Editors Pick

High Courts Weekly Round-Up

Ashok KM
4 Jan 2016 3:32 AM GMT
High Courts Weekly Round-Up
Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

Allahabad High Court

Allahabad High Court held that Section 36(3) and (4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, which disentitles a party to be represented by an Advocate unless with the consent of opposite parties and leave of Labour court, is not violative of Section 29/30 of the Advocates Act read with Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. Justice Pankaj Mithal held that the restrictions as placed by Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act does not completely exclude appearance of the advocates before the Tribunal.

The Allahabad High Court quashed 53 appointments of Administration Assistants (Upper Division Clerks) of Aligarh Muslim University (AMU), giving a massive blow to the selection committee. The petition was filed by one Vinod Kumar and others challenging the decision of the selection committee. They alleged that the appointments had not been made as per rules and that the selection process, too, was faulty. 

Bombay High Court

Bombay High Court in held Kishor Dattatraya Shinde vs. State of Maharashtra, held that mere harassment alone, would not amount to abetting a person to commit suicide. Division bench comprising of Justice Ranjit More and Justice V. L. Achliya, there has to be a direct or clear intention or means rea to commit the offence to attract the provisions of section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 

Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court admitted a Writ Petition filed by an 87 year-old person thrown out of his home by his children and forced to stay on streets or Gurudwaras. The petitioner, a resident of West Patel Nagar, New Delhi pleaded that he dedicated and sacrificed its entire life for the uplifting and welfare of his family and in return he is being harassed by them with the sole motive of grabbing his property without making any provision for his life. 

Gujarat High Court

Gujarat High Court on Monday, allowed a rape victim to abort her 8 week old foetus. Justice K.J Thaker has allowed Special application moved by father of the victim who is a minor and said that the abortion can be carried out after collecting / securing evidences necessary for the prosecution to prove its case including DNA samples etc.

The High Court, in a rare order, waived off 6 months ‘cool-off’ period for seeking divorce. Justice R.D. Kothari allowed the Special Civil application moved by the ‘wife’ and set aside the Trial court order which had refused to waive off the cool off period. 

Jammu & Kashmir High Court

A Division Bench of Jammu and Kashmir High Court reportedly stayed an earlier order of a Single Judge which had mandated that all Government buildings and cars in Jammu and Kashmir use the state flag.

Madras High Court

The Madras High Court Division Bench comprising of Justices V. Ramasubramanian and N. Kirubakaran held that Government servants cannot avail different kinds of leave as a matter of right and then approach the court to convert one type of leave into another just because they face recovery proceedings.

The High Court Single Bench Justice S. Vaidyanathan ruled that criminal action cannot be initiated against banks and financial institutions for taking possession of vehicles and other goods hypothecated with them in case of default in repayment of loan. 

Punjab and Haryana High Court

Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the  plea of a son challenging the order of District Magistrate by which he had asked him to provide an amount of Rupees 3000 to his father. Justice Paramjeet Singh said that the Court had already examined the scheme and identical issue in another case Justice Shanti Sarup Diwan vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh and this plea is liable to be dismissed.

Next Story