High Courts Weekly Round-Up

Ashok KM

27 Nov 2016 4:58 PM GMT

  • High Courts Weekly Round-Up

    Andhra Pradesh High CourtThe High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in K.Veera Raghava Reddy vs. State Of Telangana, held that no complaint, under Section 154 of Code of Criminal Procedure, can be registered against a sitting high court judge even for matters unconnected with his judicial duties, except with the sanction of the President of India, who is required to consult the Chief Justice...

    Andhra Pradesh High Court

    The High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in K.Veera Raghava Reddy vs. State Of Telangana, held that no complaint, under Section 154 of Code of Criminal Procedure, can be registered against a sitting high court judge even for matters unconnected with his judicial duties, except with the sanction of the President of India, who is required to consult the Chief Justice of India before according any such sanction.

    Bombay High Court

    The Bombay High Court sought the Reserve Bank of India’s response in a petition that challenges a circular issued by the central bank on November 14. More importantly, the division bench headed by Justice AS Oka observed that prima facie there were inconsistencies between the two circulars issued.

    On Wednesday, The High Court expressed its dissatisfaction with the progress made in the probe into murder cases of rationalists Narendra Dabholkar and Govind Pansare.

    The High Court directed Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation Commissioner Ajoy Mehta to remain present in court in a matter regarding identification of a site for installation of a Doppler Radar System (DRS) in suburban Mumbai.

    The High Court extended its relief to comedian Kapil Sharma and actor Irfan Khan. This relief is from the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation’s notice dated April 28, 2016 which had directed demolition of unauthorized structures in their flats at an 18 storey building in Goregaon. Court had earlier granted an interim stay on the BMC’s notice on

    On Thursday the court refused to hear the petitions filed by District Central Co-operative Banks (DCCB) from Mumbai, Nashik, Sholapur, Thane and Pune challenging the November 14 circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India. The divison bench of Justices AS Oka and AnujaPrabhudessai took this decision after there seemed to be some confusion with regard to what transpired in the Supreme Court during the hearing of the transfer petition filed by the centre.

    A division bench of the High Court asked the union government to file its reply in a Public Interest Litigation filed by Advocate Rajeshwar Panchal regarding compensation given to terror attack victims.

    Calcutta High Court

    The Calcutta High Court, while allowing the appeal of a rape accused in Belal @ Radheshyam Mondal vs. The State of West Bengal, held that mere error in mentioning the date of occurrence at the time of framing charge cannot vitiate the trial under Section 464 of CrPC and, thus, cannot be a ground to invalidate the trial.

    Delhi High Court

    The Delhi High Court in Col Devinder Sherawat vs. Deputy Commissioner SdmcAnd Ors, has issued directions to authorities concerned to prevent untoward incidents in future in Delhi schools.

    In Manoj Kumar vs. Pinki Rani the High Court dissolved the marriage between the two parties as the wife raised false allegations against the husband of having an illicit relationship and demanding dowry.

    A division bench of Justices G S Sistani and Vinod Goel of the High Court asked the Government of Delhi and the Delhi police which comes under the Ministry of Home Affairs(MHA) to file a reply in a writ petition filed by Fatima Nafees, mother of JNU student Najeeb Ahmed.

    Karnataka High Court

    The Karnataka High Court dismissed a plea by a lawyer against demonetisation of Rs. 500 and Rs. 1000 currency notes, observing that though there are initial problems, those would not be perennial.

    Dismissing the challenge to proceedings against former Karnataka Lokayukta and former Chief Justice Y. Bhaskar Rao in a corruption and extortion case, the Karnataka High Court held that the Lokayukta is not protected under the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985. Justice Anand Byrareddy also held that no prior notice to prosecute former Lokayuktas was required under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, as he had resigned from office.

    Kerala High Court

    The High Court of Kerala held that an advocate who has been charged with criminal contempt of court was not entitled to appear in the robes of a lawyer in the case. A division bench comprising Justice PN Ravindran and Justice Dama Seshadri Naidu made this observation in a suo motu contempt proceedings initiated against Advocate CK Mohanan for his alleged contumacious behaviour during the hearing of a Habeas Corpus writ petition.

    A division bench of the High Court issued notice to senior CPM leader and former Chief Minister of Kerala VS Achuthanandan in a public interest litigation challenging his appointment as Kerala Administrative Reforms Commission Chairman.

    A division bench of High Court of Kerala recently reversed a single bench’s ruling that allowed individual flat owners to seek separate water connections. This writ appeal filed by Kerala Water Authority had come up for admission against the judgment. The division bench held that only a common connection could be obtained for the entire apartment complex.

    Madhya Pradesh High Court

    The Madhya Pradesh High Court set aside an order by the state of Madhya Pradesh removing Dr. KS Dubey as the Chairman of the Child Welfare Committee, Bhopal. The single bench of Justice Sujoy Kaul has held that the principles of natural justice should have been followed while ordering cancellation of Dubey’s appointment.

    Punjab & Haryana High Court

    The High Court of Punjab and Haryana held that a child’s passport can carry the step-father’s name without a declaration by the court appointing him as a legal guardian. The court ordered the authority to issue the passport bearing the step-father’s name within a month.

    Rajasthan High Court

    The Rajasthan High Court in Geeta Singh vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr dismissed the DV application of Geeta Singh, filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 claiming interim monetary relief to her daughter Geetanjali.

    Uttarakhand High Court

    The Uttarakhand High Court held that Shiksha Mitras, who are imparting elementary education in the state, cannot be exempted from the mandatory qualification of Teachers Eligibility Test, which is laid down by the National Council for Teachers Education, under Section 23(1) of The Right to Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009.

    The High Court in Jai Prakash Bisht& others vs. The Union of India & others and Ajendra Ajay vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, directed the state government of Uttarakhand to pay adequate compensation to the victims of 2013 Kedarnath Valley tragedy.

    In Vijay Bahadur Singh Rawat vs. State of Uttarakhand & others, the Court issued mandatory directions to the state government regarding the reconstruction of infrastructure that faced damage due to 2013 floods in Kedarnath valley.

    In a landmark judgment, Uttarakhand High Court directed the state government to provide infrastructure and other amenities to the government and aided schools in the state within three months.

    A division Bench of the High Court has observed that socialism is a basic feature of the Constitution of India. The Bench comprising Justice Rajiv Sharma and Justice Alok Singh was hearing a public interest litigation seeking directions to the government to provide infrastructure and other amenities to government and aided schools.

    This article has been made possible because of financial support from Independent and Public-Spirited Media Foundation.

    Next Story