High Courts Weekly Round-Up

Allahabad High CourtThe Allahabad High Court asked Uttar Pradesh state to ensure that guidelines are followed by the ‘anti-Romeo’ squads and law is followed.Bombay High CourtA day ahead of the BCI’s call for nationwide protest against the Law Commission’s suggestions for significant amendments to the Advocate’s Act 1961, the Bombay High Court on Thursday disposed of a PIL challenging the “resolution” passed by BCI as well as the state Bar Council calling for advocates to abstain from work on Friday (March 31).The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court held that re-payment of loan amount will not have any adverse effect on a criminal prosecution.The High Court rejected the pre-arrest bail application filed under Section 438 of CrPC by two advocates from Sholapur allegedly involved in a Dowry Death Case.The High Court held that the Italian man [X], who in breach of the Court’s injunction order had run away with his seven-year-old adopted daughter, would not be prosecuted if he brings her back.The Nagpur bench of the High Court held that the act of not covering the head with a pallu and removing vermilion from the forehead or mangalsutra would not be acts that constitute cruelty within the meaning of the term, under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act.The High Court held that the role of a trial judge is not that of a referee, umpire or even a prosecutor, but that of a participant in a trial. Delhi High courtThe Delhi High Court quashed rape charges against an accused, noting that he could not have raped the prosecutrix on a false promise of marriage as she was already married.In a significant order the Delhi High Court on Wednesday, issued show cause notices in five 1984 anti-Sikh riots cases in which all the accused were acquitted in 1986, invoking revisional Jurisdiction.In National Commission for Women vsKunal Chauhan & Anr and Devika Singh vsKunal Chauhan & Anr, the High Court held that the “NCW is not empowered to arrive at any final conclusion on any complaint received by it or to grant any relief which a court is empowered to do”.The Court dismissed a plea of students against denial of admission into LLB course for academic session 2016-17 by Delhi University on the ground that they failed to submit the original degree of the qualifying examination as was required by the university.The High Court on Tuesday ruled in favour of Nuziveedu Seeds Limited in Monsanto Technology’s plea against Nuziveedu Seeds alleging that the Nuziveedu selling BT cotton seeds using Monsanto’s patented technology even after termination of licence.In yet another setback to Himachal Pradesh Chief Minister Virbhadra Singh, the High Court dismissed his plea seeking quashing of a disproportionate assets case against him registered by the Central bureau of Investigation.A division bench of the High Court upheld the single bench order dismissing a plea seeking quashing of the certificate issued by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to the movie MSG 2: The Messenger and direction to the Ministry of Home Affairs to issue appropriate orders to YouTube to take down the trailer of the movie.In Neeraj Kumar & others vsVenkateshwar Global School & Others, the High Court held that “the stand of the Directorate of Education on the objective to introduce online system, to ensure fair, uniform, and transparent admissions under EWS/DG category, can’t be overlooked”.The High Court in Kumudam Publications Private Limited v. Central Board of Direct Taxes & Others held that “there is no bar for an assessee or declarant to claim credit of advance tax amounts paid previously i.e. before making declaration under the IDS, relative to the assessment years or period for which it seeks benefits under the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016.”.Kerala High CourtThe Kerala High Court, in M/s Mahindra Holiday & Resort India Ltd. & Others vs The Intelligence Officer & Others, held that “the timeshare arrangement i.e. agreement between the assessee and the member relating to accommodation for residence or use in a hotel, comes within the definition of luxury and, hence, is taxable under the Kerala Tax Luxuries Tax Act, 1976”.Madhya Pradesh High CourtA division bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court declined to invoke writ jurisdiction to grant relief in a PIL terming the petitioner as a “busy body” not having a concern with the litigants who were allegedly beaten up by some advocates in the high court premises.Sikkim High Court The Sikkim High Court upheld the constitutionality of amendments brought through the Finance Act, 2016, which made service tax leviable on a person engaged in promotion, marketing, organising, selling of lottery or facilitating in organising lottery of any kind, in any other manner.Uttarakhand High CourtOne week after declaring rivers Ganga and Yamuna as legal/juristic persons, the Uttarakhand High Court on Friday declared glaciers, including Gangotri and Yamunotri; rivers, streams, rivulets, lakes, air, meadows, dales,...

High Courts Weekly Round-Up

Ashok KM

Tags