Allahabad High Court NOMINAL INDEX 1. Niyaz Ahmad Khan v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 58 2. Tarun Pandit v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 59 3. Virendra Singh vs State Of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 60 4. Rakesh Kumar Pandey & Anr v. State Of U.P. & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 61 5. Bheem Singh vs State of UP Through Secretary Home, Govt....
Allahabad High Court
NOMINAL INDEX
1. Niyaz Ahmad Khan v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 58
2. Tarun Pandit v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 59
3. Virendra Singh vs State Of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 60
4. Rakesh Kumar Pandey & Anr v. State Of U.P. & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 61
5. Bheem Singh vs State of UP Through Secretary Home, Govt. U.P. Lucknow 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 62
6. Balram Jaiswal v. State of U.P 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 63
7. Ram Prakash v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Hardoi and others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 64
8. State of U.P. v. Krishna Murari alias Murli and others and connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 65
9. Dinesh Kumar Tiwari v. Bank Of Baroda A Body Corporate And Ors 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 66
10. Saurabh Kumar Shukla v. The Election Commission of India and others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 67
11. Shriniwas vs State Of U.P. And Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 68
12. Sumit Kumar Verma v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl.Chief Secy. Dept. Of Medical Edu.Govt. Of U.P.Civil Secrtt. Lko And Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 69
13. Sunil @ Moni And Another v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 70
14. Sudhakar Mishra v. State Of U.P. And Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 71
15. Suraj Singh v. Election Commission Of India Nirvachan Sadan And 2 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 72
16. Mohammed Naseem Ali v. State Of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Panchayat Raj Deptt. And Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 73
17. Babu Pasi alias Babu Lal Pasi and another v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 74
18. Pratiksha Singh And Another v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 75
19. Yogesh Kesarwani And Anr. vs Devi Shankar Shukla 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 76
Judgments/Orders of the Week
Case title - Niyaz Ahmad Khan v. State of U.P. and Another
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 58
The High Court observed that the use of Cyberspace by some people to vent out their anger and frustration by travestying the Prime Minister, Key Figures holding the highest office in the country, or any other individual is abhorrent and it violates the right to reputation of others.
The Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh observed thus while refusing to quash criminal proceedings including the charge sheet, cognizance and the summoning order passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar against one Niyaz Ahmad Khan who allegedly shared morphed photos of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Union Home Minister Amit Shah on Facebook.
Case Title: Tarun Pandit v. State of U.P. and Another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 59
The High Court recently allowed the claim for maintenance of a wife under Section 125 of CrPC, despite the grant of divorce decree by the Family Court, while noting that an appeal against the said decree was pending before the Court and the same had not attained finality.
Justice Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi discarded the husband's plea that a divorced wife cannot claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. It also rejected the argument that since the Family Court has awarded permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, no maintenance under CrPC can be awarded. It observed,
"It is clear that as O.P. No. 2 (wife) has not accepted the amount of alimony as she has challenged the divorce decree in appeal and appeal is pending and in that circumstances she can not accept the amount of alimony. So it can not be said that she has sufficient financial resources as permanent alimony has been awarded to her. At present she has no source of income and financial support to maintain her and comes in the category of destitute."
Case Title: Virendra Singh vs State Of U.P.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 60
The High Court has held that once in exercise of its powers under Section 406 CrPC the Supreme Court transfers a case from the subordinate criminal court in one state to a subordinate criminal court in another state, any appeal against an order in the said case shall lie before the High Court in the transferee High Court.
The bench of Justice Suneet Kumar and Justice Om Prakash Tripathi made this observation while dealing with a criminal appeal, wherein a preliminary objection was raised by the CBI that the appeal is not entertainable before Allahabad High Court as the cause of action arose in Rajasthan.
Case Title: Rakesh Kumar Pandey & Anr v. State Of U.P. & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 61
The High Court, sitting in Lucknow, recently delved into the power of Courts at the time of framing of charges under Section 228 CrPC and to discharge an accused under Section 227 CrPC.
Justice Sangeeta Chandra observed, "Framing of a charge is an exercise of jurisdiction by the trial court in terms of Section 228 of the Code, unless the accused is discharged under Section 227 of the Code. Under both these provisions the Court is required to consider the 'record of the case' and documents submitted there with and, after hearing the parties, either discharge the accused or where it appears to the Court and in its opinion, there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, it shall frame the charge."
5. Power U/S 311 CrPC For Recall Of Witnesses: Allahabad High Court Explains
Case Title: Bheem Singh vs State of UP Through Secretary Home, Govt. U.P. Lucknow
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 62
The High Court has rejected an application filed under Section 482 of CrPC seeking to quash an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Deoria rejecting two applications filed by the Applicant/accused under Section 311 of CrPC for recall of two prosecution witnesses.
While doing so, Justice Sanjay Kumar Pachori shed light on the applicability of Section 311 CrPC.
"Section 311 of the Code gives a wide power to the court to summon a material witness or to examine a person present in court or to recall a witness already examined. It confers a wide discretion on the court to act as the exigencies of justice require. The word "just" cautions the court against taking any action which may result injustice either to the accused or to the prosecution," it observed.
Case title - Balram Jaiswal v. State of U.P
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 63
The High Court recently denied bail to a man who allegedly shared intimate pictures of his girlfriend with her family members as it noted that this was an exclusive case of betrayal of the faith of the victim by the applicant.
The Bench of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi also observed that while the victim permitted the accused to have those photographs under certain confidence and understanding, the applicant/accused had backstabbed her and betrayed her to its core.
Case Title : Ram Prakash v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Hardoi and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 64
The High Court, sitting in Lucknow, recently held that where Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable to a statute and the party is entitled to seek condonation of delay in filing statutory appeal, the application seeking the latter relief has to be considered by the Court first and only thereafter, the appeal can be considered on merits.
While answering a reference made by a single judge in relation to the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, the division bench of Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Pritinker Diwaker held,
"As far as the issue regarding hearing of the application seeking condonation of delay and the appeal simultaneously is concerned, in our view, firstly the application has to be considered. Only thereafter, the appeal can be considered on merits but there is nothing in law which requires hearing of appeal on merits to be postponed mandatorily after acceptance of the application seeking condonation of delay. Both can be taken up on the same day. However, the appeal has to be heard on merits only after the application seeking condonation of delay has been accepted."
Case title - State of U.P. v. Krishna Murari alias Murli and others and connected matters
Case Citation:2022 LiveLaw (AB) 65
The High Court commuted the death sentence awarded to 4 people in a 27-year-old murder case while noting that the case did not fall in the category of 'rarest of rare cases', warranting capital punishment.
The Bench of Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Vivek Varma didn't agree with the opinion of the trial court that the murder was premeditated and pre-planned one. In fact, the trial court had concluded that the imposition of a lesser sentence than that of a death sentence, would not be adequate and appropriate.
Case title - Dinesh Kumar Tiwari v. Bank Of Baroda A Body Corporate And Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 66
The High Court has observed that in case Bank/financial institution is satisfied that its dues are paid before the auction sale is confirmed, then the Recovery Officer would be required to cancel the auction sale.
The Bench of Justice Dinesh Singh observed thus while dealing with a Writ Petition seeking to quash a 2015 order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow ordering the Recovery Officer to take forcible possession of the mortgaged property from the petitioner.
Case title - Saurabh Kumar Shukla v. The Election Commission of India and others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 67
The High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea seeking transfer of Laxmi Singh, the Inspector General of Police (IG), Lucknow Range on the ground that her Husband, Rajeshwar Singh [Former Joint Director ED] is a Bhartiya Janta Party (BJP) candidate from Sarojini Nagar, a constituency in the Lucknow district.
Terming it as proxy litigation, the Bench of Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Jaspreet Singh dismissed the plea on the ground that the plea had been filed even though key details were not disclosed in the plea.
Case Title : Shriniwas vs State Of U.P. And Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 68
"(Circumstantial) evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence," the High Court reiterated recently.
The observation was made by a division bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Justice Subhash Vidhyarthi while dismissing an appeal filed by the victim against the order of Additional Sessions Judge, Badaun, acquitting the respondent of charges under Sections 302, 34 IPC.
Case Title: Sumit Kumar Verma v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl.Chief Secy. Dept. Of Medical Edu.Govt. Of U.P.Civil Secrtt. Lko And Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 69
The High Court, sitting in Lucknow, recently held that when employment in a public service is obtained by playing fraud, the long continuation in such service would be immaterial to uphold the appointment.
Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh observed, "it is evident that the petitioner has suppressed the material fact and played fraud for securing public employment and, therefore, his long continuation (15 years) would not be of any help to him to continue to hold his post inasmuch as his appointment was void ab initio."
Case title - Sunil @ Moni And Another v. State of U.P. and Another
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 70
The High Court observed that an accused who is charged with a serious offence, must not be stripped of his/her valuable right of a fair and impartial trial because it would be a negation of the concept of due process of law.
The Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh observed thus while dealing with a 482 CrPC Application filed against the order of Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, district Meerut who rejected the Rape accused prayer to recall the witness/victim for the purpose of cross-examination.
Case title - Sudhakar Mishra v. State Of U.P. And Ors.
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 71
The High Court has observed that in absence of any finding recorded by authorities that a person has misused the firearm in question or there is any other disability on his/her part, the exercise of power in cancelling the firearm license is not justified.
The Bench of Justice Gautam Chowdhary observed thus while hearing a writ plea filed against an order of May 1989 passed by Collector canceling the firearm licence of the petitioner, Sudhakar Mishra. His appeal was also rejected in October 1995 passed by Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi.
Case title - Suraj Singh v. Election Commission Of India Nirvachan Sadan And 2 Others
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 72
While dealing with a plea that raised complaints regarding EVM Tampering in the ongoing Uttar Pradesh State Assembly Elections, the High Court asked the Election Commission Of India to remain vigilant to all such situations and not to allow doubts of any description arise.
The Bench of Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi and Justice Narendra Kumar Johari also observed that the democratic process, being sacrosanct, is well protected under the Constitution of India by placing a respectful restraint on the scope of judicial review under Article 226 or Article 32 of the Constitution of India
Case title - Mohammed Naseem Ali v. State Of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Panchayat Raj Deptt. And Ors.
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 73
Stressing that the employer is entitled to remove the dead woods from service, the High Court recently upheld the order of compulsory retirement of a government employee who was found to be indolent, quarrelsome, disturber of peace, religious bigot, harasser of females, and scheduled caste people.
The Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh also observed that an employer is entitled to remove the dead woods from service if on consideration of the service record, it is found that the work of such an employee has not been upto the mark or he has become 'dead wood' for the organization.
17. Allahabad High Court Allows Appeal Of Murder Convict After 40 Yrs, Sets Aside Conviction
Case Title : Babu Pasi alias Babu Lal Pasi and another v. State of U.P.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 74
The High Court, sitting in Lucknow, has allowed the appeal of a Murder convict after 40 years, setting aside the order passed by Sessions Court and directing the jail authorities to set him at liberty forthwith.
The criminal appeal filed in 1982 by Ringu Pasi, convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Unnao for offences under Section 302 (Murder) read with Section 34 and Section 404 (Dishonest misappropriation of property) IPC, came to be decided by a bench comprising of Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Vivek Varma on Tuesday, February 22, 2022.
Case title - Pratiksha Singh And Another v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 75
Stressing that it is well settled that it is the right of a major to live with anyone out of his/her own will, the High Court has held that the fact that a married boy is not above 21 years of age, would not render the marriage void.
The Bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Shamim Ahmed further clarified that at best, this could render the person responsible, liable for punishment in terms of Section 18 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
19. Undertaking As Contemplated U/S 4 Of Partition Act Must Be Unconditional: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Yogesh Kesarwani And Anr. vs Devi Shankar Shukla
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 76
The High Court, sitting in Lucknow, recently held that a member of an undivided family being a shareholder of the family's dwelling-house is entitled to exercise his rights under Section 4 of the Partition Act only if the undertaking is unconditional. The declaration was made by Justice Jaspreet Singh.
Section 4 of the Partition Act provides that where a share of a dwelling-house belonging to an undivided family has been transferred to a person who is not a member of such family and such transferee sues for partition, the court shall, if any member of the family being a shareholder shall undertake to buy the share of such transferee, make a valuation of such share in such manner as it thinks fit and direct the sale of such share to such shareholder, and may give all necessary and proper directions in that behalf.
Important Weekly Updates From the High Court/UP courts
Case Title - Rakesh Gupta And 2 Others v. State Of U.P. Through Secretary , Ministry Of Urban Planning And Development And 3 Others
In a Special Sunday Sitting, the High Court temporarily stayed the proposed demolition of a hundred-year-old homeopathic clinic and restaurant for the purpose of constructing the Prayagraj airport corridor.
2. PIL Moved In Allahabad High Court Seeking A Stay On 'Why I killed Gandhi' Movie Streaming
Case title - Rehan Alam Khan and Another v. Union of India and others
A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea has been moved in the High Court seeking a stay on the streaming of the short film 'Why I killed Gandhi'. The plea contends that the display of the film may disturb the communal harmony of Uttar Pradesh amid the ongoing assembly elections.
The plea has been moved by Rehan Alam Khan and Himanshu Gupta and it goes on to submit that the Movie, which was released on January 30th [the death anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi] on the OTT platform Limelight, tarnishes the image of the Father of the Nation and also disturbs the peace and social harmony of the Indian Society.
Case title - Mohit Agrawal And 3 Others v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others
The High Court stayed the arrest of a man (and his family members) who is living with a married woman in connection with an FIR registered against him by the husband of the woman.
The Bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rajnish Kumar also issued a notice to the husband of the woman seeking his reply in the matter.
The High Court has disposed of its plea concerning the suo moto petition registered for the extension of interim orders in all matters pending before it and subordinate Courts including interim bails.
The Bench of Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Piyush Agrawal ordered thus as it noted that the situation of the pandemic COVID- 19 has improved and now, normal functions of day-to-day life are being undertaken and the Courts are physically working. The Cout also said that the position has improved as per the data of different agencies of the State of U.P.
Bombay High Court
Nominal Index
Datta Mane vs State of Maharashtra
Nitesh Singh & Anr. v. Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai & Ors.
Saurabh Ashok Nikam vs State of Maharashtra
Amitabh Bachchan & Anr. V/s. The Municipal Corporation of Gr.Mumbai & Ors.
Hiten Dhirajlal Mehta vs Bhansali Productions
Federation of Retail Trade vs State of Maharashtra
High Court on its own motion (in the matter of Jilani Building at Bhiwandi) vs Bhiwandi Nizampur Municipal Corporation & Others
Nanasaheb Vasantrao Jadhav vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Ramesh Tukaram Vavekar v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
1. Maharashtra Govt Appoints DGP From UPSC Panel, Bombay High Court Disposes Of Advocate's PIL
Case Title: Datta Mane vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 46
High Court disposed of an advocate's PIL seeking appointment of a permanent Director General of Police in Maharashtra from the three names recommended by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) panel after the State appointed IPS officer Rajnish Seth as the new DGP on February 18.
The state decided to reconsider its decision after the High Court observed that the state had gone out of its way to push the case of its senior most IPS officer - Sanjay Pandey's name for DGP.
Case Title: Nitesh Singh & Anr. v. Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 47
Observing that a PIL filed by rival political party members (BJP and MNS) against the ruling Maha Vikas Aghadi coalition in Maharashtra was "politically motivated" and without "necessary disclosures" the Bombay High Court dismissed the plea and imposed costs of Rs 50,000 on the petitioner
The bench held that under Article 243ZA(2) the state is permitted to make provisions regarding election to Municipalities. In Maharashtra, the State Election Commissioner may by order delegate any of his powers and functions to any officer of the Corporation not below the rank of the Ward Officer according to section 18(2) of the MMC Act.
The High Court held that according to an SEC order from January 27, 2005 there is a bar on re-drawing the limits of a municipal corporation six months before the election. However, "The bar does not apply to alteration of Ward boundaries within the Corporation area."
Case Title: Saurabh Ashok Nikam vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 48
Observing that affinity test is not the litmus test for a Caste Validity Certificate when family members' documents from as far back as the year 1927 show the same caste, the Bombay High Court directed issuance of caste certificate to the petitioner before the court.
"In our view, if anyone claims he belongs to a particular caste, one cannot expect that such person should use traditions and traits of that community in his day to day life, as due to modernisation, the present lifestyle of particular community may not match with traditional characteristics of their tribe community. The affinity test is not a litmus test," a division bench ruled recently.
The bench, by the abovementioned observation, also negated the Caste Scrutiny Committee's observations that the petitioner's dialect of 'impure Marathi' was differed from the Thakur community's dialect. Moreover, the petitioner's festival and marriage rituals were performed the Hindu way instead of the traditional Thakur community way.
Case Title: Amitabh Bachchan & Anr. V/s. The Municipal Corporation of Gr.Mumbai & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 49
The court protected actor Amitabh Bachchan and his wife Jaya Bachchan for 11 weeks over notices for acquisition of a part of their Juhu land for road widening. This is the same plot on which their bungalow Prateeksha stands.
It directed the Municipal Commissioner to decide a February 17, 2022 representation made by the family within six weeks. If required by the petitioners or the commissioner, a personal hearing may be given, the bench said.
The Bachchans had contended that the notices fall under a section of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act that is inconsistent with safeguards under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and therefore void.
Case Title: Hiten Dhirajlal Mehta vs Bhansali Productions
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 50
There can be no prohibition on a film's exhibition in the absence of a challenge to the censor certificate issued by the Central Board for Film Certification (CBFC), the Bombay High Court held refusing any reliefs in a clutch of petitions against the movie Gangubai Kathiawadi which was due for release on February 25.
"The rule of exhaustion of an efficacious alternative remedy applies also in a public interest litigation as it does in respect of a litigation initiated in private interest," a division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice MS Karnik observed dismissing two PILs and disposing of a petition.
Case Status: Federation of Retail Trade vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 51
The Bombay High Court upheld the Maharashtra government's decision making it mandatory for all shops and establishments in the state to display signboards in Marathi written in the Devanagri script, and rejected a petition challenging the decision with cost.
"A Public purpose is sought to be achieved by the said Rule. There is a broader public purpose and rationale. Marathi may be the official language of the state government, but it is an undeniably common language and mother tongue of the state… It has its own extremely rich and diverse cultural traditions extending to every field of endeavour from literature to theatre and beyond. There are texts in Marathi which are expressed and written in Devanagri," the division bench of Justices Gautam Patel and Madhav Jamdar observed.
Case Title: Kishor Ramesh Sohoni Versus Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 52
The Bombay High Court recently directed the Reserve Bank of India to replace a man's demonetized notes worth Rs 1.6 lakh with new and valid currency notes.
The division bench comprising Justice Gautam Patel and Justice Madhav Jamdar passed the order in the petition filed by Kishor Sohoni, who had deposited the said amount, in cash, with the police station, pursuant to Court orders, prior to demonetization.
After the Government of India Notification of 8th November 2016 which demonetized certain currency notes, the Petitioner said that he believed that since his cash was with an authority it was protected from demonetization. However, when the Magistrate directed the Petitioner on 20th March 2017 to collect the money from the police station, he was handed the old currency notes, all by then demonetized.
Case Title: High Court on its own motion (in the matter of Jilani Building at Bhiwandi) vs Bhiwandi Nizampur Municipal Corporation & Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 53
In a landmark judgement the Bombay High Court issued a slew of directions regarding action to be taken against illegal construction and in the event of building collapses. The court emphasized the need for mass public housing.
The court directed the Municipal Commissioner to take action prosecute officers found to be aiding the non-removal of illegal construction beyond six months under Municipal laws, in addition the relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code, apart from initiating disciplinary proceedings.
It held that for any new slum project, an NOC stating that the land is not required for public purpose would be necessary. Moreover, if the land is required for public purpose, it must be cleared within a year and slum dwellers can be relocated in Mumbai and neighbouring areas.
The court also held that the MCGM, being the planning authority, was not barred from implementing provisions of the MMC Act and the MRTP Act just because an area is declared a slum. This would especially apply if the structures are dilapidated and/or in any manner unauthorized.
Case Title: Nanasaheb Vasantrao Jadhav vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Citation: LiveLaw 2022 (Bom) 54
Despite finding irregularities and political influence by Sharad Pawar and his family members in extending largesse to Maharashtra's only private hill station project called Lavasa, the HC dismissed the petition challenging the project on the ground of delay.
"At this distance of time, when even Lavasa Corporation's existence is under a cloud, the contentions as raised by the amicus as well as the petitioner as regards inertia to call for tender/auction, unlawful permissions and unauthorized change of rates, in the facts of this case, are reduced to mere academic interest rather than of practical importance. The objection relating to gross delay assumes importance in view of several subsequent or intervening events after accrual of the cause of action to move the Court. Although the cause of action arose from 1996, the petitioner approached the Court for the first time in 2011, and thereafter in 2013 and finally in 2018," the bench observed.
10. Child Born Out Of POCSO Crime A "Victim" As Defined Under Section 2(wa) CrPC : Bombay High Court
Case Title: Ramesh Tukaram Vavekar v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 55
Reducing the life sentence awarded to a rape convict to 10 years, the Bombay High Court directed him to pay compensation to the child born out of his illicit acts observing that the baby was also "victim" as contemplated under Section 2(wa) of the CrPc.
The victim had not only been abandoned by the appellant but also by her real mother(PW 1). They did not stop there but had put the life of the newly born child into jeopardy by sending him in an Orphanage. In view of Section 2(w a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the "victim" means a person who has suffered any loss or injury caused by reason of the act or omission for which the accused person has been charged and expression "victim" includes his or her guardian or legal heir. The child born to the victim is indeed her legal heir and also a victim in view of the definition of "victim" and therefore, he must be adequately compensated for as it was the appellant who is responsible for bringing him in this world and then abandoning him at the mercy of an Orphanage.
IMPORTANT UPDATES
Case Title: The Directorate of Enforcement vs Mohammed Nawab Mohammed Islam Malik @ Nawab Malik
Observing that as per section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the offence of money laundering is "continuing in nature and it continues till such time a person [is] enjoying the proceeds of crime by its concealment or possession or acquisition or use of untainted property or use or projecting the same as untainted property" the special judge rejected the argument made on behalf of Nawab Malik that an offence from the year 1999 cannot be investigated now and custody cannot be granted.
Nawab Malik, a cabinet minister in the Maharashtra government, was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate on February 23, 2022 under PMLA and remanded in ED custody till March 3 by Special Judge Rahul Rokade. The Maharashtra Minister is now admitted to the State-run JJ Hospital.
Case Title: Rhea Laila Pillai vs . Leander Adrian Paes
Ruling that tennis star Leander Paes knew model and-Art of Living Instructor Rhea Pillai was married to Actor Sanjay Dutt when he started living-in with her in 2003-05, a Metropolitan Magistrate held their relationship to be 'in the nature of marriage' and declared Paes liable of causing economic and mental violence under the Domestic Violence Act.
"The consensual sexual relationship between married individual out of their relationship of marriage is not prohibited, except few exceptions…Merely because socially such a practice is unacceptable the Applicant can not be deprived of her rights," the court said and ordered Paes to pay Pillai Rs 1 lakh maintenance and Rs 50 thousand rent per month. Paes already bears all his daughter's expenses.
After two judges recused themselves from hearing petitions arising out of the Bhima Koregaon – Elgar Parishad Case, Chief Justice Dipankar Datta of the Bombay High Court constituted a third bench to hear the cases at the earliest.
After Justice PB Varale's bench, which has the criminal assignment, recused from hearing matters earlier this month, the alternate bench of Justice SS Shinde also recused from taking up petitions connected to the case.
Chanda Kochhar, former Chief Executive of the ICICI Bank, has filed a Suit before the Bombay High Court against the bank seeking "specific performance of her entitlements and benefits that was unconditionally provided to her when the Bank accepted her early retirement."
According to the Suit, the Bank accepted her early retirement on October 4, 2018, and had unconditionally agreed to honour certain commitments and contractual obligations towards her entitlements and benefits, which it later "wrongfully resiled from."
The National Investigation Agency has sought dismissal of the application filed by Varavara Rao, Vernon Gonsalves and Arun Ferreira seeking bail and factual corrections in the Bombay High Court's order refusing them default bail.
In their reply tendered to the Bombay High Court, the agency cited the embargo under section 362 of CrPC to alter or review judgements once a petition is decided on merits.
16. Decision On Local Train Travel For Unvaccinated By Feb 25 – Maharashtra Govt To Bombay High Court
The Maharashtra government informed the Bombay High Court that it will take a final decision on permitting local train travel for unvaccinated persons by February 25, 2022.
While the State agreed to withdraw circulars & SOPs of July 15 & August 10 and 11, last year, it assured the bench that it would review subsequent circulars with similar curbs.
"We hope and trust that in keeping view of present situation committee will take well-informed decision because certain illegal decisions brazenly violated fundamental rights," Chief Justice Dipankar Datta observed.
Former Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) Zonal Director Sameer Wankhede filed two petitions in the Bombay High Court challenging the action by Thane Collector and police for allegedly obtaining a liquor licence for his hotel through fraud and misrepresentation of personal details in 1997.
Wankhede states that he was apparently a minor of age 17 at the time of the alleged offence by his mother. Wankhede's mother passed away in 2015.
While he was granted relief and protection from coercive action in the quashing petition, a coordinate bench found no urgency in his civil plea challenging the cancellation of his liquor license.
Calcutta High Court
Nominal Index
Rajib Paul v. The State of West Bengal and Anr 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 49
Rakesh Kumar Singh v. Director, Alipore Zoological Garden & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 50
Anindita Mandal v. The State of West Bengal & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 51
Md. Abdul Gani Ansari v. State of West Bengal & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 52
Iti Pandit v. The Union of India and Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 53
Pratap Banerjee v. State of West Bengal and other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 54
Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited v. Optimal Power Synergy 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 55
Chandan Jana & Ors v. The State of West Bengal & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 56
Ashoke Ghosh v. State of West Bengal 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 57
Shueli Panda Mishra & Ors v. State of West Bengal 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 58
Orders/Judgments of the week
1. 'Reduced Investigation To A Mockery': Calcutta HC Orders CBI Probe Into Haldia Dock Extortion Case, Rejects State's Plea For SIT Probe
Case Title: Rajib Paul v. The State of West Bengal and Anr
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 49
The Calcutta High Court ordered the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to probe into alleged extortion of truckers at Haldia Port and observed that "syndicates" have a stranglehold on most businesses and commerce in the state. The Court thus stayed the ongoing investigation by the State police and furthermore rejected the State's plea to allow a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to be entrusted with the investigation. Justice Rajasekhar Mantha observed, "The investigation is being carried out in a perfunctory manner. The faith of the public at large in such investigation could be eroded. There is therefore strong and prima facie case made out for transfer of the case from the State to the CBI. The Court directed the CBI to collect all the case material including case diary and all evidence from the Haldia Police and commence investigation. However, the Court ordered that final report shall not be filed by the CBI without the leave of this Court.
Case Title: Rakesh Kumar Singh v. Director, Alipore Zoological Garden & Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 50
The Calcutta High Court disposed of a plea pertaining to the alleged entry of outsiders inside the Kolkata Alipore Zoo premises by directing the concerned police authorities to investigate into the matter and submit a report to the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate within a period of one month.
The Court was adjudicating upon a plea moved by BJP leader Rakesh Kumar Singh alleging that on January 24 about 600-700 persons had forcefully entered the Zoo premises even though the premises were not open to the public due to the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic.
Justice Mantha opined that the claims of the petitioner cannot be adjudicated under writ jurisdiction and accordingly observed, "This Court is of the view that the claims and grievances of the petitioner as recorded hereinabove, cannot be dealt with under Article 226 of the Constitution of India."
Case Title: Anindita Mandal v. The State of West Bengal & Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 51
The Calcutta High Court dismissed a plea seeking compassionate appointment by observing that the mother of the petitioner is a teacher of a school and thus there is no immediate crisis faced by the family members. The petitioner one Anindita Mandal had sought compassionate appointment on the ground that her father had passed away when she was ten years old. The mother of the petitioner is working as a teacher in a school.
Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay observed, "The compassionate appointment is given to tie over immediate crisis faced by the family members for untimely death of the bread earner. It is not a case where the family is facing crisis to arrange even two square meals as the mother of the petitioner is working". The Court ruled that the instant case would not come within the the policy of the State for compassionate appointment. Accordingly, the petition was disposed of.
Case Title: Md. Abdul Gani Ansari v. State of West Bengal & Ors.
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 52
The Calcutta High Court ordered the cancellation of appointment of six assistant teachers in the Murshidabad district after noting that they had been illegally appointed pursuant to the illegal recommendation of the West Bengal School Service Commission (WBSSC). The Court was adjudicating upon a plea alleging illegal appointments pertaining to the West Bengal State Level Selection Test (SLST) for Class 9 and Class 10 mathematics teachers.
Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay observed that the illegally recruited candidates do not have any 'legal right' to work as assistant teachers in the schools pursuant to the letter written by the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Murshidabad dated February 8, 2021 to the President of West Bengal Board of Secondary Education. Furthermore, the Court noted that the WBSCC had stated that the illegally recruited candidates had been recommended by the Commission due to a 'mistake'.
Case Title: Iti Pandit v. The Union of India and Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 53
In a significant development, a victim girl who had been trafficked to Rangpur, Bangladesh has been rescued and reunited with her parents back in India. The Court had earlier directed the Central government to take concrete measures to ensure immediate repatriation of the victim to India.
Justice Rajasekhar Mantha recorded his appreciation and gratitude towards the efforts put in by the High Commission of India at Dhaka and High Commission of Bangladesh at Kolkata in helping with the recovery of the victim girl. He further appreciated the efforts of other stakeholders by observing, "In the present case as well, this Court had attempted to employ all the faculties available to it, to rescue the victim, a little girl, from her traffickers, and to reunite her with her parents. Its efforts were complemented by a host of individuals and institutions, and the Court expresses its immense gratitude to the all those involved in the rescue efforts."
Case Title: Pratap Banerjee v. State of West Bengal and other connected matters
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 54
The Calcutta High Court directed the State Election Commission (SEC) to hold a joint meeting with the officials of the West Bengal government within 24 hours and decide as to whether deployment of central paramilitary forces will be required for the peaceful conduct of the upcoming elections to the remaining 108 municipalities which is scheduled to take place on February 27.
The Court underscored that in the event it is decided that central forces will not be deployed then the State Election Commissioner would be held personally liable to ensure that no violence takes place and there is peaceful conduct of elections. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj directed, "We direct that the Commissioner, State Election Commission will collect information in respect of the conditions prevailing in each of the Municipalities where the elections are scheduled and will hold the joint meeting with the Home Secretary of the State and the Director General and Inspector General of the Police within 24 hours and will examine the ground situation of each of the 108 Municipalities and take a decision in writing in respect of deployment of paramilitary forces by mentioning the relevant circumstances in support of his decision to deploy/not to deploy the paramilitary forces".
Also Read: Calcutta HC Reserves Judgment In BJP's Plea Alleging Large Scale Violence During WB Municipal Polls
Case Title: Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited v. Optimal Power Synergy
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 55
The Calcutta High Court had the opportunity to expound on the requirements that need to be fulfilled before a Court can revisit a judgment under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya observed that 'an error apparent on the face of the record' is an error which would be self- evident and obvious even at first glance. It was further enumerated that Order XLVII does not permit reappraisal of the merits of the matter and thus determination of such an error should not involve a long-drawn process of reasoning on points requiring a contested hearing.
"The sub-text of Order XLVII Rule 1(1) is that the error can be corrected without clamour; the parties being on the same page that the correction of the error would not alter the decree, subject to the importance and the new-ness of the evidence which is subsequently discovered", the Court averred further.
Case Title: Chandan Jana & Ors v. The State of West Bengal & Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 56
The Calcutta High Court dismissed a petition filed by BJP candidates contesting in the upcoming West Bengal Municipal elections, seeking police protection from the State so that they get a fair chance to compete in the elections. The Court noted that several discrepancies had been found in the allegations levelled and further labelled such allegations to be an 'election gimmick'.
Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya observed, "There is a fair chance that the representation, at least in respect of some of the candidates, might very well be an election gimmick more than a genuine grievance being expressed before a Court of Law".
Case Title: Ashoke Ghosh v. State of West Bengal
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 57
The Calcutta High Court has recently held that non-examination of a minor child who was in the control and custody of an accused would not adversely affect the prosecution's case as it is natural for her to be subjected to undue influence or tutoring by the accused. In the instant case, the appellant had been convicted of murdering his wife and their 5 year old minor child was deemed to be a vital witness.
It was alleged by the defence that non-examination of the minor child by the prosecution casts an adverse inference on the prosecution's case. Rejecting such a contention, a Bench comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Bivas Pattanayak observed, "It is trite law a child is ordinarily prone to tutoring. When a minor witness was in the control and custody of an accused it is all but natural that she would be subjected to undue influence and/or tutoring by the accused and, therefore, the prosecution may consider it unsafe to examine her. It is for the prosecution chose its own witnesses to prove the case".
Case Title: Shueli Panda Mishra & Ors v. State of West Bengal
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 58
The Calcutta High Court directed the State government to extend police protection to BJP candidates contesting in the upcoming West Bengal Municipal elections by providing one Armed Police Officer to each candidate subject to payment of costs by the candidates themselves.
The BJP candidates had preferred an appeal before the Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj against the decision of a Single Bench that had dismissed such a prayer seeking police protection on the ground that there were several discrepancies in the allegations of intimidation and threats levelled by the BJP candidates.
Important Weekly Updates
1. Alleged Murder Of Student Leader Anish Khan: Calcutta HC Initiates Suo Moto Proceedings
Case Title: In the matter of Anis Khan
The Calcutta High Court on Monday took suo moto cognisance of the alleged murder of social activist Anis Khan in Amta in Howrah district. The incident led to widespread protests and demands for investigation by an independent agency. Earlier on Monday, an oral plea had been made before Justice Rajasekhar Mantha praying for the intervention of the Court by initiating a suo motu motion in finding out the persons responsible for the death of Anish Khan.
On perusal of the submissions, Justice Mantha agreed to inmate suo moto proceedings. He observed, "Let the papers in the form of a list of dates and a notarized affidavit dated 21st February, 2022 be served on Mr. Amitesh Banerjee, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the State. Further, any other facts may also be communicated to Mr. Banerjee. Mr. Banerjee may take appropriate instructions from the State and make appropriate submissions on the adjourned date i.e. 24th February, 2022".
Case Title: Salem Khan v. State of West Bengal and Ors
The Calcutta High Court on Thursday ordered a second post mortem in the murder case of Allah University student Anis Khan. The Court directed that the second post mortem and the investigation by the State constituted Special Investigating Team (SIT) would be monitored by a District Judge. The Court had earlier taken suo moto cognisance of the case after terming the incident as 'grave and shocking'. Justice Rajasekhar Mantha refused to transfer the investigation to an independent outside agency by observing that it is too premature to opine whether the investigation by the SIT would be appropriate or not.
Directing the SIT to proceed with the investigation with urgency, the Court further directed, "This Court would like to first evaluate the investigation of the SIT, the adequacy of which can only be determined thereafter. The SIT shall, therefore, proceed with urgency and expedition. It is expected that no stone will be left unturned in course of such investigation which shall be carried out in letter and spirit and by the book."
Case Title: Suvendu Adhikari v. State of West Bengal & Ors
The Calcutta High Court directed the State government to install two CCTV cameras at the main gate of the residence of BJP MLA and Leader of the Opposition Suvendu Adhikari. The Court issued the direction while addressing a plea moved by 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 directed, "This Court is of the view that the issue can put up at rest by granting liberty to the writ petitioner and the CRPF to place two CCTV cameras at the main gate as per their own security and risk assessment."However, the Court underscored that the State shall not be responsible.
4. Calcutta High Court Seeks State's Response In PIL Alleging Non-Implementation Of RERA In West Bengal
Case Title: Partha Sarathi Dutta v. State of West Bengal and Ors
The Calcutta High Court has sought response from the State government in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) alleging that members of Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) and the Appellate Tribunal have not yet been appointed in West Bengal despite the State government having notified the establishment of the West Bengal Real Estate Regulatory Authority and the the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal.
The counsel appearing for the petitioner apprised a Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj that the State government vide notification dated July 29, 2021 had notified the establishment of the RERA Authority in West Bengal. Pertinently, during the proceedings the counsel for the petitioner further submitted that as per his knowledge, the Chief Justice has appointed Justice Harish Tandon to head a high powered committee for selecting the members of the RERA authority and the Appellate Tribunal.
Case Title: Debasree Roy & Anr v. The State of West Bengal & Ors
The Calcutta High Court directed the concerned police authorities to conduct an enquiry to find out whether the alleged owner in whose possession a French Mastiff dog named 'Bruno' is currently residing is actually the real owner. The Court also ordered that the dog should be returned to the concerned NGO from the possession of the alleged owner. A Single Bench had earlier directed the concerned NGO to return the dog to its alleged owner after the dog had gone missing and was subsequently kept in the custody of the concerned NGO.
The NGO was however allowed to visit and inspect the dog at least once in a month. While hearing an appeal preferred by the concerned NGO, a Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj was apprised by the appellate that the alleged owner was not the actual owner and further it was submitted that the dog had been subjected to cruelty by the alleged owners.
Case Title: State of West Bengal v. Sandeep Prasad & Ors
The Calcutta High Court came down heavily on the West Bengal Central School Service Commission (WBSSC) pertaining to the alleged irregularities in the appointment of 'Group-D' (non-teaching staff) in sponsored Secondary and Higher Secondary schools under the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (WBBSE) on the purported recommendation by the WBSSC.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Rabindranath Samanta had earlier set up an inquiry committee headed by Justice Ranjit Kumar Bagh, former judge of the Calcutta High Court. The Bench observed with dismay, "The Court cannot be a mute spectator and allow the litigant to get a clean chit even if they took a stand that they have not issued any recommendation. The Commission is answerable for such act and cannot shy away from such responsibilities by taking a stand that no recommendation was issued."
Delhi High Court
CITATIONS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 134 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 150
NOMINAL INDEX
VINAY KHURANA v. SHWETA KHURANA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 134
DR. SANJIV BANSAL v. DR. MANISH BANSAL 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 135
GOPALA KRISHNA MOOTHA v. THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 136
Johrina Begum V. Sukhbir Singh 2022 Livelaw (Del) 137
Sumer Singh Salman V. Vikram Singh & Ors 2022 Livelaw (Del) 138
Universal City Studios Llc. & Ors. V. 123movieshub.Tc & Ors. 2022 Livelaw (Del) 139
Vipin Sehrawat V. Deputy Commissioner Sdmc 2022 Livelaw (Del) 140
Nipun Miglani V. Intelligence Officer & Ors. 2022 Livelaw (Del) 141
Mohd Farooq V. State 2022 Livelaw (Del) 142
Dr Mohammad Ajazur Rahman V. Union Or India & Ors 2022 Livelaw (Del) 143
Dr. Vikram Sampath V. Dr. Audrey Truschke & Ors 2022 Livelaw (Del) 144
Tharvinder Singh & Ors V. Viresh Chopra & Anr 2022 Livelaw (Del) 145
Jayabrata Bose V. Union Of India 2022 Livelaw (Del) 146
Sunder Singh Bhati V. The State 2022 Livelaw (Del) 147
Afroznisha V. Delhi Wakf Board & Ors 2022 Livelaw (Del) 148
Commissioner Of Income Tax V. Hamdard National Foundation 2022 Livelaw (Del) 149
Klj Organic Ltd V. Ltd. Commissioner Of Income Tax 2022 Livelaw (Del) 150
SIGNIFICANT JUDGMENTS/ORDERS THIS WEEK
Case Title: VINAY KHURANA v. SHWETA KHURANA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 134
The Delhi High Court has explained the scope of Judicial Separation and Divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
A division bench comprising of Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh observed that the scope of the two concepts is qualitatively different and that Judicial separation is a completely different relief that the aggrieved spouse may seek against the other, under sec. 10 of the Act.
"Thus, the aggrieved spouse may, instead of seeking the relief of divorce, seek a decree of judicial separation on the same grounds on which he/she may seek divorce. The law gives an option to the aggrieved spouse/petitioner to seek either of the two reliefs," the Court said.
2. Contempt Of Court | Seeking Legal Redressal Cannot Tantamount To Interference Or Obstruction To Course Of Justice: Delhi High Court
Case Title: DR. SANJIV BANSAL v. DR. MANISH BANSAL
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 135
The Delhi High Court has observed that seeking legal redressal cannot tantamount to interference or obstruction to the course of justice in relation to contempt of Court.
Justice Asha Menon was dealing with a suit seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from writing, circulating, speaking, publishing or making any demeaning remark or material against it or engaging in any conduct which causes mental pain and agony to the Plaintiff.
The suit also sought damages of Rs. 3 Crores. It also sought directions on the Defendant to withdraw the alleged ex-facie demeaning, derogatory, false and wrong allegations made against the Plaintiff in the suit.
3. Delhi High Court Reiterates Factors To Be Considered Before Making A Person Vicariously Liable For Offences By Company Under S.138 NI Act
Case Title: GOPALA KRISHNA MOOTHA v. THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 136
The Delhi High Court has reiterated the various necessary factors to be kept in mind before making a person vicariously liable for offences committed by a company under sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
The Court dismissed a plea seeking quashing of Criminal Complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner also sought to quash an order dated 03.02.2021 passed by the Trial Court issuing summons to him.
The respondent No.2 in the petition had filed a complaint before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Saket Court alleging that he was appointed as the CFO of the India Ahead News Private Ltd. which is engaged in the business of running a TV news channel.
It was alleged in the complaint that the petitioner and the accused No.2, who was the son of the petitioner, were the directors of India Ahead News Pvt. Ltd. and that they were responsible for the day to day affairs of the company had been running the TV channel and actively controlling all the operations of the company.
4. Jurisdiction Under Art. 227 To Be Exercised Sparingly When Challenge Is To Orders Of Rent Controller & Tribunal: Delhi High Court
Case Title: JOHRINA BEGUM v. SUKHBIR SINGH
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 137
The Delhi High Court has observed that the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has to be sparingly exercised by the High Court when the challenge is to the orders of the Rent Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal.
Justice Prateek Jalan added that where orders have been passed on consideration of the materials placed before the Rent Controller and the Tribunal, the High Court would not be justified in exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227.
The Court was dealing with a petition filed under Article 227 assailing an order dated 18.11.2021, passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Rent Control Tribunal of the Rohini Courts.
5. Order 1 Rule 10 CPC | Delhi High Court Reiterates Principles To Be Applied While Deciding Application For Deletion From Array Of Parties
Case Title: Sumer Singh Salkan v. Vikram Singh Mann & Ors., CM (M) 37/2019
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 138
The Delhi High Court recently reiterated the principles that are to be applied by the Court while deciding an application for deletion from the array of parties under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC.
Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC empowers the Court to delete or add parties to the suit.
The present petition was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to set aside of the order whereby an application filed on behalf of the Respondent (Defendant no. 7 in original suit) seeking deletion from the array of parties was allowed.
6. Delhi High Court Orders Blocking Of 34 Rogue Websites Indulging In Online Piracy By Streaming Content Of Universal, Netflix, Disney Etc
Title: UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS LLC. & ORS. v. 123MOVIESHUB.TC & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 139
The Delhi High Court has ordered for blocking of 34 rogue websites indulging in online piracy by streaming streaming content of Universal City Studios LLC., Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc., Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., Netflix Studios, LLC, Paramount Pictures Corporation and Disney Enterprises, Inc, through illegal means.
Justice Asha Menon directed the Department of Telecommunications and Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology to issue notifications calling upon the telecom service providers registered under them to disable access into India of the said websites within 36 hours.
The Court also directed the Internet Service Providers to block access to the rogue websites.
7. One Individual Can't Hold Two Birth Certificates, Identity Is Established Not Only By Name & Parentage But Also By Date Of Birth: Delhi High Court
Case Title: VIPIN SEHRAWAT v. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SDMC
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 140
The Delhi High Court has observed that an individual cannot be permitted to hold two birth certificates, reasoning that the identity of a person is established not only by name and parentage but also by date of birth.
"Continuance of two birth certificates containing two different dates of birth would imply that one individual can pose as two different individuals; which error cannot be permitted to perpetuate," Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva observed.
The Court was dealing with a plea seeking a direction to the Deputy Commissioner of South Delhi Municipal Corporation to cancel the birth certificate of the petitioner issued on September 24, 2013.
8. 'Pre-Planned Well-Designed Fraud With Union Of India': Delhi HC Imposes ₹1L Cost On Plea Against Seizure Of Luxury Car For Evading Import Duty
Case Title: Nipun Miglani v. Intelligence Officer & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 141
The Delhi High Court has imposed cost of Rs. 1 lakh while dismissing a petition challenging the seizure of a luxury car and subsequent proceedings under the Customs Act, over non-payment of import duty.
Noting that the petitioner had violated the conditions of duty-free import and had also allegedly forged the bill of entry, the Division Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh orally remarked,
" This an absolutely pre-planned, well designed import and a fraud with Union of India. Fraud with a sovereign body is a criminal offence. It cannot be viewed lightly."
9. CAA-NRC Protest Site At Shaheen Bagh Allegedly Being Converted Into Unauthorized Memorial: Delhi HC Asks Authorities To Decide Representation
Case Title: Mohd. Farooq v State (NCT of Delhi)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 142
The Delhi High Court has disposed of a PIL alleging that the CAA-NRC protest site at city's Shaheen Bagh area is illegally being converted into a memorial, with a direction to the South Delhi Municipal Corporation and other concerned authorities to look into the petitioner's grievance.
The plea was filed by one Mohd. Farooq, a resident of Shaheen Bagh area in Jamia Nagar, alleging that MLA Amanatullah Khan and councillor Abdul Wazid Khan are the main key persons who are raising illegal and unauthorized construction by grabbing government land and constructing a memorial, in the garb of establishing a park.
It is further alleged that the private Respondent is using MLA Local Area Development Funds for this purpose, thus propagating corruption during discharging his duties.
10. 'Enactment Of Law Is Sovereign Function': Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea For Implementation Of Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2014
Case Title: Dr. Mohammad Ajazur Rahman v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 143
The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation seeking a direction upon the Parliament to bring into force the Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2014.
At the outset, the Division Bench comprising Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh observed that enactment of law and bringing it into force are sovereign functions to be performed by the Parliament or the State Legislature under the Constitution, as the case may be. Hence, no direction, much less a writ of mandamus can be issued in this regard by the Courts.
The petitioner, Dr. Mohammad Ajazur Rahman, represented by Advocate Payal Bahl had submitted that the Act was passed by the Parliament in 2014, almost eight years ago. However, it is yet to be brought into force. Bahl added that the Act provides a framework to investigate corruption and misuse of power by public servants while protecting the whistle blowers. Hence, its implementation is imperative.
11. Delhi High Court Directs Twitter To Take Down Tweets Of Historian Audrey Truschke Against Vikram Sampath
Case Title: DR. VIKRAM SAMPATH v. DR. AUDREY TRUSCHKE & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 144
The Delhi High Court has directed micro blogging site Twitter to take down some of the tweets made by historian Audrey Truschke against historian Dr. Vikram Sampath over allegations of plagiarism against him with respect to his two-volume biography of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar.
Justice Amit Bansal was hearing an application filed in the suit filed by Sampath against Audrey Truschke and other persons over a letter sent by them to Royal Historical Society raising allegations of plagiarism against him with respect to a journal publication and his two-volume biography of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar and some alleged defamatory tweets made pursuant thereto.
The suit stated that Historian Audrey Truschke and other persons namely Ananya Chakravarti and Rohit Chopra wrote the letter dated February 11 to Royal Historical Society in London raising serious allegations of plagiarism.
12. Order VI Rule 18 CPC | If Plaint Is Not Amended Within Given Time, It Cannot Be Amended Thereafter: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Tharvinder Singh & Ors v. Viresh Chopra & Anr
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 145
The Delhi High Court recently held that once an application for amendment of plaint is allowed, the same has to be amended within the given time frame.
Referring to Supreme Court in Union of India v. Pramod Gupta, (2005) 12 SCC 1, Justice Pratibha M. Singh noted that if the amended plaint is not filed within the stipulated time, it cannot be amended thereafter.
" It is the settled position in law that once an application for amendment is allowed, in terms of the provisions of Order VI Rule 18 CPC, the plaint has to be amended. If the amended plaint is not filed within the stipulated time, the plaint cannot be amended thereafter, as also confirmed by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Pramod Gupta, (2005) 12 SCC 1, " the Court said.
13. HRA Rules Applicable To All Central Govt Institutions/ PSUs & Autonomous Bodies Including IGNOU: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Jayabrata Bose v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 146
The Delhi High Court recently held that Central Government Institutions/ PSUs and Autonomous Bodies other than those explicitly mentioned under the HRA General Rules and Orders are also covered under the Rules.
The observation was made by a Bench of Justice Talwant Singh and Rajiv Shakhdher in a case where a contention was raised that Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU) is neither the department of the Central Government nor State Government, nor an autonomous body/ undertaking, nor a semi-government organization for the purposes of HRA Rules.
Thus, the petitioner, a government employee challenging an order of its employer for recovery of HRA on the ground that his wife was already receiving HRA from IGNOU and he is thus barred under Rule 5(c)(iii).
14. Mere Vague Belief That Accused May Thwart Investigation Cannot Be A Ground To Prolong The Incarceration: Delhi High Court
Title: SUNDER SINGH BHATI v. THE STATE
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 147
The Delhi High Court has observed that mere vague belief that the accused may thwart the investigation cannot be a ground to prolong the incarceration of the accused.
Justice Subramonium Prasad added that if there is no apprehension of interference in administration of justice in a criminal trial by an accused, then the Court should be circumspect while considering depriving the accused of their personal liberty.
"Therefore, the magnitude of the offence cannot be the only criterion for denial of bail. 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," the Court added.
15. "Delhi Wakf Board Facing Various Constraints In Functioning": High Court Seeks Delhi Govt's Response On Notifying New CEO, Grant In Aid
Title: AFROZNISHA v. DELHI WAKF BOARD & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 148
Noting that the Delhi Wakf Board was facing various constraints in it's functioning, the High Court recently sought response from the Delhi Government on the aspect of new CEO of the Board which was yet to be notified and also the grant in aid which was not released by the Government yet.
Justice Pratibha M Singh directed the Delhi Government to file a status report and posted the matter for reporting compliance on 27th April, 2022.
The two factors on which the Court sought the status report are as under:
- No no fully functioning CEO for the Wakf Board. Though, an officer was appointed as the CEO, he has now been transferred to another area, and the new CEO is yet to be notified.
- The grant-in-aid for the Wakf Board has not been released by the GNCTD, and there is acute shortage of funds.
16. Information From Property Dealers Or Websites Not Cogent Evidence On Adequacy Of Rent For Invoking Section 13(2)(B) Of Income Tax Act: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions) Versus Hamdard National Foundation (India)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 149
A Bench of Delhi High Court, consisting of Justices Manmohan and Navin Chawla, held that in the absence of an independent inquiry, the revenue authorities cannot solely rely on the opinion of property broker firms and websites to determine the adequacy of rent received for invoking section 13(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Assessee Foundation received voluntary and corpus donations from Hamdard Dawakhana (Wakf) in a particular assessment year. Also, the Assessee had let out its property to the Wakf under a Lease Agreement. The Assessing Officer (AO), relying upon enquiry made from estate agents and information gathered from websites, held that the property was let out by the Assessee to the Wakf at a much lower rate than the market rate and therefore invoked the provisions of section 13(2)(b) of the Act, adding the donations to the taxable income of the Assessee.
The appeal preferred by the Assessee against the order was rejected by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT (A)). The ITAT allowed the appeal in favour of the Assessee, directing deletion of additions made by the AO. The revenue authorities filed an appeal before the High Court against the impugned order.
17. Delhi High Court Excludes Time Spent Prosecuting Tax Appeal Before An Authority Without Jurisdiction, Rules Revision Petition Not Time Barred
Case Title: KLJ Organic Ltd. Versus Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Taxation)-2
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 150
A Bench of Delhi High Court, consisting of Justices Manmohan and Navin Chawla, excluded the time spent in prosecuting a tax appeal before an authority devoid of jurisdiction in computing the limitation period for filing a revision petition under the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Assessee filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) (CIT (IT)) dismissing Assessee's Revision Petition under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground of limitation. The Assessee also sought a direction from the court to the CIT (IT) to consider Assessee's Revision Petition on merits after condoning the delay in filing the petition.
IMPORTANT WEEKLY UPDATES
1. Marital Rape: Delhi High Court Reserves Judgment In Petitions Challenging Exception To Sec. 375 IPC
The Delhi High Court this week reserved it's judgment in a batch of petitions challenging the exception to Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, which exempts forceful sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife from the offence of rape.
A bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice C Hari Shankar reserved the order while asking the counsel for the parties to file their respective written submissions and convinience compilations by March 2, if any.
2. "Citizens Should Not Suffer Due To Callous Disregard Of Environment Protection Rules": Delhi HC Expresses Dismay Over Victimization Of Trees
The Delhi High Court has expressed its dismay over the issue of victimization of trees in city's Chittaranjan Park area, while observing that the citizens of the city should not suffer due to the callous disregard of rules and orders by authorities, which are put in place in order to protect the environment.
Justice Najmir Waziri was dealing with a contempt petition raising the issue of laying down of pipelines or cable lines being undertaken by BSES Rajhdhani Power Limited on Bipin Chandra Pal Marg and nearby areas at Chittaranjan Park, which had damaged the roots of the standing trees, especially within one meter radius of the Trees.
The plea moved through Advocates Aditya N Prasad and Dhriti Chhabra stated that the aforesaid action was in violation of various orders of the High Court as well as the National Green Tribunal which mandated leaving of one meter kutcha space around trees while undertaking any construction activity.
The plea added that the competent authorities regarding implementation of laws pertaining to preservation of Trees, in complete subjugation of their statutory responsibilities, had abetted the said work.Looking for legal news and events.
3. Delhi High Court Reserves Judgment In Alapan Bandyopadhyay's Plea Challenging CAT's Order Transferring His Case To Delhi From Kolkata
The Delhi High Court has reserved its judgment in the plea filed by Former West Bengal Chief Secretary Alapan Bandyopadhyay, challenging the order passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench which had transferred his petition filed before the Kolkata Bench to the Principal Bench at New Delhi.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh heard Advocate Kartikey Bhatt for Bandyopadhyay and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for the Respondent- Union of India. It has also granted liberty to both the sides to file further written submissions in the matter, latest by tomorrow.
In his plea filed through Advocate Kunal Mimani, Bandyopadhyay states that the impugned order was passed in complete violation of the principles of natural justice, equity and fair play as he was not even granted a right to file its written objections to the Transfer Petition.
4. "Status Report Neither Here Nor There": High Court Questions Delhi Police Probing Death Of Man Forced To Sing National Anthem During Delhi Riots
The Delhi High Court has questioned the the city Police over its investigation into an incident where a man, 23 year old Faizan, was forced to sing the national anthem during the Delhi riots that erupted in the year 2020.
The incident relates to a video that had gone viral wherein Faizan could be seen allegedly being beaten by the police while being forced to sing the national anthem and 'Vande Mataram'.
Remarking that the status report filed by the Delhi Police was neither here nor there, Justice Mukta Gupta quizzed the police over confusion and discrepancies with regards to increase in the number of injuries in the MLC which was prepared prior to the deceased's detention in police custody and the post mortem report.
The Court questioned the Police that while the MLC recorded only three injuries, the same were increased to a number of twenty injuries in the post mortem report.
The Court was dealing with a plea filed by Kismatun, Faizan's mother, seeking a SIT probe into her son's death, who along with four other Muslim men, was seen in the video. Kismatun claims in her plea that the police had illegally detained her son and denied him critical health care as a result of which he succumbed to injuries on February 26, 2020.
5. Opening Of Masjid In Nizamuddin Markaz Will Have To Be In Terms Of DDMA Order: Centre Informs Delhi High Court
The Centre has informed the Delhi High Court that the aspect of opening of Masjid in city's Nizamuddin Markaz will have to be done in terms of the order passed by the Delhi Disaster Management Authority (DDMA).
Justice Mukta Gupta was dealing with an application filed in the petition moved by the Delhi Waqf Board seeking to ease restrictions at the Nizamuddin Markaz, which has been locked since March 31, 2020.
The said application was filed by the Wafq Board seeking reopening of Masjid in the Nizamuddin Markaz commonly known as Masjid Bangle Wali owing to the upcoming festival of Shab e-Barat next month.
The Court had in November last year ordered for a joint inspection to be carried out at the Nizamuddin Markaz for the purpose of demarcation of the three areas namely the religious place (Masjid) where people offer namaz, the place where congregation take place and the residential area which has a hostel.
Gauhati High Court
Case Name: Sri Mrinal Kanti Debnath and 6 Ors v. M/S United India Insurance Co. Ltd and 2 Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Gau) 16
The Gauhati High Court recently held that the role of a housewife is multifarious and to tag her as a mere skilled worker alone does not do complete justice to her role in managing the house. Therefore, compensation with respect to her death in a motor accident must be calculated including loss of dependency.
"In my considered opinion to tag a house wife as a 'skilled worker' alone does not do complete justice to her multifarious role as a home manager. Keeping in view the lapse of 32 years between the accident in the case of Lata Wadhwa (infra) and the present accident, my conclusion that a house wife was more than a mere skilled worker and it would not be unreasonable to estimate the contribution of the deceased in the present case at a higher figure amounting to Rs. 5,000/- without deduction.
Case Name: Tarun Chandra Das v. Bhanjana Kalita
Citation: 2020 LiveLaw (Gau) 17
The Gauhati High Court has held that a man cannot escape his liability under Section 125, Cr.P.C. to provide maintenance to his second wife when he had suppressed the subsistence of his first marriage to her. While dismissing the application made by the husband (petitioner herein) to quash the order of maintenance passed by the lower Court, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Robin Phukan observed
"Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice, enacted to protect the vulnerable section of the society like women, children and infirm parents and it is within the scope of Articles 15(3) and 39 of the Constitution of India. The object of this section is not to punish for the past, but to prevent the vulnerable section of the society, who are unable to maintain themselves, so that they are not left beggared and destitute on the scrap heap of the society, and thereby driven to a life of vagrancy, immorality and crime for their sustenance, by compelling those who are capable to support to perform their moral obligation."
Jharkhand High Court
Case Title: The National Insurance Co. Ltd. East Singhbhum v. Babla Bagchi & Ors and other connected matters.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 21
The Jharkhand High Court reiterated the settled legal position that with the object of awarding just and fair compensation, the appellate Court could enhance the compensation even if an appeal or objection has not been filed. Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary referred to the decision in Reddy v. Duggireddy Venkatanarayana, where it was held that,
"It is evidently clear that there is no complete or indefeasible extinguishment of right to file cross-objections after the expiry of statutory period of limitation provided under the said provision. Cross objections within the scheme of Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code are to be treated as separate appeal and must be disposed of on same principles in accordance with the provisions of Order 41 of the Code.
Case Title: The Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Sita Chowdhury & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 22
The Jharkhand High Court has held that rashness and negligence in driving is a subjective determination depending on different factors like road condition, the volume of traffic, habitation in the area, and weather conditions. Noting that the accident took place on a single road on a foggy morning, Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary held that the accident was not a case of composite negligence and revised the compensation amount accordingly.
Gujarat High Court
Nominal Index
Dharmendra Ravipratap Rajak v. State Of Gujarat
Hirenbhai Hiteshbhai Patel v. State Of Gujarat
Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service v. Bodar Augustin Bhurjibhai
J. v. State Of Gujarat (Name Concealed Intentionally)
Maheshbhai Bhurjibhai Damor v. State Of Gujarat & 3 Other(S)
Parulben Natwarlal Patel v. State Of Gujarat
New India Assurance Co Ltd v. Mukeshbhai Bhimsingbhai Rajput & 4 Other(S)
Solanki Vipulkumar Virabhai v. Institute Of Banking Personnel Section (IBPS)
Dinesh Sharan Thakur v. Dr. M K Shah Medical College And Research Centre
Gujarat Rajya Hotel Federation & 9 Other(S) v. State Of Gujarat & 1 Other(S)
Kiritkumar Ravjibhai Sharma v. Principal/Trustee Saraswati Kadavni Mandal
Yogi Infrastructure Private Limited v. Rmc Redimix (India), Subsidiary Of Prism Cement Ltd.
Case Title: DHARMENDRA RAVIPRATAP RAJAK Versus STATE OF GUJARAT
Case Citation: [2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 48]
The Gujarat High Court has refused to stall the redevelopment work being carried out in Public Housing Blocks, noting that public interest will always have precedence over a private interest of the parties. Justice Vaibhavi Nanavati observed
"Some inconvenience to individual dwellers cannot be given any primacy and public interest as well as public benefit has to be taken into consideration."
2. Prior Interim Protection No Ground To Grant Anticipatory Bail: Gujarat High Court
Case Title: HIRENBHAI HITESHBHAI PATEL Versus STATE OF GUJARAT
Case Citation: [2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 49]
"Merely granting protection for long time would not be a ground to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the accused, when the applicant is otherwise disentitled for anticipatory bail", the Gujarat High Court has held. Justice Ilesh J. Vora was hearing an application under Section 438 of CrPC seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with an FIR for offences under Sections 307, 397, 452, 324, 323, 143, 147, 148, 504 and 506(2) of IPC.
Case Title: Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service vs Bodar Augustin Bhurjibhai
Case Citation: [2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 50]
The Gujarat High Court has held that while exercising its powers under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Labour Courts/ Tribunals must factor in the nature of employment, whether public or private.
Section 11A empowers Labour Courts/ Tribunals to lessen the punishment of 'discharge or dismissal from service' for employee's misconduct and direct reinstatement on such terms and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit.
Case title - J. v. State Of Gujarat (name concealed intentionally)
Case Citation: [2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 51]
The Gujarat High Court recently directed the Director General of Police, Gujarat State to ensure that all the police stations in the state have a panel of lawyers to aid the victims of the sexual assault crimes in accordance with the directions issued by the Supreme Court in a 1995 decision.
The Bench of Justice Sonia Gokani and Justice Aniruddha P. Mayee issued this order after noting that the Supreme Court had issued, inter alia, the following 4 directions in Delhi Domestic Working Women's Forum vs. Union of India [(1995) 1 SCC 14], and which are not being followed in the state of Gujarat
Case Title: MAHESHBHAI BHURJIBHAI DAMOR Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 3 other(s)
Case Citation: [2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 52]
The Gujarat High Court has recently affirmed that in dispensing with departmental inquiry, the authority must arrive at a satisfaction that it is not reasonably practicable to follow the procedure and it must record reason to show that such satisfaction is arrived at on objective facts and not on whims and caprice.
Further, Justice Sangeeta Vishen observed that parties concerned will be put in an embarrassing position cannot be a ground to dispense with the inquiry.
Case Title: PARULBEN NATWARLAL PATEL Versus STATE OF GUJARAT
Case Citation: [2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 53]
"When a particular schedule is mentioned in an advertisement, the same has to be scrupulously maintained. There cannot be any relaxation in terms and conditions of the advertisement unless such a power is reserved," the Gujarat High Court held recently.
The Bench comprising Justice Biren Vaishnav made this observation in a Special Civil Application filed by one Parulben Patel, seeking appointment to the post of Live-Stock Inspector (Class III), and that the requirement for having 10th class certificate in English be relaxed.
Case Title: NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Versus MUKESHBHAI BHIMSINGBHAI RAJPUT & 4 other(s)
Case Citation: [2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 54]
The Gujarat High Court has recently held it to be a well-settled principle of law that "merely in absence of endorsement to drive the transport vehicle in the license does not amount to lead to the interpretation that the driver is not holding valid and effective driving license."
Justice Sandeep Bhatt observed this in connection with a First Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act ('MV Act') wherein the Appellant-Insurance Company was aggrieved with the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal had awarded compensation worth INR 1,55,000 with 9% interest pa to the claimants (driver) and owner jointly and severally.
Case Title: SOLANKI VIPULKUMAR VIRABHAI Versus INSTITUTE OF BANKING PERSONNEL SECTION (IBPS)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 55
"The provisions of the 2016 (Rights of Person with Disability) Act do not envisage a situation to give appointment to a person in absence of any vacancy in the category," the Gujarat High Court has held.
Justice Biren Vaishnav observed so while hearing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, wherein the Petitioner, a visually impaired candidate, was aggrieved by non-appointment to the Saurashtra Gramin Bank, for the reason that no vacancy for visually impaired (VI) category was requisitioned.
Case Title: DINESH SHARAN THAKUR Versus DR. M K SHAH MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH CENTRE
Case Citation: [2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 56]
The Gujarat High Court has recently affirmed that merely appointing more experienced or senior candidates to an administrative post cannot be said to be stigmatic to the predecessor.
In saying so, the Bench comprising Justice Biren Vaishnav has dismissed the Petition filed by the petitioner, former HOD (Anesthesia) at a medical college, challenging his removal and appointment of rather senior candidate.
Case Title: GUJARAT RAJYA HOTEL FEDERATION & 9 other(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 other(s)
Case Citation: [2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 57]
"It is cardinal rule of interpretation, that if a statute explicitly mentions a particular process or method, the same has to be stringently and mandatorily followed, and the Courts cannot interpret the same in any other manner when the words of the statue are precise and unambiguous", the Gujarat High Court has observed.
The Bench comprising Justice AS Supehia has made this observation in a writ petition seeking to quash the notifications which reduced the cash value of the total wage of hotel workers from 33.3% to 19% vide a 15.12.2001 notification.
11. Can't Permit Correction Of Purported Mistake In Appointment At Belated Stage: Gujarat High Court
Case Title: KIRITKUMAR RAVJIBHAI SHARMA Versus PRINCIPAL/TRUSTEE SARASWATI KADAVNI MANDAL
Case Citation: [2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 58]
The Gujarat High Court has recently held that a purported mistake in appointment of a candidate, in this case as an Assistant Teacher, cannot be rectified by the authorities at a belated stage. The Court cited a lapse of four and half years since petitioner's appointment in this case, to set aside the State's order terminating his services.
Justice Biren Vaishnav held, "taking a stand four and half years after his appointment was certainly a case correcting a mistake belatedly...even if it is a mistake it was not open for the authorities to so rectify it after four and half years of the petitioner having been appointed to the post."
Case Title: Yogi Infrastructure Private Limited v. RMC Redimix (India), Subsidiary Of Prism Cement Ltd.
Case Citation: [2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 59]
"…it is expressly provided that defendant shall be served with the plaint and the annexures of the plaint, therefore it necessary implies that all the documents which are part of the plaint as annexures are required to be supplied to the defendant while serving the summons", the Gujarat High Court has affirmed yesterday.
The Bench comprising Justice N.V. Anjaria and Justice Samir J. Dave upheld this in connection with a Special Civil Application challenging the rejection of the Applicant's leave to defend on grounds of delay.
Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Rajeev Chandrasekhar v. K.Koteswar Rao Case No: Criminal Petition No.101127 Of 2015
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 51
The Karnataka High Court has quashed the defamation proceedings against Member of Parliament, Rajeev Chandrashekhar, initiated in the year 2012, when he was the Managing Director of Suvarna News 24/7 Kannada Television Channel. A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna while allowing the quashing petition filed by Chandrashekhar said "The principle of vicarious liability is not applicable to criminal offences in the absence of any provision laid down in the statute. The Managing Director thus cannot be held to be vicariously liable for the acts committed by the Company or its employees merely because he happens to be the Managing Director of the TV news channel."
Case Title: Hemalatha v. Venkatesh Case No: Writ Petition No.39982 Of 2018
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 52
The Karnataka High Court has held that the properties which had been given as dowry or otherwise at the time of marriage of the daughter, would be amenable for partition and the same will have to be included in a suit for partition, instituted by the daughter.
A single-judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj said, "In a suit for partition, the properties which had been given as dowry or otherwise at the time of marriage of the daughter plaintiff, claiming a right of partition under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, would be amenable for partition and the same would have to be included in a suit for partition."
Hijab Ban Reports
A Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court today continued hearing Advocate General Prabhuling Navadgi on behalf of the State, in the petitions filed by Muslim girl students, who have challenged the action of a government college in denying their entry for wearing a hijab (headscarf). Today is the 7th day of the hearing before the Full Bench. When the hearing started, the bench led by the Chief Justice sought a clarification from the State regarding its stand on banning hijab. This arose in view of the AG's submission that the Government Order dated February 5, which has been challenged in the writ petitions, does not prescribe any ban on hijab and that it is only an "innocuous" order which asks students to follow the uniforms prescribed by their institutions.
The Advocate General of Karnataka on Monday assured the Karnataka High Court that there will be no violation by any government department of the February 10 order of the High Court, which had restrained students from wearing religious dresses in classrooms in institutions with prescribed uniforms. The AG's assurance came in response to a complaint that hijab ban was being enforced by authorities even in colleges without any dress code and policemen are deployed at the college gates to harass hijab-wearing Muslim women, including teachers.
The Karnataka High Court on Monday refused to grant any interim relief to two degree college students of Bhandarkar College of Arts and Science, Udupi, who sought directions to the college to permit them to attend classes wearing their headscarf(hijab). A single judge bench of Justice Krishan S Dixit refused interim relief while hearing a petition filed by two students of the Bhandarkar College of Arts and Science, Udupi. The bench observed that the interim order passed by the Full Bench on February 10 governs the issue at present and hence no other relief can be granted by a single bench, especially when hearing was progressing before the Full Bench.
A Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court today continued hearing Advocate General Prabhuling Navadgi on behalf of the State, in the petitions filed by Muslim girl students, who have challenged the action of a government college in denying their entry for wearing a hijab (headscarf). Today is the 8th day of the hearing before the Full Bench. Navadgi told the Bench comprising Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi, Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice JM Khazi that petitioners have not shown that wearing hijab is an essential religious practice in Islam and thus, the protection under Article 25 of the Constitution is not available to them.
Advocate General Prabhuling K Navadgi on Tuesday made a statement before the Karnataka High Court that the government order dated February 5, directing that all the government schools should wear compulsorily the uniforms prescribed by the government and private schools managements should prescribe uniforms in their schools and Pre University Colleges are concerned should wear uniform prescribed by the College Development Committee, is not applicable to Minority Unaided Educational Institutions.
6: Stop Media From ChasingHijab-Wearing Students & Teachers : PIL In Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Abdul Mansoor v. State of Karnataka Case No: WP 3942/2022
A Public Interest Litigation has been filed in the Karnataka High Court seeking to restrain media houses from chasing the students and teachers who are proceeding to their schools & colleges wearing hijab/burqas and from videographing and photographing of children and teachers near to their schools while they were removing their hijabs and burqas Advocate S Balakrishnan appearing for the petitioners Abdul Mansoor and others on Tuesday sought for an urgent hearing of the matter. A full bench of the High Court led by Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi, has now posted the matter for hearing on Wednesday.
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday clarified that that the interim order passed by it on February 10, which prohibited wearing of religious dresses by students in classrooms, will apply to both degree colleges and Pre-University (PU) Colleges, where uniform has been prescribed. The Court also clarified that its order applies only to students and not teachers.
A Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court today continued hearing the Respondents in the petitions filed by Muslim girl students, challenging the action of a government college in denying their entry for wearing a hijab (headscarf). Today is the 9th day of the hearing before the Full Bench.
Senior Advocate S. Naganand, appearing for govt PU college, its principal and lecturers today told the Bench comprising Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi, Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice JM Khazi that the petitioners had no objection in following the dress code until December 2021. He stated that the college has stipulated uniform since 2004, and it was only now, allegedly at the behest of a radical group that the students are "drum beating" the issue of hijab.
Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat today made his rejoinder arguments for Muslim girl students, who are before a Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court, challenging the action of a government PU college in denying their entry for wearing a hijab (headscarf). Today is the 10th day of the hearing before the Full Bench. The Bench comprising Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi, Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice JM Khazi said it will conclude the hearing tomorrow and reserve judgement thereafter.
10: BREAKING| Hijab Ban: KarnatakaHigh Court Full Bench Reserves Judgement After 11 Days Hearing
A Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court today reserved its judgment in the petitions filed by Muslim girl students, challenging the action of a government PU college in denying their entry for wearing a hijab (headscarf). Hearing before the Full Bench comprising Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi, Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice JM Khazi was conducted for 11 days. It may be noted that the Court's interim order, restraining the students from wearing any sort of religious clothes in classrooms, regardless of their faith, is subsisting as of date.
Other Reports:
1: Actor Chetan Kumar Arrested By Karnataka Police Over Tweet Against Judge Hearing 'Hijab Case'
The Bangalore police on Tuesday evening arrested actor and activist Chetan Kumar A, for retweeting an old tweet which he had posted nearly two years ago, criticizing an order passed by Justice Krishna S Dixit in an alleged rape case, who is now part of the full bench hearing a batch of petitions related to the Hijab ban. The police arrested the accused under section 505 (2) [statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes] and Section 504 [intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace] of the Indian Penal Code. Both non-bailable offences can lead to three years in prison, if convicted.
Case Title: K C Rajanna v. State of Karnataka Case No: WP 4021/2022
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday directed the State government to place on record, in two weeks time, a report of the investigations done to trace 141 children who are missing from government owned Child Care Institutions.
A division bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice Suraj Govindaraj while issuing notice to the respondents on a public interest litigation filed by Rajnanna K C said, "AGA is granted two weeks' time to seek instructions in matter and place on record a report of investigation done to trace 141 missing children."
The Karnataka High Court has ordered that in view of Section 2(e)(ii) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, a challenge to an award in an International Commercial Arbitration can be made before the High Court of Karnataka. As per a circular issued by the registrar (Judicial), a Commercial Division under Section 4(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 has been constituted, consisting of a Single Judge at the Principal Bench at Bengaluru and Benches at Dharwad and Kalaburagi.
Case Title: ANI TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
The Karnataka High Court has restrained the state government from taking any coercive steps against ANI Technologies, which operates Ola Cabs, for operating bike taxis in the State. The order will remain in force till the next date of hearing.
A single-judge bench of Justice Pradeep Singh Yerur in its order passed on February 18 said, "It is needless to mention and it is apparent on the face of the record that though the application is filed by the petitioner as long back as 19.04.2021 pursuant to the order of the writ appeal passed by this Court a clear direction was given to the respondents to consider the application preferred by the petitioner herein for grant of permission to use bike taxis within the State of Karnataka."
A Magistrate court in Bengaluru on Friday granted bail to actor and activist Chetan Kumar A, arrested for retweeting an old tweet which he had posted nearly two years ago, criticizing an order passed by Justice Krishna S Dixit in an alleged rape case, who is now part of the full bench hearing a batch of petitions related to the Hijab ban. The court granted bail on the execution of a personal bond of Rs 1 lakh and two solvent sureties of like amount. The court directed that the accused not make, publish, post or circulate any derogatory/provocative statements in any manner so as to disturb communal harmony and public peace.
Kerala High Court
Nominal Index
Citations: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 92 - 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 102
Rajesh R & Ors. v. Health Inspector, Municipal Corporation of Kochi & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 92
Mangala v. Union of India & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 93
Dr Subramanian Swamy v. V.N. Narayanan & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 94
Denny Varghese & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 95
Dr Premachandran Keezhoth & Anr. v. The Chancellor, Kannur University & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 96
Manual v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 97
P.P. Thobiyas & Ors v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 98
Sivasankaran v. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 99
Suseela v. Thiruvanathapuram Corporation & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 100
Mini & Ors. v. Assistant Executive Engineer & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 101
Suo motu case 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 102
Judgments This Week
1. Kerala High Court Issues Directions To Curb Operation Of Unauthorised Street Vendors In Kochi
Case Title: Rajesh R & Ors. v. Health Inspector, Municipal Corporation of Kochi & Ors. and connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 92
The Court issued a comprehensive list of directions to ensure strict implementation of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 within the limits of Kochi Corporation and to ensure that only authorised vendors carry on street vending activities therein. Justice A.K Jayasankaran Nambiar issued the directions in a batch of petitions pending before the Court since 2019 concerning the issue of regulation of street vending activities within the limits of the Kochi Municipal Corporation
Case Title: Mangala v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 93
The Court recently held that mere permission to work from home is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the Court within whose jurisdiction the employee is working. Justice Sunil Thomas answered the question of jurisdiction for legal claims of remote employees and ruled that merely because they are permitted to work from home and the employer was aware that the employee was within a different jurisdiction was not sufficient to confer jurisdiction.
3. Kerala High Court Quashes Consumer Forum Proceedings Against Subramanian Swamy
Case Title: Dr Subramanian Swamy v. V.N. Narayanan & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 94
The Court allowed the petition moved by BJP Rajya Sabha MP and former Union Minister Dr Subramanian Swamy to quash the non-bailable warrant issued by the Thrissur Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum (CDRF) against him citing that he had not received any notice of these proceedings. The Court has also quashed the Execution Proceedings pending as against Swamy after accepting his submission that he has neither received any notice of the proceedings nor engaged any lawyer to represent him there.
Case Title: Denny Varghese & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 95
The Court refused to interfere with the State government's proposal to alter the examination pattern for State Board exam students this academic year as opposed to the last one. In the proposed examination pattern, 70% of the questions will be from the focus area and the rest 30% from the non-focus area. In addition, there will be 50% choice questions for focus area and non-focus area. Justice Amit Rawal opined that such a question pattern and evaluation can identify the most eligible from the rest.
Case Title: Dr Premachandran Keezhoth & Anr. v. The Chancellor, Kannur University & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 96
The Court has dismissed an appeal against a single judge order upholding the re-appointment of Dr Gopinath Ravindran as the Vice-Chancellor of Kannur University. The issue has been gaining momentum in Kerala since this is the first time in the history of the State that a Vice-Chancellor was reappointed. Moreover, it is reported that he was reappointed into office hours after his send-off ceremony as the outgoing VC.
Case Title: Manual v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 97
In a noteworthy decision, the Court has ruled that the admin of a WhatsApp group cannot be held vicariously liable if a member of the group posts objectionable content in the group. Justice Kauser Edappagath observed that this was so because vicarious liability in criminal law can only be fastened when a statute prescribes so.
Case Title: P.P. Thobiyas & Ors v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 98
The Court held that a writ petition is not maintainable against the Kerala Football Association since it was a private organisation and was not discharging public functions. Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan held so in a petition challenging a circular issued by the Association mandating a deposit of Rs. 25,000/- with tax as eligibility criteria to participate in the State Championship League.
Case Title: K. Sivasankaran v. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 99
The Court ruled that what is expected from the competent authority while ordering an inquiry under Section 65(1) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 on the basis of information gathered either on his own or received from other sources is that there shall be an independent and active application of mind as to whether there shall be an inquiry or not. Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Justice C.S. Sudha reiterated that the only requirement of law in the matter of ordering an inquiry under Section 65(1) is that the competent authority has to come to a conclusion on an active application of mind.
Case Title: Suseela v. Thiruvanathapuram Corporation & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 100
The Court has ruled that an Interim Development Order (IDO) issued under Section 63 of the Kerala Town and Country Planning Act, 2016 will prevail over the previous Master Plan of a city even if a new Master Plan has not been sanctioned yet. Justice T.R. Ravi ruled that although Section 36 says that the older Master Plan shall continue to be in operation until the new one is sanctioned, when an IDO has been issued, that shall take over the old Master Plan.
10. Claiming Adverse Possession After Encroachment Into Public Road Not Admissible: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Mini & Ors. v. Assistant Executive Engineer & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 101
The Court has ruled that a petitioner claiming the right of adverse possession after encroaching into a public road cannot be treated as a usual plea of adverse possession. Holding so, Justice A. Badharudeen dismissed a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking title over property by adverse possession when the petitioners had failed to present a prima facie case in their favour.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 102
The Court 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 fluctuation in the Test Positivity Rate in the State. A Full Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar, Justice Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Shaji P. Chaly extended the validity of its previous order extending all interim orders till 21 February amid the Covid-19 surge in the State.
Other Developments:
12. Kerala High Court To Resume Physical Hearing From Monday, February 28
The Court has issued a notice communicating its decision to resume physical sitting from Monday, February 28, 2022. This comes days after it issued a notice announcing that virtual hearing of cases shall continue till mid-March amid the steady hike of Covid-19 cases in the State. However, it was clarified that physical sitting will resume once the Test Positivity Rate in the State drops below 10%.
Case Title: Arun Raj P v. State of Kerala & Ors
The Court lashed out at an advocate clerk for filing a second Public Interest Litigation (PIL) alleging violation of the order issued by Chairperson of State Disaster Management Authority imposing restrictions on political gatherings in the State. Calling it a 'cheap publicity stunt', a Division Bench of Justice Vinod Chandran and Justice C. Jayachandran pulled up the petitioner and warned him of dire consequences if this was repeated in future.
Case Title: Kerala State Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Union of India & Anr.
The Court stayed the demand notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax asking the State Co-operative Bank to pay the outstanding amount for the financial year 2019-20 in a plea moved by the said Bank. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas issued the interim order considering that the matter relating to the collection of Tax Deduction at Source (TDS) on interests by the Co-operative Banks is sub-judice before the Court.
The Court impleaded two more parties to the suo motu matter where devotees were allegedly made to wash the feet of 12 brahmins for the atonement of their sins in Sree Poornathrayeesa Temple, Tripunithura. A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.G. Ajithkumar allowed the impleading applications filed by an NGO and Akhila Kerala Thantri Mandalam and directed them to file their affidavits by the next posting date.
Case Title: Mannam Sugar Mills Cooperative Ltd v. Deputy Superintendant of Police
The Court lashed out at the State government for its incapability to prevent unauthorised flag masts being erected at different parts of the State by political parties, despite its specific and repeated orders against the same. Justice Devan Ramachandran reiterated that every flag post put up without the requisite permission is illegal and that influential people should not be allowed to get away with it.
17. Kerala High Court Reserves Order In Dileep's Plea To Suspend Further Probe In Sexual Assault Case
Case Title: P. Gopalakrishnan alias Dileep v. State of Kerala & Anr.
The Court reserved orders in the plea moved by actor Dileep seeking to suspend further investigation into the 2017 sexual assault case. Justice Kauser Edappagath extensively heard all the parties in detail over a period of three days before reserving verdict in the case. The case made headlines once again in 2022 when film director Balachandrakumar made shocking disclosures against the actor bringing out new allegations against him.
The Kerala High Court Advocates' Association (KHCAA) has addressed a letter to the Registrar General complaining about the prevailing entry restrictions to the virtual hearings happening at the Chief Justice's court. It has been mentioned in the letter that the Association has been receiving several complaints from advocates, frequently encountering difficulties entering the Virtual Court proceedings of Court 1. This is the Court of Chief Justice S Manikumar, where he presides with Justice Shaji P Chaly.
19. Kerala Police Notice To Senior Advocate B Raman Pillai Evokes Protest By Lawyers
The Executive Committee of the Kerala High Court Advocates' Association conducted a protest meeting against the notice issued by the Crime Branch to Senior Advocate B. Raman Pillai at the portico of the Court. This comes after the Crime Branch issued a notice under Section 160 CrPC (requiring attendance of witness) to the senior advocate notifying him to be prepared to give a statement in a crime related to witness tampering in the 2017 actor sexual assault case.
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Shakila Begum (Siddiqui) & another Vs Northern Coal Field Ltd. & others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 40
The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently held that the policy of National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA) to not consider sisters/ married daughters for compassionate appointment is a clear case of gender bias and is thus, unconstitutional.
Justice S.A. Dharmadhikari was essentially dealing with a writ petition filed by the Petitioner who was aggrieved by the order passed by the Respondent company, whereby it had rejected her application for grant of compassionate appointment on the ground that she is a married daughter of the deceased.
Case Title: Kamruddin v. Union of India, with connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 41
The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently held that with respect to search and seizure in cases under the NDPS Act, 'spot' does not mean a place where suspected vehicle or person is intercepted, but a place where search is conducted and recovery of articles is made. Justice Sanjay Dwivedi was essentially dealing with the bail applications moved by the Applicants accused U/S 8/20, 25, 27(a)/28 R/W Section 29 NDPS Act.
Justice Sanjay Dwivedi was essentially dealing with the bail applications moved by the Applicants accused U/S 8/20, 25, 27(a)/28 R/W Section 29 NDPS Act.
Case Title: GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT v. PREMSINGH
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 42
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench recently upheld the decision of a single bench wherein the Writ Court had directed the State to consider the younger son of a deceased government employee for compassionate appointment, despite his elder son serving in the Indian Army. The division bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pranay Verma noted that the elder son, though was in regular employment, lived separately, had constituted his own family and was not in a position to provide financial aid to the deceased's family, i.e. deceased's wife and younger son.
Case Title: FAISAL KHAN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 43
The Madhya Pradesh High Court on Tuesday, directed the release of an adult woman confined at Nari Niketan, who was facing opposition in her family for wanting to marry a man outside her religion. The division bench of Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Manindar Singh Bhatti further advised her to concentrate on finishing her studies, stating that marriage, though important, can be postponed when pitched against education.
Case Title: Mohanlal Patidar v. Bank of Maharashtra and Anr. and connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 44
The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently held that a Bank cannot unilaterally change the quantified OTS (One Time Settlement) amount as the same would be against the principles of natural justice, and also runs contrary to the doctrine of Legitimate Expectation.
The division bench of Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice D.D. Bansal was essentially dealing with a writ petition filed by the Petitioner who was aggrieved by the order of the Respondent Bank, whereby the latter had unilaterally increased the quantified OTS amount from Rs. 36,50,000/- to Rs. 50,50,000/-.
Case Title: SANJAY SINGH BAGHEL v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 45
The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently directed the Superintendent of Police, District Shahdol to take appropriate action against the 'delinquent' police officers for not registering a case under proper sections, allegedly to extend the benefits to the accused. Justice Vishal Mishra was essentially dealing with the second bail application moved by the Applicant accused U/S 409, 420 & 34 IPC.
7. Post Of Water Carrier Constable In Police Force Not A Technical Job: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case Title: STATE OF M.P. v. SUNNY KARARI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 46
Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench, recently held that the Post of Constable (Water Carrier) in Police department is not a technical job and accordingly, rejected the contention of the State that the said post being technical, required a higher degree of medical fitness than what the Petitioner in this case possessed. The division bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Rajendra Kumar (Verma) was dealing with a writ appeal preferred by the State against the order of the Writ Court, whereby the State was directed to issue a consequential appointment order in favour of the Petitioner (Respondent in Appeal), along with other benefits.
8. Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes Order Of Preventive Detention As District Magistrate Failed To Forward The Order To Govt. Forthwith
Case Title: Suresh Upadhyay vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 47
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh recently set aside the order of preventive detention passed by the District Magistrate, holding that he failed to discharge his obligation, in as much as forwarding the case to the State Government after nearly 10 days of passing the respective order.
The division bench of Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice D.D. Bansal was essentially dealing with a writ petition filed by the Petitioner, wherein he was challenging the order of preventive detention passed by the District Magistrate (DM), Bhopal, by invoking Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (hereinafter, 'Act of 1980').
Madras High Court
NOMINAL INDEX
S. Gunaraja v. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai & Anr., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 71
Manimaran v. The Chief General Manager/ Reviewing Authority, Canara Bank & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 72
Wasib Khan v. The State represented by its Deputy Inspector General of Prisons (Chennai Range) & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 73
Indic Collective Trust & Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 74
P.A Josseph v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 75
K.V Komarasamy v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 76
Rangarajan Narasimhan v. Inspector of Police, Srirangam Police Station & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 77
The Adhoc Board of Administrators, Nagore Dargah Interim Adhoc Administrators v. Muhalli Muthavalli & Anr., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 78
South Indian Artistes Association rep. by its Former General Secretary v. The Registrar of Societies, South Chennai & Anr.2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 79
Case Title: S. Gunaraja v. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 71
Madras High Court has held that police cannot decide the working hours of eateries and restaurants under the guise of law and order problems. The court also observed that it is the bounden duty of police authorities to provide appropriate protection to the eatery shops/hotels/restaurants.
Justice Krishnan Ramasamy pointed out that the police does not have the authority to shut down eatery shops/ restaurants by citing law and order problems when they are not accorded such powers after the amendment to Section 35 vide Chennai City Police (Amendment) Act, 2007.
The court also stated that the Preamble of the Indian Constitution guarantees a democratic republic and not a police state. The court made the above statement in the backdrop of police refusing eateries the permission to function even when they don't have the authority to regulate their timings, thereby depriving the fundamental rights of hotel owners and consumers of food. Such unlawful actions of the police fearing anti-social elements entering the eateries at night can only be equated to 'burning down your own house to get rid of a rat', the court added.
Case Title: Manimaran v. The Chief General Manager/ Reviewing Authority, Canara Bank & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 72
Madras High Court has held that material aspects that were not considered by the Disciplinary Authority can be construed as 'new evidence' by the Reviewing Authority to exercise its power of review.
The court observed that the power of reviewing authority is not intended for mechanical exercise and aims at a clear application of mind. This would include whether the nature of charges have been already proved or not and whether the punishment imposed is in commensuration with the gravity of charges so proved or not proved. The Reviewing Authority shall also examine if all the material aspects ought to be considered by the Disciplinary Authority have been taken into account or not.
Justice SM Subramaniam observed that the course of action taken by the Authority is within the purview of Clause 18 of the Canara Bank Officer Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations 1976, contrary to the arguments raised by the petitioner employee. According to the said provision, the authority can review the order when any new material or evidence which could not be produced or was not available at the time of passing the order under review comes into light.
Case Title: Wasib Khan v. The State represented by its Deputy Inspector General of Prisons (Chennai Range) & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 73
Madras High Court has recently reiterated that convict prisoners cannot be granted parole/leave under Tamil Nadu Suspension Of Sentence Rules, 1982 during the pendency of their appeal.
The Division Bench of Justice PN Prakash and Justice R. Hemalatha held that the legal principle enunciated in K.M.Nanavati v. State of Bombay [AIR 1961 SC 112] ought to be followed and the executive power of State for grant of leave cannot be extended when it is the appellate court that can grant suspension of sentence and bail.
Case Title: Indic Collective Trust & Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 74
Madras High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation filed by Indic Collective Trust and its President TR Ramesh challenging the appointment of executive officers to Hindu temples by the HR & CE Commissioner.
The Bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice D.Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that the executive officers were not appointed pursuant to malpractice, maladministration, mismanagement or for any other reason given in Rule 3 of Conditions for Appointment of Executive Officers Rules, 2015. According to the court, the above rule has no application in the peculiar circumstances of the case and observed that Executive officers were appointed in the absence of nomination of trustees for 10-12 years.
The court also added that the mandate in Rule 3 about HR& CE Commissioner appointing Executive Officers for a period not exceeding five years won't be applicable either. The court also went on to note that the writ petition is also affected by the doctrine of laches.
5. 'State's Discretion': Madras High Court Dismisses Plea For Adopting NCERT Syllabus In Govt Schools
Case Title: P.A Josseph v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 75
Madras High Court has dismissed a writ petition seeking a direction to the state government to adopt the syllabus prescribed by NCERT (National Council of Educational Research and Training) for all government schools in Tamil Nadu.
The Bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy dismissed the public interest litigation by stating that such discretion is vested with the state government and the court cannot interfere in it.
"Being a policy decision not shown as a violation of any constitutional/ statutory provision, the jurisdiction of this court is limited. It is upon the state government to choose the syllabus or provide its own syllabus. Therefore, the direction sought cannot be granted", the court observed.
Case Title: K.V Komarasamy v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 76
Madras High Court has held that the appropriate government for grant of remission of sentence to a person convicted under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is the state government and not the Union government.
A Division Bench of Justices P.N Prakash and R. Hemalatha concluded that the executive power of the Union, as well as the state, is offence-specific. In such a scenario, the determining factor would be the identification of the government that possess the executive power pertaining to such offence.
The court further clarified that the executive power of the Union does not extend to matters under the concurrent list according to Article 73 of the Indian Constitution. The source of power for enacting the SC/ST Act can be traced back to Entry I in List III ( Concurrent List) of the Seventh Schedule. That being the case, Section 435(2) of Cr. P.C wouldn't affect remission of sentence of those convicted under SC/ST Act, the court underscored after referring to Constitution Bench judgment in Union of India v. Sriharan @ Murugan and Others (2016 7 SCC 1).
7. Should Temples Be Under Govt Control? Aren't Activists Justified In Arguing Govt Should Exercise Same Control Over Mosques & Churches? Madras HC Asks
Case Title: Rangarajan Narasimhan v. Inspector of Police, Srirangam Police Station & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 77
The Madras High Court has quashed two FIRs against temple activist Rangarajan Narasimhan for allegedly posting defamatory social media posts about the Srirangam Temple administration (Srirangam Lord Ranganathaswamy Temple).
While quashing the FIRs, Justice G.R Swaminathan observed that Section 199 CrPC places a bar on the registration of an FIR for defamation. The court underscored that Section 199 mandates about the court not taking cognizance of the offences in Chapter XXI of IPC [ Defamation] unless there is a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence.
"Should they (temples) continue to be under the thumb of the government? Should not the government professing to be secular treat all religious institutions on par?. Are not knowledgeable and committed activists like Shri.T.R.Ramesh justified in arguing that the government should exercise the same degree and level of control over temples as are exercised over churches and mosques?. Such questions and thoughts cross my mind because the petitioner before me is not only a passionate devotee but also an activist', the court said.\
Case Title: The Adhoc Board of Administrators, Nagore Dargah Interim Adhoc Administrators v. Muhalli Muthavalli & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 78
Taking suo motu cognisance of the misuse of funds belonging to Nagore Dargah, the Madras High Court has called upon the Ad Hoc Board of Administrators to show cause as to why they should not be discontinued/ substituted.
The first bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy came down heavily on the Board after observing that it has filed a writ appeal by 'misusing the position and funds of dargah'.
The court also added that the Adhoc Board of Administrators was appointed by the High Court in 2017 for a short period of four months. The appointment was made by the court to set straight the mismanagement of dargah's affairs. The said board of administrators consisted of Janab K.Allaudin, I.A.S., (Retired) and Janab S.F.Akbar, District Judge (Retired).
"Merely because the Adhoc Committee comprises a retired IAS Officer and a retired District Judge, they cannot be permitted to misuse the funds", the court observed in its order.
Case Title: South Indian Artistes Association rep. by its Former General Secretary v. The Registrar of Societies, South Chennai & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 79
A division bench of Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq on 23.02.2022 was passing orders on a batch of appeals with respect to an election for the office-bearers of the South Indian Artistes' Association.
Holding the elections to be valid and the Executive Committee to be within power, the court drew attention to Section 15(5) of Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 which provides that the Executive Committee is eligible for reappointment. The act also provides in Section 86 that when the AGM has specifically allowed the existing committee members to continue, it would amount to reappointment in terms of Section 15(5), as there were no fresh elections on the date of convening of the AGM.
The AGM attended by more than 1500 members consented for extension of the term which would therefore come under the definition of reappointment. The association had treated the elected committee members as "Care-taker Committee" and therefore the actions taken by them cannot be deemed to be a nullity.
Case Title: S.P Chockalingam v. Principal Chief Conservator of Forests & Ors. & Connected Matters.
In the matter pertaining to the night traffic ban in Sathyamangalam Tiger Reserve, Madras High Court has asked the Additional Advocate General to file an affidavit detailing the possibility of CCTV installation at the entry and exit points as well as at every 5 kms in the 27 km Bannari-Karapallam stretch.
For the time being, the first bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy has directed the immediate installation of temporary CCTV Cameras at entry and exit points to ascertain the type of vehicles plying in the stretch.
Orissa High Court
Case Title: SRB Transport Sambalpur v. Union of India & Ors. and other connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 15
The Orissa High Court has held that a Letter of Acceptance ("LoA"), issued in favour of the successful party of a tender, cannot be cancelled unilaterally without assigning reasons for the same. While granting relief to the aggrieved bidders (petitioners herein), a Division Bench of Justices B.R Sarangi and V. Narasingh defined the term 'reason' as,
"'Reason' means the faculty of rational thought rather than some abstract relationship between propositions and by this faculty, it is meant the capacity to make correct inferences from propositions, to size up facts for which they are and what they imply, and to identify the best means to some end, and, in general, to distinguish what we should believe from what we merely do believe."
Case Title: Bajaj Finance Ltd v. M/s Ali Agency & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 16
The Orissa High Court has held that jurisdiction under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ("SARFAESI Act") can be exercised by either of the two authorities namely Chief Judicial Magistrate ("CJM") and District Magistrate ("DM"). Therefore, both the authorities are equally competent to exercise the jurisdiction. Section 14 provides for assistance to be rendered by Chief Metropolitan Magistrate ("CMM") or DM to secured creditor in taking possession of secured asset.
Punjab & Haryana High Court
1. Bhangi Remark: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Yuvraj Singh
Case: Yuvraj Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 28
Punjab and Haryana High Court has recently rejected the petition seeking quashing of FIR against the cricketer Yuvraj Singh, in Hansi, Haryana for using the word 'Bhangi' during an Instagram live. Singh was booked for alleged commission of offences under S.153A and S.153B of IPC and S.3(1)(u) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Justice Amol Rattan Singh observed that the offences punishable under Sections 153-A and 153-B of the IPC are not found to be committed by Singh even prima facie. However, regarding whether the offences under S.3(1)(u) and S.3(1)(s) of the SC&ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 had been committed, it held that the investigation agency must complete its investigation and must come to its own conclusion.
Case title - ASEEM GAIND v. AXIS BANK, RETAIL ASSETS CENTRE
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 29
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed that the High Court has the power to grant an extension of time for completion of the loan repayment under the OTS (One Time Settlement) Scheme, however, such power can't be invoked at the instance of the borrower as a matter of right. The bench of Justice M. S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice J. S. Bedi also held that it is not open for the Public Sector Banks or Private Sector Banks to decline OTS sought by a borrower, provided he/she falls within the OTS Policy being followed by the Bank.
Case title - Arti Devi v. UT Chandigarh & others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 30
The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently clarified that a government Hospital can't deny treatment to someone on the ground that he/she is not a resident of the area where the hospital is located. The Bench of Justice Rajbir Sehrawat observed this in a matter wherein a pregnant woman was denied medical treatment by a Government Hospital in Chandigarh on the ground that she is a resident of Punjab and not a resident of the UT Chandigarh.
Case: Harbhajan Sandhu v. State of Punjab and Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 31
The ingredients of abetment must be fulfilled to establish the abetment of suicide under Section 306 of IPC and merely a suicide note with the name of the accused shall not suffice for the same, Punjab and Haryana High Court has held. Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi has held that in addition to there being a requirement of mens rea pointing to instigation by the accused to goad the deceased into committing suicide, there must be a proximate and live link present between such abetment and the consequent suicide, to establish the offence of abetment to suicide under S.306 of IPC.
Rajasthan High Court
Case Title: Soniya Burdak v. State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 71
The Rajasthan High Court has ruled that no person has a vested right to be posted at a particular place. The court further observed that accepting a request for inter-district transfer of a recruit can lead to chain reaction and at times considerable administrative difficulties.
Chief Justice Akil Kureshi and Justice Madan Gopal Vyas, ordered, "The question of appointment or absorption in particular district, division or zone at the time of recruitment is essentially for the convenience of the selected candidate but this always is subject to administrative exigencies. No person has a vested right to be posted at a particular place. The selections and recruitments must attain finality."
The development ensued in a writ appeal filed by a PTI Grade-III recruit, seeking posting at Alwar instead of Jhunjhunu.
Case Title: M/S Fairdeal Shipping Agency Pvt Ltd. v.. The Joint Commissioner of Customs (Preventive)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 72
The Rajasthan High Court has held that officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) are not a competent authority to issue show cause notice and adjudicate the same as "proper officer" under Section 28 and 124 the Customs Act, 1962.
A division bench of Chief Justice Akil Kureshi and Justice Sameer Jain, rued, "DRI officer is not Competent Authority to issue show cause notice and adjudicate the same as "proper officer". The Act, the notification relied upon do not define and bring the DRI officers within four corners of "proper officers" having functions and powers to act under Section 28 of the Act of 1962 "
The court observed that the entire proceedings in the present case, initiated by officers of DRI in as much as by issuance of show cause notice under Section 28/124 of the Customs Act lacks jurisdiction and are without any authority of law because the present show cause notice is not issued by custom officer but by DRI officer who has not been assigned specific function/power under Section 6 to issue show cause notice U/S 28 of the Act of 1962.
Case Title: Ankit Sharma & Ors. v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 73
In a significant development, the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur has quashed the preliminary exam results of RAS/RTS Combined Competitive Examination 2021 conducted by Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC).
The court directed RPSC to revise the result of the preliminary examination and to prepare a fresh list of candidates eligible to appear in the mains examination accordingly.
The preliminary examination was conducted on 27.10.2021 and the final answer key was issued on 22.11.2021.
Justice Mahendra Kumar Goyal, observed, "The upshot of the aforesaid discussion is that the writ petitions are partly allowed in the above mentioned terms. The final answer key dated 22.11.2021 is quashed to the extent as stated hereinabove. Resultantly, the result dated 19.11.2021 stands quashed. The RPSC is directed to revise the result of the preliminary examination and to prepare a fresh list of candidates eligible to appear in the mains examination accordingly."
Case Title: Tasleem Ahmed Khan v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 74
The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, has refused to grant interim stay in a plea seeking complete ban on exhibition of KGF-2 movie and its Teaser. The movie is set to release on 14th April 2022.
The development ensued in an appeal filed by one Tasleem Ahmed Khan against an order dated 31.01.2021 passed by the Single Judge, whereby while issuing notice in the writ petition against the movie, interim stay was refused.
The appellant is primarily aggrieved by certain scenes showing the actors smoking cigarettes. It is contended that the same is not permissible as per the rules and regulations framed by the Government of India.
Case Title: Rajkamal Basitha v. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur and connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 75
The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur dismissed a batch of writ petitions challenging the District Judge Recruitment process.
In this matter, all the petitioners herein failed to make a mark in the preliminary examination. They were not shortlisted and did not qualify for the main examination.
Chief Justice Akil Kureshi and Justice Sudesh Bansal, ruled, "All in all we find that the exercise undertaken by the specially constituted committee which culminated into a well-reasoned report touching threadbare on each and every disputed question, and which report was accepted by the examination committee, calls for no interference."
Case Title: Rajasthan Public Service Commission v. Ankit Sharma & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 76
The division bench of Rajasthan High Court stayed the single judge bench order which quashed the preliminary exam results of RAS/RTS Combined Competitive Examination 2021 conducted by Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC).
The court ordered that it would be open for RPSC to conduct the written main examination on the rescheduled date.
The court refused to go into the questions threadbare and observed that it has prima facie belief that the learned Judge had exceeded the scope of writ jurisdiction in the present case. The court observed that no legal or factual malafides were demonstrated nor procedural illegality was established and in some cases there still exists a grey area, which inturn is not sufficient to overturn an expert's body's decision.
Case Title: Rakesh Garg Versus Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ajmer
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 77
A Bench of Rajasthan High Court, consisting of Chief Justice Akil Kureshi and Justice Sudesh Bansal, held that since the primary intention of the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 was the resolution of disputed taxes, the courts must adopt an interpretation that furthers this intention and not restrict its scope. Also, the court ruled that a clarification issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), being declaratory in nature, cannot introduce a cut off date for its applicability.
Proceedings for penalty under the Act were initiated against the Assessee for failing to file an audit report under Section 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Against the order of the Assessing Officer imposing penalty on the Assessee, an appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT (A)) was filed which was dismissed by it. The Assessee thereby filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) along with an application for condonation of delay.In the meantime, the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 was passed by the Parliament, with effect from 17th March, 2020, for resolution of disputed tax.
Case Title: Radhakrishan Meena v. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 78
In a case pertaining to rape on account of false promise to marriage, the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur observed that married educated women, depending upon the facts of each case, is supposed to be well aware of the consequences of having sexual intercourse with a man prior to solemnizing of the marriage.
The court opined that the consent of a woman under Section 375 of IPC can be held vitiated only on the ground of misconception of fact where such misconception was the basis of her surrender for establishing physical relationship. The court further opined that a breach of promise cannot be said to be a false promise. To establish a false promise, the maker of the promise should have had no intention of upholding his words at the time of giving it, added the court.
Justice Farjand Ali, observed, "When a woman is married and educated, then, depending on facts of each case, she is supposed to be well aware of the consequences of having sexual intercourse with a man prior to solemnizing of the marriage. In the event of a consent obtained by fraud, inducement is a necessary ingredient. There must be some material on record to hold prima facie that the girl was induced by the accused to such an extent that she was in agreement to have sexual intercourse with him"
Case Title: Union Of India & Anr. v. Harendra Gawaria
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 79
Recently, the division bench of Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur dealt with the question of whether the candidature of the respondent can be rejected by the Department of Railways on the ground of human error/bonafide mistake alone, because the date of the Postal Order was wrongly mentioned by him in the application, despite the fact that Postal Order was issued within the period of limitation.
In the present matter, the North Western Railway (NWR) Recruitment Cell issued an advertisement on 16.12.2010 by which the applications for recruitment on several posts of Group 'D'. were invited. The respondent submitted an application under the category of Other Backward Class. He qualified in the written examination, appeared in the physical eligibility test and qualified the medical test. Finally, the respondent was found fit, but subsequently, his candidature was rejected on 29.07.2013 by NWR for the reason that the Postal Order submitted by him was not within limitation.
Case Title: Suresh v. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 80
In a significant ruling, the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur has issued guidelines for Test Identification Parade (TIP) in POCSO Cases.
The court ruled that special Judges of POCSO Act cases and all the District & Sessions Judges of the State shall ensure the immediate implementation of this order amongst all the judicial officers and all courts in their respective jurisdiction, which are conducting the trial of POCSO Cases
Justice Farjand Ali, while issuing the guidelines for TIP, rejected the bail application of the accused and ordered, "This order shall be conveyed by the Registry of this Court to all learned special Judges of POCSO Act cases and all the District & Sessions Judges of the State, who shall ensure the immediate implementation of this order amongst all the judicial officers and all courts in their respective jurisdiction, which are conducting the trial of POCSO Cases."
Other Important Updates
Case Title: Vishnu Oil Mill Private Ltd. v. Union of India
The Rajasthan High Court has issued notice on a writ petition seeking to declare Section 7 of Insolvency Bankruptcy Code, 2016 as unconstitutional to the extent it facilitates a joint application by multiple financial creditors, to prove the minimum default of one crore rupees.
A division bench of Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Madan Gopal Vyas, ordered,
"Issue notice to respondents. Learned counsel appearing for Union of India Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit, Additional Solicitor General takes notice and is granted three weeks' time to file reply. Let notices be issued to respondent Nos. 4 to 7, returnable within three weeks."
Telangana High Court
Cause Title: V. SHIVAJI & ORS. v. K. MURALI & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 14
Relying on the Apex Court decision in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors., the Telangana High Court recently ruled that the compensation in motor vehicle accident death claims should include amount under conventional heads viz. loss of estate, loss of consortium, and funeral expenses.
Cause Title: B.VIJAY KUMAR REDDY, HYD., v. STATE OF TELANGANA, REP PP 4 OTRS.,
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 15
The Telangana High Court recently reiterated that the dispute regarding non-refund of money is of civil nature. For criminal prosecution under the offence of cheating or criminal breach of trust, it has to be proved that the accused persons had an intention to cheat/deceive the victim from the inception and accused dishonestly misappropriated the property entrusted to them.
Case Title: Smt Nasreen Sultana v. The State of Telangana
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 16
In a recent ruling, the Telangana High Court, directed the Sub Registrars in the State to register the documents of sale, transfer, and gift etc. presented for registration even though it is not in authorized/approved layout. The writ petitions were filed to declare action of various Sub-Registrars in the State in refusing to receive, process, register and release the sale deeds, gift deeds etc., presented by the petitioners, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional.
Case Title: Basa Bagawantha Rao v. Vemumula Sulochana
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 17
Telangana High Court held that when there are concurrent findings of both the Courts in a well-reasoned order, the Second Appeal is not maintainable without any substantial question of law. Justice P. Sree Sudha ruled that:
"The said issue was dealt with by the trial Court in detail and after considering the entire evidence on record rightly declared the plaintiff as owner of the suit land, which was also confirmed by the appellate Court. It is to be noted that when there are concurrent findings of both the Courts in a well-reasoned order, the Second Appeal is not maintainable without any substantial question of law involved in it."
Case Title: Alt Digital Media Entertainment Limited (Alt balaji) v. Price Media & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 18
The Telangana High Court recently set aside the ad-interim injunction granted by the trial Court against releasing, exhibiting and publishing the series 'Lockupp reality show' starring Kangana Ranaut and made by Alt Balaji Media. As makers spent huge amounts of money this month for marketing and the public was aware of the release of the reality show on 27.02.2022, the balance of convenience lay in the favour of the makers of the show.
Justice P. Sree Sudha noted that no doubt the concept of 'The Jail' and the concept of 'Lockupp reality show' were registered by both parties and both spent huge amounts. However, 'The Jail' could not be produced due to lockdown, but the team of reality show of 'Lockupp' has already produced and also spent huge amounts on marketing in the month of February, 2022 and intended to live stream the show on 27.02.2022.
Case Title: M/s. Jupiter Industries v. Canara Bank
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 19
The Telangana High Court was of the opinion that writ jurisdiction cannot be exercised when the statutory remedy under Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI) has been invoked. The petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was filed by the petitioners for quashing the sale notice issued by Canara Bank/respondent under Section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act and for a direction to the respondents to apply the circulars of the Reserve Bank of India while considering the case of the petitioners which was a Medium, Small and Micro Enterprise (MSME).