High Courts Weekly Round-Up

Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court, in Dr. Kuldeep Kaushik vs. State of UP, held that a magistrate has the authority to interfere in a case investigation if it is not going on in a proper or fair manner.

In Ramsiya Yadav vs. State of UP, The High Court held that gratuity can be withheld in a case where judicial proceedings are pending on the serious charges against employee.

The Allahabad High Court in Abhishek Mishra vs State Of U.P. has held that the Chief Judicial Magistrate exercising jurisdiction in non-metropolitan area in exercise of powers conferred on by Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act, 2002, can assist a secured creditor in taking possession of the secured asset and pass an order in the creditor’s favour for the purpose.

Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court, in Dinesh Sinha vs. CISCE, held that the Council for the Indian School Certificate Examinations (CISCE) does not come within the purview of a public authority under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act.

In M.K. Products vs. Blue Ocean Exports (P) Ltd. & Ors. the High Court said that a complainant cannot challenge the order of acquittal before the Sessions Court under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

The High Court, in a decision pertaining to framing of charge in a corruption case, said that absence of written charge is a curable defect when there is no proof that any prejudice is caused to the accused. The argument, fortified by the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court that written charge is a must, advanced by the counsel for the petitioner was repelled by the Court on finding that no prejudice to the petitioner was caused.

Chattisgarh High Court

A Division Bench of Chhattisgarh High Court recently issued notices to the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) and the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) on a petition demanding the implementation of the National Telecom Policy, 2012.

Delhi High Court

While hearing an appeal against a decree for divorce, the Delhi High Court recently held that ‘Roka’ is a social evil that needs to be condemned. The observation was made in a judgment on an appeal filed by a Punjabi wife against the family court divorce decree passed on a petition by her husband on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.

The High Court on Monday refused to grant interim maintenance to a wife who is Chartered Accountant by profession. The court ruled that the wife, who is well qualified with sufficient experience in profession, is expected to be able to sustain herself and need not be granted interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

In Union Of India & Ors. Vs. Shri Ishwar Singh the Court held that a suit cannot be filed against orders that are passed by the statutory authorities under different statutes, and these can be challenged only by means of writ petitions under Articles 227 and/or 226 of the Constitution of India.

The Delhi High Court in Subhashini Malik Vs. S.K. Gandhi, has held that an amendment application to amend pecuniary value for the purposes of jurisdiction (in view of Delhi High Court Amendment Act, 2015) can be entertained by the high court and upon the suit being of lesser than Rs 2 crore, the court does not become functus officio.

The High Court on Tuesday issued a temporary injunction restraining Britannia from using the packaging of ‘Nutri Choice Digestive Zero’ biscuits in its present form, saying it was prima facie “deceptively similar” to the packaging of ITC’s Sunfeast ‘Farmlite Digestive All Good’ biscuits.

The Court on Tuesday also directed the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) to not take any “precipitative action” against the iconic TajMansingh Hotel, permitting Indian Hotels Company Ltd (IHCL), which runs the hotel, to “strengthen” its appeal against a single judge order.

On Wednesday the Court issued notice to the Centre asking why it has made submission of Aadhar Card mandatory for students from minority communities for availing of various Centrally-funded scholarships such as Pre-Matric Scholarship, Post-Matric Scholarship and Merit-cum-means-based Scholarship awarded by the Ministry of Minority Affairs (MoMA).

The High Court through Justice Vibhu Bakhru struck down a ‘non-compete‘clause in M/s Stellar Information Technology Private Ltd. Vs. Rakesh Kumar & Ors and decided in favour of the ex-employees who were restrained from carrying on their own business.

In the case of Balkar Singh vs. Union of India & Ors., the High Court through Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice V. Kameswar Rao upheld the dismissal of a CISF constable suspected of sharing critical information with an undercover agent from Pakistan over Facebook.

In a major setback to the Delhi Government, the High Court set aside the government order to appoint 21 AAP MLAs as parliamentary secretaries.

Denying sex to the spouse for a long time amounts to mental cruelty and is a ground for divorce, the Court reiterated on Friday, while hearing a divorce petition.

The High Court issued a fresh notice to FM broadcaster Radio One Ltd. in context of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) alleging airing of objectionable content. The FM broadcaster has to respond to the notice by November 2. The litigant sought cancellation of the channel’s licence.

It is the duty of every trial court to ensure that the defence of an accused is not compromised in any manner, the Court observed, while hearing the appeal of an accused who has been languishing in Tihar Jail for nearly eight years on murder charges without getting a fair trial. Over this period, the mental health of the prisoner has also declined due to melancholia. 

Gujarat High Court

The Gujarat High Court admitted a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking a ban on the game for hurting religious sentiments of certain communities, by displaying images of eggs in their holy places.

Madras High Court

The Madras High Court adjourned the hearing of a Public Interest Litigation filed by Chennai-based lawyer VBR Menon seeking the appointment of adequate number of ad-hoc high court judges under Article 224-A of the Constitution at the Principal and Madurai Benches of Madras High Court to reduce the huge backlog of pending cases.