All High Courts Weekly Round Up [July 25, 2022 - July 31, 2022]

NOMINAL INDEX

Srinivas And Ors. v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 339

Jai Krishna Dubey@ Raj Dubey And 4 Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 340

Ashish Mishra @ Monu v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 341

Suo-Moto Inre Right To Decent And Dignified Last Rites/Cremation v. State Of U.P. Thru Additional Chief Secretary Home And Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 342

X(Minor) And Another v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 343

Vartika Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru. S.P. District Amethi And 3 Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 344

Pintu Gupta v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 345

Wajid Advocate Alias Wajid Khan And Another v. State Of U.P. And Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 346

Ayyub Khan @ Guddu v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 347

Paras Jain @ Rohan Jain v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 348

JUDGMENTS/ORDERS OF THE WEEK

Can't Believe That 4 Real Brothers, Their Father Would Rape A Mother Of 2 Children: Allahabad High Court Quashes Rape Case

Case title - Srinivas And Ors. v. State of U.P. and Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5233 of 2014]

Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 339

The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow bench) quashed a criminal case against four real brothers, and their father, aged around 81 years who were booked for allegedly gang-raping a married woman, having two grown-up children

The bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh observed that it was not believable that four real brothers and their father would commit rape on a woman having two grown-up children.

Relevant Date To Compute Limitation Period U/S 468 CrPC Is The Date Of Institution Of Prosecution: Allahabad High Court

Case title - Jai Krishna Dubey@ Raj Dubey And 4 Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another [APPLICATION US 482 No. - 11167 of 2022]

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 340

The Allahabad High Court has observed that the relevant date for the purpose of computing the period of limitation under Section 468 CrPC is the date of filing of the complaint or the date of institution of prosecution and not the date on which the Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence.

It may be noted that 'institution of prosecution' would refer to the date of filing of the complaint or registering of the FIR [vide Darshan Singh Saini Vs. Sohan Singh and another (2015) 14 SCC 570 & Johnson Alexander Vs. State by CBI Cri. Appeal 1478 of 2010]

It was specifically observed by the bench of Justice Sameer Jain that the relevant date for the purpose of computing the period of limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C. is the date of filing of the complaint or the date of institution of prosecution and not the date on which the Magistrate takes cognizance.

"Media Conducts Agenda Driven Debates, Runs Kangaroo Courts & Oversteps Upon Sanctity Of Judiciary": Allahabad HC In Ashish Mishra Bail Order

Case title - Ashish Mishra @ Monu v. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13762 of 2021]

Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 341

Denying bail to Ashish Mishra, the prime accused in the Lakhimpur Kheri Violence case, the Allahabad High Court today pointed toward the recent trend in media to conduct ill-informed and agenda-driven debates. The Court also said that the media has been overstepping upon the sanctity of the judiciary in high-profile criminal cases.

Speaking about media trials, the Court said that such trials take up the investigation on its own, leading to forming public opinion against a suspect, even before the court takes cognizance of the case.

As a result, the Court said, the accused who should have been presumed innocent is treated as a criminal and added that this problem has been multiplied by electronic and social media, especially with tool kits. Further, the Court also blamed the media for running Kangaroo Courts.

Apart from this, the Court also added that of late, the media is seen overstepping upon the sanctity of the judiciary in high-profile criminal cases, as was evident in the cases of Jessica Lal, Indrani Mukherjee, and Aarushi Talwar, etc.

The Bench of Justice Krishan Pahal further remarked that the media is supposed to provide news to society, but sometimes, individual views are overshadowing the news thus putting an adverse effect on truth.

"Consider Relocating Hathras Victim's Family Members Within State, Providing Govt Job To 1 Family Member": Allahabad HC Directs UP Govt

Case title - Suo-Moto Inre Right To Decent And Dignified Last Rites/Cremation v. State Of U.P. Thru Additional Chief Secretary Home And Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 342

The Allahabad High Court directed the Uttar Pradesh Government to consider giving employment of one of the family members of the Hathras Gang rape Victim under the Government or Government Undertaking commensurate with the qualification possessed by them.

The bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Jaspreet Singh further directed the government to consider their relocation to any other place within the State outside Hathras keeping in mind their social and economic rehabilitation and also the educational needs of the children.

"Can't Detain Minor In Protection Homes Against Her Wishes": Allahabad High Court Grants Minor Victim's Custody To Mother

Case title - X(Minor) And Another v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1714 of 2022]

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 343

The Allahabad High Court has observed that even a minor has a right to keep her person and even the parents cannot compel the detention of a minor against her will unless there is some other reason for it.

The bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh observed thus while granting the custody of minor victim (in connection with a case under Sections 363 and 366 IPC) to her mother after ascertaining the minor's wishes.

Plea Seeking FIR Against Union Minister Smriti Irani For Alleged NCW Appointment Scam Dismissed By Allahabad HC

Case title - Vartika Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru. S.P. District Amethi And 3 Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 344

The Allahabad High Court dismissed a revision plea seeking registration of a First Information Report (FIR) against Union Minister Smriti Irani and two others alleging that they had demanded ₹25 lakh to appoint the Revisionist as a member of the National Commission for Women (NCW).

The bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh was essentially dealing with the revision plea filed by an international shooter Vartika Singh who claimed in her plea that she was asked to pay ₹25 lakh as a bribe for confirming her appointment as a member of the NCW.

Can't Convict Accused U/S 3 (2) (v) SC/ST Act Sans Evidence That Offence Was Committed On Ground Of Victim's Caste: Allahabad HC

Case title - Pintu Gupta v. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4083 of 2017]

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 345

The Allahabad High Court has observed that to prosecute a person for an offence committed under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, there must be evidence to show that the accused committed on the ground that such person/victim is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe.

It may be noted that Section 3(2)(v) penalizes a person, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, who commits any offence under the Indian Penal Code punishable with imprisonment for a term of ten years or more against a person or property on the ground that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member, shall be punishable with imprisonment for life and with fine;

Essentially, the Bench of Justice Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Justice Ajai Tyagi was dealing with a criminal appeal filed by one Pintu Gupta challenging the judgment and order dated passed by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Jaunpur convicting accused-appellant, Pintu Gupta, under Sections 326 of IPC and Section 3 (2) (v) of SC/ST Act, 1989.

The accused-appellant was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of 10 years with a fine of Rs. 25,000/- under Section 326 of I.P.C. and was sentenced to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 3 (2) (v) of SC/ST Act.

CAA-NRC Protest | 68 Y/O Advocate Accused Of Damaging Vehicles, Assaulting Public Servants Granted Pre Arrest Bail By Allahabad HC

Case title - Wajid Advocate Alias Wajid Khan And Another v. State Of U.P. And Another [CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2650 of 2022]

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 346

The Allahabad High Court granted pre-arrest bail to two practising advocates accused of damaging vehicles and assaulting public servants during CAA-NRC Protests in 2019.

The bench of Justice Raj Beer Singh granted bail to 68-year-old Wajid Khan (having 40 years of practice experience as an advocate). The Court also granted bail to another advocate who is 60 years old.

Essentially, the applicants are facing multiple FIRs in connection with an incident that took place on December 2, 2019, accusing them of leading a mob comprising about 250-300 persons, who were armed with lathi sticks and rods and who damaged vehicles lying parked at the side of the road and they also assaulted the public servants.

Irony That We Celebrate Women's Rights In All Spheres But Show Little Concern For Her Honour: Allahabad HC On Increasing Rape Cases

Case title - Ayyub Khan @ Guddu v. State of U.P. and Another [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4573 of 2021]

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 347

"...crime against women in general and rape, in particular, is on the increase. It is an irony that while we are celebrating women's rights in all spheres, we show little or no concern for her honor. It is a sad reflection on the attitude of indifference of the society towards the violation of human dignity of the victims of sex crimes," remarked Allahabad High Court.

The bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh observed thus as it denied bail to one Ayyub Khan @ Guddu (accused/appellant) who had moved the High Court challenging the order of the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Auraiya denying him bail in a case wherein he has been accused of committing rape against a woman and also making her nude video.

Allahabad High Court Granted Bail To Accused In Rs. 529 Crores Tax Evasion Case

Case title - Paras Jain @ Rohan Jain v. Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 348

The Allahabad High Court granted bail to an accused who was in continued judicial custody for more than 150 days. DGGI alleged that the accused formed 75 fake firms and prepared fake documents/invoices evidencing financial transactions between various parties without actual movement of goods; and as a sequel thereof, input tax credit of Rs. 5,28,91,94,250/- (Rupees Five Hundred Twenty Eight Crores Ninety One Lakh Ninety Four Thousand Two Hundred Fifty only) has been passed on to various buyers.

UPDATES FROM THE WEEK

"13 Yrs Of Incarceration Sans Conclusion Of Trial Violated His Right To Speedy Trial": Allahabad HC Grants Interim Bail To Murder Accused

Case title - Mahesh Chandra Shukla v. State of U.P.

The Allahabad High Court granted bail to a murder accused as it noted that 13 years of incarceration without conclusion of the trial had violated his fundamental right to a speedy trial.

The bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot was dealing with the 4th bail application of the murder accused (Mahesh Chandra Shukla) seeking his release on bail in a criminal case under Sections 302, 307, 323, 504, 506 IPC, and Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act.

Section 14A Of SC/ST Act Contains No Limitation Period To Bar Filing Of Appeal Against Order Under 1989 Act: Allahabad High Court

Case title - Ghulam Rasool Khan and others v. State of U.P. and others

The Allahabad High Court has observed that Section 14A of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 puts no limitation on filing an appeal against an order under the provisions of the 1989 Act.

The Bench of Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal, Justice Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I and Justice Saurabh Lavania clarified that after the Allahabad High Court struck down the second proviso to sub-section(3) of Section14A of the 1989 Act In Re : Provision of Section 14A of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015, there is no limitation to file an appeal against an order under the provisions of 1989 Act.

Andhra Pradesh High Court

1. GST Demand On Events Posted On Facebook: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs Company To Approach Appellate Authority

Case Title: Vasavi Wedding And Event Planners Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 95

The Andhra Pradesh High Court, while considering a petition challenging GST demand based on events posted on social media, held that information available on the social media platform of the petitioner shows that the event was conducted. The division bench of Justice C. Praveen Kumar and Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao dismissed the petition by giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority.

2. Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail To Three Accused Of Agitation Over Renaming District After Ambedkar

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 96

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has granted bail to three persons accused of being part of a violent mob that agitated against renaming of Konaseema District after Dr. BR Ambedkar, last month. A single judge bench of Justice Ravi Cheemalapati heard three criminal petitions seeking regular bail. The accused persons had been charged with offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code, Andhra Pradesh Police Act, Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Earlier this month, Justice Subba Reddy Satti had heard two bail petitions of persons involved in the same incident.

3. Preliminary Enquiry Necessary Before Registering FIR If Prima Facie Case Of Cognizable Offence Not Made Out: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title : J KRISHNA KISHORE Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 97

In a recent case, the Andhra Pradesh High Court allowed the quashing of FIR as the face value of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint was baseless and no preliminary enquiry was conducted before registration of the FIR in light of guidelines laid down in Lalitha Kumari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2014).

"It is clear that where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint, and the evidence collected in support of the same, do not discloses the commission of offence, and make out the case against the accused, it is liable to be quashed. In the instant case, though they have made allegations against the petitioner, there are no material to show that the petitioner himself has done the acts."

4. GST Assessment | No Violation Of Natural Justice If Assessee Fails To Respond To Notice Of Personal Hearing: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: M/s.VASAVI WEDDING and EVENT PLANNERS Versus State of Andhra Pradesh

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 98

The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently dismissed a challenge to the Assessment Order issued to the Petitioner under GST Act, 2017 on the ground that there has been no violation of principles of natural justice as a notice of personal hearing was issued and the Petitioner was given the opportunity to raise objections but he never responded.

5. Prohibition Under Arbitration Clause To Refer A Dispute Equivalent To Non-Existence Of Arbitration Agreement: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: M/s. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Versus The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 99

The Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed an application seeking appointment of Arbitrator as the Arbitration Agreement had a clear prohibition that the no disputes shall be referred to arbitration if the insurance company rejected the claim of liability. In the present case, the insurance company had rejected the entire claim. The Arbitration Clause set out in the Insurance Policy was as under:

"If any dispute or difference shall arise as to the quantum to be paid under this Policy (liability being otherwise admitted) such difference shall independently of all other questions be referred to the decision of a sole arbitrator…"

6. Show-Cause Notice Is A 'Superfluous Formality' If No Prejudice Is Caused: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 100

Case Title : M/s. Siva Shankar Minerals Pvt. Ltd. v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has dismissed a writ petition opposing termination of lease on the ground that except non-issuance of show cause notice, the Petitioner had no other cause or prejudice.

Justice R. Raghunandan Rao relied on the following principle laid down in State of UP v. Sudheer Kumar Singh (2020):

"Natural justice is a flexible tool in the hands of the judiciary to reach out in fit cases to remedy injustice. The breach of the audi alteram partem rule cannot by itself, without more, lead to the conclusion that prejudice is thereby caused."

7. Exemption In Payment Of Court Fee Is A State Subject & Is Not Guaranteed Under Legal Services Authorities Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Katepogu Danamaiah v. The Chairman, Legal Service Authority

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 101

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that Section 12 of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 does not provide for exemption in payment of Court Fee to the persons specified therein including Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. For exemption in Court Fee, provisions under State Court Fee Act have to be applied.

Explaining the procedure to be followed, a division bench comprising Justices C.Praveen Kumar and Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda said,

"A person is not entitled to claim exemption of Court Fee under Section 12 (a) or under Section 12(g) of the Act, on a mere representation that he belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or is not meeting the financial requirements as contemplated under Section 12(h) of the Act. What all has to be done by the said person is that he should approach the Legal Services Authority and seek help under the provisions of Legal Services Authorities Act.

8. Abetment Of Suicide | Mere Allegation Of Pressure At Workplace Without Any Specific Act Will Not Attract S.306 IPC: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: B.SRIDEVI Versus THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 102

The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently granted pre-arrest bail to an accused under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code (punishment for abetment of suicide). Justice Subba Reddy Satti placed reliance on Supreme Court decision in Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan (2021) to reiterate that mere allegation of pressure or harassment without any positive act would not suffice to attract ingredients of Section 306 of IPC.

9. Decree Is Ex-Parte In Nature If Defendant Could Not Adduce Evidence After Filing Written Statement: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title : S SUBRAHMANYAM NAIDU Versus V.RAMACHANDRA NAIDU

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 103

The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently set aside a decree and judgment which was ex-parte in nature as the defendant could not adduce evidence during trial due to ill health.

"the impugned decree and judgment are only ex- parte in nature since the evidence of defendant was not adduced in this case and he failed to attend the Court…So there is no demure that in the instant case also the decree and judgment are ex-parte though the trial Court rendered an elaborate judgment. In that view also we think an opportunity should be given to the defendant to contest the suit by setting aside the impugned judgment and decree."

Bombay High Court

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax- 4 Versus Kumar Builders Consortium 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 265

Calcutta High Court

1. Calcutta HC Says Influential Accused Take Shelter In State-Run Hospital; Orders Minister Partha Chatterjee To Be Shifted To AIIMS Bhubaneswar

Case Title: Enforcement Directorate v. Partha Chatterjee

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 276

The Calcutta High Court in a special hearing held on Sunday ordered the Enforcement Directorate to shift West Bengal Commerce and Industry Minister Partha Chatterjee to AIIMS, Bhubeneswar on Monday early morning from state-run SSKM hospital in Kolkata.

The West Bengal minister was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate on Saturday morning in connection with its investigation into the alleged illegalities in the appointment of teaching staff by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education in government-sponsored and aided schools on the recommendations of West Bengal School Service Commission.

2. Calcutta High Court Rejects Minister Partha Chatterjee's Plea For Expunging 'Adverse' Remarks In HC's 24 July Judgment

Case title - Enforcement Directorate Vs. Partha Chatterjee

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 277

The Calcutta High Court today rejected an application moved by West Bengal Commerce and Industry Minister Partha Chatterjee to expunge certain 'adverse' remarks made by the High court in its 24 July Order wherein the Enforcement Directorate was direcetd to shift him to AIIMS, Bhubaneswar from state-run SSKM hospital in Kolkata.

It may be noted that the West Bengal minister has been arrested by the Enforcement Directorate on Saturday morning in connection with its investigation into the alleged illegalities in the appointment of teaching staff by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education in government-sponsored and aided schools on the recommendations of West Bengal School Service Commission.

3. Reopening Assessment Without Furnishing Information Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Calcutta High Court

Case Title: Maharaja Edifice Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 278

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice T.S. Shivagnanam and Justice Bivas Pattanayak has held that failure to furnish information based on which assessment was reopened is a violation of principles of natural justice.

The appellant/assessee has challenged the assessment order passed under the provisions of the Income Tax Act 1961 on the ground that it has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice.

4. Calcutta High Court Reiterates Principles Governing HC's Jurisdiction To Review Own Judgment Passed In Writ Plea

Case title - HARISADHAN HALDER & ORS. v MADHAI MONDAL & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 279

The Calcutta High Court recently reiterated the principles governing HC's power/jurisdiction to review its own judgment passed in a writ plea. The Court also stressed that the Court has very limited scope to review its own rulings.

The bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf essentially reiterated the principles of review as observed in the case of The State of West Bengal & Anr. Vs. Confederation of State Government Employees & Ors. (2019) 3 WBLR (Cal) 39

5. Right To Protest Can't Be Asserted And Practised In Vacuum; Social Cause Needed, Not Personal Agenda: Calcutta High Court

Case title - Vineet Ruia VS The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 280

"Such right (Right to Protest) can neither be asserted nor practiced in the vacuum. There has to be a social cause and not a personal agenda," the Calcutta High Court observed recently.

The bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar was hearing the plea of one Vineet Ruia, who is the president of an organization known as Bharat Bachao Sangathan who wished to hold protests against the private unaided schools that are charging exorbitant fees.

6. Assistant Teacher Recruitment: Calcutta HC Slams State For Unilaterally Reducing Aspirant's Original Score, Orders Appointment With Retrospective Benefits

Case Title : Ujjal Mandal Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 281

The Calcutta High Court on Wednesday slammed State's "mala fide" and "arbitrary" exercise of power in unilaterally altering the original score of a candidate who appeared in the recruitment exam for the post of Assistant Teacher, back in 2012.

Observing that the Petitioner-candidate suffered "grave injustice" by not receiving a call for personality test in the selection process, a single bench of

Justice Aniruddha Roy ordered that appointment shall be given to the petitioner w.e.f. the same day when the last candidate had received his/her appointment as an Assistant Teacher at the concerned district for the subject the petitioner applied for, along with all the service benefits with retrospective effect.

Chhattisgarh High Court

1. Incriminating Article's Recovery From Open Place/Visible To Others Vitiates Evidence U/S 27 Of Evidence Act: Chhattisgarh High Court

Case title - Ramvriksh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Chh) 53

The Chhattisgarh High Court has observed that when recovery of any incriminating article is made from a place that is open or visible to others, it would vitiate the evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. It may be noted that the conditions necessary for the applicability of Section 27 of the Evidence Act [How much of information received from accused may be proved] are:

(1) Discovery of fact in consequence of information received from the accused;

(2) Discovery of such fact to be deposed to;

(3) The accused must be in police custody when he gave information and

(4) So much of information as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered is admissible.

Noting that the discovery in the instant case had vitiated evidence under section Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the Bench of Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal observed thus as it set aside the conviction and sentence of one Ramvriksh under Section 302 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

Delhi High Court

NOMINAL INDEX

Citations 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 707 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 727

MANJU DEVI v. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 707

JAEWOO PARK v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 708

AIREEN INSTITUTION OF EDUCATION v. NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 709

SUSHIL KUMAR v. CENTRAL REGISTRAR OF COOP SOCY AND ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 710

Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd. v. Bhatia Engineering Company 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 711

Orchid Infrastructure Developers (P) Ltd. versus Five Star Constructions Pvt. Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 712

DB CORP LTD v. SHAILJA NAQVI & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 713

SRF Ltd. versus Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 714

MONDELEZ INDIA FOODS PVT. LTD. AND ANR. v. NEERAJ FOOD PRODUCTS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 715

ANJALI BHARDWAJ v. CPIO, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 716

Easy Trip Planners Ltd. versus One97 Communications Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 717

Food Corporation of India v. Adani Agri Logistics Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 718

MANOJ MISHRA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 720

SMT. POONAM BHANOT v. VIRENDER SHARMA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 721

M/S. Unicon Engineers versus M/S. Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 722

RAJENDER PRASAD PANT v. M/S EXCHANGE AGENCIES & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 723

TV Today Network Pvt Ltd v. Newslaundry & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 725

BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM INTERNATIONAL GMBH v. THE CONTROLLER OF PATENTS & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 726

DR. ABHINAV KUMAR & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 727

1. Compassionate Appointment Offered To Dependant Of Deceased Employee Is A Concession, Not A Right: Delhi High Court

CASE TITLE: MANJU DEVI v. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 707

The Delhi High Court has reiterated that an appointment on compassionate ground offered to the dependant of a deceased employee is a mere concession and not a right.

A single judge bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh observed,

" The whole object behind granting compassionate employment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. Appointment on compassionate ground offered to a dependant of a deceased employee is an exception to the said rule. It is a concession and not a right."

The petitioner in this case was the wife of an en employee of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd who passed away while in service due to a Road accident. Through the petition, the petitioner sought compassionate employment for her son under the Rule 7(b)(ii)/8A of the HPCL Employee's Superannuation Benefit Fund Scheme, as per which she was entitled to the benefits as her deceased husband would have received had he superannuated.

2. Outraging Modesty Of Woman: Delhi High Court Quashes FIR Based On Compromise With Condition That Accused Provide Computers In Two MCD Schools

Case Title: JAEWOO PARK v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 708

The Delhi High Court has quashed an FIR filed by a woman, working as a domestic servant in the Petitioner's house who is accused of outraging her modesty, following a compromise between the parties. However, it imposed a condition on the Petitioner to provide two fully functional computers each with printers in two schools run by Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD).

"I am of the view that the entire police machinery has been put in motion on account of the acts of commission & omission on behalf of the petitioner and useful time of the police has been invested. The State resources have been unnecessarily overburdened. Hence the petitioner must do some social good for the benefit of the society," Justice Jasmeet Singh observed.

3. NCTE Act | Service Of Show Cause Notice Vital For An Educational Institution, Affords Opportunity To Put Forth Their Stand Qua Alleged Deficiencies: Delhi HC

Case Title: AIREEN INSTITUTION OF EDUCATION v. NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 709

The Delhi High Court has observed that the service of show-cause notice is a vital communication for an institute as it affords an opportunity to them to put forth their stand qua the alleged deficiencies, failing which adverse consequences are bound to follow.

"This opportunity is thus, crucial for the institutes whose recognition and operation are at stake," Justice Sanjeev Narula added.

The Court was dealing with a plea challenging the decision of Western Regional Committee taken at its 322nd meeting held from 23rd to 24th November, 2020 whereby the recognition granted to Petitioner institute namely Aireen Institution of Education, for B.Ed. course was withdrawn.

4. Mere Regulation Of A Body By A Statute Does Not Mean That The Body Is Discharging 'Public Function': Delhi High Court

CASE TITLE: SUSHIL KUMAR v. CENTRAL REGISTRAR OF COOP SOCY AND ORS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 710

The Delhi High Court has reiterated that merely because a body is obligated to comply with various statutory requirements, that cannot be conclusive to answer the question of whether it is discharging a public function.

Justice Yashwant Varma observed,

"The fact that the cooperative society is registered under the Act or that the Byelaws or the procedure of elections owe their genesis to the Act and the Rules, would not be sufficient to hold that it would be amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the Court. This Court also bears in mind the principles enunciated by the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Vijay Behari Srivastava where it was pertinently observed that merely because the affairs of a society are controlled by the Registrar that would not make that body "State" as contemplated under Article 12 of the Constitution."

5. Sections 15 And 16 Of The MSMED Act Are Mandatory Provisions, Arbitrator Must Assign Reasons For Not Awarding Compound Interest: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd. v. Bhatia Engineering Company

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 711

The High Court of Delhi has affirmed the order of the lower Court by which it had set aside an arbitral award for not awarding interest in terms of Sections 15 and 16 which are mandatory provisions of the MSMED Act.

The bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan held that once the arbitrator has held that MSMED Act applies to the dispute between the parties, it must assign reasons for not awarding interest in terms of Sections 15 and 16 of the Act.

6. When The Main Relief Is Rejected By The Arbitral Tribunal, Which Included Interim Relief ,The Interim Relief Granted In Isolation Is Incorrect: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Orchid Infrastructure Developers (P) Ltd. versus Five Star Constructions Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 712

The Delhi High Court has ruled that when the main relief claimed by the claimant has been rejected by the Arbitral Tribunal, the Arbitral Tribunal cannot award an interim or ancillary amount, which is included under the same claim, in favour of the claimant.

The Single Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula held that when the main relief is rejected by the Arbitral Tribunal, axiomatically, the interim relief ought to be rejected as well.

The petitioner Orchid Infrastructure Developers (P) Ltd. awarded a contract to the respondent Five Star Constructions Pvt. Ltd. for construction of a certain property. After a dispute regarding the payment of dues for the work done by the respondent arose between the parties, the respondent invoked the Arbitration Clause and the Arbitral Tribunal was appointed.

The Arbitral Tribunal passed an award partly allowing the claim of the respondent and directed the petitioner to pay a certain sum of money to the respondent. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the Delhi High Court challenging the arbitral award.

7. Delay In Filing Appeal U/S 18 Of POSH Act Can Be Condoned U/S 5 Limitation Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: DB CORP LTD v. SHAILJA NAQVI & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 713

The Delhi High Court has observed that under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act/ SHW Act), a victim's delay in filing appeal against the inquiry report can be condoned if such a delay is properly explained.

Justice C Hari Shankar added that sec. 5 of the Limitation Act (which provides for extension of prescribed period in certain cases) would apply in respect of appeals which may be sought to be preferred under sec. 18 of the Sexual Harassment at Workplace Act.

"It would be completely antithetical and inimical to the very scope and purpose of the SHW Act, if a Court were to refuse to condone a delay of as little as 36 days in an alleged victim of sexual harassment preferring an appeal under Section 18 against the report of the inquiry committee. Such a delay – if properly explained – should, clearly, not stand in the way of the appeal of the alleged victim of sexual harassment being decided on merits, by the authority competent to do so," the Court observed.

8. Delhi High Court Directs DSIR To Issue Report Quantifying Expenditure On Scientific Research Incurred By The Assessee

Case Title: SRF Ltd. versus Union of India

Citation: Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 714

The Delhi High Court has directed the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR) to issue reports on the expenditure incurred by the assessee SRF Ltd. for the relevant assessment years in Form 3CL within six weeks.

The Division Bench of Justices Manmohan and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora observed that the DSIR is statutorily bound to issue the Form 3CL within 120 days in accordance with Rule 6(7A) (ba) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, certifying the expenditure incurred by the assessee on its in-house R&D units.

In terms of the guidelines issued by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR), requiring in-house Research and Development (R&D) units to have valid 'recognition', the petitioner- SRF Ltd.'s in-house R&D units were granted recognition.

9. GEMS v. JAMES BOND: Delhi High Court Permanently Injuncts Manufacturer From Using Cadbury's Trademark, Awards Over ₹15 Lakhs Cost

Case Title: MONDELEZ INDIA FOODS PVT. LTD. AND ANR. v. NEERAJ FOOD PRODUCTS

Citation: Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 715

The Delhi High Court has passed permanent and mandatory injunction against a manufacturer namely Neeraj Food Products for infringement of Cadbury's trademark 'GEMS' by using deceptively similar mark and packaging 'JAMES BOND' which was inspired by the character 'GEMS BOND', as used by Cadbury for promotion of their product.

Justice Pratibha M Singh also awarded actual cost of Rs.15,86,928 in favour of Cadbury, observing that it had spent a substantial amount of money towards litigation in a suit wherein interim injunction was operating since 2007, including court fee, counsels' fees and miscellaneous expenses. Rs. 10 lakhs were awarded in damages.

10. Delhi High Court Dismisses Appeal Seeking Details Of SC Collegium's December 2018 Meeting

Title: ANJALI BHARDWAJ v. CPIO, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 716

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday dismissed an appeal against the order passed by a Single Judge which had declined a plea seeking information regarding decisions taken by the Supreme Court Collegium in a meeting held on December 12, 2018.

A bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad was of the view that the observations of the single judge did not require any interference and thus the appeal was dismissed.

The Court had reserved the order last week after hearing Advocate Prashant Bhushan appearing for Appellant, activist Anjali Bhardwaj.

Justice Yashwant Varma, vide order dated March 30, 2022, dismissed the plea after noting that the disclosures made by the respondents seemed to indicate that no resolution with respect to the agenda items was drawn by members who constituted the Collegium on 12 December 2018.

11. Just Because Interlocutory Order Of Arbitral Tribunal Is Not Challengeable Under Section 34 Of A&C Act, Remedy Is Not Writ Under Article 226 And 227: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Easy Trip Planners Ltd. versus One97 Communications Ltd.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 717

The Delhi High Court has ruled that merely because an interlocutory order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal is not amenable to challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), the remedy under Article 226 and Article 227 of the Constitution of India would not be available against the said order.

The Single Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar held that a party can approach the Court against an interim order passed in the arbitral proceedings only if the order is appealable under Section 37 of the A&C Act; and that in all other cases, the party has to wait for the conclusion of the arbitral proceedings and the rendition of the arbitral award.

12. The Arbitrator Cannot Alter The Express Terms Of The Agreement Between The Parties By Applying The Business Efficacy Test: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Food Corporation of India v. Adani Agri Logistics Ltd. O.M.P. (COMM) 82 of 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 718

The High Court of Delhi has held that the arbitrator cannot alter the express terms of the agreement by applying the business efficacy test when there is no ambiguity as to the intention of the parties.

The Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru held that Penta Test as propounded by the Supreme Court in Nabha Power Ltd v. Punjab State Power Corp. Ltd. is only for the purpose of determining the intention when the terms of the agreement are not express or silent on an aspect, and would have no application when there is no ambiguity as to the contract between the parties.

The Court further held even if the tribunal is of the view that the arrangement between the parties is inequitable, it cannot alter the terms of the agreement to work out an equitable bargain between the parties.

13. Writ Of Mandamus Not A Remedy Against Private Wrongs, Court Cannot Interfere With Private Body's Internal Management: Delhi HC

Title: PRAKASH SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 719

Observing that the writ of mandamus is not a remedy against private wrongs, the Delhi High Court has observed that such a writ's scope is against the private authority which might be performing a public duty limited to the enforcement of such public duty.

Further adding that the Court cannot interfere with the internal management of a private body in a writ of mandamus, a division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad observed thus:

"It is well settled that a writ of mandamus lies only for the purpose of a public or statutory duty. Writs are issued for the performance of public duties. Though Article 226 of the Constitution of India is worded in such a way that a writ of mandamus could be issued even against a private authority but such private authority must be discharging a public function and the right sought to be enforced must be a public duty."

14. Jurisdiction Of Court While Issuing Writ Of 'Quo Warranto' Limited To Cases Where Person Holding Public Office Is Ineligible: Delhi High Court

CASE TITLE: MANOJ MISHRA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 720

The Delhi High Court has held that the jurisdiction of the Court while issuing a writ of quo warranto is limited to cases where the person holding public office did not meet with the eligibility criteria or when the appointment was contrary to the statutory rules.

The division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramoniam Prasad also noted that the Court cannot sit in judgement over the wisdom of the Government in the choice of person to be appointed so long as the person chosen is eligible for such appointment.

15. Order 18 Rule 1 CPC | Defendant May Be Asked To Lead Evidence First If Case Set Up By It Is Such That Proving It Would Decide All Issues In Suit: Delhi HC

CASE TITLE: SMT. POONAM BHANOT v. VIRENDER SHARMA & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 721

The Delhi High Court has held that the Court has the authority to give necessary directions under Order 18 Rule 1 CPC on the procedural aspect as regards which party will lead evidence first. The bench further noted that correction of a procedural order was an inherent power of the court and may be corrected ex debito justitiae to prevent the abuse of its process.

Justice Mini Pushkarna said,

" The unequivocal position that emerges is that if the defendants set up a case, which if decided, would decide the issues raised in the suit completely, then the defendants can be directed to lead evidence first under Order 18 Rule 1 CPC. "

16. Order Of Facilitation Council, After Termination Of Conciliation Under MSMED Act, Not Executable: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/S. Unicon Engineers versus M/S. Jindal Steel and Power Ltd.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 722

The Delhi High Court has ruled that an order passed by the Facilitation Council under Section 18 of the Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act) after the termination of conciliation proceedings, without taking the dispute up for arbitration or referring it to an institution or centre for arbitration, is a nullity and does not constitute an arbitral award. Therefore, the Court ruled that it cannot be enforced under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act).

The Single Bench of Justice Prateek Jalan reiterated that the proceedings for conciliation and arbitration cannot be clubbed.

17. Writ Jurisdiction To Be Exercised In Circumspection, Can't Displace Authority's Order By Merely Taking Another Opinion On Same Material: Delhi HC

Case Title: RAJENDER PRASAD PANT v. M/S EXCHANGE AGENCIES & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 723

The Delhi High Court has observed that the order passed by an authority cannot be displaced merely because High Court can take another opinion on the same material in writ jurisdiction.

Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma further added that although the writ jurisdiction conferred upon the High Court is wide, but the same has to be exercised in circumspection.

"This Court in its writ jurisdiction cannot re-appreciate the evidence," the Court said.

The Court was dealing with a petition challenging the impugned order dated 19th May, 2022, whereby the claim of the petitioner for payment of four months' salary w.e.f. 19th April, 2018 to 12th August, 2018 was rejected.

18. Decide On DCPCR's Recommendation To Ban Medically Unnecessary Sex-Selective Surgeries On Intersex Infants, Children: High Court To Delhi Govt

Case Title: Srishti Madurai Educational Research Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 724

The Delhi High Court has granted eight weeks time to the Delhi Government for taking appropriate decision on the recommendation given by Delhi Commission for Protection of Child Rights (DCPCR) to declare a ban on medically unnecessary, sex-selective surgeries on intersex infants and children except in cases of life-threatening situations.

A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad disposed of a PIL filed by Srishti Madurai Educational Research Foundation, an independent Trust, which sought guidelines specifying the conditions when medical surgery on intersex infants and children can be performed.

19. TV Today v. Newslaundry | Broadcaster Has Right To Fair Comment On Programmes Created By Others, Facet Of Free Speech Under Article 19: Delhi HC

Case Title: TV Today Network Pvt Ltd v. Newslaundry & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 725

While denying interim relief to TV Today Network in the defamation and copyright infringement suit filed by it against news portal Newslaundry, the Delhi High Court has observed that every broadcaster has the right of fair comment on current events and of criticism and review, including of the programmes created by others.

Justice Asha Menon further observed that the right to broadcast programmes would be included in the right to free speech and expression. However, it was added that a balance would have to be struck between the two rights, the right to free speech and right to reputation.

"The defendants No.1 to 9, in the present case, have however asserted another right and that is the unrestricted "right to comment". This right to comment on the content created by others is claimed by them as an exercise in public interest," the Court noted.

20. [Patents Act] Unity Or Plurality Of Inventions & Whether They Form Single Inventive Concept To Be Determined From Claims: Delhi High Court

Case Title: BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM INTERNATIONAL GMBH v. THE CONTROLLER OF PATENTS & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 726

The Delhi High Court has observed that under the law of patent, "unity of the invention" or "plurality of inventions" and whether they form a "single inventive concept" has to be gleaned from a reading of the claims.

Going through various provisions of the Patents Act, 1970, Justice Pratibha M Singh said:

"The complete specification also describes the procedures, processes, methods, including the best methods. But what is crucial to note, is the fact that the invention itself is defined in the claims. While such claims do have to be based on the disclosure in the specification, however even if a person does not read the complete specification and wishes to identify the invention, the place to look for it is in the 'Claims'."

"The Invention thus resides in the Claims. Accordingly, "unity of the invention"/ "plurality of inventions" and whether they form a "single inventive concept" has to be gleaned from a reading of the claims."

21. 'Matter Of Life & Death': Delhi High Court Dismisses Challenge To Minimum Percentile Criteria For NEET-PG Admissions

Case Title: DR. ABHINAV KUMAR & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 727

The Delhi High Court on Friday dismissed a plea challenging a regulation mandating minimum marks of 50th percentile in National Eligibility-Cum-Entrance Test (NEET) as a mandatory requirement for admission to postgraduate courses.

A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that there cannot be any compromise with the quality of doctors or specialists as it involves a risk to human lives.

Gujarat High Court

Madyahan Bhojan Yojna Karmachari Sangh V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 283

Himachal Pradesh High Court

1. "Public Prosecutors Hobnobbing With Politicians" : Himachal Pradesh HC Orders Them To Take Refresher Course On Ethics, Morality

Making a stern observation that the Public Prosecutors are shamelessly hobnobbing with the politicians, the Himachal Pradesh High Court recently directed all the state Public Prosecutors inducted in service over the last 15 years to undergo a refresher course on ethics and morality.

The bench of Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia also stressed that the working of the prosecutors has to be free from any executive or political interference and added that if prosecutors compromise with their office, its rippling effects would be both disastrous as well as deleterious

2. Cash Sales Accepted By VAT Dept. Not Sufficient To Hold It To Be Genuine: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Title: PCIT Versus M/s J.M.J. Essential Oil Company

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (HP) 18

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the cash sales accepted by the VAT department are not sufficient to hold that the cash sales were genuine. The division bench of Justice Sabina and Justice Satyen Vaidya has held that the Assessing Officer was liable to independently look into the cash sales to come to a conclusion as to whether the said sales were genuine or not. The Assessing Officer, as well as the Appellate Authority, rightly gave the finding of fact that the cash sales put forth by the respondent were not genuine and that the respondent had introduced its unaccounted income in the garb of cash sales.

Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh High Court

1. JJ Act | Enquiry U/S 15 By Juvenile Justice Board Not Mandatory Before Consideration & Grant Of Bail U/S 12: J&K&L High Court

Case Title: Zubair Ahmad Teli vs UT of J&K.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 79

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court recently held that there is no requirement of prior consideration of the social investigation report by JJ Board while considering a bail plea under section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Care and Protection Act, as that was never intended by the legislature.

A bench comprising Justice MA Chadhary observed:

"The primary assessment of a child in conflict with law is for further purpose of trial i.e., as to whether he should be tried by the Juvenile Justice Board or by the Children's Court. It will not curtail the power of the Juvenile Justice Board to consider the application filed under Section 12 of the J.J.Act, 2015"

2. Freedom Of Speech & Expression Does Not Permit A Person To Question The Status Of A Part Of The Country Or Its People: J&K&L High Court

Case Title: Muzamil Butt Vs State of J&K

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(JKL) 80

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court recently held that the freedom of speech and expression cannot be stretched to such a limit as to allow an individual to call Kashmir an occupancy of the military or to say that the people of Kashmir are being held as slaves.

A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Dhar observed:

"In my opinion, the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under the Constitution cannot be stretched to such a limit as to allow a person to question the status of a part of the Country or its people. It is one thing to criticize the Government for its negligence and express outrage on the violation of human rights of the people but it is quite another to advocate that the people of a particular part of the Country are slaves of the Government of India or that they are under occupation of armed forces of the Country."

3. Pending Matrimonial Litigation Between Parties In UAE Not Ground To Quash Cruelty FIR Against Husband In Srinagar: J&K&L High Court

Case Title: Rouf Majid Naqash Vs SHO P/S Womens Wing

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(JKL) 81

The Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh High Court today ruled that the proceedings for divorce or restitution of conjugal rights are of civil nature. In contrast, the purpose of lodging of an FIR is to set the criminal law into motion, which is aimed at punishing the erring husband for his acts of cruelty. In view thereof, a bench comprising Justice Sanjay Dhar refused to quash an FIR registered against the petitioner for offences under Sections 498-A and 406 RPC. As per the complaint, the respondent was driven out by the petitioner from his home on 26th July, 2016 after giving a severe beating to her whereafter he left for Dubai.

4. Order 6 Rule 4 CPC Cannot Be Invoked To Effect An Amendment In Written Statement: J&K&L High Court

Case Title: Ghulam Hassan Khanyari Vs Reyaz Ahmad Bhat &Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(JKL) 82

The Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh High Court recently ruled that an application filed under the provisions of Order VI Rule 4 of Civil Procedure Code has to be specific in exemplifying the details about allegations of misrepresentation, fraud or wilful default and this provision cannot be enlarged to effect an amendment to the written statement.

A bench comprising Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi was hearing a plea wherein the petitioners (original defendants) had challenged the order of the trial court whereby it had rejected the application under Order VI Rule 4 of the petitioners holding that if the application is allowed and the particulars/ pleadings as are mentioned therein are incorporated in the written statement, the same will cause prejudice to the respondent (original Plaintiff) and that allowing the application would mean allowing an amendment of the pleadings of the written statement.

5. Charge-Sheet Even In The State Of Its Photostat Copies Cannot Be Termed As 'Incomplete' For Grant Of Default Bail: J&K&L High Court

Case Title: Vakil Ahmad Dar Vs UT of J&K.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 83

The Division bench of Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh High Court on Monday held that a charge-sheet even in the form of its photostat copies when placed on record cannot be termed as incomplete charge-sheet for grant of default bail, for the reason that the original documents can be brought on record with the permission of the court and otherwise also their admissibility can be challenged during recording of evidence.

6. No Recovery Can Be Made From Pension If Employee's Promotion Was Not Based On Any Misrepresentation: J&K&L High Court

Case Title: Sonam Dolma Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Ors.

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 84

A division bench of J&K&L High Court today ruled that in absence of any misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner with regard to factum of seeking her promotion, no recovery, whatsoever, can be made from her retirement benefit or for that matter her promotion cannot be withdrawn

A bench comprising Justices Tashi Rabstan & Wasim Sadiq Nargal observed

"By no stretch of imagination, consequential benefits can be taken at this belated stage, when she is drawing the pension after retirement:"

7. Right To Property May No More Be A Fundamental Right, But Its Sanctity As Human Right Is Still Intact: J&K&L High Court

Case Title: Meenakshi Chouhan & Ors Vs Jammu Muncipal Corporation & Ors

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 85

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court on Friday ruled that the Right to property might have fell from the pedestal of being a fundamental right but it continues to enjoy the sanctity of being a Human Right.

A bench comprising Justices Tashi Rabstan and Wasim Sadiq Nargal observed:

"No person shall be deprived of his/her property saved by authority of law or procedure established by law as right to property is a human right and also a constitutional right under Article-300-A of the Constitution of India".

Jharkhand High Court

1. [Railway Accident] Person Not Being A Rly Servant Travelling In A Goods Train Not Entitled To Compensation: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title - Madhu devi v. Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 70

In an important observation, the Jharkhand High Court has said that if a person, not being a railway employee, is traveling in a goods train and falls down from such a train, then he is not entitled to compensation from the Railway administration.

The bench of Justice Ananda Sen further clarified that if such a person cannot be treated as a passenger in terms of Section 123(C)(2) of the Indian Railways Act and therefore, he is not entitled to be compensated.

Karnataka High Court

Nominal Index:

B M MUNIRAJU v. THE JAIL SUPERINTENDENT. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 283

Ramesh Naik.L v. State of Karnataka. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 284

CHERANDA NAND SUBBAIAH v. THE UNION OF INDIA & Others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 285

Gopal v. State of Karnataka. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 286

M/S Bestpay Solutions Private Limited versus M/S Razorpay Software Private Limited. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 287

K.R.KUMAR NAIK v. THE STATE BY ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 288

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECR SOCIAL WELFARE DEPT And BASAVARAJ. YARADEMMI & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 289

K Durga Prasad Shetty v. Dr Shashikala and Others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 290

M/s Geosmin Studio Sustainable Solutions LLP versus M/s Ethnus Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 291

M/S. Flipkart Internet Private Limited versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Taxation) and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 292

BANK OF INDIA v THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 293

Dyavappa v Bangalore University & Others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 294

Dr Narasimulu Nandini Memorial Education Trust v. Banu Begum & Others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 295

Judgments/Orders/Reports

1. Person Convicted For Minor Offences Under NI Act Entitled To "Lenient" Consideration Of Parole Application: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: B M MUNIRAJU v. THE JAIL SUPERINTENDENT

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.7387/2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 283

The Karnataka High Court has directed the Jail Superintendent of the Central Prison at Bengaluru to consider a parole application filed by an accused convicted under the Negotiable Instruments Act seeking to arrange 50% of the disputed amount for depositing with the Supreme Court Registry in connection with an appeal against conviction pending before it.

2. Karnataka High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking Protection For Justice HP Sandesh Who Spoke Of "Transfer Threat"

Case Title: Ramesh Naik.L v. State of Karnataka

Case No: WP 14266/2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 284

The Karnataka High Court on Monday dismissed a public interest litigation seeking protection for Justice HP Sandesh, who recently made sensational revelations regarding "transfer threats" for slamming investigations carried out by the Anti-Corruption Bureau in a case allegedly involving Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru (Urban).

3. Karnataka Govt Has Not Given Permission For Radio-Collaring Of Tigers: High Court Closes PIL

Case Title: CHERANDA NAND SUBBAIAH v. THE UNION OF INDIA & Others

Case No: WP 34294/2009

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 285

The Karnataka High Court on Monday disposed of a petition filed in the year 2009 questioning the action of radio collaring of tigers in the Nagarhole National Park.

4. Courts Should Not Seek To Run Governments In The Guise Of Judicial Review: Karnataka High Court

Title: Gopal v. State of Karnataka

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 286

"It is primarily the task of the Government to govern and in the guise of judicial review, Courts should not seek to run the governments," the Karnataka High Court has observed.

A division bench comprising of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice P Krishna Bhat added that when a measure taken by the Government is for implementing a Mega Infrastructural Project pursuant to a policy framed embedded with the opinion of experts, Court should refrain from acting like a "super-accountant and interference with the same should be extremely rare where it is inevitable."

5. Arbitration Clause Can BeInvoked Against Disputes Under Another Agreement, If Both Agreements Form One Composite Transaction: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: M/S Bestpay Solutions Private Limited versus M/S Razorpay Software Private Limited

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 287

The Karnataka High Court has ruled that a party can invoke the Arbitration Clause contained in an agreement with respect to the disputes arising with a third party under another agreement, if both the agreements refer to each other and form one composite transaction.

6. ACB Blissfully Ignored'ABC' Of Procedure: Karnataka High Court Quashes Corruption FIR

Case Title: K.R.KUMAR NAIK v. THE STATE BY ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 7911 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 288

The Karnataka High Court has held that in a case where a public servant is charged with offences punishable under Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act on allegation of amassing wealth disproportionate to the known sources of income, every ingredient that is required to be assessed in the source report must be present.

7. Doctrine Of Laches | InWelfare State, Govt As A Litigant Is Subject To Same Norms As A Commoner:Karnataka High Court

Case Title: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECR SOCIAL WELFARE DEPT And BASAVARAJ. YARADEMMI & ANR

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 102109 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 289

The Karnataka High Court has observed that in a Welfare State, the Government as a litigant is ordinarily governed by the same norms that govern the commoners.

8. Nature Of Property Being Ancestral Or Self-Acquired Can Only Be Decided After Trial: Karnataka High Court Permits Amendment Of Plaint

Case Title: K Durga Prasad Shetty v. Dr Shashikala and Others

Case No: Writ Petition No 22744/2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 290

The Karnataka High Court has said only in a trial can it be held whether a property is ancestral property or self acquired properties and therefore amendment of the plaint at the pre-trial stage to include such properties, is permissible.

9Mentioning Referral Of The Matter To Arbitral Institution Is Sufficient; Party Not Required To Name Arbitrator: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: M/s Geosmin Studio Sustainable Solutions LLP versus M/s Ethnus Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 291

The Karnataka High Court has ruled that a notice issued by a party, stating that the matter would be referred to the Council of Architecture, is sufficient for the purpose of invocation of the Arbitration Clause, since the Council of Architecture is an arbitral institution within the meaning of Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

10. Karnataka High Court Directs Income Tax Department To Issue A 'Nil Tax Deduction At Source'Certificate To Flipkart For Reimbursements Made To Walmart

Case Title: M/S. Flipkart Internet Private Limited versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Taxation) and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 292

The Karnataka High Courthas directed the Income Tax Department to issue a 'Nil Tax Deduction at Source' Certificate to Flipkart under Section 195(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, with respect to the reimbursements made by it to Walmart Inc.

11. Claim Of Secured Creditor Under SARFAESI Act Not Affected By Attachment Under Karnataka Protection Of Deposits Act: High Court

Case Title: BANK OF INDIA v THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT

Case NO: WRIT PETITION NO.12038 OF 2017

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 293

The Karnataka High Court has held that the attachment of a secured asset under the Karnataka Protection of Interest of Deposit in Financial Establishment Act, 2004, would have no priority over the claim of the Bank (Secured Creditor), to recover dues made under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

12. Backlog Of Unfilled WomenSeats In Reserved Category May Be Filled By Male Candidates Of Same Category:High Court Directs Bangalore University

Case Title: Dyavappa v Bangalore University & Others

Case No: Writ Petition No 6426/2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 294

The Karnataka High Court has said that the state government order, providing that in case eligible women applicants under a reserved category post are not available, such posts could be filled up by eligible male candidates of the same category is applicable to recruitment notifications issued under the General Recruitment Rules or recruitment as regards backlog vacancies under the Special Recruitment Rules.

13. S.81(5) Motor Vehicle Act |Permit Renewed After Condoning Delay Is Deemed To Be Effective From Date OfActual Expiry: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Dr Narasimulu Nandini Memorial Education Trust v. Banu Begum & Others

Case NO: MFA 202022/2016

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 295

The Karnataka High Court has said an insurance company cannot disown its responsibility to indemnify the liability of the insurer (vehicle owner) on the ground that on the date of accident, the fitness certificate and the permit of the vehicle were not in force.

Other reports

Bribery Case: Karnataka High Court Seeks ACB's Response To Bail Plea Moved By IAS Manjunath

Case Title: J MANJUNATH v THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: CRL.P 6578/2022

The Karnataka High Court on Thursday directed the Anti Corruption Bureau to file its statement of objections by Monday (August 1) to a bail petition filed by IAS Officer J Manjunath, who has been arrested by the agency in a bribery case.

Kerala High Court

Nominal Index [Citations 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 375 - 390]

NTPC v. Aishwarya Mohan, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 375

Nimal James & Ors v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 376

R. Karthik v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 377

KSRTC & Ors. v. K. Venu Kumar, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 378

XXXX v. State of Kerala and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 379

MES Dental College v. Shahana P.S & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 380

Gulam Rasul v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 381

Sooraj V. Sukumar v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 382

XXX v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 383

Shan S & Anr. v. Marriage Officer, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 384

Smitha M.G v. State of Kerala and Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 385

Muhammed Rafi v. Satheesh Kumar M.V, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 386

XXX v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 387

Anamika v. State of Kerala and Others, 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 388

Bilal S & Anr v. Passport Officer & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 389

Alex G. Muricken v. Murickens Marketing System LLP & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 390

Judgments/Orders This Week

CLAT-PG Test Ranking Can Be Used To Select NTPC Law Officers: Kerala High Court

Case Title: NTPC v. Aishwarya Mohan

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 375

The Kerala High Court on Monday held that the condition mandating applicants to clear CLAT for applying to the post of Assistant Law Officer in National Thermal Power Corporation Limited (NTPC) is lawful. A Division Bench of Justice A.K Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. thereby allowed the appeal preferred by NTPC against the decision of a Single Judge which held that such a condition was violative of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Single Judge decision has been set aside.

How Will You Protect BPL Students In Self-Financing Colleges Now That Scholarship Has Been Withdrawn? Kerala High Court Asks State

Case Title: Nimal James & Ors v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 376

The Kerala High Court directed the State government to clarify how a student belonging to the Below Poverty Line category can be asked to pay tuition fees at a self-financing college, even if it was a subsidised rate. Justice Devan Ramachandran also asked the State to respond to how such students can be protected now that they have been stripped of the scholarship scheme that was previously available to them.

Person Born In A Particular Community Can't Be Denied Certificate Sans Enquiry Merely Because His Mother/ Wife Belong To Another Community: Kerala HC

Case Title: R. Karthik v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 377

The Kerala High Court on Tuesday held that a person born in a particular community cannot be denied community certificate merely for the reason of change in his residence or because his mother and wife belong to another community. Justice VG Arun opined that to determine the community status of a person, enquiry must be conducted about the caste to which the applicant is born and how he was brought up and the mere fact that he changed residence or married a belonging to another caste, are not determining factors.

Parties Should Be Heard Before Initiating Recovery From Pension Even If Statute Does Not Require So: Kerala High Court

Case Title: KSRTC & Ors. v. K. Venu Kumar and connected matters

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 378

The Kerala High Court ruled that parties should be offered a hearing before a recovery proceeding as per principles of natural justice, even if a statute does not provide for the same since such proceedings can have civil and pecuniary consequences. A Division Bench of Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice C.S. Dias thereby dismissed the argument of Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) that before the Corporation finds that excess payments are made, the employees need not be heard as there is no statutory provision mandating the same.

POCSO Act | Courts Must Be Sensitive To Victim's Plight But Should Not Accept Allegations As Gospel Truth In Every Case: Kerala High Court

Case Title: XXXX v. State of Kerala and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 379

The Kerala High Court while allowing a pre-arrest bail application, observed that in matters of alleged sexual offences, especially against minor victims, the courts must be sensitive to the plight of the victims; however, that does not mean that the allegations ought to be accepted as the gospel truth in every case. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas cautioned the courts about false allegations to achieve ulterior objectives and observed that tutoring a witness by the parents even while considering an application for bail cannot be ignored.

KEAM Candidate Entitled To Accept Higher Options Until Centralized Admission Process Is Complete: Kerala High Court Asks College To Refund Fee

Case Title: MES Dental College v. Shahana P.S & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 380

The Kerala High Court on Monday held that as long as the centralized admission process was not complete, a candidate who attempted the Kerala Engineering, Architecture, Medical and Allied Courses (KEAM) exam is not only entitled but also bound to accept the higher options in the stream. A Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly thereby directed MES Dental College to refund the amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- remitted by the petitioner towards liquidated damages as per the KEAM Prospectus.

Police Officers Entitled To Use Necessary Force To Arrest Fleeing Accused: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Gulam Rasul v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 381

The Kerala High Court on Tuesday ruled that police officers are entitled to use necessary force to arrest an accused while discharging their official duty, particularly when they are pursuing a fleeing accused. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas also added that while using such force, if any injury is caused to the accused, it does not mean that the officer was not acting in discharge of his duty.

SC-ST Act | Victim's Presence When Insulting Remarks Are Made Includes "Online Presence": Kerala HC Denies Pre-Arrest Bail To YouTuber

Case Title: Sooraj V. Sukumar v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 382

The Kerala High Court denied pre-arrest bail to a YouTuber who allegedly insulted a woman belonging to a Scheduled Tribe through an interview published on social media on the ground that a prima facie case under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was made out against him. In a notable observation, Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas ruled that the digital presence of the victim through the internet is sufficient to qualify as 'public view' as contemplated under Section 3 of the Act.

Accused Can Confront Witness With A Document Bearing Contradictory Statements During Cross-Examination: Kerala High Court

Case Title: XXX v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 383

The Kerala High Court on Wednesday held that an accused has every right to confront a witness with a document during the cross-examination of such witness before the court, especially if such document is a previous statement given by the same witness. Justice Kauser Edappagath added that it was not necessary to produce the document in advance before the court and that such a mandate would deprive the element of surprise involved in the same.

Indian Diplomats In Non-Apostille Countries Empowered To Administer Oath, Take Affidavits & Notarise: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Shan S & Anr. v. Marriage Officer

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 384

The Kerala High Court recently ruled that Indian diplomatic officers in non-Apostille countries are empowered to administer oath, take affidavits and do notarial acts as per Section 3 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths and Fees) Act. Justice V.G. Arun added that such oath, affidavit and notarial act administered, sworn or done by or before any such diplomatic officer shall be effectual as if duly administered, sworn or done by or before any lawful authority in the State.

Art 226 | Writ Court Not Refrained From Granting Relief To Which Party Is Entitled Merely Because That Specific Relief Is Not Sought: Kerala HC

Case Title: Smitha M.G v. State of Kerala and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 385

The Kerala High Court on Wednesday, while allowing a writ appeal, observed that the Court exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution could not refrain from granting a relief to which a party is entitled, merely for the reason that a specific relief had not been sought in petition. A Division Bench consisting of Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Justice C. S. Sudha observed, "Merely for the reason that a specific relief has not been sought in the writ petition, it is not an impediment for the court exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution to grant a relief which a party is entitled to."

Power To Arrest Can't Be Used As A Punitive Tool Unmindful Of Safeguards Mandated U/S 41 CrPC: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Muhammed Rafi v. Satheesh Kumar M.V

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 386

The Kerala High Court on Wednesday ruled that the State and the police cannot use their power to arrest an individual as a punitive tool or a means to mete out harassment and that they have the duty to observe the safeguards provided under Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). A Division Bench of Justice A.K Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Mohammed Nias C.P ordered so in a petition alleging arrest against the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v State of Bihar.

Kerala High Court Grants Bail To Tuition Teacher Accused Of Sexually Assaulting Minor Boy For 8 Years

Case Title: XXX v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 387

The Kerala High Court on Wednesday released on bail a man accused of sexually assaulting his student over a span of eight years, finding that he had been in judicial custody for over a month. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that although prima facie there was evidence showing that the petitioner was involved in the crime, his continued incarceration was not necessary for the case.

Transgender Persons Entitled To Participate In Sporting Events In Gender Of Their Choice In Absence Of Separate Category: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Anamika v. State of Kerala and Others.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 388

The Kerala High Court, on Friday, while passing an interim order in a Writ Petition, observed that in sporting events, in the absence of a separate category for transgender persons, they must be permitted to participate in their chosen category. Justice V G Arun, observed that transgender persons are having equal rights to participate in competitions, and in the absence of a separate category, they should be permitted to participate in their chosen category.

Kerala High Court Directs Registry To Not Accept 'Statements' Filed By Lawyers As Reply To Writ Petitions; Says Counter-Affidavits Should Be Filed

Case Title: Bilal S & Anr v. Passport Officer & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 389

The Kerala High Court on Wednesday passed an interim order dissuading lawyers from filing statements on instruction under the guise of reply or counter affidavit to a petition unless it is an affidavit duly verified by the authorised officer. While ruling that the practice of filing statements by a lawyer is not provided under the High Court Rules and Regulations, Justice Amit Rawal also cautioned the Registry of disciplinary action if any of its staff were found accepting such statements from lawyers.

Cases Valued Below ₹10 Lakhs Pending Before Commercial Courts Need Not Be Transferred Despite Increase In Pecuniary Limit: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Alex G. Muricken v. Murickens Marketing System LLP & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 390

The Kerala High Court on Tuesday held that cases pending before commercial courts in the State as on 18.03.2022 which have a pecuniary value less than Rs.10 lakh shall continue before the commercial courts. Justice A. Badharudeen observed that a transfer of such pending cases was not necessary since the Government Order increasing the pecuniary limit of commercial courts did not communicate the need for the same.

Other Significant Developments

How Can A Statement Recorded U/S 164 CrPC Be Defamatory? Kerala High Court Reserves Order In Saritha's Plea

Case Title: Saritha S. Nair v. Union of India & Anr.

The Kerala High Court on Monday reserved its verdict on the plea moved by Saritha S. Nair, the prime accused in the infamous solar panel scam seeking a direction to provide her with copies of the Section 164 statement given by Swapna Suresh, an accused in the diplomatic gold smuggling case. Justice Kauser Edappagath, while hearing the submissions made by the petitioner's counsel that defamatory statements about the petitioner have been made in the S.164 Statement, raised the question as to how the petitioner would know imputations against her had been made in the S.164 statement without reading it.

No Approval Granted For K-Rail, All Steps Towards Land Acquisition Premature: Railway Board Informs Kerala High Court

Case Title: Muralikrishnan v. State of Kerala & connected matters

In a statement filed on Monday, the Railway Board has informed the Kerala High Court that all steps taken in pursuance of land acquisition for K-Rail Silverline are premature since no approval has been granted for the project so far. Through the statement moved the ASG S. Manu, the Railway Board reiterated that it has neither approved nor concurred with the SIA and that the survey conducted by the State Government was under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act.

Plea In Kerala High Court Seeks To Disqualify Saji Cherian From MLA Post Over His Remarks On The Constitution

Case Title: Biju P. Cheruman v. Election Commission of India & Ors.

A petition has been moved in the Kerala High Court seeking a direction to declare that CPI(M) legislator and former minister Saji Cherian is not entitled to hold the office of MLA after his remarks allegedly insulting the Constitution sparked a controversy across the State. When the matter was taken up on Tuesday, a Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly took a prima facie view that Article 173 of the Constitution, which deals with qualification for being an MLA, may not be applicable here.

K-Rail | SIA Being Done Only Through Geo-Tagging, No Large Survey Stones Used: State Undertakes Before Kerala High Court

Case Title: Muralikrishnan v. State of Kerala & connected matters

The State Government on Tuesday assured the Kerala High Court that any activity related to the ongoing SIA conducted in furtherance of its K-Rail project is being done only through the Geo-tagging facility and that no large survey stones are being used for demarcation. Justice Devan Ramachandran while recording this undertaking clarified that this does not mean that the Court has neither permitted nor stopped the SIA in any manner.

NEET-UG | Female Candidates Asked To Remove Innerwear: PIL Before Kerala High Court Seeks Retest, Compensation

Case Title: Asif Azad v. Union of India & Ors.

A Public Interest Litigation filed in the Kerala High Court has sought compensation to the female candidates who were recently forced to remove their innerwear before appearing for the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) in Kollam. While the plea primarily seeks a direction to the Centre to publish a common protocol to conduct examinations in India, the petitioner has also sought a direction to the National Testing Agency (NTA) to re-conduct the exam within two weeks.

Evidence Tampering Case | Kerala High Court Seeks Status Report On Ongoing Trial Against Minister Antony Raju

Case Title: George Vattukulam v. State of Kerala

The Kerala High Court on Friday called for the status report in the evidence tampering case involving Transport Minister Antony Raju regarding the progress of the trial before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nedumangad. Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A was adjudicating upon a petition seeking expedited trial in the case where the Transport Minister has been accused of tampering with evidence while he was practising as a lawyer.

Another Obstacle For Prithviraj-Starrer 'Kaduva' As Plea Before Kerala High Court Contests Its OTT Release

Case Title: Jose Kuruvinakkunnel v. Union of India & Ors

Prithviraj-starrer Malayalam movie 'Kaduva' faces yet another challenge as a new petition before Kerala High Court alleges that the movie was released in theatres violating court orders. The plea has thereby sought to block the OTT release of the film. Justice V.G Arun on Tuesday admitted the plea and issued notice to the respondents. Meanwhile, reports suggest that the OTT release of the action entertainment has been scheduled for August 4.

Drains Left Uncovered, Grates Missing: Kerala High Court Seeks Response From Kochi Corporation, CSML

Case Title: Pauly Vadakkan v. Corporation of Cochin

The Kerala High Court on Friday directed the Cochin Corporation and Cochin Smart Mission Limited (CSML) to file a report on the missing grating covering the drains on the roads in the city. The matter came to the notice of the Court from a newspaper report in the 'Malayala Manorama' that the gratings were missing on certain roads in Kochi, covering the holes to draw water into the drains, and this is likely to injure pedestrians and motorists, particularly two-wheelers.

Madhya Pradesh High Court

1. Bail Cannot Be Cancelled When Accused Wasn't Conditioned To Not Get Involved In Any Other Criminal Case: MP High Court

2. "Consider & Decide Compassionate Appointment Applications Within 6 Months": Madhya Pradesh High Court Directs Govt Authorities

3. 'Directions For Conducting DNA Test Violative Of Individual's Privacy': MP High Court Denies Permission For Blood Test In Relation To Property Dispute

4. Illegal Incarceration For 4 Yrs: MP High Court Awards ₹3 Lakhs Compensation; Orders Inquiry Into Delay By ASJ Court In Issuing Release Warrant

Madras High Court

A weekly round-up of important cases from Madras High Court and its subordinate courts.

Citations: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 317 To 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 325

NOMINAL INDEX

Mr.P.Adhavan Seral v. The Tamilnadu Information Commission and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 317

Siva v. State by Inspector of Police, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 318

Jaisankar v. The State and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 319

Irfana Nasreen v. The State, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 320

S.Jeevalakshmi v. The Principal Accountant General (A&E) and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 321

Sureshkumar v. The Regional Passport Officer and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 322

R.Rajesh Kumar v. The State of Tamilnadu and others, 2022 LiveLaw (mad) 323

M/s.Gharpure Engg. & Construction (Pvt) Ltd. Versus Assistant Commissioner (ST), 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 324

Dr.R.Senthilkumar v. The State and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 325

REPORTS

1. S.11 RTI Act | Inter-Caste Marriage Certificate Submitted By Persons Seeking Priority In Public Employment Contain Personal Info, Notice Mandatory: Madras HC

Case Title: Mr.P.Adhavan Seral v. The Tamilnadu Information Commission and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 317

The Madras High Court recently reiterated that informations touching upon the right of privacy of third parties cannot be sought through RTI applications without putting them on notice.

Justice Anand Venkatesh was dealing with a plea seeking directions to the Tamil Nadu Information Commission to provide details with respect to persons who have registered themselves in the district employment office under the special category of Inter Caste Marriage and to furnish the certificates provided by such persons.

2. Statements Recorded U/S 164 CrPC Are Not Substantive Evidence, Can Only Be Used For Corroboration: Madras High Court Reiterates

Case Title: Siva v. State by Inspector of Police

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 318

The Madras High Court recently set aside an order of conviction of a man accused of murder after observing that the trial court was misled in corroborating the statement of witnesses recorded under S. 164 CrPC with the medical evidence when in fact all the independent witnesses had turned hostile.

Justice S Vaidyanathan and Justice AD Jagdish Chandira took note of the judicial precedents where the courts have clearly laid down that the statements recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC are not substantive evidence and that they can only be used to corroborate/contradict the statement of a witness.

3. When Prosecution Itself Is Infested With Motive, Court Can Interfere & Quash The Same To Prevent Abuse Of Process Of Law: Madras High Court

Case Title: Jaisankar v. The State and another

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 319

While quashing a final report against a man accused of being in possession of an intoxicating drug and charged with Section 4(1) (a) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act 1937, the Madras High Court observed that the prosecution was a malafide one.

After going through the materials available on record, Justice N Sathish Kumar observed that though it was alleged that 96 rum bottles were found in possession of the accused, there was no evidence except the statement of the investigating officer. The court also noted that even though the courts do not generally go into the materials collected by the police, if it was found that the prosecution itself was without any material, the same could be quashed.

4. Failure To Disclose Impotency Before Marriage: Madras High Court Directs Police To Register Offences For Cheating

Case Title: Irfana Nasreen v. The State

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 320

Allowing an application for alteration of FIR filed by an estranged wife, the Madras High Court recently directed the respondent police to register offences under Section 417 and 420 of IPC for cheating against the husband who deceived the wife by non-disclosing his impotency.

Justice V Sivagnanam of the Madurai Bench directed the respondent police to add the offences along with already existing Section 498-A and 406 and submit the final report within four months after investigation.

5. Freedom Fighter's Pension Cannot Be Said To Be "Income" For Denying Benefit Of Family Pension: Madras High Court

Case Title: S.Jeevalakshmi v. The Principal Accountant General (A&E) and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 321

The Madras High Court recently reiterated that the Freedom Fighter's Pension could not be brought under the category of family income for grant of family pension. It observed that Freedom Fighter's pension is given to honor the sacrifices made by them for the nation in the freedom struggle. Justice B Pugalendhi thus allowed a woman's plea to draw a family pension arising out of her mother's service in addition to the freedom fighter's pension.

6. Madras High Court Gives Clean Chit To IPS Officer In Fake Passport Case; Lauds BJP State President For Highlighting The Scam

Case Title: Sureshkumar v. The Regional Passport Officer and another

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 322

The Madras High court recently gave a clean chit to Madurai's former Commissioner of Police, S. Davidson Devasirvatham in connection with matters pertaining to issuance of fake passports to Sri Lankan and Indian Nationals by using forged documents.

The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan observed that field enquiry police officer play the most crucial in verification process and the buck stops with the nodal officer. "Involvement of the officials above the said rank may not really arise."

7. Madras High Court Directs TN Govt To Include Photographs Of President & Prime Minister In All Advertisements Of Chess Olympiad 2022

Case Title: R.Rajesh Kumar v. The State of Tamilnadu and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (mad) 323

On a plea seeking the inclusion of photographs of the Prime Minister and the President of India in the advertisements for the 44th Chess Olympiad organised by the Federation Internationale des Echecs [FIDE], the Madras High Court directed the State government to ensure that the pictures of the Prime Minister and the President are included in all the advertisements. The division bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice S Ananthi also directed the government to ensure that in future events also, these directions are followed.

8. Dept. To Follow Procedure Set Out In Circular On The Issues Of Mismatch: Madras High Court Quashes VAT Assessment

Case Title: M/s.Gharpure Engg. & Construction (Pvt) Ltd. Versus Assistant Commissioner (ST)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 324

The Madras High Court bench of Justice Anitha Sumnath has quashed the VAT assessment and directed the department to follow the procedure set out in the circular regarding the issue of mismatch.

The court ordered that the procedure set out in the circular be applied to the present case as well. The orders of assessment are set aside to enable both parties, i.e., the assessee as well as the department, to engage in the finalisation of the issue in line with the circular.

9. Homeopathy, Ayurveda Practitioners Registered With TN Board Can Also Practice Allopathy Based On Course Training: Madras High Court

Case Title: Dr.R.Senthilkumar v. The State and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 325

The Madras High Court recently quashed criminal proceedings against a doctor registered with State Homoeopathy Medical Council who was found practicing in Allopathy Medicine.

Justice Teeka Raman observed that Homeopathy, Ayurveda, Siddha and Unani practitioners who are registered in the Tamil Nadu Board of Indian Medicine are eligible to practice in the respective system with Allopathy based on the training and teaching they had in the Course. The court however cautioned that such persons cannot exclusively practice Allopathy medicine.

OTHER DEVELOPMENTS

1. "Colonial Mindset": Madras High Court Directs Implementation Of Abolition Of Orderlies System In Police

Case Title: U. Manickavel v. State rep. by Secretary and others

Case No: WP No. 2627 of 2014

The Madras High Court on Monday directed the Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department to take immediate steps to remove uniformed officers serving as orderlies at the residence of higher officials and to use these forces for the benefit of the public at large. Justice SM Subramaniam took note of a Government Order issued in 1979, abolishing the orderly system in Police Department. The court noted that All India Service Conduct Rules, 1968 clearly stipulate that the misuse of an official position is misconduct.

The court also directed the higher officials to voluntarily surrender all the orderlies which will show their real courage in terms of accepting the good conduct in accordance with the All India Services Conduct Rules.

2. Steps Being Taken To Make LGBTQIA+ Glossary More Simple: State Tells Madras High Court

Case Title: S Sushma and Anr v. Director General of Police and Ors

Case No: WP 7284 of 2021

While hearing the pleas relating to the upliftment of the LGBTQ+ community, the State Government on Friday, informed the Madras High Court that the suggested glossary was in the process of being finalized.

The state informed that the present glossary was too technical as per persons from the community and attempts were being made to simplify the terms as much as possible so that the same can be used without any difficulty.

It was informed that meetings being held with the the Tamil Etymological and Dictionary Project Department. These updated glossary will then be placed before the Chief Minister, for obtaining orders to publish it in the official gazette.

3. PIL Filed In Madras High Court Against Movie "Yaanai" Over Alleged Depiction Of Fishermen In 'Bad Light'

Case Title: N. Joebhoy Gomez v. Government of India and others

Case No: W.P No. 19140 of 2022

A litigant has recently moved the Madras High Court against the grant of a censor certificate to the Tamil movie Yaanai, starring Arun Vijay. The petitioner seeks revocation of the censor certificate and removal of certain portions of the movie contending that the same portrayed the fishermen's community in a bad light.

When the matter came up for consideration, the bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice N Mala adjourned the matter as the counsel for the petitioner was absent.

4. Fraudulent Appointment In Panchayat Office: Madras High Court Directs Jurisdictional Police To Register Case & Conduct Investigation

Case Title: P.Kuppusamy v. The District Collector and others

Case No: WP No.26472 of 2014

In a matter pertaining to fraudulent appointment to the post of Operator of the Over Head Water Tank of Muthur Town Panchayat, the Madras High Court on Tuesday directed the jurisdictional police to register a criminal case and proceed in accordance with law.

Justice SM Subramaniam directed the Executive Officer to register a complaint setting out the entire facts along with the documents to the jurisdictional Police, within a period of one week. Upon receiving the complaint, the police was directed to register the same and proceed with the investigation. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tiruppur District was directed to file a status report after conducting investigation.

Orissa High Court

1. Look Out Circular | Directors Of Company Can't Be Denied 'Right To Travel Abroad' In Absence Of Any Non-Compoundable Offence: Orissa High Court

Case Title: Rajesh Kumar Agarwal & Ors. v. Regional Director (E), Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Kolkata & Ors.

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 116

The Orissa High Court has recently held that Directors/office bearers of a company cannot be deprived of their fundamental right to visit abroad by issuing Look Out Circular (LOC) when there exists no prima facie non-compoundable offence against them. Further, mere bald allegations, without any rigid substance to substantiate the same, cannot be made basis for issuing LOC.

Punjab & Haryana High Court

1. JJ Act | Proceedings Against Child In Conflict With Law Cannot Be Joint With Adult Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Title: SADHU SINGH VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 203

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently held that there can be no joint proceedings of a 'child in conflict with law' with a person who is not a juvenile.

The bench comprising Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj observed that in terms of Juvenile Justice (Care And Protection Of Children) Act, 2000 (applicable to the present Petitioner-accused), any order could only have been passed by the Juvenile Justice Board and not the Magistrate Court.

2. JJ Act | Proceedings Against Child In Conflict With Law Cannot Be Joint With Adult Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Title: SADHU SINGH VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 203

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently held that there can be no joint proceedings of a 'child in conflict with law' with a person who is not a juvenile.

The bench comprising Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj observed that in terms of Juvenile Justice (Care And Protection Of Children) Act, 2000 (applicable to the present Petitioner-accused), any order could only have been passed by the Juvenile Justice Board and not the Magistrate Court.

3. Dishonour Of Cheque | S.27 General Clauses Act Presumes Service Of Statutory Notice In Favour Of Complainant: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Title : Anil Dhir and another v. State of Punjab and Another

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 204

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently held that the service of notice upon the accused in cheque dishonour case cannot be denied in light of Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, which provides a presumption in favour of the complainant that the notice had been delivered.

The bench comprising Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi was dealing with a revision petition against the judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana dismissing petitioner's appeal and upholding the judgment of conviction by the Judicial Magistrate.

4. S.6 SRA | Limitation Period For Instituting Suit For Recovery Of Possession Is 6 Months: Punjab & Haryana High Cour

Case Title : Charanjit Kaur v. Mukhtar Singh

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 205

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has recently held that period of limitation for instituting a suit for recovery of possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is six months.

The period of limitation prescribed for instituting a suit for recovery of possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is six months.

The bench comprising Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul was dealing with a Petition for setting aside the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act for possession of suit property and permanent injunction.

5. Joint Owner Can't Prevent Another Co-Owner From Using Portion Of Joint Property By Injunction Except To Prevent Wastage/ Destruction: P&H High Court

Case Title: Tarsem Singh (deceased) through his LR versus Major Singh (deceased) through his LRs & Others

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 206

Punjab and Haryana High Court while dismissing a regular second appeal by the plaintiff against the judgements and decrees by the Courts below dismissing his suit for permanent injunction, held that once the suit land is not partitioned and the parties are co-sharers and co-owners, each and every co-sharer will be considered to be in possession of every inch of land.

The bench comprising Justice Alka Sarin while upholding the findings by the Courts below, further added that the suit land is joint.

6. Employee Found Innocent In Departmental Proceedings Entitled To Interest On Delayed Payment Of Pension: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Title: Ram Mehar Versus Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited (HVPNL) and others

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 207

Punjab and Haryana High Court recently allowed relief to the ex-employee of Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited, who retired from service after attaining the age of superannuation but his pensionary benefits were withheld by the respondents.

….. once the petitioner is found innocent of the allegations alleged and has suffered prejudice only due to the actions of the respondent-Department as the petitioner was prevented from availing his pensionary benefits upon his retirement for a sufficient long period of time and also petitioner could not use those financial benefits to his benefit, the petitioner becomes entitled for the grant of interest on the delayed payments to mitigate the prejudice/hardship suffered by him, which is in consonance of settled principle of law.

7. Allegations Levelled Against Secured Creditors Can Always Be Examined By DRT Headed By Judicial Officer Of Same Level As A District Judge: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Title: FAUJI & ORS. v. THE STATE(GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR.

Punjab and Haryana High Court recently held that allegations levelled against the secured creditors can be examined by the DRT and where there is an express bar to the jurisdiction of Civil Court, the same cannot be permitted by alleging fraud played by the secured creditors.

The allegations levelled against the secured creditors can always be examined by the DRT which is headed by the Judicial Officer of the same level as the level of a District Judge. In a case where there is an express bar to the jurisdiction of Civil Court, the same cannot be permitted to be avoided merely by alleging fraud played by the secured creditors.

8. S.34 Arbitration Act | Award Can Be Set Aside Only On Specific Grounds Mentioned In Provision: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Title: The Punjab State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited Versus M/s B.D.S. Decor & Prefab (P) Ltd. and another

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 209

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently reiterated that award under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act can be set aside only on the basis of specific grounds mentioned therein.

It is a settled position of law that award under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act can be set aside only on the basis of specific grounds contained therein.

The bench comprising Justice Lisa Gill further added that the Court cannot sit in appeal when plausible and reasonable view is taken by the Arbitrator on the basis of the evidence, even if a separate view is possible.

Rajasthan High Court

Nominal Index

Dr. Mahesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 208

Amit Kumar Sharma v. Union Of India & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 209

Judgments/ Orders of the Week

State Can't Discriminate Between Allopathic & Ayurvedic Doctors In Fixing Retirement Age: Rajasthan High Court

Case Title: Dr. Mahesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 208

While hearing a batch of writ petitions challenging different age of superannuation for Allopathic Doctors vis-a-vis Ayurvedic Doctors, the division bench of Rajasthan High Court observed that Ayurvedic Doctors are entitled to continue in service till completion of age of 62 years, which is applicable in the case of Allopathic Doctors.

Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court's decision in North Delhi Municipal Corporation vs. Dr. Ram Naresh Sharma & Ors. LL 2021 SC 346. The court opined that the Supreme Court has left no scope for arguments on the part of the respondents to defend their action of discrimination in the matter.

During the course of hearing, the court was informed that the age of superannuation of Allopathic Doctors was enhanced from 60 to 62 years w.e.f. 31.03.2016. The court noted that some of the petitioners are still working, while some of the petitioners have retired after attaining the age of 60 years after the issuance of notification.

Rajasthan High Court Upholds Termination Of Employee Who Obtained Compassionate Appointment By Concealing Criminal Cases Pending Against Him

Case Title: Amit Kumar Sharma v. Union Of India & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 209

The Rajasthan High Court recently upheld termination of an employee who obtained compassionate appointment by concealment of facts. The petitioner was not able to give details of criminal cases pending against him allegedly on account of paucity of space in attestation form.

The court observed that the petitioner failed to give due details and therefore, violated Clause-2(n) of the appointment letter and also suppressed the information. The court opined that the tribunal has duly considered said violations and suppression on the part of the petitioner.

Essentially, the petitioner was given appointment on the post of LDC on compassionate grounds on 24.12.2012. As per him, under Clause-13 of the Attestation form, he had disclosed all information, except Clause-13(J), wherein on account of paucity of space, he was not able to give details of criminal cases pending against him. On account of said concealment, respondents issued show cause notice which reflected that two criminal cases were pending against the petitioner. The petitioner's representation was also rejected and termination order was passed. Later, CAT, Jaipur Bench upheld the termination order holding that it was not against the Rules, that there is no allegation of mala-fides and natural justice was adhered to by the respondent. Being aggrieved against the same, present petition was filed.

Other Important Updates

Can Govt Levy GST On Royalty? Rajasthan High Court Asks Advocate General Amid Conflicting Views, Hearing Tomorrow

Case Title: M/s. Shri Kalyan Marbles v. The Union Of India & others

The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur has requested the Advocate General to address the court in a plea challenging imposition of GST on royalty, amid conflicting orders from two division benches of the court.

During the course of hearing, Adv. Abhay Singla appearing on behalf of the petitioner informed that a writ petition involving the same issue in M/s Shivalik Silica Versus Union of India & Others was earlier dismissed by a Division Bench of Jaipur Bench on 17.12.2021. Subsequently in Shree Basant Bhandar Int Udyog Versus Union of India, a bunch of writ petitions were entertained by the Principal Bench at Jodhpur on the same issue and notices were issued and thereby an interim order was passed on 05.07.2022.

Considering the aforesaid aspect, division bench comprising Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Shubha Mehta, observed,

"Taking into consideration the aforesaid aspect, we would request the Learned Advocate General to address the Court on the issue."

Rajasthan High Court Issues Notice On PIL To Remove Words 'Baanjh', 'Parityakt', 'Nirashrit' Used For Women In Govt Schemes

Case Title: Kunal Rawat v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

The Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur has issued notice on a public interest litigation seeking directions to the government to change the terminology like 'Baanjh', 'Parityakt', 'Nirashrit' used for women in different schemes.

The present public interest litigation has been filed by Kunal Rawat.

A division bench of Chief Justice S.S. Shinde and Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, observed, "Issue notice to the respondents, returnable on 27.07.2022. In addition, 'dasti' service is permitted."

The court also granted liberty to the counsel appearing for the petitioner to serve Standing Counsel for the respective respondents.

Rajasthan Royals Owes ₹6.9 Crore To Over 850 Police Officials Deployed During 2011 IPL Matches: Amicus Curiae To Rajasthan High Court

Case Title: Suo Motu v. State Of Rajasthan

In the case pertaining to Rajasthan Royals' failure to pay over 850 police officials who were deployed during 2011 Indian Premier League (IPL) matches, amicus curiae Abhishek Sharma has informed the High Court that the dues add up to Rs.6,98,86,753/-, and there is no compliance by the franchise cricket team.

Sharma stated that the aforesaid amount was payable by the Franchise to the State under an agreement, however, the same has not been deposited yet.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice SS Shinde and Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand has granted some more time to the counsel appearing for RR to seek instructions in the matter.

Child Labour: Rajasthan High Court Issues Notice To Centre On PIL To Institutionalise Rescue & Rehabilitation Mechanism

Case Title: Gopal Singh Bareth v. State Of Rajasthan

The Rajasthan High Court has permitted impleadment of the Centre's Labour Department in a PIL seeking to institutionalise a 'rescue and rehabilitation mechanism' for all child labourers in the State.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice SS Shinde and Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand allowed the application filed by petitioner, Advocate Gopal Singh Bareth. It ordered,

"Petitioner who appears in person prays for leave to amend the petition so as to implead the concerned department of the Central Government as party-respondent. Leave granted. Issue notice to the newly added respondents, returnable on 02.08.2022."

Earlier, the Court had sought for a firm and concrete action plan from the state to curb child labour activities. During the course of hearing on Wednesday, Advocate General M.S. Singhvi invited the court's attention to the various compliance reports and assured that further consolidated compliance report, including steps taken, if any, in respect of rehabilitation will be incorporated in the affidavit to be filed.

Rajasthan High Court Issues Notice On Law Student's PIL Seeking Directions To Stop Sale, Use, Consumption & Possession Of E-Cigarettes

Case Title: Priyansha Gupta v. Union Of India

The Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur has issued notice on a public interest litigation seeking directions to the central and state governments to effectively implement the provisions of Prohibition of Electronic Cigarettes (Production, Manufacture, Import, Export, Transport, Sale, Distribution, Storage, and Advertisement) Act, 2019 and to stop sale, use, consumption, possession of e-cigarettes.

The PIL was filed by Priyansha Gupta, a fourth-year law student at School of Law, Bennett University. The petitioner stated that she has conducted exhaustive research and has thoroughly examined the actions taken by the State to eradicate the problem of the usage of electronic cigarettes in the country.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice S.S. Shinde and Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, observed,

"Heard petitioner in person. Issue notice to the respondents, returnable on 29.07.2022. In addition, 'dasti' service is permitted."

"Ensure That Court Matters Aren't Delayed Unnecessarily": Rajasthan High Court To State's Pension Dept Over Delay In Filing Replies

Case Title: Mahendra Pal Singh v. State Of Rajasthan

The Rajasthan High Court directed state's Pension and Pensioners Welfare Department to take apposite steps to prevent delay in filing replies to judicial proceedings and ensure that the Court matters are not delay unnecessarily.

Justice Arun Bhansali made the observation while hearing the case of a retired Ward Boy of Ayurvedic Department whose pension was not released since more than one year due to huge backlog of cases before the Department.

During the course of hearing, the counsel for the Department informed that the Officer-in-Charge is not cooperating and/or rather misbehaving with him, despite repeated indications made to the respondents and specifically the Officer-in-Charge to ensure that the factual reports are submitted in time and that needful, as required is done.

Rajasthan High Court Issues Notice On PIL Requiring State To Deposit Central Govt Grants In Nationalized Banks Only

Case Title: Sunil Kumar Singh Advocate v. State of Rajasthan

The Rajasthan High Court has recently issued notice on a public interest litigation seeking directions to the state government to keep the grants and aid received from the Central Government in any of the nationalised Banks, instead of AU Small Finance Bank.

The plea filed by Advocate Sushil Kumar Singh states that it is matter of surprise as to why the State is not having faith in the nationalised Banks and depositing huge amount in the Private Bank. It added that if these Banks face losses, then the Central Government grant will also be in a "high risk zone".

Notices were issued by the division bench comprising Chief Justice S.S. Shinde and Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand.

The plea alleged that the Grant of Central Government amounting to Rupees 2,003 Crores has been deposited in the Bank of AU Bank instead of any nationalised Bank including the State Bank of India.

President Appoints Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava As Acting Chief Justice Of Rajasthan High Court

The Central Government has notified the appointment of Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava as the Acting Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court (as per Article 223 of the Constitution of India) with effect from August 2.

Justice MM Shrivastava, the senior-most Judge of the Rajasthan High Court, will be performing the duties of the office of the Chief Justice of the High Court consequent upon the retirement of Shri Justice Shinde Sambhaji Shiwaji, Chief Justice, Rajasthan High Court.

Tripura High Court

1. Prosecution Must Prove 'Last Seen Theory' Connecting Accused With Commission Of Offence Beyond All Reasonable Doubt: Tripura High Court

Case Title: Sri Janardhan Murasingh v. The State of Tripura

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Trip) 15

The Tripura High Court has held that it is the prosecution which has to prove the "last seen theory", together with the other connecting circumstances, to show that except the accused, no other person could have committed the alleged offence.

The observation came from a division bench of Justice T. Amarnath Goud and Justice Arindham Lodh:

"It is the prosecution who has to prove the last seen together with the other connecting circumstances that except the accused persons no other person could commit the offence. In the instant case, it cannot be ruled out that PW-9, PW-10 and PW-12 could not disclose that they had seen the deceased with the appellants on the relevant date and time for the last time. The scribe i.e. PW-14 also failed to substantiate that the accused-appellants herein had murdered his father i.e. Sukumar Das. Thus, the prosecution has not been able to connect the said appellants with the commission of offence beyond all reasonable doubt."

2. Can't Use Article 226 As An "Arm Twisting Technique" To Settle Private Civil Disputes Without Exhausting Statutory Remedies: Tripura High Court

Case Title : Sri Subrata Saha and anr v The Municipal Commissioner and ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Trip) 16

The Tripura High Court recently rejected a writ petition filed by a person without exhausting alternative remedies, and observed that they can't use Article 226 writ jurisdiction to arm twist the respondents.

3. Persons Appointed On "Co-Terminus Basis" Can't Assert Right To Regularization Of Services: Tripura High Court

Case Title: Sri Suman Miah and Anr. v. The State of Tripura and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Trip) 18

The Tripura High Court recently observed that if a person has been employed on co-terminus basis, and it is only an engagement order and it has not been given any legitimate rights for regularization then no right ensues on such person for regularization of their services.

4. Facts Revealed By Accused In Custody About Discovery, Not Acceptance Of Guilt, Can Be Treated As Legal Evidence U/S 27 Evidence Act: Tripura High Court

Case Title: Sri Sumanjoy Tripura v. The State of Tripura

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Trip) 19

The Tripura High Court recently acquitted a man convicted for charges of murder under section 302 IPC, while observing that there wasn't sufficient evidence on record to prove his guilt and that mere statement of the co accused isn't enough to convict him.

5. Tripura SC/ST Reservation Rules | Enquiry For Verifying Caste Certificate Not Absolutely Barred In View Of Favourable Report By SDM: High Court

Case Title: Bimal Chandra Sarkar Versus The State of Tripura, with connected matter

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Trip) 20

The Tripura High Court recently dismissed the plea of a person claiming to belong to scheduled caste, seeking quashing the summons issued by Member-Secretary, State Level Scrutiny Committee (SLSC) calling upon the petitioner to appear before the Committee for verification.

The decision came from Justice T. Amarnath Goud who held that merely because the Petitioner had a favourable report in his favour as contemplated under Rule 7A(5) of the Tripura Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Reservation Rules, 1992, there is no absolute bar on SLSC for conducting the enquiry and for issuing and cancelling the certificate in terms of Rule 7A(4) thereof.

6. "Happened In A Spur Of The Moment, No Intention To Kill": Tripura High Court Reduces Sentence For Attempt To Murder

Case Title : Sri Chandan Adhikari v The State of Tripura

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Trip) 21

The Tripura High Court recently reduced the sentence of a person convicted for the offence of attempt to murder punishable under Section 307 IPC on the ground that the incident happened in the spur of the moment and that the convict had no intention to kill the victim.

The judgment was passed by a division bench of Justice Amarnath Goud and Justice Arindam Lodh:

"Having considered thus, we come to this conclusion that the trial court has rightly convicted the appellant based on material evidence produced by the prosecution and there is no infirmity in the impugned findings regarding conviction. From a perusal of the record and considering the facts in its entirety, it seems that the offence have occurred at the spur of the moment; the appellant had no intention or motive to kill the victim; the appellant does not have any criminal antecedent in his past life; he is not required in any other criminal case except the one in question. Accordingly, it is considered to be just and proper to alter/modify the sentence of the appellant from 10 years to that of 7 (seven) years."

7. Medical Evidence Has Evidentiary Value In Murder Cases, Can't Be Used To Fix Guilt In Case Of Suicide: Tripura High Court

Case Title : Sri Ratan Das v The State of Tripura

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Trip) 22

The Tripura High Court has observed that medical evidence has its evidentiary value in the case of murder. It thus set aside the conviction of a husband under Section 306 IPC, among other charges, following death of his wife due to burn injuries. It observed that the case relates to "suicide" and hence medical evidence cannot fix the guilt.

The observation was given by a division bench of Justice Amarnath Goud and Justice Arindam Lodh

"Learned P.P. relied upon the Medical evidence i.e. evidence of P.W. 6 and P.W.10 to establish his argument. But medical evidence has its evidentiary value in the case of murder. But, the instant matter relates to suicide, so, medical evidence cannot fix the guilt of the appellant-husband herein. It is also pertinent to mention here that the victim-wife suffered severe burn injuries and rural people cannot handle such injuries and it has to be handled by expert. So the argument of the learned P.P. that the victim being taken to hospital after substantial time has elapsed also fails."

8. In Event Of Doubt Over Correctness Of Answer Key, Benefit Must Be Given To Exam Authority & Not Candidate: Tripura High Court

Case Title: The State of Tripura and Ors. v. Smt. Sangita Chakraborty

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Trip) 23

The Tripura High Court recently allowed an appeal filed by the Controller of Examinations and observed that in the event of doubt over correctness of answer key, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate.

The observation was made by a division bench of Chief Justice Indrajit Mahanty and Justice SG Chattopadhya:

"In the instant case, none of the options given in the multiple choice questions appear to be demonstrably wrong. Situated thus, the ratio decided by the Apex Court in Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. (Supra) must be followed by us where the Apex Court has held that Court should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption and in the event of doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate."

The bench of Justice Amarnath Goud and Justice Arindam Lodh also reiterated that only that much of the statement made by an accused in custody during investigation to the police is admissible as leads to the recovery of some articles or things. Any other part of the statement which is not related with the recovery of articles is not admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.