- Home
- /
- News Updates
- /
- All High Courts Weekly Round-Up:...
All High Courts Weekly Round-Up: August 22 To August 28, 2022
Shrutika Pandey
31 Aug 2022 7:00 AM GMT
Allahabad High Court NOMINAL INDEX Manjeet Tanwar @ Manjeet Tankar v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 385 Ajeet Shukla And Ors. v. The State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy.Home Civil Sectt.And Ors 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 386 Puspha Devi W/O Sri Jai Karan Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Homr Lko 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 387 Alam @ Mohammad Alam v. State Of U.P. and...
Allahabad High Court
NOMINAL INDEX
Manjeet Tanwar @ Manjeet Tankar v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 385
Ajeet Shukla And Ors. v. The State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy.Home Civil Sectt.And Ors 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 386
Puspha Devi W/O Sri Jai Karan Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Homr Lko 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 387
Alam @ Mohammad Alam v. State Of U.P. and another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 388
Richa Dubey v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 389
Smt. Ramkali Samajik Utthan Evan Jan Kalyan Samiti Thru. Secy. Adv. Manoj Kumar Yadav v. Union Of India Thru. The Ministry Of Social Justice And Empowerment New Delhi And 2 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 390
Avneesh Kumar And Another v. Dr Sujoy Lal Thaosen,Director And 2 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 391
Mohd.Shakib v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 392
Vaibhav Singh v. Smt. Divyashika Singh 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 393
Ramkrit Yadav v. State Of U.P. And Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 394
Ashish Yadav v. State Of U.P And Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 395
Ishrat v. State 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 396
JUDGMENTS/ORDERS OF THE WEEK
Case title - Manjeet Tanwar @ Manjeet Tankar v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 385
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the transport of cow skin leather does not amount to any contravention of provisions of the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, and therefore, the Magistrate has power under sections 451 or 457 Cr.P.C. to release a vehicle by which allegedly skin leather of cow or its progeny was transported.
With this, the bench of Justice Mohd. Aslam set aside an order of the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra rejecting the application filed by the revisionist seeking the release of his vehicle allegedly used to transport Cow Skin Leather.
Case title - Ajeet Shukla And Ors. v. The State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy.Home Civil Sectt.And Ors [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5776 of 2017]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 386
The Allahabad High Court has observed that even if the police officials exceed, to some extent, their authority in the discharge of their official/public duty, then also sanction would be required under section 197 CrPC for their prosecution.
Section 197 Cr.P.C. deals with the prosecution of Judges and Public Servants wherein sanction of the Government is stipulated for taking cognizance of an offence alleged to have been committed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his duties.
The bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh categorically held that the court is barred to take cognizance of an alleged offence committed by the police personnel, which may be in excess of his official/public duty, if the prosecution has been initiated against such personnel without required sanction u/s 197 CrPC.
Case Title - Puspha Devi W/O Sri Jai Karan Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Homr Lko
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 387
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to a murder accused who was summoned in a 'cursory manner' under section 319 of CrPC by the trial court based on the statements of the prosecution witnesses.
The bench of Justice Shamim Ahmed noted that the applicant was not even named in the F.I.R. and she was summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. on the premise of statements of witnesses in the trial court.
Under Section 319 CrPC, the Court has been given the power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence.
Case title - Alam @ Mohammad Alam v. State Of U.P. and another
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 388
The Allahabad High Court has granted bail to Siddique Kappan's Co-Accused, Mohammad Alam, a Cab Driver, in connection with the 'Hathras Conspiracy Case'. The Court observed that no incriminating article was recovered from his possession.
UAPA Accused Alam, who was arrested on October 5, 2020, while on his way to Hathras, has been granted bail by the Bench of Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Saroj Yadav as it found no complicity and involvement of the appellant with the terrorist activities or any other activity against the nation.
Slain Gangster Vikas Dubey's Wife Granted Anticipatory Bail By Allahabad High Court In Cheating Case
Case title - Richa Dubey v. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION US 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7168 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 389
The Allahabad High Court has granted anticipatory bail to the wife of slain gangster Vikas Dubey (of Bikru, Kanpur) in a case registered against her under Sections 419 and 420 of IPC for allegedly using her servant's SIM card without his will.
The bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Gupta granted her grant anticipatory bail to the applicant till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court concerned.
Case Title - Smt. Ramkali Samajik Utthan Evan Jan Kalyan Samiti Thru. Secy. Adv. Manoj Kumar Yadav v. Union Of India Thru. The Ministry Of Social Justice And Empowerment New Delhi And 2 Others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 390
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea seeking enhancement of the age of retirement from 60 to 62 years in respect of the employees of the State Government who are differently abled.
The petitioner (Ramkali Samajik Utthan Evan Jan Kalyan Samiti) argued that since the differently-abled government employees working in the State of Haryana and the State of Punjab have been given the benefit of age of superannuation of 62 years, whereas in the State of U.P., the age of superannuation of differently-abled employees is 60 years, hence such employees in the State of U.P. have been discriminated against.
Case title - Avneesh Kumar And Another v. Dr Sujoy Lal Thaosen,Director And 2 Others [CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 4616 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 391
The Allahabad High Court has directed the Central Government to comply with its March 7, 2022 order wherein it had directed the UOI and SSB to consider the candidature of 3 SSB Exam Candidates who were denied employment on account of certain tattoos on a certain part of their hands (forearm), in case they remove such tattoo.
On March 7, 2022, the Bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma had directed the Centre and the SSB that if the petitioners' tattoos are removed then that particular disability may not be considered as an obstacle for selection on the ministerial posts for which the petitioners had applied.
Case title - Mohd.Shakib v. State of U.P. [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 23143 of 2021]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 392
The Allahabad High Court has observed that mere transportation of a cow and its progeny within the state of Uttar Pradesh is not a violation of any of the provisions of the UP Cow Slaughter Act.
The Bench of Justice Mohd. Aslam further held that no permit is required to transport the cow and its progeny within the state of Uttar Pradesh.
With this, the court set aside an order passed by District Magistrate, Varanasi to seize a vehicle on the allegations that the same was carrying animals for the purpose of cow slaughtering without valid permission.
Able-Bodied Husband Can't Argue That He Isn't In Position To Maintain His Wife: Allahabad High Court
Case title - Vaibhav Singh v. Smt. Divyashika Singh [FIRST APPEAL No. - 554 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 393
The Allahabad High Court recently observed that an able-bodied husband cannot argue that he is not in a position to maintain his wife.
The observation was made while dismissing an appeal filed by the Husband against the order passed by the family court under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act [Maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings] in a proceeding for divorce instituted by the husband.
Case title - Ramkrit Yadav v. State Of U.P. And Another [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10162 of 2022]
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 394
"Custodial violence, custodial torture and custodial deaths have always been a concern for civilized society. Times and again the judicial verdicts of the Apex Court and other Courts have shown their concern and anguish in such matters," observed Allahabad High Court as it denied bail to a cop in connection with the custodial death of a 24-year-old man.
The bench of Justice Samit Gopal categorically observed that it was not only a case of police excess but a clear-cut case of abuse of police powers and police high-handedness.
Case title - Ashish Yadav v. State Of U.P And Another [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23834 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 395
The Allahabad High Court has requested the High Court Legal Services Committee Allahabad to appoint lady counsels to represent the victims especially when the victims are minor girls.
The bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot was essentially dealing with the bail plea of a POCSO Accused when it noted that very few lady counsels appear to represent the victims from the side of the High Court Legal Services Committee.
"The High Court Legal Services Committee, High Court Allahabad has been empanelled counsels to represent the victims. However, it is noticed that very few lady counsels have appeared for the victims. In such circumstances, the High Court Legal Services Committee, High Court Allahabad is requested to appoint lady counsels to represent the victims especially when the victims are minor girls," the Court said.
Case title - Ishrat v. State [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1935 of 1992]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 396
The Allahabad High Court upheld the conviction and 3-year imprisonment awarded to a man who had mutilated the private part of a 4-year-old girl in the year 1988 and was convicted by the Sessions Court under sections 324 and 354 IPC.
The bench of Justice Krishan Pahal categorically held that mutilating the private part of the minor girl cannot be termed as an act of a person of normal virtues and that the accused had committed the act out of severe sexual lust and a sadistic approach.
"This is one of the most serious and diabolic offence committed against a minor girl of tender age of four years," the Court remarked as it canceled the Bail bonds of the accused-appellant and he was directed to surrender before the court below forthwith to serve out his remaining sentence.
Other updates from the High Court
Case title - C/M Jago Rajbhar Jago Samiti And Another v. Himanshu Kumar, Principal Secretary [CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 4706 of 2022]
The Allahabad High Court has issued a contempt notice to the Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Department for his failure to take a decision on the representations moved before the state government seeking inclusion of Rajbhar caste in the list of Scheduled Tribes.
The notice has been issued in connection with an order of the High Court dated March 11, 2022, wherein the department was directed to take a decision over the representations forwarded to it by the Centre seeking inclusion of the State's Rajbhar community in the list of Scheduled Tribes.
Case title - Rama Shankar Tiwari Alias Rama Shankar And Others v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Law Justice Civil Secret. Lucknow And Others PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 527 of 2022]
Hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) Plea challenging the recent appointments of state law officers alleging that the process was not transparent, the Allahabad High Court has stressed the need to reform the system of selection and appointment of the State Law Officers and has remarked the entire process should be more transparent and objective.
Referring to the Apex Court's ruling in the case of State of Punjab vs. Brijeshwar Singh Chahal, the bench of Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Shree Prakash Singh further observed that the State UP had not taken any step to evolve a policy to make the system of selection and appointment of the State Law Officers more transparent, fair and objective.
Case title - Jyoti Rajpoot v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Social Welfare Civil Deptt Govt. Of U.P. Lko. And Others
The Allahabad High Court has directed the Additional District Magistrate, Lucknow to file an affidavit regarding the steps which have been taken or are proposed to be taken for proper implementation of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 within three weeks.
This order comes days after the bench of Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Shree Prakash Singh had expressed its concern about the reported deficiency in the implementation of "The Senior Citizens Act, 2007" and the rules framed thereunder, in district Lucknow.
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title : Seva Swarna Kumari @ Kumaramma and others Versus State of Andhra Pradesh
Citation :2022 LiveLaw (AP) 113
Andhra Pradesh High Court, while setting aside an order passed in a criminal petition for trial of cases under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, reiterated that, while dealing with applications under Section 311, CrPC, the Court is required to exercise its discretion judiciously and not capriciously or arbitrarily.
Case Title: YARRA SRINU Versus THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Citation :2022 LiveLaw (AP) 114
In a recent case, the Andhra Pradesh High Court granted bail to the petitioners who were accused in mob violence without imposition of costs as there was no material to show that the petitioners had damaged the property.
Case Title : JATOTH ADITYA RATHOD Versus State of Andhra Pradesh
Citation :2022 LiveLaw (AP) 115
The Andhra Pradesh High Court in a recent case reiterated the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Ansaar Mohammad v. State of Rajasthan (2022 Live Law (SC) 599) that if the complainant willingly stayed in a relationship, then the relationship eventually not working out cannot be a ground for lodging an FIR for the offence under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC.
Case Title :M/s. Design Tech Systems Pvt.Ltd., Versus THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Citation :2022 LiveLaw (AP) 116
In a recent case, the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that a petition under Section 482 CrPC is maintainable as the Court below was erroneous in passing orders under Section 451 CrPC to freeze amounts (property) in petitioner's account which had no reasonable connection with any commission of an offence.
The Court relied on the Supreme Court decision in Prabhu Chawla v. State of Rajasthan (2016) to reiterate that Section 397 CrPC was not a bar to maintain the petition under Section 482 CrPC in exceptional circumstances.
Case Title: E.V. Rama Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue
Citation :2022 LiveLaw (AP) 117
In a recent case, the Andhra Pradesh High Court allowed the Writ Petition to not allow the Corporation to demolish the building of the owner/petitioner till his explanation to the notice and request for regularization are considered with reasons. The court relied on catena of decisions related to illegal constructions to hold that deviation can be regularised if it is trivial and do not affect public at large. Additionally, the Apex Court in Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan (2010) has laid emphasis on the point of necessity of giving reasons by a body or authority in support of its decision if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially.
Bombay High Court
Nominal Index
Rahul Uttam Phadtare v. Sarika Rahul Phadtare; 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 302
National Highways Authority of India versus The Additional Commissioner, Nagpur and Ors.; 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 303
MEP Infrastructure Developers Ltd. & Ors. v. MSRDC Sea Link Ltd. & Ors.; 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 304
Farzin Ardeshir Adel & Ors. v. MCGM & Ors. and Jatin Bhankharia v. MCGM & Ors.; 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 305
Phoenix Arc Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra; 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 306
Ramchandra Shrimant Bhandare Versus The State of Maharashtra; 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 307
BXIN Office Parks India Pvt. Ltd. versus Kailasa Urja Pvt. Ltd.; 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 308
Anand I Power Ltd. v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority & Ors. ; Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 309
Case Title: Rahul Uttam Phadtare v. Sarika Rahul Phadtare
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 302
The Bombay High Court last week transferred a matrimonial case observing that law considers women as belonging to weaker section of society and her inconvenience needs to be prioritized.
The court observed,
"Even though this reason may be of some importance, the fact that the Applicant in Miscellaneous Civil Application No.171 of 2022 is a lady, her inconvenience needs to be given more priority because the law considers woman as class belonging to weaker section of society and needs more protection."
2. Mere Erroneous Application Of Law; Award Need Not Be Set Aside: Bombay High Court
Case Title: National Highways Authority of India versus The Additional Commissioner, Nagpur and Ors.
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 303
The Bombay High Court has reiterated that when the court is convinced that the Arbitrator has erred only on specific issues and that the arbitral award is otherwise sustainable, the court is not mandatorily required to set aside the entire award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act).
The Single Bench of Justice Manish Pitale ruled that though the arbitral award granting interest to land owners on enhanced compensation from the date of the notification for acquisition, and not from the date of taking possession, is contrary to the mandate of Section 3H (5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (NHA); however, it constituted a mere erroneous application of the law and hence, the award cannot be said aside on the said ground.
Case title – MEP Infrastructure Developers Ltd. & Ors. v. MSRDC Sea Link Ltd. & Ors.
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 304
The Bombay High Court recently observed that it has become a trend for 'ineligible' bidders of contracts to try and arouse the court's conscience claiming their bids were more financially viable for the State. However, such financial bids shouldn't even be considered and must be rejected outright if the company doesn't meet the technical criteria for the contract.
"Drawing from our judicial experience, we may unhesitatingly refer to a common trend of ineligible bidders offering a lower/higher bid than the eligible bidders and then raising a plea of how the "State" would have benefited financially if its bid were accepted to arouse judicial conscience to prevent unnecessary drainage from the public exchequer. Unmeritorious pleas such as these ought not to detain us for a moment and deserve outright rejection, which we hereby do," the court observed.
Case title – Farzin Ardeshir Adel & Ors. v. MCGM & Ors. and Jatin Bhankharia v. MCGM & Ors.
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 305
Bombay High Court has upheld the demolition order of an over 100-year-old dilapidated C-1 category building in Mumbai that was home to widows from the Parsi community.
The court ruled that the seven tests to check the building's strength under BMC's 2018 guidelines were not mandatory for load bearing structures like the present one and the guidelines would apply only to cement concrete (RCC) structures.
Case title – Phoenix Arc Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 306
Observing that the jurisdiction of the District Magistrate (DM) is limited only to assisting secured creditors in taking possession of secured assets under the SARFAESI Act, the Bombay High Court held that the DM isn't empowered to hear the borrower or third parties while deciding application filed by secured creditor.
Case Title: Ramchandra Shrimant Bhandare Versus The State of Maharashtra
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 307
Merely touching the private parts of a child with sexual intent is enough for it to be construed as sexual assault under section 7 of the POCSO Act and a medical certificate demonstrating an injury is not mandatory, the Bombay High Court has held.
"The absence of injury mentioned in the medical certificate will not make any difference to her case because the very nature of the offence of sexual assault defined under Section 7 of the POCSO Act mentions that even touching private part with sexual intent is sufficient to attract the provisions of Section 7 read with Section 8 of the POCSO Act.
The Bombay High Court has ruled that reliefs which are incidental to the possession of the licensed premises cannot be sought in an application for interim measures under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), in view of the exclusive jurisdiction conferred on the Court of Small Causes under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 (PSCC Act).
The Single Bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni reiterated that the bar contained in Section 41 of the PSCC Act applies not only to a suit for recovery of possession of immovable property but also to all other incidental reliefs which can be claimed by a party in a suit for recovery of possession and hence, the jurisdiction to grant such incidental reliefs would also lie with the Small Causes Court.
Case Title: Anand I Power Ltd. v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority & Ors.
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 309
Bombay High Court Snubs Chief Controlling Revenue Authority To Not Only Adjust The Stamp Duty Paid But Also Directed Them Stating That The Power Company Is Not Liable To Pay A Wrong Penalty
A precedent is laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the Writ Petition No. 1007 of 2018, wherein the Division Bench of His Lordship Hon'ble Justice Shri S.V. Gangapurwala and His Lordship Hon'ble Justice Shri Madhav J. Jamdar vide their order dated 22nd August, 2022 have directed the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority i.e. the Respondent in the said matter to adjust the amount of Stamp Duty paid by the Petitioner in the General stamp head i.e. Anand I Power amounting to Rs.40,00,000/- (Rupees Fourty Lakh Only) in the proper head, as the payment of the same was not being acknowledged by the Respondents, instead they were asking for a penalty of more than Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Only) from the Petitioner. Managing Partner of Solicis Lex Advisory Mr Ameet Mehta stated that "The Division Bench vide the said order not only directed the Government Authority to adjust the amount but also directed that the Petitioner is not liable to pay any penalty and snubbed the Revenue Authorities".
Calcutta High Court
1. Owner's Failure To Provide Accommodation To Occupier After Demolitions U/S 412A Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act Not Subject To Police Action: High Court
Case Title : PKB CONSULTANCY VS THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.
Citation :2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 295
In a case against a proceeding under Section 412A of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 (KMC Act), the Calcutta High Court held that failure on the part of the owner in providing an accommodation to the petitioner, claiming to be an occupier of the dilapidated building that was demolished, cannot be a subject matter for consideration by the police authorities.
2. Unilateral Appointment Of Arbitrator ; Calcutta High Court Replaces With A New Arbitrator
Case Title: Yashovardhan Sinha HUF v. Satyatej Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd. A.P. No. 156 of 2022
Citation :2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 296
The Calcutta High Court has held that an arbitration clause does not come to an end merely because it provides for an illegal method of appointment of arbitrator and the courts can remove the illegal portion and retain the remaining clause to give effect to the intention of the parties to submit their dispute to arbitration.
Chhattisgarh High Court
Case title - Nalini Mishra v. Surendra Kumar Patel [FA(MAT) No. 8 of 2020]
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Chh) 55
While upholding a divorce decree granted in favor of the husband, the Chhattisgarh High Court recently observed that the act of a wife visiting the office premises of the husband and creating scenes with abusive language amount to cruelty.
"...when a wife goes to the office premises of the husband, abuses him and accuses him of certain relation, naturally it would result into diminishing the image of the husband before the colleagues and the office stature will certainly go down," the bench of Justice Goutam Bhaduri and Justice Radhakishan Agrawal observed.
Delhi High Court
NOMINAL INDEX
Citations 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 792 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 805
AUSTIN NICHOLS & CO INC & ANR v. GWALIOR DISTILLERIES PRIVATE LTD 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 792
FIJA & ANR. v. State 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 793
ZAHOOR AHMAD SHAH WATALI v. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 794
KAILASH SEWANI v. MANISH KUMAR CHAUDHARY 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 795
Kapri International Pvt. Ltd. versus Commissioner of Income Tax 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 796
MEHTA TEACHER TRAINING COLLEGE v. NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION & ANR. and other connected petitions 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 797
Ernst and Young U.S. LLP versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 798
Whatsapp LLC v. CCI, Facebook v. CCI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 799
Jahid v. State 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 800
Overnite Express Ltd v. DMRC 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 801
Case Title: DEVASRI BALI v. CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDRY EDUCATION & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 802
Baba Alexander v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 803
Diageo Brands BV & Anr. v. Great Galleon Ventures Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 804
Commissioner of CGST Delhi East Versus Anand and Anand 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 805
1. Royal Stag v. Royal Champ: Delhi HC Decrees Alcohol Brand Seagram's Trademark Infringement Suit, Awards ₹20 Lakhs Damages
Case Title: AUSTIN NICHOLS & CO INC & ANR v. GWALIOR DISTILLERIES PRIVATE LTD
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 792
Ruling in favour of Seagram's alcohol brand, the Delhi High Court has awarded Rs. 20 lakhs damages and cost in its favour in a suit alleging trademark infringement in respect of Royal Stag whiskey by a company manufacturing Royal Champ whiskey.
Justice Navin Chawla permanently restrained Gwalior Distilleries Private Limited, engaged in sale of Royal Champ whiskey observing that the impugned label was a "colourable and slavish imitation" of ROYAL STAG label.
The Court also said that the same amounted to copyright infringement under sec. 51 read with sec. 55 of the Copyright Act.
2. [Muslim Law] Minor Girl Can Marry Without Parents' Consent On Attaining Puberty, Has Right To Live With Husband Even When Below 18 Yrs: Delhi HC
Case Title: FIJA & ANR. v. State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 793
The Delhi High Court has observed that as per Mohammedan Law, a minor girl who had attained the age of puberty can marry without consent of her parents and has a right to reside with her husband even when she is less than 18 years of age.
Justice Jasmeet Singh made the observation while granting protection to a muslim couple who got married in March this year as per Muslim rites and rituals. The plea was moved by the couple seeking directions to ensure that nobody separates them.
The parents of the girl opposed the marriage and registered an FIR under sec. 363 of IPC against the husband. Subsequently sec. 376 and sec. 6 POCSO were added.
3. Terror Funding Case: Delhi High Court Dismisses Zahoor Watali's Appeal Against Denial Of Bail On Ground Of Covid-19
Case Title: ZAHOOR AHMAD SHAH WATALI v. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 794
The Delhi High Court has dismissed the appeal filed by Kashmiri businessman Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali challenging the Trial Court order denying him bail last year on the ground of COVID-19, in connection with a terror funding case.
Watali had challenged the order passed by Trial Court dated 15th May 2021 wherein it was concluded that there was no question of granting bail to him only on the ground of spread of COVID-19 pandemic. The Trial Court also took note of his medical condition as he was suffering from various ailments including diabetes, hyperthyroidism, piles etc.
Thereafter, on January 31, 2022, the Trial Court had, till further orders, directed Watali to be kept under house arrest at his Gurugram residence for his medical treatment.
4. Article 227 Not Mercy Jurisdiction, Litigants Casually Prosecuting Proceedings Before Lower Courts Can't Expect Sanctuary From High Court: Delhi HC
Case Title: KAILASH SEWANI v. MANISH KUMAR CHAUDHARY
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 795
Litigants cannot be casual about prosecuting the proceedings before the Court below and expect sanctuary from the High Court under Article 227, the Delhi High Court has observed.
Justice C Hari Shankar added that the jurisdiction vested in High Court by Article 227 is not expected to be used as an avenue for a party "to tide over the negligence exhibited by it before the Court below."
"Nor is Article 227 in the nature of mercy jurisdiction," the Court added.
The Court made the observation in a plea filed challenging an order dated 11th July 2022 passed in a civil suit wherein the petitioner was the defendant in. By the impugned order, the Civil Judge had rejected the petitioner's request to have the written statement taken on record.
5. Application Under Companies Act Against Order Rejecting Waiver Of Interest; Dispute Falls Within Scope Of VSV Act: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Kapri International Pvt. Ltd. versus Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 796
The Delhi High Court has ruled that where an application under the Companies Act has been filed by a company in liquidation against the order of the revenue authorities rejecting the application for waiver of interest for delay in payment of tax dues, the said dispute would fall within the scope of Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 (VSV Act).
The Bench consisting of Justices Mukta Gupta and Anish Dayal ruled that the VSV Act is not a taxing statute but one which provides a dispute resolution scheme for tax disputes and hence, it would be amenable to a purposive construction. The Court held that it was the intent of the legislature to include all sorts of disputes under the VSV Act, even if they were pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax or the courts.
6. Article 19(1)(g) | Citizens' Right To Establish Educational Institution Can Be Restricted Only By Legislative Enactment, Not Mere Circulars: Delhi HC
Case Title: MEHTA TEACHER TRAINING COLLEGE v. NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION & ANR. and other connected petitions
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 797
The Delhi High Court today accepted an argument that a citizen cannot be deprived of the right to establish and administer an educational institution, unless the legislature in its wisdom decides to impose a reasonable restriction in general public interest on exercise of this fundamental right.
Justice Rekha Palli observed that any restriction on the exercise of the right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India can only be by law and anything short of law would fall foul of the power under Article 19(6).
The Court thus agreed with the contention that the requirement under clause Article 19(6) can be met only by introduction of a statutory provision either in the Act or in the Regulation and not merely by the issuance of a circular or a policy decision taken by an authority, howsoever high.
7. Order Passed Under Section 143(1) Is Not An Assessment; Delhi High Court Dismisses Ernst And Young's Writ Petition
Case Title: Ernst and Young U.S. LLP versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 798
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the order passed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not an assessment for the purposes of Section 147 and hence, it is not necessary for the Assessing Officer to come across some fresh tangible material to form a belief that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment in order to reopen assessment.
The Bench of Justices Manmohan and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora held that no opinion is formed by way of the order passed under Section 143(1), and that only an intimation is issued to the assessee when the return initially filed by it is processed; thus, the doctrine of change of opinion is not attracted.
8. WhatsApp's New Privacy Policy Shares Sensitive Data With Facebook, Forces Users Into Agreement By Providing Mirage Of Choice: Delhi HC
Case Title: Whatsapp LLC v. CCI, Facebook v. CCI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 799
"The 2021 Policy places its users in a "take-it-or-leave-it" situation, virtually forcing its users into agreement by providing a mirage of choice, and then sharing their sensitive data with Facebook Companies envisaged in the policy," the Delhi High Court has observed while upholding the proposed investigation of Competition Commission of India (CCI) into WhatsApp's privacy policy.
A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad dismissed the appeals filed by WhatsApp and its parent company Meta (formerly Facebook) against a single bench order declining to interfere with CCI's investigation into the 2021 privacy policy.
Noting that WhatsApp occupies a dominant position in the relevant product market, the Court observed that there exists a strong "lock-in effect" which renders its users incapable of shifting to another platform "despite dissatisfaction with the product" which is exemplified by how, despite an increase in the downloads of other applications like Telegram and Signal when the 2021 Policy was announced, the number of users of WhatsApp remained unchanged.
Also Read: Delhi High Court Dismisses Appeals By Whatsapp, Meta Against CCI Investigation
9. Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Ragpicker Accused In Jahangirpuri Riots Case
Case Title: Jahid v. State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 800
In a first, the Delhi High Court has granted bail to one Jahid, a rag picker, arrested in connection with the clashes that broke out in city's Jahangirpuri area during a Hanuman Jayanti procession.
Jahid, an 18 to 19 year old man, was in custody since April 17, 2022.
Justice Yogesh Khanna was of the view that Jahid was not identified in any of the CCTV footages. The Court also observed that investigation against him was completed as chargesheet stood filed in the matter.
"Looking at his period of custody; the investigation being complete, and the petitioner being no more required for the purpose of investigation, is admitted to bail on his executing a personal bond of Rs.20,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/Duty MM," the Court ordered.
10. Unilateral Constitution Of A Narrow Panel Of Arbitrators Violates Impartiality : Delhi High Court
Case Title: Overnite Express Ltd v. DMRC
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 801
The High Court of Delhi has held that the power conferred on one party to unilaterally choose names from a panel of arbitrators and forwarding it to the other party to select its arbitrator from those names is violative of principle of impartiality in arbitration.
The Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that such a unilateral exercise of power creates space for suspicion regardless of the merit of the selected arbitrators who happens to be retired District Judges.
The Court took a divergent view of its judgment in IWorld Business Solutions v. DMRC, wherein similar panel of five Members who were all retired District Judges was considered and it was held that considering that they were all retired Addl. District Judges/ District Judges, their impartiality and neutrality could not be questioned and the panel was held to be valid for nomination of any one as an Arbitrator.
11. 12th Board Result| CBSE's Caution Must While Taking Decisions Affecting Lakhs Of Students, Legitimate Expectation Doctrine Attracted: Delhi HC
Case Title: DEVASRI BALI v. CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDRY EDUCATION & ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 802
The Delhi High Court has observed that a greater degree of care and caution, as well as due diligence is required on part of the functionaries and office bearers of Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) to ensure that due process is not violated at the higher echelons while taking decisions that affect the lives of lakhs of students.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh added that while the Board's dedication and efforts to undertake continuous and comprehensive reforms and innovations in education is commendable, the responsibility vested and the trust reposed in the Board is also magnified.
The Court was dealing with a plea filed by a student aged 18 years who had appeared in the Class XII CBSE Board Examination for the Academic Session 2021-2022.
12. "Frivolous": Delhi High Court Dismisses PIL Against Withdrawal Of DTC Bus Service From Private Schools
Case Title: Baba Alexander v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 803
Calling it a frivolous petition, the Delhi High Court has recently dismissed a public interest litigation seeking directions to the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) to reconsider its decision of withdrawing DTC bus services to private schools in the city.
A division bench headed by Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma added that it is always open to the DTC to review its decision as and when it feels that there are enough buses with it to be given to schools for the purpose of carrying children from their residences to schools and vice versa.
"Though this Court finds that the present petition is a frivolous petition, however, this Court is not inclined to impose costs on the Petitioner," the Bench also comprising of Justice Subramonium Prasad added.
13. Yardstick For Determining Infringement Of Trade Dress Is Overall Impression Of Design, Subtle Dissimilarities Irrelevant: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Diageo Brands BV & Anr. v. Great Galleon Ventures Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 804
The Delhi High Court has held that that yardstick for determining infringement of a registered design is 'visual effect' and 'ocular impression' of the product as a whole.
The test is not to look out for subtle dissimilarities, but rather, to see if there is substantial and overall similarity in the two designs.
" Impugned design need not be an exact replica to constitute infringement. Minor changes in size are insignificant as the overall and substantial similarity is glaring and undeniably apparent to the naked eye," a single bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula observed.
The observation was made while deciding a suit filed by Diageo Brands, manufacturer of famous whisky brand 'Black Dog' against another alcohol manufacturer Great Galleon Ventures.
14. Assessee Entitled To Refund Of Unutilized CENVAT Credit On Account Of Export Of Legal Services: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Commissioner of CGST Delhi East Versus Anand and Anand
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 805
The Delhi High Court has held that the assessee is entitled to a refund of unutilized CENVAT credit under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 on account of the export of legal services under rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
The division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju observed that, as per Rule 5, as long as the service provider provides an output service which is exported without payment of service tax, such a service provider will be eligible for a refund of CENVAT credit.
The respondent/assessee is a firm of legal practitioners, which renders legal services to its clients both in India and outside India. The assessee specialises in rendering services in the field of intellectual property rights and, as per a finding of fact returned by the Tribunal, 75-80% of its receipts are from the export of legal services. The assessee has sought a refund of unutilized CENVAT credit on account of the export of legal services under Rule 5.
Gujarat High Court
NOMINAL INDEX
Chandrikaben Hargovinddas Parmar W/O Jayprakash Nareshkumar Joshi v. Jaiprakash Nareshbhai Joshi 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 341
Paavanbhai Jagdishbhai Panchal v. State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 342
Century Tiles Through Director Ganpatbhai Dahyabhai Patel v. The Deputy Collector & 2 other(s) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 343
Ibrahim Ahmed Patel v. Vinodkumar Bhanabhai Parmar 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 344
Gangaben Parbatbhai Vaza v. State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 345
State Of Gujarat v. Pratap Prabhuram Devasi 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 346
Hirabhai Kanchanlal Modi & 8 Other(S) V/S Registrar, Cooperative Societies & 1 other(s) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 347
Premnarayan Mewalal Giri V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 348
Mansi Jimit Sanghav V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 349
Sonal Aashish Madhapariya V/S Aashish Harjibhai Madhapariya 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 350
Savitaben Mangalbhai Harijan V/S Superintendent 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 351
Dajabhai S/O Lumbabhai V/S Mancharam Dwarkadas Sadhu 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 352
Yakubbhai Ibrahimbhai Shanker V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 353
Manishkumar Rameshchandra Parekh V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 354
JUDGMENTS/ORDERS OF THE WEEK
Case Title: Chandrikaben Hargovinddas Parmar W/O Jayprakash Nareshkumar Joshi V/S Jaiprakash Nareshbhai Joshi
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 341
The Gujarat High Court declined custody of a minor son to his mother on the ground that her work schedule did not permit her to take care of the child as compared to the work schedule of the father.
Further, Justice Umesh Trivedi, while applying the principle of paramount interest of child, opined that the Appellant-mother had a step-mother and it was doubtful whether she would take care of the minor son.
Case Title: Paavanbhai Jagdishbhai Panchal V/S State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 342
The Gujarat High Court quashed proceedings for the offence of dowry harassment against a distant relative of the complainant's husband, observing that no specific incidents were alleged in the entire FIR and the allegation against him was purely "general in nature".
"Considering the fact that the applicant happens to be the distant relative of the husband of the complainant, it seems that the impugned order is nothing but an attempt to falsely implicate the applicant as accused just with a view to harass the applicant. The allegation against the applicant is purely of general in nature and considering the fact that the applicant stays at a different place, the registration of impugned FIR against the applicant is nothing but an abuse of process of law," Justice Nirzar Desai said.
Impounding Of Instrument Sine Qua Non For Imposing Duty Under Bombay Stamp Act: Gujarat High Court
Case Title: Century Tiles Through Director Ganpatbhai Dahyabhai Patel V/S The Deputy Collector & 2 other(s)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 343
The Gujarat High Court has clarified that only after an instrument is lawfully impounded that the jurisdiction would vest in Stamp authorities to proceed under Section 33 and 39 of the Bombay Stamp Act for the purpose of charging document and assessing the same for stamp duty.
Justice AS Supehia, while relying on Tata Tele Services Limited Vs State of Gujarat, reiterated: "Impounding of the instrument is sine qua non for exercise of the powers."
Case Title: Ibrahim Ahmed Patel v. Vinodkumar Bhanabhai Parmar
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 344
The Gujarat High Court enhanced the compensation granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to the kin of a deceased victim, who was earning in foreign currency prior to his death.
The Bench comprising Justices AJ Desai and Mauna Bhatt relied on Supreme Court's decision in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & ors. vs. Patricia Jean Mahajan & Ors. [(2002) 6 SCC 281] where it was held:
"Where there is so much of disparity in the economic conditions and affluence of the two places viz. The place to which the victim belongs and the place where the compensation is to be paid, a golden balance must be struck somewhere, to arrive at a reasonable and fair mesne."
Case Title: Gangaben Parbatbhai Vaza V/S State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 345
The Gujarat High Court has affirmed the decision of the Sessions Court rejecting the complaint under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on the ground that the Petitioner had not approached the court with 'clean hands' and was accused of theft of electricity.
Justice Samir Dave opined:
"It is settled law that the revisional powers of the High Court can only be exercised to prevent the abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice. The process of law can be invoked by a principled and really aggrieved person who approaches the court with clean hands."
It added, "The process of law cannot be allowed to be abused by a person who is facing trial for theft of Electricity and who himself avers such facts in his application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., as indicate that he is guilty of committing theft of Electricity; by making baseless allegations against the officials of a PGVCL without any supporting material or evidence. Apparently, the revisionist has filed that complaint in order to put a counter pressure on the officials for taking undue advantage in plural cases of theft of electricity lodged against the complainant."
Case Title: State Of Gujarat V/S Pratap Prabhuram Devasi
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 346
The Gujarat High Court has upheld the acquittal of an accused under the POCSO Act on the ground that the victim's allegations were unreliable and contained several omissions and contradictions.
While dismissing the State's appeal, a bench of Justice SH Vora and Justice Rajendra Sareen noted that at the time of alleged incident, both brothers of the prosecutrix were at home but, she did not shout for help. "Not only that, she did not disclose to any of her relatives, who came at her home despite she was asked."
Case Title: Hirabhai Kanchanlal Modi & 8 Other(S) V/S Registrar, Cooperative Societies & 1 other(s)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 347
The Gujarat High Court, while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction, has held that the show cause notice issued by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies under Section 93 of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act is not maintainable against the writ applicants on grounds of delay.
The Bench comprising Justice Vaibhavi Nanavati noted that the writ-applicants were Chairman/ Managing Directors in the Ankleshwar Nagrik Sahakari Bank Limited in 2004. Since then, the Bank came to be closed and liquidated in November 2004 and all the relevant transactions pertained to a period before 2004. The impugned show cause notice was issued in July 2011 for transactions older than five years. Accordingly, the Single Judge Bench opined:
"The show cause notice which came to be issued by the respondent authority is also an undisputedly dated 26.07.2011. Therefore, all the transaction alleged against the writ applicants are beyond the period of five years from the date of show cause notice i.e. 26.07.2011 and also from the date of inquiry report i.e. dated 07.06.2011."
Case Title: Premnarayan Mewalal Giri V/S State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 348
The Gujarat High Court has held that a licensing authority under the Arms Act cannot discriminate between two persons, who were co-accused in the same matter, by renewing the license of one of them and refusing the same treatment to the other citing criminal antecedents.
Justice AS Supehia held so while deciding the case of a Petitioner whose renewal application under the Act was declined citing criminal offence registered against him under Sections 323, 294B, 506(1) and 114 of IPC.
Case Title: Mansi Jimit Sanghav V/S State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 349
The Gujarat High Court has made it clear that a person apprehending arrest can seek "transit anticipatory bail" so as to obtain time to approach the competent Court having territorial jurisdiction in the matter, even in the absence of registration of FIR.
A transit bail is a bail granted by a Court not having jurisdiction over the place where offence was committed. A "transit anticipatory bail" therefore is when a person is apprehending arrest by police of a State other than the State where he/she is presently situated. As the word "transit" suggests, it is an act of being moved or carried from one place to another.
Case Title: Sonal Aashish Madhapariya V/S Aashish Harjibhai Madhapariya
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 350
The Gujarat High Court has recently reiterated that the Court must confine itself in contempt jurisdiction to the four corners of the order alleged to have been disobeyed. It cannot travel beyond the order alleged to have been flouted.
Further, to determine whether an act is contumacious, the Courts cannot apply a 'mechanical' mind and should determine whether 'positive' steps were taken to show wilful disobedience of a judicial order.
Chief Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Ashutosh Shastri stated: "…while dealing with the contempt petition, the Court is not expected to conduct a roving inquiry and go beyond the very judgment which was allegedly violated. The said principle has to be applied with more vigour when disputed questions of facts have arisen and the documents produced are true and genuine being in the realm of adjudication ought to have been taken up for adjudication…"
Case Title: Savitaben Mangalbhai Harijan V/S Superintendent
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 351
In a recent order, the Gujarat High Court has held that the benefits of reinstatement would be a 'normal course' that ought to follow once there is a violative of Section 25(F) under the Industrial Disputes Act.
Keeping in view this principle, the High Court reinstated, without backwages, the Petitioner who working as a 'sweeper' under the State for 6 years. The Labour Court's award only granting lumpsum compensation to the tune of Rs. 54,000 as was modified to that extent. Justice Biren Vaishnav stated:
"Having therefore found that the Labour Court having positively held that there was violation of Sec.25(F) of the Act, for no fault of the petitioner, the Labour Court proceedings having been prolonged at the instance of the respondents, the petitioner could not have been then deprived of the benefits of reinstatement which is a normal course that ought to have been followed once violation of Sec.25(F) is otherwise proved."
Case Title: Dajabhai S/O Lumbabhai V/S Mancharam Dwarkadas Sadhu
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 352
The Gujarat High Court, while reiterating that the statement of a witness recorded by the investigating officer under Section 161 of CrPC does not fall within the ambit of evidence, has upheld the acquittal of a Murder accused.
The Bench comprising Justices SH Vora and Rajendra Sareen explained in the context of the statement recorded by the investigating officer:
"Such evidence is only for confrontation in the cross examination. Statement of witnesses recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure being wholly inadmissible in evidence and cannot be taken into account. As per the settled proposition of law, statement recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be used only to prove the contradictions and/or omissions."
Case Title: Yakubbhai Ibrahimbhai Shanker V/S State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 353
The Gujarat High Court has allowed 6 bail pleas filed by 8 persons accused of forcing tribals from Amod town in Gujarat's Bharuch district to convert their religion, upon a prima facie finding that there is no material to conclusively prove that the conversion was caused by the use of force.
"While there is existence of material suggesting allurement, there does not appear to be existence of any material which would suggest conversion by use of force."
Case Title: Manishkumar Rameshchandra Parekh V/S State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 354
In a recent order, the Gujarat High Court has affirmed that when a person is transferred on his own request, his past service is counted while granting promotion or higher pay scale, particularly when the same department is involved.
Thus, Justice Biren Vaishnav allowed the petition of workmen who were challenging a resolution of 2017 passed by the Finance Department stating that incumbents who had worked for five years would be considered for seniority, promotion, higher pay and terminal benefits from the initial date of engagement but not from the date of regularisation as was the case of the Petitioner. The bench reiterated:
"In the case before the Supreme Court and of the Division Bench of this Court, the Court held that if the petitioners were transferred to a new department, they may not get seniority but the past experience would count for the purposes of promotion and higher pay scale etc."
Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court
Nominal Index:
Ghulam Mohd Mir Vs Tej Krishan Ganjoo & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 110
Mohammad Shafi Wani Vs Noor Mohammad Khan 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 111
Showkat Ahmad Bhat & others Vs Khazir Mohammad Bhat & others 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 112
Faheem Sultan Gojree V/s UT of J&K and another 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 113
Sakib Ahmad Sheroo Vs UT of J&K & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 114
United Insurance Co Ltd Vs Jawahira Begum &Ors 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 115
Reyaz Ahmad Dar V/s U.T. of J&K and another 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 116
Managing Director J&K SRTC Vs Syed Arshad Tramboo & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 117
National Insurance Co Ltd Vs Mushtaq Ahmad Kutary 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 118
Jalal Ud Din Ganai Vs UT of J&K 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 119
Bashir Ahmad Dada & Ors Vs Ghulam Mohi Ud Din 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 120
State Through P/S Zainapora Vs Zia Mustaffa 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 121
Judgements/Orders
Case Title: Ghulam Mohd Mir Vs Tej Krishan Ganjoo & Ors.
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 110
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court reiterated that there is no bar under section 190 Cr.P.C. that once the process is issued against some accused, on the next date the Magistrate cannot issue process to some other person against whom there is some material on record but his name is not included as accused in the chargesheet.
Case Title: Mohammad Shafi Wani Vs Noor Mohammad Khan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 111
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court reiterated that the provisions contained in Section 138 of the NI Act must be interpreted in a liberal manner so as to achieve the object for which the said provision has been enacted.
Not only the cases of dishonour of cheques on account of insufficiency of funds or on account of exceeding of arrangement but the cases involving dishonour of cheques on account of "stop payment", "account closed" and "Signature Mismatch" also fall within the ambit of offence under the aforesaid provision, the bench underscored
Case Title: Showkat Ahmad Bhat & others Vs Khazir Mohammad Bhat & others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 112
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that the strict principles of proof in a criminal case will not be applicable in a claim for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act and that standard to be followed in motor accident claims is one of preponderance of probability rather than one of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Case Title: Faheem Sultan Gojree V/s UT of J&K and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 113
Justice Sindhu Sharma observed, "The decision of the Detaining Authority cannot be substituted by the Court while scrutinizing the detention order. Since preventive detention is a precautionary measure to protect the society from activities which may cause harm to their life and liberty. Preventive detention is a precautionary measure to protect the society from the activities that are likely to deprive a large number of people of their rights and protect them from damaging to their life and property."
Case Title: Sakib Ahmad Sheroo Vs UT of J&K & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 114
Justice Sanjay Dhar observed, "The petitioner has been booked in an offence falling under Chapter IV of the ULAP Act and in view of the provisions of Section 43-D of the said Act, the chances of the petitioner getting bail were very remote. Thus, there were no compelling circumstances for the detaining authority to pass the impugned order of detention. The Detaining Authority was bound to record the compelling reasons as to why the detenue could not be deterred from indulging in subversive activities by resorting to normal law and, as already discussed, there is no such material on record."
Case Title: United Insurance Co Ltd Vs Jawahira Begum &Ors
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 115
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that Provident Fund, Pension, Insurance, bank balance, shares, fixed deposits, etc., are all pecuniary advantages receivable by heirs on account of one's death but all these have no correlation with the amount receivable as compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, a statute occasioned only on account of accidental death.
Justice Vinod Chaterjee Koul Observed, "The deceased employee works throughout his life expecting that on his retirement he will get substantial amount as pension and gratuity and these amounts are also payable on death, whatever be the cause of death. Therefore, applying the same principles, the said amount cannot be deducted".
Case Title: Reyaz Ahmad Dar V/s U.T. of J&K and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 116
A bench of Justice Sindhu Sharma observed:
"If a detention order is quashed, the grounds of the order so quashed cannot be taken into consideration either in whole or in part or even along with the fresh grounds of detention for drawing subjective satisfaction to pass fresh order of detention.
Case Title: Managing Director J&K SRTC Vs Syed Arshad Tramboo & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 117
The bench comprising Chief Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal observed that Rules nowhere provide that the outsiders can be brought in by way of "deputation" infringing fundamental right of persons, who are born on the establishment of the Corporation and have preferential right of being considered for promotion.
"To bring the officers from outside by way of deputation to the Corporation can be only in the eventuality if no suitable person is found eligible in the Corporation after assessing their merit, eligibility and suitability", Justice Nargal observed.
Case Title: National Insurance Co Ltd Vs Mushtaq Ahmad Kutary
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 118
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that under the Motor Vehicles Act, mere absence, fake or invalid driving licence or disqualification of driver to drive at the relevant time are not in themselves defences available to the insurer against either insured or third parties. To avoid liability towards insured, the insurer has to prove that insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care.
Case Title: Jalal Ud Din Ganai Vs UT of J&K
Citation; 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 119
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court on ruled that every act which is prejudicial to the security of the state would qualify to be an act prejudicial to the public order but the reverse is not true. It is only the acts prejudicial to the public order which are of 'grave nature' that would qualify to be termed as acts prejudicial to the security of the state, Justice Sanjay Dhar Stated.
"The expressions "security of the state" and "public order" are quite distinct from each other, inasmuch if contravention of law affects the community or public at large, it amounts to disturbance of public order whereas if the disturbance of public order is of grave nature which affects the security of the state, then the same constitutes an act that would affect the security of the state. Thus, every act which is prejudicial to the security of the state would qualify to be an act prejudicial to the public order but reverse is not true", the bench noted.
Case Title: Bashir Ahmad Dada & Ors Vs Ghulam Mohi Ud Din
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 120
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that merely by changing the label of the offence by making it one under Section 420 IPC instead of Section 495 IPC, one cannot avoid the legal bar on cognizance by courts under Section 198 of CrPC.
"Thus, her alleged act squarely falls within the definition of offence under Section 495 of the RPC. The respondent, instead of choosing to prosecute the petitioners for offence under Section 495 of RPC, has chosen to prosecute them for offence under Section 420 of RPC. This appears to this Court, as a case where the respondent is trying to evade the bar to taking of cognizance of offence under Section 495 RPC created under Section 198 of the Cr. P. C", the bench recorded.
Case Title: State Through P/S Zainapora Vs Zia Mustaffa
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 121
Reopening the case Justice Sanjay Dhar observed " If a judgment has been pronounced without jurisdiction or in violation of principles of natural justice or where the order has been pronounced without giving an opportunity of being heard to a party affected by it or where an order was obtained by abuse of the process of court which would really amount to its being without jurisdiction, inherent powers can be exercised to recall such order for the reason that in such an eventuality the order becomes a nullity The power of recall is different from the power of altering/reviewing the judgment."
Karnataka High Court
Nominal Index
B T Raju And State of Karnataka. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 328
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 329
K.P.N. SHENOY & others v STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 330
CHANDRASHEKAR R v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 331
MS. H. GAYATHRI v UNION OF INDIA & Others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 332
NIHARIKA D RAO v. THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 333
PUSHPA B. GAVADI v THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 334
RAMA @ BANDE RAMA v STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 335
LAKSHMIBAI v THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 336
INTEL TECHNOLOGY INDIA PVT LTD v. COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 337
MANISH KUMAR SINGH @ MANISH v. STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 338
GAS TURBINE RESEARCH ESTABLISHMENT DEFENSE UNIT THE DEFENCE ESTATE OFFICER v. NAZIMA SALIQ & Others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 339
Judgments/Orders
1: Corruption Rampant In Govt Offices, No File Moves Without 'Bribe': Karnataka High Court
Case Title: B T Raju And State of Karnataka
Case No: Criminal Petition 5614 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 328
The Karnataka High Court has observed that nowadays, in Government offices, corruption has become rampant and no file is moved without a 'bribe'.
A single judge bench of Justice K Natarajan made the observation while refusing bail to BT Raju, working as Assistant Engineer with the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA). The Anti-Corruption Bureau had arrested him for demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs 5 lakh.
Case Title: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: WP 14143/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 329
The Karnataka High Court on Monday directed Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike and Urban Local Bodies in the city to properly implement the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) framed by the government to tackle 'monkey menace' and to deal with the issue of their capture and relocation.
Case Title: K.P.N. SHENOY & others v STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1133 OF 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 330
The Karnataka High Court has held that the disciplinary proceedings instituted against a bank employee, who happens to be a member of the Scheduled Caste community and is accused of committing irregularities, cannot be challenged under Section 3(1)(p) of the SC/ST Act, after such employee has accepted the penalty and has received the pension.
Case Title: CHANDRASHEKAR R v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: WP 10473/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 331
Observing that Article 25 and 26 of the Constitution embodies the principle of "religious tolerance" which is a characteristic of Indian civilization, the Karnataka High Court on Monday disposed of a public interest litigation alleging that the contents of Azan (call for prayers in Islam) hurt the sentiments of believers of other faiths.
Case Title: MS. H. GAYATHRI v UNION OF INDIA & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.16 OF 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 332
State instrumentalities under Article 12 of the Constitution cannot act arbitrarily or unreasonably whilst considering the claim of citizens for the grant of State largesse, the Karnataka High Court has said.
6: Karnataka Authorities Act On Plea Filed By 9-Yr-Old To Curb Stray Dog Menace In NIMHANS
Case Title: NIHARIKA D RAO v. THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE.
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.38851/2018
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 333
The Karnataka High Court recently disposed of a petition filed by a nine year old girl after the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) and the Director of NIMHANS assured the court that measures have been taken to curb the stray dog menace in the institute's campus and in its residential quarters.
Case Title: PUSHPA B. GAVADI v THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
Case NO: W.P. NO.22546 OF 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 334
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a postgraduate law student questioning the appointment of Dr. Shanth Averahally Thimmaiah as the Chairman of Karnataka State Pollution Control Board.
Case Title: RAMA @ BANDE RAMA v STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6214 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 335
The Karnataka High Court has quashed a rape complaint registered against an accused after he married the prosecutrix during the pendency of the proceedings and produced adequate documents in that regard.
Case Title: LAKSHMIBAI v THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case NO: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7649 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 336
The Karnataka High Court has quashed an order of conviction after the parties to the proceedings post the conviction order entered into a settlement and sought for compounding of the offences so made against the petitioner.
Case Title: INTEL TECHNOLOGY INDIA PVT LTD v. COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.50727 OF 2019
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 337
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by Intel Technology assailing a 2019 CCI order directing a probe into its warranty policy with Rs. 10 lakh cost.
Case Title: MANISH KUMAR SINGH @ MANISH v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6794 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 338
The Karnataka High Court has observed that mere production of call record details by the accused to show that he was not present at the time of occurrence of alleged incident, would not lead to closure of criminal proceedings by exercising powers under Section 482 of CrPC.
Case Title: GAS TURBINE RESEARCH ESTABLISHMENT DEFENSE UNIT THE DEFENCE ESTATE OFFICER v. NAZIMA SALIQ & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 10625 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 339
The Karnataka High Court recently held that in cases of land acquisition where payment of compensation is pending, interest to be paid on compensation amount for the first year is to be at the rate of 9% per annum and subsequently, it is to be at the rate of 15%.
Other reports
Case Title: State of Karnataka v. The Karnataka State Board of AUQAF
Case NO: WA 809/2022
The Karnataka High Court on Friday modified a single judge bench order and permitted the State government to consider and pass appropriate orders on applications received by the Deputy Commissioner seeking use of the land in question (Idgah Maidan) for holding religious and cultural activities for a limited period from 31.08.2022 onwards.
Kerala High Court
Nominal Index [Citation 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 447-457]
Sri Sivabalan Transports & Ors v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 447
Mohammed Kasim H.K. v. Union Territory of Lakshadweep & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 448
Sooraj V. Kumar v. State of Kerala 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 449
Vidya Gopan & Anr v. High Court of Kerala & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 450
Anuvarudeen v. Sabina 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 451
Usha Bai & Ors v. Pandikasalya Niyas & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 452
Madeswari v. K. Manickam 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 453
Anoop v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 454
Nisha Vellapan Nair v. The Mahatma Gandhi University & Anr. and Reka Raj v. Nisha Vellapan Nair & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 455
Sanskruthi Motors v. The Joint Commissioner (Appeals) II 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 456
Noorul Islam Samskarika Sangham v. The District Collector, Malappuram & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 457
Judgements/Orders This Week
Transportation Of LPG Cylinders A Public Utility Service: Kerala High Court Restrains Strike
Case Title: Sri Sivabalan Transports & Ors v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 447
The Kerala High Court on Friday, while declaring the transportation of LPG Cylinders to be a 'public utility service' as defined in Section 2(n) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, restrained a proposed strike by members of Kannur District Fuel Employees Union. It held that no person employed in such public utility service can go on strike during the pendency of conciliation proceedings before a Conciliation Officer and seven days after the conclusion of such proceedings.
Justice Murali Purushothaman, while observing that since conciliation proceedings were pending in the instant case, and since Section 22 prohibits strikes and lockouts during the pendency of any such conciliation proceedings, issued an interim order restraining the proposed strike on 22nd and 23rd of August, 2022, or any subsequent day during the pendency of the aforementioned proceedings.
Case Title: Mohammed Kasim H.K. v. Union Territory of Lakshadweep & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 448
The Kerala High Court on Friday granted anticipatory bail to the BJP State General Secretary of Lakshadweep accused of insulting the national flag by holding it with 'saffron down'. Mohammed Kasim HK had been booked under Section 2 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honours Act, 1971.
Justice Viju Abraham granted pre-arrest bail on noting that custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary, considering the nature of allegations.
Case Title: Sooraj V. Kumar v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 449
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday allowed the Criminal Appeal filed by a YouTuber, who allegedly insulted a woman belonging to a Scheduled Tribe through an interview published on social media, and enlarged him on bail. Earlier this month, a Sessions Court in Kerala had dismissed his bail plea on the ground that he had intentionally telecasted the video to humiliate the woman and enlarging him on bail would send a wrong message to society.
Justice Mary Joseph, while granting bail, observed that the Lower Court was more concerned with the impact on society rather than on the purpose served by prolonging the custody.
Kerala High Court Directs Regularization Of Its Court Managers As One-Time Measure
Case Title: Vidya Gopan & Anr v. High Court of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 450
The Kerala High Court on Monday held that there can be no discrimination between the appointment of Court Managers in the High Court and the District Court, particularly when the same selection procedure is being followed for both.
A Division Bench comprising Justices SV Bhatti and Basant Balaji, while holding so, observed that merely because notifications were different for the two and the selection to the High Court was under Article 229 of the Constitution, it could not be said that selection process is different. The appellants were held to be entitled to regularization of their posts as Court Managers in the High Court as a one-time measure, accordingly.
Case Title: Anuvarudeen v. Sabina
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 451
The Kerala High Court recently, while setting aside two orders restraining a Muslim man from invoking irrevocable Talaq and from conducting a second marriage, held that the Courts have no role in restraining the parties from invoking their personal law remedies as otherwise, it would be violative of their rights protected under Article 25 of the Constitution of India.
Division Bench consisting of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Sophy Thomas observed that the Court have no role in restraining the parties from invoking their personal law remedies as otherwise, it would be an encroachment of their constitutionally protected right.
Case Title: Usha Bai & Ors v. Pandikasalya Niyas & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 452
The Kerala High Court recently, while disposing of a Rent Control Revision Petition, held that making available parking space for building visitors is a valid reason for tenant's eviction under Section 11(3) Kerala Buildings Act, 1965.
Division Bench consisting of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P. G. Ajithkumar, relying heavily on the High Court's decision in similar matters, clarified that in order to satisfy the requirement of Section 11(3) of the Act, a bona fide need must be an outcome of a sincere and honest desire of the landlord.
Case Title: Madeswari v. K. Manickam
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 453
The Kerala High Court recently held that conducting DNA test and proving child's paternity would not be enough to prove the existence of a marriage or domestic relationship in a proceeding under Domestic Violence Act, 2005, when paternity or legitimacy in itself was not a fact in issue.
Justice Kauser Edappagath while holding so, observed that under the DV Act, what is required to be proved in order to maintain an application is that of the petitioner being an aggrieved person, and there being a domestic relationship between the parties.
Case Title: Anoop v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 454
The Kerala High Court on Friday directed the State Government and the CBSE to issue necessary orders making it mandatory for every school in the state under their control to include a "Prevention-Oriented Program on Sexual Abuse" in the curriculum.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas expressing his anguish at the alarming rise in the number of sexual offences committed on school children and noticing that, in many instances, the perpetrators themselves were students, observed that the voice of the victims of sexual abuse should not be suppressed, and it is only through education that the victim can be empowered to speak out.
Case Title: Nisha Vellapan Nair v. The Mahatma Gandhi University & Anr. and Reka Raj v. Nisha Vellapan Nair & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 455
The Kerala High Court, on Thursday, while setting aside the impugned judgment of the Single Judge Bench, cancelled the selection of an Assistant Professor at M G University.
A Division Bench consisting of Justice P. B. Suresh Kumar and Justice C. S. Sudha, while setting aside the impugned decision of the Single Judge, quashed the selection of the second respondent and directed the University to appoint the petitioner in the place of the second respondent. It observed that the University is not empowered to make relaxations for one candidate as it would be violative of the right to equality guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the remaining applicants.
Case Title: Sanskruthi Motors v. The Joint Commissioner (Appeals) II
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 456
The Kerala High Court has held that the officer is duty bound to consider the explanation offered by the petitioner for the expiry of the e-way bill.
The single bench of Justice Gopinath P has observed that the officer rejected the explanation offered by the petitioner by stating that no evidence of repair being carried out has been produced. The officer imposed a penalty/tax on the grounds that the petitioner had ample time to revalidate the E-way bill.
Case Title: Noorul Islam Samskarika Sangham v. The District Collector, Malappuram & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 457
The Kerala High Court recently, while disallowing a petition to convert a commercial building to a Muslim place of worship, issued a direction to the State Government to close down religious places and prayer halls that were functioning illegally and without permission.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan directed the Chief Secretary of State of Kerala and the State Police Chief to issue necessary orders / circulars directing all the officers concerned to see that there were no illegal functioning of any religious places and prayer halls without obtaining permission from the competent authorities as per the Manual of Guidelines and if any such religious place or prayer hall is functioning without necessary permission, to close down the same immediately. The Chief Secretary of the State of Kerala was further directed to issue necessary orders/circulars directing the competent authority as per the Manual of Guidelines to consider each application to start religious places and prayer halls strictly and the approval can be granted only in appropriate cases. In such orders, it also ought to be mentioned that that the distance to the nearest similar religious place/prayer hall is the one of the criteria while considering the application for religious places and prayer halls.
Other Significant Developments
Case Title: State of Kerala v. Civic Chandran
The Kerala Government moved the Kerala High Court challenging the anticipatory bail granted to the author and social activist Civic Chandran in a sexual harassment case. The Kozhikode Sessions Court's order passed on August 12 had created a massive social outrage as it had observations to the effect that sexual harassment complaint will not stand if the woman was wearing a "sexually provocative dress".
In the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed under Sections 482 read with 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the State has challenged the findings and reasoning given by the Sessions Court as suffering from "illegality, lack of sensitivity, sobriety and perversity".
Case Title: Hotel Port Palace v. State of Kerala & Ors.
The Kerala High Court on Monday stayed the operation of an order issued by the Thiruvananthapuram district collector on August 20, directing closure of liquor shops in Vizhinjam for two days, taking into account the possibility of conflict in the context of the protests in the area. The stay is to operate till August 24, the next date of hearing.
The impugned order under Section 54 of the Abkari Act, 1977 was issued on the basis of a report by the Inspector, in light of the indefinite strike conducted under the leadership of Archdiocese of Latin Catholics, Thiruvananthapuram against the construction of International Port at Vizhinjam.
Justice Amit Rawal while staying the aforementioned order, noted that although the protests had been continuing since long, it was not at a violent stage.
Judge Who Passed 'Provocative Dress' Order In Civic Chandran's Case Transferred
The Kerala Judge who granted anticipatory bail to the writer-activist Civic Chandran and made the controversial observation that "sexual harassment case will not prima facie stand if the woman was wearing a sexually provocative dress" has been transferred.
Pursuant to the administrative Order issued by Kerala High Court on Tuesday, the erstwhile District and Sessions Judge, Kozhikode, S. Krishnakumar, has now been transferred to the post of Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Kollam. Three other judges were also transferred by the same order.
Case Title: State of Kerala v. Civic Chandran
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday, in the plea moved by the State Government challenging the anticipatory bail granted to the author and social activist Civic Chandran in a sexual harassment case, has stayed the order of the Sessions Court granting bail.
Justice Kauser Edappagath remarked that the observation of the lower under Section 354A of the Indian Penal Code is not prima facie attracted when the woman was wearing 'sexually provocative dresses' cannot be justified.
Case Title: R. Baji & Ors. v. KSRTC & Ors.
The Kerala High Court, on Wednesday, in the plea moved by the KSRTC employees alleging that they were not being paid salary promptly has directed the competent authority to release the requisite amount required to the KSRTC to pay the salaries for the months of July and August along with the bonus eligible to all the employees below the managerial cadre on or before the 1st September.
Justice Devan Ramachandran expressed his discontent at the delay even after repeated orders have been passed by the Court.
Madhu Lynching Case: Kerala High Court Stays Special Court Order Canceling Bail Of 12 Accused
Case Title: Marakkar & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Anr and connected cases
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday stayed an order of the Special Court for SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Mannarkkad, cancelling the bail granted to 12 of the 16 accused in the lynching case of tribal youth, Madhu, accused of stealing food in Attappady in February 2018.
Justice Kauser Edappagath stayed the lower court's order till 29th August, 2022 (Monday) on an appeal filed by two accused, Marakkar and Radhakrishnan.
Case Title: Abdurahiman v. State of Kerala & Ors.
The brother of journalist K M Basheer, who died in a road rage involving IAS Officer Sreeram Venkitaraman, has moved the Kerala High Court seeking a CBI probe into the incident which took place in August 2019.
In the petition moved through Advocate P.T. Sheejish, the Petitioner, who is the brother of the deceased Journalist, alleges that the accused, who is a very influential IAS Officer, had sought the help of higher Police Authorities to save him from the crime by simplifying the incident as a car accident.
Case Title: M/S Adani Vizhinjam Port Pvt Ltd & 2 Ors v. State of Kerala & 27 Ors. and Howe Engineering Projects (I) Pvt. Ltd. & 3 Ors. v. State of Kerala & 27 Ors.
The Kerala High Court on Friday directed the State Police to ensure that the law and order situation is maintained at the Vizhinjam International Seaport construction site. The direction was made while adjourning till Monday the petitions filed by M/S Adani Vizhinjam Port Pvt Ltd and its contracting company Howe Engineering Projects, seeking protection for their employees and property from those protesting against the project.
Justice Anu Sivaraman issued notices to the Respondents and observed that no private person should take the legal machinery into their hands. Thereby, the bench ordered that the concerned Station House Officer as well as the Commissioner of Police to see that law and order is maintained.
Authorities "Afraid" To Act Against Illegal Flag-Masts Erected By Political Parties
Case Title: Mannam Sugar Mills Corporative Ltd v. Deputy Superintendent of Police
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday reiterated its previous observation regarding permanent flag-masts being illegal as per the provisions of the Land Conservancy Act, and expressed its hope that the Government would come out with a policy of removing old masts and inhibiting the erection of new ones in its place.
Justice Devan Ramachandran observed that, "solely because they are put up by powerful interests, including political parties, Trade Unions and such other entities, the competent Authorities are either non-willing or afraid to act".
The Court had earlier issued a direction to the competent authority to issue circulars within the ambit of the Land Conservancy Act, suggesting the manner and mode under which the existing illegal permanent flag masts would be regulated and removed. The matter has been adjourned to September 22, 2022.
Case Title: V. Mohanlal v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Actor Mohanlal moved the Kerala High Court, challenging the order passed by JFCM, Perumbavoor, which dismissed the State Government's plea to withdraw prosecution proceedings against him in the alleged illegal possession of ivory case against him.
In the Criminal Revision Petition, the revision petitioner seeks to set aside the impugned judgment passed by the Magistrate, citing that the only ground relied upon by the Magistrate is that the validity of the certificate of ownership issued by the Government as per declaration made under Section 40(4) of the Act is still pending before the Kerala High Court in a Public Interest Litigation.
Madhya Pradesh High Court
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench recently held that the trial court does not have the power under Section 94 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015 to determine the age as contested by the accused and that the same can be exercised only by the Juvenile Justice Board. Setting aside the order passed by the lower court whereby it had rejected the application moved by the Petitioner/accused to refer his matter to the Juvenile Justice Board, the bench comprising of Justice S.K. Singh observed-
"Trial Court was not having power to determine the age of the applicant and this power is vested only with the JJ Board constituted under the Act of 2015. Therefore, it is apparent that the impugned order was not passed following the provisions of the Act, of 2015. Hence, the same is liable to be set aside."
Case Title: KHILAN SINGH versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 195
The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently differed from the viewpoint taken by the Punjab and Haryana High Court by observing that an accused in NDPS case is not liable for grant of default bail despite the prosecution failing to submit the FSL report along with the Challan (Chargesheet).
Case Title: BHANWARLAL AND ORS. VERSUS TOOFAN SINGH AND ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 196
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench recently held that if the first appeal is dismissed by the first appellate authority solely upon rejection of the application for condonation of delay in filing the same, the jurisdiction of the second appellate authority would be confined to determining if the delay in filing the appeal before the first appellate authority should have been condoned.
Case Title : Habu @ Sunil v The State of Madhya Pradesh
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 197
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench recently chided the investigating agency for not utilizing the scientific evidence available to them so as to make a watertight case against an accused in a murder and rape case, thereby leaving the Court with no choice but to acquit him.
Case Title: RAKESH AND ORS. VERSUS ISMAIL AND ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 198
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench recently held that a JMFC who had taken cognizance of a matter and committed the same to sessions court, can also entertain an application under Section 200 CrPC later, to implead other co-accused in the same crime. The bench comprising of Justice S. K. Singh further observed that summoning other co-accused is a part of the process of taking cognizance and if the investigating authorities are unwilling to register the crime against the said persons, the courts can certainly come to the rescue of the Complainant.
Madras High Court
Citations: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 361 To 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 373
NOMINAL INDEX
Sathish v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 361
M/s. United Nilgiri Tea Estates Company Ltd. Versus The Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 362
Praveen Rajesh v. Commissioner of Police and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 363
All India Adi Saiva Sivacharyargal Seva Sangam v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 364
A Priyanka and others v. The Principal Secretary and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 365
U Manickavel v State and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 366
M/s.Interplex Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 367
Bar Council of Tamilnadu and Puducherry v. VK Sethukumar and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 368
Air Corporation Employees Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. versus Registrar of Co-operative Societies, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 369
Narayanan v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 370
Subramanian P v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 371
M Sekar v. The District Collector and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 372
Sadam Hussain v. State and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 373
REPORT
Case Title: Sathish v. State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 361
The Madras High Court conducted a special sitting on Sunday after an urgent petition was filed seeking bail for an incarcerated accused on the ground that his father had died and he, being an only son was to perform the last rites.
Justice G Jayachandran granted an interim bail of 3 days to the Petitioner, subject to his own bond, to enable him to perform post rituals. He has been directed to report and surrender before the authorities on 24th. The police has been directed to escort the Petitioner to his village.
2.Cut/Sized Shade Trees Constitutes "Agricultural Produce", No Sales Tax Applicable: Madras High Court
Case Title: M/s. United Nilgiri Tea Estates Company Ltd. Versus The Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 362
The Madras High Court bench of Justice R. Mahadevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq has held that the cut and sized shade trees would constitute "agricultural produce" and, therefore, fall outside the purview of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (TNGST Act, 1959).
The court rejected the claim of the petitioner that the cut/sized Silver Oak/shade tree would constitute "firewood".
Case Title: Praveen Rajesh v. Commissioner of Police and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 363
The Madras High Court, while emphasizing that FIR is not an ordinary thing and could affect the rights of the individual, heavily criticised the order of a Magistrate directing registration of FIR against an accused, without due application of mind.
The court also noted that there was a lack of jurisdiction.
Case Title: All India Adi Saiva Sivacharyargal Seva Sangam v. State of Tamil Nadu and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 364
In a significant judgment, the Madras High Court on Monday exempted temples constructed as per agamas from the rules brought by the Tamil Nadu Government in 2020 in relation to the qualifications and appointments of archakas/poojaris.
A division bench of the High Court read down Rules 7 and 9 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious Institutions Employees (Conditions of Service) Rules, 2020 to hold that they will not apply to temples constructed as per agamas.
The High Court said that reading down these Rules are necessary so as to exempt temples constructed as per agamas. Otherwise, it would offend the fundamental rights to practice religion and the rights of a religious denomination to manage its affairs guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. The Court however refrained from striking down the said Rules in their entirety, as they dealt with other appointments as well.
Case Title: A Priyanka and others v. The Principal Secretary and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 365
In context of admissions to MBBS courses, the Madras High Court has reiterated that admission to the courses had to be commensurate with the annual intake capacity of the institution. The court also highlighted that the admissions cannot be made beyond the time limit fixed by the Apex Court for completing admissions.
The bench of Justice Abdul Quddhose was hearing petitions filed by children of defence personal seeking admission to MBBS Course under the wards of defence personnel quota. The court noted that the GO dated 30.06.1979 was not applicable to the petitioners as the said notification was applicable only to PUC and BSC students which was the stream of education prevalent at that point of time.
6. Madras High Court Orders Complete Abolition Of 'Orderly System' From TN Police In Four Months
Case Title: U Manickavel v State and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 366
The Madras High Court on Tuesday passed final orders in the case against engagement of uniformed Police officers as orderlies at the residence of higher officials in Tamil Nadu.
Justice SM Subramaniam today directed the authorities to ensure that the orderly system is completely abolished within a period of four months. The court also directed the authorities to remove the orderlies appointed in the residence of retired officials as the same amounts to illegality and a violation of the law.
Further, if any complaint/ information was received with respect to misconduct or offence by officials, the authorities were directed to conduct enquiry and initiate all appropriate actions under the relevant laws and under the Discipline and Appeal Rules.
With respect to illegal occupation of the official police quarters, the court directed to initiate steps for eviction in the manner known to law.
Case Title: M/s.Interplex Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 367
The Madras High Court has held that the timelines for uploading of TRAN 1 for seeking credit as well as seeking revision of the credit cannot be one and the same as it leads to an unworkable position.
The single bench of Justice Anitha Sumanth has observed that the time limit for revision of a TRAN-1 return be identical to the timeline for filing of a return seeking transition. The purpose of revision is to enable correction or modification of a return of transition. It would stand to reason that some additional time, over and above the timeline granted for a TRAN-1 return, be provided by the respondent in the latter instance.
Case Title: Bar Council of Tamilnadu and Puducherry v. VK Sethukumar and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 368
The Madras High Court recently emphasized on "statutory indemnity" available to the Bar Councils with respect to bonafide disciplinary proceedings initiated against Advocates.
The court was hearing a criminal revision petition moved by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry against the order of a lower court dismissing the Bar Council's application to reject a plaint filed by an Advocate seeking damages from the Bar Council.
The court noted that since the proceedings before the Bar Council were quasi-judicial, an aggrieved party could make use of the Appeal remedies provided under the Advocates Act. The grounds of appeal shall include all the shortfalls in the order of the lower forum. Thus, when no further appeal is made against the order of the first appellate forum, there cannot be anymore grievances left out.
9. Arbitrator Appointed Under MSCS Act; Fixation Of Fees Is Subject To A&C Act: Madras High Court
Case Title: Air Corporation Employees Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. versus Registrar of Co-operative Societies
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 369
The Madras High Court has ruled that the power of the Central Registrar to appoint an arbitrator and fix the fees of arbitration under the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 (MSCS Act), is subject to the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act).
Holding that there is no provision under the MSCS Act where an exemption has been provided with respect to Section 38 of the A&C Act, which requires the parties to equally bear the advance costs to be deposited before the Arbitral Tribunal, the Single Bench of Justice C. Saravanan set aside the order of the State Registrar directing the petitioner to pay the fees and expenses to the Arbitrator.
Case Title: Narayanan v. State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 370
While confirming the life imprisonment of a man convicted for sexually abusing five children, the Madras High Court emphasized that the mere absence of physical injury does not rule out the sexual acts.
Justice PN Prakash and Justice Hemalatha held sexual activity with a child to be a criminal/ immoral act and emphasizing on making the society safe for children
Case Title: Subramanian P v. State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 371
Madras High Court recently dismissed a revision petition moved by a man accused of cheating and forgery after observing that while deciding upon discharge, the High Court only had to sift through the evidence on record and form an opinion on whether there was a prima facie case and a strong suspicion against the accused.
Case Title: M Sekar v. The District Collector and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 372
While directing the Assistant Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment to appoint a fit person to look into the affairs of the Sri Madurai Veeran, Karupparayan and Kannimar temple at Erode, the Madras High Court expressed concern on how temples were now becoming a cause for disturbance of law and order due to "ego clashes" between worshippers.
Justice Anand Venkatesh observed that temples are supposed to bring man closer to god. However presently, the courts were flooded with litigations and the police and revenue authorities were made to spend their lives resolving disputes between disputing parties.
Case Title: Sadam Hussain v. State and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 373
The Madras High Court recently granted bail to a man after observing that the entire case against him was based on suspicion and case was taken based on the confession statement. Justice S Vaidyanathan and Justice AD Jagdish Chandira also observed that there was no complaint made against the accused.
The court had also noted that no offence had taken place and no complaint was actually made by Kumaresan. The entire case was merely on the suspicion that arose in the mind of a police officer while doing his routine rounds. The court was therefore convinced that there was no prima facie case against the appellant.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Case Title: Safai Karamchari Andolan v. Union of India and others
Case No: WP No. 17380 of 2017
While hearing a petition seeking to put an end to the practice of manual scavenging, the Madras High Court on Monday held that if any municipality was seen to engage in the practice of manual scavenging, even through private contractors, the Commissioner of the said municipality shall be made liable for the same.
The bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice N Mala were hearing the petition filed by Safai Karmachari Andolan.
Case Title: Latha Educational Society Kaniyamoor v The State of Tamil Nadu and others
Case No: WP No.22084 of 2022
The Madras High Court on Tuesday directed the Collector of Kallakurichi District to consider the representation submitted by Latha Educational Society Kaniyamoor for reopening of its schools that were vandalized by rioters on July 17 following the death of a Class XII girl in one of the schools.
Justice Abdul Quddose directed the respondent authorities to consider the representation and pass an order within 10 days.
Case Title: V Senthil Balaji v. A Shankar
Case No: OA 509 of 2022 & A.No.3494 of 2022 in CS.No.172 of 2022
The Madras High Court on Tuesday granted an interim injunction to Minister Senthil Balaji in his plea against the defamatory allegations made by Youtuber Shankar alias Savukku Shankar. Justice Krishnan Ramasamy restrained Savukku Shankar from making any further derogatory vedios and statements.
The Madras High Court was on Monday constrained to remark that persons belonging to the LGBTQIA+ community have been sidelined from the main society for a long period and it was high time that the government gives priority to implementing rules and policies for them.
The remarks were made by Justice Anand Venkatesh after the State sought 6 more months to come up with the final Transgender Policy.
Case Title: K Balu v. Government of India and others
Case No: WP No. 21723 of 2022
The President of Advocates' Forum for Social Justice, K Balu has moved the Madras High Court seeking to constitute 9th National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC) and to appoint Chairperson, Vice Chairperson and members in the Commission. The petition also seeks to set up State/ Regional units of the NCBC.
When the matter was taken up on Wednesday, the bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice N Mala adjourned the case by six weeks directing the Union Ministry of Law and Justice and the Ministry of Appointments and Appointment Committee to file their counter.
Case Title: E Palaniswamy v. O Paneerselvam and others
Case No: OSA 227 of 2022
After a lengthy hearing that went on for the whole day, the Madras High Court on Thursday reserved orders on the appeal preferred by Edappadi Palaniswamy against a single judge order restoring status quo ante in the party as on 23rd June 2022.
The bench of Justice M Duraiswamy and Justice Sunder Mohan further directed the counsels to file their written submissions by 3 pm on Friday.
Manipur High Court
Case title - Sandam Bhogen Meetei v. State of Manipur
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Man) 9
"...under-trial prisoner's right to life does not diminish even a wee bit when in jail as an accused/convict for an offence and such person's health concerns have to be taken care by the State and if not done so, by the judiciary," the Manipur High Court recently observed as it released a POCSO Accused on bail on medical grounds. The bench of Justice M. V. Muralidaran further emphasized that the right to dignity of an accused does not dry out with the Judges, rather, it subsists beyond the prison gates and operates until his last breath.
Patna High Court
1. CrPC | Victim Not Required To Seek Leave To Appeal Against Order Of Acquittal: Patna High Court
Case Title : Smita Kumari @ Smita Devi v State Of Bihar And Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Pat) 22
The Patna High Court recently observed that victim of a crime has absolute right to prefer an appeal against the order of acquittal and is not required to even seek leave to appeal, unlike a complainant. The observation came from a division bench of Justice Khatim Reza and Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh:
"A victim has absolute right to prefer an appeal against the order of acquittal and therefore he/she is not required to even seek leave to appeal as required in case of "complainant" while preferring the appeal under Section 378(4) Criminal Procedure Code. We have kept this legal principle in mind while considering this appeal."
Case Title: Ajay Kumar Singh Versus Canara Bank and Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Pat) 23
The Patna High Court has made it clear that a disciplinary authority cannot rely on extraneous documents, such as those furnished during parallel criminal proceedings against the accused-employee, for the purpose of departmental enquiry. Justice PB Bajanthri observed,
"Extraneous document cannot be taken into consideration by the enquiry authority or disciplinary authority. The decision of disciplinary authority in relying on statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is extraneous and it is not in terms of Regulation 7 of Regulations, 1976."
Case Title: Rakesh Kumar Patel Versus The Bihar Public Service Commission and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Pat) 24
The Patna High Court has upheld the decision of Bihar Public Service Commission (Judicial Branch) not considering a candidate under reserved category over his failure to produce original non-creamy layer certificate at the time of interview in terms of requirement under interview letter. The division bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Singh & Justice Shailendra Singh observed:
"It is well settled that selection process has to be conducted strictly in accordance with the stipulated selection procedure which needs to be scrupulously maintained and there cannot be any relaxation in terms and conditions of advertisement unless such power is specifically reserved in relevant rules or in the advertisement."
Case title - Veera Yadav v. The Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar and others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Pat) 25
"The State is under constitutional as well as statutory obligation to protect the transgender community from the pervasive discrimination that they are facing," observed Patna High Court as it directed the Bihar Government to take steps to root out the prevailing discrimination against the community from within the general public.
The bench of Chief Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice S. Kumar further directed the Additional Chief Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Government of Bihar to convene a meeting, seek updates on the welfare measures and issue appropriate directions to ensure that all possible steps are taken for benefit of this community without any further delay.
Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case Title: Raman Kumar Versus State of Punjab
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 231
Punjab and Haryana High Court has reiterated that in terms of Section 437(6) of CrPC, bail ought to be granted where the trial in a case triable by Magistrate is not concluded within a period of 60 days after the first date fixed for the prosecution evidence. The observation was made by Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi while dealing with a petition under Section 439 CrPC for the grant of regular bail in FIR registered against the Petitioner under Sections 420, 409, 120-B IPC for allegedly cheating multiple people to the extent of Rs.1,01,32,600 on the pretext of opening RD, FDR.
2. Change Of Counsel Is No Ground To Recall Witness U/S 311 CrPC: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case Title: Rajinder Trehan. Versus M/s HDFC Bank Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 232
Punjab and Haryana High Court recently held that the change of counsel is no ground for recall of witness under Section 311 CrPC. The bench comprising Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi placed reliance on Supreme Court's judgement in Randhir Singh v. State of Haryana and held that the Court has vast powers that can be invoked to secure the ends of justice including summoning and examining or recalling and re-examining any person. But such power is exercised only if his evidence appears essential to the just decision of the case.
Case Title: National Insurance Company Limited Versus Roopa and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 233
Punjab and Haryana High Court recently held that if the insurance policy does not cover owner and only covers third party then owner or any other person claiming under him cannot maintain petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The bench comprising Justice Pankaj Jain noted that Section 146 of the 1988 Act statutorily requires an owner to insure against third party risk before use of the vehicle. No such mandate is stipulated with respect to cover of vehicle owner. However, insurer and the insured may contract for expansion of the statutory policy.
Case Title: Om Prakash Soni Vs State of Punjab and others, and connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 234
The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Monday directed the government to make fresh assessment in respect of security threats of 45 ex-Ministers, MPs and other persons who had approached the Court challenging orders of withdrawal, downgrading and de-categorization of State security cover. The bench comprising Justice Raj Mohan Singh however made it clear that state security cannot be granted for "displaying authority" of symbol or to "flaunt status" as a very important person.
Case Title: Mandeep Kaur Versus State of Punjab , with connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 235
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has highlighted that Section 42 of the NDPS Act which deals with Power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant or authorization relates only to search of a building, conveyance or enclosed place and includes 'parked vehicles'. However, Section 43 of the Act which provides Power of seizure and arrest in public place, relates to vehicles "in transit".
Case Title : Sanju v. State of Punjab
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 236
Punjab and Haryana High Court while dealing with a case registered under Section 18 of NDPS Act, held that the crime motorcycle impounded or seized should be released on superdari to the petitioner. The bench comprising Justice Sureshwar Thakur further added that in order to avoid the motorcycle from deteriorating in the police compound its release on superdari to the petitioner, is both just, and, expedient.
Case Title: Amit Kumar (Deceased) through his LR's mother Smt. Sushila Devi v. State of Haryana and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 237
Punjab and Haryana High Court recently held that Section 389 of CrPC and Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are independent of each other. Whereas Section 389 is meant for protecting the personal liberty of the convict, Section 148 is auxiliary or supplemental to the mandate carried in Section 389. Section 389 CrPC provides for suspension of sentence pending appeal/ release of appellant on bail. Section 148 NI Act prescribes power of Appellate Court to order payment (minimum of twenty percent of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial Court) pending appeal against conviction.
Rajasthan High Court
Case Title: Punjab National Bank & Anr. v. Mukesh Kumar Soni
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 222
The Rajasthan High Court has upheld the decision of a bank denying compassionate appointment saying that the deceased's family was not facing "indigent circumstances" warranting employment under the State's scheme of 2014. PNB had rejected the respondent's claim for compassionate appointment after his father expired while serving as a Head Cashier, on the ground that the family was not facing indigent circumstances.
Case Title: Rahul Jain & Ors. v. Baroda Rajasthan Kshetriya Gramin Bank & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 223
The Rajasthan High Court has opined that the recruiting agency-Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS) cannot refuse to recommend names of eligible and suitable candidates to fill up all notified vacancies in Banks, if the candidates of desired merit are available. Any delay occasioned in filling up the notified vacancies may render many eligible candidates ineligible to participate in the next recruitment process, added the court.
Case Title: M/s. Shrimali Industries Pvt. Ltd. Versus State Of Rajasthan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 224
The Rajasthan High Court has held that, by no stretch of imagination, can brand new aluminium sections be placed on equivalence with aluminium scrap. The goods were fraudulently described as aluminium scrap. The division bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Kuldeep Mathur has observed that the department was justified in detaining the petitioner's vehicle and the goods after noticing the blatant mis-description during interception.
Case Title: Gram Panchayat, Dujana Panchayat Samiti, Sumerpur District Pali, Through Its Sarpanch Smt. Panku Devi v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 225
The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation seeking direction to the National Highway Authority of India to not construct a by-pass on the highways. The PIL filed by the Gram Panchayat of a village close to NH 325 also sought direction to the NHAI to construct the highway through the populated area of the village so that the development of the village can take place likewise.
Sikkim High Court
Case Title: Shri Ashok Tshering Bhutia Versus The Divisional Forest Officer (T) and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Sik) 8
The Sikkim High Court recently dismissed a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution seeking permission to amend plaint and file a written statement to the counter-claim filed by the respondents, pending proceedings before the Civil Court under Order XLI Rule 25 CPC. The provision provides that an Appellate Court may frame certain additional issues for examination and refer them to trial court whose decree is appealed.
