High Courts Weekly Round-Up

●     Reiterated that where the defence has admitted the postmortem report submitted by the prosecution as genuine, the same may be read as substantive evidence.

Bombay High Court

● In a significant ruling, allowed an adoption petition filed by a 66-year-old man who sought adoption of a 22-year-old girl who was raised by him and his wife.

● Observed that an order passed by an appellate court under Order 41 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure can be interfered with only if it is arbitrary or perverse.

● Held that the theory of self-imposed restriction does not apply vis-à-vis Article 227 as it does with Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Calcutta High Court

● Observed that there is no 'infallible' principle that God's name is not registrable as a trademark. The court was dealing an interlocutory application in a suit filed by Shyam Steel Industries Limited, the registered proprietor of the word mark 'Shyam' and label marks for infringement of trademark and passing off against the defendant Shyam Sel and Power Limited.

Chhattisgarh High Court

● Held that on reading the case diary or any other material placed on record, if a prima facie case is made out against the accused, then the proviso to Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 will get attracted and the accused shall not be enlarged on bail.

Delhi High Court

• The court allowed the petition challenging the award of the Industrial Tribunal. Even though the Industrial Tribunal held the punishment imposed on the respondent as discriminatory on the grounds that lower punishment was awarded to similarly situated employees. Justice JR Midha said, "The law is well settled that equality before law is a positive concept and it cannot be enforced in a negative manner. If an illegality or irregularity has been committed in favour of any individual or a group of individuals, others cannot claim order on principle of equality before law."

Granted bail to two persons- Sajid Ali and Daniyal- who were arrested for alleged violence during CAA protests in Seelampur. Additional Sessions Judge Gurdeep Singh of Karkardooma noted that the video evidence produced by the prosecution did not show involvement of the accused in violence.

 Special CBI Judge Pulastya Pramachala at Rouse Avenue Court has exempted former Himachal Pradesh CM Virbhadra Singh from making personal appearance in a corruption case against him.

Gujarat High Court

● Confirmed the death sentence awarded to a man accused of rape and murder of a three and a half year girl.

Himachal High Court

● Asked the State Government to take urgent steps to frame memorandum of procedure, administrative guidelines and parameters for selection and appointment of Chairperson and Members to the Public Service Commission, so as to eliminate the possibility of arbitrary appointments.

Karnataka High Court

● While dismissing a petition filed by a public works contractor, the court upheld the amendment brought to section 6 of the Karnataka Transparency In Public Procurements (KTTP) Act, 1999, thereby making reservation in process of Tenders, for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe category.

● Dismissed a Public Interest Litigation filed seeking to stay the release of the Hindi Film Good Newwz. "It is difficult to accept that any couple choosing IVF centre, which is a serious business, will be influenced by one movie having a short life", said the court.

● Refused to grant extension to the state government which sought time till March, 31, 2020, for filling up vacant positions of Public Prosecutors, Senior Assistant Public Prosecutors and Assistant Public Prosecutors across the State

Kerala High Court

• Acting upon a letter written by a student, Justice Devan Ramachandran has directed the Corporation of Cochin to take urgent steps to rectify the defects of potholes which had developed on a road adjacent to a school.The High Court had earlier issued an order to the Government and Local Self Government Institutions to make all roads in the State motorable by January 31, 2020.

Madras High Court

● Held that a plea seeking removal of Governor is not maintainable. While dismissing a petition seeking a direction to Central Government to remove Banwarilal Purohi from the post of Governor of State of Tamil Nadu for not passing orders on premature release applications filed by convicts in Rajiv Gandhi Murder Case.

● Sought production of 102 postal ballots that were not considered while declaring the results for Kattumannarkovil Assembly Constituency in 2016. The 2016 State Assembly Elections outcome favored AIADMK's N. Murugumaran, who defeated VCK Chief Thol. Thirumavalavan in Kattumannarkoil reserved constituency by a mere 87 votes.

Rajasthan High Court

● Asked the Central Government to explain the procedure of the grant of citizenship to the persecuted minorities of neighbouring countries in the light of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019. The bench was considering a writ petition suo motu registered by the Court in 2017.