High Courts Weekly Round-Up

Bombay High Court

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay dismissed a Writ Petition filed by renowned singer Lata Mangeshkar challenging Maharashtra government’s decision to declare Jayprabha Studio in Kolhapur, owned by her, as a heritage structure. The Maharashtra Government had, on December 29, 2012, passed an order declaring the studio as a heritage structure. Mangeshkar had moved the court against the decision, alleging that due to the heritage status, the studio could not be renovated, rebuilt or repaired.

The High Court also held that Debt Recovery Tribunals, whilst deciding whether it has territorial jurisdiction to entertain a Securitisation Application filed under section 17 of the SARFAESI Act would be guided by the principles enshrined in section 19(1) of the RDDB Act and not by section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 

Delhi High Court

Coming down heavily on advocate Seema Sapra for accusing a judge of the High Court of corruption in open court, the Delhi High Court found her guilty of committing contempt of court and sentenced her to one month imprisonment apart from imposing a fine of Rs.2000/-. The sentence of imprisonment has been suspended for a period of three months in order to allow her to pursue appropriate legal remedies. In addition, the Delhi High Court also debarred her from arguing, whether as an advocate or party in person except in her defence, before itself or any court or tribunal subordinate to it, for a period of two years.

The Delhi High Court turned down the plea of Dr. Subramanian Swamy not to release Nirbhaya’s rapist who is set to be released from the Special Home holding that the maximum stay that can be directed in the Special Home under Section 15(1) of the Act is three years and since the convict would be completing the period of three years by 20.12.2015, no direction could be issued to continue his stay in the Special Home beyond 20.12.2015.

Himachal Pradesh High Court

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh has closed contempt proceedings against a journalist after accepting his unconditional apology for misreporting the court orders, with a warning that in future he should be more careful and responsible by providing fair, accurate and impartial information.

The High Court quashed the notification which included Dharamshala in the list of potential Smart Cities by excluding the city of Shimla. A division Bench of Justices Rajiv Sharma and Sureshwar Thakur set aside all the proceedings and has directed the concerned authorities to re do the exercise within two weeks and has also asked the Central Government to consider these applications afresh, treating it as special case.

Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court  directed the Government and Police department to seriously think of forming an Expert Committee to scientifically work out the allocation of work of each police station defining the territorial jurisdiction, staff strength, de-linking investigation from law and order, establishment of an excellent Training Centre here at Bengaluru, and also opening of new police stations at the earliest.

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Quashing a crime registered under section 498-A read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Justice C.V. Sirpurkar of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur bench held in a recent judgment that if there are no specific and credible allegations against the relatives of the husband with necessary particulars, they should not be made to suffer the ignominy of a criminal trial. 

Madras High Court

While acquitting a ‘husband’ who was convicted by the Trial court for offences under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal code,  the Madras High Court observed that dying declaration need not be always true and such a presumption, have no universal application. Justice P.R. Shivakumar set aside the conviction; the trial court had recorded, relying mainly on the dying declaration.