u/s 234A of IT Act (levied for delay in filing the return of incomes) and also permission to allow the physical filing of returns and audit reports due to the technical glitch.
Other Developments:
The car of the Chief Justice, when it was entering the High Court (premises), there were about 10-12 cattle which had blocked the road. Even police whistling could not move them, they stood like a rock," remarked the Gujarat High Court Chief Justice, Aravind Kumar while inquiring the state as to what it has done for cattle nuisance menace.
Gauhati High Court
Case title - Bablu Paul @ Sujit Paul v. The Union of India
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Gau) 1
Setting aside an order of a Foreigner's Tribunal which had declared a Hindu Man, who had migrated from erstwhile East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) as a Foreigner, the Gauhati High Court recently directed him to apply for citizenship by taking benefit of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019.
This order came from the Bench of Justice N. Kotiswar Singh and Justice Malasri Nandi which was hearing the plea of one Bablu Paul who had moved the Court challenging the 2017 order of the Foreigners' Tribunal-II of declaring him as a foreigner.
Case Title: Md. Maynul v. Union of India
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Gau) 2
The High Court set aside an order passed by a Foreigners' Tribunal declaring a resident of Jorgah village, Sonitpur as a foreigner after noting that the concerned Tribunal had earlier declared him to be an Indian citizen but had subsequently passed an ex-parte order declaring him to be a foreigner. A Bench comprising Justices Kotiswar Singh and Malashri Nandi set aside the impugned ex-parte order and remanded the matter back to the concerned Foreigners' Tribunal. Accordingly, the Tribunal was directed to first determine as to whether the petitioner is the same person who had earlier been declared as an Indian Citizen
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 4
Quashing a blanket order issued by the State against promotion of its employees, the Jharkhand High Court rebuked the State for its discriminatory and callous approach in employing the pick and choose method.
Directing the State to consider the petitioners for promotion forthwith, Justice S.N. Pathak observed, "The discriminatory and callous approach of the State is not praiseworthy rather it is not accepted in a welfare State. Pick and choose methods adopted by the State is hereby deprecated. On several occasions these cases were adjourned on the ground that the State is going to withdraw blanket order of stay but even after granting several adjournment, no such affidavit was filed which itself is clear and speaks volume about action of the State."
Case Title: National Insurance Company, Ramgarh v. Kulsum Khatoon & Anr
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 5
The High Court has set aside a decision of the Commissioner which awarded compensation for the murder of a truck driver on duty under the under the Employees Compensation Act. Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary observed that accidental death during the course of employment is the sine qua non for the award of compensation under Section 3 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923. However, it was of the view that murder of a driver on duty is not an accident that is proximate to his nature of employment.
Case Title: Aditya Isha Prachi Tirkey v. The Jharkhand Public Service Commission & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 6
The High Court refused to allow a candidate's request for re-evaluation of the OMR Sheet, observing that it will lead to 'manipulation'. The aspirant had wrongly circled '6' instead of '8' while filling her roll-number, which led to the non-evaluation of paper 2 in the Jharkhand Combined Civil Services Competitive Examination. Justice S.N. Pathak observed,
"If the contention is accepted regarding re-evaluation of the OMR sheet, it will amount to opening flood gate, and a blanket order has to be issued regarding entertaining of those candidates, who have made incorrect entry in violation of clause 4 of the terms and conditions as mentioned in the admit card. This Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot interfere in such matters."
Case Title: Sanjeev Kumar Yadav v. State of Jharkhand & Ors.
A plea has been moved in the High Court seeking CBI inquiry into the death of suspended Sub-Inspector Lalji Yadav allegedly by suicide in Palamu District of Jharkhand. His brother Sanjeev Kumar Yadav has approached the High Court through Advocate Vijay Ranjan Sinha, alleging that sand and stone crusher mafias were involved in the death of Lalji.The petition denies the death to be one by suicide and names cabinet minister Mithilesh Thakur, Superintendent of Police and others as responsible for the alleged murder of the sub-inspector.
Other Developments:
Karnataka High Court
Case Title: K Mallikarjuna v. H A Sudha Mallikarjuna
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 15
Observing that "the marriage is totally dead" and that nothing would be gained by trying to keep the parties tied forever to a marriage that in fact has ceased to exist, the Karnataka High Court recently granted divorce to a couple who lived separately for a period of 21 years. A division bench of Justice B Veerapa and Justice K S Hemalekha said, "Once the parties have separated and the separation has continued for a sufficient length of time of more than 21 years and one of them presented a petition for divorce, it can well be presumed that the marriage has broken down."Case Title: Dr Ganesh Nayak v. V Shamanna
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 16
The Karnataka High Court has suggested that medical professionals should be protected from legal action just like public servants are protected against bonafide errors in their action. Justice Krishna S Dixit expressed that more often than not, the cases of medical negligence are launched recklessly by the patients and their relatives. The court said "Compensation culture'' which obtains in other jurisdictions is gradually gaining entry to the field of medical services in our society affecting a healthy relationship of doctor & patient.Case Title: Suresh v. D Ramesh
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 18
Observing that the amount awarded to the parents is the compensation for loss of love, affection, care and companionship of the deceased child, the Karnataka High Court recently enhanced the compensation granted by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal (MACT) to a couple who lost their 2-year old daughter in an accident. Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar modified the order dated August 16, 2016, by which MACT had awarded a compensation of Rs 3.50 lakh to the petitioners.
5: Borrower Can't Claim Loan MoratoriumAs A Right Based On RBI's Circular Of March 2020 : Karnataka High CourtJustice M. Nagaprasanna in its order dated December 6, 2021 observed, "Section 2(n) of the Factories Act and its proviso makes it clear that one of the Directors of the company would be responsible for proper implementation of the provisions of the Act. This ensures that more care is taken for the maintenance of the factory and various safety measures prescribed under the Act, so that the health, welfare and safety of the workers are not neglected. It is the occupier who would become responsible for all such acts of a factory."
Case Title: Abrar Kazi v. State of Karnataka
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 21
The Karnataka High Court has said that cricket match fixing does not amount to the offence of cheating and therefore the offence under Section 420 IPC cannot be invoked against the alleged offenders. A single judge bench of Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar said, "It is true that if a player indulges in match fixing, a general feeling will arise that he has cheated the lovers of the game. But, this general feeling does not give rise to an offence".Case Title: Lalitha v. State of Karnataka
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 22
The Karnataka High Court has set aside the order granting bail to a lecturer, accused of sexually assaulting a minor student of his college, as the trial court failed to given an opportunity to the complainant/victim of being heard before passing the order. Justice H P Sandesh set aside the order dated August 10, 2021 granting bail to Gururaj L, and directed that the accused be arrested and commit him to custody under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C.Case Title: High Court Of Karnataka v. The State Of Karnataka
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 23
The Karnataka High Court on Friday closed its suo moto case, registered for ensuring that elections are conducted to the Corporations/Municipalities in the State in order to comply with the mandate of Article 243-U(3) of the Constitution. The development ensued after the State Election Commission informed the Court that all the elections to the Local Bodies and the Municipalities in the State have been completed by 30.12.2021, except the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike and Vijayapura Municipal Corporation regarding whom the matter is pending before the Apex Court.Other reports:
Case Title: BEML Staff Association v. Union of India Case No: WP 20258/2021
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday issued notice to the Union of India and BEML Limited directing them to file their statement of objections by February 10, on a petition filed questioning the decision of the government to privatise the public sector undertaking. A division bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice Suraj Govindaraj issued the notice while hearing a petition filed by BEML Staff Association and three other Unions of the undertaking.12. Breaching Promise To Marry Will Not Amount To Offence Of Cheating Under IPC : Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Venkatesh And State of Karnataka Case No: Criminal Petition No 5865/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 24
The Karnataka High Court while quashing the FIR registered against a man and his family has reiterated that not abiding with the promise of marriage will not amount to the offence of cheating under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
A single-judge bench of Justice K Natarajan while allowing the petition filed by Venkatesh and others said "Absolutely there is no ingredient stated by her in order to show that there is a criminal intention of cheating by petitioner No.1 and thereby, he has promised to marry her but has broken his promise."
Case Title : Yamuna and another versus The State
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 25
The Karnataka High Court has held that if persons not belonging to the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe obtains a false caste certificate, they cannot be prosecuted under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Kerala High Court
Case Title: Big Movers v. Reeni George & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 27
The Court ruled that a mere possibility of an individual occupying the premises through a licence is not adequate to make them a necessary party or a proper party in an appeal pending between the licensor and the licensee. Observing so, Justice A. Badharudeen rejected the application filed by the petitioner to get impleaded as an additional respondent in the appeal.
Case Title: Shyju P.K. v. Nadeera & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 28
The Court while allowing an appeal ruled that a party's defence can be struck off for non-compliance of an order for payment of pendente lite maintenance only as a last resort and if it is found that the default is deliberate and willful. A Division Bench of Justice A. Mohamed Mustaque and Justice Kauser Edappagath remarked so while adjudicating upon an appeal filed by a man against the Family Court's order striking off his defence for failing to pay maintenance pendente lite.
Case Title: Mahesh Lal N.Y v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 29
The Court has ruled that the consent of an accused is not necessary to acquire their voice sample for the purpose of comparison since it has already been established that obtaining voice samples of the accused do not infringe Article 20 (3) of the Constitution of India. While dismissing a petition alleging that the accused was not given an opportunity of being heard before being directed to produce his voice sample, Justice R. Narayana Pisharadi held that the accused has no right of option in the matter.
4. Kerala High Court Extends Validity Of All Interim Orders Till February 21 Amid COVID-19 Surge
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 30
A Full Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar, Justice Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Shaji P. Chaly extended the life of all interim orders passed by the High Court and all courts and tribunals falling under the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court for another month taking into consideration the surge in Covid-19 cases and the Test Positivity Rate in the State. As such, the Bench revived an earlier order it had passed on 19, May 2021 in which it had issued directions for the extension of interim orders.
Case Title: Thomas Mathew v. State Tax Officer & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 31
The Court has held that there is a clear distinction between refusing to consider an application and rejecting one with reasons while finding that an officer should specify reasons while denying copies of statements made to the parties in an investigation. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that since it is settled law that reasons should be reflected in the order, the Proper Officer should have given reasons for refusing to grant copies of the witness statements.
Case Title: Justine Pallivathukkal v. State of Kerala & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 32
The Court ruled that merely because the Kerala State Commission for Minorities (Amendment) Act, 2017 permits appointing Chairperson and members from the same community, it cannot be said to be conferment of unbridled power infringing rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. While dismissing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly while referring to Kerala State Commission for Minorities Act and National Commission for Minorities Act observed that such an amendment did not violate any rights under Part III of the Constitution.
Case Title: Mannam Sugar Mills Cooperative Ltd v. Deputy Superintendant of Police
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 33
The Court issued a set of further directions to ensure that no new unauthorised flag posts, banners or boards are installed in the State and to remove the already existing ones within a period of 30 days. Justice Devan Ramachandran found it imperative to notify such guidelines after observing that people had fallen back to their lackadaisical attitude regarding the erection of illegal boards, banners and flag posts in the State within a few months after the Court issued strict orders against the same.
8. Maoist Threat In Locality Valid Reason To Deny NOC For Explosive Licence : Kerala High Court
Case Title: Rajan K. v. Additional District Magistrate & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 34
Justice N. Nagaresh while dismissing a petition challenging the decision of a Magistrate held that the presence of a Maoist threat in a locality is a sound reason to deny a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for an explosive license. It was also held that the fact that there is an Anganwadi or a PWD road nearby is also sufficient for such rejection. The Court further noted that the presence of Maoist terrorists and the perceived threat posed by them is a very relevant factor in the context of public interest.
Case Title: Nisha Suresh v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 35
The Court granted bail to a 33-year-old woman suffering from multiple disabilities who allegedly dropped her newborn into a bucket of water, resulting into the infant's death. The infant was her sixth child, and reportedly a consequence of unintended pregnancy. Justice Gopinath P. released the woman on bail noting that her custodial interrogation may not be necessary in the investigation of the case.
Case Title: Arun Raj P.N. v. State of Kerala & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 36
The Court barred all public gatherings exceeding 50 individuals in the Kasargod district for a week citing the increasing number of Covid-19 cases, posing a major setback to the ongoing District Meet of the ruling Communist Party of India (Marxist). The Court passed the order in a writ petition which alleged that the District Collector had revoked an earlier order that limited attendance in public meetings to facilitate the CPI(M)'s Kasargod District meet.
Other Significant Developments
Case Title: P. Gopalakrishnan alias Dileep &Ors v. State of Kerala & Anr.
The Court granted interim relief to actor Dileep in the recent case registered by the Kerala Police for allegedly conspiring to kill the police officers investigating the 2017 sexual assault case. The actor had sought a pre-arrest bail in this matter. Justice Gopinath. P has restrained the police from arresting him till January 27th. Meanwhile, Dileep and other accused have been directed to appear before the police for interrogation at Crime Branch Office on 23rd, 24th and 25th January 2022 from 9 am till 8 pm.
The Court partly allowed the application filed by the State government challenging the trial court's order in the sensational actress sexual case that involves Malayalam actor Dileep, which had rejected the prayer to re-examine certain witnesses and summon additional witnesses. The prosecution had sought before the trial court to re-examine 6 witnesses, 1 witness cited but not examined and 9 additional witnesses who were not cited as witnesses in the final report.
The Court impleaded and directed the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) to conduct a preliminary enquiry into the case where an Assistant Sub Inspector of Police (ASI) is accused of demanding bribe for the release of two girls from a children's home to their parents. While ordering so, Justice Devan Ramachandran explained why a VACB probe was necessary in the matter and how it could serve as a lesson for other officers in the force.
Also Read: Around 25 Government Pleaders, Several Staff Test COVID Positive In Kerala High Court
4. Kerala High Court Grants Pre-Arrest Bail To Former Chief Airport Officer In Sexual Assault Case
Case Title: Giri Madhusudana Rao v. State of Kerala
The Court granted anticipatory bail to former Chief Airport Officer (CAO) of the Trivandrum International Airport, Giri Madhusudana Rao in the case where he was accused of raping a lady staff working under him. Justice P. Gopinath granted the pre-arrest bail considering the age of the petitioner and his ailments. The pe-arrest bail was granted with a condition that the petitioner, although currently placed under suspension, shall not enter the workplace until the filing of the final report.
Also Read: Former Chief Airport Officer Moves Kerala High Court Seeking Pre-Arrest Bail In Sexual Assault Case
Case Title: Adivasi Dalit Munneta Samiti & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors
The Court directed the State government to inform the time frame required to allot inhabitable land to the landless Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes individuals at Chengara who have been fighting for their land for two decades, which soon shaped a campaign and came to be known as the 'Chengara land agitation'. While requiring the State to disclose the name of the officer who had been entrusted with identifying and allotting such land, Justice Devan Ramachandran also reflected on the disproportionate hold up in granting benefits to those who lost their land to State acquisition:
Case Title: Muralikrishnan v. State of Kerala
The Court directed the State government to explain its actions taken in furtherance of its K-Rail Silver Line project and to justify the manner in which the survey is conducted by its instrumentalities. Upon being informed that a survey was being conducted before a Detailed Project Report (DPR) was drafted, Justice Devan Ramachandran found it imperative for the State to explain its actions within the framework of statutory formalities.
Also Read: Man Seen Shaving/Brushing With His Camera On Before Kerala High Court VC
The Court directed the State Police Chief to enquire into the allegations raised by actor Dileep that the media was flouting the trial court's order restricting the publication of matters related to the 2017 actor assault case till the conclusion of the trial. Justice Kauser Edappagath remarked that the allegations if found to be true, should be handled with prompt action as prescribed by law. The Judge also issued notice to ReporterTV and posted the matter to be heard after 3 weeks.
Also Read: [Actor Assault Case] Restrict Media Coverage Until Conclusion Of Trial: Dileep To Kerala High Court
Madhya Pradesh High Court
1. Disposal of Case Not Our Agenda, Have To Ensure That Parties Get Justice: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Deciding two separate requests by trial court judges seeking extension of time to conclude the trials, the Chief Justice of High Court of Madhya Pradesh observed that - "Even if there is a little bit of delay in the trial, it's alright. At the end of the trial the parties must feel, they must be convinced that justice has been done."
The division bench comprising of Chief Justice Ravi Malimath and Justice Pranay Verma was essentially dealing with two review petitions collectively, wherein two trial court judges were seeking extension of time granted by the High Court vide two different orders to conclude the trials.
Case title - Special Police Establishment v. Umesh Tiwari and another
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 9
The High Court (Jabalpur Bench) answered several significant questions related to Section 91 of CrPC which deals with Summons to produce documents or other things. Essentially, the Bench of Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sunita Yadav examined as to when can an accused as also a victim, invoke this Section during a criminal proceedingānd came up with the following conclusion
An accused cannot invoke Section 91 Cr.P.C. during the pendency of the investigation. However, an accused can invoke Section 91 on and after the filing of the charge sheet. Section 91 can also be invoked by the other stakeholders i.e. victim and also the prosecution. The court can also invoke Section 91 Cr.P.C. suo moto.
All the above invocation by any stakeholder is subject to satisfaction of the Court about desirability and necessity of the document sought to be produced.
Case title - RAHUL ALIAS GOLU v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
The High Court (Gwalior Bench) issued a notice to the Arya Samaj Vivah Mandir Trust in a matter wherein a Muslim girl's religion was allegedly converted to Hinduism in an Arya Samaj temple. The Bench of Justice Rohit Arya and Justice Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava has sought the presence of the Priest/Manager of the Trust before the Court as the state argued that the matter of religious conversion in an Arya Samaj Mandir is a 'serious' issue.
Case Title: Foti Rakabchand Jain through LRs Vs. Foti Ratanlal Jain through LRs
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 8
Deciding a civil revision against the order of a civil court, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that rejecting an application preferred under Order VII Rule 11 CPC would be illegal if the court sought for written statements of the defendant rather than deciding the same on averments in the plaint.
Justice Anil Verma observed,
"For the purposes of deciding an application under clauses (a) and (d) of Rule 11 of Order VII C.P.C. the averments in the plaint are germane; the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement would be wholly irrelevant at that stage, therefore, a direction to file the written statement without deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. cannot but be procedural irregularity touching the exercise of jurisdiction by the trial court."
Other Developments:
Patna High Court
Case Title: Shiv Kumar v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
The High Court has directed proper investigation in a cybercrime matter where charges were levied under Sections 419 read with 420 of the IPC and Section 66(B) of the I.T. Act. Justice Sandeep Kumar observed,
"This Court understands that local police is handicapped in investigating the cyber frauds and for that, it has to take help of other police officials of the district. In the opinion of this Court, any cyber fraud is committed by the cybercriminals only after the bank account details, phone numbers of account holders are leaked by the Bank employees."
Case title - Saurav Narayan v. State of Bihar and Anr.
A petition has been filed before the High Court challenging the recruitment notification of Bihar State Mining Corporation Limited for the post of Law Officer on the ground that it allows only the law graduates from the Chanakya National Law University, Patna (CNLU) to apply for the said post.
Essentially, the Mining Corporation Limited issued a letter to the CNLU Vice-Chancellor on December 16 for the purpose of engaging 10 law students for the post of Law Officer, pursuant to the same, the University administration informed its students about the said post and asked the interested students to apply by way of submitting their CVs and other details.
Case title - Sukhchain Singh @ Chaini v. State of Punjab
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (P&H) 8
The High Court called into question a bail order passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Faridkot, treating a regular bail petition as an anticipatory bail petition, even when the accused had been in the custody at the time of filing the bail plea.Calling it a matter of 'serious concern', the Bench of Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri also sent the case file to the concerned Administrative Judge of District Faridkot for information and further necessary action, if so required, in accordance with the law.
Case Title: Sahil v. State of Haryana
If the role attributed to the accused in an offence is prima facie less serious than the role attributed to the co-accused who have been granted the benefit of bail under S.438 CrPC and under S.439 CrPC, and if the accused is a first-time offender, then he deserves an opportunity to course-correct and the opportunity of bail cannot be denied to him.
A single-judge bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court presided over by Justice Anoop Chitkara has recently observed that if the accused is a first-time offender and if his co-accused who were similarly placed, have been granted bail, even though the role of co-accused in the offence was more serious than that of the accused, then accused's bail application should be accepted and the accused should be given a chance for grant of bail.
Case title - Mun Mun Dutta v. State of Haryana
The High Court dismissed (as withdrawn) the anticipatory bail plea filed by actor Munmun Dutta (best known for her portrayal of Babita Iyer in the popular Hindi serial Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah) over 'Bhangi' remark, a casteist slur, allegedly made by her in a video posted in social media. The Bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan was hearing her plea filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in May 2021 FIR (at Hansi) under Section 3(1)(u) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Case Title: Income- Tax Contigent Employees Union and Anr. v. Union Of India and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 16
The Rajasthan High Court has held that a writ petition filed in representative capacity without proper authorization or resolution is not maintainable.
A division bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani, observed, "We are of the firm view that the writ petition has been filed without proper authorization/resolution and hence, the same is not maintainable."
In furtherance, the court dismissed the writ petition purportedly filed on behalf of Income Tax Contingent Employees Union as not maintainable, in the absence of proper authorization.
Case Title: LNJ Power Ventures Ltd. v. Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 17
The Rajasthan High Court has reiterated that power of judicial review vested in High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is one of the basic features of the Constitution and any legislation cannot override or curtail such jurisdiction.
Justice Pushpendra Bhati further held that High Courts, while exercising the power under Article 226, would take note of the legislative intent manifested in the provisions of the Act and would exercise their jurisdiction consistent with the provisions of the enactment.
Case Title: Suresh Thanvi v. State Of Rajasthan and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 18
The Rajasthan High Court has ruled that land reserved for the public park in question shall not be allowed for commercial purposes like marriages/ parties etc. The decision was delivered in a public interest litigation filed by one Suresh Thanvi.
A division bench of Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani and Justice Sandeep Mehta, observed, "It is hereby directed that the respondent No.2 Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur shall ensure that the land in question shall be strictly used as a public park and no deviation shall be permitted in this regard. No commercial activities viz. marriages/ parties, etc. shall be allowed thereupon".
Case Title: Sheela Dhobi v. Satish
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 19
The Rajasthan High Court has allowed a joint application filed by the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband for waiver of six months cooling off period prescribed under Section 13-B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for divorce by mutual consent.
Justice Dinesh Mehta, observed, " In light of the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the parties are sufficiently educated and are aware of their rights...as they have mutually decided to end their matrimony finding no hope/chance of reconciliation, I am of the opinion that their application for waiver of the statutory period of six months specified under Section 13-B(2) of the Act of 1955 deserves acceptance."
The parties had approached the court after being aggrieved with the order passed by the Family Court, Bhilwara, which on 16 Dec, 2021 dismissed the aforesaid prayer of the parties.
Case Title: Shobha Devi v. Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited and Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 20
In a significant judgment, the single bench of Rajasthan High Court held that the married daughter of a deceased employee falls within the definition of 'dependents' for compassionate appointment.
"The perception of the daughter, after marriage no longer being a part of her father's household and becoming an exclusive part of her husband's household, is an outdated view and mindset."Justice Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, observed.
The court observed that any discrimination between unmarried & married daughter and married son & married daughter would be in clear violation of Article 14 ,15 and 16 of the Constitution.
Case Title: Kailash Chandra Agarwal v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., with connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 21
The Rajasthan High Court has recently observed that the employees of Central Co-Operative Bank, who remained out of service due to the latter's 'illogical' decision reducing the age of superannuation, are entitled to the salary for the said period.
The Bank had passed a resolution, reducing the superannuation age from 60 to 58 years.
Justice Rekha Borana, observed, "Petitioners would be entitled to the salary for the period during which they remained out of service. The same shall be paid to them within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order".
While allowing the petition, the court ruled that if the salary is not paid within the said period, it would then be payable along with an interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
Case Title: Naresh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 22
The Rajasthan High Court has observed that validity of an order passed by the Child Welfare Committee under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 cannot be examined in a writ of habeas corpus.
A division bench of Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani and Justice Sandeep Mehta made it clear that such an order passed under the JJ Act is valid and thus, the person cannot be said to be under illegal confinement for the purpose of issuing a writ of habeas corpus.
" It is trite to state that validity of an order passed by the Child Welfare Committee under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 cannot be examined in a writ of habeas corpus. Apparently, as the corpus has been sent to the Balika Gruh, Jodhpur under a valid order of the Child Welfare Committee in terms of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, she is not under any kind of illegal confinement."
The present habeas corpus petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction for production of one Mst. 'P', claiming that she is his legally wedded wife and that she has been wrongfully confined.
Case Title: Lahar Kanwar v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 23
The Rajasthan High Court has directed the state government to decide on a war widow's plea seeking grant of possession and document of title of the land allotted to her in 1991, under the relevant scheme.
Justice Dinesh Mehta observed that the petitioner is the widow of a martyr, who sacrificed his life for safety and dignity of the country. Thus, the least the State can do is either hand over the possession of the allotted land or search for an alternate piece of land.
It directed the petitioner to file a representation before the District Collector, Pali and the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bali along with relevant documents and order copy of the Court's decision within two weeks.
Case Title: Anita Suthar v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 24
A division bench of Rajasthan High Court observed that special bona fide residence is to be reckoned from the native place of residence of candidate & his parents and has nothing to do with marriage.
Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani and Justice Sandeep Mehta, observed, "Special bona fide residence or residence is to be reckoned from the native place of residence of the candidate and his parents. It has nothing to do with marriage."
The court opined that the respondents cannot deny the petitioner Special Bonafide Resident Certificate (TSP Area) simply because she has moved out of Tribal Sub Plan (TSP) Area, as a consequence of her marriage.
Case Title: Tej Singh and Ors. v. The State of Rajasthan and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 25
The Rajasthan High Court has observed that writ petition against rejection of temporary injunction application by trial court is not maintainable under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
Justice Dinesh Mehta, observed, "A writ petition against rejection of TI application by the trial Court is not maintainable under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, as a hierarchy of appellate authorities have been provided in the (Rajasthan Tenancy) Act of 1955".
In the present matter, the petitioners had instituted a suit for declaration of rights under Section 88 along with an injunction application under Section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act 1955. The same was however rejected by the trial Court vide order dated 29.12.2021.
Case Title: Bhagwati Prasad v. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Mines And Geology and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 26
The Rajasthan High Court has asked the authorities concerned to objectively examine the grievances raised in a writ petition pertaining to discharge of industrial effluents in the Railmagra Dam and take appropriate action within a period of two months.
A division bench of Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani and Justice Sandeep Mehta directed that the authorities shall be served a copy of the writ petition in the form of a representation. These authorities include Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur; the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Jaipur and the Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Rajsamand.
The bench further ruled, "Upon receiving the same, these authorities shall objectively examine the petitioners' grievances and pass a reasoned order/ take appropriate action thereupon, within a period of two months from the date of submission thereof."
Case Title: Tax Bar Association and Anr v. Union Of India and Anr
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 27
The Rajasthan High Court has expressed its disinclination to entertain a public interest litigation seeking direction to the Income Tax Department to remove all the defects and glitches on its official portal. The court left it on the administration to deal with the issues at its level.
A division bench of Chief Justice Akil Kureshi and Justice Rekha Borana observed, " At this stage, we leave it to the administration to deal with these issues at its level. We are hopeful that proper resolution of the difficulties of assessees would be made at the level of the administration itself without the requirement of Court's intervention."
Case Title: Dr. Gopal Choudhary v. UG/PG Ayush Counseling Board and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 28
The Rajasthan High Court has directed the Ayush Counseling Board to allot appropriate college to the petitioner, an Ayurveda aspirant, against the vacant seats, for pursuing his PG course in the academic Session 2020-21.
Justice Dinesh Mehta, observed,
" This Court is of the view that interest of justice would be better served if the petitioner is accorded admission in Ayurveda PG course. Keeping the seats vacant serves nobody's cause – it is a wastage of resources."
Case Title: Smt. Sayari and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 29
While taking a lenient view, a Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court reduced sentence awarded to an 82 year old woman charged under 498A IPC to the period already served by her which is nearly two and half months.
Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani observed, "We are of the view that as appellant Sayari has already attained the age of 82 years, the sentences awarded to her be reduced to the period already undergone by her which is nearly two and half months".
Affirming the conviction of the woman, the court ordered that for the offence under Section 498A IPC, as recorded by the trial court and passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sojat, Pali, the sentence awarded to the appellant be reduced to the period already undergone by her..
Case Title: The National Insurance Co. Ltd, through its Regional Manager, Jaipur v. Mohini Devi & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 30
Case No: S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 615/2007
Rajasthan High Court has recently ruled that appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 is not maintainable in absence of framing any substantial question of law.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, while dismissing the appeal, observed, "I do not find any ground to call for any interference on the factual findings recorded by the learned Commissioner. Since no substantial question of law has been formulated in the memo of appeal, hence, this appeal is not maintainable in view of the proviso attached to Section 30 of the Act of 1923."
The court pursued the proviso attached to Section 30 of the Act of 1923 and observed that appeal shall lie against any order passed by the learned Commissioner unless a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal.
Case Title: Shyam Seva Samiti v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 31
A division bench of Rajasthan High Court observed that mere formation of a committee cannot take away rights of a private college/institution, which is otherwise eligible and entitled for enhancement of the intake capacity.
The court opined that the decision of forming a five member committee of the Ministers of the State Government, in order to take policy decisions in relation to establishment of and setting standard for private colleges, is absolutely misplaced.
The court observed that the state's action of not permitting the enhancement of the intake capacity of the petitioner institution is arbitrary and illegal.
Case Title: Meeta Agarwal v. Hathroigari Grah Nirman Sehkari Samiti and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 32
A single bench of Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur observed that under section 21 of Civil Procedure, Code, 1908, the objection with regard to pecuniary jurisdiction shall be taken at the first instance at the earliest possible opportunity.
Justice Sudesh Bansal, ruled, "It is settled position of law as per Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure that the objection with regard to pecuniary jurisdiction shall be taken at the first instance at the earliest possible opportunity".
Notably, the court observed that adjournments in the suit should not be granted without just cause and when unnecessarily warranted be, by a reasoned order or on a proper application in writing there being filed to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
Other Important Updates
Case Title: Sunita Gurjar v. State of Rajasthan
A single bench of Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur directed the state to keep a constable post vacant in constable recruitment exam 2019 under MBC female category for a candidate wrongly denied benefit of 4 marks for LLB degree, till further orders.
Justice Mahendar Kumar Goyal, observed, "Taking into consideration the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the material on record, this court directs the respondents to keep one post of Constable under the MBC female category vacant, till further orders".
The court issued notice after hearing the petitioner on interim relief.
Case title - Karan Sen v. State of Rajasthan
The Rajasthan High Court is set to examine the question as to at which stage in a criminal proceeding, an accused having evident proof to show that he has been falsely implicated in a POCSO matter, can move an application under Section 22 of the POCSO Act, which deals with Punishment for false complaint or false information.
Essentially, the Bench of Justice Uma Shankar Vyas has issued a notice to the State of Rajasthan and original complainant while dealing with a criminal revision petition filed by one Karan Sen challenging the order of the Special POCO court no. 1 Jaipur Metro taking cognizance of offences under the POCSO Act against the petitioner.
Case title - Rituraj Singh Rathore v. State Of Rajasthan & Ors.
The Rajasthan High Court has stayed all construction activities being undertaken within a distance of 1000 meters from the boundary of the Kumbhalgarh Forest Reserve.
The bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani has also clarified that the Principal Secretary, Department of Tourism and District Collector, Rajsamand and Pali shall be personally responsible for ensuring compliance of the court's order.
Case title - Ishwar Prasad Khandelwal v. Shri Niranjan Kumar Arya and another
The Rajasthan High Court on Tuesday issued a notice to Chief Secretary, State Of Rajasthan and Principal Secretary Department Of Women And the Child Development State Of Rajasthan on a contempt plea filed regarding vacant posts in Rajasthan State Commission For Women.
The bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani was hearing the contempt plea filed by a social worker Ishwar Prasad Khandelwal alleging that the state government had not taken any steps to constitute the Board of The Rajasthan State Commission for women in the state, despite giving an assurance in this regard before the Court.
In view of the prevailing situation and spread of Covid-19, the Rajasthan High Court has decided to continue the functioning of all Subordinate Courts, Special Courts & Tribunals only through virtual mode till 29 Jan, 2022.
As per the circular, the aforesaid step was taken for the safety and security of all concerned.
The circular reads, "In view of the prevailing situation and spread of Covid-19, for safety and security of all concerned, it is hereby notified that all the Subordinate Courts/ Special Courts/ Tribunals shall continue to function only through virtual mode till 29.01.2022"
Madras High Court
Case Title: P.Subbiah @ Subbian v. The District Collector, Theni & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 20
The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court has recently refused to quash the public auction of lease for fishing rights in Pappaiyampattikulam Kanmoi in Periyakulam while stating that it cannot sit in appeal and scrutinize as to whom the tender should be given.
The petitioner, the President of Pappaaianpatti Kanmoi Water Users Association, contended that Kanmoi is the water source for about 350 acres of land and about 7500 families are also dependent on it. In such a backdrop, grant of fishing rights have high chances of the lessee damaging the tank bunds and draining the water.
Justice C.V Karthikeyan observed that inviting tenders for public auction was done with specific clauses for safeguarding the irrigation requirements, without damaging the bund or draining the water for fishing.
Case Title: K. J Sumathy,W/o.Late K.S.Jagannathan & Ors v. The District Registrar, Dharmapuri Registration District & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 21
Madras High Court has recently set aside an arbitral award directing execution of sale deed of a third party's property, alien to the proceedings before the tribunal, after huge fraud came into light with respect to the transaction between the parties and the arbitral proceedings before the tribunal.
Before the Division Bench of Justice P.N Prakash and Justice S. Srimathy, the contentious matter was a sale deed on a property earlier given as security, registered in favour of the lender (Rajendran) for a 4 lakh rupees loan. The borrower was a local politician and upon a fabricated dispute, the parties resorted to the arbitration clause in the loan agreement.
Based on the findings and inferences made by the Court, the arbitration proceedings by the appointment of Advocate K. Rajaram was fake since it was the result of collusion between the parties. In the said arbitral proceedings at a 'make-believe court room' in Dharmapuri with Government of India emblem, an arbitral award regarding the property of a stranger (K.S.Jagannathan's land measuring 8 acres and 16 cents), to which none of the parties before the tribunal had a lawful claim.
Case Title: Poompuhar Traditional Fishermen v. The State Of Tamil Nadu & Others.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 22
A plea filed by Poompuhar Traditional Fishermen challenging Rule 17(7) of the amended Tamil Nadu Marine Fishing Regulation Rules, 1983, was dismissed by Madras High Court.
The first bench of Acting Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice P.D Audikesavalu observed that the restrictions imposed on the use of fishing gear, especially the ban on fishing by pair trawling or fishing with purse-seine net does not suffer from the vice of constitutional illegality.
Rule 17(7) was inserted by Government Order 36 dated 17th February, 2020. However, while dismissing the petition, the court observed that the prohibition was already in force by virtue of G.O. Ms. No.40 dated 25th March, 2000. The said G.O issued by the Animal Husbandry and Fishing (FS.V) Department, in accordance with Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu Marine Fishing Regulation Act, 1983, prohibited fishing, by pair trawling and using of Purse-Seine nets for fishing in order to protect various fish species. The prohibition on fishing gear permitted was not challenged for over two decades, the court noted.
Case Title: Dr.Parkaviyan R. v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 23
The Madras High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging Clause 29(c) of the Prospectus issued for filling up seats in Medical PG Courses, which allows even in-service candidates who offered their services in difficult terrains to compete for seats in the Unreserved Category, with the aid of additional weightage given to their marks.
Justice M. Dhandapani observed as follows:
"…the State is empowered to create channels of selection by prescribing quotas for open category and in-service candidates, but the State is also within its powers to lay down norms with regard to the basis in which the merit list is to be prepared for determining the inter se merit of the candidates competing in the two different categories and how the inter se merit is to be arrived at by considering the marks obtained by the candidates in the eligibility test conducted by the testing agency coupled with the incentive marks awarded to the in-service candidates. Precluding the State from exercising the powers conferred on it by the Constitution, more especially Entry 25 List III of the Constitution would be denuding the State of its power, which has been given to it by the Constitution and as approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court."
The court also pointed out that the petitioners have not challenged G.O. Ms. No.463 in and by which the incentive marks, that were awarded to in-service candidates were allowed to be counted while finalising the inter se merit of the candidates in the open category.
Case Title: S. Nithya v. The Secretary to the Union of India, Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 24
Madras High Court has issued directions to streamline the functioning of Sports Organisations/ Associations/ National Sports Federations and its State Units/ National Olympic Association etc., including a mandate for an online registration system at all levels and laying down qualification requirements of functionaries at the helm of such Associations/ Federations.
A single-judge bench of Justice R. Mahadevan was adjudicating the grievance of a sportswoman who alleged favouritism and nepotism from the Tamil Nadu Athletics Association. The petitioner, S. Nithya, a Discus Throw Champion, accused the State Association of nit-picking the athletes of their choice for Open National Championships in 2017 & 2018, disregarding the petitioner and others who possessed the necessary qualification to participate in the National Level Event.
Madras High Court has asked the competent Sports Authorities/ Federations to formulate an online registration system for all district level, state level and national level athletic championships, competitions, meets and events, similar to the model followed in the Federation Cup Athletics Championships immediately. The single-judge bench has instructed that the posts of President, Vice President and Secretary of every sports Association/Organisation/NSFs and its State Units, as well as important functionaries of such organisations, shall be held only by sportspersons.
6. 'TN Housing Board Empowered To Initiate Eviction If Allotment Rules Are Violated': Madras High Court
Case Title: Anna Nagar Club v. The Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer, TNHB (Anna Nagar Division)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 25
The Madras High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by Anna Nagar Club to quash the letter of Tamil Nadu Housing Board (TNHB) demanding rental arrears from it.
The club owed an amount equivalent to Rs. 52,25,960/- as on June 2016 as rental arrears. The rent was fixed at Rs. 20,000 per month for the Club which occupies seven grounds of lands in a prime location at Anna Nagar.
Justice S.M. Subramaniam observed that the Housing Board is owned by the Government of Tamil Nadu and any loss to the Board will be the loss to the revenue of the State. Therefore, the court noted that the petitioner club should pay the remaining rental arrears and further, the Housing Board must carry out an exercise fixing the rent in commensuration with the actual market rental value in that locality.
7. Madras High Court Restrains Leena Manimekalai & Susi Ganesan From Going To Press On #MeToo Case
Case Title: Susi Ganesan v. Leena Manimekalai & Ors.
The Madras High Court on Thursday passed an interim injunction to restrain filmmaker and poet, Leena Manimekalai and film producer Susi Ganesan from going to the press or making social media comments regarding their respective contentions in the defamation suit filed by the latter over the #MeToo sexual harassment allegations raised by the former.
Susi Ganesan had earlier filed a criminal defamation case against Manimekalai. Now, he has filed a civil defamation suit in the High Court, in which he sought an interim restraint on Manimekalai's public statements against him.
A single-judge bench of Justice Abdul Quddhose, after considering the contentions put forward by Susi Ganesan, came to the conclusion that a prima facie case has been made out for the grant of interim injunction against Manimekalai as prayed for in the plaint. The Court issued the restraint order against Manimekalai and other respondents from making public statements against Ganesan.
While granting the interim injunction, the court noted that the balance of convenience is also in favour of the plaintiff and that irreparable injury will ensue if the allegations against the plaintiff in the #MeToo Movement is proved wrong in the trial.
Case Title: Annamalai v. Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution Corporation Ltd & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 26
While dismissing a petition challenging disconnection of electricity service in business premises, the Madras High Court has harshly criticized the revenue and electricity officials conniving with illegal occupants of water bodies and Government Puramboke lands.
Justice S.M Subramaniam opined that the case at hand is a classic example of connivance between occupants and concerned officials. Many revenue and electricity officers have thrown caution to the wind by allowing the encroachers to cast a legal colour on their illegal occupation by mutating revenue records and even granting them with electricity connections. The court also pointed out that this is usually done without examining the genuineness of the documents and the title to the land. The court has also suo motu impleaded the Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chennai to identify the delinquent officials and to take appropriate departmental action against them.
9. Madras High Court Refuses To Restrain SEC From Notifying Urban Local Body Polls Amid Covid-19
Case Title: Dr.M.Nakkeeran v. The State Election Commissioner & Ors.
The Madras High Court has adjourned a plea filed by a doctor, M. Nakkeeran, for postponing the urban local body polls in light of the worsening pandemic situation. Meanwhile, it has refused to grant any relief in the form of an interim stay on notifying/ conducting urban local body polls.
The bench of Acting Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice PD Audikesavalu has deferred hearing till Monday, i.e., 24th January.On Monday, the court will hear the plea of Nakkeeran along with other petitioners who have approached the court with the same grievances. Counsels have been permitted to appear physically, given technical problems faced by them in the virtual mode.
10. Madras High Court Calls For Suggestions To Address Complaints Relating To Stray Animals, Pets
Case Title: People For Cattle In India v. The Chairman & Another
The Madras High Court has enlarged the scope of a public interest litigation pertaining to the menace of stray dogs inside IIT Madras and has called for suggestions from various stakeholders for addressing the issues related to menace created by stray animals and pets in public places.
The bench of Acting Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice P.D Audikesavalu urged the state government and Corporation to take inspiration from foreign countries that have rules for regulating the actions of pet owners.
The court has asked Senior Counsel Satish Parasaran to take lead in the matter, assist the court and consolidate completely codified suggestions from all stakeholders including other counsels in the case, NGOs, animal rights defenders etc. The court expressed hope that the state of Tamil Nadu will be the pioneer in framing rules for the treatment of pet animals in the country.
"We should take this litigation further for the betterment of stray dogs and pet animals as well", the court noted.
Uttarakhand High Court
Case Title: M/S U P TELELINKS LIMITED v. M/S U P TELELINKS LIMITED & ORS., WPMS 2912/2021
The High Court has stayed the operation of a Circular issued by the Revenue Authorities, to the extent it inhibits refund claims for a period of two separate (not successive) financial years and requires filing of Refund in a chronological manner. The Bench comprising of Justices Sanjaya Kumar Mishra and Alok Kumar Verma has stayed para 8 of the Circular No. 125/44//2019-GST dated 18.11.2019
The High Court sought the response of the Uttarakhand State Government on a plea moved by Swami Prabodhanand Giri seeking quashing of the FIR (First Information Report) registered against him in connection with Haridwar Dharam Sansad Hate Speech Case. The Bench of Justice Narayan Singh Dhanik issued notice to the state and sought its reply by January 25 on Swami's petition in the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR and seeking a stay on his arrest in connection with the case regarding his alleged provocative speeches made at the 3-day Haridwar Dharam Sansad last month.