High Courts Weekly Round-Up
Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court told a doctor found to be routinely issuing disability certificates to be careful as the diagnosis mentioned by him was “not at all readable” and it was not clear what kind of disability was suffered by a workman claiming compensation under the workmen’s compensation Act for disability suffered due to an accident on the job.
Bombay High Court
On Monday, the high Court questioned the Maharashtra police for conducting a press conference to discuss the arrest of activists in relation to the Bhima Koregaon violence. A division bench of Justice Mridula Bhatkar and Justice Sandeep Shinde was hearing a criminal writ petition filed by one Satish Sugriv Gaikwad who claims to be a victim of the violence that took place on January 1, 2018.
The High Court on Tuesday refused to defer the framing of charges against Lt. Col. Prasad Purohit and others in the 2008 Malegaon blast case.
The High Court, while hearing petitions filed by family members of anti-superstition crusader Narendra Dabholkar and CPI member Govind Pansare, cautioned investigative agencies and officers against speaking to the media and divulging case details which may compromise the trial.
Calcutta High Court
The first bench of Calcutta High Court allowed cutting down of 356 trees for the construction of railway over bridges (ROBs), but with a condition that the authorities shall carry out simultaneous compensatory plantation of at least five trees for every tree felled.
Chhattisgarh High Court
The Chhattisgarh High Court, on 27 August, in Dr. Avinash Samal v. State of Chhattisgarh, quashed the extension of tenure of Hidayatullah National Law University (HNLU), Raipur Vice-Chancellor (VC), Prof. (Dr) Sukhpal Singh. However, despite the order, the path has been testing for the students, to say the least.
Delhi High Court
The proverb ‘better safe than sorry’ cannot be of universal application and the safe procedure for parties to an arbitration agreement is to actually adhere to the stipulation in the arbitration clause and not attempt anything which the parties may perceive to be safer, the Delhi High Court held. Justice Pratibha M Singh said so while setting aside an award passed by a three-member arbitral tribunal even as the agreement between the parties provided for appointment of a sole arbitrator.
The High Court imposed costs of Rs. 87 lakh on Pure Play Sports for Infringing Skechers’ intellectual property by manufacturing and distributing rip-offs of Skechers’ Go-walk 3 series range of shoes.
The High Court directed online Pharma platform and app 1MG.com to not offer for sale any product of Amway India, a wholly owned subsidiary of USA-based Amway Corporation which works on direct selling business model.
On Thursday, the High Court directed razing down of the building of a fully-aided government school in northeast Delhi after a team of PWD engineers submitted an inspection report stating that the building is in a dilapidated condition with beams missing, thus, making it unsafe for occupancy, and that students be shifted to any suitable place.
The High Court on Thursday also issued a notice to AAP government on a PIL seeking closure of all unauthorized pathological and diagnostic laboratories being run by un-qualified laboratory technicians in the national capital.
Giving a wide interpretation to what constitutes “use of a trademark”, the High Court held that in a trademark action, use of mark includes not just actual physical use of the mark but also its use for inviting franchisee queries from a particular territory and the court in that territory would have the jurisdiction to try and entertain such suit.
The High Court sought response of the AAP government on a plea moved by Congress leader Ajay Maken seeking direction to the Centre and city government to subsidise Delhi Metro fares and clear various hurdles in the development of Delhi Metro’s Phase III and IV to prevent commuters’ shift to private transport and in effect curb air pollution.
The High Court issued a notice to the Aam Aadmi Party government on a PIL for providing nursery and kindergarten education in government schools. A bench headed by Chief Justice Rajendra Menon issued notice to the government on a PIL moved by Dr Shashi Bhushan Sonbhadra stressing on provision for nursery and kindergarten in government schools as the pupil taking admission in these schools miss out on two important formative years for social, physical and cognitive development.
On Friday, the High Court sought response of Asaduddin Owaisi-led AIMIM on a plea seeking to quash its registration as a political party, alleging that it raises issues concerning only Muslims and seeks votes in the name of religion.
Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court held that ‘fashion show’ falls within the expression ‘entertainment’ and is taxable under the provisions of Karnataka Entertainment Tax. The division bench of the high court comprising Chief Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Krishna S Dixit was considering the appeal filed against single bench verdict that had dismissed the challenge by ‘Dream Merchants’ who had challenged the levy of entertainment tax on ‘Bangalore Fashion Week’.
Kerala High Court
The High Court of Kerala suggested that the Government evolve a uniform formula for compensating flood victims. The Division Bench of Chief Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice A K Jayasankaran Nambiar made the suggestion while considering a public interest litigation by P. K Firoz, Youth League Leader, seeking to set up a special tribunal for assessing and disbursing flood compensation. He voiced the grievance that compensation was being granted by the state government without any firm criteria and uniform formula.
Madras High Court
The Madras High Court recently rapped the State for denying pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension (SSS Scheme) to a freedom fighter on technical grounds.
The High Court directed the State Government to consider issuance of a Circular or a Government Order (GO) making it compulsory for all the schools, whether aided or unaided, with more than 50 and less than 250 students, to hire physical education (PE) teachers on an hourly basis by fixing honorarium.
On Monday, the High Court set aside a single judge order permitting farmer leader P Ayyakannu to stage a one-day fast at the Marina beach here. The court allowed an appeal by the state government against the single judge order directing the city police commissioner to allow him to conduct the protest.
The High Court asked the Government of Union Territory of Puducherry to expedite the process of finalising the rules/guidelines for appointment of law officers while noting that it could not find any infraction to the procedure for selection of eligible advocates for the post of Government Pleaders, Additional Government Pleaders and Government Advocates.
Taking serious note of encroachment of water bodies in Chennai, the Madras High Court issued a slew of directions to the District Collector to ensure that all such encroachments are evicted.
Patna High Court
The Patna High Court stayed the defamation proceedings filed against Juggernaut Books Pvt. Ltd. over publication of the controversial book, “Godman to Tycoon: The Untold Story of Baba Ramdev”.
Punjab & Haryana High Court
The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently refused permission to terminate the pregnancy of a 14-year-old rape survivor but directed the Haryana government to bear all the expenses for her delivery.
The High Court suspended the operation of the state government notice by which it had clubbed real estate agents working as sole proprietorship concern with partnership firms, companies etc.
Rajasthan High Court
The Rajasthan High Court on Wednesday directed the Vasundhara Raje government to abstain from conducting State sponsored functions during the ongoing Gaurav Yatra.
Uttarakhand High Court
Holding that contempt proceedings cannot be initiated against a Judge of Court of Record, on allegations of committing a contempt of his own Court, the Uttarakhand High Court dismissed as not maintainable the criminal contempt petition moved by an advocate against Justice Lok Pal Singh for allegedly losing his temper and using intemperate language against the petitioner in open court.