High Courts Weekly Round-up

Delhi High CourtThe Court on Tuesday quashed the Criminal Proceedings against an accused on the ground of settlement between the parties and directed them to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in favour of “The Superintendent, ‘Nirmal Chaya’, Tihar Jail, Hari Nagar, New Delhi, Welfare Fund for Children and Destitute Women’ within two weeks under prior intimation to the Investigating Officer concerned. The Court also directed the Superintendent of the Centre to keep the said amount in the form of FDR initially for a period of 1 year to be renewed periodically and interest accrued thereon be utilized for the well- being of the children and the destitute women of the aforesaid centre.The Court on Wednesday emphasized the need to protect children from sexual abuse. Justice P.S. Teji directed all Criminal Courts to adopt all the reasonable precautions to ensure the true testimony of the child witnesses and to provide atmosphere and the circumstances to the effect that the child witnesses shall not be compelled by the circumstances, by the accused including the parents, from bringing truth before the Court. The High Court also directed to ensure that the child witnesses be examined in special court room meant for it and provide all the precautions available to the child victims under the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.Justice Indermeet Kaur, in a recent decision, levied costs of Rs. 40, 000 on a woman for “abuse of the process of the Court and wastage of its precious time”, by filing two petitions challenging the grant of bail and validity of investigations carried out against three men, whom she had accused of rape and molestation.Commuting the death sentence awarded to a convict to life imprisonment, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court has laid down guidelines and collated the existing procedure with regard to appointment of Probation Officers and the procedure to be followed by them. These guidelines have been directed to be mandatorily adopted by the Courts before the sentencing hearing, upon conviction for commission of offence which is punishable with death penalty. The Court had appointed Dr. Mrinal Satish, Executive Director of the Centre for Constitutional Law, Policy, and Governance, NLU Delhi as Amicus Curiae.Bombay High CourtThe Court on Sunday decided in favour of ITC Limited after holding that the smaller rival company NTC Industries, prima facie, infringed on the cigarette major’s ‘Gold Flake’ and ‘Honey Dew’ trademarks. The suit is an action in Trademark and Copyright infringement combined with a cause of action in Passing Off.Bombay High Court on Thursday held that in view of the specific provisions in the Stamp Act in regard to evading of stamp duty and punishment provided for the same, general provisions of Indian Penal Code may not apply. The High Court was hearing a petition under S.482 CrPC, to quash the offenses punishable under Sections 119, 167, 418, 468,471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 59 and 62 of the Bombay Stamps Act, 1958.Madras High CourtOn Wednesday proceedings of the Madras High Court were beamed live for the first time, when contempt of court proceedings against two Madurai-based Bar leaders were taken up in connection with the anti-helmet rally taken out by lawyers in that city last month. Secretary of Madurai Bar Association A.K. Ramasamy and its President P. Dharmaraj are facing contempt of court proceedings in connection with the anti-helmet ruling rally, which was a protest against the Court’s June order that made helmets mandatory for two-wheeler riders.Punjab and Haryana High CourtA Division Bench of the Court on Tuesday directed the CBDT to extend due date for filing of Tax Audit and Income Tax Return (ITR) to 31st October 2015. The petitioners challenged the Press Release dated 9.9.2015, whereby the Government and the CBDT have taken a decision not to extend the date for filing of returns due by 30.9.2015 for the assessment year 2015- 16 for certain categories of assessees including companies, firms and individuals engaged in proprietary business/profession etc. whose accounts are required to be audited in terms of Section 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961.The Court on Thursday held that merely on account of pendency of an FIR in a matrimonial dispute, a passport cannot be withheld. It directed the authorities to re-issue the passport to the petitioner, if there is no other legal impediment, except the registration of the aforesaid case. However, it directed that the manner of the use of the passport for travel outside will be subject to the orders of the appropriate criminal court of competent jurisdiction in respect of the FIR registered against the petitioner.Gujarat High CourtGujarat High Court on Tuesday directed the CBDT to extend due date for filing of Tax Audit and Income Tax Return (ITR) to 31st October 2015. The petitioners...

High Courts Weekly Round-up

Apoorva Mandhani

Tags