High Courts Weekly Round-Up

Allahabad High Court

The full bench of Allahabad High Court, in M/s N.C.M.L. Industries Ltd. through Director and another Vs. Debts Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow and others, held that taking “symbolic possession” or issuance of possession notice, meeting with any resistance, cannot be treated as “measure”/s taken under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, and, therefore, the borrower at that stage cannot file an application under Section 17(1) before DRT.

Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court again questioned the Central Bureau of Investigation’s sincerity in the alleged fake encounter case of Sohrabuddin Shaikh, Tulsiram Prajapati and Kausar Bi.

 Justice GS Patel of the Bombay High Court initiated contempt action against litigants, lawyers who committed fraud on Bombay High Court

Delhi High Court

Holding public interest above business interest, the Delhi High Court dismissed IndiGo’s prayer against part shifting of its flight operations to and fro Mumbai, Kolkata and Bengaluru from Terminal 1 to Terminal 2 of Indira Gandhi International Airport but granted it one last opportunity to suggest other sectors which it would want to shift to T-2 to reduce passenger volume at T-1.

Coming to the aid of a Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) jawan left to fend for himself and his family in under Rs 5,000 every month, the Delhi High Court called for rules allowing 80 percent of the salary to be deducted from his salary towards defaulted instalments of a medical loan.

 Gujarat High Court

The Gujarat High Court issued a non-bailable warrant against a man who had secured release from judicial custody in a case of dishonour of cheque after playing fraud on the Lok Adalat which had set him free on the premise of a settlement he had arrived at with the complainant promising to pay back the entire amount within a year.

Madras High Court

The Madras High Court put an interim stay on the resolution adopted by the Bar Council of India vide which it had deferred the new eligibility conditions, including minimum 10-year practice, brought in by the Special Committee of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu & Puducherry for lawyers to contest in the ensuing elections to Bar Council.

Observing that the ensuing elections to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry is more glorified for use of money power, communal power, political power, muscle power and liquor power, the Madras High Court set out directions for the Bar Council of India, the police and the Income Tax Department to ensure fake lawyers or those indulging in corruption to win elections can be weeded out while directing that only those lawyers who have 10 reported judgments, five contested judgments in each year in the previous five years can contest elections and those holding posts of profit are barred.

Uttarakhand High Court

The Uttarakhand High Court came down heavily on the state government for making a freedom fighter run from one office to another for the fulfilment of his legitimate claim of the grant of freedom fighter pension.