High Courts Weekly Round-Up
Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court directed the removal of the vice-chancellor of Integral University, Lucknow. A bench of Justice Narayan Shukla and Justice Sheo Kumar Singh passed the order after hearing a PIL filed by one Junaid Ahmed, seeking issuance of a writ of quo warranto to SW Akhtar, VC of the university.
The High Court held that that mere possession and recovery of currency note from an accused without proof of demand would not enable the court to convict the accused.
Bombay High Court
Bombay High Court refused to grant relief to a MSEDCL (Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd) employee who was charged with accepting a bribe of Rs.5000 in 2007.
In a recent order, the High Court set aside bail granted to a murder accused two and half months before the filing of the chargesheet, observing that in cases where an order is found perverse or arbitrary, it can be set aside.
The High Court refused to grant relief to a student, who was shortlisted for admission to a PG diploma course in editing at Film and Television Institute of India (FTII), but was later denied admission after his medical test showed that he suffered from “colour blindness”.
The Court refused to set aside the election of Congress MLA PranitiShinde from Solapur City constituency and dismissed the election petition filed by the CPM’s Adam Narsayya Narayan.
Chief Justice ManjulaChellur while hearing a petition filed by the mother of a 14-year-old rape victim said that “Today is Women’s day, at least from this day onward, state must do something constructive for victims”. The victim was granted Rs. 2-lakh compensation by the state under the Manodhairya scheme after a petition was filed.
Calcutta High Court
In a landmark judgment, the High Court of Calcutta on Thursday issued additional directives to conduct investigation and trial under the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.
Chhattisgarh High Court
The Chhattisgarh High Court, in RadheshyamKashyap vs. State of Chhattisgarh, observed that delayed disclosure by witnesses to the police about alleged extra-judicial confession made by the accused, despite their prior meeting with the police, would make the evidence untrustworthy.
In Manik Mehta vs. UCO Bank, the High Court observed that even when the secured asset belongs to the guarantor, the borrower can also prefer an appeal to the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT).
Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court refused to recall its order quashing a criminal case against a person accused of sexually harassing a lady.
Coming down heavily on a Jawaharlal Nehru University professor for filing repeated litigations claiming same relief, the High Court imposed costs of Rs.60, 000.
The High Court on Wednesday held that a grantee of Compulsory Licence cannot be deprived of his rights under 107A of Indian Patent Act.
The Court refused to quash a criminal case, the trial of which is at its fag end. Justice SP Garg rejected a petition seeking quashing of the criminal case on the ground of settlement between the parties, asking the accused to “wait for the verdict of the trial court”.
The High Court quashed a circular by which multi-system operators (MSOs) were foisted with the liability to collect and pay entertainment tax.
On Thursday, the High Court upheld a single judge’s order barring pharma giant Cipla from selling copies of respiratory drug ‘Onbrez’ manufactured by Novartis.
The High Court upheld center’s decision in not allotting coal block in West Bengal and Jharkhand (Gare Palma IV and Tara in the two states, respectively) to Jindal Power Limited.
While refusing to reject a plaint filed by Hockey India president NarinderDhruvBatra against MP Kirti Azad, the Delhi High Court observed that Article 105 of the Constitution does not allow an MP to make defamatory statements outside Parliament.
Justice Muralidhar of the High Court asked former promoters of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd to disclose details of their assets.
In a significant judgment, the High Court on Thursday held that contempt jurisdiction has to be carefully invoked upon a deep consideration of inter alia the impact of the act complained of on the dignity and majesty of the court, its tendency to or interference and obstruction in the judicial process and not merely for gratification of the desire of an individual to settle scores or on account of undue sensitivity of an individual judge.
Himachal Pradesh High Court
Convicting nine persons accused of raping a girl, the Himachal Pradesh High Court observed that a girl voluntarily accompanying a known person does not imply that she was a consenting party to have sexual intercourse with such person.
Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court held that the power of suspension under Article 317(2) can be exercised by the Governor only after the President has referred the matter to the Supreme Court.
Kerala high Court
The Kerala High Court observed that account particulars or the financial information of an account holder or any other information divulging of which results in an unwarranted invasion of a member/account holder’s privacy cannot be treated as information available for dissemination under the RTI Act.
Madhya Pradesh High Court
The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the information sought under RTI Act from the government department about empanelment, work allocation and payment of fund if any done to the institution owned by the family or any family member of the government servant working in it do not fall under the ambit of “personal information”.
A division bench of the High Court held that an elected representative of a statutory body instead of filing the public interest litigation (PIL) for a public work can take up the matter with the competent authorities and the statutory authorities empowered to deal with it.
The High Court commuted the death penalty to life imprisonment of a man convicted for raping his daughter and killing the new born baby girl that was aborted by giving medicine.
Meghalaya High Court
The High Court of Meghalaya recently held that Tibetan refugees born in Shillong or elsewhere in the country after January 26, 1950, and before July 1, 1987, as per the Citizenship Act, 1955, will be considered as Indian citizens. It, therefore, held that they are accordingly entitled to all benefits and privileges available to the Indian citizens.
Patna High Court
The Patna High Court, in Ravi Pratap Mishra vs. State of Bihar, observed that merely because a person was convicted in a heinous offence, it is not a ground to deny privilege which the legislature has conferred on a convict of Section 432 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
Coming down heavily on two judicial officers who did not pass orders to release a person lodged in jail for over six months in spite of the high court direction, the Patna High Court threatened them with contempt proceedings if they do not ensure his release within 24 hours.