- Home
- /
- News Updates
- /
- All High Courts Weekly Roundup [14...
All High Courts Weekly Roundup [14 February- 20 February 2022]
Shrutika Pandey
21 Feb 2022 12:03 PM IST
![All High Courts Weekly Roundup [14 February- 20 February 2022]](https://www.livelaw.in/h-upload/images/750x450_high-courts-weekly-round-up.jpg "All High Courts Weekly Roundup [14 February- 20 February 2022]")
Allahabad High Court 1. Matrimonial Case Transfer- Wife Not Having Anyone To Accompany Her Across Long Distance A Relevant Factor: Allahabad HC Case title - Smt. Shakshi Agrawal v. Sri Ashutosh Agrawal Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 45 The High Court has observed that the fact that a wife is not having anyone to accompany her across a long distance is also...
Allahabad High Court
Case title - Smt. Shakshi Agrawal v. Sri Ashutosh Agrawal
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 45
The High Court has observed that the fact that a wife is not having anyone to accompany her across a long distance is also a relevant consideration in ordering the transfer of a matrimonial case.
The Bench of Justice J. J. Munir observed thus while allowing a transfer application filed by a wife seeking transfer of a matrimonial case (filed by the husband) from the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Gautam Budh Nagar to the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Allahabad.
Case title - Rajan Singh v. Election Comm.Of India Thru. Chief Election Comm. And Anr
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 46
The High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea seeking postponement of Uttar Pradesh State Assembly Polls 2022 on grounds of certain discrepancies in the information/data provided by the Election Commission of India regarding UP Assembly polls.
Essentially, the PIL plea moved by petitioner in person Rajan Singh submitted that the Election Commission of India, while issuing the Press Note giving the information to hold the assembly elections in five states, gave certain factually incorrect information.
Case title - National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Kewal Krishna Arora And Others
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 47
In a motor accident death claim case, the High Court recently observed the insurance company cannot be permitted to avoid its liability only on the ground that the person driving the vehicle, which caused the accident of the deceased, was not duly licensed at the time of the accident.
Referring to a 2003 ruling of the Apex Court (United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Lehru and others), the bench of Justice Subhash Chandra Sharma observed that it was not expected of the employer to verify the genuineness of a driving license from the issuing authority at the time of employment.
Case title - Virendra Singh v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 48
The High Court observed that the High Court should interfere with the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Trial Cour if it arrives at a finding that the trial Court's decision was perverse or otherwise unsustainable.
The Bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed thus while dismissing an appeal filed against the 2017 order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mathura acquitting the 3 persons under Section 302 I.P.C. and Section 25 of Arms Act.
Case title - Chhangur Yadav v. State of U.P.
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 49
The High Court granted bail to a man who has been accused of posting objectionable pictures of the Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi on Facebook and WhatsApp which allegedly enraged the public at large.
The Bench of Justice Krishan Pahal granted him bail keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence on record regarding the complicity of the accused, larger mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Case title - Om Prakash v. Shakti Singh, Tehsildar
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 50
The High Court directed the Uttar Pradesh Bar Council to take disciplinary action against striking lawyers at Uttar who continuously abstained from work on every date between February 5, 2020 to January 5, 2022.
The Bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal issued this extraordinary order after observing that the Apex Court has held the strikes by lawyers to be illegal and had directed that the judicial work cannot be stopped and hampered at the instance of the lawyers.
Case title - Atul Mishra v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 51
The High Court recently granted bail to a POCSO Accused who ran away with a 14-year-old girl (victim) due to a romantic affair between them. The Court noted that both of them fled away, got married in a Temple, and remained in company with each other for almost two years during which the girl even gave birth to a baby.
The Bench of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi also remarked that it would be extremely harsh and inhuman to devoid the baby from parental love and affection on account of the fact that both the accused and minor victim loved each other and decided to get married.
The Court, in a significant clarification also said that the scheme of the POCSO Act clearly shows that it did not intend to bring within its scope or limits, the cases of the nature where the adolescents or teenagers are involved in a dense romantic affair.
Case title - Â Toofani v. State Of U.P. And 13 Others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 52
The High Court has observed that a Victim/Informant under Section 372 of CrPC can't prefer an appeal against an acquittal/lesser offence/inadequate compensation order passed before December 31, 2009 (the day on which a proviso was added to Section 372 CrPC).
It may be noted that the proviso to Section 372 CrPC says that a victim/informant has a right to prefer an appeal against any order passed by the court acquitting the accused or convicting for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation.
The Bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Justice Mohd. Aslam however clarified that such an appeal can be filed only if the order in question has been passed after the enforcement of the proviso to Section 372 CrPC.
Case title - Islamuddin v. Sri Rabindra Kumar Mander, D.M. Rampur And Another
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 53
The High Court dismissed a contempt plea filed regarding the usage of loudspeakers in the Temple as well as Mosque and observed that the same is a sponsored litigation so as to affect the communal harmony of the State keeping in mind the State Elections.
Essentially, the Bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal was hearing a contempt plea filed by one Islamuddin against Rabindra Kumar Mander, D.M. Rampura alleging that he is willfully disobeying the order passed by the Allahabad High Court in a 2015 Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea.
Case title - Rahul Pandey And 2 Others v. Union Of India And 3 Others
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 54
Stressing that the investigating agency and the investigating officer have unfettered power of investigation, the High Court observed that it is not open for the person, who is to be interrogated or questioned to decide the venue of such interrogation.
The Bench of Justice Anjani Kumar Mishra and Justice Deepak Verma further observed that the High Court has no power to interfere with the investigation under the exercise of its power under Article 226.
Case title - Rina Kinnar And Another v. State of U.P. and Another
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 55
The High Court has observed that for adopting a child, a marriage certificate is not a sina-quo-non and even a single parent can adopt a child under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956.
The Bench of Justice Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Justice Vivek Varma observed thus while dealing with a plea filed by a Transgender person and her husband who sought a direction upon the Sub Registrar, Hindu Marriage, District Varanasi to consider and decide the online application for marriage filed by them
Case title - Kamlesh Pathak v. Union Of India And 3 Others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 56
The High Court set aside the detention order passed against former Minister of State and MLC Kamlesh Pathak under the National Security Act, 1980 in connection with a March 2020 double murder case.
This order was passed by the division bench of Justice Sunita Agrawal and Justice Sadhana Rani Thakur in a habeas corpus petition filed by Pathak (Detenue/Petitioner) to quash the impugned detention order passed by the District Magistrate, Auraiya in January 2021 and orders passed on different dates in March, April, July, and October 2021 extending detention of the petitioner.
Case title - Smt. Geeta And 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 57
The High Court has clarified that as per Section 202 (1) CrPC, if an accused resides beyond the jurisdictional area of a Magistrate then it is mandatory for such a Magistrate to either inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made, before issuance of process under Section 204 CrPC.
The Bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan further observed that as per the provision of Section 202 Cr.P.C. (as amended with effect from 23.06.2006), the requirement is that in those cases, where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which the concerned Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction, it is mandatory on the part of Magistrate to conduct an inquiry or investigation before issuing the process.
Important Weekly Updates From the High Court/UP courts
In view of the decreasing COVID cases in the state, the High Court issued fresh guidelines for the functioning of Subordinate Courts and Tribunals. From February 14 onwards, all the Courts (including tribunals) subordinate to the High Court were opened to take up the Judicial work & Administrative matters.
Allowing a correction plea, the High Court added missing Sections 302 (murder) and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of IPC in its recent order granting bail to Ashish Mishra, the son of Union Minister and the prime accused in the Lakhimpur Kheri Violence case
It may be noted that the Bench of Justice Rajeev Singh had granted bail to Mishra on February 10 and its original bail order, it was stated that Mishra had been booked under sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 326, 427/34 of IPC and section 30 of Arms Act and Section 177 of M.V. Act.
The Allahabad High Court today slammed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for its failure to produce the post mortem reports of the victims of the Nithari case (also known as the 2006 Noida Serial Murders case).
Essentially, the Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Sameer Jain was hearing an appeal filed by accused Surinder Koli against his conviction and sentence of the death penalty. Koli has been found guilty of rapes and murder of several children between 2005 and 2006 and has been was sentenced to death in over 10 cases.
Case title - Avneesh Kumar And 2 Others v. Union Of India And 4 Others
The High Court sought the reply of the Central Government and High Officials of Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) on a plea filed by 3 candidates who were denied employment on account of certain tattoos on a certain part of their hands (forearm).
The Bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma directed the Centre's and SSB's counsel to seek instructions in this regard and the matter was posted for further hearing on February 23.
Case title - Jyoti Rajpoot v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And Another
Dealing with a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea, the High Court ordered Medical and Financial assistance for a mentally retarded lady found roaming on the toads of Lucknow, unattended.
The Bench of Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan was hearing a PIL plea moved by one Jyoti Rajpoot with a prayer to issue appropriate directions ensuring the welfare of a mentally retarded young woman who was found roaming around in an area of Lucknow and was unattended.
The High Court issued a notice to the Uttar Pradesh Government and its prompt counter-affidavit on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea filed challenging the government's decision to make blind persons ineligible to apply for several government posts.
The Plea has been moved by All India Confederation of the Blind and National Association of the Visually Handicap through Advocate Shwetabh Singh and it states that several posts, which were already identified for blind persons and such persons are already working effectively on such posts, have been dis-identified / exempted for blind persons.
Case title - Avinash Kumar Modi v. State of U.P. and Another
The High Court handed over the probe into an alleged scam of Rs. 1200/- crores in the subsidy to the manufacturers of fertilizers, without the actual supply of fertilizers by the manufacturers to the distributors.
The Bench of Justice Gautam Chowdhary ordered thus in a 482 CrPC plea filed by one of the accused in the scam, Avinash Kumar Modi who sought for quashing the entire criminal proceedings in the case against him under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-I.P.C.
Case title - Yogindra Misra v. State of U.P. and others
The High Court decided to deal with the issue of stray cattle menace in rural areas and therefore, it appointed Advocate Yogendra Misra, assisted by Advocate S. M. Singh Royekwar to assist the Court in the matter as Amicus Curie.
The Bench of Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan also directed the State Counsel to seek instructions in the matter within a period of two weeks.
Further, the Court has also sought a counter affidavit within the said period from the Chief Development Officer, who serves as the Chairman of a Committee constituted for the safety of cattle in the cattle shades.
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Smt. H. Malleswaramma Versus State Of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 17
The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently ruled that the mere fact that FIR was lodged against the accused as a counter blast by itself cannot be a ground to quash the FIR under Section 482 of CrPC. It is a matter to be ascertained by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation, it held. Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy observed,
"that the present report was lodged against them as a counter blast by itself cannot be a ground to quash the F.I.R. Whether the allegations are false or not and whether the report was lodged as a counter blast to the report lodged by the de facto complainant or not is the matter to be ascertained by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation. Therefore, there are no valid legal grounds emanating from the record warranting interference of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the F.I.R at this stage."
Case Title: BIKKA PARVATHI Versus STATE REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 18
The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently granted regular bail to an accused under Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, noting that the rigours of bail stipulated under Section 37 thereof do not apply in case the recovery is not of commercial quantity contraband.
The petition was filed under Sections 437 and 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking regular bail to petitioner/Accused, allegedly found to be in possession of 4.3 kgs ganja. It was alleged that the petitioner was illegally selling the same.
Bombay High Court
CITATIONS 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 37 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 45
NOMINAL INDEX
Dhanlaxmi Chandu Devrukar vs The Town Planning 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 37
Tata Sons Limited vs Deputy Commissioner of Income & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 38
Satyanarayan Bankatlal Malu and Anr. v. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 39
Aircon Beibars FZE v. Heligo Charters Private Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 40
Ambhika Magasvargiya Mastyavaivasaik Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Jununwadi vs State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 41
Stawan Mahila Bachat Gat vs State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 42
The Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Company Limited vs Deputy Commissioner of CGST & CX, Div-IX, Mumbai Central GST Commissioner 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 43
Somnath Laxman Giri & Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 45
ROUND UP
Case Title: Dhanlaxmi Chandu Devrukar vs The Town Planning
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 37
In a significant order, the Bombay High Court took strong exception to several instances of malpractices by Notaries, ordered them to pay costs while also directing the Department of Legal Affairs to consider certain recommendations to the draft Notaries (Amendment) Bill, 2021.
The bench of Justices SJ Kathawalla and Milind Jadhav, which was hearing a clutch of petitions, further observed how Notaries were operating from private cars and taxis outside the Bombay High Court and said "legal profession cannot be allowed to function from the streets."
Case Title: Tata Sons Limited vs Deputy Commissioner of Income & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 38
In a judgement earlier this month, the Bombay High Court quashed a notice issued by Income Tax authorities for the financial year 2003-2004 against Tata Sons Ltd – holding company of Tata Group's Companies.
The bench observed that in case a company's income tax assessment was completed under section 143(3) and is proposed to be reopened after four years, an additional condition is required to be satisfied. Authorities need to record a satisfaction that the income escaped assessment because of the assessee's failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. Whether these jurisdictional conditions are satisfied, has to be ascertained from the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer.
Since the notice issued to Tata did not justify the reasons to show that income had escaped assessment on account of the company's failure and reasons cited by the Assessing Officer merely showed "change of opinion" on the very same material, the notice deserved to be quashed.
3. Court Of Additional Sessions Judge Not Empowered To Try Offences Under IBC: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Satyanarayan Bankatlal Malu and Anr. v. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 39
In a petition challenging the jurisdiction of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge to try offences under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, the Bombay High Court ruled that the Court of Additional Sessions Judge is not "Special Court" in terms of Section 236 of the IB Code to try offences under the IB Code.
Accepting the contentions of the petitioners, Justice Sandeep K Shinde clarified that the jurisdiction to try offences under the IB Code lies with the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate First Class established as a Special Court under Section 435 of the Companies Act, 2013 (as amended in 2017) and not with the Court of Additional Sessions Judge established under the same provision.
Case: Aircon Beibars FZE v. Heligo Charters Private Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 40
While enforcing a foreign arbitral award, the Bombay High Court held that violation of a statute would not necessarily violate the fundamental policy of Indian law and the fundamental policy test must be applied according to the circumstances and facts of each case.
Further stating that poor reasoning to reject a claim would not attract any public policy ground, unless the most basic notion of justice is offended, Justice A.K. Menon held that to lead to a violation of the fundamental public policy of India, a high threshold of 'egregious circumstances' like bribery, corruption or fraud and like circumstances that tamper with the most basic notions of morality and justice would apply.
5. Don't Register Writ Petition That Doesn't Set Out Specific Grounds – Bombay High Court To Registry
Case Title: Ambhika Magasvargiya Mastyavaivasaik Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Jununwadi vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 41
The Bombay High Court has directed its Registry to not register any writ petition unless the same sets out specific grounds on which the petition is being moved and warned the department of strict action if any lapse was viewed in that regard.
A division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice NB Suryawanshi, sitting in the Aurangabad Bench, directed, "The Registry shall ensure that, in future, no Writ Petition is registered unless specific grounds are set out therein upon which the writ petition is moved for grant of relief, as claimed by the petitioner. Any lapse in this regard will be viewed strictly."
Case Title: Stawan Mahila Bachat Gat vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 42
The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court recently ordered the District Supply officer (DSO) to restore authorisation of four Mahila Bachat Gats or Women Self Development Groups to maintain fair price shops.
Justice Bharati Dangre observed that their licence to run fair price shops was cancelled on "clumsy" and "non-existent" grounds and the Tehsildar to the highest level in the State government, deprived these organisations the opportunity of the empowering women in rural areas.
"I cannot refrain myself from commenting upon the approach of the State Authorities right from the level of the Tahsildar to the highest level of the State Government….. Woman empowerment being the motto of the State, in utter contrast, in this case the State Authorities have undermined the four bachat gats and in a flippant manner have deprived them an opportunity of empowering several women in rural area who had come together and formed a bachat gat who was allotted authorization to run the fair price shop.
Case Title: The Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Company Limited vs Deputy Commissioner of CGST & CX, Div-IX, Mumbai Central GST Commissioner
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 43
Observing that a party cannot be expected to preserve evidence/record intact for a very long period and it cannot be made to suffer gross delay on the part of tax authorities, the Bombay High Court has set aside a show-cause notice issued 15 years back against Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Company Limited.
A division bench of Justice RD Dhanuka and SM Modak, in an order passed earlier this week, observed, "It is not expected from the assessee to preserve the evidence/record intact for such a long period to be produced at the time of hearing of the Show-Cause Notice. The Respondent having issued the Show-Cause notice, it is their duty to take the said Show-Cause notice to its logical conclusion by adjudicating upon the said Show-Cause Notice within a reasonable period of time. In view of the gross delay on the part of the Respondent, the Petitioner cannot be made to suffer."
8. "Extra Judicial Confession To a Stranger Imprudent" - Bombay High Court Acquits Waiter Disbelieving Murder Confession to Customer
Case Title : Mansoorali Khan Ahmed Khan vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 44
The Bombay High Court ruled that an extra-judicial confession would be made to a person in whom the maker of that statement reposes faith, and making it to a stranger or a person to whom the maker was only acquainted, was improbable.
A division bench of Justices Sadhana Jadhav and Prithviraj Chavan, while acquitting an accused convicted in 2010, observed, "Extra Judicial confession necessarily is to be made to a person in whom the maker of the statement reposes faith. Moreover, the accused had given graphic details of the act he committed, including the role of each of the accused persons and how they had killed both the deceased. It is rather tough to accept that the accused would make an extra-judicial confession to a stranger, passing by the road, who is only acquainted."
9. Maharashtra Govt's CCTV Project In Police Stations A 'Farce', Rs 60 Cr Wasted : Bombay High Court
Case Title : Somnath Laxman Giri & Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 45
The Bombay High Court expressed its displeasure over a report submitted by the Maharashtra government on the status of installation of CCTV cameras inside police stations across the state and said the whole process was a farce and the money allotted for the project has been wasted.
A division bench of Justices S J Kathawalla and M N Jadhav noted that out of 1089 police stations, CCTV systems are installed in only 547 Police Stations since only two contractors have been selected to execute the project worth Rs 60 crore of installing CCTV systems. The court was further informed that 453 CCTV cameras which were recently installed are non-functional.
Important Updates
1. PMLA Court Grants Bail To Yes Bank Founder Rana Kapoor, Bindu Kapoor And Gautam Thapar
A special court in Mumbai granted bail to nine accused including Yes Bank founder Rana Kapoor, his wife Bindu and businessman Gautam Thapar in a case related to property sale in Delhi. Kapoor and Thapar, however, won't walk out of the prison yet, as they are in custody in another case.
Special judge MG Deshpande, under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), granted bail to them for Rs 5 lakh and surety for the like amount and set conditions like not to leave the country and to attend the court on all the dates.
2. Antilia Bomb Scare: Special NIA Court Refuses Bail To Former Encounter Specialist Pradeep Sharma
A special NIA court rejected the bail application filed by former Mumbai policeman and encounter specialist Pradeep Sharma in the Antilia bomb scare and Thane businessman Mansukh Hiran's murder case. He has been in custody since his arrest by the National Investigation Agency in June last year.
According to the charge sheet filed by the NIA in September last year, Sharma was allegedly assigned with the task of eliminating Hiran, owner of the explosives-laden car which was found abandoned near the South Mumbai residence of Industrialist Mukesh Ambani. He was allegedly paid a huge amount of cash for the task by co-accused and another former policeman Sachin Waze. Sharma is said to have executed the killing through his accomplice Santosh Shelar.
A Sessions Court granted bail to social media influencer Vikas Phatak alias Hindustani Bhau accused of instigating students of class 10 & 12 to protest against the Maharashtra Goverment's plan to conduct offline examinations. The order was passed by Addl Sessions Judge PB Jadhav.
Bhau had filed the bail application against the magistrate's order refusing him bail. During the hearing, Bhau tendered an unconditional apology for the rioting that followed the protest.
The NIA court has declined to consider Maharashtra's ex-Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis's statement in the State Legislative Assembly on the issue of caste violence at Bhima Koregaon while rejecting bail applications of three accused. The then Chief Minister had spoken on the floor of the house about the presence of around 200-300 people holding saffron flags, sloganeering at the place of the caste violence on January 1, 2018.
Special Judge DE Kothalikar observed that under Section 43D (5) of the NIA Act, regarding bail, he could only rely on the National Investigation Agency's (NIA) case diary and charge-sheet to record a prima facie satisfaction of guilty before denying bail.
Calcutta High Court
Citations: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 40 - 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 48
Nominal Index
Satya Narayan Banik & Ors v. Union of India & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 40
Abu Sohel v. The State West Bengal and others 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 41
Nivedita Basu v. State of West Bengal 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 42
Sabita Roy v. State of West Bengal 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 43
Ramaprasad Sarkar v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 44
Rajib Chakraborty and Ors v. The State of West Bengal and Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 45
Manick Sardar v. State of West Bengal 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 46
Manav Investment and Trading Co. Ltd v. DBS Bank India Ltd 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 47
West Bengal School Service Commission v. Sandeep Prasad and Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 48
Round-Up
Case Title: Satya Narayan Banik & Ors v. Union of India & Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 40
The Calcutta High Court observed that the provisions for disqualification of directors due to non-filing of balance sheets and annual returns as envisaged under Section 164(2) and Section 167(1) of the Companies Act, 2013 is aimed at ensuring probity and the highest standard of governance in both private and public companies. Justice Rajasekhar Mantha was adjudicating upon a case wherein the petitioners had been disqualified as directors of a company one M/s. Hahnemann International Pvt. Ltd pursuant to Section 164(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 for not filing balance sheets and annual returns for a continuous period of three years from the year 2014-15. Opining that such a conduct of the petitioners amounts to deliberate and wilful negligence, the Court underscored, "This Court is of the view that the object and purposes of Section 164 and 167, as amended is to ensure probity and the highest standard of governance in Companies both public and private. A failure to file balance sheet and the annual returns for three consecutive years amounts to deliberate and wilful negligence. The public at large dealing with such companies cannot be put to the uncertainty, whim and fancy of recalcitrant directors. After all the requirements and compliances mandated under the Companies Act, are not only for the benefit of the shareholders of a particular company but also for the public at large, which rely upon such compliances, in assessing the conduct of and in deciding their relations with such companies." The Court held further, "The object and purpose of Section 164(2) and 167(1) is indeed laudable. It is aimed at ensuring good governance and maintenance of high standards of probity and protection of the interest of Shareholders. Transparency in the activities of Companies is very vital for ensuring an enduring business atmosphere in an economy."
Case Title: Abu Sohel v. The State West Bengal and others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 41
Opining on the established principle of availability of alternate remedy, the Calcutta High Court observed that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be filed for adjudicating upon a grievance pertaining to the non-registration of FIR by police authorities on the basis of a complaint made. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj observed while dismissing a PIL, "The grievance is in respect of non-registration of FIR on the basis of the complaint made by the petitioner therefore it is a grievance of personal nature, which cannot be agitated in a PIL. That apart, the writ under Article 226 of the Constitution is not a proper remedy seeking direction to register an FIR or to carry out the investigation." The Court further underscored that if the petitioner has any grievance in respect of non- registration of the FIR or improper investigation, then the proper remedy available to him is to take recourse to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
Case Title: Nivedita Basu v. State of West Bengal
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 42
In a significant development, the Calcutta High Court allowed termination of 34 weeks 6 days old foetus of a woman after taking into consideration that there are remote chances of the child surviving or leading a normal life. The Court also underscored that there are risks to the health of both the mother and the child if medical termination of the pregnancy is not permitted. Justice Rajasekhar Mantha was adjudicating upon a plea moved by the petitioner seeking medical termination of the pregnancy on the ground that a large number of medical complications have been detected by three medical practitioners which are affecting the health of the petitioner as well as the foetus. "The medical report it is clear and explicit, that there are remote chances of the child being born out of the instant pregnancy surviving or leading ay normal life. The risks to the mother as well as the child are also highlighted in no uncertain terms. Considering the entire gamut of facts and circumstances, this Court permits the petitioner to medically terminate her pregnancy at an authorized hospital and/or medical facility", the Court observed.
Case Title: Sabita Roy v. State of West Bengal
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 43
The Calcutta High Court expressed displeasure at the conduct of the police authorities of Alipurduar Police Station in not registering an FIR despite receipt of complaint with regards to non-payment of compensation under Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Justice Rajasekhar Mantha observed, "This Court, therefore, takes exception to the conduct of the Alipurduar Police Station in not registering FIR." The Court further underscored, "Having heard the rival contentions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that since after receipt of a complaint as regards the commission of a cognizable offence, the Alipurduar Police Station was bound to register FIR and commence investigation, as per the dicta of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari vs Govt. Of U.P. & Ors reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1."In the instant case, the petitioner had preferred a complaint dated September 3, 2021 addressed to the Alipurduar Police Station with regards to the non-payment of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. A complaint in this regard had also been filed by the office of the District Magistrate, Alipurduar on September 4, 2021 with the Kotwali and Alipurduar Police Stations.
5. Calcutta High Court Dismisses PIL Seeking Removal Of WB Governor Jagdeep Dhankhar
Case Title: Ramaprasad Sarkar v. Union of India
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 44
The Calcutta High Court on Friday dismissed a PIL praying for a direction to the Central government to remove Jagdeep Dhankhar as the Governor of West Bengal, claiming that he was acting as the 'mouthpiece of the Bharatiya Janata Party'. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajrashi Bharadwaj on Friday placed reliance on Article 361 of the Constitution which stipulates that a Governor cannot be made answerable to any Court for the exercise and performance of the powers and duties of his office or for any act done or purporting to be done by him in the exercise and performance of those powers and duties. The Bench also referred to Article 156 of the Constitution which states that the Governor shall hold office during the pleasure of the President for a term of five years. "We find that the writ petition is based upon some tweets, one letter of the Governor and the publications made by one newspaper. We are not satisfied that the material placed along with the petition furnishing any ground to entertain the petition or to issue any such direction to the respondent No. 1 as prayed in the petition. Hence, the petition is dismissed", the Court ruled.
Case Title: Rajib Chakraborty and Ors v. The State of West Bengal and Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 45
The Calcutta High Court held that considering the abatement in the Covid-19 pandemic and the reopening of schools across the State, its earlier direction stipulating 20 percent reduction in fees charged by private schools would cease to exist from February 16, 2022 onwards with regards to physical classes. The Court observed that schools and other educational institutions shall be permitted to charge fees according to their policy and arrangement with the students from February 16, 2022 onwards. A Bench comprising Justice IP Mukherji and Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya was adjudicating upon a bunch of PILs filed by aggrieved parents seeking a partial remission of school fees for the session 2021-2022 due to the ongoing pandemic owing to which students are attending schools only through virtual mediums. The Bench vide its order dated October 13, 2020, had slashed the fees charged by private schools in the State by 20% due to the ongoing pandemic." "Till 31st March, 2022 or until further orders, whichever is earlier, no coercive action like expulsion of any student from the school, withholding of admit card to sit for any Board or school examination, withholding of mark-sheets or certificates on the ground of default in payment of school fees, shall be taken by the schools or other educational institutions covered by this litigation against any student", the Court directed further.
Case Title: Manick Sardar v. State of West Bengal
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 46
The Calcutta High Court has recently upheld the conviction of a man for raping a 7 year old girl by observing that mere penetration is sufficient to prove the offence of rape and that presence of injuries on the body of the victim is not necessary. A Bench comprising Justices Bivas Pattanayak and Joymalya Bagchi observed, "It has also been strenuously argued that the allegation of rape on a seven year old minor is improbable as no injuries were found on the body of the victim including her private parts. Her hymen was intact. It is trite law mere penetration is sufficient to prove the offence of rape. It is not necessary that penetration must be of such nature that it would cause injuries or rupture the hymen..In the aforesaid factual matrix, it is clear that there was a slight penetration into the private parts of the victim, which though sufficient to constitute rape, did not result in rupture of hymen." "Thus, I am of the opinion that the prosecution case has fully been proved beyond doubt and cannot be rendered improbable due to absence of injuries being noted on the body of the victim", the Court opined further.
Case Title: Manav Investment and Trading Co. Ltd v. DBS Bank India Ltd
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 47
The Calcutta High Court observed that a notice of sale by a pawnee under Section 176 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (Act) must contain a 'positive assertion' indicating the intention of the pawnee to dispose of the security. Justice Shekhar B. Saraf observed while enumerating on the requirements of such a notice of sale under Section 176 of the Act, "A notice of the character contemplated by Sec. 176 cannot be implied. Such notice has to be clear and specific in language indicating the intention of the pawnee to dispose of the security. What is contemplated by Sec. 176 is not merely a notice but a 'reasonable' notice, meaning thereby a notice of intended sale of the security by the creditor within a certain date so as to afford an opportunity to the debtor to pay up the amount within the time mentioned in the notice." Opining on the nature of statements envisaged in the notices of sale, the Court further observed, "It is noticeable that in both of the clauses, the respondent bank states that they shall have the right to enforce the pledge. However, I don't find an unequivocal statement stating that the shares shall be sold. In my view, there is a clear distinction between having a right of sale and intention to sell. The very philosophy of Section 176 and 177 is that a protection is given to the pawnor with regard to having an opportunity to redeem the shares upon a proper and reasonable notice being given to him."
Case Title: West Bengal School Service Commission v. Sandeep Prasad and Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 48
The Calcutta High Court extended the time granted to the Court appointed inquiry committee to submit its report in respect of the alleged irregularities in the appointment of 'Group-D' (non-teaching staff) in sponsored Secondary and Higher Secondary schools under the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (WBBSE) on the purported recommendation by the West Bengal Central School Service Commission (WBSSC). A Bench comprising Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Rabindranath Samanta observed on Monday, "We extend the time by 4 months from date to complete the enquiry" The Division Bench took into account that substantial progress had been made by the inquiry committee and that a good number of people were left to be interrogated by the committee for disclosure of facts. Hence, the Bench extended the time granted to the committee for filing of the inquiry report by 4 months. The Bench further expunged the adverse remarks made by Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay in its order dated February 9 against the inquiry committee pursuant to the request made by the concerned counsels. The Bench ordered that the adverse remarks should not form a part of the record and shall be treated as expunged.
Important Weekly Updates
Case Title: Madhurima Sengupta v. Facebook Inc. India and Ors
The Calcutta High Court directed the petitioner to immediately share the URL details of an alleged offensive post about Goddess Saraswati with the authorities of Facebook India in order to authorise the removal of such an offensive post. The Court also directed the petitioner to take appropriate steps to implead the alleged offender as a party in the instant proceedings. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajrashi Bharadwaj was adjudicating upon a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition seeking directions for the removal of an offensive Facebook post about Goddess Saraswati. Directing the Facebook authorities to take steps to remove such an offensive post, the Bench observed, "Having regard to the circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that if such a message has been posted in the facebook, then it is required to be deleted as apparently it is offensive. Respondent No.1 is directed to do the needful in this regard." Pursuant to the submissions of the concerned parties, the Bench further directed, "Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to disclose the URL of the post in question to the respondent No.1 without any delay and also take appropriate steps to implead the person who had posted such a message in the Facebook."
Case Title: Sandeep Prasad and Ors v. State of West Bengal
In an unprecedented development, the Calcutta High Court ordered the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to conduct a probe into the alleged irregularities in the appointment of 'Group-D' (non-teaching staff) in sponsored Secondary and Higher Secondary schools under the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (WBBSE) on the purported recommendation by the West Bengal Central School Service Commission ((WBSSC). Such an order was passed by Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay on Tuesday despite the fact that a Division Bench of the High Court had quashed Justice Gangopadhyay's earlier order wherein a similar CBI probe had been ordered into the alleged recruitment scam. The Court observed that despite its earlier order, the inquiry committee had not submitted its interim report or the minutes of the minutes of all the meetings conducted by the committee. Opining further that satisfaction of the court is necessary for continuation of the committee, Justice Gangopadhyay dissolved the inquiry committee by directing, "This show of enough disrespect to this court by the Committee will not be tolerated and is not tolerated by this court and I dissolve the Committee keeping in mind that the committee is not acting under the Division Bench and the Division Bench is not in seisin of the committee and it is the order of the Division Bench that this committee is to file report before this single bench. Therefore satisfaction of this court is necessary for continuation of the committee. I am wholly dissatisfied with the committee and it is not required to function further in this matter. The Committee shall have no power to inquire into the matter from today."
Case Title: State of West Bengal v. Sandeep Prasad
A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court on Tuesday imposed a stay for 2 weeks on a Single Bench's order which had directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to conduct a probe into the alleged irregularities in the appointment of 'Group-D' (non-teaching staff) in sponsored Secondary and Higher Secondary schools under the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (WBBSE) on the purported recommendation by the West Bengal Central School Service Commission (WBSSC). The impugned order had been passed by Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay earlier on Tuesday despite the fact that a Division Bench of the High Court had quashed Justice Gangopadhyay's earlier order wherein a similar CBI probe had been ordered into the alleged recruitment scam. The Division Bench observed that a prima facie case has been made out for staying the operation of the impugned order and accordingly observed, "There shall be a stay of operation of the impugned order dated 15th February, 2022 as well as the Writ petition, for a period of two weeks from date or until further order/orders of this Court, whichever is earlier." Opining that the Single Bench had 're-imposed the earlier order' which had been set aside, the Division Bench further remarked, "It appears that despite the said order having passed, the single Bench has dissolved the said Committee constituted by the Division Bench and re-imposed the earlier order which was set aside by the Division Bench when the direction was made to the Central Bureau of Investigation to make an enquiry."
Case Title: Pratap Banerjee v. State of West Bengal and other connected matters
The Calcutta High Court sought response from the State Election Commission (SEC) and the State government in a batch of petitions alleging that large scale violence and rigging of votes took place during the recently conducted municipal elections in West Bengal. The petitions also sought for deployment of central forces for the remaining 108 municipalities which is scheduled to take place on February 27. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj directed the State Election Commission and the State government to file their affidavits-in-opposition within 3 days. Furthermore, the Court directed the State Election Commission to preserve all CCTV footage and the diaries of presiding officers and registers containing the thumb impression/signature of voters of all polling booths with immediate effect in furtherance of the Court's earlier directions vide its order dated December 24, 2021. The Bench also extended police protection to an aggrieved petitioner who had allegedly been physically assaulted by members of the ruling party on the day of the polls. The police authorities were also directed to promptly record the concerned complainant's statement under Section 164 CrPC.
Case Title: Anindya Sundar Das v. The State of West Bengal and others
The Calcutta High Court sought the State government's response in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the reappointment of the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Calcutta Sonali Chakravarty Banerjee on the ground that such reappointment had been done in contravention of existing rules.A Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajrashi Bharadwaj was apprised that the Governor of West Bengal, as the ex-officio chancellor, has the authority of appointing the Vice-Chancellor of the state-run university pursuant to Section 8(1)(b) of the Calcutta University Act, 1979. Furthermore, it was contended that bypassing such a statutory provision, the State or its Secretary could not have issued the notification for re- appointment of the Vice Chancellor for a period of 4 years. Directing the State government to file a response within 4 weeks, the Bench observed, "Learned Advocate General appearing for the State as also respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 are granted four weeks time to file their affidavits-in-opposition. Thereafter, affidavit-in-reply may be filed by the petitioner within one week."
Case Title: Bangla Pokkho Charitable Trust @Bangla Pokkho & Anr
A Public Interest Litigation has been filed before the Calcutta High Court seeking the use of Bengali language in banking services across the State, purportedly as per the mandate of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). The petition has been filed by Bangla Pokkho Charitable Trust, a Bengali nationalist organisation. The matter is likely to come up before the Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj next week. The petition contends that the Chief General Manager of RBI vide a letter dated December 28, 2005 had advised all scheduled commercial banks in India to make available all printed material in trilingual form- English, Hindi and the concerned regional language. However, it is submitted that despite the direction, such practice is not followed by banks in the State, thereby making banking services inaccessible to a vast majority of the population.
Chhattisgarh High Court
Case title - Uttamram v. Smt. Kayaso Bai
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Chh) 12
In a significant order, the Chhattisgarh High Court has observed that if a wife leaves her matrimonial home due to the fact that her husband keeps another lady (concubine), and inflicts physical and mental torture upon her (wife), then it cannot be presumed as desertion on the part of the wife. With this observation, the Bench of Justice Goutam Bhaduri and Justice Rajani Dubey dismissed the appeal filed by a husband/appellant against the judgment of family court wherein his (husband/appellant) filed by him for grant of decree of divorce on the ground of desertion was rejected.
Case Title: Nand Kumar Verma v. State of Chhattisgarh & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Chh) 13
The Chhattisgarh High Court recently held that in terms of Section 195 CrPC, no FIR can be registered for forging of documents or conspiracy committed before the Court, on the basis of a private complaint. Quashing one such FIR, Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas noted,
"It certainly falls within ambit of Section 195 (ii) of Cr.P.C. which provides that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence described in Section 463, or punishable under section 471, section 475 or section 476, of the said Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court."
3. High Court Dismisses PIL Against Creation Of A New District In Chhattisgarh
Case Title: Gram Panchayat, Kandola through its' Sarpanch Onkar Patel v. The State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Chh) 14
The Chhattisgarh High Court recently dismissed as withdrawn a Public Interest Litigation filed against creation of a new district namely Sarangarh–Bilaigarh in the State. The petitioner had sought to set aside a notification issued by the state government whereby the new district is sought to be created by exercising the powers under Section 13(2) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 by altering the limits of Raigarh and Baloda Bazar–Bhatapara.
Delhi High Court
CITATIONS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 111 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 133
NOMINAL INDEX
Manika Batra v. Table Tennis Federation of India & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 111
AMIT @ SONU JAAT v. State and other connected matters. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 112
SAURABH AGGARWAL & ANR v. STATE & ANR.2022 LiveLaw (Del) 113
LUV SHARMA & ORS v. STATE & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 114
COMMONWEALTH HUMAN RIGHTS INITIATIVE v. UNION OF INDIA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 115
CHANDAN SINGH @CHINTU v. THE STATE AND ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 116
CHANDRAKANT JHA v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 117
TARANJEET SINGH v. STATE 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 118
Sushil Ansal v. State 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 119
ASHISH GUPTA v. TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LIMITED 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 120
FIITJEE LIMITED v. VIDYA MANDIR CLASSES LTD. & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 121
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V. v. VIVO MOBILE COMMUNICATION CO. LTD. & ORS.2022 LiveLaw (Del) 122
BW Business world Media Pvt. Ltd. v. India Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd.2022 LiveLaw (Del) 123
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORECEMENT v. GAGANDEEP SINGH & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 124
Dharamraj v. Income Tax Officer 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 125
Satish Kansal v. Synergy Tradeco NV & Anr.2022 LiveLaw (Del) 126
H.S. Sahni v. Mukul Singhal & Ors.2022 LiveLaw (Del) 127
JASVINDER KAUR v. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND ORS.2022 LiveLaw (Del) 128
Manohar Lal Sharma Advocate v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. & Anr 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 129
TASLEEM & ORS v. THE STATE (GOVT OF NCT) OF DELHI & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 130
Mohd. Suleman v. NDMC & Ors.2022 LiveLaw (Del) 131
Joginder Tuli v. State NCT of Delhi & Ors.2022 LiveLaw (Del) 131
MD. EHRAZ ZAFAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.2022 LiveLaw (Del) 133
ROUND-UP
1. Delhi High Court Appoints Justice Gita Mittal As Chairperson Of Committee Of Administrators To Run Table Tennis Federation Of India
Case Title: Manika Batra v. Table Tennis Federation of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 111
The Delhi High Court has appointed Justice Gita Mittal, former Chief Justice of Jammu and Kashmir High Court as Chairperson of the Committee of Administrators to conduct the affairs of the Table Tennis Federation of India.
Justice Rekha Palli appointed a three member committee of administrators on Friday this week, thereby suspending the operation of it's Executive Committee after observing that prima facie, conduct of the federation was blameworthy.
"This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that till a deeper scrutiny of respondent no.1's affairs is carried out, either by the Union of India or by an independent Committee, a Committee of Administrators is required to be immediately appointed to conduct the affairs of the respondent no.1 federation," the Court said.
2. Rape One Of The Most Barbaric Crimes Against Woman's Holy Body & Soul Of Society: Delhi HC Upholds Conviction Of 3 Of 6 Accused In Gang Rape Case
Case Title: AMIT @ SONU JAAT v. State and other connected matters.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 112
Observing that rape is one of the most barbaric crimes committed against the holy body of a woman and soul of the society, Delhi High Court has upheld conviction and sentence of three accused persons in connection with a gang rape case. The Court, however, acquitted three other accused in the matter.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh observed thus:
"Rape is one of the most barbaric and heinous crimes that is committed not only against the dignity of the rape-victim but also against the society at large. Dignity of every citizen is one of the basic precepts of the equality clause enshrined under Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution, since these provisions are the "fons juris" of our Constitution. These crimes are against the holy body of a woman and soul of the society."
The Court was of the view that the object of the relevant penal law is to protect women from such offences and to keep alive the conscience of the society by weeding out such criminal proclivity.
3. 'Filed Only To Arm Twist Accused': Delhi High Court Expresses Concern Over Alarming Increase In False Sexual Harassment Cases
Case Title: SAURABH AGGARWAL & ANR v. STATE & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 113
The Delhi High Court has recently expressed concern over alarming increase in false sexual harassment, observing that the same are filed only to arm twist the accused and make them succumb to the demands of the complainant.
"This Court is pained to note that there is an alarming increase of cases under Section 354, 354A, 354B, 354C & 354D only to arm-twist the accused and make them succumb to the demands of the complainant," Justice Subramonium Prasad observed.
The Court also noted that the time spent by the police in investigating such false cases and in Court proceedings hinders them from spending time in investigation of serious offences.
"As a result cases which are required proper investigation get compromised and accused in those cases end up going scot-free due to the shoddy investigation. Valuable judicial time is also spent in hearing cases where false allegations are made and is consequently an abuse of the process of law," the Court said.
4. Pained To Note Increasing Tendency Of Filing Rape Complaints Against Male Members Of Husband's Family In Matrimonial Cases: Delhi HC
Case Title: LUV SHARMA & ORS v. STATE & ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 114
The Delhi High Court has recently said that it is pained to note the increasing tendency of filing rape complaints in matrimonial cases against male members of the husband's family, just to exert pressure.
Justice Subramonium Prasad said:
"This Court is pained to note that in matrimonial cases, there is an increasing tendency of filing such complaints for an offence under Section 376 IPC against the father-in-law, brother-in-law or any other male member of the family of the husband just to exert pressure on the family of the husband."
5. Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea By Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative Against Suspension Of FCRA Registration
Case Title: COMMONWEALTH HUMAN RIGHTS INITIATIVE v. UNION OF INDIA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 115
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition filed by Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI) assailing an order which had suspended its registration under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 for 180 days under sec. 13 of the Act.
The impugned order dated June 7, 2021 was passed by Deputy Secretary to the Government of India, Foreigners Division [FCRA Monitoring Unit], Ministry of Home Affairs whereby the FCRA registration was suspended, pending consideration for cancellation of the Certificate under Section 14(1)(d) of the Act.
Justice V Kameswar Rao dismissed the petition by observing that the provisions for suspension of certificate under sec. 13 and cancellation of certificate under sec. 14 of the Act are measures in keeping with the general mandate of the Act and the rules.
6. "Can't Be Let Off Only Because Of Compromise, Has To Atone For Sin Of Harassing A Lady": Delhi High Court Directs Man To Do Community Service
Case Title: CHANDAN SINGH @CHINTU v. THE STATE AND ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 116
The Delhi High Court has directed a man, accused outraging modesty of a woman, to do community service for a month observing that he cannot be let off simply because of a compromise with the complainant and that he has to atone for his sin of harassing a lady.
Justice Subramonium Prasad directed the man to do community service at Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital for a period of one month from February 10 to March 11, 2022. The Court also directed the man to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000 with the "Armed Forces Battle Casualties Welfare Fund" within three weeks.
7. Parole A Progressive Measure Of Correctional Services, Enables Convict To Re-Establish Social Ties, Motivates To Maintain Discipline: Delhi HC
Case Title: CHANDRAKANT JHA v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 117
The Delhi High Court has observed that the foundational concept of parole is to enable a convict to re-establish his social ties in the community and with his family, and reintegrate himself in the society.
Denying relief to a man convicted for the offence of murder in three cases, Justice Chandra Dhari Singh added that the provision for parole, under Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, is seen as a positive reinforcement measure towards the convict.
Importantly, the Court observed thus:
"The foundational concept of parole is to enable a convict to, time and after, re-establish his social ties in the community and his family and reintegrate himself in the society. It enables him to maintain his social and familial obligations and responsibilities as well as maintain contact with the world outside the prison. Parole is usually a reward for good conduct during the time period of the serving of sentence by the convict."
8. Personal Liberty Can't Be Curtailed Merely Because Community Holds Sentiments Against Accused: Delhi High Court Grants Bail In Robbery Case
Case Title: TARANJEET SINGH v. STATE
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 118
Observing that the right to bail is not to be denied merely because of sentiments of the community against the accused, the Delhi High Court has granted bail to a man accused in a robbery case.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh granted bail to one Taranjeet Singh seeking regular bail in an FIR registered under sec. 392 (robbery), 411 (Dishonestly receiving stolen property) and 34 (Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of IPC.
"It is well settled law that personal liberty is very precious Fundamental Right and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative according to peculiar facts and circumstances of the case," the Court said.
"It is also settled law that grant or denial is regulated to large extent by facts and circumstances of each particular case, but at the same time, right to bail is not to be denied merely because of sentiments of the community against the accused."
9. [Uphaar Fire] Suspending Sentence Of Ansal Brothers Would Amount To Eroding Faith Of Public In Judicial System: Delhi HC In Evidence Tampering Case
Case Title: Sushil Ansal v. State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 119
The Delhi High Court has observed that suspending the seven year jail term awarded to real estate barons, Sushil Ansal and Gopal Ansal in the evidence tampering case in Uphaar fire tragedy of 1997 would amount to eroding the faith of the public in the judicial system as it would entail allowing convicts to take advantage of the passage of time as well as the judiciary as an institution.
Justice Subramonium Prasad therefore dismissed Ansals' pleas seeking suspension of their seven-year jail term. The Court however allowed the petition filed by co convict Anoop Singh Karayat.
"This Court is of the opinion that suspending the sentence of the Petitioners would, therefore, amount to eroding the faith of the public in the judicial system as it would entail allowing convicts, whose finding of guilt has already been established, to take advantage of the passage of time as well as the judiciary as an institution," the Court said.
10. Suit For Mandatory Injunction For Restoration Of Electricity Dismissed On Ground Of Alternative Remedy, No Bar To File Petition U/A 226: Delhi HC
Case Title: ASHISH GUPTA v. TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LIMITED
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 120
The Delhi High Court has observed that a civil suit filed by a party seeking mandatory injunction for restoration of electricity having been dismissed on the ground of an alternative remedy will not debar such party from filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva reiterated that electricity is one the Fundamental Rights for existence and is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, subject to the party complying with other requirements.
The Court was dealing with a plea seeking directions on Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited (TPDDL) to either restore the electricity supply or install a fresh connection in the property in question.
11. Malicious Falsehood Can't Become Freedom Of Speech, Care To Be Exercised To Avoid Denigration Of Competitor's Goodwill While Advertising: Delhi HC
Case Title: FIITJEE LIMITED v. VIDYA MANDIR CLASSES LTD. & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 121
Observing that malicious falsehood cannot become freedom of speech, the Delhi High Court has observed that care is to be exercised in order to avoid disparagement of another's products or denigration of the goodwill and reputation built by a competitor while engaging in advertising one's own products.
"While some latitude is to be given for hyperbole and commendatory expression for oneself with an attempt to show down the competitor, there can be no license to anyone to denigrate the competitor. The courts have protected parties who have been at the receiving end of such negative advertisements," Justice Asha Menon observed.
12. Order XLVII CPC | Error Which Is Not Self-Evident & Has To Be Detected By Reasoning Not 'Error Apparent' For Exercising Power Of Review: Delhi HC
Case Title: KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V. v. VIVO MOBILE COMMUNICATION CO. LTD. & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 122
The Delhi High Court has observed that while seeking review of orders passed in a civil suit, the grounds mentioned in Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure have to be satisfied.
Justice Asha Menon added that a re-hearing and re-appraisal of the material on record including pleadings, would fall within the scope of an appeal and not review.
"Error" has to be an error apparent on the face of the record to attract the provisions of Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC and must be a patent error which alone can be looked into in review proceedings," the Court said.
13. Participation In Arbitral Proceedings Does Not Constitute Waiver Of Right To Challenge Appointment Of Ineligible Arbitrator: Delhi High Court
Case No: OMP (T) (Comm.) 3/2020
BW Businessworld Media Pvt. Ltd. v. India Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 123
The Delhi High Court recently terminated the mandate of a sole arbitrator appointed unilaterally at the instance of one of the contracting parties.
Justice Vikram Bakhru held that the mere fact that the petitioner did not object to the appointment at the material time and participated in the arbitral proceedings, would not stand in the way of terminating the mandate of such an arbitrator, for the reason that the appointment was made by a person ineligible to be appointed as an arbitrator.
14. PMLA | Offence Of Money Laundering Layered, Includes Stages Preceding & Succeeding The Offence But Mere Suspicion Not Prima Facie Proof: Delhi HC
Case Title: DIRECTORATE OF ENFORECEMENT v. GAGANDEEP SINGH & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 124
The Delhi High Court has held that the offence of money laundering under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is layered and multi-fold which includes the stages preceding and succeeding the offence.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh added that the PMLA is a special enactment to combat the menace of money laundering, keeping in view the illegal practices that have been surfacing with respect to transfer and use of tainted money and subsequent acquisition of properties by using the same.
15. Reassessment Notice U/S 148 Of Income Tax Act Issued Against A Dead Person Is Null & Void: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Dharamraj v. Income Tax Officer
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 125
The Delhi High Court recently held that a reassessment notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1861 against a dead person is null and void.
A Division Bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Manmohan relied on the case of Savita Kapila v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax to answer the question of the validity of notice and consequent proceedings against a dead person. In the said case, it was held that,
"The sine qua non for acquiring jurisdiction to reopen an assessment is that notice under section 148 should be issued to a correct person and not to a dead person."
16. Breach Of Main Contract Not Ground For Injuncting Payments Under Bank Guarantees/ Letters Of Credit: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Satish Kansal v. Synergy Tradeco NV & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 126
The Delhi High Court recently held that contracts in respect of Bank Gaurantees and Letters of Credit are independent of the main contract between the parties. Thus, even if there is a breach of the main contract, that cannot be a ground for injuncting payments under the Bank Gaurantees/ LCs.
Justice Amit Bansal observed,
" Merely because there is a dispute between the buyer and the seller with regard to the contract of supply of goods, that cannot be ground for interfering with the LC."
It added that there are only two exceptions to the aforesaid principle where courts would pass an injunction in respect of payments under an LC, in cases of 'egregious fraud and 'irretrievable injustice'. Egregious fraud has to be a fraud of the kind which goes to the very root of the matter, it clarified.
17. S. 21 CPC | Subsequent Suit Seeking Further Reliefs Has To Be Stayed If There Is 'Identity Of Matter' In Previous Litigation: Delhi High Court
Case Title: H.S. Sahni v. Mukul Singhal & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 127
The Delhi High Court recently delved into an issue relating to staying of subsequent suit under Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 where there is identity of matter with previous litigation.
Section 10 CPC stipulates that no Court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties, in the same or any other Court in India.
Justice Asha Menon remarked that the fundamental test that is to be applied to determine whether Section 10 was applicable or not, is to see whether, on the final decision being reached in the first suit, such decision would operate as res-judicata in the subsequent suit.
18. What Are Detaining Authority's Obligations While Communicating Grounds Of Preventive Detention To Detenu? Delhi High Court Answers
Case Title: JASVINDER KAUR v. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 128
The Delhi High Court on Friday laid down the legal position regarding the detaining authority's obligation to communicate to a detenu the grounds of detention.
A division bench comprising of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Anup J Bhambhani observed that a detenu has a fundamental right under Article 22(5) that the grounds on which a detention order has been made against him, be communicated to him as soon as may be; and that he be afforded an opportunity of making a representation against the detention order at the earliest.
19. "Misconceived, Half Baked Petition": Delhi High Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Challenging DMRC-DAMEPL Agreement
Case Title: Manohar Lal Sharma Advocate v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. & Anr
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 129
Calling it a misconceived and half baked petition, the Delhi High Court on Friday refused to entertain a plea challenging an agreement between Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) and Anil Ambani-led Reliance Infrastructure-promoted Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt Ltd (DAMEPL) in the year 2008.
The plea alleged that the agreement was executed by playing a fraud on public money.
Justice Manmohan and Justice Navin Chawla was hearing a plea filed by Advocate Manohar Lal Sharma challenging the agreement dated August 25, 2008 entered between the parties, alleging that the same was hit by fraud, was contrary to public policy and was promoted by the parties jointly to siphon public money.
20. High Court Pulls Up Delhi Police Over Non Appearance Of IOs, Says Criminal Justice Machinery Can't Be Left At Mercy Of Such Officials
Case Title: TASLEEM & ORS v. THE STATE (GOVT OF NCT) OF DELHI & ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 130
The Delhi High Court recently pulled up the city Police over non-appearance of it's investigating officers before the Court in criminal matters.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh termed the delinquency on the part of Police Department officers as most unfortunate, adding that the same must be strictly dealt with.
"It is observed by this Court that even in other cases as well the concerned Investigating Officer in those cases are avoiding appearance before the Court. The criminal justice machinery cannot be left at the mercy of the department and its officials where due to their negligence, cases are kept at abeyance and the entire machinery comes to a standstill," the Court said.
21. Repeated Representation Doesn't Extend Limitation Nor Can Be Ground To Plead Fresh Cause Of Action To Overcome Delay & Laches: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Mohd. Suleman v. NDMC & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 131
The Delhi High Court reiterated that it is a settled law that repeated representation does not extend limitation nor can be a ground to plead a fresh cause of action to overcome delay and laches.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice of D.N. Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh dismissed an appeal filed with a delay of 46 years from the date the shop in question was demolished and over 11 years from the rejection of representation, without an iota of explanation.
It observed,
" The shop in question was admittedly demolished in the year 1975 and the writ petition was filed in the year 2021, which is after a period of over 46 years. There is no explanation forthcoming in the writ petition or before this Court as to why the Appellant waited for nearly 5 decades to approach the Court. "
22. Section 53A Transfer of Property Act - Unregistered Document Can't Be Relied To Protect Possession : Delhi High Court
Case Title: Joginder Tuli v. State NCT of Delhi & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 132
The Delhi High Court held that to give benefits of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act; the document relied upon must be a registered document. Justice Sabronium Prasad noted that.
"Any unregistered document cannot be looked into by the court and cannot be relied upon on or taken into evidence in view of Section 17(1A) read with Section 49 of the Registration Act."
23. Delhi High Court Dismisses PIL Challenging Tender Invitations Issued By PSUs For Empanelment Of Law Firms Based On Turn Over Criteria
Case Title: MD. EHRAZ ZAFAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 133
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation challenging the Tender invitations issued by Public Sector Undertakings and other registered Corporates or Companies, including Directorate General of Hydrocarbons, for empanelment of a Law Firm on the basis of money or turn-over criteria as being ultra vires the Advocates Act, 1961.
Justice Manmohan and Justice Navin Chawla dismissed the petition filed by Advocate Md. Ehraz Zafar which sought a direction on the Centre to formulate a new uniform guideline for engagement and empanelment of lawyers and advocates.
IMPORTANT WEEKLY UPDATES
1. Sci-Hub Case: Delhi High Court Rejects Researchers' Plea Seeking Impleadment In Infringement Proceedings
The Delhi High Court has rejected an application filed by three researchers seeking impleadment in the ongoing infringement proceedings in the Sci Hub case.
Justice C Hari Shankar rejected the impleadment application filed by Prof. Subbiah Arunachalam, Prof. (Dr.) Padmanabhan Balaram and Mr. Madhan Muthu claiming to be eminent researchers and scientists holding various coveted academic positions at some of the most prestigious universities in India.
The impleadment was sought in the suit filed by publishing houses Elsevier Ltd, Wiley India Pvt Ltd, and American Chemical Society against online repositories Sci-Hub and Libgen(another online repository of science articles) over alleged copyright infringement.
2. Delhi High Court Restrains Historian Audrey Truschke & Others From Publishing Defamatory Material Against Vikram Sampath
The Delhi High Court this week restrained historian Dr. Audrey Truschke and other persons from publishing any defamatory material against historian Dr. Vikram Sampath against him till April 1 on Twitter as well as other online or offline platforms.
Passing an ad interim order, Justice Amit Bansal also restrained the defendants from publishing the letter dated February 11 addressed to Royal Historical Society in London raising serious allegations of plagiarism against Sampath, till the next date of hearing.
3. "Attitude Of Union Of India Has Been Lackadaisical": Delhi High Court Grants Last Opportunity For Filing Reply, Imposes Rs. 50K Cost
Noting that the attitude of the Union of India has been lackadaisical resulting in unnecessary adjournments in a case raising 'serious allegations' against Government Officers, the Delhi High Court has granted last and final opportunity to the Centre for filing it's reply subject to a cost of Rs. 50,000.
Justice Subramonium Prasad was dealing with a plea which sought directions on the CBI and other authorities to conduct a proper and fair investigation by an officer not below the rank of Superintending of Police in the matter allegedly exposing the scandal of nexus among the accused persons and other officials regarding allegations of corruption.
4. AgustaWestland VVIP Chopper Scam: Delhi High Court Reserves Order On Middleman Christian Michel's Bail Pleas
The Delhi High Court has reserved order on the bail applications filed by Christian James Michel, facing investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation and the Directorate of Enforcement in connection with Augusta Westland case.
The bail pleas were moved in July last year. Justice Manoj Ohri secured the order today after hearing Advocate Aljo K Joseph for Michel, Advocate DP Singh for CBI and ASG SV Raju for the ED.
Gauhati High Court
Case Name : Bikas Borah & 10 Ors. v. State of Assam and 7 Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Gau) 12
The Gauhati High Court has dismissed a writ petition seeking change in the schedule of the Assam Public Service Commission (Mains) examination, as the same is clashing with the UPSC Indian Forest Service (IFS) examination, to be held on 27.02.2022.
The division Bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Soumitra Saikia noted that APSC has bonafide, practical reasons to not change the dates and as such, the Court cannot interfere in the matter.
Case Title: Saidur Rahman v. The State of Assam & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Gau) 13
In a significant judgment, the Gauhati High Court has held that physically handicapped persons constitute a category in themselves. There can be no further classification amongst the members of that category on the basis of other considerations like caste, creed, religion etc. While granting relief to the petitioner, who was excluded from the recruitment drive conducted by the Assam Government merely for the fact that he was a general category candidate with physical disability, the Single Judge Bench of Justice Suman Shyam held,
"…this Court is of the unhesitant opinion that having reserved four vacancies to be filled up by PWD candidates and having permitted the General Category candidates to participate in the recruitment process, there was no scope for the authorities to further reserve those four vacancies in PWD category to be filled up only by candidates belonging to OBC/ MOBC or ST(H) category."
Case Name : Basiran Bewa v. State of Assam and 7 Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Gau) 14
The Gauhati High Court has dismissed a revision petition challenging an order of the learned trial court which rejected the prayer of the petitioner to invoke section 319 CrPC to summon few persons as additional accused to face the trial.
"319.Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence.
(1) Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed."
Case Name : M/S GAUHATI ROLLER FLOUR MILLS LTD. v. SMTI PREMODA MEDHI and 2 ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Gau) 15
The Gauhati High Court has made it clear that in a civil suit, the plaintiff has to prove his case on his own strength. He cannot draw strength from the documents of the other side.
Justice Parthivjyoti Saikia thus refused to interfere with the findings of the courts below, in a case relating to property title. It observed,
"The appellant (plaintiff before the court below) failed to prove the sale deed, so he failed to prove his title over the suit land. For the reasons as aforesaid, this court finds that the trial court as well as the first appellate court had correctly appreciated the evidence on record and arrived at correct findings. Therefore, this appeal is found to be devoid of merit and stands dismissed accordingly.
Gujarat High Court
Citations: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 63 To 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 70
NOMINAL INDEX
H.K.Thakur v. Nazir Noormohmed Kara & 2 Other(S), 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 40
M/S. Raghunandan Enterprise v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 41
Bhavesh Khimabhai Pandit v. State Of Gujarat, 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 42
Rajubhai Kanubhai Bharwad v. South Indian Bank, 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 43
Bilkisbanu (Bilkisbano) Hanifkhan @ Kalo Munno Amirkhan Jatmalek v. State Of Gujarat, 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 44
Nandlal Namdev Otwani v. Vijay Jayprakash Ahuja, 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 45
Samay Alloys India Pvt. Ltd. v. State Of Gujarat, 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 46
Rajeshbhai Jesingbhai Dayara v. State Of Gujarat, 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 47
Case Title: H.K.THAKUR Versus NAZIR NOORMOHMED KARA & 2 other(s)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 40
The Gujarat High Court has reiterated that presumption of innocence in favour of an accused is strengthened upon acquittal by the trial Court. The Bench comprising Justice Rajendra M Sareen observed,
"in case of Acquittal, there is prejudice in favour of the Accused, firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the Fundamental Principle of Criminal Jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent Court of Law. Secondly, the Accused having secured his Acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial Court."
Case Title: M/S. RAGHUNANDAN ENTERPRISE Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 41
There is a fine distinction between a case where a partner of a firm assigns his/her share in favour of a third person and a case where a partner constitutes a sub-partnership with his/her share in the main partnership, the Gujarat High Court has held.
The observation was made by a bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Nisha Thakore while hearing a Writ Petition filed by a Partnership Firm, seeking to quash an order of the Income tax Department which attached the land of the firm as the property of an Assessee.
Case Title: BHAVESH KHIMABHAI PANDIT Versus STATE OF GUJARAT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 42
Affirming that the nature of duties of an Electrical Assistant are "onerous", the Bench comprising Justice Biren Vaishnav at the Gujarat High Court has declined to allow the Petition of a colour-blind candidate seeking the quashment of "unfit certificate" for the said post.
The Bench was hearing a Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Case Title: RAJUBHAI KANUBHAI BHARWAD Versus SOUTH INDIAN BANK
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 43
Considering that the Appellants were ready and willing to deposit INR 20 lacs and the fact that the property which was likely to be auctioned was residential premises wherein two families were residing, the Gujarat High Court has directed that the Respondent-Bank to not dispossess the family from the property until 11th March 2022. The Bench comprising Justice AJ Desai was hearing an appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent which sought relief from dispossession of property which was going to be auctioned.
Case Title: BILKISBANU (BILKISBANO) HANIFKHAN @ KALO MUNNO AMIRKHAN JATMALEK Versus STATE OF GUJARAT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 44
The Gujarat High Court recently denied bail to an accused under the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Act, 2015, stating that accused was prima facie a part of an 'organised crime syndicate' involved in highway thefts.
'Organized Crime Syndicate', defined under Section 2(1)(f) of the Act, means a group of two or more persons who, acting either singly or collectively, as a syndicate or gang indulging in activities of organised crime.
6. Financial Crisis Can Be One Of The Grounds For Condonation Of Delay: Gujarat High Court
Case Title: NANDLAL NAMDEV OTWANI Versus VIJAY JAYPRAKASH AHUJA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 45
"Now as the legal settled proposition which has been set-out here-in-above, considering the prevalent economy condition of the parties as well as even of the Country, the financial crisis can be considered to be one of the grounds for condonation of delay," the Gujarat High Court has held. The Bench comprising Justice AP Thaker made this observation with regard to a Civil Application for condonation of delay of 399 days caused in preferring an appeal from an order wherein the Applicant was restrained from transferring, alienating or creating third party interest in the suit property.Now as the legal settled proposition which has been set-out here-in-above, considering the prevalent economy condition of the parties as well as even of the Country, the financial crisis can be considered to be one of the grounds for condonation of delay.
Case Title: SAMAY ALLOYS INDIA PVT. LTD. Versus STATE OF GUJARAT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 46
The Gujarat High Court has recently held that the power prescribed under Rule 86A of the GST Rules 2017 to block an electronic credit ledger can be exercised only when there is availability of credit in such ledger, alleged to be ineligible.
"Condition precedent for exercise of power under Rule 86A of the GST Rules is the availability of credit in the electronic credit ledger which is alleged to be ineligible. If credit balance is available, then the authority may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, not allow the debit of amount equivalent to such credit. However, there is no power of negative block for credit to be availed in future," observed Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Nisha M. Thakore.
Case Title: RAJESHBHAI JESINGBHAI DAYARA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 47
The Gujarat High Court has held that to prosecute a person under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, it must be established that the accused had knowledge of the victim's caste.
"If we refer Section 3(5) (A) of the Act, it must be within knowledge of the accused person that such person is a member of Schedule Caste or Schedule Tribe or such property belongs to such member. It is nowhere alleged by the complainant that the accused persons were having knowledge that the complainant was the member of Schedule Caste or Schedule Tribe or such property belongs to such member," Justice BN Karia opined.
Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court
Case Title: State of Jammu & Kashmir v. Swarn Singh @ Titti
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 4
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court recently dismissed a criminal acquittal appeal, noting that the evidence of post-mortem report by no stretch of imagination can be made the sole basis for the conviction of the accused in the absence of legal proof against them.
A Division Bench of Justices Mohan Lal and Sanjeev Kumar held,
"In a criminal trial, it is the duty of the Court to ensure that mere conjectures or suspicion do not take the place of legal proof. Suspicion, however strong or probable it may be, is not a substitute for the legal proof required to substantiate the charges against the accused for commission of crime. It would be a travesty of justice to rely upon the suspicion/conjectures as adduced by the prosecution in a criminal case as the case in hand. From the prosecution witness, it is not clearly established that deceased was killed by the accused persons."
Jharkhand High Court
Case title: Narendra Singh Tomar v. The State of Jharkhand and another
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 14
The Jharkhand High Court on Tuesday quashed a criminal case against Union Minister of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, Narendra Tomar for his alleged derogatory remarks against Congress Leader Rahul Gandhi.
The Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi quashed the case registered against Tomar under Section 504 of IPC for his alleged remark made during a political rally in 2016 that "Prime Minister Narendra Modi is hair of moustache and the National Vice-President of Congress Sri Rahul Gandhi is hair of the tail".
Case Title: Bina Goswami v. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 15
The Jharkhand High Court has held that when the claimant is a nurse whose work involves considerable movement, then a 30% medical disability due to knee injury can be regarded as a functional disability of the claimant. Thus, enhancing the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Justice Gautam Choudhary noted,
"The claimant is a nurse whose work involves considerable movement while attending to the patients and is not a stationary job. It has come in evidence that she had sustained fracture of knee which resulted in 30% disablement. In the facts and circumstances of the present case the medical disability of 30% can be regarded as the functional disability of the claimant."
3. Railway Administration Has Statutory Right To Re-Weigh Consignment Before Delivery; Presence Of Consignor Not A Pre-Requisite: Jharkhand High Court
Case Title: Union of India v. M/s Muva Industries Ltd. & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 16
The Jharkhand High Court recently allowed an appeal under Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 observing that the Railway Authority has the statutory right to re-weigh the goods before delivery. Further, the same may be done in the absence of the consignor, as it will be highly impracticable to detain the consignment until the representative of the consignor arrives.
Justice Gautam Choudhary observed,
"Re weighment is a statutory right of the railway administration to check all short of malpractices, and a clog on this cannot be imposed by laying down unrealistic conditionalities like presence of the consignor at the time of reweighment. Considering the length and breadth of our country and the span in which the railways network is spread out is it possible to detain the goods train enroute till the representative arrives there?"
Case Title: Jai Prakash Narayan Sinha v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Jha) 17
The Jharkhand High Court has held that Section 12(3) of the Jharkhand Lokayukta Act, 2001 does not confer power upon the Lokayukta to pass a direction commanding upon the disciplinary authority to take action against a person, against whom irregularities are found to be true in the course of inquiry.
Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad held that the authority can only make a recommendation to that effect.
Case Title: Binod Kumar & Ors v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 18
While hearing a reference from a single judge, a Division Bench of Jharkhand High Court has held that in petition filed jointly by several persons, one single court fee is justified where there is a common interest. However, when the interests are merely similar but not common, separate court fee has to be filed.
Emphasizing the difference between the two, Chief Justice Ravi Ranjan and Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad noted,
"if the interests among the petitioners are common or joint when they claim an interest as class or group, in that case only one set of court fee would be payable but when the interest is not common but similar in the sense that each of the petitioners has suffered individual injury as a result of the impugned order, then in that case though the interest is similar it cannot be termed as common interest and in such type of cases separate court fee is required to be paid.
Case Title: Smt. Vibha Sinha & Ors v. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 19
In a recent case seeking enhancement of compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1989, the Jharkhand High Court refused to discard the testimony of a witness, General Manager at the company where the deceased used to work, merely because he appeared without permission from the Department Head.
Justice Gautam Choudhary noted that the rules and protocols of official business in a private concern are quite different from that of a public sector undertaking or a Government Department.
Case Title: Priyanka Devi v. Satish Kumar
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 20
The Jharkhand High Court recently held that Section 19(2) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is akin to the provision under Section 96(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure which bars appeal from a decree passed with the consent of parties.
It added that this bar operates with further expansion under Section 19(2), in as much as, no appeal shall also lie from "any order" passed by the Family Court with the consent of the parties.
Karnataka High Court
1: Punishment Of Compulsory Retirement For Accepting ₹50 Bribe Disproportionate: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: M.S. Kadkol v. State of Karnataka Case No: Writ Petition No.110912 of 2017
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 46
Almost 18 years after an employee of the State government was subjected to compulsory retirement for accepting a bribe of Rs. 50, the Karnataka High Court recently held that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is shockingly disproportionate to the nature and gravity of the offence. It thus set aside the order of compulsory retirement issued in the year 2004.
A division bench of Justice S.G. Pandit and Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde sitting at Dharwad partly allowed the petition filed by M.S. Kadkol. It confirmed the guilt of the petitioner however, set aside the punishment of compulsory retirement and remitted the matter back to the disciplinary authority to pass appropriate order of punishment on the petitioner.
2: Karnataka High Court Strikes Down Law Banning Online Gaming With Stakes
Case Title: All India Gaming Federation v. State Of Karnataka Case No: WP 18703/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 47
The Karnataka High Court on Monday held certain provisions of the Karnataka Police (Amendment) Act 2021, by which the state government has banned online games with stakes to be ultra vires to the Constitution and struck them down. The Act provides maximum imprisonment of three years and penalty up to Rs. 1 lakh for violation of the provisions. A division bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice Krishna S Dixit said "In the above circumstances these writ petitions succeed. The Karnataka Police (Amendment) Act 2021 to the extent provisions we have said, not the entire act is struck down is declared to be ultra vires to the constitution and struck down."
Case Title: Karnataka State Law University v. Mahantesh Case No: WA 100319/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 48
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday set aside the single judge bench order dated on December 14, 2021, by which the court had quashed the notification issued by Karnataka State Law University, by which it was to conduct offline examinations for the students of 2nd and 4th semester of three year LLB course. A division bench of Justice S G Pandit and Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde while allowing the intra-court appeal filed by Karnataka State Law University said, "In the best interest of legal education. The following order, writ appeal is allowed. The order dated 14/12/2021 passed in writ petition no 104008/2021, is set aside."
Case Title: Somashekara @ Soma v. State Of Karnataka Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 328/2018
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 49
The Karnataka High Court has said that if an advocate representing the accused who is in custody fails to appear before the court, the trial court is bound to appoint a legal aid advocate to defend the accused. A single judge bench of Justice K.S.Mudagal said, "Article 39A of the Constitution of India casts duty on the state not to deny access to justice on the ground of economic or other disabilities. To achieve the object of Article 39A of the Constitution, the Legal Services Authority Act has been enacted. Under the said Act, Legal Services Authorities are constituted right from national level to taluk level. The district courts have the District Legal Services Authority and a panel of advocates for rendering legal aid to the unaffordable as contemplated under Section 304 of Cr.P.C."
Case Title: Sunil Kumar v. State By Periyapatana Police Station Case No: Criminal Petition No.4234/2021
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 50
The Karnataka High Court has directed its Registry to post an Additional Session Judge, Mysuru, for training in the Judicial Academy in order to make him learn "judicial discretion", in the interest of the institution and to protect the interest of seekers of justice. A single judge bench of Justice H.P. Sandesh said, "The Registry is directed to seek appropriate orders from the Hon'ble Chief Justice to post the concerned Judicial Officer to the Judicial Academy for training with regard to applying judicious thought process while exercising judicial discretion before granting bail in heinous offences."
Hijab Ban Reports:
Over 500 law students, legal academics and lawyers practising in different jurisdictions across courts in India have written an open letter strongly condemning the violation of constitutional rights of young Muslim women who have been denied entry into educational spaces due to their wearing a hijab.
A Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court on Monday heard extensive arguments on behalf of the petitioner, a Muslim girl student who challenged the action of a government college in denying her entry for wearing a hijab (headscarf). Last Friday, the Full bench had restrained students from wearing any sort of religious clothes in classrooms, regardless of their faith, while the matter is pending hearing. The interim order is only applicable to those institutions which have prescribed a uniform dress code.
A Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court on Tuesday heard extensive arguments on behalf of the petitioners, Muslim girl students, who challenged the action of a government college in denying their entry for wearing a hijab (headscarf). Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat appearing for the petitioners argued that wearing Hijab is an essential religious practice under Islam, and suspension of the same, even for a few hours during school, undermines the community's faith and violates their fundamental rights under Article 19 and 25 of the Constitution.
The Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court which is hearing the hijab case on Tuesday rejected an affidavit which alleged that the interim order passed by the Court on February 10 was being misused by authorities to stop hijab-wearing students even in institutions with no prescribed uniform. The Bench rejected the affidavit sworn to by Advocate Mohammad Tahir by saying that a counsel cannot file an affidavit and that the same has to be sworn to by the party.
A Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court today continued hearing arguments on the petitions filed by Muslim girl students, who challenged the action of a government college in denying their entry for wearing a hijab (headscarf). Prof Ravivarma Kumar, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioners today argued that the state is discriminating against Muslim girls, solely on the basis of their religion. He highlighted that the Government Order dated February 5 targets wearing of hijab whereas other religious symbols are not taken into account. This leads to hostile discrimination violating Article 15 of the Constitution.
In the hijab case, the Karnataka High Court on Wednesday granted two days time to the State Government to respond to an application filed by one of the petitioners seeking to allow students to use dupatta as prescribed in the uniform to cover her head. Senior Advocate Professor Ravivarma Kumar submitted that yesterday for some technical reasons the application was not considered, and hence a proper application has now been made, seeking a clarification that the students can wear dupatta of the same uniform colour to cover their heads. "Just use the same dupatta to cover their head, no additional dress. Let the students get back to the class", Kumar submitted.
Responding to a plea for mediation in the hijab case, the Karnataka High Court on Thursday observed that mediation was possible only if both the petitioners and the respondents (State and College Development Committees) agree. The Full Bench was responding to an oral request made by an advocate for mediation in the matter. She said that whatever be the judgment, there will be still problems, and hence suggested mediation to solve the problem. She added that the rights of Muslim girls were being violated.
A Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court today heard Advocate General Prabhuling Navadgi on behalf of the State, in the petitions filed by Muslim girl students, who have challenged the action of a government college in denying their entry for wearing a hijab (headscarf). Navadgi told the Bench comprising Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi, Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice JM Khazi that he will argue primarily on the following grounds:
(i) wearing of hijab does not fall within the essential religious practise of Islam; (ii) right to wear hijab cannot be traced to freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution; (iii) Government Order dated February 5 empowering College Development Committees (CDCs) to prescribe uniform is in consonance with the Education Act.
The Karnataka High Court on Friday was informed that the interim order dated February 10, restraining all the students, regardless of their religion or faith, from wearing religious clothes within the classroom, which was limited to only colleges where the College Development Committee (CDC) had prescribed uniform, is now being extended by the state to all schools and colleges. Advocate Mohammed Tahir appearing for one of the petitioners, at the end of the hearing today submitted to the court that, "These all writ petitions are private in nature and lordships have passed interim order, considering the law and order situation. The order has specifically stated that it is in respect and only confined to those colleges where the CDC has prescribed any uniform. But in spite of that, the state has extended this order and enforced it to all the schools, degree colleges, and all the colleges. Even the school teachers are not spared."
Other reports:
Case Title: Adinarayan Shetty v. State Of Karnataka Case No: WP 13605/2021
The Karnataka High Court on Thursday directed the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) Commissioner to lodge a FIR against M/S Simplex Infrastructures Ltd., on charges of misappropriation of funds, on account of delay in construction of the four-lane Ejipura-Kendriya Sadana flyover in the Koramangala area of Bengaluru. A division bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice Suraj Govindaraj said, "We prima facie find that it is because of the fourth respondent that delay has been caused in completion of the project and construction of the flyover could not be completed. The public money has been involved in the project and people at large have been put to inconvenience due to the delay in completion of the project."
Case Title: Law Students Association v. State of Karnataka Case No: WP 2125/2022
A non-profit organisation, Law Students Association has approached the Karnataka High Court questioning the continuation of Prof. (Dr.) P. Ishwara Bha as the Vice Chancellor of Karnataka State Law University, allegedly beyond the prescribed age limit of 65 years. Advocate Vittal B R appearing for the petitioners on Friday submitted that section 14 of the Karnataka State Law University Act of 2009, clearly mentions the term of office of Vice Chancellor. The year of birth of the present Vice Chancellor as stated in the University records is 1955. So in the year 2020 he completed the prescribed age limit of 65 years, it was argued.
Kerala High Court
Cittaions 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 78 - 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 91
Nominal Index
Beena M.S v. Shino G. Babu, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 78
State of Kerala v. Binu Sebastian & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 79
Anoop K.A & Anr. v K.R Jyothylal & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 80
S. Surendran v. Director General of Central Industrial Security Force & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 81
Devarajan v State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 82
Joint Registrar (General) of Cooperative Societies & Anr. v. Charley Panthallookaran & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 83
Smitha v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 84
Abhijith v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 85
J. Rajendran Pillai v. B. Bhasi & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 86
Teena v State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 87
HDFC Bank Ltd. v. Debts Recovery Tribunal & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 88
Suo motu case, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 89
Alli Noushad v. Rasheed & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 90
X v. Y, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 91
Judgments This Week
Case Title: Beena M.S v. Shino G. Babu
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 78
The Court has held that if one of the spouses is refusing to accord divorce on mutual consent despite being convinced of the fact that the marriage has failed, it is nothing but cruelty to the other spouse.A Division Bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Sophy Thomas noted that once the court is able to form an opinion that due to incompatibility, the marriage failed and one of the spouses was withholding consent for mutual separation, it can very well treat that conduct itself as cruelty.
2. K-Rail Silverline Project | Kerala High Court Sets Aside Single Judge Order Staying Land Survey
Case Title: State of Kerala v. Binu Sebastian & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 79
The Court set aside an interim order issued by a Single Judge directing the State to defer steps for the survey taken in furtherance of its K-Rail Silver Line project of the writ petitioners' properties until the matters are considered again in February. A Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly allowed a batch of appeals filed by the State noting that Social Impact Assessment cannot be seen as an empty formality and that the public is entitled to know the adverse impact and consequences they are likely to suffer.
Case Title: Anoop K.A & Anr. v K.R Jyothylal & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 80
The Court has directed the State Police and Enforcement Officials of the Motor Vehicles Department to initiate stringent measures against vehicle drivers/owners found disregarding the Road Safety Policy guidelines, particularly against those who overload their vehicles or use a government nameplate without the requisite authorisation. Justice Anil K Narendran issued certain directions to reinforce the strict implementation of the Road Safety Policy, Motor Vehicles Act and the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations in the State as directed by the Supreme Court Committee on Road Safety.
Case Title: S. Surendran v. Director General of Central Industrial Security Force & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 81
The Court recently ruled that a government servant who was dismissed from service may not be denied special consideration for compassionate allowance merely for the reason that his wife and children are employed. While allowing a writ petition, Justice V.G. Arun found that although a government servant removed from service is not entitled to pension/ gratuity, the competent authority can sanction compassionate allowance in cases deserving special consideration.
5. Kerala High Court Issues Directions To Be Followed By Trial Courts While Sentencing
Case Title: Devarajan v State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 82
The Court has recently issued a set of recommendations to be observed by trial courts while sentencing the accused in criminal matters. The guidelines were issued by a Division Bench of Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice C. Jayachandran while allowing a criminal appeal, thereby reversing the conviction and sentence imposed by a Sessions Judge on the appellant for murder.
Case Title: Joint Registrar (General) of Cooperative Societies & Anr. v. Charley Panthallookaran & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 83
The Court recently held that an inquiry under Section 68(1) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act includes the inquiry conducted by the Vigilance Officer appointed under Section 68A of the Act, and that it does not have to be necessarily be done by the Joint Registrar (General) of Cooperative Societies himself. Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Justice C.S. Sudha added that merely for the reason that an inquiry under Section 65 can be conducted by the Registrar directly, such a report under Section 65 cannot be placed in a better pedestal than an inquiry conducted by the Vigilance Officer.
Case Title: Smitha v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 84
The High Court recently ruled that a Magistrate cannot return a complaint merely on the ground that it was filed by the wife of the complainant. Justice K. Haripal also emphasised that criminal law can be set in motion by anyone and that principle of locus standi does not apply in criminal jurisprudence.
8. Merely Keeping Tobacco Products At One's Residence Not An Offence: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Abhijith v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 85
The Court has recently ruled that mere keeping of tobacco products at one's residence does not attract any offence per se. Holding so, Justice Kauser Edappagath allowed a petition filed by an accused who was charged for storing a collection of tobacco products at his residence, allegedly to sell to children. Since there is no prosecution case that the petitioner had given or caused to be given tobacco products to any minor child, charges under Section 77 of the JJ Act were also dropped.
Case Title: J. Rajendran Pillai v. B. Bhasi & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 86
The Court has recently laid down the instances when a co-owner can maintain a suit for injunction to protect his co-ownership right over a property. Justice A. Badharudeen was adjudicating upon a matter where one co-owner was attempting to construct a building in the co-ownership property during the pendency of the final decree proceedings before a trial court. The Court found that construction could not be permitted without the knowledge or consent of other co-owners and added that such construction may cause prejudice to the right of enjoyment of the other co-owners as they wish on separation of shares.
Case Title: Teena v State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 87
'God could not be everywhere and therefore he made mothers', quoted the High Court while reversing the trial court's conviction of a woman who was accused of killing her 9-year-old son in an attempt to avenge her disturbed marital life. A Division Bench of Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice C. Jayachandran observed that in such cases, there is often more than meets the eye, which sensitivity often the investigators lack. It was also held that the prosecution had failed to establish guilt beyond all reasonable doubt and that the trial court had erred in the marshalling of facts and scrutiny of evidence.
Case Title: HDFC Bank Ltd. v. Debts Recovery Tribunal & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 88
The Court recently expressed serious concerns regarding the non-availability of the adjudicatory mechanism of Debts Recovery Tribunal in the State for over ten months despite its efforts to kick start its functioning. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that when the fundamental right to have access to justice is denied due to the absence of Presiding Officers of the forum created under a statute, the aggrieved are entitled to approach the High Court.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 89
The Court held that it is the duty of courts to protect and safeguard the properties of religious and charitable institutions from wrongful claims or misappropriation. Observing so, a Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.G Ajithkumar withdrew the permission granted by the Travancore Devaswom Board to a Delhi-based trust to organise a nine-day-long 'Ramakatha' recital programme at Pamba area, encroaching upon the pilgrimage path to the Sabarimala temple.
Case Title: Alli Noushad v. Rasheed & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 90
The Court observed that Section 122 of the Evidence Act requires a revisit since it was a legal weapon used by criminals to suppress their crimes, thereby affecting public interest. The said provision recognises the age-old concept of marital confidence, where all communications between spouses during the wedlock are considered sacrosanct. While appreciating the sacrosanctity attached to communications between spouses as laid down by the English Commission of Common Law Procedure report in 1853, Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice C. Jayachandran observed that perhaps it was time to reconsider the stand in the light of modern times.
14. Wife Making Frequent Discreet Phone Calls To Another Man At Odd Hours Despite Husband's Warning Is Matrimonial Cruelty: Kerala High Court
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 91
While granting a decree of divorce to a couple, the Court recently ruled that a wife making secret phone calls to a man ignoring her husband's warning against the same amounts to matrimonial cruelty. Justice Kauser Edappagth in his judgment also observed that mere compromise would not amount to condonation of cruelty unless and until the matrimonial life was restored.
Other Developments
Case Title: Kerala High Tension & Extra High Tension Industrial Electricity Consumers' Association v. State of Kerala
A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has reached the Court alleging that the Kerala State Electricity Board is running on heavy loss due to its unjustified salary structure which is thereby causing the liability to be passed on to the consumers. A Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly admitted the PIL filed by Kerala High Tension & Extra High Tension Industrial Electricity Consumers' Association.
16. Actor Dileep Approaches Kerala High Court Seeking To Quash FIR In Murder Conspiracy Case
Case Title: P. Gopalakrishnan alias Dileep & Ors v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Malayalam actor Dileep has approached the Court yet again, seeking to quash the FIR filed by the Crime Branch of Kerala Police against him and five others for allegedly conspiring to murder the investigation officials in the 2017 actor rape case, in which Dileep is facing trial as the chief conspirator. The plea filed through Advocate Philip T. Varghese has accused the filing of the impugned FIR as a vindictive, ill-motivated, pre-determined and malafide act executed with oblique motives.
Additional Public Prosecutor P Narayanan along with the DGP has penned a letter to the Registrar General of Kerala High Court accusing a counsel of the Court of forging a case status. On the day the accused was arrested, his counsel approached the Station House Officer alleging that there was an interim order passed by the Court prohibiting coercive steps in the matter. It is alleged that upon enquiry through the Registry, it was confirmed that no such interim order had been issued by the High Court in the said bail application.
Case Title: P. Gopalakrishnan alias Dileep v. State of Kerala & Anr
The plot thickens in the 2017 sexual assault case as developments ensued before the Court as the survivor in the case filed an impleading petition in the plea moved by actor Dileep seeking to suspend further investigation into the 2017 case. Upon the actress seeking to be heard in the matter, Justice Kauser Edappagath adjourned the case to be called on February 21.
In a major setback for the legal fraternity in Kerala, the Additional Chief Secretary to Government has recently addressed a letter to the Chairman of Kerala Bar Council with a proposal to amend the Rules regarding fees payable to Advocates in the State. Members of the State Bar Council and the Kerala High Court Advocates Association had declared an All Kerala Protest Day on 17th February to mark their protest against the proposed amendments by wearing protest badges while appearing before the court.
20. COVID-19 | Kerala High Court To Continue Virtual Hearings For One Month Or Till TPR Drops To 10%
Through a notice issued by the Registrar General, the Court has notified its decision to continue virtual hearing of cases amid the steady hike of Covid-19 cases in the State. The notice further declared that the earlier arrangements of online hearing will continue for a month or until the Test Positivity Rate drops below 10 per cent, whichever is earlier. At present, the TPR in the State is over 15%.
Case Title: P. Balachandrakumar alias Balu v. State of Kerala
Malayalam film director Balachandrakumar has moved the Court seeking anticipatory bail apprehending arrest in a case where he has been accused of raping a woman in 2010 and recording the incident on his cellphone. The director has been charged under Section 376 (i) of IPC (sexual assault) and Section 66 E of the Information Technology Act (violation of privacy).
Case Title: Prathap P. v. State of Kerala
A plea has been moved in the Court seeking the inclusion of advocate clerks in the new regime of Electronic Filing Rules for Courts (Kerala), 2021 and digitalised procedures. Justice N. Nagaresh on Friday admitted the case. The petitioner, who is an advocate clerk himself, has alleged that the introduction of e-filing procedure in the Courts across the State has brought in an adverse impact on the fundamental rights of the clerks guaranteed under Article 14, 19 (1) g and 21 of the Constitution.
23. Kerala High Court Asks State To Put A Hold On Its Proposal To Amend Advocate Fee Rule
The Court has decided to request the State government hold off on its proposal to amend the Kerala Advocate Fee Rule till the Court's Rule Committee comes to a conclusion on the same. The intimation was made through a notice issued by the Registrar General of the High Court on Friday, which came as a huge relief to the lawyering community in the State. The notice stated that the Rule Committee had now fixed its meeting on 22 February to consider the matter after consultation with the representatives of the Bar.
Madras High Court
Citations: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 63 To 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 70
NOMINAL INDEX
S. Muruganandam v. J. Jospeh & Other Connected Matters, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 63,
P. Dhanaseelan v. Union of India & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 64
Gnanaloussany Valmy v. The Registrar of Marriages, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 65
P. Arumugam v. Tamil Nadu State Election Commissioner & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 66
Syed Ibrahim v. Tamil Nadu State Election Commissioners & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 67
Mrs S. Sushma & Ors. v. The Director-General of Police & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 68
M/s.Ramaniyam Real Estates Private Ltd v. M/s.Spencer's Retail Private Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 69
B.Balamurugan v. The Chairman & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 70
1. TP Act Enables Oral Lease; Requirement Of Registered Agreement Under 2017 TN Act Not Of Universal Application: Madras High Court
Case Title: S. Muruganandam v. J. Jospeh & Other Connected Matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 63
Answering a set of questions pertaining to the diverging scenarios that might occur in the eviction of tenants under Tamilnadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017, Madras High Court has held that legal recourse on oral tenancies after the commencement of the Act can be availed only through civil courts and not the rent courts under the new act.
Justice R. Subramanian observed that the civil revision petitions that have come up before him, since the rent courts rejected all of them by citing the issue of maintainability, can be broadly classified into six types. The rent courts deemed all of these petitions as not maintainable by observing that there is no registered written agreement of tenancy in all six cases.
The court observed that the requirement of a registered instrument of lease in order to enable creation of a landlord-tenant relationship as given in Section 4(2) of the New Act 'cannot be said to be universal in its application'.
"...Therefore, a suit or proceeding which falls outside the provisions of the New Act are not barred. The scope of a bar created under a special enactment was considered by a Full Bench of this Court in Periyathambi Goundan v. The District Revenue Officer,Coimbatore and others, reported in 1980 (2) MLJ 89, wherein the Full Bench had held that the scope of the bar are interdict imposed by a provision of law must be strictly construed and the Court must ascertain the extent of the interdict imposed by the provision of the statute and limit the interdict to that extent alone."
2. 'All Is Not Well As Regards The Procedure Followed By NIT': Madras HC Sets Aside Appointment Of Asst Professor In Dept Of Architecture
Case Title: P. Dhanaseelan v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 64
Pointing towards the opacity with regards to the selection process followed by the National Institute of Technology (Tiruchirapalli) for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in the Department of Architecture, the Madras High Court has directed the institute to issue a fresh call for filling the vacancies.
It has also set aside the appointment of one S. Amalan Sigmund Kaushik to the said post.
The bench of Dr Justice Anita Sumanth observed,
'all is not well as regards the method, methodology as well as procedure followed by NIT, in effecting appointments, at least with regard to the Department of Architecture'.
Case Title: Gnanaloussany Valmy v. The Registrar of Marriages
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 65
Criticising an additional sub court in Pondicherry for issuing directions on making alterations in the marriage register without verifying the original documents, Madras High Court observed that courts cannot pass orders without proper enquiry and by solely relying upon the copies of the documents presented by the litigants.
The single-judge bench of Justice S.M Subramaniam was hearing the plea made by a french citizen to correct her name as well as her parents' names in the marriage register. She submitted that she wasn't conversant in English and noticed the error only when an application was made for her daughter's citizenship.
Case Title: P. Arumugam v. Tamil Nadu State Election Commissioner & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 66
Madras High Court has given a strict mandate not to affix posters of election candidates on the walls of public and private property without proper permission with regards to the upcoming Tamil Nadu Urban Local Body Polls.
The first bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy has also warned the candidates who violate the provisions of Tamil Nadu Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1959 of legal action including prosecution.
The bench has also directed Tamil Nadu State Election Commission (TNSEC) and Chennai Municipal Corporation to oversee that the court order is strictly complied with. It has also been directed that the candidates who flout the provisions of the Act and the Tamil Nadu SEC's circular dated 30th November, 2021, must be made to incur the costs of repainting the walls of public/ private property where such posters have been unlawfully affixed.
Case Title: Syed Ibrahim v. Tamil Nadu State Election Commissioners & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 67
Madras High Court has reprimanded BJP functionary Syed Ibrahim for deliberately suppressing material facts regarding a prohibitory order against campaigning in a sensitive area with regards to the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Body Polls.
The first bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy noted that the petitioner resorted to 'twist the facts' in the affidavit filed after the court demanded him to state whether a criminal case was registered against him for entering the sensitive area and whether an express notice was served on him.
Noting the conduct of the petitioner and his failure to file an affidavit as specified by the court, the bench also imposed Rs. 10,000/- as costs upon him.
Case Title: Mrs S. Sushma & Ors. v. The Director-General of Police & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 68
Madras High Court has termed the recent amendment to TN Subordinate Police Officers' Conduct Rules,1964 by the inclusion of Rule 24-C, prohibiting police officers from harassing LGBTQIA+ persons, as a 'milestone' in the approach towards the persons belonging to the community.
The High Court has also accepted the standardised guidelines/ prospective glossary submitted by the state government for referring to LGBTQIA+ persons and instructed the press/ media to follow the glossary in letter and spirit.
A single-judge bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh made this observation while perusing the status reports filed by the State Government pursuant to a slew of guidelines issued in a judgment dated 7th June, 2021, to ensure the protection of LGBTQIA+ persons in consensual relationships, from police harassment.
7. Madras High Court Imposes Exemplary Costs For Unwarranted Litigation
Case Title: M/s.Ramaniyam Real Estates Private Ltd v. M/s.Spencer's Retail Private Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 69
Madras High Court has imposed exemplary costs on a company for unwarranted litigation while simultaneously holding that the company was entitled to the counterclaim filed. The amount of counterclaim ordered in favour of the defendant company has been set off from the exorbitant costs imposed by the court on the company.
Justice N. Anand Venkatesh also observed that the problematic attitude of the defendant is clear from the initiation of unnecessary winding up proceedings against the plaintiff company and the evasive answers given by the authorised signatory of the defendant company in the course of evidence.
The bench went on to note that it was the plaintiff company that incurred costs for construction, obtaining permits etc. Even while selling the property, they accounted for the refundable security deposit paid to them by the defendant. However, the defendant did not incur any tangible costs/ expenses except the payment of security deposit.
Hence, in effect, though the counterclaim made by the defendant was allowed, it was set off completely against the exemplary cost against the defendant.
Case Title: B.Balamurugan v. The Chairman & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 70
The Madras High Court has refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation for strict implementation of medical fees determined by the Government against 50 per cent seats in Private Medical Colleges and Deemed Universities.
The petition filed by Advocate B. Balamurugan alleged that Private Medical Colleges were charging fees to the extent of Rs 7.5- 8 Lakhs when the National Medical Commission has already fixed the fees for Government Quota at Rs. 13,500/-.
Other Important Developments
While addressing the members of the bar after assuming office as the 32nd Chief Justice of Madras High Court, Justice Munishar Nath Bhandari remarked that he is cognizant of the problems faced by advocates, judicial officers and staff at all levels. He also pledged to leave no stone unturned to see that justice is rendered even at the grassroots levels.
The Chief Justice was replying to the welcome address by Tamil Nadu Advocate General R Shumugasundara and other dignitaries.
9. Full Bench Of Madras High Court Directs State To Find Out Best Practices For Removal Of Seemai Karuvelam Trees
Case Title: V. Meghanathan v. Chief Secretary & Ors. & Connected Matters
In a batch of writ petitions seeking the eradication of invasive plant species 'Seemai Karuvelam' (Prosopis Juliflora) across Tamil Nadu, a full bench of Madras High Court has requested the government officials to do what is best for the people of Tamil Nadu, irrespective of what the industrial lobby wants.
The full bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari, Justice N. Sathish Kumar and Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy also directed the State Government to determine the ill effects of the invasive species and take stock of the difficulties faced by other states on account of the same.
The bench has also added that the state government could take note of the measures taken by other state governments including Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh etc., and if they haven't, the TN government could take lead in the matter and find out the best practice
10. Supreme Court Collegium Approves Elevation Of 6 Advocates As Madras High Court Judges
The Supreme Court Collegium in its meeting held on 16th February, 2022 has approved the proposal for elevation of the following Advocates as Judges in the Madras High Court.
11. Tamil Nadu Govt Amends Police Conduct Rules To Prevent Harassment Of LGBTQIA+ Community
The Tamil Nadu Government has notified an amendment to the State's Subordinate Police Officers' Conduct Rules,1964 by the inclusion of Rule 24-C, prohibiting police officers from harassing LGBTQIA+ persons.
The amendment was notified in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette in the exercise of the powers conferred by Section 8 of the Tamil Nadu District Police Act, 1859 and Section 9 of the Chennai City Police Act, 1888.
It is pertinent to note that Justice N. Anand Venkatesh was apprised by the State Public Prosecutor on 7th December, 2021 that the state was seriously considering amendments to the Police Conduct Rules to ensure that the Community does not suffer harassment at the hands of any police officer.
Case Title: The Kancheepuram Reading and Tennis Club v. The Director-General of Police & Ors.
Madras High Court has started hearing a writ appeal against the insistence by the single bench on the possession of FL2 License for the consumption of Liquor inside Club Premises registered under Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act.
The writ appeal has been preferred by Kancheepuram Reading Club and Tennis Association against the single bench order that rejected their plea for an interim injunction against the police officials who were allegedly harassing its members with constant and unnecessary inspections.
It was also submitted by the Club before the single judge bench that purchasing liquor from Government approved shops, then bringing the liquor bottle inside the petitioner-Club premises and the consumption of liquor by the members in the Club premises cannot be objected to by the Police Authorities.
Case Title: S.Sekaran v. The State Of Tamil Nadu & Ors
A new status report has been filed by the TN Director of Information & Public Relations, V.P Jayaseelan, indicating that Chief Minister M.K Stalin has given his consent to constitute the Press Council of Tamil Nadu.
The status report filed before the Madras High Court also states that the process of circulation and approval required from competent authorities for the formation of the Press Council will be completed soon. According to the new status report, the government order pertaining to the 'Tamil Nadu State News Representative Media Accreditation Rules, 2021' will likely be notified after the completion of urban local body polls.
The status report dated 15th February was filed by the Department of Information and Development in pursuance of the court order dated 19th August, 2021, which directed the Tamil Nadu government to create a Press Council of Tamil Nadu (PCTN) that would act as a State-level media regulatory body.
Case Title: Suo moto v. Union of India & Ors.
In a suo motu writ petition for conservation of wetlands in Tamil Nadu, Madras High Court has asked the state government to submit a status report on the proposal to the Union Govt for declaring 13 sites as 'wetlands of international importance' under the RAMSAR Convention.
The matter was taken up in 2017 by the High Court pursuant to Supreme Court directions for the protection of wetlands.
The first bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy has also instructed Additional Advocate General J. Ravindran to clarify why the government has been sitting on the matter of wetlands when the draft proposals have been submitted to it by the State Wetlands Authority.
Case Title: Mrs S. Sushma & Ors. v. The Director-General of Police & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 68
In a plea that currently considers the extent of measures that can be adopted for the fair treatment of persons belonging to the LGBTQIA+ Community, Madras High Court has pulled up the Union Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment for its lackadaisical attitude in enlisting the NGOs working for the said community.
The single-judge bench of Justice N Anand Venkatesh observed that the concerned Ministry has not taken the issue as a 'priority'.
The Senior Panel Counsel had initially sought time to get clarity from the Ministry on extending the scope of the 'Garima Greh' Scheme to all members of the LGBTQIA+ Community and not transgenders alone. He informed the court that he is in constant touch with the respondent ministry as well as the Home Ministry and assured that he will update the court by the next date of hearing.
However, when it came to the matter of NGOs working for the welfare of the LGBTQIA+ Community, the court took serious note of the Ministry's failure to enlist the NGOs and upload the list on their website as per the court directions.
Case Title: Mrs S. Sushma & Ors. v. The Director-General of Police & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 68
Madras High Court has directed the National Medical Commission (NMC) to circulate the expert committee report and recommendations pertaining to Conversion Therapy among the State Medical Councils empowered under the NMC Act, 2019 to take disciplinary action against 'professional misconduct'. The court has instructed that NMC should complete the exercise within four weeks.
Justice N. Anand Venkatesh gave the above direction in a protection plea filed by a Lesbian couple facing police harassment, and pursuant to a slew of guidelines issued by the High Court in June, 202, to ensure the protection of LGBTQIA+ persons in consensual relationships. Justice N. Anand Venkatesh has been issuing periodical directions in the matter since last year to alleviate the plight of the members belonging to the LGBTQIA+ Community.
The court has also directed the National Medical Commission to issue appropriate directions to all Universities for following only those books in which the competencies of the CBME Curriculum have been modified as per the expert committee recommendations. The modified competencies are devoid of unscientific terms exiting in the current curriculum while referring to LGBTQIA+ Community. The court has added that the modified competency in the curriculum must be incorporated and published at least from next year, i.e, the academic year of 2022-2023.
Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case: Joginder Singh S/o Jai Singh v. the State of Haryana
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 22
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that default bail to an accused charged under NDPS Act cannot be denied on the pretext of investigation not being complete within the stipulated period of 180 days, unless the Public Prosecutor, after he has independently applied his mind, files a report disclosing justification for keeping the accused in further custody to enable the investigating agency to complete the investigation.
Justice Sant Prakash observed that a Public Prosecutor is not merely a post office or a forwarding agency.
"For seeking extension of time, the Public Prosecutor after an independent application of mind to the request of the investigating agency, is required to make a report to the court indicating therein the progress of the investigation and disclosing justification for keeping the accused in further custody to enable the investigating agency to complete the investigation. The Public Prosecutor may attach the request of the investigating officer alongwith his request on application and report, but his report must disclose on the face of it, that he has applied his mind and was satisfied with the progress of the investigation and considered grant of further time to complete the investigation," the bench observed.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 23
Case Title: D.N. Asija and others v. Union of India and others
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the Central Government to resolve the anomalies that crept in the defence pay scale with the implementation of 6th Central Pay Commission.
Noting that presently personnel of the Defence from the rank of Major Generals and above are drawing lesser pay than their juniors who are Colonels and Brigadiers, Justice Fatehdeep Singh directed the Union of India to take appropriate steps in removing this anomaly.
Rajasthan High Court
Case Title: Air Tree Foundation Society v. State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 59
The division bench of Rajasthan High Court observed that mere general averments/allegations based on newspaper reports should not and will not be a cause for taking cognizance in public interest.
This petition was filed with a prayer for direction to the respondents-state that all the borewells in the State should be covered so that through accident there is no casualty of human beings or animals.
The plea was filed by Air Tree Foundation Society, through its Secretary, Shri Manish Sharma.
Chief Justice Akil Kureshi and Justice Sudesh Bansal, while disposing the petition, observed, "Mere general averments/allegations based on newspaper reports should not and will not be a cause for taking cognizance in public interest."
Case Title: Balaji Nagar Vikas Samiti, Through Its President Heera Lal Kulariya v. Jodhpur Development Authority
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 60
A division bench of Rajasthan High Court observed that the disputed question of fact regarding title of the plot in question cannot be gone into by the High Court while exercising its extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The court opined that the issues require a decision of civil court.
Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani and Justice Sandeep Mehta, observed,
"In this view of the matter, manifestly, the disputed question of fact regarding title of the plot in question cannot be gone into by this Court while exercising its extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The issues definitely require decision of the civil court. Hence, the civil court is required to expedite the proceedings in the pending TI application."
Case Title: Ganga Kumari v. State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 61
The Rajasthan High Court has directed the state government to take steps to treat the transgender community as socially and educationally backward class of citizens and extend all kinds of reservations in cases of admission in educational institutions and for public appointments.
The division bench of Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Madan Gopal Vyas has granted four months' time to complete this exercise.
The development ensued in a writ petition filed by one Ganga Kumari, seeking effective reservation to the transgenders in terms of the mandate of the Supreme Court in the case of National Legal Services Authority Vs. Union of India & Ors.
Case Title: Arvind Sharma v. North-West Railway and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 62
The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation opposing the decision of the railway authorities to close down the railway senior secondary school at Abu Road, which was operating since the year 1862.
Noting that the school has been running in losses due to dwindling number of students, the division bench of Chief Justice Akil Kuresh and Justice Sudesh Bansal observed,
" It is rather unfortunate that the school which has been in existence since over a century, may have to be closed down. It does disturb us that in an area where educational facilities have still not fully developed to the desired extent, one public school is under closure. However such sentimental issues cannot govern our judicial discretion. The railway authority which has to run the school is in best position to decide its future. Unless the decision is shown to be malafide or opposed to any of the legal principles, the Court would not substitute its wisdom or desire for that of the authority. With a heavy heart we dismiss this petition."
The Court however made it clear that the decision to close the school shall not be implemented till the end of the current academic term.
Case Title: Lakhpat Ola v. State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 63
The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur has observed that in a public interest litigation, the petitioner is not absolved of producing at least a basic proof of the allegations levelled by him.
A division bench of Chief Justice Akil Kureshi and Justice Sudesh Bansal, observed,
"Even otherwise we find the petition with long pleadings are long in averments but short in contents. The allegations made in the petition would require supporting evidence. Even in a public interest petition the petitioner is not absolved of producing at least a basic proof of his allegations."
The present public interest litigation was filed by one Lakhpat Ola, alleging that certain officials of the Government have embezzled public funds by committing irregularities in public works contracts.
Case Title: Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Circle-A, Bharatpur Rajasthan v. M/s C.P. Agro Industries Roopwas, Bharatpur, Rajasthan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 64
The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur has observed that provisions of Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 have been enacted to provide remedy for loss of revenue and not to punish the offender for committing economic offence and, therefore, mens rea is not an essential ingredient for contravention of such provision.
The court added that breach would attract levy of penalty whenever the goods in movement have travelled with an incomplete form.
A division bench of Justice Pankaj Bhandari and Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, while placing reliance in Guljag Industries v. Commercial Taxes Officer [2007 (7) SCC 269] observed,
"Even the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that provisions have been enacted to provide remedy for loss of revenue and it is not enacted to punish the offender for committing economic offence and, therefore, mens rea is not an essential ingredient for contravention of such provision. The breach would attract levy of penalty whenever the goods in movement have travelled with an incomplete form."
Case Title: No. 970250021 Sep/driver Ramraj Meena v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 65
The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench has refused to interfere in the disciplinary authority's decision, which dismissed CRPF Constable-petitioner from service as he did not report for duty on completion of leave period.
A division bench of Chief Justice Akil Kureshi and Justice Sudesh Bansal, observed,
"In our view the petitioner has not made out any case for interference. We may recall, the petitioner was engaged as constable of CRPF which is a disciplined force. He remained unauthorisedly absent without sanctioned leave or communication to the department for about one year. This was a clear case of misconduct."
Case Title: Vijay Narayan Sharma & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 66
The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur observed that no interference is permissible in exercise of powers of judicial review for matters pertaining to construction of public utility building, unless it is demonstrated that there is a flagrant violation of any provision of law/rules in the action of authorities or it suffer from mala fides.
A division bench of Justice Pankaj Bhandari and Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand ruled,
"It is the settled law that the matter regarding construction of a building of public utility is the domain of the Government and its functionaries and until and unless it is demonstrated that there is a flagrant violation of any provision of law/rules in the action of authorities or it suffer from mala fides, no interference is permissible in such administrative matters while exercising powers of Judicial Review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India."
The present writ petition was filed seeking directions to the respondent state to immediately stop or cancel the proposal/work of creating a new Gram Panchayat Building on land of Khasra No.3418/1. Alternatively, petitioners sought directions to the respondents to develop the existing Gram Panchayat Building by incorporating a closed school's land and that sanctioned budget of Rs.25.00 lacs be transferred for said purpose immediately. Petitioners alleged that the new
Case Title: Hari Singh Meena v. State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 67
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a plea seeking direction to the state government to treat the experience gained by the petitioner in Gujarat as eligible for award of bonus marks under the Rajasthan Ayurvedic Rules, for recruitment to the post of Compounder / Nurse Junior Grade.
In furtherance, the court opined that the intention of the State is to confine the benefit of award of bonus marks to those employed in the enumerated schemes within the State of Rajasthan and not others.
Essentially, the petitioner, who is working with the Regional Ayurveda Research Institute, Ahmedabad (Gujarat), based on his experience certificate dated 1.7.2021, applied for the post and sought bonus marks for the experience as depicted in the experience certificate.
Case Title: The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Manhbar Devi
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 68
The Rajasthan High Court observed that any erroneous finding or any error of law cannot be the basis for entertaining an appeal under Section 30 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 unless such erroneous findings do not give rise to substantial question of law.
Justice Sudesh Bansal, observed,
"It is settled law that unless the findings of fact recorded by the Commissioner, are not shown to be perverse, the same are not required to be interfered with in the appeal. Any erroneous finding or any error of law cannot be the basis for entertaining an appeal under Section 30 of the Act of 1923 unless such erroneous findings do not give rise to substantial question of law."
11.Rajasthan High Court Refuses To Accept Claim For Compassionate Appointment Citing Delay Of 17 Years
Case Title: Smt. Parwati Devi W/O Late Shri Mool Singh Vs. Director (G) and Nodal Officer (PG)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 69
The division bench of Rajasthan High Court observed refused to accept petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment after a great lapse of 17 years.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand and Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, ruled,
"We are of the considered opinion that the contentions put forward by the counsel for the petitioners, do not carry any merit, as the subsequent representations were made after a decade. Thus, this Court is not able to accept the claim of the petitioners for compassionate appointment after a great lapse of 17 years. Thus, the impugned order dated 19.08.2021 passed by the Tribunal warrants no interference by this Court."
Case Title: Satya Narayan & Ors. v. The H.D.F.C. Irgo General Insurance Company Limited & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj.) 70
The question whether interest on compensation for motor accident claims exigible to tax and resultantly, is insurance company required to deduct tax at source while making such payment to the claimants has been referred to the larger bench by the division bench of Rajasthan High Court.
Chief Justice Akil Kureshi and Justice Uma Shanker Vyas, ordered, "Under the circumstances reference may be made to the Larger Bench on following question:- 'Whether the interest payable on motor accident claim compensation is exigible to tax and resultantly is the insurance company required to deduct tax at source while making such payment to the claimants?"
The court observed, "In view of this position and also considering the importance of the issue as also the fact that the issue is a recurring one arising in large number of motor accident claim cases, it is desirable that there is an authoritative pronouncement on this question by Larger Bench."
Other Important Updates
Case Title: Ved Prakash Chokdayat v. High Court of Rajasthan & Anr
The division bench of Rajasthan High Court issued notice in another plea challenging the answer key of Civil Judge Cadre of Rajasthan Judicial Services (Preliminary Examination), 2021.
The aforesaid exam was conducted on 28.11.2021 and its final result was declared on 11.01.2022.
Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Birendra Kumar, ruled,
"Issue notice to respondents on payment of P.F. by 31.01.2022, returnable on or before 16.02.2022. List this matter on 16.02.2022."
Case Title: Raahat The Safe Community Foundation v. Ministry Of Road Transport And Highways
The division bench of Rajasthan High Court issued notice in a public interest litigation seeking to restrain unregulated Vehicle Fitness Centers from issuing certificates.
While referring to the unregulated Vehicle Fitness Centers which alleged to have indiscriminately granted fitness certificates to unfit vehicles, the plea states,
"These Vehicle Fitness Centers running in the State of Rajasthan must be restrained from issuing Fitness Certificates as the same amounts to having cascading effect and consequence upon the safety, life and liberty of the public at large in the state of Rajasthan."
Telangana High Court
Case Title: The State Of AP. v. Ajmeera Raghu
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 12
The Telangana High Court recently ruled that children cannot be called to the court and cited as witnesses unless it is very much essential and there were no other witnesses to prove the case. The non-examination of children is not fatal to the prosecution case when there were adult witnesses available, it added.
The observation was made by Justice G. Radha Rani, while hearing an appeal preferred by the State against the trial Court order acquitting the accused for offences under Sections 448 (house-trespass), 354 (Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty) and 506 (criminal intimidation) IPC.
Case Title: Mandala Murali v. The State of AP
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 13
The Telangana High Court recently reiterated that Dying Declaration can be the sole basis of conviction if the deceased makes the statement in a fit state of mind and voluntarily.
Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma relied on the decision in Atbir v. Govt. of NCT Delhi, 2010 in which it was ruled that the Dying Declaration can be the sole basis of conviction if it inspires full confidence of the Court and the deceased was in a fit state of mind at the time of making the statement.
Uttarakhand High Court
Case Title: Ayaan Ali v. The State of Uttarakhand
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Utt) 7
In light of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 the Uttarakhand High Court noted that any person, who is apparently a child, shall be entitled to be released on bail with or without surety or placed under the supervision of a probation officer or under the care of any fit person.
Justice R.C. Khulbe noted that the distinction between bailable or non-bailable offense has been done away with in respect of a juvenile.
