High Courts Weekly Round-Up
Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court held that Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be invoked to seek transfer of claim petition pending before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
Two public interest litigations challenging the Uttar Pradesh Government’s decision to rename Allahabad to Prayagraj met different fate. While the bench at Allahabad dismissed the plea asking the petitioner to approach the government first, the Lucknow bench posted the case on Monday directing the state to respond.
Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court recently dismissed a couple of PILs based on an article that appeared in The Times of India on June 21, 2018, with the headline: “LED lamps cost Rs 3,400 in market, NMC pays Rs 9,900”.
The High Court Tuesday dismissed the bail plea of middleman Manoj Prasad in a bribery case allegedly involving CBI Special Director Rakesh Asthana. Justice Najmi Waziri denied the relief to Prasad, saying the allegations against him were serious in nature and noted the CBI submission that the investigation is at a crucial stage.
A vacation bench of the High Court on Tuesday denied urgent hearing to former CBFC chairman Pahlaj Nihalani who is seeking interim relief regarding cuts ordered by the CBFC in his film Rangeela Raja, starring Govinda.
The High Court recently highlighted the need for a uniform mechanism for admission process in the Universities in the State of Maharashtra, especially in matters pertaining to the submission of marks obtained by the students.
A ‘molestation’ complaint was recently quashed by the High Court after the complainant approached the court and submitted that her grandchild had lied.
The High Court sentenced film producer Gaurang Doshi to six months’ imprisonment after he was found guilty of wilful breach of an earlier order directing him to deposit a sum of Rs 1.25 crore in court.
Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court on Friday directed authorities to appoint counsellors in about one lakh educational institutions in West Bengal to protect students from sexual abuse.
Delhi High Court
With the authorities facing great difficulties in identification of unclaimed bodies, the Delhi High Court asked the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) to explain its reasons for shooting down the idea of matching the fingerprints of unidentified bodies with the biometric database.
The High Court acquitted a person convicted under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act by holding that conditions of search under Section 50 are mandatory and that they cannot be fulfilled by the plea that accused waived the right to have the search conducted in the presence of a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer.
The High Court recently held that courts cannot consider the question of viability of a claim as under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, while hearing a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The High Court, on Wednesday, dismissed religious leader Daati Maharaj’s review petition challenging the order transferring the inquiry into the rape case against him to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
The High Court ruled that the rejection or acceptance of anticipatory bail of an accused by the High Court is not relevant for consideration of the regular bail of the accused under Section 437(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
On Friday, the High Court issued a notice to the Centre on a petition against the sale of expired medicines. A bench of Chief Justice Rajendra Menon and Justice VK Rao issued a notice to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and the Drug Controller General of India on a petition moved by advocate Amit Sahni.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court registered a suo motu PIL taking note of extreme lack of sporting facilities in the entire state. The bench comprising Chief Justice Gita Mittal and Justice Alok Aradhe issued a notice to the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, Government of India, state government and several sports associations and federation in this regard.
The High Court recently refused to cancel bail granted to a BSF employee accused of adultery
Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court recently slammed a woman for filing a false dowry case against her mother-in-law. Justice KS Mudagal opined that the proceedings against the petitioner (mother-in-law) were an “abuse of the process of the Court” and that their continuation would amount to “failure of ends of justice”.
Kerala High Court
A division bench of Kerala High Court comprising of Justices K Vinod Chandran and Ashok Menon held in State of Kerala v. JoemonRajan that intelligence officers cannot attempt to quantify taxable turnover likely to be evaded by making estimation for the purpose of invoking the provision for penalty.
A Full Bench of High Court of Kerala held by 2:1 majority that quarrying sites will not come within the definition of ‘commercial site’ within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 so as to qualify for exemption from ceiling limit under 81(1)(q) of the Act.
While refusing withdrawal of prosecution in a criminal case against accused for assaulting cops, the High Court observed that attacks on police officers were on the increase in the state and it is not in public interest to allow the Public Prosecutor to withdraw from such cases.
The High Court on Thursday dismissed the anticipatory bail plea of activist Rehana Fathima, who had made an attempt to enter into Sabarimala when the temple was opened for monthly puja in October after the Supreme Court order allowing entry of women in the age group of 10 and 50 into the Lord Ayyappa shrine.
The High Court called upon the authorities concerned to take strong penal action against violators, including political parties, who make unauthorized installation of illegal flex boards/billboards/advertisement boards/banners/flags. The court issued such an ultimatum after observing that violations being done out by persons, especially from the ruling political front, unabated despite orders from court amounts to ‘fence eating the crop’.
The High Court took suo moto case on violence which took place at Sabarimala on November 5, when the temple opened for ‘Chithira Aatta Vishesham’. The Special Bench for Devaswom matters comprising Justices P R Ramachandra Menon and N Anilkumar took cognizance on the basis of the report filed by Special Commissioner M. Manoj, District Judge.
Madras High Court
The Madras High Court recently reiterated that insurance companies cannot be held liable to compensate for deaths or injuries to unauthorised/ gratuitous passengers in goods or transport vehicles.
Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court recently set aside the criminal proceedings initiated against a government doctor in a case accusing him of gross negligence. The order was passed by Justice G. Jayachandran on a revision petition filed by one Dr. Muthu Shenbagam.
Holding that a statute based on an international treaty should be interpreted in the light of the objectives of the treaty, the Madras High Court interpreted Anti Dumping Duty Rules in the light of General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs 1994(GATT).
Uttarakhand High Court
Observing that law should not be permitted to remain dormant without any public interest, the Uttarakhand High Court on Monday directed the Centre to consider within six months whether the Section 7(5) of The Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003, which makes it mandatory for manufacturers to indicate nicotine and tar content on cigarette and tobacco products, should be enforced or not after remaining dormant for 12 years.
The Uttarakhand government earned some serious criticism from the Uttarakhand High Court which called its arrangement for recruitment of ex-servicemen and their dependants and also others, in various government departments through Uttarakhand Purvsanik Kalyan Limited (UPNL), a sham and directed the state government to regularize the employees sponsored through UPNL.
The High Court observed that the courts should refrain and exercise self-restraint in assessing the competence of advocates appearing before it. Paresh Tripathi, Chief Standing Counsel of the state, had approached the division bench challenging the observations made by the single judge in an order that he is not competent and is incapable to protect the interest of the state.
The High Court held that a revision petition against a family court order passed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is maintainable. Justice Lok Pal Singh observed that an application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. would not be maintainable against such an order.