Allahabad High Court1. S. 482 CrPC Plea Maintainable To Quash Proceedings Which Are Ex Facie Bad For Want Of Sanction: Allahabad High CourtCase title - Mahendra Pal Singh Lekhpal And Another v. State of U.P. and AnotherCase Citaiton: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 9The High Court observed that an application under Section 482 CrPC is maintainable to quash the proceedings, which are ex facie bad for...
Allahabad High Court
Case title - Mahendra Pal Singh Lekhpal And Another v. State of U.P. and Another
Case Citaiton: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 9
The High Court observed that an application under Section 482 CrPC is maintainable to quash the proceedings, which are ex facie bad for want of sanction as required under Section 197 of Crpc (Prosecution of Judges and public servants).
With this, the Bench of Justice Chandra Kumar Rai set aside a summoning order passed by the Judicial Magistrate Farrukhabad against a Lekhpal (applicant number 1) and a Kanoongo (applicant number 2) in the Consolidation department (both public servants) without obtaining necessary sanction as provided under Section 197 of CrPC.
Case Title: S/S Shri Surya Traders v. Union Of India And 4 Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 10
In a case pertaining to wrongful seizure of a consignment by State authorities citing non-compliance with the provisions of UP GST Act, a single judge bench of Allahabad High Court has observed that "State government has tried to create an atmosphere for free flow of trade and commerce so that a good business environment can be developed in the State of Uttar Pradesh which can be used for development purpose but the State Authorities in their whims and fancies, are bent upon to harass the trading community of the state and the present case is a glaring example of this mischievousness of the State Authorities which needs to be checked at the end of the State government immediately."
Case title - Neeraj Mandal @ Rakesh v. State of U.P and connected matters
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 11
While denying bail to 4 persons accused of fraudulently withdrawing money from the bank account of a retired High Court Judge, the High Court observed that those who deposit money in banks are honest and it is the responsibility of the banks to keep their money safe 'at any cost'. The Bench of Justice Shekhar Yadav also observed that those people who do not deposit crores of rupees in the bank and rather hide the same in the basements of their houses, are responsible for hollowing out the economic prosperity of the country.
It opined that the bank has to take responsibility for such cases wherein the money of their customers is withdrawn by cybercriminals as such customers are more honest towards the country since they put their white money in banks.
Case title - Neeraj Mandal @ Rakesh v. State of U.P and connected matters
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 11
While denying bail to 4 persons accused of fraudulently withdrawing money from the bank account of a retired High Court Judge, the High Court expressed its agreement with a submission made by the Union Government regarding the filing of a review petition against the Supreme Court's 2018 Adhaar Verdict before the SC.
In its 2018 Verdict, the Supreme Court had ruled that the move of mandatory linking of Aadhaar with bank account does not satisfy the test of proportionality.
Essentially, the Bench of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav was hearing the submissions of RBI, State Government, BSNL, and Union government regarding the measures that could be taken to tackle cyber frauds/cyber crimes/fraudulent withdrawal of money from banks.
Case title - Anurag Mehrotra v. State Of U.P.Thru Addl.Chief Secy.Finance Deptt. Lko & Ors.
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 12
The High Court has observed that any rule framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India can only be replaced by an Act of an appropriate legislature and the same cannot be replaced by an executive order issued under Article 162 of the Constitution of India.
The Bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary observed thus as it set aside a government's order of 1986 withdrawing the benefit of bonus required to be paid under Rule 12 of the General Provident Fund (U.P.), Rules, 1985.
Case title - Roop Lal and Anr v. Suresh Kumar Yadav and 2 Ors.
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 13
Referring to a Supreme Court's Judgment delivered in 2021, the High Court observed that fixing notional income at Rs.15,000/- per annum for a family's non-earning members is not just and reasonable.
The Bench of Justice Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Ajai Tyagi was hearing an appeal filed by the parents of a 7-year-old deceased boy, seeking enhancement of quantum, against Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's order awarding Rs.1,80,000 as compensation with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum.
Important Weekly Updates
1. Allahabad High Court Again Moves To Virtual Hearing After 8 Judges Test Positive For COVID
The Allahabad High Court (both benches) decided to function via Virtual Mode of hearing (starting from tomorrow) after 8 judges, a few judicial employees and some lawyers tested COVID-19 Positive.
This decision came 6 days after the High Court had decided to move from a virtual mode of hearing to a hybrid mode of hearing.
Due to the recent increase in the cases of COVID-19, the Allahabad High Court has decided to issue certain guidelines that shall be applicable to all the Courts (including Tribunals) subordinate to the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad with effect from January 10.
In order to make virtual court proceedings more efficient and user-friendly, the Allahabad High Court has decided to adopt the CISCO WebEx Events platform for video conferencing at Lucknow Bench.
This development comes almost 6 months after the Allahabad High Court (at Prayagraj bench) decided to adopt the CISCO WebEx Events platform for video conferencing at Allahabad in place of the JITSI Meet platform.
Case title - Smt. Kusum Chaturvedi And Another v. Bhupendra Prasad
Expressing its dismay over the progress of a civil suit and the way the concerned Judge at Mathura Court fixed the dates in the matter, the Allahabad High Court on Monday observed that even during a severe COVID-19 upsurge, judicial function, like many other solemn functions of the State, can't be shut down.
The Bench of Justice J. J. Munir further remarked that for the time being, the CoViD-19 pandemic upsurge is a recurrent feature and thus, it does not mean that the functioning of Courts should come to a standstill.
"The Courts must function and discharge their duties by adopting and adapting ways and means necessary for the dispensation of justice. During a severe CoViD-19 upsurge, judicial function, like many other solemn functions of the State, may be discharged differently, but they cannot be forsaken or the system of justice shut down," the Court observed.
Case title - Atul Kumar and another v. Election Commission of Bharat
A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea has been moved in the High Court seeking postponement of elections for the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly in view of the COVID surge.
While seeking a direction to the Election Commission of 'Bharat' to hold the said elections in April and May 2022 (rather than February and March 2022), the petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the election schedule fixed by the Election Commission.
UAPA Accused Atiq Ur Rehman, Mohd. Masud and Alam have moved the Allahabad High Court seeking charge sheet copies, other documents in the case registered against them after they were held by UP Police in 2020 while they were on their way to Hathras to meet the family members of gang rape and murder victim.
It may be noted that they were held along with a Kerala journalist (Siddique Kappan) and they all were slapped with Sedition and UAPA.
The High Court will hear the arguments in Ashish Mishra's bail plea (filed in connection with a case filed against him on murder charges for the Lakhimpur Kheri incident) on January 18, 2022.
Mishra, the son of Union Minister of State for Home Affairs and BJP MP Ajay Kumar Mishra is the prime accused in the Lakhimpur Kheri Violence case is under police custody and has moved to the Allahabad High Court seeking bail in the case.
Case Title - Mohit Yadav v. Union Of India Through Secretary Ministry Of Youth Affairs And Sports And Others
The High Court has directed the Sports Authority of India to ensure participation of the Indian Handball national team in the 20th Asian Men's Handball Championship, scheduled to be held from Jan 18 to Jan 31 in Saudi Arabia.
This order was made by the bench of Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi and Justice Narendra Kumar Johari which was hearing the writ plea of a member of the Indian Team, Mohit Yadav.
Essentially, Yadav had moved the High Court highlighting the fact that the budget for sponsoring the Indian team to participate in the tournament was earmarked by the Sports Authority of India, however, the same was not being released on account of some election proceedings taking place to constitute the management body in Handball Federation of India.
Andhra Pradesh High Court
The High Court has reiterated that when a person is in settled possession and enjoyment of a property, he cannot be dispossessed, except by following due process of law. Justice M. Satya Narayana Murthy said
"When the petitioner is in settled possession and enjoyment of property, he cannot be dispossessed, without following due process of law...Therefore, the respondents are directed, not to dispossess the petitioner from the property, except by due process of law."
Bombay High Court
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 5
The Bombay High Court has cautioned lawyers against getting non-urgent matters listed and decided to impose high costs or adjourn matters for a long time if non-urgent cases are pushed for a hearing.
As per its SOP from January 10, 2022, the Bombay High Court at its principal seat is functioning for only three hours between 12 pm – 3 pm and hearing only urgent cases.
Case Title: Saiher Supply Chain Consulting Pvt Ltd v. Union of India and Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 6
The Bombay HC quashed and set aside an order of the Assistant Commissioner of CGST refusing refund of GST paid by a private export company on the ground that the company's application was time barred or not filed within the limitation period prescribed under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST) Act.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 7
In an interim relief to a law graduate from Mumbai, the Bombay High Court has allowed him to participate in the ongoing recruitment process for post of Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate (First Class), despite being "age-barred."
The petitioner contended that he was age-barred as the Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC) did not issue any advertisement for applications last year due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
Case Title: Udaynath Tirkey vs The Director General, Central Industrial Security Force & othrs
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Bom) 8
The Bombay High Court has held that being accused of a heinous crime is not a good enough reason not to conduct a departmental enquiry before dismissing a constable from service under Rule 39(ii) of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) Rules akin to Article 311(2) of the Constitution.
The court quashed the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF)'s orders regarding the dismissal of a constable for allegedly raping a colleague's five-year-old daughter. Instead, it ordered the constable's reinstatement with a rider that CISF was not barred from initiating an enquiry subsequently.
Other Important Updates
Case Title: Ghanshyam Upadhyay vs The High Court Bombay
A Mumbai based lawyer approached the Supreme Court seeking to set aside the Bombay High Court's circular reducing its functioning in Mumbai to just three working hours a day owing to the rise in covid-19 cases in the city and state. It further seeks to enforce virtual hearings in all courts in the state.
The PIL under Article 32 of the Constitution of India calls the SOP "unrealistic" and "unreasonable." He states that courts can be made functional through a virtual hearing without reducing the working hours.
Case Title: Sabina Lakdawala vs Komal Singh Rajput
A petition filed in the Bombay High Court challenges Section 3 of the Judges (Protection) Act of 1985 that prevents civil or criminal proceeding against a Judge for anything done in the course of his official or judicial duty.
The plea alleges that the provision confers "absolute immunity to the judges even when they act maliciously and wilfully deny justice; on extraneous and corrupt considerations."
According to Section 3 of the Act, no court can entertain civil, criminal proceedings against a judge for acts or words spoken by him while performing his duty as a judge. However, the Central or State Government, the Supreme Court of India or an High Court can take civil, criminal or departmental action against a judge.
Case Title: State of Maharashtra (Through NIA) vs Pragya Singh Thakur and Others
Case No: NIA Spl Case 1/2016
Lt Colonel Prasad Purohit, a prime accused in the case has sought in-camera hearings in the ongoing trial against him and others, including BJP MP Pragya Singh Thakur. Purohit's plea comes soon after reports of nearly 16 crucial witnesses in the case being declared hostile.
The court has asked the NIA and victim intervenors to file their replies.
Case Title: Adv.Inderpal Singh Balbir Singh Purewal & others VS State of Maharashtra
Case No: ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.21 OF 2022
A Sessions Court in Mumbai rejected the anticipatory bail applications of a Mumbai based lawyer Inder Pal Singh, who has been representing former Maharashtra Home Minister Anil Deshmukh before the High Court as well as the Sessions Court.
Singh and three others are accused of outraging the modesty of a female member of the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP). Singh is a former North Mumbai District President of the party. The sections applied against the accused include sections 354 (assault to outrage modesty of woman), 509 (words to insult modesty) and 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code and section 67 (punishment for publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form) of the Information Technology Act.
Singh subsequently approached the HC but withdrew his plea after the police submitted that they didn't intend to arrest him if he cooperated.
On January 13, the Bombay High Court issued notice to Mumbai Mayor Kishori Pednekar seeking her response to BJP MLA Ashish Shelar's plea to quash Mumbai Police's FIR against him for allegedly outraging modesty during a press conference on November 30, 2021.
"Such incidents do occur in public life, we are aware. But responsible persons are expected to choose words wisely," the bench observed.
6. Pune Court Grants Pre Arrest Bail to Hindutva Leader Milind Ekbote and 3 others in Hate Speech Case
Less than a week after self-proclaimed religious guru Kalicharan Maharaj was granted bail in a case of hate speech, a Sessions Court granted four other accused anticipatory bail in Pune.
The court allowed the anticipatory bail plea of Hindutva leader Milind Ekbote, for Rs. 25,000 each and one or two sureties of the same amount. Other three who have been granted anticipatory bail are Nandkumar Ekbote, Deepak Nagpure and Mohanrao Shete.
7. Nawab Malik Granted Bail In Second Defamation Case By Former BJP Youth Wing President
On January 12, a Magistrate court granted bail to Maharashtra Cabinet Minister and NCP leader Nawab Malik in the second defamation complaint filed against him by former Mumbai BJP youth wing president Mohit Kamboj Bharatiya.
Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Dr. Avinandan Mondal v. State of West Bengal & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 1
The Calcutta High Court modified certain conditions imposed earlier while allowing the State Government to hold this year's Gangasagar Mela amidst the fresh surge in Covid-19 cases in the State of West Bengal. The changes/additions made are as follows:
Earlier, a three Member Committee comprising of (i) Leader of Opposition in the State or his representative, (ii) Chairman, West Bengal Human Rights Commission or his representative and (iii) representative of the State was constituted which will keep vigil in respect of compliance of the above directions as also measures suggested by the State in the affidavit dated 06th January 2022. - Now, this committee has been substituted by constituting a two-member Committee comprising Smt. Samapti Chatterjee, Retired Judge of the Calcutta High Court as Chairperson and Member Secretary, West Bengal Legal Services Authority as a member. This has been done in response to the submission of the State Government that the Committee formed by the Court should not only be an independent Committee but it should not have political members. Other directions are as follows- i. The Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of West Bengal will ensure that only persons who have received the two-dose of COVID vaccination and are having a second vaccination certificate are permitted to enter the Sagar Islands during the Mela period. ii. Only those who are having COVID negative in RTPCR report of within 72 hours, will be permitted to enter the Sagar Islands. iii. The competent authority of the State has been directed to issue a notification in terms of Section 3 of Gangasagar Mela Act, 1976 declaring the whole of the area within the Sagar Islands as a notified area within 24 hours. iv. The Chief Secretary, Government of West Bengal will be personally liable to ensure the compliance of the above directions as also the directions contained in the order of this Court dated 7th of January, 2022 passed in WPA(P) 1 of 2022.
Case Title: Dr. Avinandan Mondal v. State of West Bengal & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 1
The Calcutta High Court allowed the State Government to hold this year's Gangasagar Mela amidst the fresh surge in Covid-19 cases in the State of West Bengal. However, certain conditions have been imposed by the Court. Every year, on Makar Sankranti, lakhs of Hindu devotees flock to the Sagar Island in West Bengal's South 24 Parganas district to take a holy dip and offer prayers at the Kapil Muni temple. This year, the Mela is scheduled to take place from January 8 to January 16, 2022. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Kesang Doma Bhutia, inter alia, observed, "The Home Secretary of the State will issue advertisements in the daily newspapers having wide circulation in the State of West Bengal and also through the electronic media making the public aware of the risk of visiting Gangasagar Island between 08th and 16th January, 2022 in large gathering and will make an appeal to them to stay safe and desist from visiting the Gangasagar Island during this period." Pertinently, the Court also constituted a three Member Committee to regulate the crowd in the Mela and ensure compliance of directions issued by the Court.
Case Title: Bimal Bhattacharya v. State of West Bengal & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 2
The Calcutta High Court directed the State Election Commission to consider postponing the conduct of the upcoming municipal elections in Siliguri, Chandernagore, Bidhannagar and Asansol for a short period of 4 to 6 weeks in the wake of the 'galloping speed with which the COVID cases are increasing' in the State of West Bengal. A decision in this regard has to be taken by the State Election Commission within 48 hours, a Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee directed further. The Court was adjudicating upon a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition seeking postponement of municipal elections in Siliguri, Chandernagore, Bidhannagar and Asansol which are due to take place on January 22, 2022 in the wake of the rising number of Covid-19 cases in the State of West Bengal.
Case Title: Pratik Maitra v. State of West Bengal
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 3
The Calcutta High Court directed the District Magistrate, Jhargram to consider postponing the upcoming Jangalmahal Utsav, scheduled to take place across 6 districts of West Bengal from January 17- January 19, 2022, in view of the rising number of Covid-19 cases in the State. The decision has to be taken within a period of 24 hours, the Court directed further. Earlier, the Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj had directed the State government to file a report detailing the arrangements made to follow Covid-19 protocol during the conduct of the Jangalmahal Utsav. Considering the Covid-19 situation in Jhargram district where the Utsav is slated to take place, the Court directed, "We direct the respondent No. 2, District Magistrate, Jhargram to take a decision in respect of postponement of Mela within a period of 24 hours from this order".
Also Read: Plea To Postpone Jangalmahal Utsav Amid Covid Surge: Calcutta High Court Seeks State's Response
Case Title: Shri Aloke Singh & Ors v. Indian Statistical Institute & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 4
The Calcutta High Court came down heavily on the administration of the Indian Statistical Institute (ISI) for its decision to outsource the services rendered by a batch of contractual employees who had been working as gardeners since 2013 to a government contractor. The Court set aside the resolution dated January 3, 2022, which contained such a direction and further ordered that under no circumstances can the contractual employees be pushed to a Government contractor from the aegis of the ISI administration. Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay minced no words in disapproving of the practice of governmental interference in the functioning of autonomous institutions. Directing the ISI administration to consider giving permanent employee status to the petitioners, the Court further observed, "I wholly set aside and quash the resolution taken in the meeting dated 03.01.2022 that ISI should procure the cooking and gardening services by following the due procedure on GeM. In no circumstances petitioners can be pushed to a Government contractor from the fold of ISI. On the contrary, ISI should consider with sincerity about giving permanent employee status to the petitioners as artificial breaks were given in their contractual periods from 2013 to 2021." Opining further on the outsourcing of services, the Court remarked with dismay, "Why the services should be outsourced? What is the reason? Where is the financial involvement and analysis? Is expenditure the only guiding factor in such cases? Service of human beings under a protective umbrella of an autonomous body has no value to a welfare state? And what will happen to the already taken decision of continuation of the contractual employee till 59 years? When this decision has been overruled? Why this decision of the said committee of the autonomous body will not be respected? There is no answer."
Other Important Updates
Case Title: Suvendu Adhikari v. The State of West Bengal & Ors
The Calcutta High Court sought the State government's response in a plea moved by BJP MLA and Leader of the Opposition Suvendu Adhikari alleging that despite several orders of the High Court, the State government has failed to adequately provide him security. The counsel appearing for Adhikari submitted before the Court that despite prior orders of the Court in several proceedings, the security provided to Adhikari is being compromised. It was further contended that taking advantage of the loopholes in the security arrangements third parties are continuously obstructing and disturbing Adhikari's functioning as the leader of the opposition and his right to live peacefully. Taking cognisance of the grievance raised, Justice Rajasekhar Mantha observed, "Let an affidavit and/or a report by way of affidavit be filed on behalf of the State on the allegations in the writ petition and the supplementary affidavit within a period of one week from date. Prior service of such report be made on the Counsel for the petitioner". Accordingly, the matter was listed for further hearing on January 19, 2022. It may be noted that the High Court back in July 2021 had ruled that the security arrangement of Adhikari was being well-maintained according to the scale of Z category protectee as per the "Yellow Book" by the Government of West Bengal.
Case Title: Fareed Molah v. State of West Bengal
A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea has been moved before the Calcutta High Court seeking direction to the West Bengal Govt to ensure garlanding of the statue of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose in the District Head Quarters and playing the tune of Kadam Kadam Badhaye Jaa on 23rd January (every year) being Desh Prem Divas, in accordance with its 2011 memorandum. The PIL has been moved by one Fareed Molah praying that the Government of West Bengal be directed to implement the memorandum issued by it in the year 2011, wherein it was declared as to how Desh Prem Divas will be observed in every district headquarter on 23 January every year. It has been stated in the PIL moved before the High Court that the memorandum of the State Govt dated January 20, 2011 was given effect to only in the year 2011 (23rd January), and the Desh Prem Divas was never celebrated thereafter in the District Head Quarters by the concerned District Magistrates. "That there was no garlanding of the statue of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose in the District Head Quarters by the concerned District Magistrate on 23rd January in terms with the memorandum dated January 20, 2011 after the year 2011. Further, The Police Band, were available, did not play the tune of 'KADAM KADAM BARYE JAA' at the site being the District Head Quarter during the garlanding," the PIL further states. Importantly, the PIL submits that the memorandum of the Government of West Bengal specifically states that on January 23, being Desh Prem Divas, the garlanding of the statues of Netaji in district headquarters has to be done and the tune of Kadam Kadam Badhaye Jaa has to be played where the police band is available.
Case Title - Rama Prasad Sarkar v. The State of West Bengal & Ors
The Calcutta High Court asked the West Bengal State Government to file an affidavit disclosing the measures which can be taken to avoid Child Trafficking incidents in the future. The Bench of Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Kesang Doma Bhutia sought the details on the above-mentioned subject while dealing with a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea filed raising the issue of child trafficking in the state. The PIL, moved by petitioner in person Rama Prasad Sarkar, referred to the alleged child trafficking racket busted in Salkia, Howrah on 20th November 2021 and it also raised the grievance that no proper action has been taken in respect thereof. Regarding, the alleged Child Trafficking racket busted in Salkia, Howrah, the Advocate General informed that a case had been registered under the provisions of IPC, POCSO and Juvenile Justice Care and Protection Act and arrests have been made. Against this backdrop, the Court gave him time to file an appropriate affidavit disclosing the relevant details and posted the matter for further hearing on February 28, 2022. Essentially, the PIL alleged that the child trafficking racket busted in Salkia, Howrah was being run by the daughter-in-law of the former deputy mayor of Howrah municipality. The PIL plea claimed that Police have arrested nine people including homeowner Gitashree Adhikari in this incident and at least twenty children have been rescued from the Salkia home center and Howrah Police have also interrogated Minati Adhikari, former deputy mayor of Howrah.
Chhattisgarh High Court
Case title - Santosh Singh v. Amita Singh
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Chh) 1
Calling it a case of Desertion, the High Court recently granted a divorce decree in favor of a Husband, whose wife, under the guise of auspicious time (Shubh Muhurat) to return back to the matrimonial home, continued at her maternal home and refused to come back for 10 long years.
"If the respondent/wife was so sanguine of the fact that in the circumstances and like nature of the case, the factum of auspicious moment would destroy her matrimonial home, she should have step forward which was done by the husband twice but was blocked by the wife," noted the Court as it allowed the appeal of the Husband filed agaisnt the Family Court's order denying him divorce decree.
Delhi High Court
1. Delhi High Court Upholds Interim Injunction Against Cigarette Brand TOPAZ For Using 'Similar Trade Dress' As TOTAL
Case Title: VST Industries Ltd. v. Rudra Ventures Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 15
The Delhi High Court has upheld the ex-parte interim injunction order against TOPAZ, a cigarette brand, allegedly passing off its goods as that of another cigarette brand, TOTAL, by adopting deceptively similar packaging/ trade dress.
Justice Suresh Kumar Kait decided not to interfere with the impugned order, stating, " the basic background colour of the packaging / cigarette box is shade of dark metallic black and dark blue colors, which is identical. Both the boxes also contain ribbed lines which run across their respective surfaces. The front and back view of the packaging is in similar font and even the placement of letter is similar."
It added, "Plaintiff's TOTAL branded cigarettes sticks have the words 'Dual Flavor' mentioned in golden letters and defendants have mentioned the words 'Twin Flavor' on their TOPAZ cigarette and font, style, colour and placement of matter of both the sides is exactly similar. All these points were weighed in the mind of the Court when this Court had prima facie opined to grant restraint order in favour of plaintiff."
2. Christmas Advertisements By Delhi Govt: High Court Disposes Plea Seeking Action For Allegedly Wasting Public Money
Case Title: Kumar Piyush Pushkar v. GNCTD & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 16
The Delhi High Court has disposed of a PIL challenging public advertisements issued by the Delhi Government wishing Christmas to the citizens, allegedly to promote the political interests of the Aam Aadmi Party.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh noted that a representation in this regard is already pending consideration before the Committee on Content Regulation in Government Advertising (CCRGA), constituted at the directions of the Supreme Court.
Thus, it ordered, " A Committee is already constituted by the Supreme Court. The Petitioner has already preferred a representation before the said committee and the same is pending consideration. Hence, we see no reason to entertain this writ petition."
3. Delhi High Court Sets Up Confidentiality Club To Look At Third-Party Agreements
Title: KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V. v. VIVO MOBILE COMMUNICATION CO. LTD & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 17
To maintain necessity of industry confidentiality, a single judge bench of Delhi High Court has allowed for the constitution of a confidentiality club comprising of eight lawyers and two experts to inspect third-party agreements and documents to look into alleged infringement of patents in a case pertaining to patented technology relating to radio communication.
Among the series of cases filed by Philips against Chinese companies for allegedly infringing their "Standard Essential Patent" (SEP), an interim order was pronounced on Saturday in Philip's suit against Vivo.
The plaintiff had filed a suit seeking a decree of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from manufacturing, assembling, importing, selling, offering for sale, advertising including through their and third-party websites, mobile phones including the models mentioned in the plaint and any further or other devices or models inclusive of UMTS enhancements and LTE technologies that result in alleged infringement of the plaintiff's patents. The plaintiff had filed an interim application seeking interrogatories to be submitted and production of certain documents under Order 11 Rules 2 and 14, read with S.151, CPC, from defendants No. 1 and 2.
4. Oil Marketing Companies Are State Instrumentalities, Empowered To Regulate Fuel Pumps In Public Interest: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Indian Oil Corporation Ltd & Ors. v. All India Petroleum Dealers Association Registered & Ors., LPA 24/2021; Indian Oil Corporation Ltd & Ors. v. All Haryana Petroleum Dealers Association Registered & Ors., LPA 20/2021 and Indian Oil Corporation Ltd & Ors. v. Bihar Petroleum Dealers Association & Anr., LPA 31/2021.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 18
The Delhi High Court has upheld the power of Oil Marketing Companies (OMCs) to formulate Marketing Discipline Guidelines (MDGs) in public interest, i.e., for the benefit of the consumers as well as to protect the rights of the employees at Retail Outlets (ROs).
The Division Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh observed, " MDG is a Guideline issued by the OMCs, Instrumentalities of the State to regulate the R.O. Dealers."
It added that the ROs are bound by such guidelines. " The relationship between the OMCs and the Dealers is governed by the Dealership Agreements, under which, more particularly Clause 43 thereof, the Dealers have undertaken to be bound and to comply with the rules and regulations of the Government, including the directives issued by OMCs and thus the MDGs formulated by the OMCs, are binding on the Dealers."
5. Delhi High Court Allows Plea For Appointment Of Sole Arbitrator After Withdrawal Of Claim From International Court Of Arbitration
Case Title: AMR-BBB Consortium v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd; ARB.P. 1247/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 19
The Delhi High Court recently allowed an application seeking appointment of sole arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 after the claimant allegedly exhausted its remedy by approaching the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC).
As the Respondent party submitted that disputes are arbitrable and it has no objection if this Court appoints an Arbitrator, Justice Suresh Kumar Kait allowed the application filed under Sections 11(6) and 10(2) of the Act.
The Arbitrator is directed to ensure compliance of Section 12 of the 1996 Act before commencing the arbitration and to decide the fee after consulting with the parties. The petition was filed by a Consortium of two companies against a Public Sector Undertaking.
6. Faceless Assessment Scheme Does Not Mean No Personal Hearing, Mandatory Requirement U/S 144B Of Income Tax Act: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors., WP (C ) 14528/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 20
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the Central government's recent 'faceless assessment scheme', launched with an aim to eliminate the human interface between the taxpayer and the income tax department, does not mean that the assess shall not be given a personal hearing.
The division bench comprising of Justices Manmohan and Navin Chawla observed, " a quasi judicial body must normally grant a personal hearing as no assessee or litigant should get a feeling that he never got an opportunity or was deprived of an opportunity to clarify the doubts of the assessing officer/decision maker. After all confidence and faith of the public in the justness of the decision making process which has serious civil consequences is very important and that too in an authority/forum that is the first point of contact between the assessee and the Income Tax Department."
It added that the identity of the assessing officer can be hidden/protected while granting personal hearing by either creating a blank screen or by decreasing the pixel/density/resolution.
IMPORTANT WEEKLY UPDATES
1. Marital Rape - 'Classification On Basis Of Marriage Unreasonable' : Amicus Curiae Tells Delhi HC
The Delhi High Court this week continued hearing a batch of petitions challenging the exception to Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, which exempts forceful sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife from the offence of rape, provided the wife is above 15 years of age.
Senior Advocate Rajshekhar Rao, appearing as amicus curiae in the matter, told the Court that while the legislature does not say that the husband is entitled to sexually assault or abuse his wife, however the marital rape exception suggests that a man can rape his wife and get away from the prosecution of rape.
Rao had argued that "a rape is a rape" and that no amount of classification or 'legal jugglery' can alter that reality.
On the other hand, the Delhi Government submitted that the exception to Section 375 of IPC pertaining to non-criminalization of marital rape does not leave a married woman remediless pursuant to forced sexual intercourse by her husband. It also submitted that the exception does not compel a wife to have sexual intercourse with the husband and that the remedy of divorce, including other remedies under the criminal law, is available to her in such situations.
Also Read: Exception For Marital Rape Based On An Outdated Concept Of Marriage Presuming Consent : Amicus Curiae Tells Delhi High Court
Also Read: Criminalization Of Marital Rape - Taking A 'Constructive Approach'; Invited Suggestions From Stakeholders : Centre Tells Delhi High Court
Also Read: Marital Rape : Amicus Curiae In Delhi High Court Supports Striking Down Of Exception To Section 375 IPC
Also Read: Non-Criminalization Of Marital Rape Doesn't Compel Wife To Have Sexual Intercourse; Remedy Of Divorce Available: Delhi Govt Tells High Court
Also Read: Marital Rape Exception Violates Woman's Right To Dignity, Personal & Sexual Autonomy And Right To Self Expression: Petitioners Tell Delhi HC
Also Read: Marital Rape : Delhi High Court Continues Hearing Petitions Challenging Exception To Section 375 IPC
2. How Will Doorstep Ration Delivery Scheme Prevent Corruption In Public Distribution System? High Court Quizzes Delhi Govt; Judgment Reserved
The Delhi High Court has reserved its judgment in the plea filed by Delhi Sarkari Ration Dealers Sangh, opposing the State Government's scheme for door step delivery of ration.
A Division Bench of Justices Vipin Sanghi and Jasmeet Singh this week quizzed the Delhi Government as to how the proposed scheme is better at preventing corruption in distribution of food grains, when compared to the existing scheme involving fair price shops (FPS).
Delhi's Lieutenant Governor Anil Baijal had stalled Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's "Ghar Ghar Ration Yojana Scheme" for doorstep delivery of ration to the poor. The Centre has claimed that fair price shop owners form an integral part of the National Food Security Act and that the proposed scheme of Delhi government mitigates the architecture of the Act.
Subsequently, the Delhi Government had clarified that fair price shops will continue to exist in its proposed scheme.
It had also stated that the scheme is a "progressive reform" for targeted delivery of food grains to the marginalized and is in line with the spirit of the National Food Security Act (NFS Act) to "ensure actual delivery or supply of the foodgrains to the entitled persons".
3. DAMEPL Playing 'Hide & Seek', Not Here With Clean Hands: Delhi High Court In Plea For Enforcement Of Arbitral Award Against DMRC
The Delhi High Court this week pulled up the Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited (DAMEPL) for playing hide and seek with the Court, adding that it was not coming to the Court with clean hands.
Justice Suresh Kumar Kait was hearing DAMEPL's plea against Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) seeking enforcement of the arbitration award dated May 11, 2017.
4. Ansals Cannot Take Benefit Of Old Age To Seek Suspension Of 7 Yr Jail Term: Police To Delhi HC In Uphaar Cinema Evidence Tampering Case
The Delhi Police this week told the Delhi High Court that the real estate barons Sushil Ansal and Gopal Ansal cannot take the benefit of their old age to seek suspension of the 7 year jail term awarded to them in evidence tampering case in connection with the Uphaar fire tragedy that happened in the year 1997.
Justice Subramonium Prasad was hearing the petitions filed by the Ansals challenging a trial court order which had refused to suspend their jail term.
Senior Advocate Dayan Krishnan appearing for the Delhi Police also added that the Ansals had made every attempt to delay the trial in the matter.
Also Read: Ansal Brothers Delayed Trial By Tampering Evidence, Can't Seek Benefit Of Old Age: Prosecution Opposes Suspension Of Sentence In Delhi HC
5. Delhi High Court Calls For Uniform Protocol Across City For Dealing With Menace Of Mosquito Infestation
The Delhi High Court this week asked the municipal corporations and local bodies to examine and identify the adequate steps for incorporating a 'common protocol' to be followed by all the authorities for dealing with the menace of mosquito infestation and spreading of vector borne diseases in the city.
Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh was of the view that the reasons for mosquito infestation and spread of vector borne diseases are not merely seasonal although they may get heightened during the monsoon period.
The Court said that there were other factors which contribute to the said menace such as collection of garbage, exposure of used tyres, utensils, tanks which collect water particularly during rains and provide an opportunity for mosquito breeding.
6. High Court Pulls Up Delhi Govt Over Inaction In Making COVID Care Centre Operational Inside JNU Campus
The Delhi High Court this week pulled up the Delhi Government over its 'inaction' and 'lethargy' in making operational the COVID care centre inside JNU campus.
Justice Rekha Palli was of the view that despite repeated orders, the direction for setting up a covid centre in JNU campus was not being followed by the Delhi Government in true letter and spirit.
Taking note of the fact that the University had already earmarked a space inside the Sabarmati dormitory for setting up the centre, the Court said that it was the inaction on the part of Delhi Government which led to the centre not being operational till date.
7. Delhi High Court Admits MJ Akbar's Appeal Against Priya Ramani's Acquittal In Criminal Defamation Case
The Delhi High Court has admitted the appeal preferred by former Union Minister MJ Akbar, against acquittal of journalist PriyaRamani in the criminal defamation case filed by him over the "metoo" sexual harassment allegations made by her.
While admitting the appeal, Justice Mukta Gupta remarked that there is no need to argue for the 'need to appeal' as complainants have the right to prefer an appeal.
Notice in the appeal was issued in August last year. The matter was adjourned as Advocate Bhavook Chauhan, appearing for Ramani, sought time to file response in the matter. It will come up for hearing in due course.
8. Delhi High Court Refuses To Stay CIC Order Requiring Hockey India To Disclose List Of Members, Employees' Salaries Under RTI
The Delhi High Court has refused to stay the order passed by Central Information Commission (CIC) directing Hockey India to disclose certain information, including list of its members and details of employees' salaries under the Right to Information Act.
Justice Rekha Palli, who was not inclined to stay the order, was of the view that Hockey India, being a public authority, cannot shy away from disclosing the information. She added that even the salaries of judicial officers are in public domain.
The Centre supported the CIC order by submitting that the same was passed in accordance with the National Sports Code and the guidelines of the Central Government.
9. 'CBI A Specialized Agency, Won't Get Carried Away By Trial Court Observations': Delhi High Court On Anil Deshmukh's Plea Apprehending Prejudice
The Delhi High Court has said that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) will not get carried away by the observations made by a city Court while ordering further investigation against former Maharashtra Home Minister Anil Deshmukh in connection with the document leak case.
The matter relates to the allegations of leaking sensitive information, thereby subverting investigation into the corruption case.
Justice Subramonium Prasad was dealing with Deshmukh's plea against the Trial Court order which had directed CBI to conduct investigation against him.
It was Deshmukh's case that the reasons given by the Special Judge must not prejudice the mind of the CBI. Moreover, according to Deshmukh, the Trial Court order gave an impression that it was a mandate to the CBI to implicate him in the matter.
Gauhati High Court
Case title - Bablu Paul @ Sujit Paul v. The Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Gau) 1
Setting aside an order of a Foreigner's Tribunal which had declared a Hindu Man, who had migrated from erstwhile East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) as a Foreigner, the Gauhati High Court recently directed him to apply for citizenship by taking benefit of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019.
This order came from the Bench of Justice N. Kotiswar Singh and Justice Malasri Nandi which was hearing the plea of one Bablu Paul who had moved the Court challenging the 2017 order of the Foreigners' Tribunal-II of declaring him as a foreigner.
Case Title: Md. Maynul v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Gau) 2.
The High Court set aside an order passed by a Foreigners' Tribunal declaring a resident of Jorgah village, Sonitpur as a foreigner after noting that the concerned Tribunal had earlier declared him to be an Indian citizen but had subsequently passed an ex-parte order declaring him to be a foreigner.
A Bench comprising Justices Kotiswar Singh and Malashri Nandi set aside the impugned ex-parte order and remanded the matter back to the concerned Foreigners' Tribunal. Accordingly, the Tribunal was directed to first determine as to whether the petitioner is the same person who had earlier been declared as an Indian Citizen.
Dealing with a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea raising the issue that Assam Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Assam RERA), is not functioning in accordance with law, the Gauhati High Court issued the notice to the Authority and its chairman.
The Bench of Chief Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Soumitra Saikia was dealing with a PIL moved by Anita Verma submitting that the Authority, which is a statutory authority created under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 is not functioning in accordance with the law.
Karnataka High Court
Case Title: M/s.V.S.Products v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 7
The Karnataka High Court upheld the notification dated July 6, 2019 issued by the Union of India by which Central Excise Duty has been levied on tobacco and tobacco products. Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav said, "It needs to be kept in mind that taxation is not merely a source of raising revenue but is also recognised by the fiscal tool to achieve fiscal and social objective."
Case Title: Dilraj Rohit Sequeira v. Union Of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 8
The Karnataka High Court directed the State government to expeditiously consider and resolve the infrastructure requirements at district courts in Karnataka, for effective implementation of the Live streaming rules of judicial proceedings.
Case Title: Google India Private Limited v. Competition Commission Of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 9
The Karnataka High Court on Monday disposed of the petition filed by Google India challenging an order of the Competition Commission of India rejecting its request for access to the identity of app developers/ start-ups allegedly suffering harm on account of Google Play store payments policy 2020. A single-judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit took on record the joint memo filed by the parties–Google, Competition Commission of India and Alliance of Digital India Foundation (ADIF).
Case No: Criminal Petition No.2860/2021
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 10
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that a Court hearing a petition for quashing of FIR/ charge sheet under Section 482 CrPC cannot appreciate evidence as the same lies within the domain of the trial Court. Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar said, "It is a settled principle that while deciding the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, evidence cannot be appreciated as it lies within the domain of the Trial Court."
Case Title: Sr Admar Mutt v. Yashoda
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 11
The Karnataka High Court has held that a cook, working for the Sr Admar Mutt in Udupi district, cannot claim occupancy over appurtenant land which was granted to him by the Mutt for residential use. A division bench of Justice P S Dinesh Kumar and Justice P Krishna Bhatt allowed the appeal filed by the Mutt challenging the single judge bench order dated April 21, 2011, by which it had confirmed the Land tribunal order granting occupancy to the cook.
Case Title: State Of Karnataka v. Shreemad Jagadguru Shankaracharya Shree Shree Raghaveshwara Bharathi Shri Swamiji
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 12
The Karnataka High Court has upheld a 2016 order of the trial court by which it discharged/ acquitted Raghaveshwara Bharathi Shri Swamiji, pontiff of the Shree Ramachandrapura Math, accused in a rape case. Justice V. Srishananda noted that the charge sheet in the matter was not filed by the authorized person. It thus observed, "If the charge sheet is filed by a person who is not the authorised person to file a final report as is contemplated under Section 173 of Cr.P.C, entire proceedings would definitely stand vitiated. Consequently, the further proceedings in pursuance of the said charge sheet is to be declared as non est."
Case Title: State Of Karnataka v. Shreemad Jagadguru Shankaracharya Shree Shree Raghaveshwara Bharathi Shri Swamiji
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 12
The Karnataka High Court has held that a victim/ complainant does not have the right to challenge each and every order that is passed by the trial Court. The filing of a revision petition itself is not a right which is granted to a party to a criminal trial, Justice V. Srishananda said while dismissing the revision petition filed by the alleged rape victim against the trial court acquitting Raghaveshwara Bharathi Shri Swamiji, pontiff of the Shree Ramachandrapura Math.
Case Title: Manmohankumar V.C v. The State Of Karnataka
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 13
The Karnataka High Court recently upheld the state government's power and prerogative to impose conditions such as restriction of 'age' and 'pass in 10th Standard' while considering the applications for grant of compassionate authorization under the Karnataka Essential Commodities Public Distribution System (Control) Order. Justice P S Dinesh Kumar said, "The State Government's power and prerogative to impose conditions while considering the applications for grant of authorisation is upheld."
Case Title: The Member Secretary v. Chief Secretary, Govt of Karnataka
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 14
The Karnataka High Court has directed the Karnataka State Mental Health Authority to take appropriate and necessary steps for providing proper medical treatment to the mentally ill inmates of rehabilitation centres, aged homes, destitute centres, reception centres, asylums, orphanages centres, etc.
Former Chancellor of Alliance University, Madhukar G Angur, who has been arrested by the Enforcement Directorate in an alleged money laundering case, has approached the Karnataka High Court challenging the special court's order dated January 10, remanding him to ED custody till January 17. The case pertains to alleged money laundering and siphoning off University funds to the tune of Rs 107 crore. Angur has been booked u/s 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
Other Developments
11: Karnataka High Court Issues Notice On Plea By Doctors Challenging One Year Compulsory Rural Service
Case Title: Dr. Keerthi Kurnool v. Union of India
Case No: WP 23258/2021
The Karnataka High Court has issued notice to the Union and State government and other respondents on a petition filed by one Dr. Keerthi Kurnool and 169 others, raising a challenge to Section 4 of the Karnataka Compulsory Service Training by Candidates Completed Medical Course Act, (KCS) 2012, which mandates one year compulsory rural service to all post graduate doctors.
12: Karnataka High Court Asks State To Strictly Implement SOP Banning Rallies, Dharnas Amid Covid Surge
Case Title: Nagendra Prasad A V v. State of Karnataka
Case No: WP 518/2022
The Karnataka High Court on Friday directed the state government to strictly execute the standard operating procedure (SOP) issued on January 4 in all districts in view of Covid-19 pandemic. It clarified that no rallies, dharnas or any other political gathering shall be permitted in the entire state, till the SOP is in operation.
A division bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice Suraj Govindaraj also took on record the statement made by the Karnataka Pradesh Congress Committee that it has temporarily suspended the 10-day padayatra demanding implementation of the Mekedatu project across the Cauvery river.
Case Title: Hasham Investment And Trading Company Private Limited v. India Awake For Transparency Pvt Ltd
Case No: CRL.CCC 9/2021
The Karnataka High Court on Friday convicted Advocate R Subramanian and P Sadanand, who represent the NGO India Awake For Transparency, for criminal contempt in the suo-motu proceedings initiated against them for filing multiple petitions on the same cause of action against former Wipro Chairman Azim Premji and the trust formed by him.
Case Title: High Court Legal Services Committee v. State Of Karnataka
Case No: WP 18628/2019
The Karnataka High Court on Friday directed the State government to inform whether it has notified any scheme for the welfare of stray animals. The Court also inquired whether the state government is contemplating to establish goshalas in each taluk of the state to protect these stray animals and also help the farmers from protecting their crops from these stray animals.
Case Title: Adinarayan Shetty v. State Of Karnataka
Case No: WP 13605/2021
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday directed the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) to submit a time bound plan in which it would complete the construction of the four-lane Ejipura-Kendriya Sadana flyover in the Koramangala area of Bengaluru. A division bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice Suraj Govindaraj orally said, "We don't want to hear the problems, we want a solution. We want you to give a date by when you will complete the construction."
Jharkhand High Court
Case Title: Arun Kumar Prajapati v. State of Jharkhand
While refusing to reduce the sentence of a man, convicted under Section 304B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code when he was a juvenile, the High Court has observed that one of the prime concerns of the juvenile justice system is to ensure that the delinquent juvenile is also prevented from reoffending, thus the sentence period is a part of the reintegration and thus must be completed.
Case Title: Rinki Kumari @ Anita Kumari v. Kundan Kumar @ Kundan Kumar Singh
The High Court has held that the claim for maintenance arises from the date of filing the application and not the date of judgment. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary referred to the Supreme Court Decision in Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr. and modified the impugned order, directing payment of monthly allowance from the date of application.
The matter arises out of a revision application against the judgment of the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, whereby it has allowed the petitioner's application and directed the opposite party to pay the monthly allowance of Rs. 1,500/- per month from the date of passing of the judgment.
Kerala High Court
Case Title: Sanju Simon & Ors v. State of Kerala & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 13
While restraining private medical colleges in the State from collecting fees for any academic year other than the one currently being taught, the Court has held that collecting annual fees from students for the next year in advance when the previous year's studies have not been completed by an institution would amount to "profiteering".
A Division Bench of Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. justified its stand observing that conceptually a fee was remuneration for a service already rendered.
2. Temporary Shift Of Residence By Itself Not A Valid Ground For Transfer Of Cases: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Meria Joseph v. Anoop S. Ponnattu
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 14
While considering a series of transfer petitions moved by a woman, the Court ruled that shifting from permanent residence to a temporary residence by itself is not a ground to transfer cases pending within the jurisdiction of the permanent residence of both parties.
Justice A. Badharudheen dismissed the transfer petitions observing that allowing such pleas would result in cases being transferred frequently.
Case Title: Thomas P. & Anr v. State of Kerala & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 15
The Court recently laid down that the Family Court with the respective territorial jurisdiction is empowered to give a child in adoption. After perusing the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act 2015, the 2014 Rules framed thereunder and the Adoption Regulations 2017, Justice M.R. Anitha observed:
"In the said circumstance, the finding of the learned District Judge that the court is not a proper forum and they have to approach the Child Welfare Committee is illegal and perverse."
Case Title: State of Kerala & Ors v. Kerala Packaged Drinking Water Manufacturers Association
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 16
The Court dismissed the appeal challenging a Single Judge decision that stayed the government order fixing the price of bottled water in the State at Rs. 13 citing the State's lack of jurisdiction. During the previous hearing of the case, the Division Bench comprising Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly had refused to stay the single bench decision while issuing notice to the respondents.
5. Writ Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Challenge Appointment Of Arbitrator: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Subramaniyan N.N. v. Anwar C.K. & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 17
The Court has held that writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to challenge the appointment of an arbitrator since such grievances could be redressed as per the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Ruling that there should not be any judicial interference in the course of the arbitral proceedings for redressal of such grievances, Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar recalled that Section 5 of the Act which begins with a non-obstante clause provides that in matters governed by Part I of the Act, there shall not be any judicial interference except where so provided in the said Part.
Case Title: Sumith V. Kumar & Anr v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 18
The Court ruled that the State government was authorised to recognise classes of persons with distinct attributes and treat them differently under law while upholding that the different quantum of reservation for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (SC/ST) and persons with disability in the NEET-2021 do not violate their right to equality.
While dismissing a petition, Justice N. Nagaresh observed that persons with disabilities constituted a separate homogenous class by themselves and that their disability was physical rather than pertaining to social backwardness.
7. Non-Commercial Associations Can Use 'Kerala', 'India' In Their Names : Kerala High Court
Case Title: Riyasudheen K. & Ors v. Inspector General of Registration & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 19
The Court recently ruled that an association formed by private individuals cannot be prevented from naming after 'Kerala' or 'Bharat' or 'India' under the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950 if their activities are not related to any trade or business.
Justice N. Nagaresh observed that the said Act only banned the naming of commercial entities after India or Kerala: "Since the petitioners' Association is not an Association related to any trade, business, calling or profession, it is declared that the provisions of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950 cannot be applied to the petitioners."
8. Kerala High Court Strikes Down Rules 9(4A) and 9(4C) Of Municipality Rules On Property Tax Fixation
Case Title: K.P. Muhammed Ashraf v. Taliparamba Municipality & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 20
The Court has set aside Rules 9(4A) and 9(4C) of the Kerala Municipality (Property Tax, Service Tax and Surcharge) Rules which prescribe fixation of property tax at a minimum of 25% over and above the tax levied for the previous year if the property tax arrived at on computation as per the Rules is less than the tax levied for the previous year.
Justice N. Nagaresh pointed out that Section 233 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 does not permit the fixation of a property tax over and above the upper limit fixed by the Government.
Case Title: Union of India v. State of Kerala & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 21
Ruling that balance of convenience should be considered while deciding interim custody of seized articles under Section 451 of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the Cour released unaccounted cash amounting to Rs. 50 lakhs to the Income Tax Department. Allowing a petition filed by the Department, Justice Ziyad Rahman A. A observed that the balance of convenience was in favour of the IT department rather than Abdul Razak, the person found possessing the cash.
The Judge noted that since the Income Tax Department was a statutory authority armed with various powers under Sections 132-A, 132-B and 153A of the Income Tax Act, preference should be given to the Department in the facts and circumstances of the case.
10. Kerala High Court Grants Bail To 3 Accused In SDPI Leader Shan's Murder
Case Title: Akhil & Ors v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 22
The Court granted bail to three of the accused in the shocking political murder of Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI) State Secretary K.S Shan who was hacked to death in December 2021. Justice Gopinath P. released the accused on bail citing that the only offence made out against them was under section 212 (harbouring an offender) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
However, the Court recorded that since the release of the accused on bail may result in a retaliatory attack and that the law and order situation is still volatile in Alappuzha district, where the attack took place.
Case Title: Mohammed Rafi & Ors v. State of Kerala & Anr. and connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 23
In a significant judgment, the Court ruled that before recording witness depositions under Section 299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it should be established that the accused has absconded and that there is no immediate prospect of arresting him. A Division Bench of Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice C. Jayachandran was called upon to answer an intriguing question on the interpretation of Section 299 of the CrPC.
The Bench added that proof of the accused absconding is a condition precedent to record witness deposition for the purpose of Section 299; enabling its use in the subsequent trial against those absconded but later apprehended.
Other Significant Developments:
1. Won't Arrest Actor Dileep Till Next Hearing Date : Kerala Police To High Court
Case Title: P Gopalakrishnan alias Dileep & Ors. v State of Kerala & Ors.
The Director-General of Prosecution T.A Shaji has given an undertaking to the Court that Malayalam actor Dileep will not be arrested till the next hearing date (January 18) in the case registered by the Kerala Police, where he has been booked for conspiring to kill police officers investigating the sensational 2017 sexual assault case.
The developments ensued in the anticipatory bail plea filed by the actor. Concurrently, Dileep is facing trial as the alleged mastermind of the abduction and the sexual assault of a female actress in a moving car in 2017.
2. Malls Can't Collect Car Parking Fee : Kerala High Court Makes Prima Facie View In Lulu Mall Case
Case Title: Pauly Vadakkan v. Lulu International Shopping Mall Pvt Ltd.
The Court opined that prima facie, the collection of parking fees by Lulu International shopping mall was not appropriate while adjudicating upon a couple of pleas alleging that the mall collecting parking fees from its customers was illegal.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan sought a clear response from the Kalamassery Municipality on this question and posted the matter to be taken up after two weeks.
Case Title: T.M Azad v State of Kerala & Ors.
The Court came down on the State government for the deficient infrastructure reported in a hospital, despite its highly appreciated Kerala model. Criticizing the State, Justice N Nagaresh pointed out that while it claims of the Kerala model's achievements, it was 'shameful' to see that a Taluk Headquarters hospital did not have a functional maternity ward.
The Court was adjudicating upon a petition moved through Advocate R. Rajasekharan Pillai seeking directions to the relevant State authorities to launch a maternity ward in the Taluk Headquarter Hospital in Peerumedu, equipped with an operation theatre providing all facilities and instruments.
Case Title: Suo Motu v. Travancore Devaswom Board & Ors.
The Court asked the Chief Vigilance Officer of the Travancore Devaswom Board to maintain constant vigil of the entire activity in the Bhandaram at Sabarimala, after an incident of an employee stealing cash from the Bhandaram was brought to the attention of the Court.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.G Ajithkumar was adjudicating upon a report filed by the Special Commissioner of Sabarimala regarding the theft of currency notes from the Bhandaram by an employee engaged in Sabarimala duty.
5. Kerala High Court Asks Centre To Clarify Its Stand On K-Rail SilverLine Project
Case Title: Muralikrishnan v. State of Kerala
The Court asked the Central government to make its stand clear regarding the K-Rail Silverline project while staying the process of laying boundary stones in violation of the Survey and Boundaries Act on the land identified for the project ahead of a social impact assessment. Justice Devan Ramachandran noted that although it is argued by the respondents that the project has been approved in principle, there was no clarity regarding the same from the Centre.
The Silver Line Project is a semi high-speed rail corridor connecting one end of the State to the other and was announced for the first time over 12 years ago by the LDF government then in power.
Case Title: M.P.Abu Swalih Koya Thangal v. State of Kerala
The Court suggested that the State government should consider designing roads for the future- amidst all the ongoing discussion about the future with K-Rail project SilverLine. While adjudicating upon a plea alleging that a 14 km stretch of a road development project was being done with a reduced width citing financial constraints, Justice Devan Ramachandran orally remarked:
"When you speak about the K-Rail project, you talk about the future. I am happy that someone is taking account of the future. Let's talk about the future when it comes to the roads, too."
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case title - Dr. Vijendra Dhanware & Another v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 4
The High Court has held that in the absence of specific categorization, Government Doctors and medical officers working in Civil and District Hospitals are also entitled to benefit of reservation meant for in-service doctors in the PG Medical Courses and the counseling to be conducted by the State Government.
This ruling has come from the Division Bench of Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Arun Sharma while quashing the merit list prepared by the state government prior to the upcoming PG Medical Counselling, meant for in-service doctors, directing the State to Revise and extend the benefit to the Petitioners Doctors.
Case title - Hani Sharma vs. State of M.P. & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 5
"Every girl being a citizen of India has a right to live her life peacefully and without any threat to her dignity and life," observed the Madhya Pradesh High Court as it refused to quash a POCSO Case based on a compromise between the 17-year-old victim and a man, accused of stalking and harassing her for two years.
The Bench of Justice G. S. Ahluwalia noted that it was a case where the applicant-accused was continuously stalking and harassing the victim and caught hold of her hand in a public place when she had come to her house for celebrating Deewali and therefore, refused to quash the case.
Case Title: Saurabh & another v. State of M.P. & Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 6
The High Court has held that Registrar of Public Trust has no discretionary power under the Madhya Pradesh Public Trust Act, 1951, to remove the existing Trustees and direct the Trust to conduct elections for the same. Justice Subodh Abhayankar was essentially dealing with a Writ Petition, wherein the Petitioners sought for quashing of the order dated 17.11.2021, passed by the Registrar of Public Trust, District Barwani, wherein two of the Trustees were removed from their post, and the Trust, namely Shri Digamber Jain Siddh Kshetra Bawangajaji, was directed to conduct elections for the post of Trustees.
Madras High Court
Case Title: SpiceJet Limited v. Credit Suisse AG
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 11
Madras High Court has dismissed the appeal preferred by SpiceJet against a single-judge bench order for admission of its winding up on Credit Suisse AG's Company Petition.
After hearing the counsels appearing for SpiceJet and Credit Suisse at length, a Division Bench of Justices Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup and Paresh Upadhyay noted in the order that the Original Second Appeals are dismissed and the Connected Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are accordingly disposed off. Since the stay on the operation of the impugned order is till today, the bench agreed to extend the application of stay order till 28th January so as to afford the appellant an opportunity to approach the Supreme Court.
The grievances of the appellant airlines and the issues framed by the court were pertaining to the alleged errors in the single judge bench order that does the following:
(i) admission of the winding-up petition, which is filed invoking Sections 433 (e) and (f) of the Companies Act, 1956, and
(ii) appointment of the Official Liquidator, High Court of Madras as Provisional Liquidator.
Case Title: The State Represented By Deputy Superintendent of Police v. Samivel @ Raja
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 12
In a case arising out of aggravated sexual assault and cruel murder of a 7-year-old child from a marginalised community, the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court has upheld the death sentence imposed on the culprit by the trial court.
A Division Bench of Justice S. Vaidyanathan and Justice G. Jayachandran confirmed the death sentence of the accused made by Mahila Court, Pudukottai.
The bench held that the brutality of the attack, the barbaric manner in which the deceased child was murdered and the mental agony undergone by the parents makes it one of the 'rarest of rare' cases. The court added that it necessitates the imposition of death sentence, since no other sentence including life imprisonment will be adequate.
The accused was booked for offences under Sections 364, 376, 302, 201 IPC r/w 5(m), 5(j)(iv) and 6 (1) of POCSO Act as well as 3(2)(V) of SC/ ST Act. The case of the prosecution was that the accused developed a friendship with the child belonging to the Scheduled Castes Community and used it to fulfil his sexual desires.
"It is pertinent to mention here that everyone's mind contains a liar, a cheat and a sinner and a man cannot be judged by his outer appearance, as Adolf Hitler, who ordered the execution of some eight million people and was responsible for the deaths of many millions more, hated cruelty to animals and was a vegetarian. If a person like the accused herein is allowed to survive in this world, he will definitely pollute the mind of other co-prisoners, who will be at the verge of release from jail in which he is confined. When the attitude of a man turns into the one of a beast, having no mercy over other creatures, he should be punished and sent to the eternal world", the court noted in the order.
Case Title: B. Ramkumar Adityan v. The Chief Secretary & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 13
In a plea seeking directions to keep the TASMAC liquor shops closed during public holidays, the Madras High Court has criticized the practice of advocates filing public interest litigations for 'publicity'.
The Bench however refrained from imposing cost and the plea was dismissed as withdrawn.
The petitioner, Advocate B. Ramkumar Adityan, had sought appropriate directions from the High Court to the state government for declaring Pongal, Christmas, Thai Poosam, Republic Day, etc. as 'dry days'.
"Festive mode has become a tragic mode", said the petitioner referring to the untoward incidents allegedly on account of alcohol consumption in those days.
Case Title: R. Ganesan v. M/s. ASREC (India) Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 14
The Madras High Court, in a Bench comprising of Justice M. Duraiswamy and Justice Sathya Narayan Prasad in R. Ganesan v. M/s. ASREC (India) Limited has reiterated the legal position and dismissed the writ petition filed by the Petitioner due to non-exercise of alternate remedy of appeal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.
As per the terms of Section 17, an appeal can be filed to the Debt Recovery Tribunal within 45 days from the date on which the measures referred to under Section 13(4) of the Act are taken.
Relying on the Supreme Court judgments in The Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore and another Vs. Mathew K.C. and Agarwal Tracom Private Limited Vs. Punjab National Bank and others, the Bench held that the aggrieved parties cannot challenge proceedings taking place under the SARFAESI Act directly by way of a Writ Petition under Article 226, without exhausting the remedy of appeal available to them.
Case Title: Venkateswarane Sivadjy v. Alice Viala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 15
In a divorce proceeding characterised by questions on Conflict of Laws, Madras High Court has held that a suit filed for partition and separate possession of the property in India, as per Indian laws is maintainable and will not be barred by virtue of not approaching French Notary for liquidation under Article 1444 of the French Civil Code.
A Division Bench of Justice T. Raja and Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarty was disposing of an appeal filed by the Husband under Section 96 of C.P.C r/w under Order 41 R 1 of C.P.C against the judgment and decree by Family Court, Pudukottai.
The husband and wife, in this case, were French nationals for whom the personal law applicable would be the French Civil Code since it's Lex Patriae. This being the law of nationality of the persons who got divorced in 2005 , it would be applicable to them irrespective of where they are domiciled.
Under French Law, the marital relationship can either be based on a prenuptial contract, and in its absence, the relationship would be governed by Community regime.
The major question that arose before the court was the Lex Causae that's applicable for effecting the manner of partition. The main contention of the appellant was that Article 1444 of the French Civil Code mandates either of the parties to resort to the liquidation proceedings within three months from the date of divorce coming into force, that too, before the Notaries in France. Therefore, the appellant contended that the current suit filed by the wife, eight years after the divorce, before an Indian Court is not maintainable.
The court responded in the judgment to the above submission of the appellant in consonance with the findings of the Family Court. The court added that the manner of effecting partition is a rule of procedure, and therefore, in rules of procedure, lex fori(law of the forum) will apply.The court held that the Indian Law would be lex causae and not the French Code Civil. This would mean that Article 1444 wouldn't apply.
Case Title: G. Babu v. the District Collector & Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 16
Madras High Court has ordered to pay compensation to the son of a deceased mother who was shot accidentally in a 'Shoot and Kill' stray dog hunt with the sanction of Eraiyur Panchayat.
A single-judge bench of Justice S.M Subramaniam has ordered the District Collector, Perambalur and the functionaries including the Eraiyur Panchayat President to pay Rs 5 laksh each as compensation to the petitioner son. The court has also censured the authorities for shooting stray dogs, which is an illegal act in itself.
"It is an unusual incident where the responsible Panchayat President and the Councilors have engaged the 8th respondent for shooting out the stray dogs in the Village. The very operation itself is illegal and further the bullet removed from the mother of the petitioner during postmortem confirms that the death occurred due to the bullet injuries. Under these circumstances, this Court is inclined to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of compensation…", the court observed.
Case Title: Dalmia Refractories Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 17
The Madras High Court recently expressed its concern over long pendency of cases involving large scale revenue. Justice S.M Subramaniam observed that cases of Income Tax, Customs, Excise, Mines and Minerals etc. must be disposed of quickly to prevent misuse of nation's property.
Talking about the skewed tactics employed by stakeholders in keeping the writ petitions pending, so as to reap undue benefits of interim orders in force, the court added the following:
"The growing tendency on writ side is that such writ petitions involving large scale revenue, more specifically, Income Tax, Customs, Excise, Mines and Minerals etc., interim orders are in force for several years and the Nation's properties are being looted or misused or taken undue advantage of. Such a situation is absolutely unconstitutional and further anything under the earth belongs to the Government and it is the Nation's property, which belongs to 'We the People of India'. Thus, no one can be allowed to extract without adhering to the Act, Rules and Regulations and any violations are to be treated seriously and all these persons must be liable for all consequences", the court observed.
8. Madras High Court Strikes Down Women Reservation In Excess Of 50% For Chennai Corporation Polls
Case Title: R. Parthiban v. The Chief Secretary & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 18
In a plea against reservation in excess of 50 per cent for women in Greater Chennai Municipal Corporation, Madras High Court has held that reservation can only be based on the total number of seats in the Municipality and not on Zonal wise demarcation.
The bench of Acting Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice P.D Audikesavalu has struck down the 2019 Government Notification which reserved 89 wards out of 200 wards for Women Candidates and another 16 seats for the Scheduled Caste Women, bringing the total tally to 105.
The public interest litigation, calling reservations in excess of 50 per cent discrimination against men and violation of constitutional principles, was filed by Advocate R. Parthiban. The senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, S. Prabakaran, had argued that women are entitled to only 84 seats according to the Tamil Nadu Municipalities (Amendment) Act, 2016 and the Chennai City Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act, 2016 mandates 'not less than fifty per cent reservation' for women.
9. Sun TV Network Has Exclusive Broadcasting Rights Over 'Jilla' Movie: Madras High Court
Case Title: M/S Sun TV Network Ltd v. M/S Supergood Films Private Ltd & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 19
Madras High Court has allowed a writ petition that sought a declaration of the exclusive copyright of Sun TV Network over the broadcast of 'Jilla' movie, while granting permanent injunction against the defendants from exhibiting/ exploiting the movie in a similar manner.
A single-judge bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh observed that the second defendant, United India Exporters, only had the right to exploit the theatrical release of the film outside India as per the agreement between them and Super Good Films Private Limited. It does not include the exclusive rights to make, sell or let out for their copies of the cinematographic film 'JILLA' and broadcast the said film through various mediums of broadcast and transmission outside India.
The court observed that Supergood Films, the producer and exclusive copyright owner of 'Jilla', have assigned the exclusive copyright in favour of the plaintiff Sun TV Network in respect of satellite television broadcast as early as 8th July 2013. The said agreement was entered into much before the theatrical release rights assigning agreement between Supergood Films and United India Exporters.
Other Developments
1. Air India Disinvestment: Madras High Court Asks Centre To Produce Share Purchase Agreement
Case Title: Air India Corporation Employees Union v. Union of India & Ors. & Connected Matters
In a plea preferred by one of the trade unions of Air India against its disinvestment, the Madras High Court has directed the Central government to produce the contentious share purchase agreement before the court.
Justice V. Parthiban took note of the petitioner's argument that the share purchase agreement is instrumental in deciding the case that involves high stakes for all parties concerned. "The learned Additional Solicitor General is therefore directed to furnish a copy of the share purchase agreement to the Court on or before the next date of hearing," it ordered.
Further, on the request of the petitioner employees' union to go through the contents of the counter statement filed by the Union and file a rejoinder if necessary, the matter was adjourned to 21st January for disposal. The benefit of the interim order for the retention of accommodation and medical facilities has also been extended till the next date of hearing.
2. Madras High Court Seeks Centre's Response On Plea Challenging Vires Of Dam Safety Act
Case Title: S.Ramalingam v. The Union Of India & Another
The Madras High Court has issued notice on a plea challenging the vires of recently enacted Dam Safety Act, 2021, as being violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Indian Constitution.
The bench of Acting Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice P.D Audikesavalu has granted three weeks' time to the Union of India, represented by ASG R. Shankaranarayanan, to file its counter affidavit in the matter.
The petition has been filed by DMK MP from Mayiladuthurai, S. Ramalingam, saying that the Centre, through the impugned legislation, usurps the powers of the state government and disturbs the federal structure. The matter was mentioned before the Court by Senior Advocate P. Wilson last week.
The Senior counsel argued that the Parliament lacks the legislative competence for enacting the legislation. He highlighted that Entry 17 in List II under the 7th Schedule of the Constitution refers to- Water, that is to say, water supplies, irrigation and canals, drainage and embankments, water storage and water power subject to the provisions of entry 56 of List I.
Wilson also requested that Centre must refrain from constituting the National Dam Safety Authority and National Committee on Dam Safety proposed under the impugned Act, till the writ petition is disposed of.
Punjab High Court
Case title - Kaushal v. State of Haryana and others
The High Court has made it clear that as per the directions of the Supreme Court, no part of the police stations should be left uncovered by CCTV surveillance and this CCTV Coverage would necessarily include the interrogation rooms. The Bench of Justice Amol Rattan Singh observed thus as it sought the response of DGP, Haryana, the DGP, Punjab, as also the DGP, U.T., Chandigarh regarding the compliance of the Supreme Court's order in Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh and others (2021) 1 SCC 184
Case title - Lavpreet Singh @ Lavepreet Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others
The High Court last week directed the Punjab Police to give 7 days' notice to 3 Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leaders before arresting them. These leaders had moved the court claiming that they are being harassed due to political vendetta and a case could be filed against them under IPC or NDPS Act. This order holds importance as Punjab Legislative Assembly elections will be held on 14 February 2022 for a total of 117 seats of the 16th Assembly of the Punjab Legislative Assembly.
Case title - Amarjeet Singh @ Amar Singh v. National Investigation Agency
The High Court today granted bail to an accused in the 2019 Tarn Taran Bomb Blast case as it recorded that the accusation against him is not prima facie true and therefore, he is entitled to the benefit of regular bail during the pendency of the trial in the case.
This order came from the Bench of Justice G. S. Sandhawalia and Justice Vikas Suri while hearing the bail plea filed by Amarjeet Singh @ Amar Singh, who has already been in custody for almost 2 years 4 months in connection with this case.
Case title - Bhupender Singh Vs. Narcotic Control Bureau and other connected matters
The High Court on Wednesday allowed 10 petitions filed seeking suspension of sentence in cases under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 by referring to Article 21 of the Constitution on account of the prolonged incarceration of the petitioners in those matters.
Essentially, 10 NDPS accused were directed to be granted bail after the division bench of Justice Ajay Tewari and Justice Pankaj Jain suspended their sentences. In total, 27 such please were before the Court which sought suspension of sentence in NDPS cases. Regarding the rest 17 pleas, the Court has directed the registry to segregate them and list them for hearing individually.
Rajasthan High Court
Case Title: Chetan Choudhary v. Union of India and Ors.
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 7
The Rajasthan High Court on Monday directed the Central government to expeditiously decide on the claim application filed by a depositor of the beleaguered Adarsh Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. It ordered that the said decision has to be taken preferably within a period of 90 days, strictly in accordance with the law.
Justice Dinesh Mehta ordered, "The respondents are directed to take a decision on the application filed by the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of ninety days from the date of receipt of copy of this order strictly in accordance with rules and guidelines governing the field."
The Adarsh Credit Co-op Society allegedly floated several fake companies and siphoned off its depositors money, approximately Rs. 8,000 Crore.
Case Title: Sandeep Kumar v. Union of India and Ors.
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 8
The Rajasthan High Court has ordered the competent authority of NEET to allot an appropriate college to a citizen of Pakistan, in accordance with his merit, while ignoring the fact that he does not possess a Long Term Visa.
Justice Dinesh Mehta, in his order, observed, "Petitioner appeared in the NEET (UG) Examination and has secured 80% marks, it is hereby ordered that the competent authority of the NEET shall allot appropriate college to the petitioner, of course, in accordance with his merit, however, ignoring the fact that the petitioner is not having Long Term Visa in his favour."
The court further added that the petitioner shall thereafter be permitted to pursue his course, which shall be subject to final outcome of the writ petition. The petitioner, his parents and siblings are Pakistani Citizens and they came to India on October 29, 2011 through valid Passport under Long Term Visa (LTV).
Case Title: Shobha and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 9
The Rajasthan High Court has denied Police protection to a runaway couple, apprehending threat from their families. The court observed that there is no material or reason for it to conclude that the petitioners' life and liberty are at peril.
Justice Dinesh Mehta further observed, "If the petitioners have decided to marry, they must muster the audacity and possess tenacity to face and to persuade the society and their family to accept the step they have taken." In the instant case, it noted that there is not even an iota of evidence to evince that the respondents (relatives of the petitioner No.1) are likely to cause physical or mental assault to the petitioners.
Case Title: Madhuram and Ors v. State of Rajasthan, with connected matter
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 10
The Rajasthan High Court has quashed and set aside conviction of five accused persons for allegedly forming an unlawful assembly and causing injuries/ murder, observing that the incident was nothing but a "free fight.
The Division Bench comprising Justices Rameshwar Vyas and Sandeep Mehta observed, "We have no hesitation in holding that the ingredients required to constitute an unlawful assembly are totally lacking in this case and hence, the implication of accused persons by virtue of Section 149 IPC is unwarranted and unsustainable".
Taking note of the facts of the case and the circumstances that led to an altercation between the complainants and the accused, it added, "the incident has all trappings of a free-fight between the two parties without there being any motive for the accused to launch an assault with the intention to commit murder of any person from the complainant party."
Case Title: Kunal Sharma and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 11
The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench has allowed a NEET Candidate to avail the benefit of ESIC quota (ward of insured person quota) in the counselling process for admissions in MBBS/BDS Course.
Notwithstanding the fact that the requisite contributions to the Employees' State Insurance Corporation were not paid by the employer concerned, the Court held that the candidate cannot be denied the benefit of quota, provided his father, the insured person, had paid his contribution prior to the cut-off date.
Justice Ashok Kumar Gaur observed,
"The non-deposit of contribution in spite of deduction will not make the person disentitle for the benefit of ward of insured person if the insured person had paid the contribution to his employer prior to 31.03.2021."
Case Title: Chunnilal and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., with connected matters
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 12
The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench has directed the Nagar Palika, Kotputli to decide the objections submitted by 25 petitioners pursuant to the notices issued to them for removal of road encroachment.
Justice Inderjeet Singh directed the authority to pass reasoned and speaking order within a period 30 days. "I deem it just and proper to direct the respondent-Nagar Palika to decide the objections submitted by the petitioners pursuant to the notice issued to them, by reasoned and speaking order within a period 30 days," the order stated.
The writ petition was filed by the 25 individuals, all residents of Kotputli District in Jaipur, being aggrieved by the notices issued to them by the respondent-Nagar Palika, Kotputli in Dec 2021 for removal of encroachments from the road.
Case title: Smt Garima Sauda v. Goverdhan Singh and others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 13
The Rajasthan High Court has observed that merely stating that a particular proceeding had lingered on before the Court for an unduly long period of time, cannot be seen as contemptuous.
Observing this, the Chief Justice Mr. Akil Kureshi and Justice Rekha Borana terminated a Contempt Petition filed by a Rajasthan Civil Judge, Garima Sauda against a practicing Advocate, Goverdhan Singh.
The case of the judicial officer was that in relation to a criminal case that was pending before her, Singh had made a highly objectionable comment on his Facebook page and several people had responded to that comment, and the same were also objectionable and contemptuous
Case Title: Abhimanyu Sharda and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., with connected matters
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 14
The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, has held that the interference of the Court in tender matters is very restrictive and it should refrain from interfering in the impugned policy decision of the government, pertaining to sale of Run of Mine Lignite.
Justice Inderjeet Singh, while dismissing the plea, ruled,
"In formulating the conditions of tender document, greater latitude is required to be conceded to the State Authorities and if the State or its instrumentalities act reasonably, the interference of the Courts is very restrictive since no person can claim fundamental right to carry out business with the Government".
The Rajasthan High Court suspended the sentence awarded to a Faculty Member in the college and the Hostel Warden booked under Section 21 of the POCSO Act (among other offences) for their alleged failure to report a 'POCSO Case' of the hostel involving a minor girl, as it noted thus:
"Incidents are not uncommon where after deliberations, it is decided in a bonafide manner not to report such matters to the police, lest the reputation of the girl is tarnished. This aspect gains more importance because the hostel warden/higher-ups would definitely have preferred to deliberate with the parents of the girl before taking any such action."
Other Important Updates
Case Title: Asha v. Union of India
In the case pertaining to burial of an Indian citizen in Russia, the Rajasthan High Court was yesterday informed that his body will be exhumed and repatriated to India for enabling the deceased man's family to perform his last rites.
Justice Dinesh Mehta asked both Union and State to make necessary arrangements and ensure that the dead body of an Indian Citizen is handed over to family members at their Village Godwa, Tehsil Kherwara at the earliest.
The bench ordered, "Once the body is received from the Russian Government, Union of India, so also the State of Rajasthan will make all endeavors to ensure that it is handed over to the petitioners- family members at their Village Godwa, Tehsil Kherwara at the earliest."
Case title: Bhagwati Singh (Since Deceased) S/o (Late) Shri Raja Mansingh v. Raja Laxman Singh S/o (Late) Shri Raja Mansingh and connected matter
The Rajasthan High Court has issued a notice to the Central and State Governments asking as to whether any person can put Maharaja, Raja, Nawab, Rajkumar titles as a prefix while filing cases in the High Court or Trial Court.
The Bench of Justice Sameer Jain has sought the reply of the Union and Rajasthan Government after perusing the cause title of a petition, wherein, the Court noted, the respondent No.1 in the matter was titled as "Raja Laxman Singh".
At the outset, the Court referred to the 26th Amendment in the Constitution of India, Article 363-A, and Article 14 [Equality before law] to stress that recognition, titles granted to the rulers of the Indian State no more persist and have been abolished.
3. Deliberate And Wilful Non-Compliance Of Undertaking Is Contempt Under Contempt Of Court Act
Case Title: Ishwardas Alias Ishwar S/o Late Shri Ramchand v. Dr. Heeranand S/o Late Shri Hansaram through LRs
A single bench of Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench observed that breach of written undertaking given to the Court is contempt and is liable to be punished under the Contempt Courts Act, 1971.
Justice Sudesh Bansal, ruled, "As per Definition of civil contempt, described in Section 2 (b) of the Contempt of Court Act 1971, the civil contempt means willful disobedience of any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a Court or willful breach of an undertaking given to a Court. In the present case, the respondents have breached the written undertaking given to the Court. Therefore, they are prima facie guilty for committing contempt and liable to be punished under the Contempt Court Act, 1971.
In the present case, a contempt petition is filed alleging deliberate and willful non-compliance of the undertaking, given dated Oct 30, 2019 by the respondents-contemnors - Tulsi Meerchandani and Sehjanand - for vacating the rented shop and handing over the possession of rented shop on or before Oct 13, 2021, pursuant to the final judgment and order of Single Bench in 2019.
Uttarakhand High Court
1. At Home COVID-19 Vaccine Booster Jabs For Senior Citizens: Uttarakhand High Court Directs State
Case Title: Sh Sachdanand Dabral v. Union of India & Ors.
The High Court has directed the State to give the option to senior citizens to be jabbed with the booster doses of COVID-19 vaccination in their homes. For those unable to travel to the vaccination center, the State shall administer the precaution doses in their homes. The development ensued in an ongoing batch of PILs related to the COVID-19 situation in the State, where an application was moved through Advocate Shiv Bhatt seeking to postpone the upcoming assembly elections.
Case Title: Amandeep Singh v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors.
The High Court disposed of a Public Interest Litigation seeking a direction to the State not to acquire or take over the Naveen Mandi Sthal (marketplace) for upcoming Assembly Elections. The plea also sought directions to ensure that no interference is caused in the mandi area's sale and purchase of agricultural produces.
Filed through Advocate Prabha Naithani, it was argued that, like every year, this year also, the Naveen Mandi Sthal is being used for sale and purchase of agricultural produce, and if the entire Mandi is taken over for elections, then the poor agriculturists and horticulturists will face insurmountable difficulty.
3. 'Being An Advocate, Should Not Have Filed A Frivolous PIL': Uttarakhand HC On Dismissing PIL On UGC Funds Mismanagement
While dismissing public interest litigation, the Uttarakhand High Court has held that being an advocate, the petitioner should not have filed a frivolous PIL on the mismanagement of UGC funds without pointing any specific instances. The Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice S.K. Mishra and Justice Alok Kumar allowed the petitioner to withdraw the PIL without any liberty to file any further petition.