High Courts Weekly Round-Up
Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court transferred probe into the JawaharBagh massacre to the CBI, citing a flawed and unscientific investigation on part of the state government.
Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court deferred the final hearing in the matter regarding the Maharashtra government’s decision to reserve a quota in government jobs and seats in education institutions for the Maratha community to March 29.
The High Court asked the Director General of Police, Maharashtra, to issue guidelines to all police stations calling upon them to “apply their mind”.
The Nagpur bench of the High Court held advocate Satish Uke guilty of criminal contempt and directed him to forfeit Rs.1 lakh of the Rs 2 lakh he had deposited as security with its registry, along with charges for video recording of proceedings in the court.
The full bench of the High Court held that the use of a registered trade mark as corporate name or trading name or style is excluded from the purview of Sections 29(1), 29(2) and 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and these provisions are restricted to the use of a trade mark ‘as a trade mark’, i.e., in the ‘trade marky’ sense.
The Aurangabad bench of the High Court held that co-operative institutions “need to supply” information to any “public authority” established under the Cooperative Societies Act.
The High Court struck down a circular by the state government wherein knowledge of Marathi language was made a pre-condition for granting auto rickshaw permits, holding it illegal.
Nagpur bench of the Court refused to quash an FIR against rapper Honey Singh. The bench Justice BR Gavai and Justice Indira K Jain refused to quash an FIR filed against Singh by one Anand Pal Singh Jabbar for “obscene and vulgar songs” uploaded online.
The bench of Justices AS Oka and AA Sayed issued landmark directions on prison reforms through a 58-page judgement after looking into the condition of various prisons in the state.
On Friday, the Court granted pre-arrest transit bail to actor Govinda. Twenty years ago, a case was filed against the actor for offences under Sections 294, 500 and 502 of the Indian Penal Code by a lawyer in Pakur district, erstwhile Bihar and present day Jharkhand.
Chhattisgarh High Court
The Chhattisgarh High Court recently quashed the proceedings initiated against Dr. R.K. Gupta, who had been the prime accused in the Bilaspur botched sterilization case in Bilaspur.
Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court on Monday held that right to contest election from jail “cannot imply that the candidate gets a right to be released from jail for campaigning”.
The Court on Monday remarked that PILs cannot be filed in service matters, while dismissing a Petition filed by a non-legal entity on behalf of employees.
The High Court held that a review petition is maintainable before the high court after the special leave petition (SPL) is dismissed as withdrawn by the Supreme Court.
On Tuesday, the High Court sent striking Ola, Uber taxi drivers to settle their disputes through mediation and directed them to end their agitation.
A Division Bench of the High Court on Wednesday dismissed an appeal filed by Advocate RP Luthra against a single Judge’s order dismissing his petition challenging Supreme Court collegium’s May 2016 recommendation for the appointment of four Judges to Supreme Court of India.
The Court recently refused to direct eBay to screen products for infringement of Intellectual Property Rights, before posting the same on its website. The Court was of the view that requiring an intermediary to do such screening would be “an unreasonable interference with the rights of the intermediary to carry on its business”.
The High Court, in a recent judgment delivered by Justice S Muralidhar, clarified and settled that Section 21 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996, is mandatory to be complied with before reference of disputes to arbitration.
The High Court warned the Arvind Kejriwal government with contempt proceedings for non-payment of fees to its public prosecutors since December 2015, despite the court’s repeated orders for payment.
Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court held that inspectors of police and Anti- Corruption Bureau have lawful authority to register FIRs and undertake investigation for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court recently asked legal online search portal indiankanoon.com to remove the name of a rape victim from a Kerala High Court judgment published on the site.
The High Court issued notice in a public interest litigation against use of Aadhaar biometric data by private telecom operators
Madhya Pradesh High Court
The Madhya Pradesh High Court imposed cost of Rs. 25000 on a petitioner for misusing the writ jurisdiction of the court by filing an appeal instead of taking recourse to the remedy available.
The High Court exonerated an appellant from the charges under provisions of Protection of Children against Sexual Offences Act given the prosecution failed to prove the prosecutrix was minor at the time of incident.
The Court held that the jurisdiction of High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised to correct all errors of a judgment of a Court acting within its limitation.
The High Court quashed a letter sent by the Madhya Pradesh Government to the Union Government seeking permission to prosecute a senior IAS officer in a corruption case on finding the investigation agency did not conducted the probe ‘afresh’ as directed by the Supreme Court.
The High Court declined to stall the land acquisition process in village Kunda for the Nuclear Power Project in Mandla district.
The Court observed that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued against the State government to frame a particular set of rules considering the State government gave opportunity to raise objections against the draft of rules to regulate regulating installation of hoardings roadside.
A bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan laid down seven-point landmark guidelines for the police and the subordinate courts over handling of cases in which the government doctors are accused of patient’s death due to negligence.
Madras High Court
The Madras High Court while acquitting a man convicted by the trial court for murder remarked that The courts of law cannot assume the role of a monarch or dictator so as to impose any punishment on anyone at their whims and fancies even in the absence of any legal evidence.
Orissa High Court
The Orissa High Court, in a medical negligence case, observed that it is the duty of a doctor to explain his patient or relatives chances of success and the risk of failure of the suggested treatment and inform them about the foreseeable risks and possible negative effects of the treatment, keeping in mind the patient’s specific condition.
Punjab & Haryana High Court
The Punjab and Haryana High Court observed that a former chief justice of the high court acted unconstitutionally while relaxing the seniority criteria to promote a person ‘out of turn’ to Superintendent Grade-II post.