- Home
- /
- News Updates
- /
- All High Courts Weekly Round Up: 18...
All High Courts Weekly Round Up: 18 July 2022 - 24 July 2022
Shrutika Pandey
26 July 2022 4:45 AM GMT
Allahabad High Court NOMINAL INDEX Mamta And Another v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 324 Manish Yadav v. State of U.P 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 325 Bhagwan Shrikrishna Virajman And 3 Others v. U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board And 3 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 326 Oyas @ Avesh v. State of U.P 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 327 Farha Faiz v. State Of U.P. And 3...
Allahabad High Court
NOMINAL INDEX
Mamta And Another v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 324
Manish Yadav v. State of U.P 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 325
Bhagwan Shrikrishna Virajman And 3 Others v. U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board And 3 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 326
Oyas @ Avesh v. State of U.P 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 327
Farha Faiz v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 328
M/S Ram Krishna Garg Supplier Versus State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 329
State of U.P. v. Narendra Singh 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 330
Om Prakash And Another v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 331
Suresh Babu v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 332
Suraj v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 333
Sunita Devi And Another v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 334
Siddharth Kappor v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 335
Kuldeep Second Bail v. State of U.P 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 336
Sukhbir Singh v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 337
Mukhtar Ansari v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 338
Srinivas And Ors. v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 339
ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE WEEK
Case title - Mamta And Another v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And Others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 324
The Allahabad High Court observed that a Magistrate can take cognizance of the complaint or application filed by the aggrieved person and issue notice to the respondent under Section 12 of the D.V. Act even in the absence of a Domestic Incident Report (DIR).
The bench of Justice Rajeev Singh referred to the recent ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Prabha Tyagi vs Kamlesh Devi 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 474, wherein it was held that Section 12 of the DV Act does not make it mandatory for a Magistrate to consider a Domestic Incident Report filed by a Protection Officer or service provider before passing any order under the D.V. Act.
Case title - Manish Yadav v. State of U.P [CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. - 4645 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 325
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the initiation of the process of proclamation or attachment proceedings under sec. 82 or 83 of Cr.PC after the filing of an anticipatory bail plea by an accused does not bar the consideration of such a bail application.
With this, the Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan granted anticipatory bail to one Manish Yadav, who is an Army personnel serving in the Indian Army and has been booked in a rape case.
Case title - Bhagwan Shrikrishna Virajman And 3 Others v. U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board And 3 Others [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5268 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 326
The Allahabad High Court has directed Mathura Court to expeditiously decide on an application filed before it for conducting a Scientific Investigation of Shahi Eidgah and Jahanara's Masque in connection with a 2021 suit (Bhagwan Shrikrishna Virajman and others vs. U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board and others).
The bench of Justice Vipin Chandra Dixit ordered thus while hearing an Article 227 plea moved by Bhagwan Shrikrishna Virajman And 3 Others seeking a direction to the Civil Judge(Senior Division), Mathura to decide the application filed before the Mathura Court.
Case title - Oyas @ Avesh v. State of U.P [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2407 of 2022]
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 327
The Allahabad High Court has clarified that the charge under Section 326A IPC can be framed against the accused even if no grievous hurt has been caused to the acid attack survivor and that grievous hurt to an acid attack survivor is not mandatory in each case.
It may be noted that this provision deals with the offence and punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid, etc. It says that whoever causes permanent or partial damage or deformity to, or burns or maims or disfigures or disables, any part or parts of the body of a person or causes grievous hurt by throwing acid on or by administering acid to that person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to life imprisonment.
Case title - Farha Faiz v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1430 of 2021]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 328
The Allahabad High Court has the right of further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC is given to investigating agency and only they can move an application before the magistrate for further investigation.
The Bench of Justice Anjani Kumar Mishra and Justice Deepak Verma further observed that after the commencement of trial, neither the Magistrate suo motu nor on an application filed by the complainant/informant, can direct further investigation in a case.
Show Cause Notice Cancelling GST Registration Must Disclose Reason: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: M/S Ram Krishna Garg Supplier Versus State Of U.P. And 4 Others WRIT TAX No. - 1064 of 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 329
The Allahabad High Court has held that the show cause notice cancelling registration must indicate the reason and the mere mentioning of violation under the CGST Act is not sufficient.
Case title - State of U.P. v. Narendra Singh [GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 1990 of 1985]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 330
Holding that the prosecution could not prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, the Allahabad High Court on Tuesday upheld the acquittal order passed by the trial court in a 42-year-old murder case (which took place in July 1980).
The Bench of Justice Om Prakash-VII and Justice Narendra Kumar Johari was essentially dealing with a Government appeal filed against a 1985 jdgment and order passed by Special Judge (E.C. Act)/ Additional Sessions Judge, Jalaun at Orai by which the two accused were acquitted of the charges under Sections 302/34, 302 IPC.
Case title - Om Prakash And Another v. State of U.P. and Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3041 of 2022]
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 331
The Allahabad High Court has observed that if cognizance has been taken on a police report, then there is no need to pass a fully reasoned order if from the perusal of the cognizance order it appears that the court has applied its mind to the materials on record.
It may be noted that a Police Report means a report forwarded by a police officer to a Magistrate under Section 173 (2) CrPC.
The bench of Justice Sameer Jain also clarified that even if there is an irregularity in the cognizance order passed by the Court, then also, on that ground, the proceedings cannot be vitiated in view of Section 465 Cr.P.C.
It may be noted that Section 465 of CrPC states that no finding, sentence or order of a competent court shall be reversed on account of irregularity unless there is a failure of justice.
Case title - Suresh Babu v. State of U.P. and Another [CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 3532 of 2022]
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 332
Hinting that a proclaimed offender may also move an anticipatory bail plea, the Allahabad High Court has observed that Section 438 of CrPC doesn't say that a proclaimed offender would be barred to file such a plea.
The bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan further observed that Section 82 CrPC (Proclamation for person absconding) neither creates any rider nor imposes any restrictions in filing anticipatory bail application by the proclaimed offender.
Case title - Suraj v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Others [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3511 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 333
"The age of 15-16 years or below 18 years is not the age where any young couple should enter into the institution of marriage," the Allahabad High Court observed recently as it granted bail to a man accused of raping a minor girl taking into account the larger interest of the child born out of their consensual relationship.
The Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan however clarified that the bail order not be cited in any other case as precedence inasmuch as the bai was granted considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case.
Case title - Sunita Devi And Another v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others [WRIT - C No. - 29138 of 2021]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 334
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a protection plea filed by a married woman and her live-in partner with a cost of Rs.5,000 as it noted that the petitioners had failed to demonstrate that they were facing any threat from the husband of the woman.
The Bench of Justice Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Justice Ajai Tyagi further observed that the Constitution of India may permit live-in relations but the instant writ petition was filed by the petitioners (live-in partners) with the purpose of obtaining the seal of the High Court on their illegal relationship.
Case title - Siddharth Kappor v. State of U.P. and Another
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 335
The Allahabad High Court has observed that there is no bar on entertaining an anticipatory bail plea of an accused, if during the pendency of plea, any proclamation u/s 82 & 83 Cr.P.C. is issued.
The bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Gupta further observed that after the rejection of the anticipatory bail plea by the lower court, a person has a right to approach the High Court and if in the interregnum period, any proclamation u/s 82 & 83 Cr.P.C. is issued, then the same may be considered as a circumventive exercise being taken by the Investigating Officer.
Allahabad High Court Grants Bail To Dowry Death Accused In View Of Poor Progress Of Trial
Case title - Kuldeep Second Bail v. State of U.P [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8561 of 2019]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 336
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to a dowry death accused (in jail for about 6 years) in view of the poor progress of the trial in the case.
The bench of Justice Shamim Ahmed was essentially dealing with the second bail application of one Kuldeep in connection with a case registered against him under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 302 I.P.C., and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Case title - Sukhbir Singh v. State of U.P. and Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21859 of 2021]
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 337
The Allahabad High Court has observed that whenever it is provided that an offence is cognizable by the Session Court, the Magistrate cannot probe the matter and cannot discharge the accused. With this, the Court set aside an order of magistrate dismissing discharge application filed by an accused booked under Section 306 IPC
The bench of Justice Brij Raj Singh further observed that the Magistrate should have committed the case to the Court of Session under section 209 CrPC, but in spite of doing so, he had heard the application of the accused for discharge, which was not in his domain.
Case title - Mukhtar Ansari v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1776 of 2022]
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 338
"It is irony and tragedy of the Indian republic and biggest scar on Indian democracy that criminals like Mukhtar Ansari are the law-makers," the Allahabad High Court observed as it denied bail to former UP MLA in a case wherein he has been accused of registering an ambulance on forged and fabricated document.
The bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh further observed that since the ambulance was allegedly being used to carry Ansari's men armed with illegal and sophisticated weapons for his protection, therefore, there was no ground to enlarge him on bail.
Case title - Srinivas And Ors. v. State of U.P. and Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5233 of 2014]
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 339
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow bench) quashed a criminal case against four real brothers, and their father, aged around 81 years who were booked for allegedly gang-raping a married woman, having two grown-up children
The bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh observed that it was not believable that four real brothers and their father would commit rape on a woman having two grown up children.
OTHER UPDATES FROM THE HIGH COURT
The Allahabad High Court is set to hear a plea filed against the order of the Special CBI Court at Lucknow that acquitted all 32 persons accused of hatching the criminal conspiracy behind the demolition of the Babri Masjid mosque on December 6, 1992.
The plea, originally filed in 2021 as a criminal revision plea will now be treated as a criminal appeal and the bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh will hear the same on the point of admissibility on August 1, 2022.
Case title - Mahesh Kumar Agrawal v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others [WRIT - C No. - 4521 of 2022]
The Allahabad High Court has said that the Uttar Pradesh government's act of proceeding to remove the 20-year-old alleged encroachment is laudable, but, the state government will also have to ascertain the liability/guilt of officials who did not ensure that Gaon Sabha property is not encroached.
The bench of Justice Abdul Moin was essentially dealing with the plea of one Mahesh Kumar Agrawal seeking quashing of an order passed by Assistant Collector/Tehsildar, Sitapur holding him to be an encroacher, imposing a penalty of Rs.5,40,200/- and initiating recovery proceedings against him.
Case title - Naasir And Others v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And Anr
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow bench) stayed a criminal trial against two real brothers who have been accused of gang-raping a 27-year-old woman. The Court has also stayed the trial against the father (of the accused) who has been accused of encouraging his two sons to rape the woman.
The bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh observed that it is unbelievable that a father would encourage his two sons to commit rape on a married woman and two real brothers would commit rape one by one with a married woman, having three children.
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 93
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has quashed multiple rowdy sheets, suspect sheets and history sheets in a batch of writ petitions without going into the merits of the case, in view of the recent common order of the Court in Udathu Suresh vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. In Udathu Suresh, a single bench of the High Court had found that the actions of the police amounted to a violation of the right to privacy, which cannot be restricted without a law and without fulfilling the qualifications laid down in K.S. Puttaswamy v Union of India.
Case Title: NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD v. SAMBIREDDY VENKATARAMANA 5 ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 94
Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed an appeal by an insurance appeal, holding that the Commissioner's findings as to the nature of work are not open to challenge - by an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act and injury - unless perversity is apparent on the face of the record.
The Court stressed upon a liberal interpretation of the Act, keeping its beneficial nature in mind. It held that any sudden death caused shall be treated as stress and strain of the work when there is no indication about previous disease.
Bombay High Court
NOMINAL INDEX
Rahim Manji Kaba vs Moosabhai Gagji Khetani 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 256
Satvinder Jeet Singh Sodhi and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 257
Anand Prabhakar Joshi vs Bank of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 258
Santacruz Gymkhana vs State of Maharashtra and Anr. with connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 259
Vodafone Idea Limited vs UOI and Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 260
Derivados Consulting Pvt. Ltd. vs Pramara Promotions Pvt. Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 261
Jagannath Bhagnath Bedke vs Haribhau Jagannath Bedke 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 262
Sterlite Industries (lndia ) Limited and ors vs Special Director of Enforcement and ors 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 263
International Society for Krishna Consciousness Bangalore v. International Society for Krishna Consciousness and Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 264
ROUND-UP
Case Title: Rahim Manji Kaba v. Moosabhai Gagji Khetani
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 256
The Bombay High Court held that bar under Section 41(1) of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act, 1882[i] is not attracted to a dispute regarding declaration of tenancy rights under a partnership deed when the licensor-licensee or landlord/tenant relationship is non-existent
The Bench held that the bar under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act only applies where the parties have a landlord-tenant or licensor-licensee relationship between themselves.
Case Title: Satvinder Jeet Singh Sodhi and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 257
The Bombay High Court quashed criminal proceedings against independent non-executive directors of Tecpro Systems Ltd observing they were not responsible for day-to-day functioning of the company.
The court was dealing with an application requesting quashing of criminal proceedings before the trial court in a cheque bounce case under the Negotiable Instruments Act.
"Non-executive director not being a promoter of or key managerial persons shall be held liable, only in respect of such acts of omission or commission by a company which had occurred with his knowledge, attributable through Board processes, and with his consent or connivance or where he had not acted diligently", the court stated.
Case Title : Anand Prabhakar Joshi v. Bank of Maharashtra
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 258
The Bombay High Court reprimanded a Pune resident, seeking second review of the court's earlier decision, stating that the petition was without merit and constituted abuse of process and law. A penalty of Rs. 1 lakh was imposed on the petitioner.
The court said that advanced age of the petitioner cannot be a reason to take a sympathetic view as he is "fully aware that he has been fighting a lost legal battle which has no merit at all".
"Such conduct is highly deprecated as the petitioner appears to be incorrigible", the court stated.
Entertainment Duty Not Applicable On Billiards Tables At Members-Only Club: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Santacruz Gymkhana Versus State of Maharashtra and Anr. with connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 259
Entertainment duty is not applicable on billiards tables at a members-only club, the Bombay High Court held while quashing demand notices issued to eight elite clubs in Mumbai under the Bombay Entertainment Duty Act 1923.
Unlike a commercial pool parlor meant for public entertainment at a fee, the clubs neither allow outsiders nor benefit commercially from the activity. Therefore, providing billiards tables cannot be treated as "entertainment" and consequently cannot be taxable under the Act, the court held.
[IGST] Roaming Services And International Long Distance Services Provided By Vodafone Idea To Foreign Telecom Operators Is An Export Of Service: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Vodafone Idea Limited versus UOI and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 260
The Bombay High Court has ruled that the international Inbound Roaming Services (IIR) and the International Long Distance (ILD) Services provided by Vodafone Idea to Foreign Telecom Operators (FTOs) is an export of services, and thus, Vodafone Idea is eligible for the refund of the IGST paid by it.
Noting that the provisions of Section 13(2) of the IGST Act were applicable, the Court held that the place of supply of service was the location of the recipient of the service, i.e., the location of the FTO, which was outside India.
Case Title: Derivados Consulting Pvt. Ltd. versus Pramara Promotions Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 261
The Bombay High Court ruled that once the parties have agreed to use the word 'may', the parties have conferred a discretion to enter into an arbitration agreement in the future; and that such an enabling clause does not constitute any binding arbitration agreement between the parties.
The Single Bench of Justice G. S. Kulkarni held that the use of the word "may" does not bring about any arbitration agreement between the parties, when tested on the touchstone of Section 7(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), which defines the arbitration agreement.
Case Title – Jagannath Bhagnath Bedke v. Haribhau Jagannath Bedke
Citation - 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 262
The Aurangabad Bench of Bombay High Court while deciding a writ petition related to maintenance said that courts should not get too technical while deciding petitions under section 125 of the Cr.P.C.
"The said provision is made for the immediate support that too financial in nature of a person so that he or she can survive", the court stated.
Case Title : Sterlite Industries (lndia ) Limited and ors v Special Director of Enforcement and ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 263
"Passing of the adjudication order after the offence has been compounded, is thus contrary to the statutory provisions discussed hereinabove, is not maintainable and thus without jurisdiction," the Bombay HC held.
In a relief to public limited company Sterlite Industries and its Directors, court an almost 14 years old order passed by the Special Director of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) which imposed penalties of Rs 20 crore on the company and Rs 5.20 crore on its promoter Anil Agarwal and three other Directors.
By this order passed on November 21, 2008, the ED had alleged violation under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA) while acquiring 100% stake in Netherlands based Monte Cello BV which owned two copper mines in Australia.
Case Title – International Society for Krishna Consciousness Bangalore v. International Society for Krishna Consciousness and Ors
Citation- 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 264
The Bombay High Court has clarified that its previous decision of 2020, allowing the trademark infringement suit filed by ISKCON Mumbai against a clothing manufacturer was limited to recognizing ISKCON as a well known trade mark in India within the meaning provided in Sections 2 (1)(zg) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
A division bench of Justices G.S. Patel & Gauri Godse made it clear that through the said judgment, the High Court has in no way recognized ISCKON Mumbai as the sole and exclusive proprietor of the mark.
"Registrar of Trademarks, is therefore, bound by the finding that ISKCON is well-known mark. As to who is entitled to the use of that mark or can be held to be its registered proprietor are questions expressly left open", the court said.
Calcutta High Court
Case title - Smt. Sandipa Gupta (Bhowmick) @ Sandipa Bhowmick v. Sri Suraj Gupta
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 268
Following the principle of "showing leniency towards the wife", the Calcutta High Court recently allowed a wife's plea to transfer Matrimonial Suit from the Court of Additional District Judge, F.T.C., Coochbehar to the Court of District Judge, Darjeeling.
The bench of Justice Ananda Kumar Mukherjee took into account the fact that the Husband had filed a suit for divorce directly without making any attempts to restore the marital relationship, and therefore, the Court opined that the wife cannot be put to such inconvenience by forcing her to travel at odd hours of the day, as the same would amount to a physical hardship for her.
Case Title: Atasi Chakraborty (Majumdar) & Ors. v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 269
The Calcutta High Court recently expressed deep displeasure at the lackadaisical attitude of police authorities in investigating the case relating to a 'missing pig' which was forcibly taken away from the Kalyani Court premises.
3. Income Tax Dept. Can't Unreasonably Reject Proof Submitted By The Assessee: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: PCIT Versus Sreeleathers
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 270
The Calcutta High Court has held that the income tax department cannot unreasonably reject proof submitted by the assessee.
The division bench of Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Bivas Pattanayak noted that the assessing officer brushed aside the explanation offered by the assessee by stating that merely filing PAN details and a balance sheet does not absolve the assessee from his responsibilities of proving the nature of transactions.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 271
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Md. Nizamuddin has held that the right to file a statutory appeal is mandatory before initiating any recovery proceeding.
The petitioner/assessee has challenged the action of recovery of the demand arising out of the adjudication order by debiting from the electronic credit ledger. The demand was in violation of Section 78 of the WBGST Act, 2017 without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to file a statutory appeal, which is mandatory before initiating any recovery proceeding.
Case title - Nabendu Kumar Bandyopadhyay v. State of West Bengal and Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 272
The Calcutta High Court has directed the State Police to ensure that peace and law and order is maintained during Trinamool Congress' (TMC) Martyrs' Day rally in Kolkata in which lacs of people are expected to gather.
The bench issued this order on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea moved by one Nabendu Kumar Bandyopadhyay, seeking a protective order from the Court by submitting that on account of the alleged provocative speech made by the Chief Minister of the State, there was an apprehension of violence during the rally.
In a writ petition assailing an order declining higher pay scale to the petitioner, the Calcutta High Court held that salary increment cannot be claimed when duties are performed without proper compliance of the relevant mandatory statutory provisions.
Case title - Priyasha Bhattacharyya vs The State Of West Bengal And Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 274
The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday observed that a police officer has no right to disqualify a person or revoke a driving licence under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and only the licensing authority is empowered to issue and suspend a driving licence.
Cast Title: West Bengal Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. v. Supratik Banerjee and Anr. AP no. 206 of 2013
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 275
The Calcutta High Court has held that a discharge voucher or No Claim Certificate would be invalid on account of 'Coercion' if it is submitted as a pre-condition to the release of final payment.
The Bench of Justice Krishna Rao held that a situation where the employer denies the payment of dues to the contractor unless it submits an undertaking to the employer not to make any further claims would fulfill the ingredients of Section 15 of the Indian Contract Act and the obtained undertaking would be invalid.
Chhatisgarh High Court
Case Title: Nand Kishore Lal v. Shrimati Chanchala La
Case No.: FAM No. 200 of 2015
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Chh) 52
The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that a widowed daughter-in-law has the right to claim maintenance from her father-in-law, if the latter has the possession of estates/ coparcenary properties in which the former's husband had rights and interest. While issuing order of maintenance, a Division Bench of Justices Goutam Bhaduri and Deepak Kumar Tiwari reiterated,
"It is the well settled proposition of law that the manager of a joint Mitakshara family is under a legal obligation to maintain all male members of the family, their wives and their children, and on the death of one of the male members he is bound to maintain his widow and his children."
Delhi High Court
NOMINAL INDEX
Citations 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 663 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 706
FIROZ AHMAD v. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, DELHI AND ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 663
Glitter Overseas and Ors. v. MMTC Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 664
Rahul Bhardwaj v. Union of India & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 665
KRANTI ARORA v. DIGJAM LTD & O.P. KHAITAN (HUF) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 666
Chithra N & Ors. v. AIIMS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 667
SATVIR SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 668
Court on its own motion v. DGCA & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 669
ABHISHEK RAY v. R. PAUL AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 670
Sunil Bhatia Versus Serious Fraud Investigation Office 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 671
PRADEEP KUMAR v. SMT BHAWANA & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 672
MR. NEERAJ BHASIN v. DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, DELHI & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 673
SARVAN KUMAR ALIAS KISHAN v. THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 674
DESH DEEPAK SRIVASTAVA & ORS. v. DELHI HIGH COURT & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 675
PRAKASH INDUSTRIES LTD. & ANR. v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORECEMENT 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 676
SANDEEP WALIA v. MONIKA UPPAL 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 677
KNITPRO INTERNATIONAL v. EXAMINER OF TRADE MARKS THROUGH REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 678
VISHESH TANEJA v. REETA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 679
National Restaurant Association v. Union Of India & Anr 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 680
Shanghai Electric Group Co. Ltd. v. Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 681
Shanghai Electric Group Co. Ltd. v. Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 682
Shanghai Electric Group Co. Ltd. v. Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 683
MS X THROUGH HER LEGAL GUARDIAN v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 684
VIPUL AGGARWAL v. INCOME TAX OFFICE 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 685
SMT USHA RANI & ANR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 686
HARJI ENGINEERING WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED v. PUNJAB AND SIND BANK & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 687
RITU GAUBA ADVOCATE v. HIS EXCELLENCY LT. GOVERNOR, DELHI & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 688
TV TODAY NETWORK LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 689
NITIN REKHAN v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 690
MS. M VICTIM v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH S.H.O. & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 691
Kanti Bijlee Utpadan Nigam Ltd. v. Paltech Cooling Towers & Equipments Litd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 692
RAKESH KUMAR SHARMA v. MOTHER DAIRY FRUIT & VEGETABLES PVT LTD 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 694
Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-2 versus M/s Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 695
Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-I Versus Future First Info. Services Pvt. Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 696
JAGBIR v. STATE (N.C.T. OF DELHI) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 697
HINA & ANR. v. THE STATE & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 698
NOVI DIGITAL ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD. v. W1.123MOVIES11.COM & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 699
SATYANARAIN KHANDELWAL v. PREM ARORA And other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 700
UNITED SIKHS v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, DELHI POLICE & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 701
HELL ENERGY MAGYARORSZAG KFT v. SHRI BRAHM SHAKTI PRINCE BEVERAGES PVT LTD & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 702
KUSHAL ANAND v. MANDHIR SACHDEVA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 703
JINDAL KUMAR v. THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 704
NATCO PHARMA LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 705
Celerity Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Versus Dy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 73-1 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 706
1. High Court Cannot Exercise Jurisdiction Under Article 227 To Monitor Progress Of Cases Before Fora Below: Delhi HC
Case Title: FIROZ AHMAD v. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, DELHI AND ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 663
The Delhi High Court has observed that the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised by High Courts to monitor the progress of cases before lower courts.
"It is not possible for this Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to monitor the progress of cases before the fora below," Justice C Hari Shankar observed.
The Court was dealing with a petition filed under Article 227 seeking a direction to the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to decide a case expeditiously, preferably on day-to-day basis and adjudicate the appeal on merits.
2. The Rejection Of An Application Under Section 34 Of The A&C Act Cannot Be Construed To Mean That The Court Has Concurred With The View Of The Arbitral Tribunal: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Glitter Overseas and Ors. v. MMTC Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 664
The Rejection Of An Application Under Section 34 Of The A&C Act Cannot Be Construed To Mean That The Court Has Concurred With The View Of The Arbitral Tribunal: Delhi High CourtThe High Court of Delhi has held that merely because the challenge to an arbitral award is dismissed by the Court exercising powers under Section 34 of the A&C Act would not mean that the court has concurred with the view of the arbitral tribunal.
The Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru the Court held that merely because a different view was taken in another arbitration and the challenge against the award was dismissed by the Court would not mean that the Court had concurred with the view of the tribunal. The decision of the Court not to interfere with the award cannot be held to be a binding precedent as the court has not decided the questions of law and facts on the merit of the case but merely dismissed the challenge because of the grounds under Section 34 were not met.
3. SpiceJet Mishaps: Delhi High Court Dismisses PIL Seeking To Stop Company's Flying Services, Says DGCA Competent To Take Action
Case Title: Rahul Bhardwaj v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 665
The Delhi High Court on Monday dismissed a public interest litigation raising safety concerns and seeking to stop flying services of Spice Jet Limited, in view of recent flight mishaps in the past two months.
A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad observed thus:
"The Aircraft Act provides for a very robust mechanism in respect of the aviation industry and this Court cannot stop an airline to operate in the Country based upon the averments made in the PIL."
Moved by Advocate Rahul Bhardwaj, the plea had referred to seven incidents, three in May, two in June and two in the month of July wherein many of the Spice Jet flights encountered mishaps.
4. Order 1 Rule 10 CPC | Plaintiff Being 'Dominus Litis' Can't Be Compelled To Fight A Person Against Whom He Does Not Claim Any Relief: Delhi High Court
CASE TITLE: KRANTI ARORA v. DIGJAM LTD & O.P. KHAITAN (HUF)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 666
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that the plaintiff in a suit, being 'dominus litis', cannot be compelled to fight against a person against whom he does not claim any relief.
A division bench of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Sudhir Kumar Jain observed,
"Dominus litis is the person to whom a suit belongs and is master of a suit and is having real interest in the decision of a case. The plaintiff being dominus litis cannot be compelled to fight against a person against whom he does not claim any relief. The plaintiff in a suit is required to identify the parties against whom he wants to implead as defendants and cannot be compelled to face litigation with the persons against whom he has no grievance."
5. MSc Nursing Admissions | AIIMS Can't Prescribe Eligibility Criteria That Nullifies Recognition Granted By Indian Nursing Council: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Chithra N & Ors. v. AIIMS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 667
The Delhi High Court has held that there is no rational basis behind the classification created by AIIMS among candidates aspiring for admission into its M.Sc. (Nursing) course, merely on the basis of the mode of learning their graduate course.
It noted that the degrees of candidates who have undertaken B.Sc. (Post Basic) through distance mode are recognized by UGC as well as the Indian Nursing Council (INC) and that they have the requisite eligibility qualification for seeking admission to M.Sc. (Nursing) at AIIMS.
It held that the AIIMS Act cannot be expanded to include the power to override or disregard the qualification recognized by INC.
6. Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea To Stop Jailed Legislators From Voting In Presidential Election 2022
Case Title: SATVIR SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 668
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition seeking deletion of names of the Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs) who are languishing in jail due to some pending cases or those decided against them so that they do not participate in the voting process for the Presidential Election 2022, scheduled for today.
While dismissing the plea, Justice Sanjeev Narula said that he will be passing an appropriate order later.
The plea was filed by one Satvir Singh, a 70 years old self employed carpenter, who had furnished a Nomination Form for conducting elections for the post of President. The same was however rejected by the Election Commission of India.
7. Delhi High Court Asks DGCA To Periodically Review Guidelines Concerning Wearing Of Face Masks In Flights
Case Title: Court on its own motion v. DGCA & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 669
The Delhi High Court has asked the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) to periodically review its guidelines concerning wearing of face masks in flights, while also adhering to the guidelines issued by the Government of India on COVID-19 protocols.
A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad disposed of an application filed by Bridging The Gap Foundation through Advocate Somnath Bharti seeking impleadment in a a suo moto case registered by the High Court following the experience of Justice C. Hari Shankar while taking an inland flight.
It was noticed that the norms are not being implemented on ground with the seriousness with which they are framed.
8. Delhi High Court Decrees Copyright Ownership Suit Filed By TV Music Composer Abhishek Ray Against Showtime Events
CASE TITLE: ABHISHEK RAY v. R. PAUL AND ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 670
The Delhi High Court has held that the original producer, lyricist and composer of a music album is entitled to a decree of declaration to that effect.
A single judge bench of Justice Pratibha Singh thus granted a decree of permanent injunction in favour of TV music composer Abhishek Ray, claiming rights over music album 'Kamasutra - Moods of Love'.
Ray had approached the High Court against Showtimes Events (India) Pvt. Ltd., run by defendants R. Paul and Michael Menezes.
Briefly, the facts of the case are that the Plaintiff was the original composer, lyricist, producer and author of various songs contained in the album 'Kamasutra- Moods of Love'. The defendants approached the Plaintiff and agreed to produce an international musical incorporating the music compositions contained in the plaintiff's album.
9. Bhushan Steel Case: Delhi High Courts Grant Bail To CA For Alleged Negligence In Stock Audit
Case Title: Sunil Bhatia Versus Serious Fraud Investigation Office
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 671
The Delhi High Court has granted bail to a chartered accountant for alleged negligence in stock audit.
The single judge bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has observed that the ex-promoters/directors and similarly situated chartered accountants have been granted bail, so there is no reason why the applicant should be treated any differently.
The applicant is a senior citizen and a chartered accountant by profession. The applicant has filed an application seeking a grant of bail.
The allegation against the applicant was that he was a chartered accountant and one of the partners at ASRN & Associates failed to perform his duty independently and diligently by not verifying the stock in transit. The applicant is accused of being in collusion with the office bearers of M/s Bhushan Steel Limited.
10. Denial Of Maintenance To Estranged Wife & Child Is Worst Offence From Humanitarian Perspective: Delhi High Court Imposes 20K Cost On Husband
Case Title: PRADEEP KUMAR v. SMT BHAWANA & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 672
"To deny maintenance to an estranged wife and child is the worst offence, even from a humanitarian perspective," the Delhi High Court has observed on Monday.
Justice Asha Menon made the observation while dismissing with a cost of Rs. 20,000 a petition filed by a husband challenging Trial Court order directing him to pay a sum of Rs.20,000 as a consolidated amount towards interim maintenance to the wife and child till the disposal of the matrimonial matter.
"The malafide intentions of an estranged husband is to depress his income as much as possible, for sadistic pleasure, of seeing the agony of someone, who has no choice, but to be dependent on him, may be dictated by egoistic propensity to also possibly teach his wife a lesson for not falling in line with whatever be his dictates. Matrimonial relationships can come to an end for a variety of reasons including ego clashes. It is time that there is a change in the attitude when litigation is filed by one spouse against the other," the Court observed.
11. Senior Citizen May Claim Right Of Exclusive Residence Even If 'Right' Or 'Interest' Is Lower Than An Exclusive Ownership Right: Delhi High Court
Case Title: MR. NEERAJ BHASIN v. DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, DELHI & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 673
The Delhi High Court has observed that under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, a senior citizen may claim a right of exclusive residence even though he or she may only be able to establish a "right" or "interest" in such property, even if such right or interest be lower than an exclusive ownership right.
"Ultimately, the authorities under the Act are obliged to take into consideration the mental and physical well-being and security of the senior citizens and pass appropriate orders of protection bearing in mind the predominant purpose of the Act," Justice Yashwant Varma added.
12. Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Two Incarcerated For 7 Yrs Over Alleged Recovery Of 21 Kg 'Ganja'
Case Title: SARVAN KUMAR ALIAS KISHAN v. THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 674
The Delhi High Court has granted bail to two men who were incarcerated for about 7 years and 2 months for having been allegedly found in possession of 21 KGs of 'ganja'.
Justice Asha Menon noted that the minimum sentence prescribed for the offence was 10 years rigorous imprisonment whereas, both the men were incarcerated since 26th May, 2015 i.e. for 7 years and 2 months.
"A certain latitude is possible in the present case," the Court said while granting bail to Sarvan Kumar and Ranjeet Kumar in an FIR registered under sec. 20 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985.
13. Employee Not Entitled To Seek Permanency Or Regularisation Of Service If Continued On Ad Hoc Basis For Decades: Delhi High Court
Case Title: DESH DEEPAK SRIVASTAVA & ORS. v. DELHI HIGH COURT & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 675
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that an employee will not be entitled to seek permanency or regularization of service even if he has continued on ad hoc basis for decades.
"It is also settled law that even if a Scheme has been in operation for some decades or that the employee concerned has continued on ad hoc basis for decades, it would not entitle the employee to seek permanency or regularisation," Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan observed.
The Court was dealing with a plea concerning an advertisement issued by Delhi High Court dated My 25, 2011 inviting applications for filling up the positions of "System Officer" and "System Assistants" to be deployed in subordinate courts.
14. Coal Allocation Per Se Does Not Amount To "Proceeds Of Crime" Under PMLA: Delhi High Court
Case Title: PRAKASH INDUSTRIES LTD. & ANR. v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORECEMENT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 676
Observing that the allocation of coal cannot be viewed as proceeds of crime per se, the Delhi High Court has observed that only the gains that may be obtained from criminal activity which are concealed or projected to be untainted can form the subject matter of the offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
Justice Yashwant Varma was of the view that it cannot be said that the allocation of coal is property as contemplated under the Act.
"It is pertinent to note that the Act essentially seeks to confiscate properties and assets that may be derived or obtained from criminal activity and which may then be concealed. It is thus evident that it is only gains that may have been obtained by the utilization of the allocation which could have possibly been viewed as proceeds of crime," the Court said.
The Court also observed that the commission of a predicate offense is the precipitate step for initiation of proceedings under the Act and that the offense of money laundering must be tried and established separately.
15. S.125 CrPC | Parties Often Don't Disclose Their Actual Income, Maintenance May Be Granted Considering Their Status & Lifestyle: Delhi High Court
Case Title: SANDEEP WALIA v. MONIKA UPPAL
Citation:2022 LiveLaw (Del) 677
The Delhi High Court has observed that in matrimonial disputes, it is seen that parties often don't disclose their actual income to the court, purportedly to avoid the liability of maintenance. Thus, it is open for the Court to determine maintenance based on their status and lifestyle.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav observed,
" Even experience shows that actual income is normally not disclosed by the parties. Under such circumstances, it is always safe to come to a realistic conclusion considering the status of the parties and their lifestyle etc."
The observation was made wherein the husband had challenged an order of the Family Court West, partly allowing his wife's application under Section 125 CrPC and granting Rs.10,000 per month as maintenance.
16. Threshold For Extending Exclusive Rights To Shape Of A Product Quite High In Trademark Law: Delhi High Court
Case Title: KNITPRO INTERNATIONAL v. EXAMINER OF TRADE MARKS THROUGH REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS
Citation:2022 LiveLaw (Del) 678
The Delhi High Court has observed that in the law of trade marks, the threshold for extending exclusive rights to the shape of a product, is quite high.
"The shape by itself should immediately be identifiable with the source of the product. For trade mark registration of shape of a product, the same can only be granted if it has acquired a secondary meaning," Justice Pratibha M Singh added.
The Court was of the view that for trade mark registration of shape of a product, the same can only be granted if it has acquired a secondary meaning.
"Generally, the novel shape of a product which has aesthetic appeal is protectable under the law of designs, if the requisite conditions are satisfied. However, under the law of trade marks, the threshold for extending exclusive rights to the shape of a product, is quite high. The shape by itself should immediately be identifiable with the source of the product," it said.
17. S.125 CrPC | Object Of Maintenance Is To Compel Man To Perform Moral Obligation Which He Owes To Society Regarding Wife & Children: Delhi High Court
Case Title: VISHESH TANEJA v. REETA
Citation:2022 LiveLaw (Del) 679
The Delhi High Court has observed that the provision of Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure which provides for maintenance, is intended to fulfil a social purpose and that its object is to compel a man to perform the moral obligation which he owes to the society in respect of his wife and children.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav was dealing with a plea filed by a husband against a Family Court order whereby an application under sec. 125(3) of Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent wife, was partly allowed.
The facts of the case are that the petitioner and respondent were husband and wife. After their marriage, matrimonial disputes crept up and they started living separately.
18. Delhi High Court Stays Ban On Levy of Service Charge by Restaurants on Food Bills
Title: National Restaurant Association v. Union Of India & Anr
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 680
Delhi High Court has stayed CCPA guidelines that prohibited hotels and restaurants from levying service charges on bills.
The said regulations instituted by the CCPA for the prevention of unfair trade practices and protection of customer interest state that-
"...Service charge is being levied in addition to the total price of the food items mentioned in the menu and applicable taxes, often in the guise of some other fee or charge. It may be mentioned that a component of service is inherent in the price of food and beverages offered by the restaurant or hotel. Pricing of the product thus covers both the goods and services component. There is no restriction on hotels or restaurants to set the prices at which they want to offer food or beverages to consumers. Thus, placing an order involves consent to pay the prices of food items displayed in the menu along with applicable taxes. Charging anything other than the said amount would amount to unfair trade practice under the Act."
19. CPC Contemplates Execution Of A Foreign Decree And Not An Order: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Shanghai Electric Group Co. Ltd. v. Reliance Infrastructure Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 681
The High Court of Delhi has held that remedy before the foreign arbitral tribunal would not be inefficacious when the bulk of the assets of a party are located in India as the interim order in a foreign-seated arbitration is not enforceable under the A&C Act.
The Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula also held that an interim award passed in arbitration with seat in India is enforceable under Section 17(2) of the Act, however, there is no provision in the Act for the enforcement of an interim order passed in a foreign seated arbitration, therefore, any meaningful interim relief related to assets located in India can only be granted by Indian Courts.
The Court also observed that an application for interim relief qua the assets located in India would not be efficacious before the seat court as well as its order can also not be directly enforced under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. It observed that CPC only contemplates execution of a foreign decree and not an order.
20. Application Under Section 9 Of The A&C Act For Pre-Award Relief Can Be Filed In A Court Where The Assets Of The Respondent Are Located: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Shanghai Electric Group Co. Ltd. v. Reliance Infrastructure Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 682
The High Court of Delhi has held that an application under Section 9 of the A&C Act for pre-award relief can also be filed before the Court where the assets of the respondent are located.
The Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula held that the Court for the purpose of Section 9 application in a foreign seated arbitration would be as provided under Section 47 of the A&C Act.
The Court held that not every disposal of an asset would justify the grant of interim measure. It further observed that financial condition alone cannot be the reason for attachment before the award.
21. Non Applicability Of Section 9 Of The A&C Act Can't Be Presumed If Parties Opted For Foreign-Seated Institutional Arbitration: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Shanghai Electric Group Co. Ltd. v. Reliance Infrastructure Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 683
The High Court of Delhi has held that merely because the parties have chosen a foreign-seated institutional arbitration under the UNCITRAL Law, they cannot be presumed to have entered into an agreement to exclude the applicability of Section 9 of the A&C Act as provided under the proviso to Section 2(2) of the A&C Act.
The Bench of Justice Sanjiv Narula held that the words "an agreement to the contrary" appearing under Section 2(2) cannot be presumed or interpreted on the mere assertion of a party but the same must be clearly borne out of the agreement between the parties.
22. Forcing Pregnancy Would Permanently Scar Her Psyche: Delhi High Court Permits Minor Rape Survivor To Terminate 26 Weeks Pregnancy
CASE TITLE: MS X THROUGH HER LEGAL GUARDIAN v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 684
The Delhi High Court has permitted a minor victim of sexual assault to terminate her pregnancy of 25 weeks and 6 days old pregnancy.
Justice Yashwant Varma, while noting that the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act deals with pregnancies which may only extend upto 24 weeks, highlighted that in exceptional situations, the Court could invoke its extraordinary powers to permit for such termination, even when the provisions of the Act, when strictly construed, may not sanction the same.
"This Court is of the firm opinion that if the petitioner was forced to go through with the pregnancy despite the same having been caused on account of the incident of sexual assault, it would permanently scar her psyche and cause grave and irreparable injury to her mental health. The Court cannot visualize a more egregious invasion of her right to life as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution."
23. Failure To File Income Tax Return | Prosecution U/S 276CC IT Act Not Permissible Without Previous Sanction Of Appropriate Authority: Delhi High Court
CASE TITLE: VIPUL AGGARWAL v. INCOME TAX OFFICE
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 685
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that a person cannot be prosecuted for the offence under Section 276-CC (Failure to furnish returns of income) of the Income Tax Act, except with the previous sanction of the Principal Commissioner/appropriate authority.
A single judge bench of Justice Asha Menon held,
" Since the law provides that without sanction u/s 278B of the IT Act, the Department cannot proceed against a person found liable to prosecute him for the offence under Section 276 CC of the IT Act, the present prosecution must fail qua the petitioner. In the absence of a specific sanction for prosecuting the petitioner, the learned ACMM could not have taken cognizance of the complaint against him and then framed charge against him. The edifice built without foundation must crumble. "
24. Reason Is The Soul Of Justice, Authority Exercising Judicial Or Administrative Powers Must Pass Speaking Order: Delhi High Court
Case Title: SMT USHA RANI & ANR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 686
Observing that reason is the soul of justice, the Delhi High Court has said that any order passed, whether in the exercise of judicial or administrative powers vested in the authority, must be speaking.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh further added that an order disposing of an application necessarily requires recording of reasons in support of the conclusions arrived at in the order and failure to give reasons tantamount to denial of justice.
"In fact, the insistence on recording of reasons is meant to further the principles of natural justice, and specifically for ensuring that justice must not only be done but it also be seen to be done... Recording of reasons also operates as a legitimate restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial or administrative power by any authority and as such is a facilitator of Rule of Law," the Court said.
25. Mere Extension Of Bank Guarantee Does Not By Itself Extend Claim Period : Delhi High Court
CASE TITLE: HARJI ENGINEERING WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED v. PUNJAB AND SIND BANK & ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 687
The Delhi High Court has held that the invocation of a bank guarantee has to be done in accordance with the terms of the bank guarantee, or else, the invocation itself would be bad.
A single judge bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao further observed that where the terms of bank guarantee provide a period 90 days from the date of expiry of the defect liability period as provided in the contract, invocation of bank guarantee after expiry of such period is not permissible, merely on account of extension of bank guarantee.
26. High Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Seeking Clean & Hygienic Milk Supply To Delhiites As A Fundamental Right
Case Title: RITU GAUBA ADVOCATE v. HIS EXCELLENCY LT. GOVERNOR, DELHI & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 688
The Delhi High Court on Thursday refused to entertain a public interest litigation seeking clean and hygienic supply of milk to Delhiites as a fundamental right under Article 21 of Constitution of India.
A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad was apprised by counsel appearing for the petitioner that the cattle in the city were dying on roads and were feeding on polythenes.
The plea, which had sought directions on the Court to advise the LG as well as Commissioner of Police for ensuring clean supply of milk, had claimed that the abandoned and pathetic condition of cattle was affecting the health of city residents for the reason of cattle feeding on contaminated polythene food and sewage water.
27. Broadcaster Must Bear In Mind Minimum Precautions While Airing Content Which May Disturb Sensibilities Of Prudent Viewers: Delhi High Court
Case Title: TV TODAY NETWORK LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 689
The Delhi High Court has observed that a professional broadcaster is expected to bear in mind the minimum precautions which must be exercised while broadcasting content which may cause distress and disturb the sensibilities of an "ordinary and prudent viewer".
Justice Yashwant Varma made the observation while dismissing a plea filed by TV Today Network Limited challenging an order issued by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting in March this year imposing the penalty of warning under Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994.
The development related to a broadcast aired by the India Today channel in February last year showing an incident of an elephant being mercilessly beaten by its caretakers.
28. S.2(31) Companies Act 2013 Which Defines 'Deposit' Does Not Operate Retrospectively: Delhi High Court
CASE TITLE: NITIN REKHAN v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 690
The Delhi High Court has held that there cannot be retrospective application of Section 2(31) of the Companies Act, 2013 and the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 2014.
A single judge bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh held that for issues that had arisen with respect to a share purchase agreement in 2010, the Companies Act, 1956 and the Rules of 1975 shall be applicable.
Briefly, the facts of the case are that the Petitioner paid Rs. 40,00,000/- to the Directors of Respondent Company for issuance of shares in the said company. The Respondent failed to allot the shares as promised and returned the money to the Petitioners. It is alleged that the Respondent Company failed to repay the interest accrued on the amount in question as per Rule 17 of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 2014, which imposes a penal interest of 18% per annum on the deposits accepted by a private company from the public.
29. Judiciary Not Immune From Criticism But Action Must Be Taken When Based On Distorted Facts To Intentionally Lower Court's Dignity: Delhi High Court
Case Title: MS. M VICTIM v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH S.H.O. & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 691
While observing that Judiciary is not immune from criticism, the Delhi High Court has observed that such criticism cannot be based on distorted facts or gross misrepresentation of material averments to intentionally lower its dignity and respect.
Justice Jasmeet Singh, who was dealing with an appeal raising allegations against Trial Court and High Court judges, issued notice to the counsel appearing for the appellant to show cause why contempt proceedings be not initiated against him.
"There is a direct attack on the reputation and functioning of not only one Judge, but several Judges of this Court. This vilification of Judges can affect the administration of justice as it becomes a form of public mischief. An unwarranted attack on a Judge, citing and unscrupulous administration cannot be ignored by this Court," the Court said.
30. The Arbitrator Cannot Award A Lumpsum Amount As Against Specified Claims Without Adjudicating The Claims: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Kanti Bijlee Utpadan Nigam Ltd. v. Paltech Cooling Towers & Equipments Litd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 692
The High Court of Delhi has held that an award wherein a lumpsum amount is awarded against the specified claims without adjudication of the claims is unsustainable.
The Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru held that an arbitral tribunal cannot award a lumpsum amount against specified claims of a party merely to meet the ends of justice.
The Court also held that an application under Section 34(4) of the A&C Act would not be allowed to clarify the amount of damages when the same is not based on any calculation.
The Court further held that an arbitral tribunal cannot also summarily reject the counter-claim of a party merely because they are belated as long as they are raised within the limitation period.
31. Definition Of "Public Authority" Under RTI Act Has No Application In Service Dispute: Delhi High Court
Case Title: RAKESH KUMAR SHARMA v. MOTHER DAIRY FRUIT & VEGETABLES PVT LTD
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 694
The Delhi High Court has observed that the definition of 'public authority' as contained under sec. 2(h) of Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 has no application in a service matter.
Justice C Hari Shankar was dealing with an application under sec. 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 moved in regular second appeal pending before it.
The application, moved by on Rakesh Kumar Sharma, sought initiation of criminal proceedings against Mother Dairy Fruit & Vegetables Private Limited, for committing perjury as per the averments made in its counter affidavit.
32. Explanation To Section 14A Of Income Tax Act Will Not Apply Retrospectively: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-2 versus M/s Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 695
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the Explanation to Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, added vide the Finance Act, 2022, cannot be presumed to be retrospective in nature since it is clarificatory in nature and alters the law as it stood earlier.
The Division Bench of Justices Manmohan and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora held that in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Sedco Forex International Drill. Inc. versus CIT (2005), the amendment to Section 14A, which is "for removal of doubts", cannot be presumed to be retrospective, even if such a language is used, since it alters and changes the law as it prevailed before.
33. No Section 40(a)(ia) Disallowance In Case Of Short Deduction Of TDS: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-I Versus Future First Info. Services Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 696
The Delhi High Court has held that no disallowance under Section 40 (a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act is called for in the case of a short deduction of TDS and the correct course of action would have been to invoke Section 201 of the Income Tax Act.
The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has observed that disallowance under section 40A(2)(b) has to be based on cogent material or reasoning by the Assessing Officer.
34. Merely Because Sexual Abuse Results In Tying Of Knot Between Victim & Accused Or Birth Of Child Does Not Mitigate Act Of Rape: Delhi High Court
Case Title: JAGBIR v. STATE (N.C.T. OF DELHI)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 697
The Delhi High Court has observed that merely because an act of sexual abuse results in tying of knot between the victim and the accused or in birth of a child, it does not mitigate the act of rape. It added that the consent of a minor is immaterial and inconsequential in law.
Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta also added that the act of claiming consent of the minor by accused, after luring such minor and entering into physical relationship, cannot be treated in a routine manner for the reason that rape is not only a crime against the victim but against the entire society which leaves little option for minor child "but to toe the line of the accused."
35. Lives Of Consenting Adults Living Together As Husband & Wife Cannot Be Interfered With By Third Parties, Their Families: Delhi High Court
Case Title: HINA & ANR. v. THE STATE & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 698
"Once two adults consent to live together as husband and wife there can be perceivably no interference in their lives from third parties, including their family," the Delhi High Court has recently observed.
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela further added that the State is under a Constitutional obligation to protect its citizens especially in cases where the marriage is solemnized between two consenting adults irrespective of the caste or community.
"The Constitutional Courts under our framework are empowered to pass orders to protect the citizens specially in the cases of the nature to which the present dispute pertains. Once two adults consent to live together as husband and wife there can be perceivably no interference in their lives from third parties, including their family. Our Constitution ensures it too. It is not only the duty of the State but also its machinery and the agencies which ensure law and order to ensure that no harm comes to the citizens of this country," the Court said.
36. Delhi High Court Closes Suit By Hotstar Against Rogue Websites Over Unauthorized Telecasting Of 'The Big Bull Film'
CASE TITLE: NOVI DIGITAL ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD. v. W1.123MOVIES11.COM & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 699
The Delhi High Court has disposed of a suit by Novi Digital Entertainment Pvt. Ltd., operating the online video streaming platform Hotstar, filed against various rogue websites apprehending illegal and unauthorized telecast of 'The Big Bull' film before its release last year.
While the movie was slated for theatrical release on 8th April, 2021, the suit was filed on 22nd March 2021 seeking an injunction blocking various rogue websites.
Justice Pratibha M Singh, who decreed the suit after observing that it has served the purpose, ordered thus:
"Considering the nature of the present suit that was intended to protect the Plaintiff's investment in the film 'The Big Bull' and to ensure that no unauthorised online telecast of the film takes place, the suit has served its purpose. All the rogue websites have been blocked and domain names have also been de-activated."
37. Commercial Courts (Amendment) Act, 2018 Cannot Be Applied Retrospectively: Delhi High Court
Title: SATYANARAIN KHANDELWAL v. PREM ARORA And other connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 700
The Delhi High Court has observed that the Commercial Courts (Amendment) Act, 2018 cannot be applied retrospectively.
A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad was of the view that it cannot be said that there is any lack of clarity or ambiguity in sec. 19 of the 2018 Amending Act which categorically states that its provisions will apply to cases relating to commercial disputes filed on or after the date of commencement of the Act, i.e. May 3, 2018.
38. Individual/Organization Seeking To Provide Legal Aid To Victim Can't Be Denied Meeting But They Shouldn't Create Law & Order Situation: Delhi HC
Case Title: UNITED SIKHS v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, DELHI POLICE & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 701
The Delhi High Court has observed that any individual or organization cannot be denied meeting with victim for providing necessary legal aid and assistance, if so required by the victim, to ensure delivery of justice and fair trial.
Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta added that the said proposition however comes with a caution that such meetings must not be used inappropriately for creating any "law and order" situation or arousing the emotions of a particular community in an adverse manner, thereby disturbing the public tranquillity or likely to cause breach of peace.
39. Delhi High Court Awards ₹30 Lakh Damages To Hungarian Company In Trademark Infringement Suit Over 'HELL' Energy Drink
CASE TITLE: HELL ENERGY MAGYARORSZAG KFT v. SHRI BRAHM SHAKTI PRINCE BEVERAGES PVT LTD & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 702
The Delhi High Court on Thursday decreed a trademark infringement suit in favour of Hungarian company seeking protection of its trademark 'HELL' used for energy drinks. The court also directed the Defendants to pay a sum of Rs.30 lakh to the Plaintiff as costs and damages.
The grievance of the Plaintiff was that the Defendants were using the mark 'HELLxxx' in respect of energy drinks. It was mentioned that a pervious suit was filed by the Plaintiff wherein the Court had granted an ex-parte ad interim order of injunction. Two Local Commissioners were also appointed in the said matter who seized large amounts of infringing products from the premises of the Defendants. The parties had, thereafter, settled their disputes and had entered into a settlement agreement.
40. Article 227 Confers Supervisory Jurisdiction, High Court Cannot Consider Such Submissions That Were Not Raised Before Court Below: Delhi HC
CASE TITLE: KUSHAL ANAND v. MANDHIR SACHDEVA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 703
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that Article 227 of the Indian Constitution does not confer appellate jurisdiction on the High Court. An implicit corollary is that the manner of exercise of its jurisdiction by the court or forum below cannot be gauged on the basis of submissions which were never advanced before it.
A single judge bench of Justice Hari Shankar observed that the power conferred on the High Court by Article 227 is a power of superintendence and not a power of judicial review.
41. Subjecting Citizen To Police Scrutiny, Verification Of Personal Docs Without Any Reason Serious Invasion Of Right To Privacy: Delhi High Court
Title: JINDAL KUMAR v. THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 704
The Delhi High Court has observed that subjecting a citizen to police scrutiny including verification of personal documents for no good reason would entail a serious invasion of his right to privacy.
Justice Asha Menon made the observation while dealing with a plea filed by a complainant seeking directions on the Delhi Police to make enquiry for correct identification of private person, after both the parties indulged in a quarrel.
It was the case of the petitioner that the respondent in the kalandra proceedings was using different names and identities and therefore the police must fix his true identity.
The plea thus sought directions on the Delhi Police to make an enquiry in respect of Adhaar Cards, Voter Cards, Driving License and Pan Cards existing in the name of various names allegedly being used by the respondent individual.
42. Pre-Grant Opponent Cannot Be Kept In Dark About Developments In Examination Process Of Patent Application: Delhi High Court
CASE TITLE: NATCO PHARMA LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 705
The Delhi High Court has held that the proceedings in a pre-grant opposition and simultaneous examination of a patent application cannot result in a situation where the pre-grant opponent is kept in dark about the developments taking place in the examination process of a patent application.
A single judge bench of Justice Pratibha Singh observed,
"For example, when amendments are filed by the Applicant, an immediate decision ought to be taken on allowing or disallowing the amendment so that there is transparency and clarity as to what are the claims being considered by the Controller. A short and brief order should be passed in respect of the amendments which should be uploaded on the website of the Patent Office so that everyone concerned would know the decision on the amendment. In any event, if an amendment is being carried out during the pendency of a pre-grant opposition, the ruling on the amendment ought to be sent to the pre-grant opponent as well."
43. Tax payment Software Has To Be Tailor-Made According To The Legal Rights Of The Taxpayers: Delhi High Court
Title: Celerity Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Versus Dy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 73-1
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 706
The Delhi High Court has held that the tax payment software has to be tailor-made according to the needs, aspirations, and legal rights of the taxpayers and not that the taxpayers' legal rights have to be tailor-made in accordance with the software being used by the Tax Department.
The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has held that as the petitioners have paid the taxes, they should be given credit for the challans paid on Form 3 under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act (DTVSV Act). The order/communication rejecting credit of taxes deposited under the DTVSV on the hyper-technical ground that challans have been deposited under the minor head '200' instead of '400' is unfair, illegal, and contrary to the objective of enacting the DTVSV Act.
Gauhati High Court
Case Title: GOLAP BISWAKARMA VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Gau) 49
The Gauhati High Court has held that the State cannot prematurely retire members of the Assam Rifles Battalion citing 'low medical categorisation' without following the procedure laid down by the statute applicable to the organization
In the present case, the Petitioner had been retired by invoking Rule 48 (1) (b) of the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972, whc provides for Retirement on completion of 30 years' qualifying service, without first applying the procedure prescribed under Rule 26 of the Assam Rifles Rules, 2010.
Case title - BORSHAHSRI BURAGOHAIN v. THE STATE OF ASSAM
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Gau) 50
The Gauhati High Court on Thursday granted bail to a college student (Borshahsri Buragohain/Borshahari Buragohain) who has been accused of writing a Facebook post allegedly supporting a banned terrorist organization United Liberation Front of Asom-Independent (ULFA-I). The bench of Justice Ajit Borthakur granted her bail by observing that further continuation of her detention may not be required in the interest of the ongoing investigation. She was in judicial custody since May 18, 2022, i.e., for 64 days and was booked u/s 10(a)(iv)/13(1)(b) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
Gujarat High Court
NOMINAL INDEX
Sushant Siddhnath Yasu v/s State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 277
Jayeshbhai Jivanbhai Patel v/s Shree Sayan Vibhag Sahakari Khand Udhyog Mandli Ltd & 2 other(s) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 278
M/S Mahalaxmi Textiles A Proprietorship Firm Thorugh Its Proprietor Bhartiben Maheshbhai Chevli V/S Syndicate Bank Surat Main Branch 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 279
M/S Sanganer Enviro Project Development V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 280
Krishna Calibration Services v. Jasmin Bharat Patel 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 281
Akil Valibhai Piplodwala (Lokhandwala) V/S District Superintendent Of Police, Panchamahal At Godhra 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 282
ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE WEEK
Case Title: Sushant Siddhnath Yasu v/s State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 277
The Gujarat High Court granted bail to a rape-accused while observing that from the facts and circumstances of the case, it is of the prima-facie view that the alleged act was consensual in nature.
A bench comprising Justice Ilesh Vora observed that the record and photographs of the parties indicate that the parties were in good terms and the applicant was keenly interested to tie the knot with the victim.
Case Title: Jayeshbhai Jivanbhai Patel v/s Shree Sayan Vibhag Sahakari Khand Udhyog Mandli Ltd & 2 other(s)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 278
Expressing shock towards the misconduct and negligence displayed by the Petitioner, a Manager of a registered Society, in his duties which 'tarnished the image of the society', the Gujarat High Court has dismissed the application for quashing the communication regarding his termination.
Case Title: M/S Mahalaxmi Textiles A Proprietorship Firm Thorugh Its Prorprietor Bhartiben Maheshbhai Chevli V/S Syndicate Bank Surat Main Branch
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 279
The Gujarat High Court has held that once the Bank agrees to sell a property mortgaged with it by a loan defaulter and a third party pays full consideration for purchase of said property after entering into a valid agreement with the Bank, the latter cannot turn back and refuse the title deed, no objection certificate/no due certificate.
Justice Vaibhavi Nanavati thus directed the Respondent, Syndicate bank, to release the charge over the property in question and hand over the original title documents of the property to the Applicant (purchaser) within two weeks.
Can't Maintain Proceedings U/S 34 Arbitration Act Before Two Fora: Gujarat High Court
Case Title: M/S Sanganer Enviro Project Development V/S State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 280
The Gujarat High Court, while dismissing the Civil Application of the Petitioner which challenged the award of the relevant arbitration, has observed that the Petitioner had 'conveniently' initiated two proceedings- one before the instant Bench and another before the District Court under Sec 34. Keeping in view this circumstance, the High Court rejected the petition.
Case Title: Krishna Calibration Services v. Jasmin Bharat Patel, R/Special Civil Application No. 5682 of 2021.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 281
The Gujarat High Court has held that a party can withdraw its consent for reference to arbitration under Section 89 of CPC anytime before the court has acted upon such a reference.
The Bench of Justice Umesh A. Trivedi was dealing with a Special Civil Application under Article 227 against an order of the Civil Judge whereby the application jointly given by the parties to the proceedings to refer the dispute to the Arbitrator under Section 89(2)(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') came to be rejected on the original plaintiff, who initially consented for the same, withdrew the consent for sending it to the Arbitrator.
Case Title: Akil Valibhai Piplodwala (Lokhandwala) V/S District Superintendent Of Police, Panchamahal At Godhra
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 282
The Gujarat High Court has recently dismissed the writ petition of a Pakistani citizen challenging the decision of the Superintendent of Police which directed him to leave India within 24 hours of receipt of the notice. Justice AS Supehia also reiterated:
"In the present case, indubitably, the petitioner is a Pakistan citizen and as per the law enunciated by the Apex Court, he cannot invoke Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India, hence, he has no right to enter and remain within the territories of India. He is bound to the act, as per the order dated 14.07.2022 passed by the respondent authorities."
Other updates from the High Court
Case Title: Vishwas Sudhanshu Bhamburkar v/s The Regional Passport Officer
The Bench comprising Justice AS Supehia at the Gujarat High Court has issued notice to the Regional Passport Officer at Ahmedabad in light of a petition challenging its decision refusing renewal of passport on account of pendency of criminal contempt proceedings against the applicant.
The Petitioner claimed that the Respondent had invoked Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act to reject renewal of passport because the Petitioner was facing charges of criminal contempt at the Bombay High Court. Thus, the High Court will examine whether the passport office can deny renewal of passport if the Applicant faces contempt of court charges.
Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh
Case Title: Sanjeev Kumar vs Union Of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 75
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court today ruled that a temporary employee also stands protected under the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India and cannot be terminated without conducting proper enquiry.
Observing that this court is within its powers to go beyond the orders the court held that where the form of the order is merely a camouflage for an order of dismissal for misconduct it is always open to the court before which the order is challenged to go behind the form and ascertain the true character of the order.
Case Title: Ghulam Ahmad Naikoo vs Abdul Qayoom Wani.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 76
A single bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar held a distinction has to be kept in mind between mere breach of contract and the offence of cheating and it depends upon the intention of the accused at time of inducement while the subsequent conduct is not the sole test.
The bench observed in order to commit an act of deception of fraud, which is gist of the offence under Section 420 of the RPC, the complainant must have been dishonestly inducted to deliver the property. To deceive is to induce a man to believe that a thing is true, which is false and which the person practicing the deceit knows or believes to be false. This intention of deception or fraud must be existent at the time of commission of the offence, the bench underscored.
Case Title: State of J&K through P/S Bandipora Vs Hilal Ahmad Parray
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 77
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that only the Special Court or in the absence of a Special Court, a Sessions Court exercising powers of a Special Court, can entertain and grant/refuse bail to a person accused of an offence under the provisions of Unlawful Activities Prevent Prevention Act. It further observed that a Judicial Magistrate has neither the jurisdiction to take cognizance of offences under the said Act nor he is vested wit with jurisdiction to try such offences or grant/refuse bail.
Sec 22 of the NIA Act is clear that the State Government has power to designate one or more Courts of Session as Special Courts for trial of offences and sub-section (3) of Section 22 takes care of a situation by prescribing that until a Special Court is constituted by the State Government, such powers be exercised by the Court of Session of the division in which such offence has been committed, the bench recorded.
Case Title: Raisa Banoo vs Mst. Shameema & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 78
A bench of the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court comprising Justice Vinod Chaterjee Koul held that in case the interim stay sought is not granted after the leave to file suit without issuing notice has been granted to the plaintiff under Section 80(3) of Civil Procedure Code, that does not mean that the plaint is to be returned on refusing to grant such injunction.
"So, refusal to grant relief or to grant relief is to be considered at the stage when suit is sought to be filed without issuance of notice as required under Section 80 of CPC. The plaint would be returned in case, at that stage, the Court finds that there is no urgency in the suit or in passing an urgent relief. In case the interim stay sought is not granted after the leave has been granted to the plaintiff that does not mean that the plaint is to be returned on refusing to grant such injunction" the bench recorded.
News Updates :
A division bench of J&K&L High Court comprising Chief Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Javed Iqbal Wani disposed of a PIL filed by Kashmiri Pandit Sangarsh Samiti (KPSS), wherein they had stated that the religious minorities in the valley were under direct threat from terrorists and must be relocated to safer locations outside.
The bench observed that it is in common knowledge that the administration is making all efforts to provide security and protection to the religious minorities in J&K and a robust mechanism is being deployed to avoid targeted killings and to investigate the incidents of all targeted killings. It said that the petitioner Samiti is at liberty to submit a fresh representation highlighting its grievances before the Secretary, Home, UT J&K who may take appropriate remedial steps that may be considered necessary in the overall interest of the Union Territory and the members of the minority community.
Jharkhand High Court
Case Title: S.K. Goel versus The State of Jharkhand
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 66
The Jharkhand High Court quashed the FIR and entire criminal proceedings on the ground that the company was not made an accused and the directors of the company were made the accused. However, there was no direct allegation against the mala fide of the directors. The single judge bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi observed that criminal proceedings and civil proceedings can go on simultaneously if there are allegations of criminality and it is proved that both the cases can go simultaneously. However, it is well settled that if the criminality is not made out, the continuation of a criminal case will amount to an abuse of the process of law.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 67
The Jharkhand High Court has held that Appellate Courts can allow additional evidence under Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.') only in "exceptional circumstances" and the same cannot be used merely to fill in lacuna that might exist in the evidence. While upholding the order of the Lower Appellate Court, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi observed,
"It is settled proposition of law that for filling in lacuna, the petitions under Sections 311 and 391 Cr.P.C. and Section 165 of the Evidence Act are not being allowed. Only in the exceptional circumstance, at the appellate stage, the court can allow the additional evidence in terms of Section 391 Cr.P.C."
Case Title: M/s National Collateral Management Services Limited versus M/s Maa Diwri Rice Mill Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 68
The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that merely because one of the parties has approached the Facilitation Council under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSME Act) for adjudication of a similar dispute, the application for appointment of arbitrator cannot be held to be not maintainable.
The Single Bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad held that in view of the arbitration agreement between the parties, even if similar matters were pending before the Facilitation Council under the MSME Act, the same cannot be a ground for holding the application for appointment of arbitrator as not maintainable.
Case Title: Baby Chatterjee v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 69
The Jharkhand High Court has granted interim bail to News 11 Bharat Journalist Arup Chatterjee while noting that he was arrested without following the procedure under Section 41-A and the procedure pertaining to production of accused before Magistrate under Sections 80 and 81 CrPC.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi also called for an affidavit from the State explaining its officers' actions and will then consider the question of arbitrary use of the police's power to arrest and plausibility of initiating contempt proceedings.
Karnataka High Court
Nominal Index:
AMBADI MADHAV v. THE KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 266
Parveez Pasha v. The State by Tilak Park Police Tumkur. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 267
J SRINIVAS & Others v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & Others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 268
Jeetendar Singh v. State of Karnataka. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 269
Y Harish and Anr. versus Y Satish and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 270
M/s. Noorani Properties (P) Ltd. versus The Commissioner of Wealth Tax and Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 271
Mrs M Dhanalakshmi @ Lakshmi Rajan & Anr. v. State of Karnataka. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 272
SANGEETA W/O BAPU LAMANI & Others v. BAPU S/O SOMAPPA LAMANI. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 273
SHOBHA & Others v. KAREWWA & others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 274
Himanshu Gupta And V Narayana Reddy. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 275
NAZRULLA KHAN @ NAZRULLA And THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 276
N R RAVI v. THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR OF M/S. SEM INDIA SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 277
Lysosomal Storage Disorders Support Society v. State of Karnataka & Others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 278
ZAKIR HUSSAIN v STATE BY INTELLIGENCE OFFICER. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 279
Dharmrao S/o Sharanappa Shabdi & Others v Syed Arifa Parveen W/o Mushtaq Ahmed. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 280
M/s. D.P.J. Bidar-Chincholi (Annuity) Road Project Pvt Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 281
Godolphine India Private Limited versus UM Projects LLP. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 282
Judgments/Orders/Reports
Case Title: AMBADI MADHAV v. THE KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.8288/2013
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 266
The Karnataka HIgh Court has quashed an order passed by the Karnataka Information Commission directing a Deputy Conservator of Forests (deputed as the Public Information officer) to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- for delay in furnishing information sought under the Right to Information Act (RTI).
Case Title: Parveez Pasha v. The State by Tilak Park Police Tumkur
Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.155 OF 2012
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 267
The Karnataka High Court has said that in those cases where circumstances warrant to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts, it is necessary to examine the Investigating officer.
3. Karnataka High Court Prohibits BBMP From Constructing Swimming Pool, Gym In 30 Yrs Old Public Park
Case Title: J SRINIVAS & Others v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & Others
Case No: W.P.NO.45466 OF 2018
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 268
The Karnataka High Court has restrained the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) from constructing a swimming pool and gymnasium inside a 30 years old public park (Mariappanapalaya Park), situated in city's Rajajinagar area.
4. Karnataka High Court Denies Bail To Youth Accused Of Sharing Military Base Photos With Pakistan ISI
Case Title: Jeetendar Singh v. State of Karnataka
Case No: Criminal Petition No. 1691/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 269
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed the bail petition filed by a 24-year-old, accused of sharing photographs of important places like Naval Base Army area with Pakistan ISI.
Case Title: Y Harish and Anr. versus Y Satish and Ors.
Dated: 01.07.2022 (Karnataka High Court)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 270
The Karnataka High Court has ruled that if a party has disputed the arbitrability of a dispute raised by the opposite party, in its reply to the notice invoking the arbitration clause, it is deemed to have waived its right to seek the reference of the dispute to arbitration. The Court added that if a right is once waived by a party, it cannot be allowed to be reclaimed and hence, the party cannot be permitted to contend that the suit instituted by the opposite party before the Commercial Court was barred by law.
Case Title: M/s. Noorani Properties (P) Ltd. versus The Commissioner of Wealth Tax and Anr.
Dated: 30.06.2022 (Karnataka High Court)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 271
The Karnataka High Court has set aside the order passed by the ITAT holding that the assessee was liable to pay Wealth Tax with respect to a property, despite transferring possession of the said property to a developer under a Joint Development Agreement.
Case Title: Mrs M Dhanalakshmi @ Lakshmi Rajan & Anr. v. State of Karnataka
Case No: Criminal Petition No 2386/2019
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 272
The Karnataka High Court has said that in order to constitute the offence of Cheating punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code (IPC), there must be specific allegation that from inception, there must be a dishonest intention on the part of the accused to cheat the complainant.
Case Title: SANGEETA W/O BAPU LAMANI & Others v. BAPU S/O SOMAPPA LAMANI
Case No: REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100043 OF 2020
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 273
The Karnataka High Court has held that family courts shall accept the affidavit by aggrieved parties (wife and children) indicating their place of residence away from matrimonial home and not raise issue of jurisdiction while hearing an application seeking maintenance from the husband under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Case Title: SHOBHA & Others v. KAREWWA & others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 146130 OF 2020
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 274
The Karnataka High Court has said that a trial court cannot reject an application made by legal representatives seeking to come on record following the death of the sole plaintiff to a suit, without considering whether the 'right to sue' survives on the legal representatives.
Case Title: Himanshu Gupta And V Narayana Reddy
Case No: Criminal Petition No. 3555 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 275
The Karnataka High Court has said under Section 143-A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the court can direct payment of interim compensation even without the complainant making an application praying for the same, but not without following principles of natural justice.
Case Title: NAZRULLA KHAN @ NAZRULLA And THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2045 OF 2018
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 276
The Karnataka High Court has set aside the conviction handed down to a husband under section 304-B (Dowry Death) of the Indian Penal Code, noting that there were discrepancies in the two dying declarations of the deceased wife, recorded before the police.
Case Title: N R RAVI v. THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR OF M/S. SEM INDIA SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED.
Case No: COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 8 OF 2016
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 277
The Karnataka High Court has held that upon the Official Liquidator taking possession of the premises belonging to a third party, which was in possession of the Company in liquidation, the Official Liquidator would be required to make payment of the rentals to such third party land owner as costs of winding proceedings, the landlord being entitled to the rentals immediately as per the terms of the lease deed.
13. Karnataka High Court Directs Centre, State To Ensure Implementation Of National Rare Diseases Policy
Case Title: Lysosomal Storage Disorders Support Society v. State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: W.P 19061 of 2015
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 278
The Karnataka High Court has directed the Central Government and State Government to ensure implementation of policies framed for treatment of the patients suffering from rare diseases.
Case Title: ZAKIR HUSSAIN v STATE BY INTELLIGENCE OFFICER.
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2612 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 279
The Karnataka High Court while rejecting a bail application by an accused charged under provisions of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act (NDPS) has reiterated that merely because the chemical analysis report of the contraband seized is not received within 15 days, it is not a ground to release the accused on bail.
Case Title: Dharmrao S/o Sharanappa Shabdi & Others v Syed Arifa Parveen W/o Mushtaq Ahmed
Case No: REGULAR FIRST APPEAL No.200204/2019
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 280
The Karnataka High Court has said that mere non-production of a school leaving certificate does not take away the evidentiary value of witnesses examined for establishing relationship of a plaintiff to the deceased person in a suit for declaration of ownership to a property.
Case Title: M/s. D.P.J. Bidar-Chincholi (Annuity) Road Project Pvt Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 281
Case No: W.P. No. 7233/2022
The Karnataka High Court has quashed the circular issued by the Central Board of Indirect and Customs (CBIC) clarifying that GST is not exempt on the annuity (deferred payments) paid for the construction of roads and allowed the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner.
Case Title: Godolphine India Private Limited versus UM Projects LLP
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 282
The Karnataka High Court has ruled that the restriction contained under Section 9(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) would not apply once an application under Section 9(1) for interim measures has been "entertained" by the Court before the appointment of the arbitrator.
Other reports
Case Title: THE KARNATAKA BADMINTON ASSOCIATION v BADMINTON ASSOCIATION OF INDIA
Case No: WP 14322/2022
The Karnataka High Court on Thursday by way of interim relief has stayed the letter issued by the Badminton Association of India disaffiliating the Karnataka Badminton Association for not amending the bye laws in tune with the National Sports Development Code of India, 2011.
2. Karnataka High Court Issues Notice On Plea Challenging State's Anti-Religious Conversion Ordinance
Case Title: EVANELICAL FELLOWSHIP OF INDIA & ANR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA and ANR
Case NO: WP 10362/2022
The Karnataka High Court on Friday issued notice to the State government on a petition challenging the constitutional validity of its law on Anti-Religious conversion.
Kerala High Court
Nominal Index [Citations 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 354-374]
1. Ibrahim v. Regional Transport Authority & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 354
2. State of Kerala v. P. Gopalakrishnan alias Dileep & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 355
3. Y v. Union of India & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 356
4. Suo Motu v. State of Kerala & Others 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 357
5. Elappully Erancheri Jama-Ath Palli & Anr v. Mohammed Haneef & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 358
6. Aby Thomas v. Director General of Police & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 359
7. Sanalkumar v. City Police Commissioner, Kollam and others and, Sumith v. Shareef S and others. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 360
8. N. Vanaja @ Vanaja Nagendra and anr. v. Bhanumathy and others 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 361
9. State of Kerala & Anr v. K.S Govindan Nair 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 362
10. Bunker Partner OU v. MV MAIA-1 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 363
11. Prakash O.S v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 364
12. T.P Nandakumar v. State of Kerala & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 365
13. Shibu L.P v. Neelakantan & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 366
14. Ameen Saleem & anr. v. State of Kerala & ors. 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 367
15. X v. Union of India & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 368
16. Arsho P.M v. State of Kerala 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 369
17. X v. State of Kerala 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 370
18. K. Chathu Achan v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 371
19. Kizhakkambalam Pachakkari Karshaka Sangham & Ors v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 372
20. XXX v. Registrar of Births and Dead Pathanamthitta Municipality and ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 373
21. Shan S & anr. v. Marriage Officer 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 374
Judgements This Week:
Case Title: Ibrahim v. Regional Transport Authority & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 354
The Kerala High Court last week cautioned its Registry of disciplinary action if it cleared any document or file that was illegible or if the words are not printed in sufficiently large font.
Justice Amit Rawal held so while considering a petition where the font used in a document was as small as '8'. The Judge found that the document was illegible and that the Registry should not have accepted and produced before the Court the hard copy of such documents.
Case Title: State of Kerala v. P. Gopalakrishnan alias Dileep & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 355
The Kerala High Court on Monday disposed of the plea filed by the prosecution seeking 3 more weeks' time to conclude further investigation in the 2017 Actor Assault Case.
Justice Kauser Edappagath denied this request of the Crime Branch, but considering the submission made by the Director General of Prosecution, granted time till 22.07.2022 to submit the Final Report. Initially, the Court had asked the prosecution to conclude the investigation by 15th July.
Kerala High Court Allows Termination Of Minor Rape Survivor's 24 Weeks Pregnancy
Case Title: Y v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 356
The Kerala High Court recently came to the assistance of a minor rape survivor by paving the way for her to undergo medical termination of her pregnancy which was a result of the sexual assault committed on her.
In case the newborn is born alive, Justice V.G Arun directed the State and its agencies to assume full responsibility and offer medical support and facilities to the child, if the petitioner was not ready to assume responsibility.
Kerala High Court Initiates Suo Motu Case On Collapse Of Temple Roof During Ceremony
Case Title: Suo Motu v. State of Kerala & Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 357
The Kerala High Court recently initiated suo motu proceedings to look into the collapse of a portion of the concrete on the top of the Anakkottil in Valiyakalavoor Temple that fell down during the 'choroonu' ceremony injuring three people, including the mother of the baby.
A Division Bench consisting of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P. G. Ajithkumar initiated the suo motu proceeding on the basis of a news item in the Malayalam daily, Mathrubhumi, about three devotees from a family sustaining injuries at the Valiyakalavoor Temple, which is under the management of the Travancore Devaswom Board, when a portion of the roof of the temple collapsed. The Court pulled up on the Devaswom Board for its failure to perform its statutory duty.
Case Title: Elappully Erancheri Jama-Ath Palli & Anr v. Mohammed Haneef & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 358
The Kerala High Court recently ruled that every Muslim has the right to offer prayers in any mosque or bury their dead bodies in a public khabarsthan and that this cannot be obstructed merely because they belong to a different sect.
A Division Bench of Justice S.V. Bhatti and Justice Basant Balaji was dealing with a petition filed by a wakf arguing that since some of its members had changed to a different sect, they were not entitled to offer prayers and buried their dead bodies in its property.
Case Title: Aby Thomas v. Director General of Police & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 359
The Kerala High Court recently directed the concerned District Police Chief to expeditiously resolve the grievance of a petitioner who had received a wrong laptop, delivered to him by Flipkart.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A disposed of the petition with a direction to the Kottayam Police Chief to take up the petitioner's complaint and redress the matter within a period of one month.
Gross Abuse Of Court's Process: Kerala High Court Dismisses Two Petitions With Exemplary Cost
Case Title: Sanalkumar v. City Police Commissioner, Kollam and others and, Sumith v. Shareef S and others.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 360
The Kerala High Court recently dismissed two petitions and imposed exemplary costs of Rs.25,000/- each to be paid to the Kerala High Court Bar Association for gross abuse of the court's process.
Justice Amit Rawal observed that the sole purpose of both petitioners was to stall the criminal proceedings pending in lower courts and therefore opened that they deserve to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
Kerala High Court Imposes Cost On Litigants For Securing Favourable Judgment By Producing False Memo
Case Title: N. Vanaja @ Vanaja Nagendra and anr. v. Bhanumathy and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 361
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday set aside a judgment obtained by producing a fake memo showing service of notice and imposed Rs 10,000 on the litigants who produced the fake memo.
Justice A Badharudeen, while considering the review petition, opined that it is settled law that once it is established that the order was obtained by a successful party by practising fraud, it is vitiated, and such order cannot be held legal.
Case Title: State of Kerala & Anr v. K.S Govindan Nair
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 362
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday ruled that a Selection Committee constituted to nominate a suitable candidate for a post can shortlist qualified applicants to trim down the number of such eligible applicants, provided the criteria for shortlisting do not eliminate candidates for not having qualifications that were never notified earlier.
A Division Bench of Justice A.K Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Mohammed Nias C.P was dealing with a petition that questioned the validity of a shortlisting procedure adopted by the State Selection Committee for the post of Chairman of the Kerala State Pollution Control Board.
Case Title: Bunker Partner OU v. MV MAIA-1
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 363
The Kerala High Court on Monday directed a Russian vessel, MV MAIA-1 to be detained at the Cochin Port Trust for non-payment of dues to an Estonian firm, Bunker Partner OU.
Justice Sathish Ninan issued the ex-parte order against the Russian cargo ship after being prima facie satisfied that the arrest was warranted in this case.
Case Title: Prakash O.S v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 364
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday held that once paddy land is converted in due compliance with statutory mandates, the Tahsildar has to reassess the tax and make necessary entries in the Revenue records as per Section 27C of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act.
Justice N. Nagaresh found that the land reclaimed by the petitioner was admittedly paddy land and therefore, he cannot be forced to treat it as unnotified land or to approach the Revenue Divisional Officer for that matter.
Case Title: T.P Nandakumar v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 365
The Kerala High Court on Thursday granted bail to journalist T.P Nandakumar who was arrested last month on charges of verbally abusing a former woman employee and allegedly forcing her to make a vulgar video.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A allowed the appeal moved by the journalist primarily because the complaint submitted by the victim did not contain details of several allegations.
Case Title: Shibu L.P v. Neelakantan & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 366
The Kerala High Court on Thursday held that evidence of the power of attorney holder is not credible unless they possess due knowledge of the transaction.
Justice A. Badharudeen observed that a complainant alleging offence under Section 138 should make a specific assertion regarding the knowledge of the power of attorney holder in such transactions. The Judge added that a power of attorney holder who had no knowledge regarding the transactions cannot be examined as a witness in the case.
Kerala High Court Extends Last Date To Apply For Plus One Course In State Board Till 22nd July
Case Title: Ameen Saleem & anr. v. State of Kerala & ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 367
The Kerala High Court on Thursday extended till next hearing the interim order passed in the petition seeking an extension of the last date to apply for Plus One Course in the State Stream till mark sheets of the CBSE Class X Examination are published.
Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V observed that a delay of a day or two cannot be a reason to deprive the students of the State of Kerala who have been pursuing their education in the CBSE stream till Standard X, if they wish to migrate to the State Board.
Case Title: X v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 368
The Kerala High Court on Thursday expressed its concerns over the glaring absence of adequate sex education in schools amid the rising number of child pregnancies, which are, unfortunately, often a result of sexual abuse by close relatives.
Justice V.G. Arun thereby asked the authorities to reconsider the sex education and safe use of the internet and social media being imparted at the schools in the State.
Kerala High Court Grants Interim Bail To SFI Leader For Appearing In Exam
Case Title: Arsho P.M v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 369
The Kerala High Court on Friday granted interim bail to the State Secretary of the Students' Federation of India (SFI) who was taken into custody for the second time after he violated the bail conditions imposed on him.
Justice Viju Abraham granted interim bail to Arsho P.M till 3rd August, permitting him to appear for his exams conducted by the MG University which are scheduled from 23rd July till 3rd August.
Case Title: X v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 370
In a significant development, the Kerala High Court has notified a list of directions to the State authorities to set up a gender-neutral victim protection protocol to ensure that all survivors of sexual abuse are empowered and encouraged to approach law enforcement agencies.
Justice Devan Ramachandran issued the directions to secure the effective execution of the mechanisms already established for the benefit of the survivors such as the toll-free number 112, 24/7 access to crisis centres and legal support. The Judge also commented on the depth and complexity of the distress of a sexual assault survivor, while adding that it is to be defined.
Case Title: K. Chathu Achan v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 371
The Kerala High Court observed that mere sympathizing with a political party cannot be a disqualification for appointment as non-hereditary of a temple.
There is clear distinction between sympathizing with a political party and indulging in active participation in the activities of the party, the bench comprising Justices Anil K. Narendran and P.G. Ajithkumar observed while it dismissed a petition filed by a hereditary trustee of the Sree Emoor Bhagavathy Temple challenging the notification issued by the Commissioner of Malabar Devaswom Board that invited applications to the post of non-hereditary trustees at the temple.
Kerala Public Buildings Act | Secretary Of Panchayat Empowered To Act As Estate Officer: High Court
Case Title: Kizhakkambalam Pachakkari Karshaka Sangham & Ors v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 372
The Kerala High Court on Friday held that the Secretary of a Grama Panchayat is empowered to act as Estate Officer under the Kerala Public Buildings (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1968.
Justice N. Nagaresh accordingly dismissed a petition alleging that the occupants of a shopping complex were not afforded an opportunity of hearing before the Estate Officer before they were served with an eviction notice.
Case Title: XXX v. Registrar of Births and Dead Pathanamthitta Municipality and ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 373
In a significant order, Kerala High Court on Tuesday, while allowing a Writ Petition held that a person has the right to not specify the name of their father in identity documents.
The Court passed the order recognising the agonies faced by children of unwed mothers and rape victims. Referring to the Mahabharata charcater Karna, the Court observed in the judgment "We want a society with no such characters like "Karna," who curses his life because of the insult he faced for not knowing the whereabouts of his parents".
Kerala High Court Allows Bride To Appear Through Online Mode For The Solemnization Of The Marriage
Case Title: Shan S & anr. v. Marriage Officer
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 374
The Kerala High Court recently in a Writ Petition allowed one of the parties to appear through online mode for the solemnization of their marriage before the Marriage Officer.
Justice V.G. Arun allowed the second petitioner, who is a Canadian citizen with an Overseas Citizen of India Card to appear before the Marriage office in online mode for the solemnization of their marriage, however, this is subject to certain conditions.
Other Developments:
Remarks Against Chief Minister: State Opposes Swapna Suresh's Plea In Kerala High Court To Quash FIR
Case Title: Swapna Prabha Suresh v. State of Kerala & Anr.
The State has filed a statement before the Kerala High Court in the plea moved by Swapna Suresh seeking to quash the FIR registered against her for allegedly spreading false information against MLA K.T Jaleel, Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan and the Government.
Swapna Suresh, the prime accused in the infamous gold smuggling case, had revealed to the press that several persons in the administrative higher-ups including the Chief Minister, his wife, his daughter, K.T Jaleel and many others were involved in several anti-social and anti-national activities involving the Consulate while adding that she had deposed the same before the Magistrate.
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday pulled up the Engineers for their failure to repair the potholes on the roads and ordered that if roads are damaged and potholes appear within six months from the issuance of the completion certificate, then the Engineers and the Contractors will be subjected to vigilance inquiry.
Justice Devan Ramachandran expressing his distress over the accidents occurring due to the potholes on the roads, opined that the situation would not change unless the Engineers and the Contractors were held made liable for the potholes.
Case Title: Sabarinadhan K.S v. Station House Officer & Ors.
A Kerala court on Monday released on bail State Youth Congress Vice-President K.S. Sabarinadhan in the case related to the recent protest against Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan on a flight at the Thiruvananthapuram airport.
Thiruvananthapuram Principal Sessions Judge P.V. Balakrishnan allowed the bail application with conditions finding that custodial interrogation of the petitioner was not required in the case since reports did not reveal any conspiracy as alleged in the case.
Kerala High Court Introduces Paperless Courts For Bail, Tax Matters From 1st August
Kerala High Court, as a part of the first phase in the implementation of paperless courts, has decided to introduce paperless courts in Bail Jurisdiction and Tax matters from 1st August.
As per the notice issued on Thursday, paperless courts are being introduced in Bail jurisdiction and Tax matters (Single Bench), and the division bench considering appeals from the said single benches.
Case Title: Treasa K.J. v. State of Kerala R
The Kerala High Court on Thursday reiterated that the rejuvenation of Mullassery Canal in Ernakulam city is to be completed, and resources for it would have to be found by the State government.
Justice Devan Ramachandran added that the resources have to be found by the Government from any source it pleases. It is necessary and imperative.
Kerala Court Issues Summons To Sonia Gandhi In Suit By Congress Member Challenging His Suspension
Case Title: Pridhwyraj P v. Sonia Gandhi & Ors.
A court in Kerala recently issued summons to Indian National Congress president Sonia Gandhi to appear in person or through a lawyer on August 3 in a plea filed by a member challenging his suspension from the party.
The Kollam Munsiff Court also issued the urgent notice for appearance to Kerala Pradesh Congress Committee (KPCC) President K Sudhakaran as well as District Congress Committee Chief P Rajendra Prasad.
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 174
The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently held that the Government authorities do not have the right to convert an appointment on compassionate grounds on contractual basis even if there aren't any posts available to accommodate the dependent of the deceased employee.
Holding the appointment of the Petitioner on contractual basis as illegal, the division bench of Chief Justice Ravi Malimath and Justice Vishal Mishra observed-
An appointment on compassionate grounds is an appointment to a regular post. Therefore, all consequences will follow. An appointment based on contract would entail the consequences that arise out of a contractual appointment. The rules do not permit substitution of an appointment on compassionate grounds through contractual appointment. Therefore, the appointment of the petitioner on contractual ground is illegal. The respondents had no authority to do so. The further contention that as on that day the posts were not available may be a matter of fact to be ascertained. Even assuming the posts were not available that does not give a right to the respondents to convert an appointment on compassionate grounds on contractual basis. Hence, we do not find any ground in the said contention.
Case Title : O.B.C. ADVOCATE WELFARE ASSOCIATION v STATE OF M.P. AND ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 175
The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently upheld its decision to dismiss a petition seeking reservations in appointment of Law Officers at office of the Advocate General.
The Court observed that such an appointment is an engagement of a professional by the State Government for a professional fee, whereas reservations contemplated by Article 16(4) of the Constitution are limited in their application to public employment/services/posts.
3. S.84 IPC | Accused Must Prove "Legal Insanity", Not Medical Insanity: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case Title: TUFAN @ TOFAN versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 176
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior Bench, recently elucidated the difference between the term 'Legal Insanity' and 'Medical Insanity' in the context of Section 84 of IPC.The Court opined that in order to bring a case within the ambit of Section 84 IPC, the accused has to prove that they were suffering from Legal Insanity.
Madras High Court
NOMINAL INDEX
M/s.R.K.Emu Farms and others v. State Represented By Inspector of Police, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 308
K Vijayakumar v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 309
The Assistant Commissioner of Customs v. S Ganesan, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 310
Sathiya v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 311
Edappadi K Palaniswamy v. Revenue Divisional Officer cum Sub Divisional Magistrate and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 312
C Wilbert v. The Management of Indian Institute of Technology and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 313
M/s. Friends Brothers Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. State rep.by Inspector of Police, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 314
Sudha Hospital v. The Director of Medical And Rural Health and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 315
Kader Batcha v. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government and others, 2022 LIveLaw (Mad) 316
REPORTS
Case Title: M/s.R.K.Emu Farms and others v. State Represented By Inspector of Police
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 308
The Madras High Court recently set aside the order of conviction of one M/s. RK Emu Frams which was convicted under Sections 120B, 420, and 406 IPC and Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Protection Of Interests of Depositors (TNPID) Act after observing that the order of conviction was passed without hearing the appellant/accused.
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy noted that the right of the accused to be represented was an integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution and that even when the counsel for the accused is absent, the Court should not remain helpless and must appoint an Amicus Curiae to represent the accused.
Case Title: K Vijayakumar v. State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 309
Coming to the aid of a 13 years old rape victim, the Madras High Court recently allowed termination of her 28 weeks + 3 days old pregnancy on a plea by the girl's father.
Justice Abdul Quddhose observed that even though the pregnancy had crossed the legal period of 20 weeks, it had to be noted that she was a small statured girl and was not mentally or physically strong to withstand the pregnancy. Apart from this, the court also noted that the girl's father, the Petitioner herein, was an agricultural labourer and if the pregnancy was allowed to continue, not only the victim girl but the whole family would suffer. The court also noted that it had wider power under Article 226 of the Constitution than what is prescribed under section 3(2) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act.
Case Title: The Assistant Commissioner of Customs v. S Ganesan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 310
While discussing the power of the court to discharge an accused under Section 245(2) of the CrPC, the Madras High Court recently observed that the words "at any previous stage" used in the provision would mean the stage from when the Magistrate takes cognizance of the case.
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy observed as under:
"The phrase "at any previous stage of the case" means a case on file with cognizance being taken , as otherwise, there cannot be a 'discharge' from the case. Therefore, I am of the view that in this case, the stage of Section 200 of Cr.P.C., itself has not commenced and even before that such application (discharge) cannot be filed."
Case Title: Sathiya v. State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 311
In a rare incident, the Madras High Court released a mother, convicted for killing her two daughters, on probation of good conduct under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy saw the case as a testimony to the gender inequality prevailing in the country.
The court found it to be a case of "Nalla Thangal syndrome" wherein unable to bear the taunt of the society, the state of mind of the mother led her to attempt suicide and kill her children along with it. This concept of "state of mind" had been previously considered by the court in the case of Suyambukani Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and was later reiterated by a division bench in Poovammal Vs. State.
Case Title: Edappadi K Palaniswamy v. Revenue Divisional Officer cum Sub Divisional Magistrate and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 312
The Madras High Court on Wednesday quashed the order of Revenue Divisional Officer sealing the headquarters of AIADMK party. Justice Sathish Kumar directed the RDO to hand over the keys of the headquarters to Palaniswamy and also directed the police to provide necessary protection to ensure that no untoward incident takes place. In view of the violence that had taken place last week in connection with the sealing, the court also directed Edappadi Palaniswamy to not allow party cadres to enter the building premises. The court also directed the registry to keep the pendrive containing video footage of the violence in safe custody.
Case Title: C Wilbert v. The Management of Indian Institute of Technology and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 313
While adjudicating a man's plea for permanent absorption into the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) on the ground that he had been continuously rendering temporary services since 25 years, the Madras High Court heavily criticised the practice of back door appointment that was prevalent in the country.
Justice S M Subramaniam opined that the practice of back door appointment was infringing the fundamental rights of all those candidates who were trying to secure public employment through open competitive process.
Case Title: M/s. Friends Brothers Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. State rep.by Inspector of Police
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 314
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy recently observed that whenever a vehicle is involved in a crime, the same cannot be returned to the owner when confiscation proceedings are pending before the authorities.
Though there were divergent views taken by the court in various judgements, the instant bench was inclined to follow the observations made by the Supreme Court in State of M.P. Vs. Uday Singh [(2020) 12 SCC 733] wherein the court held as under:
"29.4.......The jurisdiction under Section 451 CrPC was not available to the Magistrate, once the authorised officer initiated confiscation proceedings."
Case Title: Sudha Hospital v. The Director of Medical And Rural Health and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 315
The Madras High Court on Thursday quashed an order of the Government of Tamil Nadu sealing Sudha Hospital in Erode for their alleged involvement in illegal sale of oocyte from a 16 year old girl.
Justice Abdul Quddhose quashed the order after observing that the respondent authorities had failed to record in writing the reasons for suspending the registration of the clinic establishment without issuing any notice, as was necessary under proviso to Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Private Clinical Establishment (Regulation) Act 1997 and Section 20(3) of the Pre-Conception & Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994.
Case Title: Kader Batcha v. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government and others
Citation: 2022 LIveLaw (Mad) 316
The Madras High Court on Friday directed Central Bureau of Investigation to probe into the allegations levelled against retired IPS Officer AG Ponn Manickavel for his alleged collusion with idol smugglers. The orders were issued by Justice G Jayachandran in a plea moved by a former Deputy Superintendent of Police Kader Batcha.
The court concluded that for it to satisfy its conscious, it was necessary that there was an impartial investigation. To ensure the same, the court exercised its inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to ensure fair and impartial investigation. For this, the court deemed it fit to transfer the case to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Case Title: Ramalingam v The Director General of Police and ors
Case No: WP/18455/2022
The Madras High Court on Monday directed that whenever an incident of death occurs in an educational institution, the investigation should be conducted by the CB-CID. The court also directed that in such cases, the post mortem should be conducted by a team of three doctors.
Justice N Sathish Kumar allowed re-postmortem to be conducted by a group of three doctors and a retired forensic director to be appointed by the court. The entire post mortem shall be videographed. The court also allowed the Petitioner's counsel to be present at the time of postmortem but also directed him not to interfere with the procedure. The court also came down heavily on the protests that turned violent in parts of Kallakurichi on Sunday.
Justice GR Swaminathan of the Madras High Court has directed the Madurai bench registry to register a suo motu case of criminal contempt against Youtuber/Commentator Savukku Shankar for his tweets against the judge. The court also directed the registry to implead social media intermediaries like Facebook, Twitter and Youtube and send notices to their compliance officers. The court also impleaded the Secretary to Government, Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY).
Savukku Shankar had through his tweets alleged that the Judge had "met someone" in connection to the proceedings against another Youtuber Maridhas thus raising questions on the order passed by the judge which was in favor of Maridhas.
Expressing concern over the manner in which a visiting parent is often treated by the parent who is in custody of the child, the Madras High Court recently observed that every child has a right and need for an unthreatened and loving relationship with both the parents.
Justice Krishnan Ramasamy remarked that every child has a right to access both parents and get the love and affection of both parents. Whatever be the differences between the spouses, the child cannot be denied company of the other spouse.
Meghalaya High Court
Case title - Olius Mawiong & Anr. Vs. State of Meghalaya & Anr. [Crl.Petn. No. 22 of 2022]
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Meg) 25
The Meghalaya High Court recently quashed FIR and criminal proceedings in a POCSO case registered against a man as it noted that the accused man and victim-wife (a minor) were living with each other as husband and wife.
The Bench of Justice W. Diengdoh stressed that though POCSO Act punishes the act of sexual penetration inflicted upon a minor, yet, if other attending factors such as a case of consensual sex within the bond of marriage will not be taken into consideration then the cause of justice wouldn't be served.
Orissa High Court
Case Title: Chinta Marandi @ Chintamani Marandi v. State of Orissa
The Orissa High Court has released a person under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 ('the P.O. Act') while upholding his conviction for attempt to murder under Section 307, IPC in a '30 years old' case. A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sashikanta Mishra observed,
"…it is seen that the occurrence undoubtedly took place more than 30 years back. The Petitioner was a young man at that point of time, but is now aged nearly 60 years. No criminal antecedents are reported against him. Therefore, in the considered view of this Court, ends of justice would be best served if the Petitioner is released as per the provision of Section 4 of the P.O. Act instead of serving the remaining part of the sentence in jail."
Case Title: Pradeep Kumar Sethy v. State of Odisha
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 115
The Orissa High Court has come down heavily on two Courts of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrates ('SDJM') for their apparent inaction/negligence, which resulted in about 'nine years' delay in grant of custody of accused to the investigating agency.
Notably, the accused stayed in custody for all these years in connection with another case and his application for grant of bail was outrightly rejected as he was never in custody in connection with the instant case.
Punjab & Haryana High Court
Nominal Index
Kuljas Rai Versus Punjab State Power Corporation Limited Service 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 190
Yusuf Versus State of Haryana 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 191
National Insurance Company Limited through its Assistant Manager Vs. Satya Devi (since deceased) through her Legal Heirs and others 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 192
Mamta Rani Versus State Of Haryana 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 193
Midland Microfin Ltd. Versus Union of India and others 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 194
Shagun Preet Singh V. State Of Punjab 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 195
Mehtab and another v. State of Haryana and others 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 196
Maninderpal Singh v. State of Punjab 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 197
Sanjay Kumar v. Jaipal and others 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 198
Harchand v. Karambir Singh and Another Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 199
General Manager (TD), Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Rohtak Vs. Gulab Singh Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 200
Krishna Devi and Others v. Balvinder Singh and Others Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 201
Sourav v. State of Haryana and Others Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 202
ROUND-UP
Case Title: Kuljas Rai Versus Punjab State Power Corporation Limited Service
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 190
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that in case of electricity consumption beyond the sanction load, the electricity consumer is liable to pay penalty in the form of demand surcharge. It thus dismissed an appeal against trial court's judgement granting mandatory injunction and restricting the respondents from discontinuing the appellant's electricity connection, subject to payment of dues.
Case Title: Yusuf Versus State of Haryana
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 191
Punjab and Haryana High Court has recently modified and reduced the sentence of a truck driver whose rash and negligent driving caused death of a motorcycle rider, on the ground that he is first time offender and the incident took place almost 11 years ago.
Case Title: National Insurance Company Limited through its Assistant Manager Vs. Satya Devi (since deceased) through her Legal Heirs and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 192
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has recently dismissed an appeal preferred by the Insurance Company for staying the operation of award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the tribunal allowed the petition of legal representatives of the claimant and awarded the compensation of Rs.1,79,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum.
Case Title: Mamta Rani Versus State Of Haryana
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 193
Punjab and Haryana High Court recently denied anticipatory bail to an acupressure practitioner who gave treatment to a patient suffering from a disease called gangrene, for which she was not qualified to administer treatment.
Case Title: Midland Microfin Ltd. Versus Union of India and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 194
Punjab and Haryana High Court while dealing with a writ petition in the nature of certiorari for quashing notice issued to the petitioner under Sections 148A (b) and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2018-19, held that no interference is warranted since the procedure contemplated in 1961 Act was followed and the authority acted within its jurisdiction.
Case title: Shagun Preet Singh V. State Of Punjab
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 195
The Punjab and Haryana High Court today denied anticipatory bail to Slain singer-politician Sidhu Moosewala's manager, Shaganpreet Singh (currently in Australia) in connection with the Youth Akali leader Vicky Middukhera's murder case. The bench of Justice Anoop Chitkara was of the opinion that the status report of the investigation conducted by the Punjab police establishes that the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence pointing out a prima facie case against Shagun Preet Singh.
Case Title: Mehtab and another v. State of Haryana and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 196
Taking into account the mandate of The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, and The Rights Of Persons With Disabilities Act, 2016, the Punjab and Haryana High Court recently observed that special children have a fundamental right to elementary education and the right to grow up in society up to their optimum potential.
Case title: Maninderpal Singh v. State of Punjab
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 197
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed that the delay in lodging the FIR cannot be taken into consideration at the stage of consideration of anticipatory bail when the investigation is at threshold.
Case Title : Sanjay Kumar v. Jaipal and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 198
Punjab and Haryana High Court has recently reiterated the well settled position of law that the choice of the Collector in appointing Lambardar must be respected in all cases unless and until it is perverse.
Case Title : Harchand v. Karambir Singh and Another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 199
The Punjab and Haryana High Court while dealing with a revision petition for setting aside order passed by the Additional Civil Judge dismissing plaintiff's application for appointment of a Local Commissioner, held that order refusing appointment of Local Commissioner does not decide any issue nor does it adjudicate rights of the parties and hence would not be a revisable order.
Case Title: General Manager (TD), Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Rohtak Vs. Gulab Singh
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 200
Punjab and Haryana High Court has recently upheld an order of the Trial Court directing BSNL to pay mesne profit at the rate of Rs. 1,000 for being in unauthorised possession of the suit property after the expiry of the lease deed.
Case Title : Krishna Devi and Others v. Balvinder Singh and Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 201
Punjab and Haryana High Court recently held that the claimants in the proceedings under Motor Vehicles Act 1988 need to prove their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities.
Case Title : Sourav v. State of Haryana and Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 202
Punjab and Haryana High Court recently held that when a family member has already availed financial assistance under the prevalent Rules at that time of the death of the government employee, they cannot agitate the claim of compassionate appointment under the new Rules.
Telangana High Court
The Telangana High Court recently dismissed a Writ petition filed by a delinquent employee arguing that once the Enquiry Officer had found no materia against him, the Disciplinary Authority cannot differ with the finding of the Enquiry authority.
Justice G. Sri Devi observed,
"The final decision rests with the disciplinary/punishing authority which can come to its own conclusions, bearing in mind the views expressed by Enquiry Officer. It is also well settled that the disciplinary authority in order to differ with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, it need not give reasons to contest the correctness of the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. What is necessary is that the disciplinary authority should record the findings having support of materials and evidence on record."
Case Title: M.A. Mahaboob v. Telangana State Road Transport Corporation
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 74
The Telangana High Court recently allowed the Writ Petition filed by an employee of the Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, challenging his 'premature' retirement and seeking reinstatement into service along with all consequential benefits. Justice P.Madhavi Devi observed that alteration of date of birth by employer in service records of the employee, when he is at verge of his retirement is not permissible.
Case Title: Prakash Singh v. The Union of India
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 75
The Telangana High Court recently observed that judicial review by the Court in contractual matters is very limited and unless malafides and arbitrariness was shown, the Court could not interfere with the administrative action. The observation came from Justice G. Radha Rani in a writ petition challenging the action of the 2nd respondent in not permitting the petitioner to participate in the Notice inviting e-Tender on the basis of the booking receipt of the respective category of trucks obtained from the authorized dealer.
Case Title: Ganta Narender v. The State of Andhra Pradesh
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 76
The Telangana High Court recently overturned a conviction in a case related to section 304 Part-II of Indian Penal Code, 1860 while observing that assumptions, presumptions and fanciful thinking cannot be made basis to arrive at conclusions in a criminal case.
The observation came from Justice K. Surender who noted that when the eye-witnesses had last seen the deceased alone at her house, whereafter she was found dead, and their statements were not controverted, it was unwarranted to convict the deceased's husband for culpable homicide.
Case Title: Tata Consumer Products Limited and another v. The State of Telangana
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 77
The Telangana High Court recently observed that though Registration Act 1908 makes it imperative to present an instrument for registration within four months from the date of its execution, no time is fixed within which a deed presented and accepted for registration must be registered.
Justice NV Shravan Kumar further observed that in terms of Section 23 of the Act, no document other than a will shall be accepted for registration unless presented to the Registering Authority within four months from the date of its execution.
Case title - P. Rajeshwari And Another vs The State Of A.P. Another
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 78
Taking a serious view of the trend of false implication of the relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, the Telangana High Court recently observed that, the false implication of the relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes based on general and omnibus allegations, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law.
With this, the bench of Justice A. Santosh Reddy ordered to quash further proceedings against the mother-in-law/A2, brother-in-law/A3 (husband's brother), and sister-in-law/A4 (wife of husband's brother) of a woman, who had leveled allegations of harassing her for dowry [booked u/s 498-A IPC and S. 3, 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act].
Case Title: Baba Sow Chandekar & another v. The State of Telangana
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 79
The Telangana High Court recently observed that Standing Orders with respect to sampling and seizure under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 cannot be flouted and in the absence of substantial compliance of the Standing Orders, adverse inference has to be drawn against the prosecution.
The observation came in a case pertaining to recovery of 214 kgs Ganja in 107 packets from two vehicles. Justice K. Surender noted that while drawing samples from the seized contraband, the investigating authority failed to specify as to from whom the said sample of Ganja was taken as 55 packets were seized from the 1st petitioner/A1 40 packets were seized from the 2nd petitioner/A2, 12 packets were seized from A10.
Uttarakhand High Court
Case Title: Vinod Kumar Versus Commissioner Uttarakhand State GST and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Utt) 23
The Uttarakhand High Court has held that the cancellation of GST registration affects the right to livelihood and the writ petition is maintainable.
The division bench headed by the Acting Chief Justice Sanjaya Kumar Mishra and Justice Ramesh Chandra Khulbe has observed that the appellant is denied his right to livelihood because of the cancellation of his GST Registration number. He has no remedy to appeal. It shall be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution as the right to livelihood springs from the right to life as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Case Title: Krishna Kuwar Singh Dewari & Ors. v. Kripal Singh & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Utt) 24
The Uttarakhand High Court has held that merely because the communication sanctioning a post does not indicate any promotion Rules, it cannot be presumed that there exists no Rule for promotion to the higher post from the feeder cadre. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Ramesh Chandra Khulbe observed,
"…it does not stand to reason that, for gaining eligibility for promotion from one post to another, there would be no requirement of minimum qualifying service in the feeder cadre. Merely because the order sanctioning the posts of Assistant Accounts Manager, did not indicate the promotion Rules, it does not follow that there was no Rule framed or applicable for promotion, requiring minimum service in the feeder cadre."
