All High Courts Weekly Roundup [07 February- 13 February, 2022]

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 16

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reiterated the established principle that even if there is an alternative remedy available, in case the rules of natural justice have not been followed, the aggrieved may approach the High Court by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Petitioners in this case had applied for mutation of their names to the land purchased by them. The contention of the Petitioners was that the said application was rejected without following the procedure stipulated under AP Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971, specifically Section 5 of the Act which provides that the petitioner should have been given notice and thereafter the order should have been passed after giving the Petitioner an opportunity of hearing.

Bombay High Court

Case Title: Ms Moonline Express Cargo Pvt Ltd vs UoI through Divisional Railway Manager

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 30

Observing that an entity cannot be blacklisted from participating in future contracts without being allowed a proper opportunity to defend itself and without following the due process of law, the Bombay High Court granted interim relief to a company in a contract with the Railways.

The court held that the railway officials had not given the petitioner a fair opportunity to defend his stand by failing to mention the possibility of debarment in the show-cause notice.

2. Subsequent Reconstruction Of File Records Doesn't Change Original Filing Date: Bombay High Court

Case Tile: Mahadev Sadhu Ingale vs The State Of Maharashtra & othrs

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 31

The limitation period for considering an appeal (reference) against a land acquisition order must be calculated from the date an application was first filed and not from the date a missing appeal copy was reconstructed and submitted by the applicant, the Bombay High Court held.

The court set aside the Deputy Collector's (Sangli) order rejecting an application to refer the acquisition proceedings to a competent court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It observed that merely because the documents were not traceable in the Deputy Collector's office and the petitioner had to reconstruct them, it didn't mean the application was filed later.

3. 'Employer Entitled To Carry On Business In Company's Best Interest': Bombay HC Grants Pre-Arrest Bail In Employee's Abetment To Suicide Case

Case Title: Dr. Surendra Manjrekar vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 Live Law (Bom) 32

The Bombay High Court granted anticipatory bail to former Director of a company accused of abetting the suicide of an employee, observing that all the allegations seemed to be part of "normal course of business" and that a company was "entitled to carry its business in the manner that was in the best interest of the company."

In the order, Justice Sarang Kotwal observed that the deceased, Nikhil Joshi, was taking treatment for stress management and was in a disturbed state of mind.

"Though, there are allegations that he was disturbed because of stress in the company, the company was entitled to carry its business in the manner that was in the best interest of the company. That by itself would not mean that the bigger targets were given and meeting was arranged, so that the deceased would commit suicide," the court observed.

4. "Mujhse Bahut Badi Galti Huwi Hai": Bombay High Court Cites Extra-Judicial Confession To Uphold Conviction as also Commute Death Penalty Of 23 Yr Old

Case Title: The State of Maharashtra vs Mohammad Aabed Mohammad Ajmir Shaikh

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 33

An extra-judicial confession made voluntarily, free from threat or inducement, carries the presumption of truth, Bombay High Court observed adding that depending on the facts of the case, a confession doesn't need to be presumed as weak piece of evidence.

Other considerations that weighed in with the bench were that the accused brought forth his crime by confessing to his friend, the accused's family neither tried to destroy evidence nor made attempts to conceal the accused. They also did not try to win over the friend to whom the extra judicial confession was made. In fact, the brother helped the police arrest the accused.

5. 'Parrot-Like Testimonies Of 6 Eye Witnesses, Humanly Impossible': Bombay High Court Acquits 20 Persons In Murder Case

Case Title: Komal Babusingh Ade and others vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 34

The Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, acquitted 20 persons in a murder case, citing identical and parrot-like version of all the star prosecution witnesses, calling it as "humanly impossible".

A division bench of Justices Sunil Shukre and Pushpa Ganediwala, observed in the judgement, "It's difficult to believe that six eyewitnesses deposed in an identical fashion with each and every minute detail. In our considered opinion, it's humanly impossible. Not a single independent witness (except police and medical witness) was examined even when it is not the case that the incident occurred in isolation or during late night hours."

6. Due Caution Must Be Exercised By Appellate Court Before Reversing Acquittal Orders By Trial Courts: Bombay High Court

Case: State of Maharashtra v. Gulab Dattu Patil & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 35

Even if the appellate court is inclined to re-evaluate and re-appreciate evidence on record to take a different approach, such interference is not justified when the trial court's view is a possible view, not marred with perversity or unreasonableness and thus, the appellate Courts must exercise a great deal of caution before disturbing the factual findings recorded by the trial court, Bombay High Court held.

7. Customs Duty Circular Not Applicable To 'Finalised' Benefits Under SFI Scheme: Bombay High Court Quashes Rs. 27.4 Crore Demand Notice To Essar Group

Case Title: Essar Shipping Limited Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 36

The Bombay High Court set aside a demand notice issued by the Joint Director-General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) against Essar Shipping Ltd, though the court upheld the validity of the circular under which the demand was made. The court held that the circular was restricted only to those cases where the claims were "being finalised" and therefore would not apply to Essar's case as it was already finalised by the concerned authorities.

The notice and the reminder which were set aside by the HC sought Rs 27.40 crore from the company comprising customs duty and interest on the basis of the benefits already availed and utilised on account of its entitlement under the Served from India (SFI) Scheme.

Other Important Updates

1. Minor's Deposition Should Be Completed Expeditiously, Bombay High Court Seeks Explanation From Trial Judge On Delay

The Bombay High Court said that in cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, where the victims are minor, the trial court should complete the deposition of the victim as expeditiously as possible.

"In cases where the victims are minor, POCSO Courts should atleast complete the examination of the victim/prosecutrix, as expeditiously as possible, lest the victims who are minor forget the incident, due to passage of time, giving advantage to the accused," Justice Revati Mohite Dere observed while hearing a case where the trail was expedited by HC in October 2019, but only one witness was examined by the court, who was not the victim in the case.

2. Bhima Koregaon | Vernon Gonsalves, Varavara Rao & Arun Ferreira File Review Application In Bombay High Court, Seek Default Bail

The Bombay High Court directed the National Investigation Agency to respond to a review application filed by three accused in the Bhima Koregaon–Elgar Parishad Case seeking bail and factual corrections in the order refusing them default bail.

In an order passed on December 1, 2021, the HC had denied default bail to the petitioners and five of their co-accused on the ground that they had not filed their default bail applications within the stipulated period, which is after 60 days of their arrest and before filing of the charge sheet.

All the eight who were denied relief claimed that denial of bail was on account of a factual error; as just like Sudha Bharadwaj who was grnated bail in the same HC judgement, they had also filed default bail applications in the trial could within the stipulated period.

3. Sanatan Sanstha's Virendrasinh Tawde Is A Threat To Society: CBI Opposes 's Bail Before Bombay High Court In Narendra Dabholkar Murder

The intention of the mastermind in rationalist Narendra Dabholkar's murder case, Virendrasinh Tawde, was to eliminate 'anti-hindus' and people opposed to Sanatan Sanstha's beliefs and customs, the Central Bureau of Investigation told the Bombay High Court while opposing Tawde's bail application in the 2013 murder case.

Tawde had allegedly conspired and hired sharp shooters to execute Dabholkar over ideological differences. The CBI affidavit says Tawde and his associates followed the teachings of 'Kshatra Dharma Sadhana,' advocated by Sanatan Sanstha, which was against alleged Evil Doers, Anti-Hindus, Dharamadrodhis and Durjans.

"The crime gave a feeling that those who do any act which the accused persons and the Sanatan Sanstha/Hindu Jan Jagruti Samiti doesn't like or tolerate, would be dealt with in a brutal manner. Such a feeling is more than sufficient to threaten the security of the people and the Nation. It had a terrorizing effect on the society," CBI's affidavit read.

4. Justice Pushpa Ganediwala Of Bombay High Court Resigns

Justice Pushpa Ganediwala, judge of the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) resigned on Februrary 10, 2022, two days before her extended tenure as an Additional Judge was set to expire. The Supreme Court collegium did not recommend the extension of her term.

She became a district judge in 2007 and was elevated as an additional judge of the Bombay High Court on February 13, 2019, for a term of two years. In January 2021, Justice Ganediwala delivered two judgments relating to child sex abuse, which attracted widespread criticism for taking the proposition that direct skin to skin contact was necessary for constituting the offence of sexual assault under the POCSO Act. Following the controversy, the Supreme Court collegium revoked the recommendation made by it on January 20, 2021 to make her a permanent judge of the Bombay High Court.

A month later, in February 2021, the Collegium recommended the extension of her term as an additional judge for one more year, instead of proposing to make her a permanent judge.

5. 'Will Popularize Alcohol Consumption': PIL In Bombay HC Challenges Maha Cabinet Decision Permitting Sale Of Wine In Super Markets

A PIL filed in the Bombay High Court challenged the Maharashtra Cabinet's recent decision to permit sale of wine in supermarkets and walk-in stores through 'self-purchase'. The petition filed by Sandip Kusalkar, who runs NGO for empowering the youth, said Maharashtra Government's decision was contrary to its de-addiction policy and a Government Resolution (GR) issued on August 17, 2011 to curb proliferation addictions in youth.

The decision will popularize and familiarize the alcohol and alcohol consumption in masses of the state. "This very objective of the Cabinet Decision is defeating the aim and object of de-glamorizing the alcohol consumption and negating the status acquired for alcohol consumption under the De- addiction policy mentioned in the said GR."

6. 'Playgrounds Rare In Mumbai' : PIL In Bombay High Court Against Any Construction At Shivaji Park Amid Demands For Lata Memorial

A PIL in the Bombay High Court challenged construction of any memorial in the future at the iconic Shivaji Park ground and for guidelines to protect the park in the wake of a political tussle over erecting late singing legend Lata Mangeshkar's memorial there.

Soon after Mangeshkar's demise on February 6, and cremation at Shivaji Park, BJP leaders in opposition demanded her memorial to be built there. However, the State Cabinet led by the ruling Shiv Sena decided that her memorial would be an international Music Academy in Kalina.

The academy would be built at an approximate cost of Rs 1200 crore, and spread across 2.5 acres. The PIL was filed before the State Cabinet's decision on the music academy.

7. Permitting 50% Capacity In Cinemas But Only 50 Wedding Guests Discriminatory: Nagpur Banquet Owners Association Moves Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court issued notices to the Maharashtra Government, Collector and Municipal Commissioner of Nagpur on a plea alleging discrimination against wedding hall owners by restricting the number of guests to just 50 in Nagpur District.

The petition filed by Mangal Karyalaya & Lawn Association alleged that while guests at social gatherings were restricted, cinema halls, theatres, malls, restaurants were permitted to carry on their businesses with 50% capacity for the doubly vaccinated.

"This is an unreasonable classification resulting in impermissible discrimination," the petitioners represented by Advocate Shyam Dewani for the petitioners said. Imposing additional curbs and restrictions without any rationale is arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 19(1)(g) & Article 21 of the Constitution.

1. 'Suffered Unnecessary Ignominy And Harassment': Calcutta HC Orders WBSEDCL To Pay Rs 6 Lakhs Compensation To Consumer For Unauthorised Disconnection Of Electricity Supply

Case Title: West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited v. Sukanta Kumar Singha and Anr

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 30

The Calcutta High Court has directed the West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company (WBSEDCL) to pay an amount to the tune of Rs.6,07,000 to a consumer for unauthorised disconnection of electricity supply due to which the consumer had suffered unnecessary harassment. Calling the conduct of WBSEDCL as 'deplorable', Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya observed, "In cases such as the present one, it is the gross laches of the Distribution Licensee which compelled the respondent no.1, a consumer, to suffer unnecessary ignominy and harassment..As far as the conduct of the Distribution Licensee in the present case is concerned, the same is deplorable and the consumer was compelled to run from pillar to post at every point of time." Accordingly, the Court directed, "Hence, there was no scope of reducing the total amount of compensation at the rate of Rs. 500/- per day, as calculated by the Ombudsman. Rather, in exercise of this court's powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the impugned order of the Ombudsman is modified to the effect that the Distribution Licensee shall pay compensation not to the tune of Rs.1,21,400/- as awarded but will pay a total amount of Rs.6,07,000/- to the consumer-respondent no.1 within a month from date, deducting any amount, if already paid pursuant to the impugned order of the Ombudsman."

Case Title: Union Of India and Others v. Ratna Sarkar

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 31

The Calcutta High Court observed that the benefit of family pension cannot be extended to a widowed daughter of a pensioner who was married at the time of the death of her father/mother. The Court held that a daughter who became widowed after the demise after her father/mother does not possess any fundamental or statutory right to claim family pension. The issue in consideration before a Bench comprising Justices Harish Tandon and Rabindranath Samanta was whether a daughter of a pensioner who was married, but became widowed after the death of the pensioner is entitled to family pension. Answering in the negative, the Court observed, "As the legislative intent is demonstrated, the scheme of family pension never included a daughter of a pensioner who was married at the time of the death of the pensioner..A daughter who became widowed after the demise after her father/mother does not possess any fundamental or statutory right to claim family pension. In the absence of any legislation in this regard, the benefit of family pension cannot be extended to a daughter of a family pensioner who was married at the time of the death of her father/mother. It will be unwise on the part of this Court to exercise its extraordinary or discretionary power to come to any inference contrary to the policy decision of the Government."

Case Title: Surojit Mandal v. National Investigation Agency (NIA)

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 32

The Calcutta High Court on Friday observed that Section 44 (3) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) mandate Courts to undertake measures to protect the identity of a protected witness and accordingly directed the concerned Trial Court to to redact the name, address and other particulars of the protected witness from the records immediately. A Bench comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Bivas Pattanayak noted that in the instant case, the statement of the protected witness recorded under Section 164 CrPC discloses his indignity. Opining that such disclosure of indignity defeats the provision of Section 44 (3) of the UAPA, the Bench observed, "Sub-section (3) of section 44 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, inter alia, provides the measures which the court may undertake to protect the identity of a protected witness which includes avoiding to mention the name and address of the witness in its orders or judgment and any record of the case accessible to public. Statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. of the witnesss is required to be served upon the accused. Hence, disclosure of identity of the protected witness in such statement clearly defeats the purpose of the aforesaid provision of law." The Court further directed the Trial Court to exercise more caution in ensuring that the indignity of protected witnesses are not divulged.

Case Title: Ganesh Orang v. State of West Bengal & Anr

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 33

The Calcutta High Court observed that lacunae in the prosecution case due to patent contradictions or inherent improbabilities cannot be cured by resorting to statutory presumption under Section 29 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). A Bench comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Bivas Pattanayak observed, "Glaring lacunae in the prosecution case undermines the credibility of the factual foundations which require to be prima facie established to attract the statutory presumption. When the primary facts relating to time, place and circumstances constituting the offence are not prima facie established due to patent contradictions or inherent improbabilities, such lacuane cannot be cured by resorting to statutory presumptions in law". Accordingly, the Court acquitted the appellant by observing, "In order to attract the statutory presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act the factual foundations with regard to the ingredients of the offence under Section 6 of the said Act require to be established in the first place..in the light of the contradictory and inconsistent versions with regard to the allegation of rape levelled against the appellant, the factual foundations of the prosecution case has not been laid on the basis of preponderance of probabilities so as to attract the statutory presumption and the appellant is therefore entitled to an order of acquittal."

Case Title: Bimal Bhattacharya v. State of West Bengal

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 34

The Calcutta High Court has dismissed a contempt petition filed against the State Election Commission (SEC) alleging that it had failed to comply with an earlier order of the Court directing the SEC to consider postponing elections to four municipal corporations for a short period of 4 to 6 weeks in the wake of the rising number of Covid-19 cases. The Court vide order dated January 14 had directed the SEC 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. Thereafter, the State Election Commission had decided to postpone the date of election by 3 weeks and had notified that elections to the four municipal corporation would take place on February 12. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj observed, "The period of 4 to 6 weeks mentioned in the order was only suggestive leaving it upon to the State Election Commission to take a decision in this regard within a time bound period..Having regard to the nature of the order passed by this Court and considering the fact that there was no positive direction in the order of this Court, we are of the opinion that there is no deliberate non-compliance or violation of the order of this Court by the respondents herein, hence no case for initiating the contempt proceedings is made out."

6. 'Misleading Statements Cannot Be Allowed Under Guise Of Free Speech': Calcutta HC Injuncts Chyawanprash Ads Of Baidyanath Ayurved For Disparaging Dabur Trademark

Case Title: Dabur India Limited v. Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Pvt Ltd

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 35

The Calcutta High Court permanently injuncted four advertisements by the makers of Baidyanath Chyawanprash Special for being disparaging to all other brands of Chyawanprash including Dabur Chyawanprash. Justice Shekhar B Saraf was adjudicating upon a plea moved by Dabur seeking an injunction against the uploading of five advertisements that had allegedly disparaged the goodwill and reputation of its trademark. "Precedents cited by both parties make it clear that true statements can be made even if it denigrates the rival's product, but false and misleading statements cannot be allowed under the guise of free speech. In light of the same, this video advertisement is disparaging and an action from this Court would lie. In light of the reasons provided above, this video advertisement is permanently injuncted", the Court observed. The Court further underscored that the concerned advertisements are misleading and accordingly opined, "A misleading advertising, as the term implies, is one that deceives, manipulates, or is likely to deceive or manipulate the consumer. These commercials have the potential to influence consumer's purchase preference in the market and it also harms its rivals, hence, they must be used with caution. There should be a balance between the right of commercial speech and the interest of public and competitors. In the present case, the video advertisement is, to a large extent, misleading".

7. NEET-PG| Service In Specialized Units Doesn't Amount To Serving In Rural/ Difficult Area To Qualify For 40% In-Service Quota

Case Title: Tania Mukherjee & Ors v. State of West Bengal & Ors

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 36

The Calcutta High Court observed that service in Specialized Units would not amount to serving in "remote and/or difficult areas" for the purpose of qualifying for the stipulated 40% in-service quota in Post Graduate Medical counselling for seats in Government/private colleges in West Bengal. Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya was adjudicating upon a plea moved by 53 graduate doctors who are serving as Medical Officers in different hospitals in the State and had contended that they should be eligible for availing the 40% in-service quota for presently serving in Specialized Units. "This Court recognizes the commitment shown by the in-service doctors who render 24x7 service in these Specialized Units. However, to include service in such Specialized Units within the definition of "rural and/or difficult areas" would amount to making in-roads into the policy frame-work of the State Government which a Writ Court should normally hesitate to do unless compelling reasons exist. A policy decision is not a perpetual no-go area and a Writ Court can certainly interfere in fit cases including where the policy is not backed by legislative competence or where there is an excessive delegation of essential legislative functions or an infraction of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India", the Court observed.

8. Gross Suppression Of Facts, Petitioner Himself Contesting Candidate: Calcutta HC Imposes 50K Cost On Plea Alleging Fake Caste Certificate For Elections

Case Title: Tapan Saha v. State Election Commissioner & Ors

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 37

The Calcutta High Court while hearing a plea alleging issuance of fake Scheduled caste certificate to a candidate contesting from a scheduled caste constituency, imposed costs to the tune of Rs. 50,000 on the petitioner for suppressing the fact that he himself was also a contesting candidate in the concerned Bidhannagar municipal polls. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj observed, "The fact now revealed by the respondents shows that the petition is by one contesting candidate against another. This fact has changed the entire complexion of the case. Hence, we dismiss this writ petition by imposing costs of 50,000/- which is to be deposited by the petitioner with the Legal Services Authority within a period of two weeks from today." Opining that the conduct of the petitioner amounts to 'gross suppression of facts', the Court further underscored, "The petitioner has suppressed this fact in the petition that he is one of the candidates contesting election of concerned municipal corporation. This amounts to gross suppression of fact and the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed with costs on the sole ground of suppressing the fact."

9. Running Of Mill By Neighbour Causing Rattling Noise Amounts To Actionable Nuisance

Case Title: Srimanta Ghosh & Ors v. Debabrata Ghosh

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 38

The Calcutta High Court has observed that while it is acceptable that every little discomfort or inconvenience cannot be brought into the category of an actionable nuisance, however if such inconvenience or annoyance exceeds all reasonable limits then the same would amount to an actionable nuisance. A Bench comprising Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee was adjudicating upon a plea wherein the plaintiff had contended that the defendant had been running a mill in the adjoining plot which caused rattling noise and vibration thereby causing discomfort to him and his wife. Taking cognisance of the grievance raised, the Court observed, "While it is acceptable that every little discomfort or inconvenience cannot be brought on to the category of an actionable nuisance but if such inconvenience or annoyance exceeds all reasonable limits then the same would amount to an actionable nuisance. Frequent and loud noise has been proved to trigger stress and anxiety in both adult and children – more often affecting mental health. A constant cacophony in neighbour's land causing disquietude in one's own abode is beyond a common man's realm of expected endurance."

10. 'Serious Question About Locus Of Petitioner': Calcutta HC Dismisses PIL Against Physical Classes For Unvaccinated Students Aged Below 15 Yrs

Case Title: Gaurav Purakayastha v. State of West Bengal

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 39

The Calcutta High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking directions to ensure that conduct of physical classes for Class VIII students in the State should resume only for vaccinated children and that children who are below 15 years of age i.e. are born after the year 2007 should be permitted to attend online classes. It may be noted that the Central government had issued a notification stipulating that children aged 15 years or more i.e. all those whose birth year is 2007 or before shall be eligible for Covid-19 vaccination with effect from January 3, 2022. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj dismissed the plea on the ground that there arises 'serious question about the locus of the petitioner' and further observed that the plea filed is not supported by adequate materials and documents. The Bench further opined that since one PIL is already pending before the Court regarding the issue of reopening of schools, entertaining the instant petition would result in multiplicity of proceedings. However, liberty was granted to the petitioner to file a fresh application along with all relevant materials as so advised.

Important Weekly Updates

1. 'Mouthpiece Of Bharatiya Janata Party': PIL Filed In Calcutta High Court Seeking Removal Of WB Governor Jagdeep Dhankhar

Case Title: Ramaprasad Sarkar v. Union of India

A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition was filed before the Calcutta High Court on Tuesday praying for a direction to the Central government to remove Jagdeep Dhankhar as the Governor of West Bengal, claiming that he was acting as the 'mouthpiece of the Bharatiya Janata Party'. The PIL has been filed by petitioner Rama Prasad Sarkar who is also a lawyer by profession. Opining on the conduct of the Governor, the petitioner averred, "The present Hon'ble Governor of West Bengal Mr. Jagdeep Dhankhar is acting as the mouthpiece of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). He is not only interfering in the functioning of the state of affairs but is also maligning the West Bengal government. This is unparalleled in the history of West Bengal's democracy".The petitioner also submitted that the immunity granted to the Governor under Article 361 of the Constitution is not absolute and that the actions of the Governor are subject to judicial scrutiny when challenged for arbitrariness, dishonesty and bad faith. "The Governor is also a formal head who is bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. Therefore, Mr. Jagdeeo Dhankar's observations about the functioning of the various ministries under the State government carry deeper political repercussions as they have the potential to affect the federal structure and amount to a misuse of political office", the plea further averred.

2. SSC 'Group-D' Recruitment Scam: Calcutta HC Prohibits Payment Of Salary To 573 Illegally Appointed Candidates, Raps Enquiry Commission For Non-Filing Of Inquiry Report

Case Title: Sandeep Prasad & Ors v. State of West Bengal

The Calcutta High Court directed the concerned District Inspectors of Schools to not pay any further salary to 573 candidates who had allegedly been appointed for the post of 'Group-D' (non-teaching staff) in sponsored Secondary and Higher Secondary schools under the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (WBBSE) despite no such recommendation by the West Bengal Central School Service Commission (WBSSC). Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay was adjudicating upon a batch of petitions pertaining to the alleged irregularities in the appointment of 'Group-D' (non-teaching staff) in sponsored Secondary and Higher Secondary schools under the WBBSE on the purported recommendation by the WBSSC. The Court underscored, "From the above provision of the Act, it is clear that the appointment of the said 573 candidates are wholly invalid and have no effect for want of recommendation by the commission and, therefore, they cannot work in a school as a recommended candidate by the Commission and their appointment letters of the Board are of no effect. All such appointments given to such 573 candidates are invalid and of no effect." Expressing strong displeasure against the conduct of the inquiry committee, the Court remarked, "The appeal court mandated the committee to file the report by two months from the date of the order of the appeal court. The order of the appeal court was passed on 6th December, 2021. Today we are on 9th February, 2022. Although the said mandatory period of two months have elapsed, not only no inquiry report has been submitted before this court but also nobody of the committee, or on behalf of the committee, did care to appear before this court. This non-appearance is taken very very seriously by this court."

3. Deployment Of Central Forces For Bidhannagar Municipal Polls: Calcutta HC Directs SEC & WB Govt To Decide Within 12 Hours

Case Title: Pratap Banerjee v. State of West Bengal and other connected matters

The Calcutta High Court directed the State Election Commission to hold a joint meeting with officials of the West Bengal government within 12 hours and decide as to whether deployment of central paramilitary forces will be required for the peaceful conduct of the upcoming elections to the Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajrashi Bharadwaj observed,"We hereby direct that the Commissioner, State Election Commission will hold the joint meeting with the Chief Secretary and Home Secretary of the State and the Director General and Inspector General of Police within 12 hours and will do the reappraisal of the ground situation in Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation area and ascertain if deployment of paramilitary forces is necessary for ensuring the peaceful conduct of election of Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation and if require, he will submit and requisition to the Union Ministry of Home Affairs or the competent authority for deployment of paramilitary forces and any request in this regard will be duly considered having regard to the ground situation and in the interest of ensuring peace, security and orderly conduct of the forthcoming Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation Election without any delay." Opining that the Commissioner of the State Election Commission will be held personally liable to ensure that no violence takes place, the Court further remarked, "In case, if the Commissioner, State Election Commission forms an opinion that deployment of the paramilitary forces during Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation election is not necessary, then he will be personally liable to ensure that no violence takes place and free, fearless and peaceful elections are held in Bidhannagar."

Also Read: Calcutta High Court Seeks Response From State, SEC In Plea Seeking Deployment Of Central Forces During Upcoming WB Municipal Elections

Also Read: Calcutta High Court Reserves Judgment In Plea Seeking Deployment Of Central Forces For Bidhannagar Municipal Polls

4. Bidhannagar Municipal Polls: Calcutta HC Refuses To Exclude WB Chief Secretary From Panel Assessing Need To Deploy Central Forces

Case Title: Pratap Banerjee v. State of West Bengal and other connected matters

The Calcutta High Court on Friday dismissed an application seeking modification of its order dated February 10, 2022 whereby the Court had directed the State Election Commission to hold a joint meeting with the Chief Secretary and Home Secretary of the State as well as the Director General and Inspector General of Police within 12 hours and decide as to whether deployment of central paramilitary forces will be required for the peaceful conduct of the upcoming elections to the Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajrashi Bharadwaj on Friday was apprised by one of the counsels for the petitioners that a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sayan Banerjee v. The Election Commission of India and Ors had recorded adverse observations against the Chief Secretary of West Bengal. Accordingly, the counsel had objected to the order of the Court directing the involvement of the Chief Secretary of the State in the decision making process for the deployment of central forces for the Bidhannagar Municipal polls. Dismissing such a contention raised, the Court observed, "Having regard to the nature of direction which has been issued by this Court, we are of the opinion that no modification of the order of this Court is required on the basis of the observations made by the earlier Division Bench in the order dated 28.09.2021 in WPA (P) 245 of 2021 in respect of the Chief Secretary of the State."

5. Consider Mental & Physical Health Of Mother As Well As Foetus: Calcutta HC Directs Constitution Of Medical Board In Plea Seeking Termination Of 34 Weeks Foetus

Case Title: Nivedita Basu v. State of West Bengal

The Calcutta High Court on Friday directed the Director of IPGME&R, (SSKM Hospital), Kolkata to constitute a medical board as per the provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 while adjudicating upon a plea of a woman seeking medical termination of her 34 weeks old foetus. Justice Rajasekhar Mantha observed, "This Court directs the Director of IPGME&R, (SSKM Hospital), Kolkata, respondent no. 4 to constitute a medical board comprising of experts, inter alia, in gynaecology and obstetrics as per the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (as amended in the year 2021) to assess the medical condition of the petitioner and the necessity and advisability of the MTP at this stage."The Court further ordered that the report containing the medical opinion must be submitted before the Court by February 15 and accordingly remarked further, "The mental and physical health of the petitioner as well as the foetus should be considered and opinion should be submitted to this Court as expeditiously as possible but not later than Tuesday 15th February, 2022."

Chhattisgarh High Court

1. Candidates Aged 45 Yrs Or Above Eligible To Head District Consumer Forum If Other Qualifications Are Met: Chhattisgarh High Court Clarifies

Delhi High Court

1. A Reliable Testimony Of An Injured Witness Holds Weight Even In The Face Of Procedural Irregularities For Conviction Under S. 307 IPC: Delhi High Court

Case Name: Saleem Khan v. The State (Govt. of GNCT, Delhi)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 92

The Delhi High Court vindicated the case of the State upholding S. 307/324 IPC (attempt to murder/voluntary causing hurt by dangerous weapons) Conviction after confirming the reliability of the testimony of the injured witness.

Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri highlighted the law on appreciation of injured witness according to a very high degree of reliability. Thus, the testimony of an injured witness, unless countered by significant discrepancies, is highly reliable, removing all doubts as to the likelihood of the witness falsely implicating the attacker.

Case Title: THARVINDER SINGH & ORS. v. VIRESH CHOPRA & ANR

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 93

The Delhi High Court has observed that once an application for amendment is allowed in terms of Order VI Rule 18 of Code of Civil Procedure, the plaint has to be amended. Justice Pratibha M Singh also reiterated that in case the amended plaint is not filed within the stipulated time, the plaint cannot be amended thereafter.

The Plaintiffs were accordingly directed to file the amended plaint, on the next date of hearing or within 15 days upon resumption of normal hearing, whichever was later.

Case Name: TINIMO EFERE WOWO Vs THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 94

In a case involving a foreign national arrested under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), the Delhi High Court clarified the liability of persons accused of offenses involving controlled substances and the foreigner's right to bail.

In this case, the Petitioner was the source person for Pseudoephedrine drug for a business chain operating in Punjab, Haryana, and Delhi. Holding the drug to be a "controlled substance", Justice Bhatnagar held that the bar of Section 37 is not applicable in this case.

4. Settlements Entered In Industrial Disputes Valid & Legal Even Though Provisions Similar To Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC Do Not Exist In Industrial Disputes Act: Delhi HC

Case Title: M/S WEARWELL (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED v. MOHD. NIZAM

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 95

The Delhi High Court has observed that settlements entered into in industrial disputes are legal and valid even though provisions similar to Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC do not exist in Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Justice Pratibha M Singh added that settlements can be entered into between Management and Workman even outside the court or conciliation proceedings as is clear from sec. 18(1) Industrial Disputes Act. "Such settlements would be valid and legal. Upon a settlement being entered into, parties may place the same before the forum concerned and the same can be recorded, upon the Court being satisfied that the terms are legal, just and fair. A settlement under Section 18(1) would be binding on the parties. The usual procedure for recording a settlement would be that parties would file an application and appear before the court and confirm the settlement," the Court said.

5. Order XXXVII CPC- Defendant Entitled To Unconditional Leave To Defend Suit If Substantial Defence Or Triable Issues Shown: Delhi High Court

Case Title: SMT. NEELAM BATRA v. SHRI V. RAMCHANDRA RAO

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 96

The Delhi High Court has observed that under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, a defendant is entitled to the leave to defend the suit if he satisfied the Court that he has a substantial defence or that there are triable issues by way of which the plaintiff is not entitled to leave to sign judgment.

Justice Suresh Kumar Kait made the following observations: "Order XXXVII CPC was included in the Code of Civil Procedure with the intent to allow the plaintiff who has an undisputed liquidated claim against the defendant, who has no substantial defence and/or raises no genuine triable issues to obtain a quick and summary judgment without pointlessly being kept away from what is due, in respect of any monetary dues, to recover the dues swiftly by a summary procedure instead of taking the extensive route of a regular suit."

"But if the defendant satisfies the court that he has a substantial defence or satisfy the Court that there are triable issues by way of plea the plaintiff is not entitled to leave to sign judgment, and the defendant is entitled to unconditional leave to defend the suit."

6. Recourse To S.14 Arbitration Act Not Available In Respect Of Challenge To Arbitrator U/S 12(1): Delhi High Court

Case Title: Union of India v. M/S APS Structures Pvt. Ltd, OMP (T) (Comm) 2/2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 97

The Delhi High Court has held that recourse to Section 14 (failure or impossibility to act) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is not available in respect of any challenge to the appointment of arbitrator under Section 12(1) of Act.

Section 12 provides for 'grounds of challenge', whereas sub section (1) provides that an arbitrator must disclose in writing any circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to his independence or impartiality.

Justice Vibhu Bhakru has held, "It is well settled that recourse to Section 14 of the A&C Act is not available in respect of any challenge to the arbitrator under Section 12(1) of the A&C Act."

7. Recourse To S.14 Arbitration Act Not Available In Respect Of Challenge To Arbitrator U/S 12(1): Delhi High Court

Case Title: Manushi Sangathan v. Delhi Fire Service

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 98

The Delhi High Court refused to entertain the writ petition filed by Manushi Sangathan, an organization representing 67 hawkers and vendors, challenging the mock drill report submitted by Delhi Fire Service in the suo moto case registered last year following a fire incident at a building in the Nehru Place market.

The Bench comprising of Justice Manmohan and Justice Navin Chawla, which is already examining the matter in the suo moto case, chided the Petitioner, stating, "You are committing an abuse of process by approaching this Court with multiple proceedings. You can't put fear of God in public authorities by filing by abuse of law".

The mock drill report stated that the time taken by various agencies in reaching the spot was too high thereby indicating that there were significant hindrances due to heavy pedestrian movement, heavy traffic, hawkers and parking problems. Accordingly, the report had recommended that the place may be made a hawker free zone.

8. Institutions Can't Cancel Enrolment Of 'Erroneously Admitted' Students Mid-Course In Absence Of Any Wrongdoings On Their Part: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Abha George & Ors Versus All India Institute Of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 99

The Delhi High Court has allowed a petition filed by students of MSc Nursing at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), challenging an Office Memorandum (OM) of the Institution canceling their admission.

The students had been admitted based on the eligibility conditions in the Prospectus of AIIMS and offer letters. However, 2 months into the course, the Institution decided to cancel their admissions as it had released the qualifying examination results later than the due date. Thus, the students approached the Court, praying for relief.

Noting that the students had been studying for two months into the course, Justice Prateek Jalan ruled that the Institution could not now hold the students responsible for the University's shortcomings.

9. Legal Representatives Entitled To Motor Accident Claim: Delhi HC Upholds Compensation Given To Children From Deceased's First Marriage

Case Title: UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD v. FARIDA SAROSH POONAWALA AND ORS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 100

Reiterating that legal representatives of a person are entitled to motor accident claim, the Delhi High Court has upheld the compensation given to two children from the deceased's first marriage.

Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva was dealing with a plea impugning the award dated 22.03.2021 whereby the detailed accident report was disposed of and compensation was awarded to the children.

It was the case of the appellant, Insurance company, that the tribunal had erred in awarding compensation to two children of the deceased from his first marriage. It was submitted that they cannot be treated as dependent family members of the deceased.

It was also argued that the tribunal had erred in taking the monthly salary of the deceased at Rs. 41,807 whereas as per the claim of the wife of the deceased the salary was only Rs. 35,000 per month.

10. "No Discrimination": Delhi High Court Dismisses Pleas Challenging Allowance Reduction For Air India Employees

Case Title: ALL INDIA AIRCRAFT ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 101

The Delhi High Court has dismissed pleas challenging office order by which allowances of the Air India employees were reduced, observing that there was no discrimination rather there was a justifiable ground in reducing the allowances for the pilots and engineers.

Justice V Kameswar Rao said that it was for the Centre and Air India to determine, by taking into account relevant considerations, what ought to be the appropriate reduction in allowances. "As long as the reduction is not palpably arbitrary, the scope of judicial review is very limited," the Court said.

The Court was dealing with a plea filed by two associations namely India Aircraft Engineers' Association and Air India Aircraft Engineers' Association.

11. Minor Child Entitled To Claim Maintenance For His Upbringing By Father, Not Bound By Divorce Settlement: Delhi High Court

Case Title: FATEH SAHARAN v. ROHIT SAHARAN

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 102

The Delhi High Court has observed that a minor child is entitled to claim maintenance for his upbringing by the father and that such a child is not bound by the divorce settlement regarding maintenance between his parents.

Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh was dealing with an appeal filed by a minor child being aggrieved by the grant of interim maintenance by the Family Court at Rs. 15,000 per month.

The High Court had vide order dated April 22, 2021 enhanced the said maintenance amount and directed the father to pay Rs. 25,000 per month to the minor, considering that his school fee itself was in that range.

Observing that when the mother of the minor child obtained divorce by mutual consent, the maintenance was fixed in respect of the child at Rs. 5,000 per month, the Court said: "It goes without saying that the appellant being a minor, is not bound by that settlement, and he is entitled to claim maintenance for himself for his upbringing from the respondent i.e., his father."

12. Pre-Trial Detention Impacts Right Of Accused To Defend Himself, Affects Fair Trial Guaranteed Under Article 21: Delhi High Court

Case Title: VIKAS CHAWLA v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 103

Noting that the consequences of pre-trial detention are grave in nature, the Delhi High Court has observed that keeping an undertrial in custody would impact his right to defend himself during trial and that he will be clearly denied the right to a fair trial which is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh made the observation while granting bail to one Vikas Chawla accused of cheating HDFC Bank as well as BMW Financial Services to the tune of several crores of rupees by using forged and fabricated documents and emails.

Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 5th August, 2021 and was in custody since then. It was submitted that the investigation of the case was completed and Chargesheet was also filed. He also argued that all the incriminating evidences and materials against the petitioner were documentary in nature and that there was no chances of the petitioner tampering with the same.

13. "Use Of Bank's Seal Unauthorisedly A Matter Of Enormous Gravity": Delhi High Court Upholds Workman's Punishment Of Compulsory Retirement

Case Title: THE CHIEF MANAGER PUNJAB AND SIND BANK v. SHRI PARAMJIT SINGH NANDA

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 104

The Delhi High Court has upheld the punishment of compulsory retirement awarded to a workman, guilty of forgery, fabrication of bank statements and other forms of misconduct, observing that the use of a bank's seal unauthorisedly is a matter of enormous gravity which cannot be simply brushed under the carpet.

Justice Pratibha M Singh also observed that forging the signatures of a colleague or even turning a blind eye to such forgery by a third party, and reaping benefits from the same is wholly impermissible.

The Court allowed the petition filed by Punjab and Sind Bank challenging the Award dated 9th October, 2019 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court wherein the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed on the Respondent Workman was unjustified and unwarranted.

14. Authority Must Have Valid Reasons For Accepting/ Rejecting Bids Even If Tender Clause Stipulates Otherwise: Delhi High Court

Case Title: PKF Sridhar and Santhanam v. Airports Economic Regulatory Authority of India. WP (C ) 12385/2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 105

The Delhi High Court recently observed that merely because a clause in the tender stipulates that the bids may be accepted or rejected without assigning any reasons, does not mean that the tender authority can act arbitrarily. It must have valid reasons for exercising its discretion.

The division bench comprising of Justices Vipin Sanghi and Jasmeet Singh said, " No doubt, the tender-inviting authority cannot act arbitrarily or whimsically, or out of mala fides in the matter of awarding or cancelling the tendering process. Even the clause which stipulates that they may not assign reasons for not accepting any bid, or rejecting the bids, does not mean that they should not have any valid reasons to justify their conduct."

The petitioner had preferred the present writ petition being aggrieved by the cancellation of the tender in question, issued by the respondent-Airports Economic Regulatory Authority of India.

15. Objections Against Enforcement Of Foreign Arbitral Award Can't Be Filed In A Piecemeal Manner: Delhi High Court Imposes 1 Lakh Cost

Case Title: TAQA India Power Ventures Private Limited and Ors. vs NCC Infrastructure Holdings Limited, OMP (EFA) (Comm.) 1/2018

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 106

The Delhi High Court has held that a Judgement Debtor cannot be permitted under Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to file its objections against enforcement of an arbitral award in a piecemeal manner.

Justice Vibhu Bakhru held, " The respondent cannot file its opposition in a piecemeal manner. It is seen that the present petition was filed in the year 2018 and has been pending since. Sufficient opportunity was granted to the respondent to file its objections, however, the respondent has limited its objection only on the ground of territorial jurisdiction of this Court."

The respondent after completing his arguments regarding maintainability of the execution petition had submitted that in the event the Court finds that the petition is maintainable, the respondent should be given an opportunity to file its objection on merits.

16. Accused Can't Be Kept In Custody Indefinitely: Delhi High Court Grants Bail In Rs. Two Crore Cheating Case

Case Title: NANCY GILL v. STATE

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 107

The Delhi High Court has observed that an accused person cannot be kept in custody indefinitely when the right to speedy trial is a concomitant of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Justice Subramonium Prasad observed thus: "When right to speedy trial is a concomitant of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, it can be presumed that one the facets would also be that the accused cannot be kept in custody indefinitely."

The Court was dealing with a plea filed by a woman seeking bail in an FIR registered under sec. 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant, a jeweler by profession, had alleged that the petitioner, who was his customer, had dishonestly represented that the Prime Minister of India had started a programme wherein the King of Brunei wanted to start 14 Super Specialty Hospitals in different parts of India, with the first opening in Ahmedabad, Gujrat.

17. Right To Speedy Trial Can't Remain Dead Letter: Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Person Accused With Commercial Quantity Ecstasy

Case Title: Mahesh v. State

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 108

"Speedy Justice is a Fundamental Right enshrined under the ambit of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and the same needs to be given effect by this Court in letter and in spirit, else it will remain as a dead letter of law," the Delhi High Court observed on Tuesday.

The remarks were made while granting bail to an accused under the Narcotics, Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, languishing in jail for more than four years.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh was hearing the regular bail application filed by Mahesh, who was allegedly found to be in possession of 20 grams of Ecstasy (commercial quantity).

The investigation against him was complete and chargesheet was also filed before the Sessions Court. Charges were framed against him in November 2018 under Sections 22 and 29 of the NDPS Act. The High Court noted that till date, out of a total of 14 witnesses only two witnesses have been examined, and as such there is no probability of the trial being concluded in the near future.

18. Rough Estimation Of Prosecutrix's Age Given By Her Father Can't Be Used To Rebut Documentary Evidence: Delhi HC Upholds POCSO Conviction

Case Title: Mohd. Afsar v. State, Crl. A. 274/2020

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 109

The Delhi High Court recently refused to accept the rough estimation of age, given by a rape victim's father, to determine whether the offences under the POCSO Act are attracted.

Justice Mukta Gupta observed that to determine the age of a victim, suspected to be a minor, Rule 12(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules 2007 applies. It provides that the first priority has to be given to the Matriculation or equivalent certificate and in the absence thereof, to the date of birth certificate from the school first attended other than a play school.

In the instant case, the Bench noted that as per the date of birth recorded in the school first attended, the prosecutrix was a child in terms of Section 2(1)(d) of the POCSO Act as she was below the age of 18 years.

Thus, even if in the cross examination, her father had given a rough approximation of her age, the same cannot be taken as an exact estimation of the date of birth of the prosecutrix.

19. Reinstatement In Service Cannot Flow As A Matter Of Right When Acquittal Is Not An Honourable Acquittal: Delhi High Court

Case Title: JAHAN SINGH v. TRIBAL COOPERATIVE MARKETING DEVELOPMENT FEDERATION OF INDIA LTD TRIFED AND ANR

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 110

Dismissing a petition filed by an Accountant challenging his dismissal from service on being convicted in a criminal case, the Delhi High has observed that reinstatement in public service cannot flow as a matter of right where the acquittal of such person is not an honourable acquittal.

The petitioner who was working at the post of Accountant Grade I had approached the Court challenging the order dated March 19, 2013 whereby he was dismissed from service under Rule 19(i) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 based upon his conviction under sec. 7 and 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on the ground that the petitioner tried to extract a bribe for processing the release of an amount outstanding to a vendor.

The High Court had then vide order dated May 4, 2020 acquitted and exonerated the petitioner from all charges.

IMPORTANT WEEKLY UPDATES

1. Delhi High Court Appoints Administrator To Run Table Tennis Federation Of India In Manika Batra's Plea

The Delhi High Court appointed an administrator to run the affairs of Table Tennis Federation of India (TTFI) thereby suspending the operation of it's Executive Committee after observing that prima facie, conduct of the federation was blameworthy.

Justice Rekha Palli hinted that the administrator appointed is likely to be a retired Chief Justice of a High Court. The Court said that it will also be appointing two or three persons along with the administrator, while adding that there names will be reflected later in the order.

The Court was dealing with a plea filed by Table Tennis player Manika Batra, challenging the Rules issued by Table Tennis Federation Of India (TTFI) which makes attending of National Coaching Camp compulsory for being selected for international events.

2. Amazon- Future Disputes: Delhi High Court To Commence Hearing On February 24

The Delhi High Court said that it will commence hearing in a bunch of pleas pertaining to disputes between Amazon and Future Group, over the latter's deal with Reliance Retail, on February 24.

A single judge bench comprising of Justice C Hari Shankar said that it will first be hearing the appeals filed by the Future Group and then proceed to hear other matters.

While noting the possible and relevant issues between the parties, the Court clarified that it was only jotting out the facts to ascertain the manner in which hearing in the pleas are to be commenced.

The Judge added that it had not even tentatively applied its mind while doing the same and that it has not expressed any opinion on the issues between the parties.

3. Whether 2012 Guidelines To Prevent Detention Of Juveniles In Adult Jails Complied? Delhi High Court Seeks Report

The Delhi High Court directed the Secretary of Delhi State Legal Services Authority ('DSLSA') to submit a report within two weeks on implementation and compliance of the 2012 guidelines and directions regarding the juveniles and children in conflict with law who are lodged in adult jails.

A coordinate bench of the High Court in the case titled Court On Its Own Motion v. Dept. Of Women And Child vide order dated May 11, 2012 had issued a slew of directions to ensure that such juveniles are not remanded and kept in adult jails.

In paragraph 19 of the said judgment, the Court had directed the police authorities to submit a report to the Court in every six months regarding the implementation of the said directions with copies to be given to NCPCR and DSLSA.

4. Illegal Encroachment In Chandni Chow Area: High Court Orders Personal Presence Of Commissioners Of Delhi Police, NDMC

Observing that no desired results were achieved by the efforts of the authorities concerned to permanently end the illegal encroachment by hawkers and vendors in city's Chandni Chowk area, the Delhi High Court directed the personal appearance of Commissioners of Delhi Police and North Delhi Municipal Corporation.

A Bench of Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh was dealing with a plea concerning illegal encroachments in Chandni Chowk area, being a no hawking and no vending zone.

"Looking to the continuing states of affairs which show that ad hoc actions have been taken for selective removal of encroachments by the MCD and Delhi Police but same has not yet yielded desired result of permanently ending the encroachment by hawkers and vendors in the no-hawking-no-vending zone of Chandni Chowk, we are of the view that time has come for this court to require the presence of Commissioner of Police, Delhi as well as Commissioner North Delhi Municipal Corporation to explain how they propose to deal with the ongoing menace," the Court ordered.

5. Indian Medical Students Unable To Rejoin Colleges In China Amid Covid-19 Travel Curbs: Delhi HC Issues Notice To MEA, NMC

About 150 Indian medical students enrolled in China have moved the Delhi High Court, seeking permission to pursue their physical training here, as they are unable to travel to China amid Covid-19 travel restrictions.

The matter came up this week before the division bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh, which has issued notices to the respondents including Ministry of External Affairs and the National Medical Commission.

The plea filed through Advocates PV Dinesh, Ashwini Kumar Singh and Bineesh K. claims that careers of about 18,000 students is stake as they are stranded in India due to the pending restrictions imposed by Chinese government.

6. "Expression Of Opinion Or Criticism Is Not Defamation": Newslaundry Tells Delhi High Court In TV Today's Suit

Online news portal Newslaundry told the Delhi High Court that expression of an opinion does not amount to defamation, thereby opposing the Rs. 2 crores copyright infringement and defamation suit filed against it by TV Today, which owns channels India Today and AajTak.

Senior Advocate Saurabh Kirpal appearing for Newslaundry made three fold submissions before a single bench of Justice Asha Menon.

Firstly, he argued that the cause of action as disclosed in the plaint was extremely unclear and hence it was not possible for the Court to decide interim application on the basis of the said pleadings.

Secondly, he argued that even assuming that it was possible to consider some injunctive relief, TV Today had disentitled itself from any interim relief because of the "misleading documents" filed by it.

7. Marital Rape Exception: Delhi High Court Grants Two Weeks Time To Centre For Deciding Its Stand

The Delhi High Court has granted two weeks' time to the Central Government to decide and clarify its stand in a bunch of pleas challenging the exception of Marital rape under Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code.

The development came after Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta referred to the recent additional affidavit filed by the Centre wherein it had reiterated the request to defer hearing in view of the pending consultative process.

Mehta told a bench comprising of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice C Hari Shankar that time was sought for providing a stipulated timeline within which the Central Government would conduct an effective consultative process in order to assist the Court on the issue.

1. Encroachment Over Public Land Can't Be Retained Citing Right To Shelter: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Bandhkaam Mazdoor Sangathan vs State Of Gujarat

Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 26

While dismissing a PIL seeking to restrain the Railway authority from evicting slum dwellers until rehabilitation, the Gujarat High Court has held that the right to shelter is not a ground to continue encroachment on a public land. The Bench comprising Chief Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Ashutosh Shastri recalled the observations made by a previous Bench in this regard:

"The debate as regards the rights of encroachers over public land vis a vis the right to shelter should come to an end. The right to shelter and encroachment are two different facet. An encroacher may save himself from being forcibly evicted only if during his period of stay over the encroached public land any enforceable legal right has crystallized in his favour. Otherwise, merely by asserting the Right to Shelter , an encroacher, over public land, cannot say that he cannot be evicted."

2. Judicial Interference Necessary When Principles Of Natural Justice Are Ignored In Determining Citizenship: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Rasidaben W/O Sidikbhai Daudbhai v. State Of Gujarat

Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 27

While inquiring into a Habeas Corpus petition filed by the Petitioner seeking the release of her son from Special Operational Group, the Gujarat High Court has remarked,

"the least that is expected of the person who has been given such wide and vital powers of recommending the deportation of a person on the basis that he is not an Indian national, is to avail an opportunity of hearing to the person concerned."

This observation was made in reference to the wide powers that the Central Government is vested with to inquire into the nationality of a person and deport the person if not found to be an Indian national.

3. Equitable Relief Of Interim Injunction At A Belated Stage Is Not Proper: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Mohammad Iqbalbhai Abdulkarim vs Chhaganbhai Shambhubhai

Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 28

The Gujarat High Court has held that when a party approaches the Court with delay, grant of remedy of interim injunction may not be proper. Justice AP Thaker remarked,

"The Plaintiff had also kept silence for almost 8 years in instituting the suit after the execution of the agreement to sell, the equitable relief of interim injunction at a belated stage is not proper one to be granted in the facts and circumstances of the case."

4. Statement Of Co-Accused U/S 25 Evidence Act Inadmissible In Court But Significant For Investigation: Gujarat High Court Refuses To Quash FIR

Case Title: Firoz Hajibhai Sodha vs State Of Gujarat

Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 29

The statement by a co-accused under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act can be treated as a clue or piece of information for initiating and conducting an investigation to find out whether there is any independent and satisfactory material for further investigation, the Gujarat Court has clarified. The Bench comprising Justice Vipul Pancholi made this observation while hearing an application under Section 482 of CrPC seeking the quashing of the FIR for charges under sections 65(e), 116B, 81, and 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act and under sections 465, 468 and 471 of IPC.

5. Offense Under Section 138 Of NI Act Maintaianable Only For Cheques Issued For 'Enforceable Debt' And Not 'Security': Gujarat High Court

Case Title: C.M. Smith And Sons. Ltd Through Deinesh Mohanlal Panchal Versus State Of Gujarat

Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 30

"It is a settled proposition of law that proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act would lie only in respect of any 'enforceable debt'", the Gujarat High Court has observed today. The Bench comprising Justice Gita Gopi made this observation in connection with an application filed under Section 482 of CrPC, seeking the quashing of the order passed by the CJM Rajkot for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

6. Gujarat High Court Grants Joint Custody Of Differently Abled Corpus To His Father & Major Daughter

Case Title: Krupa Chirag Patel Versus State Of Gujarat

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 31

In a peculiar case, where the corpus lost his memory up to 95% and his wife died by committing suicide, the Gujarat High Court has permitted the corpus' major daughter and his father to share joint custody of the corpus.

The Bench comprising Justice Sonia Gokani and Justice Mauna Bhatt further directed that once the second daughter of the corpus becomes a major, she will also have joint custody of the corpus and if, by then the corpus has completely cured and medically released, they can continue to look after him.

7. Depletion Of Sex Ratio Resulting Into More And More 'Exchange Marriages': Gujarat High Court

Case title - SANDIPKUMAR MANUBHAI PATEL Versus STATE OF GUJARAT

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 32

The Gujarat High Court has observed that the depletion of the sex ratio in the State of Gujarat is resulting in more and more cases of exchange marriages. It may be noted that it is a form of marriage involving an arranged and reciprocal exchange of spouses between two groups. The Bench of Justice Sonia Gokani and Justice Mauna M. Bhatt observed thus while hearing a case while uniting a couple after they were separated by the father of the woman as he wanted to marry her 'in exchange'.

8. Termination Order Referring To FIR Against Employee Without Departmental Inquiry Is Stigmatic: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: MINAKSHIBEN LAXMANBHAI PARALIYA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 33

An order of termination referring to the FIR and case filed against the employee without conducting full departmental inquiry is bound to be stigmatic, the Gujarat High Court has observed today. The Bench comprising Justice Biren Vaishnav made this observation in a petition under Article 226 challenging the communication which terminated the services of the Petitioner. Accordingly, the Bench quashed and set aside the aforesaid communication.

9. "Welfare Of Children Most Important" Gujarat High Court Allows Habeas Corpus Petition In Favour Of Mother And Directs Children's Return To New Zealand

Case Title: SAPNA GEHLOT W/O DEVENDRA SINGH GEHLOT THRU POA KULDEEP SINGH CHAUHAN Versus STATE OF GUJARAT

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 34

Emphasising the significance of a mother's guardianship in the upbringing of her children, the Gujarat High Court has directed that the Respondent-Husband to hand over the custody of the three young children to the Petitioner-Mother situated in New Zealand. Coming down heavily on the Respondent-Husband, the Bench comprising Justice Sonia Gokani and Justice Nirzar S Desai remarked tersely:

"Here is the husband who had with predesigned tact had taken the children away from natural guardian mother and the mother's passport also was taken away by him ensuring that she could not travel and could not follow him up. He also simultaneously initiated the legal proceedings for custody and divorce knowing fully well that the wife's passport was with him and she was unable to come to India."

10. Industries Have No Legal Right To Discharge Industrial Effluent Into Sewer Lines: Gujarat HC Comes Down Heavily On Textile Industries For Sabarmati River Pollution

Case Title: ARVIND LIMITED THROUGH AUTHO. REP. HARDIK MOTIWALA Versus SUO MOTU

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 35

Emphasising that the major source of environmental pollution from textile industry is the huge amount of wastewater discharged with high chemical load, the Gujarat High Court has stressed the significance of effluent management in the textile industries discharging wastewater in the Sabarmati River. The Bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Vaibhavi Nanavati has made this observation while declining reliefs to the textile industries which prayed the Court to permit the industries to reconnect the sewer lines to enable them to discharge industrial effluent into the sewer lines.

11. No Feater Of Rights When No Condition Is Attached To Land Sold In Public Auction: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: HIRABHAI LAKHABHAI BHARWAD @ VIRABHAI LAKHABHAI BHARWAD Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 5 other(s)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 36

"When the land was sold in a public auction and when there is no condition attached to the said order of sale, then there can not be a feater of the rights of the person concerned to sale of the land in question", the Gujarat High Court has held.

The Bench comprising Justice AP Thaker made this observation in a petition challenging the order passed by the Special Secretary (Appeals) Revenue Department ('SSRD') vesting the Petitioner's land with the Government.

12. Gujarat High Court Grants Protection To Young Couple Wishing To Marry

Case Title: HITESHKUMAR NILESHBHAI PRAJAPATI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 37

The Bench comprising Justice Sonia Gokani and Justice Mauna Bhatt while granting protection to a young couple wishing to marry each other, admitted the writ of habeas corpus seeking the release of Jayaben Shrimali from the care of the District Legal Service Authority, Banaskantha.

The Court had, on an earlier occasion, granted protection to the corpus who was interested in marrying the Petitioner Hiteshkumar Prajapati but was pressurised to state that he was below the age of 21 years. She was accordingly granted accommodation at a Women Protection Home until the Petitioner turned 21 year of age on 07.02.2022. She was granted security and basic amenities by the DLSA Full Time Secretary and the Administrator.

13. Employee Cannot Be Terminated Without Full Departmental Inquiry: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: DINESHBHAI DHUDABHAI PATEL Versus STATE OF GUJARAT and ORS

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 38

Gujarat High Court Bench comprising Justice Biren Vaishnav while allowing the Petition challenging the order terminating the Petitioner's services has observed as follows;

"The employer is not allowed to hire and fire even if the employee, maybe ad hoc or probationer, and the services cannot be given a go-bye by one stroke of pen on the ground of misconduct by casting stigma, without holding a regular inquiry in accordance with the principles of natural justice."

14. Only Use Of Motor Vehicle Required To Be Established U/S 163A MVA; Need Not Prove Someone Else Was Driving Negligently: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: SONALBEN BHANABHAI TADVI-MINOR THROUGH UNCLE & 2 other(s) Versus MADHUBEN BHAGUBHAI TADVI & 1 other(s)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 39

Affirming that it is not necessary under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act to prove that somebody else was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently which resulted in the death of the victim, the Gujarat High Court has imposed liability on the insurance company to pay compensation to the family of the deceased.

The Bench comprising Justice Sandeep N Bhatt ordered this in connection with the First Appeal filed under Section 173 of the MV Act by the Appellants who were dissatisfied with the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

1: Sex CD Scandal: Karnataka HC Quashes Proceedings Initiated Against Bengaluru Police Commissioner Kamal Pant For Delay In Registering FIR

1: Hijab Ban : Karnataka High Court Appeals To Students & Public To Maintain Peace; Urges To Have Faith In Constitution

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday appealed to the students' community and the public at large to maintain peace and tranquillity, while the hearing in the hijab case was going on. A single-judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit made the appeal while hearing a batch of petitions filed by Muslim girl students challenging the hijab ban imposed in their colleges. They seek a declaration that the wearing of hijab is a fundamental right of Muslims as an essential religious practice.

2: Hijab Ban - Students Should Not Wear Religious Symbols In Educational Institutions : Karnataka Govt Tells High Court

The State government has told the Karnataka High Court that it is not interested in interfering with the religious beliefs but is only concerned to maintain uniformity, cohesiveness, discipline and public order which is indispensable to an educational institution. In the statement of objection filed in response to the batch of petitions filed challenging the action of colleges stopping muslim girls from wearing a Hijab (head scarf) to colleges, the state government has said, "The very purpose of uniform and dress code is to maintain equality among the students and maintain dignity, decorum and discipline in the institution."

3: Hijab Ban : How Can Girls Going To School Wearing Head Scarf Be Public Order Issue? Petitioners Argue In Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court today commenced hearing a writ petition filed by a Muslim girl student challenging the action of a government college in denying her entry for wearing a hijab (headscarf).

Justice Krishna S. Dixit has requested the student community and the public at large to refrain from taking onto the streets in connection with the issue and indulging in parallel protests. The Judge orally remarked, "People should have faith in Constitution. Only a mischievous section will keep the issue burning. But making agitation, going on the street, shouting slogans, attacking students, students attacking others, these are not good things. Do not disturb the Court. You should leave the judges to peace. So I appeal to all people to maintain peace and tranquility."

4: Hijab Ban: Karnataka High Court Refers Matter To Larger Bench, No Interim Relief

The Karnataka High Court has referred to a larger bench, the writ petitions filed by Muslim girl students challenging the action of a government college in denying her entry for wearing a hijab (headscarf). Justice Krishna S. Dixit noted that matter gives rise to certain constitutional questions of seminal importance qua personal law, which must be decided by a larger Bench. It directed the Registry to place the papers before the Chief Justice for consideration immediately, considering the urgency pleaded in the petitions.

5: BREAKING| Hijab Ban: Karnataka High Court Full Bench To Hear Muslim Students' Plea Tomorrow At 2.30 PM

A Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court will hear tomorrow the petitions challenging the ban of hijab (head scarf) in colleges. Today, a single bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit had referred the petitions filed by Muslim girl students to a larger bench, observing that important questions relating to constitutional rights and personal law are involved.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi, Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice JM Khazi will hear the petitions tomorrow at 2.30 PM. While making the reference, the single bench had declined to pass interim orders permitting the students to attend colleges wearing hijab, observing that the interim relief also has to be considered by the larger bench

6: Hijab Ban : No Religious Dress In Colleges During Pendency Of Case, Says Karnataka High Court| LIVE UPDATES [Day 3]

Other reports

1: Karnataka High Court Full Bench Resolves To Place Portrait Of Dr. BR Ambedkar At All Official Court Functions

The Full bench of the Karnataka High Court has resolved to place the portrait of Dr. B.R.Ambedkar, Architect of the Constitution of India, in all official functions of the courts.

As per the circular issued on February 4, the portrait is allowed to be placed during functions such as Republic Day on 26th January, Independence Day on 15th August and Constitution Day on 26th November in the High Court of Karnataka, Principal Bench at Bengaluru, Benches at Dharwad and Kalaburagi and also in District and Taluka Courts in the State.

2: Can't Allow Public To Die Like This': Karnataka HC Directs BBMP To Submit Plan For Automatic Pothole Filling Machines

Case Title: Vijayan Menon v. Secretary Urban Development Department Case No: WP 42927/2015

The Karnataka High Court on Monday sought for an explanation from the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) as to what arrangement was made for using another technology in place of the Automatic Pothole Filling machines, in case they were not ready to renew the contract of a private agency, which was providing the same. A division bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice Sachin Shankar Magdum said, "Why the arrangement was not made in advance and why they were waiting till now and now wants time to float tender etc to get the required machines," needs to be explained.

3: Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi Withdraws Consent For Elevation As Karnataka HC Judge

Kerala High Court

1. Delay Fatal Only If Parties Attempt To Obtain Any Unfair Advantage : Kerala High Court

Case Title: P. Gopalakrishnan alias Dileep & Ors v. State of Kerala & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 64

The Court allowed the anticipatory bail plea moved by actor Dileep and other accused in the alleged criminal conspiracy to kill police officers investigating the sensational 2017 sexual assault case. Justice Gopinath P. pronounced the highly-anticipated verdict after two weeks of elaborate hearing. "Your apprehensions regarding non-cooperation with the investigation can be addressed by conditions", the Court informed the Prosecution while dictating the order. It was also clarified that if these conditions were violated, the prosecution was entitled to apply for arrest.

3. For Abetment By Conspiracy, Mere Agreement Not Enough; Something Must Be Done: Kerala High Court

Case Title: P. Gopalakrishnan alias Dileep & Ors v. State of Kerala & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 65

The Court while granting pre-arrest bail to Malayalam actor Dileep and other accused reiterated the clear distinction between the offences of abetment by conspiracy and criminal conspiracy. Upon referring to several decisions on this issue, Justice Gopinath P. decided that while an illegal omission or act is necessary to constitute an offence of abetment by conspiracy, mere agreement is sufficient to amount to criminal conspiracy.

Case Title : PV Kassim v. Kakkattiri Juma Masjid Mahallu Committee & Ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 66

In a notable judgment, the Court has held that ex-communication or externment, whether declared or undeclared, is illegal and impermissible under the Wakf Act. The Court further declared that any bye-law or scheme in relation to the administration of the Wakf Property authorising ex-communication is also illegal as it infringes the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Justice SV Bhatti and Justice A Badharudeen were deciding a civil revision petition challenging the orders of the Wakf Tribunal and the State Wakf Tribunal.

Case Title: V.V. Abraham v. Chengannur Municipality & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 67

The Court held that the Secretary of a Municipality is empowered to issue notice and initiate suitable action if a building construction is found to be proceeding illegally within their jurisdiction. A Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly observed so while dealing with a set of appeals filed under the Kerala Municipality Act and the Kerala Municipality Building Rules.

6. 'Inputs Justify Denial Of Security Clearance' : Kerala High Court Upholds Ban On MediaOne News Channel

Case Title: Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited v. Union of India and connected matters

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 68

The Court upheld the order passed by the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to not renew the license granted to Malayalam news channel MediaOne for broadcast. The Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd (the company running the channel) challenging the Union's decision. Justice N. Nagaresh held that after perusing the files from the Union Ministry of Home Affairs, it has found intelligence inputs that justify the denial of security clearance to the channel.

Also Read: Natural Justice Principles Have Limited Role In Matters Of National Security : Kerala High Court In MediaOne Case

7. News Report Claims Devotees Made To Wash Feet Of 12 Brahmins At Temple To Atone Sins : Kerala High Court Initiates Suo Motu Case

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 69

The Court took suo motu cognisance of a news report alleging that in Sree Poornathrayeesa Temple, Tripunithura, devotees were made to wash the feet of 12 brahmins for the atonement of their sins. A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.G. Ajithkumar initiated the suo motu case. The incident came to light after a Malayalam daily Kerala Kaumudi published a report on February 4 citing that such a practice was being followed at the temples as part of 'Panthrandu Namaskaram'.

8. Declaration Proving 'Single' Status Of OCI Acceptable For Marriage Registration If Foreign Embassy Does Not Issue Bachelorhood Certificate: Kerala HC

Case Title: Joel K. Yoyakkim v. Sub Registrar & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 70

The Court has ruled that when an Indian citizen intends to solemnise their marriage with an OCI (Overseas Citizen of India) Cardholder, any declaration evidencing their single status would be sufficient to register their marriage in India if the concerned foreign embassy does not issue certificates to that effect due to prevailing laws. Justice N. Nagaresh also opined that this was deemed necessary since no one can be compelled to perform an unattainable task that hinders the registration of their marriage.

9. Natural Justice To Be Read Into A Statute If It Is Silent On Granting Opportunity Of Hearing To Parties : Kerala High Court

Case Title: Nimmy Rose James v. Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 71

The Court held that even if a statute does not provide for granting an opportunity of hearing to parties, principles of natural justice have to be read into the statute. While allowing a plea moved by a woman who was terminated from service without personal hearing, Justice Murali Purushothaman held that such a termination order was violative of the principles of natural justice.

10. Can't Dictate Filmmakers To Use Only Decent Language In Films, They Have Artistic Discretion Limited Only By Article 19(2): Kerala High Court

Case Title: Peggy Fen v. Central Board of Film Certification & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 72

The Court while dismissing a plea seeking to remove Malayalam movie Churuli from OTT platform SonyLiv for its allegedly excessive use of obscene language, observed that a filmmaker has the discretion to decide what type of language should be used by the characters in his film. Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan added that as long as the language used in a movie was within the contours of the reasonable restrictions imposed on freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India,

Also Read: Plea Against 'Churuli' Movie For Excessive Use Of Abusive Language Dismissed By Kerala High Court [Read Judgment]

11. Lawyers Should Not Criticise A Judgment Without Reading It, They Should Protect Judiciary : Kerala High Court

Case Title: Peggy Fen v. Central Board of Film Certification & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 73

The Court while dismissing a petition filed against the Malayalam movie 'Churuli' appealed to the lawyers to refrain from making comments on mainstream or social media about a judgment before reading it. Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan opined that the lawyers should act as the mouthpiece of the judiciary and only engage in fair criticism of a judgment. However, it clarified that not all members of the Bar make such 'immature' comments and that the message was meant for the handful who engage in such practice.

12. Issuance Of Faulty Test Result From Accredited Medical Laboratory Not Cheating If There Was No 'Intention To Deceive': Kerala High Court

Case Title: Sundareswaran K. & Ors v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 74

The Court ruled that to attract the offence of cheating, the person making the false representation should have knowledge of the fallacy and yet have proceeded to represent the same to another party with the intention of deceiving them. While partly allowing a petition, Justice Sophy Thomas observed that issuance of a faulty test result from an accredited Medical Laboratory will not amount to cheating if there was no intention to deceive. The Court also added that an act does not amount to cheating unless there was deception from the very outset of the transaction.

13. Long Non-Cohabitation Due To Deliberate Avoidance Not Ground For Divorce When Other Spouse Has No Fault & Is Ready To Continue Marriage: Kerala HC

Case Title: Dr. Uthara v. Dr. Sivapriyan

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 75

In a noteworthy judgment, the Court made several important observations on matrimonial cruelty and the scope of revival of condoned matrimonial offences. A Division Bench comprising Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Sophy Thomas dismissed an appeal filed by a woman seeking to reverse the order of a Family Court which rejected her plea for divorce finding that she had failed to prove any form of matrimonial cruelty allegedly meted out on her.

14. Appointment Beyond Advertised Number Of Posts Amounts To Filling Up Of Future Vacancies, Impermissible Under Law : Kerala High Court

Case Title: Mahin K.E v. Kalamassery Service Cooperative Bank & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 76

The Court ruled that filling up of vacancies over and above the notified vacancies are not permissible in law since it amounts to filling up of future vacancies. Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan noted that the impugned advertisement was only for one post and that the candidate who secured the first rank had already joined the post. Under such circumstances, the bank could not have appointed any further person by preparing a rank list.

15. Teacher Who Administers Moderate Force On Pupil To Enforce Discipline Without Malicious Intention Can't Be Fastened With Penal Liability: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Jaya v. State of Kerala & Ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 77

The Court held that a teacher who administers a reasonable force on a pupil without any malicious intention to enforce discipline in a classroom should not be fastened with criminal liability. Holding so, Justice Kauser Edappagath discharged a teacher against whom the trial court had framed charges, finding that there was no sufficient ground for proceeding against her.

Other Significant Developments:

16. Monson Mavunkal Moves Kerala High Court Seeking Bail In Sexual Assault Case

Case Title: Monson Mavunkal v. State of Kerala & Anr.

Infamous fake antique dealer Monson Mavunkal has approached the Court seeking bail in the case where a woman has accused him of sexually abusing her. Justice Gopinath P. directed the Public Prosecutor to get instructions in the matter and posted it on February 15. According to Mavunkal, the woman was anxious of being implicated as a co-accused in various financial crimes and this prompted her to turn against him.

17. [MediaOne Ban] Kerala High Court Reserves Order On Appeal

Case Title: Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited v. Union of India

The Court reserved its orders in the appeal moved by Malayalam news channel MediaOne against the single judge order upholding the recent ban imposed on it by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. A Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly heard the matter at length. The Court prima facie opined that from a bare reading of the provisions it seemed that revocation was a penalty.

Also Read: 'Victimised For Fair & Genuine News Reporting': MediaOne Moves Appeal Before Kerala High Court Against Centre's Ban

18. Plea Against Lokayukta Ordinance: Kerala High Court Seeks State Response

Case Title: R.S. Sasikumar v. State of Kerala

The Court admitted a plea assailing the recent amendment to Section 14 of the Lokayukta Act for allegedly diluting the judicial powers of the Lokayukta introduced by way of an ordinance and sought a response from the State government. A Division Bench of Chief Justice S Manikumar and Justice Shaji P Chaly also passed an interim order declaring that any decision taken by the authority constituted by way of the impugned ordinance during the proceedings will be subject to the outcome of the petition.

Also Read: Amendment To S.14 Of Kerala Lokayukta Act Unconstitutional, Dilutes Separation Of Powers: Plea Before High Court

19. Kerala High Court Directs To Implead Central Govt As Party To Plea For Compensating Families Of Those Who Died Of Covid-19 Abroad

Case Title: Pravasi Legal Cell v. State of Kerala

The Court asked the State to produce on record the letter penned by Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan addressed to the Prime Minister apparently seeking permission to disburse amounts from the State Disaster Funds to families of those Indians, who died abroad of Covid-19. Justice N Nagaresh also directed the petitioner to implead the Central government and the National Disaster Management Authority in their plea seeking a declaration that the family members of a non-resident of the State, who died abroad due to COVID-19, are entitled to ex-gratia relief of Rs. 50,000.

Madhya Pradesh High Court

1. CWC Can't Act As Family Court In Child Custody Matters: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses NGO's Plea Seeking Transfer Of Power With 10K Cos

2. Adversely Affect Young Generation: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail To Accused Under NDPS Act In Custody For Almost A Year

3. Can Departmental Enquiry & Criminal Case Proceed Simultaneously With Identical Charge? Madhya Pradesh High Court Answers

4. Candidates Cannot Change Domicile Status In Counselling Form After Last Date Of Registration: High Court Of Madhya Pradesh

Madras High Court

1. Rajasthan HC Reverses Finding Of Motor Accident Tribunal; Directs Insurer Of Offending Vehicle To Reimburse Payment Made By Opposite Vehicle's Insurer

Case Title: New India Assurance Company Ltd., through Regional Manager v. Smt. Kanchan Devi

Reversing the findings of a Motor Accident Tribunal which had fixed 50% contributory negligence on the truck driver against which the claimants' car had dashed, the Rajasthan High Court has directed the car insurance company to reimburse the payments made by insurer of the truck.

The bench thus ordered,

"Accordingly, the impugned judgment is set aside to the extent that the Tribunal has fixed the liability to pay compensation on respondent Nos.2 and 3 i.e. owner and insurer of the truck. In fact, the liability was against the owner and insurer of car during use whereof the accident took place...Accordingly, the same is set aside and it is ordered that the entire liability to pay compensation goes against the owner and insurer of the car. Since the car was insured with respondent No.12 it is liable to pay entire compensation payable to the claimants...It has been informed that the appellant (truck insurer) has already paid Rs.5,10,500/- to the claimant. Therefore, the appellant would be entitled to be reimbursed by respondent No.12."

2. Rajasthan High Court Restrains State From Issuing Registration Certificate To Senior Lawyers Association On Bar Association's Plea

Case Title: Rajasthan High Court Bar Association Versus State Of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 56

The Rajasthan High Court restrained state from issuance of registration certificate to Rajasthan High Court Senior Lawyers Association, Jaipur till further orders. The plea was filed by Rajasthan High Court Bar Association, Jaipur through its General Secretary Adv. Girraj Prasad Sharma.

3. Govt Has Authority Under Rajasthan Land Revenue Act To Regularise Unauthorised Land Conversions : High Court

Case Title: Bhanwar Singh v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., with connected matters

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 57

The Rajasthan High Court has held that the government has authority in terms of Section 90B of the Land Revenue Act, 1956 as it stood at the relevant time and Section 90-A as it stands today to regularise unauthorised conversions of agricultural lands.

"Insofar as the Government's desire to regularise the existing land uses, the same falls into broad categories, (a) where agricultural land is put to non-agricultural use without permission and (b) where such lands as aforesaid or other lands of nonagricultural character which have been put to uses other than land use specified in the development plans. So far as clause (a) category of uses are concerned, per se we find no illegality in the approach of the Government. The Government has the authority in terms of Section 90B of the Act of 1956 as it stood at the relevant time and Section 90-A as it stands today to regularise such unauthorised land conversions."

Case Title: Asharam @ Ashumal v. State

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 58

The Rajasthan High Court recently issued an order to summon Additional Commissioner of Police, Jaipur, Rajasthan, Ajay Pal Lamba for recording his evidence as a court witness in connection with Asaram's appeal challenging his conviction by lower Court in a minor's rape case.

The Bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani issued the order while allowing an application filed by Asaram under Section 391 CrPC [Appellate Court's power to take further evidence or direct it to be taken] to summon Senior IPS Officer Lamba as a court witness and to record his evidence, based on certain excerpts of the book co-authored by Lamba.

Other Important Updates

1. [Rajasthan Judicial Services] High Court Issues Notices In Plea Challenging 2021 Prelims Answer Key & For Non-Reduction Of Cut-Off Marks For ST Widow Category

Case Title: Vichitr & Anr v. Registrar Examination, Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur

The division bench of Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur issued notice in a writ petition challenging the answer key of Civil Judge Cadre of Rajasthan Judicial Services (Preliminary Examination), which was conducted on 28.11.2021 and the final result for the same was declared on 11.01.2022.

Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Birendra Kumar, ruled,

"Issue notice of writ petitions as well as stay applications to respondents by registered post as well as usual mode on payment of PF and notices on or before 31.01.2022. Notices are made returnable within two weeks. List these matters on 16.02.2022 for further orders on reply, admission as well as on stay. A copy of this order shall go along with the notices. A copy of this order be also placed on records of all the petitions."

The petitioner alleged that she was awarded 50 marks, yet she has not been selected for main examination by subjecting her to discrimination. She alleged that for the first time different criteria of cut off marks has been provided for various categories/subcategories and though reduced cut off marks have been provided to General Widow as 45, no such reduced cut off marks have been provided for Scheduled Tribe Widow

2. Rajasthan High Court Restrains State From Issuing Registration Certificate To Senior Lawyers Association On Bar Association's Plea

Case Title: Rajasthan High Court Bar Association Versus State Of Rajasthan & Ors.

The Rajasthan High Court restrains state from issuance of registration certificate to Rajasthan High Court Senior Lawyers Association, Jaipur till further orders. The plea was filed by Rajasthan High Court Bar Association, Jaipur through its General Secretary Adv. Girraj Prasad Sharma.

Justice Mahendra Kumar Goyal, ruled , "Taking into consideration the contentions advanced by learned Senior Counsel and the material on record, the respondents No.1 & 2 are restrained from issuing registration certificate in favour of the respondent No.3 & 4, till further orders."

The court issued notice in this plea challenging the registration of 'Rajasthan High Court Senior Lawyers Association, Jaipur' in the name of society as it being violative of Section 3 read with Clause 17 of the Schedule of The Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950.

3. [Rajasthan Eligibility Examination for Teacher 2021] PIL Before HC To Cancel the Exam And To Investigate the Paper Leak by Central Investigation Agency

Case Title: Madhu Kumari Nagar and Ors. v. The State Of Rajasthan and Ors.

A public interest litigation has been filed before the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur seeking to cancel the Rajasthan Eligibility Examination for Teacher 2021 (REET-2021) and to investigate the paper leak by the Central Investigation Agency. The REET examination was conducted on 26.09.2021. In the present matter, the bench has listed the matter on 28.02.2022.

Justice Mahendar Kumar Goyal, ordered, "The applications (1/2022) shall be considered at the time of admission/hearing of the writ petitions. List these matters for admission on 28.02.2022 as prayed."