High Courts Weekly Round-Up

High Courts Weekly Round-Up

Allahabad High Court

Allahabad High Court recently held that Criminal proceedings are not a short cut for other remedies. Justice Bharat Bhushan quashed the Criminal proceedings under Sections 420 and 406 IPC against the Accused holding that even if all the allegations in the complaint are taken at the face value, the basic essential ingredients of dishonest misappropriation and cheating are missing.

The High Court, on a contempt petition filed by Magsaysay-awardee Professor Sandeep Pandey, issued notice to Banaras Hindu University and IIT-BHU directing them to comply with its earlier order and reinstate him.

The High Court on Friday upheld life term awarded to a lady who killed a three year old girl, in order to conceive a male child.

The High Court held that the wrong exercise of jurisdiction or mistake of law or wrong interpretation of law by a quasi-judicial authority cannot be a basis for initiating criminal cases unless there is material to demonstrate deliberate misconduct and malafide or consideration in discharge of his official duties or that such officer had acted in a manner to unduly favour a party or has passed a wrong order actuated by corrupt practice.

Taking serious note of the strike adopted by junior doctors in State Medical Colleges in the state which resulted in death of a number of people, the Allahabad High Court held that Doctors have no legal or otherwise right to proceed on strike having effect of denying medical treatment/ administration of medicines, care to ailing people.

Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court held that a change of surname by a person does not change his caste and does not disentitle him from claiming reservation. The vacation Bench allowed the writ petition which challenged the denial of benefit of reservation in post graduate admission on the ground that the petitioner has changed his surname.

The High Court recently issued directions for proper functioning of the State Commission, to be constituted under the Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005.

Delhi High Court

A Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi on Monday rapped Delhi University for the delay in completion of its new building for law students. The bench granted time till June 28 to the University to ensure that all infrastructure, including furniture in the new building, was ready so that students could shift in the coming academic session.

The High Court on Friday refused to grant parole to INLD leader, Ajay Singh Chautala, who is serving a 10-year jail term in a teachers’ recruitment scam case.

The Court held that provisions of Indian Penal Code are not ancillary to the provisions of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act. Justice Mukta Gupta observed that same set of facts may constitute offences both under the IPC and the special enactment.

In a relief to an MBBS aspirant, who was declared not eligible for admission to MBBS due to her 80% disability, the Delhi High Court directed the University not to deny admission to her on the ground of disability, if she is successful in a future NEET examination.

Terming the action by Child Welfare Committee, in forcibly taking a child from the custody of adoptive mother, as “extremely unusual and dangerous”, the Delhi High Court said that an adoptive mother cannot be deprived of the custody of her child without following due process of law.

Refusing to entertain a writ petition by a Hotel fined with an amount of 41 Lakhs for non-compliance of statutory provisions of Environment Law for a period of more than twenty years,the High Court held that a writ petition solely praying for refund of money against the State is not maintainable.

A Division Bench of the Court directed to incorporate the one-bar, one vote principle forthwith in relation to every Bar Associations in Delhi (including the Delhi High Court Bar Association, the Delhi Bar Association, the New Delhi Bar Association, the Rohini, Shahdara, Saket and Dwarka Courts Bar Association and all other Court/Tribunals attached Bar Associations).

The  Court while delivering the Judgment in ‘One Vote One Bar’ repelled the contention that Article 226 cannot be invoked against Bar Associations are not statutory bodies, but merely represent the interests of their members, i.e., lawyers and they do not possess any regulatory control or power over the functioning of enrolled lawyers, nor can discipline them for misconduct.

The High Court held that even in the absence of medical evidence, an Accused is liable to be convicted for Rape if the evidence of the prosecutrix is reliable. It is also re-iterated that conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix without any corroboration.

The High Court asked the State Government to consider the demand for an online RTI mechanism within three months.

The High Court slammed the Ministry of Corporate Affairs for the errors and technical faults/glitches/errors/fallacies in the V2R2 system launched by Ministry .

Considering the PIL filed before itseeking to quash the appointment of an Assistant professor, at School of Language, Literature and Cultural Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi who has been alleged of having committed plagiarism, the High court Bench issued notice in the matter, and further directed the university, to file their counter affidavit in this regard.

In an important pronouncement, the Court struck down amended Rule 5A (2) of Service Tax Rules, to the extent that it authorizes the officers of the Service Tax Department, to audit the account of an Assessee.

Refusing to entertain a writ petition by a Hotel fined with an amount of 41 Lakhs for non-compliance of statutory provisions of Environment Law for a period of more than twenty years, the High Court held that a writ petition solely praying for refund of money against the State is not maintainable.

A Division Bench of the Court dismissed an Appeal filed by AamAdmi Party leader Ashustosh against single Judge Order rejecting the objections raised by the AAP leaders, that the several pleadings made by the Arun Jaitely  in his respective replication to the individual written statement of the applicant/ defendant be struck of, on the ground that merely because the plaintiff in his replications which are contained in documents filed along with the plaint, in his replications, it does not tantamount to his raising a fresh plea which could be introduced only by way of amendment of the plaint.

The High Court held that when a deaf and dumb witness is under cross-examination, the Court is required to take due care of the fact that vocabulary of such a person is limited as he or she speaks through sign language and it may not be possible for that witness to answer, or in detail explain every answer by sign language and this disability of a limited vocabulary of sign language does not affect either the competence or the credibility of such witness.

Kerala High court

A Division bench of High Court of Kerala dismissed the plea for C.B.I investigation by some public spirited persons, into the Perumbavoor Law Student rape and murder case. The also slammed the print as well as visual medias for using and publicizing the name of the victim in the case. The Bench reminded and cautioned the media in strong words, that even a deceased person had a right against infringement of privacy, which has not been adhered in this case.

The High Court quashed a stipulation that a ‘totally blind person’ ineligible, for LPG distributorship in the LPG Distributor Guidelines as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Madras High Court

In a very significant judgment, the Madras High Court held that the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) to accident victims cannot be subjected to TDS and Income Tax since the compensation and the interest awarded therein does not fall under the term ‘income’ as defined under the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Orissa High Court

Orissa High Court rejected the Bail Applications filed by self-styled God-man Sura Baba alias Surendra Nath Mishra and his son Trilochan Mishra in a Cheating and land grabbing Case.

Punjab & Haryana High Court

Punjab and Haryana High Court recently held that only on the basis that an affidavit had been filed in the capacity of an Advocate along with an application for Anticipatory bail identifying the accused therein as named in the F.I.R., a Lawyer cannot be added as an Accused.

The High Court requested authorities of AIIMS to reassess the possibility of termination of pregnancy of a rape victim whose gestation period of pregnancy has exceeded 24 weeks. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal also advised the Central Government to consider making amendments to the Medical Termination Of Pregnancy Act, 1971 and clarify in so many words to the doctors that they will not be unnecessarily prosecuted if they act in accordance with the rules in good faith to save the life of a victim of rape or to prevent grave injury to her physical and mental health.

The Court observed that, a marriage between a Christian and a Hindu performed as per the Hindu rites with the full consent of both parties cannot be said to be invalid for purposes of claiming maintenance under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code.

Rajasthan High court

The High Court of Rajasthan held that Family court can admit the evidence in the form of Pin Hole camera with a hard disk memory on which a recording was done, as Primary evidence and Section 65 B of Evidence Act is not applicable, since it deals only with Secondary evidence.