High Courts Weekly Round-Up

Allahabad High CourtThe Allahabad High Court issued a contempt notice to 13 lawyers of Agra district after taking cognisance of an illegal strike and an allegation of misbehaviour with several judges upon a reference by Smt. Saroj Yadav, district judge, Agra.Andhra Pradesh High CourtUpholding a trial court order allowing witness examination on Skype for recording evidence in a divorce petition, the High Court of Hyderabad held that examination of witnesses and recording of evidence by commissioner contemplated by Order XVIII Rule 4 C.P.C from the words ‘witness in attendance’ are to be understood as person being present and it need not be physical presence.In a huge reprieve for ‘over-aged’ LLB aspirants of Andhra Pradesh, the High Court Hyderabad made it clear that the age limits prescribed by the Bar Council of India for admission to Law courses would not be applicable for admissions made for this academic year.Bombay High CourtA division bench of the Bombay High Court imposed a cost of one lakh rupees on an auto rickshaw driver who claimed to be philanthropist and RTI activist. The petitioner, Sanjay Chavan filed a PIL seeking directions from the court for demolition of a 19 storey structure alleging that it was built on a plot reserved for the purpose of building a municipal school.The Bombay High Court in ChetanRamdasDumbare vs. State of Maharashtra, dismissedDumbare’s plea for furlough on the ground that he misused the opportunity when it was given to him the first time.The High Court in Suresh Bhandary vs. SushmaBhandary, held that a wife doesn’t have to give medical evidence of husband’s assault when she is testifying against the same.The Court recently refused to entertain a PIL that stated a section of the civil procedure which prohibits the arrest or detention of women for non payment of money is violative to the principles of equality in the Indian Constitution.A division bench of Chief Justice Manjula Chellur and Justice MS Sonak dismissed a Public Interest Litigation filed by Aam Admi Lok Manch. The PIL sought directions from the court to the state government for repealing the Maharashtra Employment Guarantee Act, 1977.Delhi High CourtThe High Court of Delhi on Thursday observed that the first floor flats of Khan Market being used as restaurants are a disaster waiting to happen. It therefore directed the New Delhi Municipal Corporation to reconsider its policy which exempts restaurants with a seating capacity of less than 50 persons from obtaining clearance under the Delhi Fire Service Act.The High Court in Sumit vs. Preeti @Priya, dismissed husband Sumit’s petition seeking divorce from his wife on various grounds including mental cruelty caused due to denying sex to him during pregnancy.The Court dismissed an application filed by congress leader Sajjan Kumar seeking recusal of Justice PS Teji from hearing the Central bureau of Investigation’s appeal against his acquittal. Kumar was acquitted of all charges in a case relating to murder of five people belonging to the same family during the anti sikh riots of 1984 in the Delhi Cantonement area.The High Court, in Delhi International Airport Private Ltd. (DIAL) vs. Union of India Department Of Revenue, Ministry Of Finance And Ors., held that DIAL cannot levy demurrage charges as per a regulation of the Customs Areas Regulations, 2009.Karnataka High CourtThe Karnataka High Court directed the Central and state government to undertake campaigns to propagate the principles and the objects behind the incorporation of Article 51-A in the Constitution of India and to generate awareness and consciousness amongst the citizens towards their fundamental duties.Kerala High CourtThe single bench of the Kerala High Court directed the Union of India to make available the memorandum of procedure (MoP) governing the appointment of judges of high court for considering the correctness of the objection raised by the Registry as to the maintainability of the writ petitions filed by Jacob Samuel and P Bijimon.Madras High CourtMadurai Bench of the High Court of Madras directed the Home Secretary to review all orders passed by the Government so far rejecting the plea for premature release of life convicts, who had completed 14 years of imprisonment, by erroneously relying upon Rule 341(3) even though such convicts were otherwise entitled to be released under Rule 341(2) of the Tamil Nadu Prison Rules, 1983. The exercise has been directed to be completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the order.Patna High CourtA full bench of Patna High Court in District Bar Association vs. State of Bihar,deliberated on the difference between a Sessions Judge and Court of Session, a Sessions judge and an Additional/Assistant Sessions Judge.In MirzaGhalib T. T. College & Ors vs. State of Bihar & Ors, the High Court dismissed writ petitions filed by unaided private institutions challenging the ordinance for admission to two-year Bachelor of Education (Secondary) ...

High Courts Weekly Round-Up

Ashok KM

Tags