High Courts Weekly Round-up
Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High court held that a person can be detained under the National Security Act for a single criminal case alone and even if no criminal case is registered. Division bench of Justices Bala Krishna Narayana and Vijay Lakshmi dismissed the Habeas Corpus petition filed by one Pankaj, praying for his release from detention. His prayer for quashing the detention order under Section 3(3) National Security Act, was also not granted.
In a significant decision, the High court turned down the writ petition filed by the Petitioner asserting a right that a screening test should be held for assessing the validity of the postgraduate qualification obtained by her from Nepal under Section 13(4A) of the MCI Act, 1956.
The Court held the appointment of UPPCS Chairman Anil Yadav, illegal, for being ultra vires of the Constitution of India.
Bombay High Court
Bombay High Court Single Judge, S.J. Kathawalla, while adjudicating upon a Company Petition filed by singer Asha Bhosle, struck down the agreement assigning the rights of repertoire of Magnasound India Ltd. to Magnasound Media Pvt. Ltd. and directed the latter to hand over the repertoire, including the masters to the Official Liquidator of M/s. Magnasound India Ltd forthwith. It directed Sony Music Ltd. also to hand over the same on expiry of agreement entered into with the Magnasound Media Pvt. Ltd.
The Court,on Tuesday issued notice to the Union I&B and Home ministries, the Maharashtra Government and Vikas, student leader of Film and Television Institute of India (FTII) on a PIL seeking to put an end to the ongoing strike at the Pune-based film institute.
The High court held that the ordering investigation u/s 156(3) of the Code of Criminal procedure, not being an interlocutory order, but being a final order in a proceeding u/s 156(3) of the Code, is revisable under the revisional powers of the Sessions Court or the High Court. The division bench of Justices A.B. Chaudhari& Indira K. Jain declined the request of the petitioners to exercise the power u/s 482 of CRPC or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but allowed the petitioners to file a revision petition
The court has made it clear that hawkers who prepare food on the streets, lanes and pavements in the city has to evict the street within two months. It has ordered the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai to evict the hawkers.
Delhi High Court
Delhi High Court, in Surender Kumar Sharma vs. State, observed that discharge of the accused would not prevent further investigation by police and submission of charge-sheet also thereafter, if a case for the same is made out. Justice Suresh Kait, made this observation while dismissing a petition filed under a Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing the order by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, to make further investigation of the case.
Guwahati High Court
In exercise of the powers conferred by article 223 of the Constitution of India, the President of India appointed Shri Justice TinlianthangVaiphei, senior-most Judge of Guwahati High Court, to perform the duties of the office of the Chief Justice of that High Court with effect from 21st October, 2015 consequent upon the retirement of Shri Justice KaranamSreedhar Rao, Acting Chief Justice of Gauhati High Court.
Kerala High Court
In a Writ petition filed by some students of College of Engineering, Trivandrum the Kerala High Court Single Bench, Justice V. Chitambaresh, refused to quash the punishment imposed on them by the College Council for being found guilty of indiscipline in the campus in connection with the Onam celebration this year that cost the life of a student of the same college.
Madras High court
Madras High Court, adopting the Delhi High Court judgment has held that condoms are not medicines. The Delhi High Court had held that the fixation of the ceiling price for condoms under Paragraphs 4, 6 and 14 of Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 2013 is impermissible under law. A Division bench of Chief Justice Sanjay KishanKaul and Justice S.Sivagnanam observed that no Special Leave Petition has been preferred by the respondents nor by the private parties, against the Delhi HC judgment.