- Home
- /
- News Updates
- /
- All High Courts Weekly Roundup:...
All High Courts Weekly Roundup: March 14 - March 20, 2022
Shrutika Pandey
21 March 2022 7:01 PM IST
Allahabad High Court NOMINAL INDEX Chavi Lal And Others vs State Of U.P. And Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 111 Amitabh Thakur v. State Of U.P. Thru Addl. Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 112 Om Prakash Verma v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 113 Raj Kumar Verma v. State of U.P. and Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 114 Sangram Yadav v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others...
Allahabad High Court
NOMINAL INDEX
Chavi Lal And Others vs State Of U.P. And Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 111
Amitabh Thakur v. State Of U.P. Thru Addl. Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 112
Om Prakash Verma v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 113
Raj Kumar Verma v. State of U.P. and Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 114
Sangram Yadav v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 115
Nokhe Lal v. State of U.P. and 2 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 116
Mukis v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 117
Gamma Gaana Limited v. Union Of India 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 118
Prabhat Kumar And Others vs Dheeraj And Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 119
C/M Jago Rajbhar Jago Samiti And Another V. Union Of India And 4 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 120
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Thru Its Divisional Manager v. Motor Accident Claim Tribunal 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 121
Amrita Nand @ Tribhuvan Arjariya @ Baba v. State of U.P. and Another. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 122
Upendra v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 123
Pankaj Tyagi v. State Of U.P. And Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 124
Smt. Rekha Gautam v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 125
Khurshidurehman S. Rehman v. State of U P and another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 126
Titu v. State Of U.P.And 2 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 127
Daujee Abhushan Bhandar Pvt. Ltd. v. Union Of India And 2 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 128
Prakash @ Jai Prakash Ruhela v. State of U.P 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 129
Judgments/Orders of the Week
Case Title: Chavi Lal And Others vs State Of U.P. And Another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 111
The Allahabad High Court, sitting in Lucknow, reiterated that while dealing with an application for discharge under Section, the Court is required to only see whether a prima facie case is made out against the accused. Detailed inquiry is not required at this stage and the accused can be discharged when the charge is groundless.
"At the stage of charge the court is not required to consider pros and cons of the case and to hold an enquiry to find out truth. Marshalling and appreciation of evidence is not in the domain of the court at that point of time. What is required from the court is to sift and weigh the materials for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case for framing a charge against the accused has been made out," Justice Suresh Kumar Gupta observed.
Case Title: Amitabh Thakur v. State Of U.P. Thru Addl. Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 112
The Allahabad High Court granted bail Former IPS officer Amitabh Thakur in the abetment to suicide case, in which a woman and her friend had set themselves on fire outside the Supreme Court and succumbed to burn injuries.
"Admittedly, the charge sheet is already filed and there is no averment in the counter affidavit for tampering any evidence," the bench of Justice Rajeev Singh stated.
Case title - Om Prakash Verma v. State of U.P.
Case Citation:2022 LiveLaw (AB) 113
The Allahabad High Court last week granted bail to a man booked under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) from whose possession allegedly over 1 Quintal of Ganja was recovered.
The Bench of Justice Krishan Pahal granted bail to one Om Prakash Verma who claimed before the Court that the procedure laid down in the Standing Order to be followed while conducting seizure of the contraband was not followed in the instant case.
Case title - Raj Kumar Verma v. State of U.P. and Others
Case citation:2022 LiveLaw (AB) 114
The Allahabad High Court recently upheld the acquittal of a Murder-Robbery accused as it noted that the alleged extrajudicial confession made by all the accused persons was highly unnatural and the same was not corroborated by any other evidence.
Essentially, the Bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi was hearing an appeal filed by the informant of the case (US/ 372 CrPC) challenging the judgment and order of September 2021 passed by Additional Session Judge, Bijnor, acquitting the accused persons in a Murder-Robbery case.
Case title - Sangram Yadav v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 115
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the prosecution must stand on its own legs based on its own evidence and that suspicion can't be allowed to take the place of proof even in a domestic inquiry.
The bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma observed thus as it set aside the dismissal order passed against an Uttar Pradesh police official for allegedly misbehaving with the private cook under the influence of alcohol.
Case title - Nokhe Lal v. State of U.P. and 2 Others
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 116
While stressing that during the trial of a case, the testimonies of the interested witnesses have to be examined with extra care and caution, the Allahabad High Court today dismissed an appeal filed by the informant of the case challenging the acquittal order of the trial court in an attempt to murder case.
Finding serious discrepancies in the statements of the interested witnesses in the case, the Bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi upheld the October 2014 judgment and order passed by the ASJ, Mahoba acquitting two accused charged for offences under Sections 387, 307/34, 452, 323/34 and 427 IPC.
Case title - Mukis v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 117
The Allahabad High Court observed that Section 125 Cr.P.C. is enacted for social justice and especially to protect women and children and also old and infirm parents and that this provision falls within the constitutional sweep of Article 15 (3), re-enforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India.
The Bench of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav observed thus as it stressed that this provision gives effect to the natural and fundamental duty of a man to maintain his wife, children, and parents so long as they are unable to maintain themselves.
Case Title: Gamma Gaana Limited Versus Union Of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 118
The Allahabad High Court bench consisting of Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani and Justice Jayant Banerji observed that the refund application under the Goods and Service Tax (GST) cannot be rejected merely on the ground of delay.
"We find that the refund application of the petitioner could not have been rejected by the respondent merely on the ground of delay, ignoring the order of the Supreme Court," the court said.
Case Title: Prabhat Kumar And Others vs Dheeraj And Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 119
The Allahabad High Court enhanced the compensation granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to a minor (as he then was), who lost one kidney and suffered liver damage on being hit by a motorcycle while driving a moped.
Justice Ajai Tyagi said,
"The learned tribunal has not taken sympathetic view which is required by tribunal in such matters when the child has suffered such a great loss of body part. Theories of just compensation has also been overlooked by the tribunal while adjudicating this matter, just because no disability or injury report was filed."
Case title - C/M Jago Rajbhar Jago Samiti And Another V. Union Of India And 4 Others
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 120
The Allahabad High Court directed the Uttar Pradesh Government to take a decision over the representations forward to it by the Centre seeking inclusion of the State's Rajbhar community in the list of Scheduled Tribes.
The Bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Dinesh Pathak issued this direction on a plea moved by C/M Jago Rajbhar Jago Samiti moved through Advocate Agnihotri Kumar Tripathi.
Case title - United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Thru Its Divisional Manager v. Motor Accident Claim Tribunal
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 121
The Allahabad High Court imposed Rupees Five Lakhs on an insurance company while noting that it kept the litigation alive for almost 20 years in connection with a Motor Accident Claims case.
The Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh imposed the exemplary cost on the Insurance Company as they made the complainant (whose husband died in a motor accident in the year 1999) and her five minor children suffer beyond imagination.
Case Title: Amrita Nand @ Tribhuvan Arjariya @ Baba v. State of U.P. and Another.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 122
The Allahabad High Court held that the Competency Certificate of a child witness is not mandatory if the child gives rational answers to the court's questions and his testimony is unshaken, inspires confidence of the Court.
"Nowhere it is provided that certificate regarding the competency of the child witness is mandatory. If it is recorded, it is so far so good. But, if the court has put the question to understand his intellect to understand the question and if he replied the rational answer and thereafter his examination was recorded without recording the certificate regarding the competency of the witness and he was thereafter cross examined by counsel for the accused and had replied satisfactorily and given rational answer, therefore, in above circumstances not appending the certificate by the trial judge regarding the competency of the witness is of no consequence and it will not make his statement inadmissible," Justice Mohd. Aslam observed.
Case title - Upendra v. State of U.P.
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 123
The Allahabad High Court rejected the reference made to it to confirm the death penalty awarded to a man accused of Raping and murdering a 75-year-old woman. The Court observed that the investigation in the case had not been up to the mark.
Acquitting the accused, the Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Sameer Jain noted that in the instant case, blood and other biological material were not collected from the accused of DNA profiling as per the requirement of section 53-A CrPC.
Case title - Pankaj Tyagi v. State Of U.P. And Another
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 124
The Allahabad High Court reiterated that Genuineness or otherwise of the allegations cannot be even determined at the stage of summoning the accused.
The Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh observed thus while dismissing a 482 CrPC Application filed challenging the summoning order of the Magistrate.
Case title - Smt. Rekha Gautam v. State of U.P. and Another
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 125
Referring to the Apex Court's ruling in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha and another, (2021) 2 SCC 324, the Allahabad High Court observed that the maintenance has to be awarded from the date of application and not from the date of the order.
The Bench of Justice Samit Gopal observed thus as it opined that the order of the revisional court in granting maintenance to a lady and her minor children from the date of the order was illegal.
Case title - Khurshidurehman S. Rehman v. State of U P and another
Case Citation:2022 LiveLaw (All) 126
The Allahabad High Court observed that there is no penal provision under any statute to bring the political parties within the clutches of enforcement authorities, in case, they fail to fulfill their promises as made in the election manifesto.
The Bench of Justice Dinesh Pathak further clarified that a political party as a whole can't be made liable under the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 for adopting corrupt practices of the election.
17. Order U/S 111 CrPC Must Contain Reasons Of Executive Magistrate's Satisfaction: Allahabad High Court
Case title - Titu v. State Of U.P.And 2 Others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 127
The Allahabad High Court explained the scope and necessary ingredients of an order drawn under Section 111 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by an Executive Magistrate.
Case title - Daujee Abhushan Bhandar Pvt. Ltd. v. Union Of India And 2 Others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 128
The Allahabad High Court has recently held that mere digitally signing the notice as contemplated under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act is not the issuance of notice and that the notice needs to be sent/dispatched to the income tax assessee through paper or electronic devices and when it is so sent, that day would be considered as the date of issuance of notice.
The Bench of Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani and Justice Jayant Banerji observed thus as it further held that the dispatch of an electronic record occurs when it enters into computer resources outside the control of the originator.
Case title - Prakash @ Jai Prakash Ruhela v. State of U.P
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 129
The Allahabad High Court denied bail to a man who has been accused of running a fake lottery to dupe Indian nationals and sending the money to handlers in Pakistan.
The Bench of Justice Krishan Pahal opined that even though the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act have not been initiated against the bail-applicant, prakash, however, since the matter pertains to national security and therefore, it is not a fit case for bail.
Important Weekly Updates From the High Court/UP courts
1. Lawyer Appears In Court Without Gown, Allahabad High Court Calls It 'Unfortunate'
The Allahabad High Court recently pulled up a Lawyer who appeared in the court without a gown and termed it as 'unfortunate'.
The Bench of Justice Pritinker Diwaker and Justice Ashutosh Srivastava, however, did not refer the matter to the State Bar Council as it noted that he is a 'young' lawyer.
"Shri Sandeep, appeared in the Court without gown, this is unfortunate. However, considering the fact that the Shri Sandeep is a young lawyer, we could have referred the matter to the Bar Council also, but we are not referring the matter at this stage," the Court remarked.
Case title - Udgamya Seva Samiti Society Registered Under The Provisions Of The Societies Reg.Lko Thru.President v. The Food Safety And Standards Authority Of India New Delhi And Anr
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has directed the Commissioner, Food Safety & Drug Administration (State of UP) to file his personal affidavit in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea praying for setting up a State level Monitoring Committee for formulating a Standard Operating Procedure for collection and utilization of Used Cooking Oil (UCO).
It may be noted that Used Cooking Oil (UCO), are oils and fats that have already been used for cooking or frying and since its chemical composition contains carcinogenic substances (which promotes carcinogenesis, the formation of cancer) that resulted from the frying process, it is advised not to consume the same.
3. Reconsider Ban On Fee Hike In Private Schools: Allahabad High Court Asks Uttar Pradesh Govt
Case Title - Association Of Private Schools Of Up Through Its President Atul Kumar And Another v. State Of U.P. Through Principal Secy. Secondary Education Civil Secy., Lko And Others
The Allahabad High Court asked the Uttar Pradesh Government to reconsider the ban imposed by it on fee hikes in private schools. The Bench of Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi and Justice Narendra Kumar Johari ordered thus on a plea moved by the Association Of Private Schools Of UP.
Essentially, the ban was imposed by the State Govt on Jan 7, 2022 in view of the COVID situation taking note of the fact that schools were closed and people, in general, were facing financial difficulties.
Case Title: M/S Nanhey Mal Munna Lal Versus State Of U.P.
The Allahabad High Court, consisting of Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani and Justice Jayant Banerji, ruled that Form GST DRC-01A is a pre-show cause notice intimation which focuses on reducing litigation.
The petitioner/assessee submitted that before issuing the notice under Section 74(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 on Form GST DRC 01, the statement as required under Rule 142 (1A) of the CGST Rules, 2017 was not submitted by the proper officer to the petitioner. Therefore, on account of the non-compliance with the provisions of Rule 142 (1A) of the CGST Rules, the notice deserves to be quashed.
Bombay High Court
NOMINAL INDEX
Pankaj s/o Roshan Dhawan vs National e-Assessment Centre
Mohammad Nawab Mohammad Islam Malik @ Nawab Malik vs The Directorate of Enforcement and Ors.
Rachna Sanjay Kuwar v. The State of Maharashtra and Anr.
Chhagan Chandrakant Bhujbal Vs ITO
Vishnu Rajaram Thakar Vs. State of Maharashtra,Through Its Secretary, Tribal Development Dept. and Anr.
P vs A & Ors
Sankalp Resorts Limited & ors vs State of Maharashtra and ors
World Sport Group (India) Private Ltd v Board of Control for Cricket in India
Sonia Fazal Khan & Ors Versus Union of India & Ors
Mad Man Film Ventures Pvt. Ltd. vs Reliance Entertainment Studios Pvt. Ltd. & Ors
1. Reply Of The Taxpayer Not Considered: Bombay High Court Quashes Income Tax Faceless Assessment
Case Title: Pankaj s/o Roshan Dhawan Versus National e-Assessment Centre
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 81
The Bombay High Court bench quashed an income tax faceless assessment as the taxpayer's reply was not considered by the department/respondent.
The IT department has launched the Faceless Facility for income tax appeals. Under the facility, all the cases will be completed in a faceless way in a faceless environment, except for appeals that are related to evasion of tax, serious fraud, black money, international tax, and special research.
Case Title: Mohammad Nawab Mohammad Islam Malik @ Nawab Malik vs The Directorate of Enforcement and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 82
In its order refusing interim release of Maharashtra Cabinet Minister Nawab Malik, the Bombay High Court observed that prima facie claiming that a property is untainted would amount to an offence under section 3 of the PMLA 2002.
The court denied Malik interim release in his habeas corpus plea challenging PMLA proceedings. The crux of Nawab Malik's counsel's arguments was on the retrospective applicability of PMLA since ED had used the amended provision of section 3 of PMLA from 2013 and an explanation is inserted in the year 2019, for the transaction of the year 2003 and 2005.
However, the bench observed that a perusal of the unamended provisions of Section 3 mention "process or activity connected with proceeds of crime" as one of the ingredients. It's a wider term and its constitutional validity is not challenged. "What we prima facie feel that projection/claiming a property as untainted property is the objectionable act forming part of an offence under Section 3 of the Act of 2002."
Case Title: Rachna Sanjay Kuwar v. The State of Maharashtra and Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 83
The Bombay HC held that a medical aspirant domiciled in Maharashtra, but having passed 10th or 12th standard from outside the state shall not be eligible to avail the benefit under State quota for the purpose of NEET-UF examination.
"The Rule applicable since 2018 and followed consistently is that (i) the student should pass 10th and 12th standard from an institution situated within the State of Maharashtra and (ii) must be domicile of State of Maharashtra. Exception is if he has cleared 10th standard prior to the year 2017 from an institution outside the State of Maharashtra, he would still be eligible, provided he has passed 12th standard examination from an institution situated within the State of Maharashtra and he is also domicile of the Maharashtra," the Court said.
Case Title: Chhagan Chandrakant Bhujbal Vs ITO
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 84
The Bombay High Court bench upheld the validity of the reassessment notice issued within 5 hours of receiving information against Maharashtra Minister, Chhagan Chandrakant.
The court observed that the power vested in the commissioner under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act to grant or not to grant approval to the Assessing Officer to re-open an assessment is coupled with duty, and the commissioner is duty bound to apply his mind to the proposal put up to him for approval in the light of the material relied upon by the Assessing Officer. Such power cannot be exercised casually, in a routine and perfunctory manner.
Case Title: Vishnu Rajaram Thakar Vs. State of Maharashtra,Through Its Secretary, Tribal Development Dept. and Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 85
Holding that a Caste Scrutiny Committee can review its own decision only in exceptional cases when there is any playing of fraud or suppression of material facts or misrepresentation of facts, the Bombay High Court set aside a show cause notice by the Committee seeking to review it earlier orders.
A division bench said that a quasi-judicial authority did not have statutory power to review its own decision, but judicial pronouncements, while giving the power to the Committee to review its orders in exceptional cases in the past had held, "The principle of "finality of litigation" cannot be pressed to the extent of such an absurdity that it becomes an engine of fraud in the hands of dishonest litigants.
Case Title: Forum Against Oppression of Women in P vs A & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 86
Over five months after the Bombay High Court issued certain guidelines, including barring media reporting and uploading of judgements in POSH cases, to maintain anonymity of parties, the bench clarified that its directions were 'case specific' not applicable to all matters under the Protection of Women from Sexual Harassment (POSH) Act 2013 and Rules.
As per the September 24 directions, disclosing identity of the victim, accused or witness in a POSH case is prohibited, all such court hearing must be in-camera in the judge's chamber. Moreover, none of the parties were permitted to disclose anything about the case, including its final outcome; judgements not to be uploaded on the website and no media reporting without prior permission of the court.
"The directions had to be confined to this particular case," Justice Patel said in the latest order.
Case Title: Sankalp Resorts Limited & ors vs State of Maharashtra and ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 87
Once the Collector (even in a draft speaking order) opines that a privately owned land parcel is not a "private forest," the Central Government's permission under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 is unnecessary to exploit the land for development, the Bombay High Court held.
A division bench of Justices SJ Kathawalla and Milind Jadhav observed that the Central Act would apply only when a forest land is to be used for non-forest purposes, like when a project is to be set up on the forest land, and particulars of the proposed project are to be set out.
Case Title :World Sport Group (India) Private Ltd v Board of Control for Cricket in India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 88
Observing that the arbitral award of three former Supreme Court judges by 2:1 majority missed out on "huge chunks of important evidence or not even referred to it," the Bombay High Court set aside the award in favour of the Board of Control for Cricket (BCCI) in India. The court passed the order on a challenge to the award by World Sport Group (India) Private Ltd.
Justice BP Colabawalla, while setting aside the July 2020 award, also observed that while challenge to an arbitral award was not equivalent to an appeal, one of the grounds to challenge a domestic arbitral award, even after the amendment of the Act in 2015, was that it suffered from a patent illegality.
"The Supreme Court has clearly held that a decision of the Tribunal which is perverse, while no longer being a ground of challenge under the "public policy of India", would certainly amount to a patent illegality appearing on the face of the Award. The Supreme Court has inter alia held that a finding in the Award based on no evidence or an Award which ignores vital evidence in arriving at its decision, would be perverse and liable to be set aside on the ground of patent illegality," Justice Colabawalla observed in his March 16, 2022 judgement.
9. Son Can't Claim Right Or Share In Parents' Flats While They Are Alive : Bombay High Court
Case Title: Sonia Fazal Khan & Ors Versus Union of India & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 89
A son doesn't have any right, title or settled and enforceable share in his parent's flats till they are alive, the Bombay High Court has observed.
A division bench of Justices Gautam Patel and Madhav Jamdar rejected the son's suggestion that he has a settled and enforceable share in either of the flats in the lifetime of the real owners, his parents, as being "laughable." "The fact that he is their son does not make either of their flats 'a shared household", the bench said.
10. Bombay High Court Rejects Plea To Stay OTT Release of Movie 83 On Hotstar & Netflix
Case Title: Mad Man Film Ventures Pvt. Ltd. vs Reliance Entertainment Studios Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 90
Observing that prima facie - Netflix Global LLC and Star India have antecedent (prior) rights to exploit the film '83' on satellite and digital media for 10 years, the Bombay High Court refused ad-interim relief to Mad Man Film Ventures Pvt Ltd to stall the film's OTT release.
Mad Man was assigned 37.5% ownership in '83' as part on certain consent terms in 2021. However, the OTT platforms were assigned rights in 2017 and 2019, the HC noted. The HC reiterated the Supreme Court's observation in Chitraleka Builders and Anr. that "Consent Terms does not bind parties, who are not parties to the Consent Terms."
"They cannot be bound by any of the clause in the Consent Minutes of Order as contended by the Plaintiff… In fact, in my prima facie view, the Consent Minutes of Order will amount to an estoppel insofar as the Plaintiff is concerned who is a party to the Consent Minutes of Order as well as Consent Arbitral Award and by virtue of which the Plaintiff cannot challenge the assignment and licence agreements entered into in respect of the subject film with Defendant No. 4 and Defendant No. 5 respectively."
Calcutta High Court
Nominal Index
Galaxy Mechanical Engineering Equipments Private Limited Versus Assistant Commissioner 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 80
Concast Steel and Power Limited v. Sarat Chatterjee and Co 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 81
Sariful Sk. & Anr v. The State of West Bengal 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 82
Anindya Sundar Das v. Union of India and other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 83
Judgments/Orders
Case Title: Galaxy Mechanical Engineering Equipments Private Limited Versus Assistant Commissioner
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 80
The Calcutta High Court bench consisting of Justice ​​Md. Nizamuddin has suspended the order cancelling GST registration on the grounds that the allegations contained in the show cause notice were vague. The petitioner/assessee challenged the show-cause notice for cancellation of the GST registration of the petitioner and suspended the registration of the petitioner by the show-cause notice itself. The petitioner challenged the impugned show-cause notice on the ground that the show-cause notice was passed without providing any opportunity for hearing to the petitioner. The court was convinced that the allegation of the petitioner was correct since no reason has been given in the impugned order of cancellation, which was a non-speaking order, which was not sustainable in law. The order of cancellation of registration of the petitioner is set aside and all legal consequences will follow. "So far as part of the impugned show-cause notice for cancellation of registration, where registration of the petitioner has been suspended, this part of the impugned order will remain suspended since the allegation in the impugned show-cause notice is very vague and a one-line allegation without any basis, and for the ends of justice, a person against whom a show-cause notice has been issued should be at least provided in brief the basis of such an allegation so that the person can meet the allegations in the show-cause notice," the court said.
Case Title: Concast Steel and Power Limited v. Sarat Chatterjee and Co
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 81
The Calcutta High Court recently had the opportunity to expound on the principles pertaining to abatement of a suit under Order 22 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) involving a corporate entity that had been declared as insolvent by the National Company Law Tribunal. Justice Shekhar B. Saraf was adjudicating upon an application seeking dismissal of the instant suit on the grounds of abatement and further direction upon the Special Officer appointed by the Court to restrain him from carrying out the valuation and sale of the concerned goods (10,000 Metric Tons of "Metallurgical Coke" hereinafter referred to as "Met Coke"). Justice Saraf observed that since in the instant case, the liquidator has rendered appearance in meeting held by the Receiver and has made a constant effort to protect the interests of the plaintiff, it cannot be said that the liquidator has declined to continue the suit. It was further underscored that a mere delay on the part of the liquidator to implead himself in the instant proceedings cannot be in any manner be presumed to be an abatement of the suit. "..it is crystal clear that the liquidator is fighting tooth and nail with regard to this litigation and a mere delay in making an application for substituting his name in the records of the suit would not in any manner lead to an abatement of the suit. In fact, in my view the liquidator has never stopped acting in the suit but has continued diligently to act in the suit for the protection of the goods in the suit which the plaintiff claims to have title on. The very fact of the presence of the liquidator in the meetings held by the Receiver indicate a constant endeavour to protect the interest of the plaintiff in this case", the Court opined.
Case Title: Sariful Sk. & Anr v. The State of West Bengal
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 82
The Calcutta High Court has recently observed that a delay of a few hours in lodging of the FIR by a victim of gang rape will not vitiate the prosecution case since it is natural for the victim to remain disoriented and confused after having gone through such a traumatic experience thereby justifying such a delay. A Bench comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Bivas Pattanayak was adjudicating upon an appeal against a judgment of the concerned Sessions Court convicting the appellants for the offence of gang rape under Section 376(2)(g) of the IPC. Acknowledging that it is natural for a victim of gang rape to be disoriented and confused thereby causing a delay in lodging the FIR, the Court underscored further, "The victim underwent a traumatic experience of sexual assault and was panic stricken. She was confused and disoriented as to what would bring succour to her and naturally she waited for arrival of her husband who was in his office. After the arrival of her husband and on giving a cool thought she went to the police station to lodge complaint in the evening around 8.30/9PM. This obviously has led to delay of few hours in lodging of the FIR. There is no case of embellishment or concoction of facts in the FIR due to such delay." Reliance was also placed on the Supreme Court judgment in State of Chhattisgarh v. Derha to hold that even otherwise, the mere factum of delay in filing complaint in regard to an offence of this nature by itself would not be fatal so as to vitiate the prosecution case.
Case Title: Anindya Sundar Das v. Union of India and other connected matters
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 83
The Calcutta High Court has granted police protection to 303 alleged victims of violence that had taken place post the declaration of the West Bengal assembly elections in May 2021. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajrashi Bharadwaj took on record a detailed affidavit filed by petitioner Priyanka Tibrewal appearing in person wherein the names and contact details of 303 alleged victims of post-poll violence had been enumerated.Taking cognisance of the grievance raised, the Court directed the petitioner to serve a copy of the affidavit filed to the Advocate General as well as the DG & IG of Police, West Bengal so that necessary action could be taken. Furthermore, the DG & IG of Police was directed to ensure that the 303 alleged victims are not harassed by police authorities or local goons. During the hearing, the petitioner also averred that a Committee should be constituted comprising 2 members- one from the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and another from the West Bengal Human Rights Commission (WBHRC) so that the affidavit containing the names of the 303 alleged victims can be placed before the Committee in order to ascertain the real ground position. Accordingly, the Court allowed the petitioner to implead the NHRC as a party to the instant proceedings.
Important Developments
Trinamool Congress (TMC) leader Anubrata Mondal on Monday moved a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court against a Single Bench order wherein he had been denied any relief from appearing before the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in Kolkata for questioning in the ongoing cattle smuggling probe. Mondal had moved a Single Bench of the High Court pursuant to the issuance of a CBI notice under Section 160 of CrPC directing him to appear before its investigating team for questioning in the CBI office at Nizam Palace, Kolkata. He had declined to appear before the CBI on three prior occasions citing various medical ailments. Mondal had also requested for the questioning to take place at a place nearer to his residence considering the ongoing pandemic. Justice Rajasekhar Mantha had dismissed the plea of Mondal after noting that he had travelled outside Bolpur on several occasions and that his aliments as examined by the Medical Board are not that serious that would requirement confinement to his home or a hospital. "Having carefully heard the submissions of the parties, this Court notes that indeed the petitioner has been traveling outside Bolpur and on a couple of instances traveled all the way to Howrah. He has appeared in Kolkata before the Medical Board, the ailments referred to by the Medical Board are not as serious as to require the petitioner to remain confined to his home or a hospital", the Court had recorded. The Court had further observed that the instant case does not warrant an interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as an alternate remedy is available under Section 438 of CrPC.
2. Anis Khan Death: Calcutta High Court Orders SIT To Complete Investigation Within 1 Month
The Calcutta High Court has directed the Special Investigation Team (SIT) to complete investigation into the death of student activist Anis Khan within 1 month. Anish Khan was found dead at his home in Amta block in Howrah district in the early hours of Saturday, February 19, 2022 under mysterious circumstances. The Court had earlier taken suo moto cognisance of the case after terming the incident as 'grave and shocking'. On Monday, Justice Mantha directed the SIT to complete investigation into the case within 1 month without any delay following which the Court would take a decision as to whether the investigation is required to be handed over to the CBI. Opining that it is expected that the investigating agency will conclude its investigation expeditiously the Court adjourned the hearing to April 18 and further remarked, "Let this matter stand adjourned and be listed on April 18, 2022. It is expected that the investigation will be completed in the meantime. Extension of time shall not be considered except for reasons completely beyond the control of the Investigating Agency." Justice Mantha further observed that the SIT should function without any external interference. Directing the concerned forensic laboratories to submit the forensic reports to the SIT within a period of 1 week, the Court observed further, "It is submitted that FSL and CFSL reports are awaited by the Investigating Agency. The laboratories and/or institutions preparing the reports, are requested to expedite the process and ensure such reports positively reach the SIT within a period of one week from date."
Case Title: In the matter of : Ansar Ali @ Md. Ansar Ali
In an unprecedented development, the Calcutta High Court directed the concerned police authorities to ensure the presence of a lawyer who had allegedly tried to mislead the Court while seeking bail for an accused. Such an order was issued after the lawyer had left the Court premises during recess and had failed to appear before the Court post recess to continue with his submissions despite the Court's direction to this effect. A Bench comprising Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Bibhas Ranjan De recorded in the order that prior to recess, advocate Arindam Roy had been asked to appear and make his submissions. However, he had requested the Bench for further time and had therefore been directed to come back post recess at 2pm to continue with his submissions. However, post recess, the Bench was surprised to learn that advocate Arindam Roy had left the Court's premises during recess. Directing the police authorities to ensure his presence on the next date of hearing, the Court directed, "The Court is informed that Mr. Arindam Roy left the Court premises during recess. He is not appearing now...In such circumstances, the police are requested to ensure the presence of Mr. Arindam Roy, Advocate in Court on the next date." The Court further underscored that given the serious allegations levelled against him by the State it would be appropriate to grant him an opportunity to explain his conduct and accordingly observed, "In view of the serious allegations levelled against him and in view of the affidavit filed on behalf of the State relating to the case, it would be appropriate to grant an opportunity to Mr. Arindam Roy, Advocate to appear and explains his conduct. Given his conduct his presence should be ensured."
Delhi High Court
NOMINAL INDEX
JIVANLAL JOITARAM PATEL v. NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 202
Mrs. Jayanti Dalmia Versus DCIT 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 203
SAVE NIMISHA PRIYA INTERNATIONAL ACTION COUNCIL THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 204
STAR INDIA PVT. LTD. & ANR. v. LIVE.FLIXHUB.NET & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 205
SANTOSH TRUST & ANR. v. NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 206
WING COMMANDER SHYAM NAITHANI v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 207
ADOBE, INC v. NAMASE PATEL AND OTHERS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 208
KINGS FURNISHING AND SAFE CO v. THE COMMISSIONER & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 209
DELHI WAQF BOARD Through its Chairman v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 210
Jagdish Sharma v. Union of India & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 211
LALIT RAJ v. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 212
MR. ABHISHEK GUPTA & ANR. v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 213
ANUPAM & ORS. v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI THROUGH: ITS REGISTRAR & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 214
JUDGMENTS/ORDERS
1. Arbitral Fee Under Fourth Schedule Based On Aggregate Value Of Claim & Counter-Claim : Delhi High Court
Case Title: JIVANLAL JOITARAM PATEL v. NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 202
The Delhi High Court has observed that the term "sum in dispute" provided in the 4th Schedule to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has to be interpreted so as to include the aggregate value of the claims as well as counter claims.
The High Court disagreed with the Arbitrator's view that the claims and counter-claims have to be assessed separately for calculation of fee as per the fee scale provided under the 4th Schedule.
"The term "sum in dispute", would take in its ambit claims as well as counter claims. The said expression "sum in dispute" used in the 4th Schedule to the Act has to be given its ordinary meaning, to include the total amount of claim made by the claimant, and the total amount of counter claim made by the respondent", a bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Amit Bansal observed.
2. Refusal To Fill Consent Form To Obtain Information About Swiss Bank Account, Delhi High Court Upholds Penalty
Case Title: Mrs. Jayanti Dalmia Versus DCIT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 203
The Delhi High Court has upheld the penalty issued under the Income Tax ActIncome Tax Act, 1961 upon an assessee who had failed to fill the consent-cum-waiver form to enable the tax authorities to obtain information about the alleged Swiss Bank accounts held by it.
The Bench, consisting of Justices Manmohan and Sudhir Kumar Jain, has held that even if the Assessee had no connection with the alleged Swiss Bank accounts, no prejudice would have been caused to her if she had complied with the notice issued under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act and had filled the consent form.
The Delhi High Court observed that in the case of Sanjay Dalmia versus PCIT (2018), the Delhi High Court had upheld the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act which had arisen from the same search and bank account under consideration in the present case and for the same reason of not having filled the consent form. Also, the High Court observed that a Special Leave Petition against the said order was dismissed by the Supreme Court.
The High Court also observed that the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Selvi & Ors had no application to the facts of the present case as the same had only upheld the principle of 'right of silence' in the context of criminal proceedings.
3. Nimisha Priya Case | Will Appeal Against Death Penalty In Yemen, Not Participate In Negotiations With Victim's Family: Centre To Delhi High Court
Case Title: SAVE NIMISHA PRIYA INTERNATIONAL ACTION COUNCIL THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 204
The Centre has informed the Delhi High Court that it will take appropriate steps to institute an appeal before the next appellate forum challenging the death penalty awarded to Nimisha Priya, an Indian woman who was convicted by a Yemen court for killing a local in 2017.
Anurag Ahluwalia appearing for the Centre, on instructions, apprised Justice Yashwant Varma that the Government of India shall take all proactive steps to institute an appeal before next appellate forum in accordance with prevalent law in Yemen.
He also apprised the Court that the Councillor present in Yemen shall extend cooperation and facilitate the travel of persons wanting to negotiate with victim's family in order to pursue their purported aim to settle the dispute.
The Centre also informed the Court that it is providing miscellaneous amounts to Priya for her daily expenses inside prison.
Accordingly, the Court requested the concerned Ministry to duly pursue the remedy of further appeal against order of conviction and the plea was disposed of.
4. IPL 2022: Delhi High Court Orders Blocking Of Rogue Websites Illegally Streaming Cricket Matches
Case Title: STAR INDIA PVT. LTD. & ANR. v. LIVE.FLIXHUB.NET & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 205
The Delhi High Court has ordered for blocking of 8 rogue websites alleged to be illegally streaming cricket matches of TATA Indian Premier League (IPL) 2022.
Considering the fact that the match is starting from 26th March, 2022, Justice Pratibha M Singh was of the view that there was an imminent need to protect the investment of the plaintiffs, Star India Private Limited, as also to ensure that such Rogue Websites do not illegally stream the said cricket matches.
"The Court has perused the plaint as also the documents. The documentary evidence and the screenshots placed on record prima facie show that the following websites have previously streamed pirated content of the cricket matches for which the Plaintiffs hold Exclusive Rights," the Court noted.
5. Ukraine-Returned Indian Medical Students Have Lost Their Seats: Delhi High Court While Allowing Medical College's Plea To Increase Seats
Case Title: SANTOSH TRUST & ANR. v. NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 206
The Delhi High Court has directed increase in the number of seats in various post graduate and under graduate courses in a medical educational institute being run and managed by Santosh Trust, formerly known as the Maharaji Educational Trust in the city.
Taking note of the recent conflict between Ukraine and Russia, Justice Rekha Palli said that several thousand rescued Indian medical students, who had gone to pursue their medical education in Ukraine, have also lost their seats in medical colleges.
Accordingly, the Court directed the National Medical Commission and other respondent authorities to grant permission to the institute on the basis of the an inspection report and to increase the seats from 4 to 7 in MS (Obstetrics & Gynaecology), from 3 to 7 in MS (Orthopaedics), and from 100 to 150 in the MBBS course.
6. Armed Forces Tribunal Act Excludes Administrative Supervision Of High Court But Not Judicial Superintendence & Jurisdiction U/A 226: Delhi HC
Case Title: WING COMMANDER SHYAM NAITHANI v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 207
The Delhi High Court has held that while the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 excludes the administrative supervision of the High Court under Article 227(4) of the Constitution but, it does not exclude the judicial superintendence and jurisdiction under Article 226.
A division bench comprising of Justice Manmohan and Justice Navin Chawla was dealing with a bunch of pleas raising the issue as to whether the power of Judicial Review conferred upon the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 has been taken away in view of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Union of India and Ors. vs. Maj. Gen. Shri Kant Sharma and Anr. thereby denying litigants the right to approach High Court in writ jurisdiction against the judgment and orders passed by Armed Forces Tribunal.
7. Delhi High Court Grants Ex-Parte Injunction In Favour Of 'ADOBE' In Trademark Infringement Suit
Case Title: ADOBE, INC v. NAMASE PATEL AND OTHERS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 208
The Delhi High Court has granted ex-parte injunction in favour of ADOBE in a trademark infringement suit against one Namase Patel, who had registered the domain names www.addobe.com and www.adobee.com in respect of computer software and other IT related services.
The plaintiff alleged that the defendant concerned had registered the Infringing Domains thereby engaging in completely illegal conduct for the last several years.
Justice Pratibha M Singh perused the list of domain names of the Defendant and various orders passed by the US National Arbitration Forum and other arbitral institutions and was of the view that the same clearly showed that the Defendant seemed to be a habitual cyber squatter engaged in registering various domain names.
8. State's Duty To Remove Unauthorised Religious Structures Constructed On Public Land : Delhi High Court
Case Title: KINGS FURNISHING AND SAFE CO v. THE COMMISSIONER & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 209
Emphasizing that the State authorities remain duty bound to remove all unauthorised constructions on public land, the Delhi High Court has said that the mere fact that such encroachments represent religious structures, a place of worship or are given colour of a religious structure cannot detract or dilute the authorities from that obligation.
Justice Yashwant Varma was dealing with a petition concerning the encroachments made on a public pathway in city's Rani Jhansi Road.
The counsel appearing on behalf of the Delhi Government apprised the Court that the Religious Committee, constituted in terms of a Government Circular dated 05 May 2014, had addressed a communication dated 07 December 2021 to the concerned Corporation. It was submitted that further information and inputs in order to assess the steps liable to be taken were awaited.
9. Delhi High Court Allows Reopening Of Four Floors Of Masjid In Nizamuddin Markaz On Shab-e-Barat
Case Title: DELHI WAQF BOARD Through its Chairman v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 210
The Delhi High Court allowed reopening of four floors, including Ground floor as well as three floors, of the masjid premises in Nizamuddin Markaz for offering of prayers on the festival of Shab e-Barat.
Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri however removed the Delhi Police's restriction of only permitting 100 people inside Masjid to offer namaz by ordering that the management will ensure that while allowing the devotees on a particular floor, the COVID protocols and social distancing norms will be followed.
Public entry was banned at the Nizamuddin Markaz in the aftermath of Tablighi Jamaat members testing positive for Covid-19 in 2020.
10. 'Completely Frivolous': Delhi High Court Refuses To Entertain PIL Seeking Probe Into AAP's Alleged Links With Banned Khalistani Organisation
Case Title: Jagdish Sharma v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 211
The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a public interest litigation, seeking a High Level Inquiry against the allegations of links between banned Khalistani organisation 'Sikhs for Justice' and Arvind Kejriwal led Aam Aadmi Party (AAP).
The plea also sought to bar the party from contesting elections until the enquiry is completed and to temporarily suspend its membership from the election commission.
A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla rejected the plea filed by one Jagdish Sharma, stating that it is "completely frivolous'.
The plea referred to a letter addressed by former Chief Minister of Punjab, Charanjeet Singh Channi, to Home Minister Amit Shah, alleging that the Aam Aadmi Party which is currently leading the Delhi government is taking financial support from the banned khalistani organization.
11. Writ To Compel Police To Conduct Investigation Can Be Denied For Not Exhausting Alternative & Efficacious Remedy Under CrPC: Delhi High Court
Case Title: LALIT RAJ v. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 212
The Delhi High Court has observed that a writ to compel police to conduct an investigation can be denied for not exhausting the alternative and efficacious remedy available under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Justice Chadra Dhari Singh however added that such writ may be denied unless the exceptions enumerated in the decision of Apex Court in Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh are satisfied.
The Supreme Court in the said judgment had said that the exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy arise where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of a fundamental right or when there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice or in cases where order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or when vires of a legislation is challenged.
With the said observation, the Court dismissed a plea filed under Article 226 & 227 seeking immediate arrest of accused persons and taking appropriate action against the investigation officer for delay in lodging FIR and helping accused persons.
12. FIR & Chargesheet Can Be Quashed If Allegations Or Evidence Do Not Establish Commission Of An Offence: Delhi High Court
Title: MR. ABHISHEK GUPTA & ANR. v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 213
The Delhi High Court has observed that the FIR and chargesheet can be quashed if the allegations made in the FIR or complaint or the evidence collected, though remaining uncontroverted, do not disclose the commission of an offence.
Justice Asha Menon was of the view that the the decision of the Court to exercise or not to exercise the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. would be predicated on the facts of each case, however, while considering the facts, the court cannot embark on an inquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR.
The Court was dealing with a plea seeking quashing of chargesheet dated 4th December, 2021 emanating from an FIR registered with the Crime Branch, Rohini on the basis of a complaint lodged by the respondent No.2 by way of an email addressed to the Commissioner of Police, Delhi.
13. Data On Students' Personal Info Well Protected In ERP Software: Delhi University Tells High Court
Case Title: ANUPAM & ORS. v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI THROUGH: ITS REGISTRAR & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 214
The University of Delhi has told the Delhi High Court that the entire data related to the personal information of students has been well protected and kept with University developed Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) software and that the University has a privacy policy in respect of the data received.
Justice Pratibha M Singh was dealing with a plea filed by final year students of the University in July, 2020 being aggrieved over the conduct of the online Open Book Examinations by the University.
The Petitioners sought quashing and withdrawal of the notifications dated 14th May, 2020, 30th May, 2020 and 27th June, 2020 in respect of undergraduate and postgraduate students, including students of the School of Open Learning and Non-Collegiate Women Education Board. It was pointed out that there were several glitches in the online portal of DU.
Vide order dated 5th February, 2021, on the aspect of data privacy, the Court had directed the University to file an affidavit as to whether it has a privacy policy, in respect of the entire data related to the personal information of students which has been collected, and kept with the ERP software.
The Court was therefore informed and assured that the data relating to the personal information of students is well protected with an ERP software, and that the access to the same is restricted to the designated officers of the Examination Unit, the Admissions Unit and other Administrative Unit of the University.
IMPORTANT WEEKLY UPDATES
1. Class 1 Admissions - Last Date For Application Extended Till April 11 : Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Tells Delhi HC
The Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan has told the Delhi High Court that the last date for submitting the online application for admission to class I in Kendriya Vidyalayas for the upcoming academic year will be extended from March 21 to April 11, 2022.
Taking note of the aforesaid stand, Justice Rekha Palli deferred passing any interim order in the plea challenging the admission criteria of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) to the extent that it prescribed a minimum age criteria of 6 years as on March 31, 2022 for admission to class I in academic year 2022-23.
The plea has been moved by a five year old girl stating that the impugned admission criteria of KVS is violative of fundamental and statutory right to education of petitioner as guaranteed to her under Articles 14, 21 and 21-A of the Constitution of India read with the provisions of Delhi School Education Act, 1973 and Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009.
2. Delhi Riots| "Shahrukh Pathan Has Family History Of Criminal Cases, Has No Remorse For Illegal Acts": Prosecution Opposes Bail Plea In High Court
Opposing the bail plea filed by Shahrukh Pathan, the man who pointed a gun at a policeman during North East Delhi riots, the prosecution has told the High Court that Pathan has family history of criminal cases and that he has no remorse for his illegal actions.
The case relates to rioting, causing injuries to police personnel and gunshot injury sustained by one Rohit Shukla by an armed mob. (FIR 49/2020 registered at Jafrabad Police Station)
In the status report filed in the bail plea, it has been stated that Pathan can influence the witnesses in active and passive way as he has a family history of crime.
The bail plea is opposed on the ground that Pathan has been involved in one other case of riots wherein he had already been denied bail.
3. "Investigate Without Fear Or Influence": High Court Tells Delhi Police Probing Death Of Man Forced To Sing National Anthem During Riots
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday asked the city police to conduct further investigation without any fear or influence, in the case of 23 year old Faizan, who was forced to sing the national anthem during the Delhi riots that erupted in the year 2020.
The incident relates to a video that had gone viral wherein Faizan could be seen allegedly being beaten by the police while being forced to sing the national anthem and 'Vande Mataram'.
The Court was dealing with a plea filed by Kismatun, Faizan's mother, seeking a SIT probe into her son's death. Kismatun claims in her plea that the police had illegally detained her son and denied him critical health care as a result of which he succumbed to injuries on February 26, 2020.
4. INX Media Case: Justice Chandra Dhari Singh Of Delhi HC Recuses From ED's Plea Challenging Order To Provide Documents To P Chidambaram, His Son
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh of the Delhi High Court on Monday recused from hearing a plea by Enforcement Directorate (ED) in the INX Media money laundering case challenging a Trial Court order directing supply of copies of all unrelied documents of the case to Former Union Minister P Chidambaram and his son Karti P. Chidambaram.
"I am not hearing this matter. I am transferring it," said the judge while ordering that the plea will now be listed before some other bench on March 16.
The plea has challenged an order passed by Special Judge of Rouse Avenue Courts dated January 25, 2020 which was passed on the applications moved by the P Chidambaram and his son seeking inspection of the unrelied documents.
It is pertinent to note that the High Court had in November last year dismissed a similar plea by CBI challenging the Special Judge's order directing it to allow the accused persons to inspect the documents kept in Malkhana room collected by the agency while investigating the INX Media Case.
Gujarat High Court
NOMINAL INDEX
Kabindra Satyanarayan Singh v. State of Gujarat thru The Addl. Chief Secretary 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 78
Rubina @ Rubi Anwarhusen Sunni (Muslim) Versus State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 79
State Of Gujarat v. Ratniyabhai Nevsingbhai Rathva 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 80
Reliance General Insurance Company Limited v. Ashaben Vikrambhai Chauhan 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 81
Judgments/Orders of the Week
Case Title: Kabindra Satyanarayan Singh v. State of Gujarat thru The Addl. Chief Secretary
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 78
The Gujarat High Court has directed the State authorities to consider regularizing the services of Petitioner-employees, working on contractual basis on interceptor boats for coastal security in the State's Home Department since over 11 years.
The Bench comprising Justice Biren Vaishnav noted that the Petitioners had been recruited, albeit, on a contractual basis, after a public advertisement and a duly constituted selection committee consisting of the Additional Secretary, Law & Order, Director of Sainik Welfare Board, a representative each of the police, navy and coats guard respectively and a Jilla Sainik Kalyan Officer.
Case Title: Rubina @ Rubi Anwarhusen Sunni (Muslim) Versus State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 79
The Gujarat High Court granted regular bail to a Rohingya woman alleged to have committed offences under Sections 465, 467, 471, 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 6 of the Passport Act and Sections 13, 14A(a) and 14A(b) of Foreigners Act.
The Applicant had submitted that considering the nature of allegations and the role of the Applicant, it was suitable to be released on bail. Per contra, the Respondent-Authority vehemently contended that the nature of the offence was grave and bail should not be granted.
3. Intention Or Knowledge Essential To Attract Section 307 IPC: Gujarat High Court
Case Title: State Of Gujarat v. Ratniyabhai Nevsingbhai Rathva
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 80
"What is material to attract offense under section 307 of the IPC is the intention or knowledge with which all the acts are done irrespective of its results", the Gujarat High Court has held recently.
Justice Sandeep Bhatt made this observation in connection with a criminal appeal challenging the order of acquittal of the accused for offences under Sections 147 (Rioting), 148 (Rioting, armed with deadly weapon), 149/143 (Unlawful assembly), 307 (Attempt to murder), 323 (Voluntarily causing hurt), 325 (Voluntarily causing grievous hurt), 504 (Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace) and 506(2) (Criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code.
Case Title: Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Versus Ashaben Vikrambhai Chauhan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 81
The Gujarat High Court has held that when proceedings against a driver are instituted for negligence causing a motor accident, then such driver's statements cannot form part of the charge sheet filed against him.
"The copy of charge-sheet filed against the driver of the offending vehicle – Truck and the fact that he is prosecuted in the Court of law, if at all, chargesheet is filed against the driver, his own statement recorded in the said criminal case would never form a part of charge-sheet as it cannot be used against him during the course of trial", Justice Umesh Trivedi opined.
Important Weekly Updates From the High Court
Case title - Bharatbhai Thobhanbhai Koyani v Jayendrasinh Udesinh Gohil
The Gujarat High Court took a serious note of a plea moved by an advocate who sought to initiate contempt of court proceedings against a police officer for violation of guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court of India in Arnesh Kumar v. State Of Bihar, by alleging that the officer/alleged contemnor detained him on account of a previous grudge.
Having heard the matter, the Bench of Chief Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Ashutosh J Shastri, termed it as a 'serious' issue, and orally asked the respondent as to why this was done and why did he implicate the lawyer in the case.
Case Title: Nikunj Jayantilal Mevada vs The State of Gujarat and Ors
The Gujarat High Court has issued notice to the Respondent authorities in a PIL seeking protection of the rights of pregnant women, unborn infants and the right of childbirth for pregnant women.
The Petitioner who came to know of the case of a poor pregnant woman who was denied treatment on the ground that she could not deliver the payment of INR 42,000 before treatment, has now filed this petition. The Petitioner seeks:
1. The doctors and the hospital and other necessary institutions be duty bound to provide medical aid to any pregnant woman in extreme labour pain or in a medical emergency.
2. Further, Respondent authorities must formulate schemes and policies for protecting human rights of pregnant women and rights during childbirth per Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
3. Prompt penal and/or compensatory reaction be initiated against wrong doers for violation of the rights of pregnant women through denial of medical aid or emergency care etc.
Case Title: Purnesh Ishvarbhai Modi Versus State Of Gujarat
The Gujarat High Court is set to examine whether a Magistrate can reject an application filed by the complainant seeking explanation of the accused under Section 313 of CrPC, upon the evidence produced against him.
The provision stipulates power of the Court to examine the accused and enable him to personally explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him.
In the instant case, the accused was booked for offences punishable under Sections 499 and 500 of IPC. The Petitioner (complainant) had produced electronic evidence and subsequently, submitted an application before the trial court for the purpose of enabling the accused person to explain the contents of the CD and/or Pen Drive and other electronic records relating to the accused's speech per Section 313 of CrPC. However, this application was rejected.
Himachal Prasad High Court
Case Title: Roshan Lal v. HP Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (HP) 7
The Himachal Pradesh High Court, recently expressed shock at the arbitrary appointments made by the State Electricity Board and the HP Power Corporation, without even conducting any formal selection process.
The bench of Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia observed,
"The official respondents cannot act as despots or monarchs and are obliged to act in accordance with the principles of democracy, equity, equality and solidarity. 25 The entire scenario shocks the conscience of this Court to come across such systematic fraud committed by those who are at the helm of affairs of respondent-Corporation in dealing with its property as if it was their personal property."
Jharkhand High Court
Case Title: M/s Nkas Services Private Limited Versus State of Jharkhand
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 26
The Jharkhand High Court bench consisting of Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice Deepak Roshan has quashed the show cause notice issued under Goods and Service Tax (GST) for not containing the allegations of violation, amounting to a violation of principles of natural justice.
The petitioner/assessee challenged the impugned show cause notice issued by the respondent/department under Section 73 of the Jharkhand Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 and the summary of show cause notice in FORM-DRC-01 was also issued by the department in exercise of power under Rule 142 (1) (a) of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax (JGST) Rules, 2017.
Karnataka High Court
Nominal Index:
Mahantesh v. Netharavati, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 74
Resham v. State of Karnataka and Others with connected cases, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 75
Snapdeal Pvt. Ltd V State Of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 76
Narendra Prasad P. V N. Sujatha, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 77
Sunil Chajed v State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 78
Navodaya Medical College V. The State Of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 79
Kasturi Rajupeta V. Union Of India, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 80
Judgement/Order/Reports
Case Title: Mahantesh v. Netharavati Case No: M.F.A. No.100096/2019 (MV)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 74
The Karnataka High Court has said that the insurance company will not be liable to pay compensation, if a heavy goods vehicle is driven by a person holding a light motor vehicle license. A single judge bench of Justice S Vishwajit Shetty while partly allowing an appeal filed by one Mahantesh, owner of a tipper lorry said, "The vehicle in question which is categorised as a heavy goods vehicle comes within the meaning of Section 2(16) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as the gross vehicle weight undisputedly exceeds 12000 kg. Under the circumstances, the Tribunal was fully justified in holding that the offending vehicle was used in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy and therefore the insurer of the offending vehicle was not liable to pay the compensation."
Case Title: Resham v. State of Karnataka and Others with connected cases
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 75
Wearing of hijab is not a part of Essential Religious Practice in Islamic faith and thus, is not protected under Article 25 of the Constitution, the Karnataka High Court has held today. A Full Bench of the High Court further held that prescription of school uniform by the State is a reasonable restriction the students' rights under Article 25 and thus, the Government Order issued by the Karnataka government dated February 5 is not violative of their rights.
3: Karnataka Education Act Empowers Government To Prescribe Uniform: Karnataka High Court In Hijab Case
Case Title: Resham v. State of Karnataka and Others with connected cases
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 75
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday upheld the validity of the Government order dated February 5, providing for prescription of dress code in educational institutions.
A full bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi, Justice Krishan S Dixit and Justice J M Khazi said, "Section 133(2) of the (Education) Act which is broadly worded empowers the government to issue any directions to give effect to the purposes of the Act or to any provision of the Act or to any Rule made thereunder."
Case Title: Resham v. State of Karnataka and Others with connected cases
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 75
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday, while upholding the ban on wearing hijab in government colleges, observed that prescription of a uniform for all students will promote a sense of "constitutional secularism" within the institution. "The school regulations prescribing dress code for all the students as one homogenous class, serve constitutional secularism", the Court observed.
Case Title: Resham v. State of Karnataka and Others with connected cases
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 75
The Karnataka High Court, while declaring that the wearing of hijab by Muslim women is not an 'essential religious practice' in Islamic Faith, said that, "The Holy Quran does not mandate wearing of hijab or headgear for Muslim women". The Court also observed that the prescriptions in suras regarding Hijab are not mandatory. "The Holy Quran does not mandate wearing of hijab or headgear for Muslim women. Whatever is stated in the above sūras, we say, is only directory , because of absence of prescription of penalty or penance for not wearing hijab, the linguistic structure of verses supports this view", the Court observed.
Case Title: Resham v. State of Karnataka and Others with connected cases
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 75
The Karnataka High Court, while upholding the ban on wearing hijab in educational institutions, has said that the insistence on wearing of purdah, veil, or headgear in any community may hinder hinder the process of emancipation of woman in general and Muslim woman in particular. A full bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi, Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice J M Khazi said, "There is a lot of scope for the argument that insistence on wearing of purdah, veil, or headgear in any community may hinder the process of emancipation of woman in general and Muslim woman in particular. That militates against our constitutional spirit of 'equal opportunity' of 'public participation' and 'positive secularism'."
Case Title: Resham v. State of Karnataka and Others with connected cases
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 75
The Karnataka High Court in its judgement upholding the ban on wearing hijab has said it expects a speedy & effective investigation into the matter against 'unseen hands' who are at work to engineer social unrest and disharmony. A full bench led by Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi said, "From the submissions made on behalf of the Respondent – Pre – University College at Udupi and the material placed on record, we notice that all was well with the dress code since 2004."
Case Title: Snapdeal Pvt. Ltd V State Of Karnataka
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 76.
The Karnataka High Court has quashed a criminal case registered under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act against Snapdeal Private Limited and its directors Kunal Bahl and Rohit Kumar Bansal for allegedly allowing sale of drug - Suhagra tablets, on its online portal without possessing a valid license.
Justice MG Uma said, "Intermediary as defined under Section 2(w) of IT Act or its Directors/Officers would not be liable for any action or inaction on the part of the vendor/seller making use of the facilities provided by the intermediary in terms of a website or a market place and that the Snapdeal/accused No.2 could not be responsible and/or liable for sale of any item not complying with the requirements under the Act on its platform by accused No.1 since the essential ingredients of Section 18(1)(c) of the Act not having been fulfilled neither Snapdeal nor its Directors can be prosecuted for the offence under Section 27(b)(ii) of the Act."
Case Title: Narendra Prasad P. V N. Sujatha
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 77
The Karnataka High Court has said that a private complaint made before the magistrate court alleging offence under section 191 of Indian Penal Code is maintainable, if the forgery of document took place outside the Court before the document was produced as evidence in the court proceedings. A single judge bench of Justice H P Sandesh set aside the order of the magistrate court dismissing a private complaint and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration. It said,
Case Title: Sunil Chajed v State of Karnataka
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 78
The Karnataka High Court has said that Tahsildar Under Section 140(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act has power to determine the boundary of a survey number or a holding. The aforesaid power can be exercised in respect of a survey number or a holding irrespective of the fact whether the same is situated within the Municipal limits or outside the municipal limits. A division bench of Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice S Vishwajith Shetty while setting aside a single judge bench order dated October 1, 20202 said, "Section 140(2) of the Act provides that if any dispute arises concerning the boundary of survey number or a sub division of a survey number or a holding, the Tahsildar shall decide the dispute having due regard to the land records. Thus, it is evident that Tahsildar Under Section 140(2) of the Act has power to determine the boundary of a survey number or a holding."
11: Karnataka High Court Quashes Seat Matrix Of Telugu Linguistic Minority In A Medical College
Case Title: Navodaya Medical College V. The State Of Karnataka
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 79
The Karnataka High Court has quashed the revised seat matrix issued on January 31, for postgraduate and undergraduate courses in medicine for the academic year 2021-22, by which only Telugu Linguistic minority students residing in Hyderabad-Karnataka region are allowed to apply in a Linguistic minority institution located in that region.
A division bench of Justice K. Somashekar And Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde said, "The impugned communication dated 31.01.2022 and revised seat matrix are quashed in so far as it is applicable to the petitioner's institution (NAVODAYA MEDICAL COLLEGE).
Case Title: KASTURI RAJUPETA v. UNION OF INDIA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 80
The Karnataka High Court has held that the permission from a trial court is not necessary for renewal of passport when the proceedings are stayed by a higher court. The Court directed the Regional Passport Officer to consider a woman's application for renewal of her passport without insisting upon a facilitative order from the concerned Criminal Court before whom a case registered against her is pending.
Other Reports:
Case Title: Vijayan Menon v. Secretary Urban Development Department
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday directed the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) to fill up/ repair potholes in the Central Business District (CBD) area of Bengaluru City, within 15 days. A division bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice S R Krishna Kumar said, "The memo has been filed by respondent in compliance of earlier order, giving a work plan to repair potholes in the CBD area of Bengaluru city. We are not satisfied with the said work plan. We have discussed the problem with the Chief Commissioner (BBMP) and Chief Engineer, and want the filling up/repair of potholes in CBD district to be done on war footing and the roads in this area shall be repaired within 15 days."
2: "Terrorist Act" : UAPA Conviction For Man Who Placed Explosive-Laden Bag At Mangalore Airport
Case Title: The State of Karnataka v. Adithya Rao
A sessions court in Mangalore has convicted a 37 year old man named Adhitya Rao for the offence of "terrorist act" under Section 16 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and Explosive Substances Act for placing an explosive laden bag at the the departure gate of Mangalore International Airport, in the year 2020.
Kerala High Court
Nominal Index
Chaitanya S. Nair (minor) v. Union of India & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 127
Women in Cinema Collective & Anr v. State of Kerala & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 128\
Centre for Constitutional Rights Research and Advocacy v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 129
Roopesh v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 130
Suo Motu v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 131
M.M. Mani & Ors. v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 132
The Registrar & Ors. v. Dr. Elizabeth K. Syriac, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 133
State of Kerala v. Ratheesh & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 134
Judgments This Week:
Case Title: Chaitanya S. Nair (minor) v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 127
The Court recently ruled that even if one of the parents of a minor child refused to give consent, the passport issuing authority is entitled to issue a passport to the minor, provided the requisite form is submitted.
While allowing the petition of a minor girl, Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas also observed that there is no legal prohibition in incorporating a non-citizen as the legal guardian in the passport of a minor child.
2. Film Production Units Have To Form ICC Under POSH Act : Kerala High Court Orders In WCC's Plea
Case Title: Women in Cinema Collective & Anr v. State of Kerala & Ors. [WP(C) 34273/2018]
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 128
The Court observed that film production units have the responsibility to form an Internal Complaints Committee as per the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 - commonly known as the POSH Act.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly also recorded that AMMA has volunteered to constitute an ICC and added that if AMMA constitutes an ICC as undertaken the same shall be in accordance with the provisions of the POSH Act.
Case Title: Centre for Constitutional Rights Research and Advocacy v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 129
In a significant decision, the Court observed that political parties are not legally liable to establish Internal Complaints Commitee as per the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 since there is no employer-employee relationship among its members.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly observed so in a PIL moved by the Centre for Constitutional Rights Research and Advocacy (CCRRA) seeking directions to constitute Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) within political parties in accordance with the POSH Act 2013.
Case Title: Roopesh v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 130
The Court discharged alleged Maoist leader Roopesh of charges under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and sedition under Section 124A (sedition) of the Indian Penal Code on the ground of irregularities in the order granting sanction for prosecution.
A Division Bench of Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice C. Jayachandran noted that the word 'shall' in the Act and the Rules cannot be said to be merely directory and pointed out that Section 45(2) specifically speaks of the recommendation of the authority and the sanction by the appropriate Government 'shall' be within such time as prescribed.
5. Kerala High Court Extends Validity Of All Interim Orders Till March 25
Case Title: Suo Motu v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 131
The Court extended the validity of all interim orders passed by the High Court and all courts and tribunals falling under the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Courttill March 25 considering the difficulties lawyers may have to face if the stay on orders is vacated immediately.
As such, a full bench of Chief Justice S Manikumar, Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Shaji P Chaly disposed of the suo motu petition.
6. Ancheri Baby Political Murder: Kerala High Court Acquits Former Minister Mani And Two Other Accused
Case Title: M.M. Mani & Ors. v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 132
The Court allowed the discharge application moved by former minister M.M Mani and two others where they sought to quash the proceedings pending against them in the scandalous Ancheri Baby murder case of 1982. Kuttappan and O.G. Madhavan were the other two accused who have been discharged of all charges today.
Justice Sunil Thomas acquitted the trio setting aside the decision of the trial court dismissing their plea to drop the charges against them in the case finding that the witnesses were not credible.
Case Title: The Registrar & Ors. v. Dr. Elizabeth K. Syriac
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 133
The Court reiterated that the implementation of the subsequent Scheme shall not result in a situation where the juniors are permitted to draw more salary than seniors in the cadre.
A Division Bench of Justice Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Mohammed Nias C.P added that if such a situation is created, it is only appropriate that the said anomaly is corrected by having the pay of the seniors stepped up to that of the juniors.
Case Title: State of Kerala v. Ratheesh & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 134
The Court has recently established that leave to a criminal appeal can only be granted after proper application of mind by the Court to see if arguable points have been raised in the appeal. Justice Kauser Edappagath held so while referring to the decision in State of Maharashtra v. Sujay Mangesh Poyarekar [(2008) 9 SCC 475] where it was held that in deciding if leave should be granted, the High Court must apply its mind and consider whether a prima facie case has been made out or arguable points have been raised.
Other Developments
Case Title: C.C Kunjaru v. State of Kerala
The Court allowed the plea moved by the father of a deceased Twenty20 worker, C.K. Deepu seeking to transfer the bail applications moved by the accused from the Ernakulam Principal Sessions Court.The petitioner had argued that he learned from reliable sources that the father of the sessions judge is the district secretary of the CPI(M) in Thrissur and an interested party in the case Justice Mary Joseph thereby directed that the case be transferred to the Sessions Court in Thrissur.
Case Title: P. Gopalakrishnan @ Dileep & Ors v. State of Kerala & Anr.
The Court refused to stay the investigation initiated against actor Dileep by the Crime Branch for conspiring to murder the investigation officials in the 2017 actor rape case, in which Dileep is facing trial as the chief conspirator. Justice K Haripal while adjourning to hear the matter on March 28, clarified that there will be no stay on the investigation against Dileep and the other accused in the matter.
Case Title: State of Kerala & Anr v. Manoj M. & Ors
The Court recently directed the Centre to expeditiously take an appropriate decision on the State government's request to include three State-run medical colleges as centres of excellence for treatment of rare diseases.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice S Manikumar and Justice Shaji P Chaly also persuaded the Centre to take a favourable stand on the State's request as it would go a long way in benefitting the children suffering from rare diseases.
Case Title: Sagar Vincent v. Biju Paulose & Ors.
The Court considered a petition filed by Sagar Vincent, a witness in the 2017 actor sexual assault case alleging that investigating officer in the case Biju Paulose was threatening him.
Justice Anu Sivaraman asked the Government Pleader to get instructions in the matter while posting it next week for consideration.
13. KSRTC Challenges Hike In Diesel Prices For Bulk Purchasers: Kerala High Court Issues Notice
Case Title: Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Union of India & Ors.
The Kerala State Road Transport Corporation has moved the High Court challenging the decision of State-owned Oil Marketing Companies to increase the price of diesel sold to the Corporation, which is allegedly much higher than the market price. Justice N. Nagaresh issued notice to the Centre and the oil companies in the matter.
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case Title: People's College of Medical Sciences and Research Center and Ors. v. Union of India and Or
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 74
The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently set aside the decision of the Appellate Authority to reduce seats in a medical course, observing that Section 28 of the National Medical Commission Act, 2019 does not permit the Appellate Authority to act as Medical Assessment and Rating Board, for the purpose of reduction of seats unilaterally.
The division bench of Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice D.D. Bansal was dealing with a writ petition filed by the Petitioner/College, aggrieved by the decision of the Appellate Authority under the 2019 Act, whereby the seats in a medical course were reduced from 7 to 5.
Case Title: Jahar Singh Gurjar Vs. The State of M.P. & Another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 75
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior Bench recently dismissed an application moved by a Complainant in a dacoity case, seeking custody of the recovered stolen cash to the tune of Rs. 45 Lakhs. The Court held that since the said amount was not disclosed before the Income Tax Department (IT Department) prior to the incident, the same was liable to be handed over to the IT Department for assessment.
Case Title: DEEPALI JADHAV v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 76
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh recently held that a Tehsildar, alleged to have misused her position by extending undue benefit to her husband as well as her servant was not entitled for protection under the Judges Protection Act, 1985.
The division bench of Chief Justice Ravi Malimath and Justice V.K. Shukla was dealing with a criminal revision, wherein the Applicant was challenging the order passed by the lower court, whereby she was denied protection under the Judges Protection Act, 1985 ("Act of 1985").
Case Title: Atul Kumar Tiwari v. State of MP & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 77
The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently requested its Registrar General to file a complaint case against the Petitioner for making false statements and producing fake medical documents before the Court.
Justice Atul Sreedharan was dealing with a writ petition, wherein the Petitioner was challenging the order passed by his employers, whereby his representation to condone his absence for the period from 2003 to 2006 on the grounds of serious illness and his reinstatement in service, was rejected.
Madras High Court
NOMINAL INDEX
D.S. Radhika v. The State Represented By Secretary to Government & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 99
P. Kannan v. The Commissioner of Municipal Administration & Ors., D. Sekar v. The Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Kancheepuram, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 100
M.A.M Raja v. The Special Personal Assistant to Minister for Law & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 101
Rahul Surana v. The Serious Fraud Investigation Office & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 102
M. Selvaraj v. Arulmigu Arunachaleswarar Thirukkoil, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 103
O. Panneerselvam v. P. Milany & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 104
Suo Motu W.P. No. 12935 of 2021, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 105
Kiruthika v. The State Represented By Inspector of Police & Anr., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 106
S.P Muthu Raman v. The Joint Secretary & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 107
Case Title: D.S. Radhika v. The State Represented By Secretary to Government & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 99
Madras High Court has criticised the public servants who utilise mobile phones and cameras during office hours unnecessarily and directed the Government authorities to frame regulations in line with the Tamil Nadu Government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1973.
Justice S.M Subramaniam of the Madurai Bench was hearing a plea made by a Superintendent in the Tiruchirapalli Regional Workshop (Health) who wanted a direction to revoke her suspension and quash the order passed by the Director, Tamil Nadu State Health Transport Department.
Since the respondent state authorities made a submission that most of the public servants are using mobile phones and cameras in government offices, the court wondered if the employees are performing their duties and responsibilities as expected of them.
"...If such indiscipline and misconduct are allowed to be continued, no doubt, they are committing the greatest sin to the public by getting tax payers' money as huge salary. Therefore, the Government is duty-bound to ensure that the public servants are not wandering with mobile phones inside the office during office hours and it is to be regulated in accordance with the Tamil Nadu Government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1973", the court underscored in the order.
Case Title: P. Kannan v. The Commissioner of Municipal Administration & Ors., D. Sekar v. The Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Kancheepuram
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 100
Madras High Court has held that Supreme Court has not laid down any absolute proposition of law that suspension of an employee cannot continue beyond three months in the absence of serving the charge sheet within that time, or if the charge-sheet is served without reasoned order of extension.
The full bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari, Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy and Justice V. Bharathidasan concluded that the apex court case relied on by the suspended employee, Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India (2015), would not apply and the order of suspension should be analysed based on the facts of each case, rules applicable and the gravity of charges etc.
3. Visible Collusion With Investigating Officer': Madras High Court Quashes Appointment Of Government Pleader Accused Of Giving Death Threats
Case Title: M.A.M Raja v. The Special Personal Assistant to Minister for Law & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 101
Concluding that there has been visible collusion between the investigating officer and an advocate who was accused in a criminal case, Madras High Court has set aside the appointment of the latter as a Government Pleader for a District Munsif Court in Periyakulam.
Justice S.M Subramaniam observed that constitutional courts have time and again repeated that public posts are to be filled up only with women and men of integrity and honesty. Therefore, the single judge bench expressed its strong disapproval about the conduct of the investigating officer and the respondent government pleader.
"To cover up the misdeeds, the Police has conducted a corrupt investigation and deleted the name of the sixth respondent from the charge sheet without assigning any reason", the court noted.
4. 'Not A Flight Risk, No Concrete Evidence For Coercive Action': Madras High Court Quashes Look Out Circular Against Rahul Surana
Case Title: Rahul Surana v. The Serious Fraud Investigation Office & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 102
Madras High Court has quashed a Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against Rahul Surana, son of the Managing Director of Surana Industries Limited.
Dr Justice Anita Sumanth opined that the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) on whose approval the Bureau of Immigration issued a LOC in December 2020 couldn't satisfy the settled parameters for issuing the same, let alone its extension.
Relying on Karthi P Chidambaram v. Bureau of Immigration (2018), the court observed that the respondent authorities have not placed any material justifying the extension of the Look Out Notice. The investigating agency only mentions prima facie materials and no concrete evidence has been placed to take coercive action in the nature of a Look Out Circular according to the court. The court also pointed out that there are no proceedings against Rahul Surana so as to implicate him in a criminal court or any other fora. Therefore, the court noted in the order as below:
"No material is placed before the Court in support of the bald assertion that the petitioner is a flight risk and as a consequence, there is no tangible material available, admittedly, to deny the petitioner of his Fundamental Right."
The court also referred to the submissions made by CBI that there are no ongoing investigations against him. The single-judge bench also took note of the fact that the petitioner has not evaded any summons demanding his appearance till date.
5. 'Temples May File A Civil Suit Or Invoke Provisions Of HR & CE Act To Evict Tenant': Madras High Court Reiterates
Case Title: M. Selvaraj v. Arulmigu Arunachaleswarar Thirukkoil
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 103
Madras High Court has reiterated that it is open to the temples to avail the common law remedy by filing a regular suit or invoking Section 78 of the HR & CE Act for the eviction of a tenant.
The single bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh observed that the substantial question of law is no longer res integra in light of the judgment in A.N. Kumar v. Arulmighu Arunachaleswarar Devasthanam Thiruvannamalai & Ors. (2011). In the said case law, it was clarified that the bar under Section 108 of the HR & CE Act for instituting civil suits will not apply for eviction of the lessee without resorting to Section 78 of the Act.
Case Title: O. Panneerselvam v. P. Milany & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 104
Madras High Court has rejected an election petition filed for declaring the election of O. Panneerselvam from Bodinayakanur Legislative Assembly constituency as null and void. An application was filed by Panneerselvam before Madras High Court against the election petition filed by P. Milany, a voter in the constituency.
The election petition had alleged that the AIADMK Candidate and the former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu had suppressed material facts and failed to disclose the assets and liabilities of his wife, P. Vijayalakshmi, at the time of filing the nomination papers. On these grounds, the petitioner submitted that there has been non-compliance of the provisions of Sections 33 and 33A of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (hereinafter the 'Act') r/w Rule 4A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. It was also added that the election of the former CM must be cancelled since the affidavit furnished in Form 26 did not contain the full particulars that must have been there.
Justice V. Bharathidasan noted that the principles laid down in Hari Shanker Jain v. Sonia Gandhi (2001) and Ram Sukh Vs. Dinesh Aggarwal (2009) would apply in the case at hand and noted in the order that the election petition does not disclose a cause of action regarding suppression of material particulars.
7. Madras High Court Issues Directions In Suo Motu Petition Regarding Motor Accident Fund Misappropriation
Case Title: Suo Motu W.P. No. 12935 of 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 105
While pronouncing orders in a Suo Motu writ petition, the Madras High Court bench of Justice P.N Prakash and Justice Abdul Quddhose made a series of directions to be followed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals (MACT) in the state. The court also made suggestions to the Chief Justice and requests to the portfolio judges to issue appropriate directions to put in motion these suggestions.
The petition was for directing the respondents - Registrar General, Additional Registrar (Inspection) and State Bank of India to audit the motor accident cases funds in all districts, lodge criminal complaints against recalcitrant officials and monitor the investigation in the matters.
From the inputs received, the court was satisfied that practitioners in the MCOP jurisprudence operate in delineated specific turfs and would not brook encroachment by anyone.
It was also found that the practitioners were not alone in this misadventure and were assisted by court staff and sometimes even judicial officers.
"MCOP jurisprudence is a gold mine as well a mine field and attempts to clean the Augean stables earlier by various Benches of this Court had not yielded the desired results", the court observed.
8. Notice To Accused Not Necessary For Freezing Bank Account Under Section 102 CrPC: Madras High Court
Case Title: Kiruthika v. The State Represented By Inspector of Police & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 106
The Madras High Court has dismissed a plea made by the wife of controversial PUBG gamer Madan seeking the defreezing of her bank account at Axis Bank Limited.
Justice M. Nirmal Kumar observed that there are far-ranging allegations against both the accused, including misappropriation of funds collected in the name of Covid Relief and making revenue from the live streaming of PUBG gaming videos with obscene commentary and filthy language against women and teenage subscribers.
The court noted that the bank had acknowledged the freezing of the account of the accused to the police by a letter on 15th June, 2021. It was produced and submitted to the magistrate when Kiruthika was remanded on 16th June.
About informing the petitioner about the freezing of accounts, the court noted that there is no such mandate in the statutory provisions. Relying On Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat (2017), the court remarked that Section 102 Cr.P.C. does not stipulate issuance of any notice to the account holder. For the purpose of investigation, no notice to the suspect can be expected under law, the court added.
9. Court Cannot Act As Post Office To Collect And Exchange Information: Madras High Court
Case Title: S.P Muthu Raman v. The Joint Secretary & Anr
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 107
The Madras High Court bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy were hearing a petition for directing the Joint Secretary of Department of Personnel and Training and the Secretary of Department of Post to pass appropriate orders giving effect to the recommendations made by the Central Information Commission in 2013.
One of the recommendations made by the commission was to affix postal stamps on the RTI applications in the place of Indian Postal Order or Demand Draft.
The court however found no merits in the petition and dismissed the same. The court stated that the Commission has made only recommendations that cannot by any stretch be taken as a statute so as to give effect. It also stated that only after certain modifications are made in the statutory provisions that the recommendations can be challenged.
The court was also unsatisfied with the fact that the petitioner chose to sleep on these recommendations for almost nine years and has only now filed a petition. The petition is also silent regarding the reason for the delay. The court also highlighted the fact that the petitioner had not tried to find out as to what action was taken by the appropriate authority with regard to these recommendations.
Other Developments
10. Madras High Court Reserves Orders on Encroachment in Bethel Nagar
Case Title: I.H Sekar vs. MR P. Ponniah, IAS & Ors
The Madras High Court has reserved orders on matter involving encroachments in Bethel Nagar at Injambakkam.
The bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy were hearing a contempt of court petition filed by one I.H Sekar, Managing Trustee of 'The Nature Trust'. The contempt petition was filed against the non-compliance of orders passed by the court in a previous writ filed by this petitioner.
The writ petition was filed seeing direction to remove the encroachments made in the marsh lands and canal puramboke area complying with the orders of the Supreme Court in Hirch Lal Tiwari v. Kamala Devi and Ors and in accordance with Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 and direct to retrieve these lands.
This writ petition was disposed off with directions to confirm the validity and authenticity of the alteration and in case the alteration is unauthorised, to take action against the defaulting officers. It was also directed that since the eviction of unauthorised occupants is a periodic exercise, a fresh exercise may be undertaken after giving notice to all concerned to clear the land.
11. Madras High Court Recalls Order Directing Constitution Of Press Council Of Tamil Nadu
Case Title: S.Sekaran v. The State Of Tamil Nadu & Ors., S. Sekaran v. The Director General Of Police & Ors.
The Madras High Court on Wednesday recalled its previous order directing the state to set up the Press Council of Tamil Nadu, which would act as a State-level media regulatory body.
The order to constitute the Council was passed by the predecessor division bench of Justice N.Kirubakaran and Justice P.Velmurugan last year in a bid to protect the interests of journalists and clamp down on fake journalists, paid news and journalists who are indulging in illegal, unethical practices.
Expressing reservation on the Court's power to issue such directions in the absence of a statutory provision, the bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy recalled the entire judgment, stating that the direction was unconnected to the writ petition.
The writ in the nature of public interest litigation was filed by journalist S. Sekaran, seeking proper investigation in the idol theft case.
Case Title: S.P Chockalingam v. Principal Chief Conservator of Forests & Ors. & Connected Matters.
The Madras High Court has reserved orders in the matter pertaining to the night traffic ban in Sathyamangalam Tiger Reserve.
Earlier, the bench comprising of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy had directed the Additional Advocate General J. Ravindran to file an affidavit detailing the alternative routes that can be utilised for movement of traffic and details about whether the electricity supply in the area would allow the installation of CCTV cameras every 5 kms.
The court considered the Status Report Filed by the 4th respondent, District Collector. In the Status report, the respondent discussed the suggestions put forward by the petitioners in the matter. The petitioners had suggested that emergency vehicles like ambulances, fire engines etc may be allowed without restraint even during nighttime. It was also suggested to permit the local persons to use the highway within the tiger reserve and to construct tunnels or overpasses for tackling the issue of animal killing.
The court while considering the status report filed by the respondent suggested imposition of restrictions even during the day. The court expressed serious concern over protection of peace in the area. It was suggested that restrictions could be imposed for movement of commercial vehicles even during the day. It was also suggested that the vehicles may use the alternative routes.
13. Wakf Board Meddling In Administration Of Nagore Dargah': Ad Hoc Board Of Administrators Files Affidavit Before Madras HC
Case Title: The Adhoc Board of Administrators, Nagore Dargah Interim Adhoc Administrators v. Muhalli Muthavalli & Anr.
Nagore Dargah's Ad-Hoc Board of Administrators has filed an affidavit before the Madras High Court stating that they have done everything in the best interests of the Dargah and the Tamil Nadu State Wakf Board has been meddling in the day to day administration of dargah from June 2018.
"...the counsel for the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board had claimed to represent us though we did not authorize him and he had also stated as if we are functioning under the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board. We were not put on notice of the case. We came to know of the order only after we received a copy from the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board. We informed the Wakf Board that, the Wakf Board cannot interfere in our day-to-day administration", the affidavit states in reference to the writ appeal the board filed that invited the court's disapproval.
Case Title: Minor & Anr v. K Vijay
A 3-Judge Bench of the Madras High Court has referred to a larger bench, the question pertaining to High Court's jurisdiction on original side to make decisions on child custody and guardianship cases, owing to the advent of the Family Courts Act, 1984.
The bench of Justices A.A. Nakkiran, P.N Prakash and M. Sundar was constituted by the Chief Justice after Justice V. Parthiban opined that the matter must be adjudicated by constituting a larger bench.
The three-judge has now referred the issue to a larger bench since the Mary Thomas Judgment that approves simultaneous jurisdiction of High Court and Family Courts for adjudicating upon chld custody cases was rendered by a three-judge bench of the High Court in 1989.
That full bench was of co-equal strength as well as a co-ordinate bench of the current bench. In these circumstances, the current three-judge bench opined that the reference questions can be answered only after consideration by a larger bench.
Case Title: J.Jayakrishnan & Anr v. Bayview Projects Limited Liability Partnership Represented by its Director Boney Surinder Kapoor
Madras High Court has issued notice to the makers of Tamil film 'Valimai', starring Ajith, after the Producer of a 2016 Movie called 'Metro' alleged that the former is a substantial replica of the latter.
The bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy has posted the matter on 17th March, 2022 for further hearing.
The plea before Madras High Court by J.Jayakrishnan and his production company- E5 Entertainments Private Limited, accused the makers of the big-budget film of ripping off the storyline of 'Metro' substantially. According to Jayakrishnan, 'base storyline, narration, sequential arrangement of scenes, emotional ingredients and character sketches of all important characters' of 'Valimai' have been substantially copied from his 2016 hit film 'Metro'.
Case Title: Leena Manimekalai v. Susi Ganesan
While declining a plea made by the poet/ filmmaker Leena Manimekalai for transfer of the criminal defamation case pending against her on the file of Saidapet IXth Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai Sessions Court also observed that the allegations against the court's presiding officer are 'unfounded' and 'invented for the purpose of transfer petition'.
Taking note of the petitioner's argument, the court noted in the order as below:
"....It has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that a mere allegation that there is apprehension that justice will not be done in a given case, does not survive. The court has further to see whether the apprehension is reasonable or not. The apprehension must not only be entertained but must appear to the court to be a reasonable apprehension and it squarely applies to the case on hand since the allegations made against the presiding officer are unfounded and invented for the purpose of transfer petition...", stating the same, the Sessions Court concluded that it hasn't found any merits in the contentions raised by Manimekalai and refused to transfer the case to another competent court.
Case Title: B. Ramkumar Adityan and anr v. All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam
The bench of Justice P Velmurugan has granted four weeks' time to All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) party to file their counter in an application moved by one B. Ramkumar Adityan seeking leave of the court to sue the party and some of its members. The plea seeks to challenge the intra party elections held in 2021 and certain resolutions passed by the General Council in 2017 and Executive Committee in 2021.
In his plaint, Mr. Ramkumar has challenged Resolution No. 7, 10, 11 and 12 passed by the General Council dated 12.09.2017 whereby amendments were made to the original constitution/rules and regulations of the party and subsequent to which the 2nd, 3rd, 7th and 8th Defendants assumed their Office.
Case Title: Preethika C. v. State of Tamil Nadu and other connected cases
While reserving orders in a plea challenging 7.5 percent reservation of seats in Medical Colleges for government school students, the bench comprising Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy, remarked that nowadays children are not going to schools and are directly going to coaching classes.
"This is the trend now. Even when students have to go for competitions, students would not attend classes and instead attend coaching classes. Even for competitive exams like judicial exams, children are not attending LLB classes and are going straight for coaching."
The court questioned the need for coaching if the schools can provide education in the standard that does not require any other coaching.
The court was hearing in detail a plea challenging the constitutionality of the Tamil Nadu Admission to Undergraduate Courses in Medicine, Dentistry, Indian Medicine and Homeopathy on a preferential basis to students of Government Schools Act, 2020 (Act No. 34 of 2020) which grants horizontal reservation of 7.5 per cent seats in medical colleges for students passing out of government schools in the State.
Case Title: Pushpam Reality v. State Tax Officer
The Madras High Court comprising Justice C. Saravanan has held that the Goods and Service Tax (GST) department can continue service of the physical copy of the notice through registered post, speed post, or courier with acknowledgement to the assessee at their last known place of business or residence and upload the notice on the web portal. Once all technical problems are resolved, the practice of sending physical copies may be dispensed with.
Orissa High Court
1. Income Tax Deduction Not Allowable On Deposit In No-Lien/Escrow Account: Orissa High Court
Case Title: M/s. Indian Metal and Ferro Alloys Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 26
The Orissa High Court bench consisting of Chief Justice S Muralidhar and Justice R.K. Pattanaik held that the income tax deduction is not allowable on deposit in a no-lien or escrow account. The appellant/assessee, a company, is in the business of manufacturing and selling ferro alloys like ferro silicon and charge chrome. The assessee filed its return of income, declaring a total income, which was revised.
Patna High Court
Case Title: Umesh Kumar vs The State Of Bihar
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Pat) 7
The Patna High Court has ordered an enquiry, to be conducted by the Additional Director General of Police, into the "casual" and "flimsy" investigation conducted by the Police in an honour killing case, whereby a young boy was allegedly hung to death.
The bench of Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma noted that the body of the boy was cremated without the presence of his mother and father. Further, the Investigating Officer had also in his affidavit admitted that it appeared to be a case of honour killing. Yet, no steps were taken to catch the criminals.
Rajasthan High Court
Nominal Index
Anju Boyal v. Ravindra Kumar 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 98
Mahesh Swami v. State of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 99
Sita Devi Educational Society, Bhilwara & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 100
Prem v. Amar Jeet Singh 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 101
Rajasthan Housing Board through Dy. Housing Commissioner & Resident Engineer v. Legal Representatives of deceased plaintiff Mani Ram 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 101
Jaipur Texweaving Park Ltd. v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 102
Judgments/ Orders of the Week
Case Title: Anju Boyal v. Ravindra Kuma
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 98
The Rajasthan High Court, while allowing a transfer petition, observed that petitioner being a working woman has multiple duties to perform and will face difficulties to travel a long distance with her minor children. The court ordered that the Civil Original Case No. 73/2020 pending before Additional District Judge – Family Court, Chirawa, Jhunjhunu be transferred to the Family Court, Bhilwara.
Case Title: Mahesh Swami v. State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 99
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed writ petitions seeking directions to the respondents-state to not deploy teachers as Booth Level Officer ('BLO') in view of the provisions of the Right of Children to Free & Compulsory Education Act, 2009.
The court observed that it is always open for teachers to approach the concerned authority in any given case of personal difficulties. The court opined that it is expected of the concerned authority to look into the grievance raised and in case, found justified to redress the same appropriately.
Justice Arun Bhansali, while observing that the plea raised in the petitions has no substance, ruled,
"However, insofar as, the personal difficulties to a teacher in a given case are concerned, it is always open for them to approach the concerned authority in this regard and it is expected of the concerned authority to look into the grievance raised and in case, found justified to redress the same appropriately. With the above observations, no case for interference is made out in the present writ petitions. The writ petitions are, therefore, dismissed."
Case Title: Sita Devi Educational Society, Bhilwara & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 100
The Rajasthan High Court has observed that the penalty clause in the Private Colleges Policy issued by the Commissioner, College Education, for different years in question, is beyond his power and illegal.
The court considered these matters on the point of competence of the Commissioner, College Education for issuance of policy and more particularly qua the powers of imposing penalty under the same and whether the same is legal, jurisdictionally valid and permissible under the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 or not.
Justice Sameer Jain, disposed of the writ petitioners in terms of the following directions and observations:
(1) The penalty clause in the policy/instructions for Private Colleges issued by the Commissioner, College Education, for different years in question, is held to be beyond his power and is declared illegal.
(2) The penalty deposited by the respective petitioner/college under the orders of the Court or in the light of the provisions of the Private Colleges Policy be refunded to the petitioners/colleges within a period of sixty days failing which interest @ 6% will accrue on the same after lapse of 60 days."
(3) Amount refunded by the respondents shall be deposited by the respective petitioners/colleges in the "Student Welfare Fund", and be used for the welfare and betterment of students in activities like clearing dues of students who are unable to deposit fee, medical care, library, and other amenities and facilities needed for and by the students and not be used for any other purpose.
(4) The State as well as respondents are directed to ensure that on account of present dispute, students should not be made to suffer and their results, mark-sheets, admit cards, other documents should not be withheld and be declared/released in capacity of regular students forthwith immediately, without any fail. The respondents are directed to assist and help the students in question on 24×7 basis. No student should be deprived of appearance in any future examination or appearance on account of present dispute as the petitioners have submitted that the nondeclaration of result is causing prejudice to the students for appearing in future examinations including competitive examinations.
Case Title: Prem v. Amar Jeet Singh
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 103
The Rajasthan High Court observed that the claimants cannot be allowed to take double benefit of two claims filed under two different statutes i.e. under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. It was added that the claimant has to choose one forum only and after choosing a forum, he cannot be allowed to choose another forum to get more benefits.
In this appeal, the court dealt with the issue 'Whether the claimants-appellants can file two parallel claim petitions for getting compensation under section 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act of 1988')?'
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, ordered,
"In view of the settled position of law, it is clear that the claimants cannot be allowed to take double benefit of two claims filed under two different statutes i.e. under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The claimant has to choose one forum only and after choosing a forum, he cannot be allowed to choose another forum to get more benefits. The claimants cannot claim double benefit under both the enactments."
Case Title: Rajasthan Housing Board through Dy. Housing Commissioner & Resident Engineer v. Legal Representatives of deceased plaintiff Mani Ram
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 101
The Rajasthan High Court observed that well reasoned concurrent findings and reasons recorded by the prescribed authorities under the statute or by the appellate authority thereunder would not warrant any interference unless there is any illegality, infirmity or error of jurisdiction.
Justice Vinit Mathur, while observing that there is no force in the instant writ petition, ordered,
"In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the three courts below does not suffer from any infirmity as the same has been recorded after correct appreciation of evidence on record. There is no jurisdictional error in the findings recorded by the courts below which warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction. There is no force in these writ petitions. The same are, therefore, dismissed."
Case Title: Jaipur Texweaving Park Ltd. v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 102
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a writ petition with a cost of Rs. 2 lac on account of misrepresentation, not impleading the consortium banks as necessary parties and praying for relief against them in their absence, not availing the alternative remedy and keeping the Court in dark by getting ex-parte stay during the course of advocates' strike.
Justice Sameer Jain noted that the petitioner has given an impression that its several members have paid their entire dues and in parallel are defending the matter before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, whereby they were successful in avoiding payment of due of Rs.20 crores and interest thereon.
Essentially, the writ petition has been filed challenging respondent(s)' action of issuing notices to petitioner under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The plea sought for declaring the entire act of the respondents under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 to be illegal, perverse and unconstitutional and for directing the respondents No. 1 & 5 to intervene in the matter or in the alternate for appointment of Court Commissioner for demarcating the arrears and liabilities in question in between the members.
Other Important Updates
1. COVID-19: Law Interns Permitted Entry In Rajasthan High Court
In view of improvement in situation arising out of Covid-19 pandemic and relaxation in conditions imposed by the State Government through recent guidelines, the Rajasthan High Court has allowed entry of Law Interns in the court premises, subject to strict compliance of the SOP.
The notification issued by the Registrar General of the High Court states:
"In partial modification of earlier Notification No.Actts(Estt.)/HC/Misc./Corona/2022/372 dated 05.02.2022, in view of improvement of conditions arising out of Covid-l9 cases and relaxation in conditions imposed by the State Government in recent guidelines, it is hereby notified that henceforth the entry of Law Interns in the court premises is allowed subject to strict compliance of Covid-19 guidelines."
Uttarakhand High Court
Case title – Jitendra Narayan Tyagi @ Vasim Rizvi v. State of Uttarakhand
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Utt) 10
While denying bail to Jitendra Tyagi Aka Wasim Rizvi in the Haridwar Dharam Sansad Case, the Uttarakhand High Court recently observed that Tyagi's speech amounted to hate speech that intended to wage war, promoted enmity, and was also derogatory towards Prophet Muhammad.
Stressing that Hate Speech has far-reachig consequences, the bench of Justice Ravindra Maithani, refrained from reproducing his speech delivered at Dharam Sansad, organized between December 17-19, 2021, however, it did say that huge derogatory remarks were against a particular religion and against Prophet.
