High Courts Weekly Round-Up

High Courts Weekly Round-Up

Bombay High Court

The Government, being the largest litigant, has to be a model and ideal litigant, a division bench of the Bombay High Court observed while refusing to condone the delay by the Government in preferring Appeals.  The Bench also observed that merely because applicant is a State, delay in filing appeals cannot be condoned without a proper explanation as Section 5 of the Limitation Act is equally applicable to the State as well.

Calcutta High Court

The Courts should not encourage indiscriminate prosecution of medical professional of medical negligence as it is counterproductive, the Calcutta High Court observed while refusing to interfere with Trial court order stopping criminal proceedings against Doctors.

Chattisgarh High Court

The Chhattisgarh High Court in Vikas Bafna vs. Union of India held that sub-section (2) of Section 142 and Section 142A of the Negotiable Instruments Act as amended by Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2015, are valid piece of legislation.

Delhi High Court

The High Court of Delhi recently restrained two Indian auto-spare parts manufactures from using Toyota’s trademark TOYOTA, the Toyota Device mark, TOYOTA INNOVA and from passing off of the mark PRIUS.

A Division Bench of the High Court on Monday reportedly reserved its verdict on a plea demanding that the Supreme Court collegium be restrained from recommending appointments to the higher judiciary.

The High Court dismissed the Petition filed by Advocate SurenUppal seeking a court-monitored investigation into alleged illegal phone tapping of high-profile people including some union ministers by Essar.

The High Court recently ruled that the provisions of the Delhi School Education Act apply to all schools in Delhi, irrespective of them being recognized or unrecognized.

The Court upheld termination of two BSF personnel from service for committing trespass and misbehaviour. A Bench comprising of Justices Pradeep Nandrajog and Pratibha Rani dismissed their writ petitions against dismissal from service.

In a recent judgment, the High Court directed Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) to streamline and simplify the procedure for adoption under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015

A Division Bench of the Court directed the Ministry of Civil Aviation to consider Advocate Amit Sahni’s Plea seeking directions to the Government to control the Air Fare across the country thereby ensuring that the private companies could not fleece their customers arbitrarily.

Division Bench comprising of Justices Pradeep Nandrajog and Pratibha Rani in Arun Tomar vs. Union Of India observed that, a vested right cannot be taken away except by a law which is expressly made retrospective and must stand the scrutiny of law.

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in MCDONALD’S INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VS. VIKRAM BAKSHI has observed that, Courts must be extremely circumspect and, indeed, reluctant to thwart arbitration proceedings and the power to injunct arbitration proceedings must be exercised rarely and only on principles analogous to those found in sections 8 and 45 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Gauhati High Court

The Gauhati High Court quashed criminal proceedings against a ‘rape accused’ who later married the ‘Victim’. Justice N. Chaudhury observed that chances of conviction in the case is bleak in view of the compromise between the parties and marriage and hence no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue.

Jharkhand High Court

The High Court of Jharkhand on Wednesday took suo motu cognizance of custodial death of a 16 year old boy, Rupesh. The Court took into account over 30 Postcards received by the Chief Justice of the Court, as well as a news item published in “The Hindustan Times” in its Ranchi Edition dated 9th July, 2016.

Kerala High Court

The High Court of Kerala, on Tuesday admitted a W.P(C)filed against appointment of Sr Advocate M.K Damodaran, as Legal Advisor of Chief Minister, Sri PinarayiVijayan.When the matter was taken up for consideration, Sri Raveendran, Additional Advocate General on instructions, informed the court that Sr Advocate M.K Damodaran has not taken charge to the post of Legal Advisor to C.M. It was further informed, that Sr Advocate M.K.Damodaran did not intend to take charge to the said post.

Karnataka High Court

The Division Bench of Karnataka High Court upheld a Single Bench judgment which had quashed the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation [Amendment] Act, 2014, which sought to levy lifetime tax on motor vehicles registered outside the State of Karnataka, in case they have been in the State for a period exceeding thirty days, as unconstitutional and ultra vires.

Madhya Pradesh High Court

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh in M/S Prakash Granite Industries vs. The Punjab National Bank, has reiterated that, it is within the propriety of the Bank to publish a photograph of defaulter in newspaper in the event of failure on the part of such borrowers.

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh has held that a reserve category candidate is entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment against a General category post. Justice Sujoy Paul observed that appointment/candidature of reserved category candidate cannot be rejected solely on the ground of non-availability of reserve category post as per reservation roster. The Court has however clarified a General category candidate does not have any such right of consideration against a reserve category post.

Madras High Court

Madras High Court allowed petitions seeking permission to conduct cultural shows in Temple Festivals with stringent conditions. The Orders came in Petitions which challenged the orders of Police refusing to accord permission to conduct dance and songs programme in Temples.

The High Court dismissed a batch of Writ petitions filed by Management/Employers challenging the revision of minimum wages fixed in respect of tailoring trade in export garments manufacturing industry, hosiery industry, etc.

Manipur High Court

Manipur High Court held that it is not only a legal duty but also a moral imperative of an Advocate to return the brief to the client if they wish to engage a new Advocate of their choice. Justice Kh. Nobin Singh also said that a client is expected to be fair and reasonable to his Advocate and ought to give proper instructions accordingly.

Orissa High Court

The Orissa High Court through Justice Dr. A. K. Rath held that a decree cannot be corrected by the Court under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, when there is no clerical or arithmetical mistake or error arising from any accidental slip or omission, but the mistake has been committed by the litigating parties.

Patna High Court

Single Bench of the Patna High Court referred to Division Bench, the question whether procedure prescribed in Code of Civil Procedure would apply to the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, whenever matter is against the order passed by Civil Court.

Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the employees of the Government Aided Schools of Union Territory, Chandigarh, on their retirement are entitled to encashment of earned leaves. Justice Kuldip Singh held that the leave encashment is a part of the salary and is paid in lieu of the earned leave, not availed by the employee during service.