High Courts Weekly Round-Up

Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has again dismissed a public interest litigation that raised objection to the name ‘Anti-Romeo Squad’, observing that it cannot indulge in argumentative interpretation of a name the government has chosen so as to hold as to whether a name is good or bad.

The Lucknow bench of the High Court held that food, food habits and vending thereof is undisputedly connected with the right to life and livelihood guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court also observed that food habits in UP have flourished and are an essential part of life as an element of the secular culture that has come to exist and is common amongst all sections of the Society.

Bombay High Court

The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court quashed an FIR registered against Savita, a 25-year-old woman from Osmanabad who attempted to murder her 3-month-old son in 2015, as she was suffering from postpartum depression.

The Bombay High Court refused to discharge a money lender couple from a case arising out of an FIR filed against them by one SunitaBomble, wife of a deceased debtor who committed suicide by hanging himself.

The High Court, recently held that under Article 39(f) of the Constitution, it is the duty of the state to make policy for healthy development of children, and certainly towards mentally-ill and mentally-challenged children. Merely because they are mentally-ill or -Challenged, they cannot be deprived of their fundamental right under the Article 21A of the Constitution.

The Court refused to grant any relief to Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd and dismissed the notice of motion in a commercial suit filed against Sony Pictures, alleging copyright infringement.

On Thursday, the high Court directed the state government to file an affidavit in reply while hearing a PIL filed by chartered accountant Mohan Bhide.

The High Court restrained filmmaker Mahesh Manjrekar from releasing his film titled Rubik’s Cube. The official release date of the movie was this April 14.

Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court, in M/s Kesoram Industries Limited vs Allahabad Bank, decided that state/ national consumer redressal forums have the trappings of courts and are adjudicatory bodies, and issues in a suit decided by them attract the principles of res judicata.

Chhattisgarh High Court

The Chhattisgarh High Court held that gratuity is a property within the meaning of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and as such, it is a constitutional right which cannot be taken away except by the authority of law.

The High Court asked the state to consider why it cannot extend a hand of support to the kith and kin of a person who dies due to attacks by animals.

Delhi High Court

The Division Bench of Delhi High Court in Swaraj India vs State Election Commission and Another while deciding an interim application held that “that any interim direction for grant of a common election symbol to the appellant would gravely hinder, impede, and could stall the election process set in motion by issue of Notification dated 22nd March, 2017”

The High Court recently upheld an arbitral award directing transfer of domain name registered as ‘Googlee’ to Google Inc., noting that the former had adopted a “slavish” imitation of Google’s writing style, font, color scheme and layout.

Gujarat High Court

The Gujarat High Court, in HarshadManubhaiMalavaiyavs State Of Gujarat, held that husband is not liable for a cheque issued by the wife in her personal capacity.

Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court, in KSHB vs R Omana, held that there is no bar for the civil court to entertain a suit for compensation by the claimants for lands lost in excess of that acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, or under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

The High Court on Tuesday observed that television channel discussions regarding the court’s oral observations have to be treated as interference in the process of administration of justice.

Madhya Pradesh High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction to issue directions to upgrade the status of college to university.

A division bench of the High Court sentenced a professor to three months simple imprisonment for failing to furnish proof to support his allegations of corruption against certain judges of high court in a contempt case.

A Gwalior bench of the High Court rejected a plea of a person demanding to quash the proceedings lodged against him on ground the prosecutrix turned hostile and the trial court had acquitted co-accused persons.

Madras High Court

The Madras High Court, in Principal of Commissioner of Income Tax vs M/s Managed Information Services Private Limited, held that the test to determine whether or not a particular expenditure incurred by an assessee be allowed under Section 37 of Income Tax Act is to ascertain whether or not the expenditure in issue is incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business i.e., incurred on account of commercial expediency of the assessee.

The High Court struck down a notification issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India, which called for imposition of additional fee in the nature of a fine or penalty over and above the prescribed fee.

In a big relief to farmers in Tamil Nadu, the High Court asked the government to extend the crop loan waiver scheme to all farmers, including those whose land holding is more than 5 acres.