All High Courts Weekly Round-Up: June 20 - June 26, 2022

Allahabad High Court NOMINAL INDEX Madhusudan Shukla Vs. State Of U.P.And Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 299 M/S Ramom Motion Auto Corp. Pvt. Ltd. Thru.Dir.Krishna Agarwal And Others v. Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal Thru.Registrar And Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 300 Rajani v. Vipul Mittal And 4 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 301 Malhan And 17 Others Vs. State Of U.P. And Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 302 ORDERS/JUDGMENT OF THE WEEK 1. Delay In Conclusion Of Proceedings Can't Be A Reason To Reject An Application U/S 311 CrPC: Allahabad High Court Case title - Madhusudan Shukla Vs. State Of U.P.And Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12409 of 2022] Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 299 The High Court has observed that a delay in the conclusion of the proceedings/trial should not be the reason for the rejection of an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. The bench of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav observed thus as it quashed an order of the Trial Court wherein an application moved under Section 311 CrPC was rejected noting that the case had been pending for a substantial amount of time. 2. Writ Petition Maintainable At Lucknow Seat If A Part Of Cause Of Action Arose Within The Areas Of 'Oudh': Allahabad High Court Case title - M/S Ramom Motion Auto Corp. Pvt. Ltd. Thru.Dir.Krishna Agarwal And Others v. Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal Thru.Registrar And Others Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 300 The High Court has clarified that a party has the option to attract the jurisdiction of the Lucknow seat of the Allahabad High Court even if a part of the cause of action arises in the specified Oudh areas. It is important to note that Oudh areas are those areas of the Uttar Pradesh State where the Lucknow Seat of the HC has the jurisdiction. Earlier, the Lucknow seat was known as Chief the Court in Oudh, and vide The United Provinces' High Courts (Amalgamation) Order, 1948, the Chief Court of Oudh (Presently Lucknow Seat) and Allahabad High Court were amalgamated. 3. Court's Functioning Can't Be Brought To A Grinding Halt On Account Of Bar Association Elections: Allahabad High Court Case title - Rajani v. Vipul Mittal And 4 Others [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3265 of 2022] Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 301 The High Court has observed that the work of a Court can not be brought to a grinding halt on account of the fact that the elections of a registered society are to be held. The Bench of Justice J. J. Munir further said that the Bar Association is not established to obstruct the functioning of the Court and interfere with the discharge of its sovereign functions. 4. Advocates Shouldn't Advise Clients To Reagitate Matters If There Is No Error Apparent On Face Of Record: Allahabad High Court Case title - Malhan And 17 Others Vs. State Of U.P. And Another Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 302 In a significant remark, the High Court has said that an advocate should not give such a piece of advice when there is no error apparent on the face of the record nor was there any other reason why the matter be re-agitated after it was finally decided. The Bench of Justice Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Justice Vivek Varma observed thus while dealing with a civil review application wherein the advocate concerned advised his client to take a chance by filing the instant review application after a period of six years. OTHER UPDATES FROM THE HC 1. Gang Rape Convict Who Underwent Over 20 Years Of Imprisonment Granted Bail By Allahabad High Court Case title - Collector And Another Vs. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5815 of 2007] The Allahabad High Court granted bail to one 'Collector' who underwent over 20 years in jail after being convicted for the offence of Gang Rape. It was the convict's primary submission that since he has already undergone over 20 years of imprisonment and thus, in view of SC's ruling in the case of Saudan Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (Crl.Appeal No.308/ 2022), he is entitled to be released on bail. Bombay High Court Nominal Index [2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 221 – 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 232] Priya Rishi Bhuta & Anr. vs Vardhaman Engineers and Builders & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 221 Mr. Nikhil Shyamrao Bhamare vs State of Maharashtra and another 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 222 Bhanushali Studios Ltd. & Ors vs Telegram Messenger LLP & Anr 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 223 HMG Industries Ltd vs Canara Bank 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 224 Raymond Ltd. & Anr vs New Sarnath Co-op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 225 Anil Chandravadan Mistry vs The State of Maharashtra & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 226 Mr. Sunil vs Union Bank of India 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 227 M/s Angerlehner Structural and Civil Engineering Company vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 228 Kaalkaa Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 229 M/s Halliburton ...

All High Courts Weekly Round-Up: June 20 - June 26, 2022

Shrutika Pandey

Tags