20 July 2022 12:15 PM GMT
Allahabad High Court NOMINAL INDEX State of U.P. v. Baij Nath And Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 316 Nahid Hasan v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 317 Vice Chairman Abss Institute Of Technology v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 318 Shireen v. State Of U.P. And Ors 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 319 Committee of Management, Imambara Qadeem, Manauri, District Prayagraj through...
Allahabad High Court
State of U.P. v. Baij Nath And Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 316
Nahid Hasan v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 317
Vice Chairman Abss Institute Of Technology v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 318
Shireen v. State Of U.P. And Ors 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 319
Committee of Management, Imambara Qadeem, Manauri, District Prayagraj through its Secretary and another v. Union of India and others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 320
State of U.P. v. Laxmi And Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 321
Mumtaz Mansoori v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 322
State of U.P. v. The Court Of Spl. Judge M.P./M.L.A./A.S.J.VI raebareli And ors 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 323
Orders/Judgment of the Week
Utmost Precaution Needed While Finding Accused Guilty On The Basis Of Circumstantial Evidence: Allahabad High Court
Case title - State of U.P. v. Baij Nath And Others [GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 1709 of 1984]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 316
The Allahabad High Court recently observed that the Court shall take utmost precaution in finding the accused guilty only on the basis of circumstantial evidence. With this, the Court upheld the acquittal order passed by Assistant Sessions Judge, Mirzapur in an attempt to murder case (Section 307 IPC).
The Bench of Justice Om Prakash-VII and Justice Umesh Chandra Sharma noted that the witnesses in the instant cases were not able to recognize the accused persons and the accused persons were named in F.I.R on account of enmity.
Criminal Intimidation Case: Allahabad High Court Denies Bail To Uttar Pradesh MLA Nahid Hasan
Case title - Nahid Hasan v. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8054 of 2022]
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 317
The Allahabad High Court denied bail to Kairana MLA Nahid Hasan in connection with a case of criminal intimidation. The Bench of Justice Samit Gopal denied him bail looking to his criminal history and the order sheet of the trial court showing that he avoided appearing before the trial court.
Essentially, an FIR was registered under Section 406, 504, 506, I.P.C against Hasan and one Nawab by one Shahjahan alleging therein that her husband had given a Bolero pick-up vehicle of which he was the registered owner on rent in the year 2015 to co-accused Nawab.
Courts Shouldn't Stay Termination & Dismissal Orders During The Pendency Of Court Proceedings: Allahabad High Court
Case title - Vice Chairman Abss Institute Of Technology v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others [SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 306 of 2022]
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 318
Referring to several landmark rulings, the Allahabad High Court has observed that by way of an interim order the order of suspension termination, dismissal and transfer etc. should not be stayed during the pendency of the proceedings in Court.
The Bench of Justice Pritinker Diwaker and Justice Ashutosh Srivastava was essentially dealing with an Intra Court Appeal filed questioning the interlocutory order passed in March 2022 wherein the termination order against an employee of Abss Institute Of Technology was stayed during the pendency of the writ plea filed by the employee challenging the termination order.
No Appeal Can Be Maintained By 'Victim' U/S 372 CrPC On The Ground Of Inadequacy Of Sentence: Allahabad High Court
Case title - Shireen v. State Of U.P. And Ors [APPLICATION U/S 378 No. - 142 of 2017]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 319
The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that no appeal can be maintained by the victim under Section 372 CrPC on the ground of inadequacy of sentence and therefore, the appeal preferred by the 'victim' [as defined under Section 2w (wa) of the Cr.P.C.] of the crime against the inadequacy of sentence is not maintainable.
The bench of Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan in its order clarified that the appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. [No appeal to lie unless otherwise provided] could only be filed on the happening of three situations namely
(i) When the accused person(s) have been acquitted;
(ii) When the accused person(s) have been convicted for a lesser offence;
(iii) Where inadequate compensation has been imposed by the Court (s).
Allahabad HC Dismisses Plea Against UP Govt's 'Resumption' Notification Apropos Imambara Qadeem Property In Prayagraj
Case title - Committee of Management, Imambara Qadeem, Manauri, District Prayagraj through its Secretary and another v. Union of India and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 320
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a plea challenging the 2012 notification of the Uttar Pradesh Government resuming a piece of land [1500 square meters] in Village Manauri, District Prayagraj where currently a building known as Imambara Qadeem is situated.
Essentially, the UP Government invoked its powers of resumption under Section 117(6) of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 to take possession of the property in question. This was done for the Dedicated Freight Corridor project.
Can Reappreciate Evidence In Appeal Against Acquittal But Strong Circumstances Needed To Reverse Order: Allahabad High Court
Case title - State of U.P. v. Laxmi And Others [GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 2995 of 1985]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 321
The Allahabad High Court has observed that in an appeal against the order of acquittal, there is no embargo for reappreciating the evidence and taking a different view; but there must be strong circumstances to reverse the order of acquittal.
"In the appeal against order of acquittal, the paramount consideration of the appellate court should be to avoid miscarriage of justice.ere must be strong circumstances to reverse the order of acquittal," the Bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Justice Mohd. Aslam observed.
These observations were made while ALLOWING government appeal against a judgment and order passed by Sessions Judge, Banda in 1985 by which 3 accused-respondents were acquitted from the charge of offence punishable under Sections 302/34 I.P.C. One of the respondents died during the appeal.
Allahabad High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Man Who Allegedly Called Prime Minister, Home Minister 'Dog'
Case title - Mumtaz Mansoori v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 7015 of 2020]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 322
The Allahabad High Court refused to quash the First Information Report filed against one Mumtaz Mansoori who allegedly called the Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi, Union Home Minister of India, Amit Shah, and other Union Ministers as 'Dog'.
The Bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rajendra Kumar-IV observed that although our Constitution recognizes freedom of speech, however, such right does not extend to hurling abuses or making derogatory remarks against any citizen much less the Prime Minister or other Ministers of the Government of India.
Allahabad High Court Allows State's Plea For Withdrawal Of Criminal Case Against State Minister Mayankeshwar Sharan Singh
Case title - State of U.P. v. The Court Of Spl. Judge M.P./M.L.A./A.S.J.VI raebareli And ors [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 12 of 2021]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 323
The Allahabad High Court allowed the state government's application to withdraw a criminal case against Uttar Pradesh Minister of State for Health, Mayankeswar Saran Singh.
The Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh observed that when the complainant himself is not supporting the prosecution case, then there is no chance of conviction of the accused in the case and thus, withdrawal from prosecution would be in the interest of justice.
Other updates from the High Court
Dogs Maul Minor Boy To Death: Allahabad HC Proposes ₹10 Lakhs Compensation To Family, Seeks Lucknow Nagar Nigam's Reply
Dealing with a suo moto case regarding an incident wherein an eight-year-old boy was killed and his sister was severely injured after they were attacked by more than 20 stray dogs in Lucknow, the Allahabad High Court has asked the Lucknow Nagar Nigam to file an affidavit as to why a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- may not be awarded to the family of the deceased child.
The bench of Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi further asked the Lucknow Nagar Nigam to file a separate affidavit regarding the legal position and compliance thereof by Nagar Nigam for ensuring the safety of street dogs.
Jagadguru Paramhans' Plea Seeking Entry To Taj Mahal With 'Dharmdand' & 'Bhagwa Vastra': Allahabad HC Seeks UOI, State Govt Reply
Case title - Jagadguru Paramhans Acharya v. Union Of India And 5 Others [WRIT - C No. - 13882 of 2022]
The Allahabad High Court sought a response from the central and state government on a plea moved by Jagadguru Paramhans Acharya's seeking permission to enter the Taj Mahal premises in Agra with his Dharmdand (made of wood) wearing 'Bhagwa Vastra'.
The division bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Yogendra Kumar Srivastava has posted the matter for further hearing on September 5 as it asked the Union of India and the state government to filed their responses in four weeks' time.
Allahabad High Court To Decide On Enforceability Of A Promise Made By The Chief Minister To The Public At Large
Case title - Suraj Singh And Others v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Finance Civil Sectt. U.P. Lko. And Others [WRIT - C No. - 4138 of 2022]
The Allahabad High Court is set to examine the question as to whether a promise made to the public at large by the Chief Minister of the State be made enforceable or not.
The Bench of Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi and Justice Narendra Kumar Johari was dealing with a plea moved by Suraj Singh And Others seeking 5 lakh compensation based on an announcement made by the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh.
"Machines, Protective Gears Not Being Used For Cleaning Of Drains In Prayagraj": Allahabad High Court 'Summons' DM
Case title - In Re Ensuring the Security of Life and Safety of Health of the workmen and employees engaged v. The Chief Secretary, Government of U.P.
Taking note of the photographs depicting that no protective gears have been provided to the workers and they were still waist deep under the water for cleaning drains in the city of Prayagraj, the Allahabad High Court summoned the District Magistrate and Nagar Ayukt, Prayagraj.
Essentially, the Bench of Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice J. J. Munir was dealing with a suo moto PIL plea wherein the Court had taken note of a news item showing that without any protective gears, open drains were being cleaned up by the persons deployed either by the Nagar Nigam or through contractors in the district.
[Gyanvapi] Historical Wrong Can Be Adjudicated By Court Of Present Regime: Lord Vishweshwar's Next Friend Argues In Allahabad HC
Case title - Anjuman Intazamia Masazid Varanasi Vs. Ist A.D.J. Varanasi And Others [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3341 of 2017]
In the ongoing hearing before the Allahabad High Court in connection with the Kashi Vishwanath temple-Gyanvapi mosque dispute, the next friend of Lord Vishweshwar and one of the contesting respondents in the case argued that if a historical wrong has been done by the previous sovereign regime, the matter can be adjudicated by the Municipal Court of the present sovereign regime.
Before the Bench of Justice Prakash Padia, it was further argued that Waren Hastings [first Governor-General of Bengal in 1772–1785] had constructed Naubatkhana on the temple of Lord Vishweshwar and recognized the rights of Hindus over the Gyanwapi Compound.
Allahabad High Court Raps UP Cops For Razing Residential House Sans Registration Of Execution Case, Seeks SP's Presence
Case title - Mohammad Sayed And Another v. Mohd. Isha And 7 Others
The Allahabad High Court rapped Uttar Pradesh Police officials for providing assistance in demolishing a residential house without any execution case having been registered for the execution of the decree.
Following this, the Bench of Justice Salil Kumar Rai sought the personal presence of the Superintendent of Police and the erring officials in the court on July 22, 2022, along with their personal affidavits explaining their conduct.
Lakhimpur Kheri Violence: Allahabad High Court Reserves Judgment On Bail Plea Of Ashish Mishra
Case title - Ashish Mishra @ Monu v. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13762 of 2021]
The Allahabad High Court reserved its judgment on the bail plea of the Union Minister's Son, Ashish Mishra, who is a prime accused in the Lakhimpur Kheri Violence case.
Mishra is facing a case of Murder for an incident that took place on October 3, 2021, when four protesting farmers were killed after they were mowed down by an SUV, in which Mishra was allegedly sitting.
Having heard the arguments for both sides, the Bench of Justice Krishan Pahal reserved its judgment in the matter yesterday. Earlier, Justice Rajiv Singh of Allahabad High Court's Lucknow Bench had recused himself from hearing the case.
Mishra, who was earlier granted bail by the Allahabad HC in Feb 2022, has to again move to the High Court as the HC's earlier order was set aside by the Supreme Court in April 2022 and had ordered fresh consideration of his bail plea.
Bombay High Court
Karishma Prakash vs UOI 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 247
Syed Athar Ali and Another vs The State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 248
United Projects Versus The State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 249
ABC vs XYZ 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 250
ABC 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 251
Friends & Friends Shipping Pvt. Ltd v. Central Warehousing Corporation 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 252
Raman & Manthan v. The State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 253
Jagannath Khanderao Kedar and Anr. v. Gopinath Bhimaji Kedar and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 254
Sathyanarayana Rani v. State 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 255
SSR Case: Bombay High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail To Celebrity Manager Karishma Prakash
Case Title: Karishma Prakash vs UOI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 247
The bench referred the following question to a larger bench for consideration. "Whether all offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 are non-bailable, irrespective of the punishment prescribed and irrespective of the fact that many offences do not even mandate imprisonment as a punishment?"
The Bombay High Court rejected the anticipatory bail application of Karishma Prakash, actor Deepika Padukone's former manager, in the drugs connected to actor Sushant Singh Rajput's death. The court observed that her claims of using CBD oil (cannibus) because of the rashes that broke out due to stress after receiving summons in the case, did not appear truthful. Moreover, her custodial interrogation was necessary to investigate bank transactions, allegedly to procure drugs.
S438 CrPC - Asking Accused To Mark Attendance At Police Station Not Mere Formality, It Is An Opportunity For IO To Investigate: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Syed Athar Ali and Another v. The State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 248
The Aurangabad Bench said that the condition of "police attendance" imposed by the court on an accused is not a mere formality and must be used by the police for proper investigation.
"Granting the attendance is not for the purpose of mere attendance. It is an opportunity to the Investigation Officer to make investigation in pursuance of the allegations made against the accused," the court said while granting anticipatory bail.
Mandatory Pre-Deposit U/S 129E of the Customs Act Is Constitutional: Bombay High Court
Case Title: United Projects Versus The State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 249
The Bombay High Court ruled that by virtue of section 129E of the Customs Act, the right to appeal is a conditional right. The legislature, in its wisdom, has imposed a condition of deposit of a percentage of duty demanded or penalty levied or both.
"Mother Can't Be Asked To Choose Between Child & Career": Bombay High Court Permits Woman To Go Abroad With Daughter
Case title: ABC vs XYZ
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 250
Observing that a woman cannot be asked to choose between her career and child the Bombay High Court directed her estranged husband to give his no objection for her to travel along with her daughter to Poland.
"...the impugned order has failed to consider the important aspect of right to development, being vested in the petitioner as she cannot be asked to choose between her child and her career, the impugned order is quashed and set aside."
Bombay High Court Directs National ART & Surrogacy Board To Decide Lawyer Couple's Plea For Transfer Of Cryo-Preserved Embryo
Case Title: ABC
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 251
The Bombay High Court has directed the National Assisted Reproductive Technology and Surrogacy Board to expeditiously decide a Mumbai based couple's plea to transfer their cryo-preserved embryos from a hospital to an IVF clinic.
This will be the first case to be decided by the National Board, counsel for the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare said.
The lawyer-couple approached the High Court as the hospital was unwilling to transfer their embryos citing the new Act, and also due to the ambiguity around constitution and functioning of the National board and State boards under the ART and Surrogacy Act.
Amendment To Section 34 Application Of The A&C Act Would Not Be Permissible If It Intends A New Challenge: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Friends & Friends Shipping Pvt. Ltd v. Central Warehousing Corporation
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 252
The Aurangabad Bench of Bombay High Court held that an amendment to the application under Section 34 of the A&C Act would not be allowed if it leads to absolutely new grounds to challenge the award.
The Single Bench of Justice Mangesh S. Patil held that in an appropriate case it is permissible to allow the amendment to application under Section 34 even beyond the period provided under Section 34(3) of the Act, however, the amendment can only add some facts to the pending challenge but it cannot be allowed if it constitutes a fresh challenge.
JJ Act | Child In Conflict With Law Can Seek Anticipatory Bail U/S 438 CrPC: Bombay High Court
Case title : Raman & Manthan v. The State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 253
The Bombay High Court has held that a child in conflict with law as per the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act) can file an application under Section 438 of CrPC, seeking anticipatory bail.
A division bench of Justices Sarang Kotwal and Bharat Deshpande observed, " When a child in conflict with law is apprehended, his liberty is curtailed. Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. affords a valuable right to a person, who is likely to be arrested or in other words, whose liberty is likely to be curtailed. Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. does not make any distinction between different persons
[Order 1 Rule 10 CPC] Can't Compel Plaintiff To Wage Legal Battle Against A Person Against Their Will: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Jagannath Khanderao Kedar and Anr. v. Gopinath Bhimaji Kedar and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 254
The Bombay High Court has held that a plaintiff cannot be forced to sue third parties who have no interest or share in the suit property.
"..the plaintiff is dominus litis which latin expression means that the plaintiff is the master of the suit," the court stated. It added that the only exception to this would be if the law necessitated the presence of third party, either as necessary party or proper party.
Gadchiroli Blast Case: Bombay High Court Grants Bail To 72-Yrs-Old Alleged Naxal Operative
Case Title: Sathyanarayana Rani v. State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 255
Bombay High Court granted bail to 72-year-old to Sathyanarayana Rani, arrested in 2019 for allegedly being a top Naxal operative and conspiring the attack on security personnel in Gadchiroli.
On May 1, 2019 fifteen security personnel from the Quick Response Team (QRT) and one civilian were killed in an IED explosion attack in Gadchiroli. The case was subsequently transferred to the National Investigation Agency (NIA).
Bombay High Court Directs District Committee To Decide On Alleged Unauthorised Construction Of Mosque In Two Weeks
Case Title: Arya Samaj Jalna vs The State of Maharashtra
The Aurangabad Bench of Bombay High Court has directed a District Committee to decide the fate of an alleged unauthorised mosque in Jalna within two weeks.
Further, the construction stands on the road. This construction contravened a 2009 Supreme Court order in Union of India vs. State of Gujarat according to the petitioner. "…..the administration, both civil and municipal, have been lax in taking action to remove the same (unauthorised mosque)", the petitioner submitted. They sought a writ of mandamus directing the administration to remove the unauthorized construction
Don't Mind Helipads But We Want Roads Too: Bombay HC Asks State To Find Solution For Village Girls Navigating Through River & Forest To Reach School
Case title: High Court on Its own motion
The Bombay High Court sought highest level bureaucratic intervention on the issue of 'pitiable conditions' in which young girls in Satara district of Maharashtra have been taking an arduous journey to their school.
It has directed that Chief Secretary of Maharashtra to consult with other stakeholders and devise a solution by August 30.
Bombay High Court Stays Parts Of GR Barring Private Practice By Govt Doctors
Case Title: Dr. Anil Shankar Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
The Bombay High Court granted interim stay on five clauses of a Government Resolution dated 7th August, 2012 essentially forbidding government doctors from private practice in non -duty hours. A division bench of Justices S.V. Gangapurwala & S. M. Modak was hearing a writ petition filed by a Pune doctor seeking a writ of mandamus against the state.
Calcutta High Court
1. "Sound Level Must Be Within Permissible Limit": Calcutta High Court Calls For Vigil To Prevent Noise Pollution
CASE TITLE: Tarunmoy Modak v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 267
The Calcutta High Court has reiterated that sound level of loudspeakers, microphones, etc. must be within the permissible limit and a general vigil must be maintained by the Police to prevent public nuisance by means of noise pollution in the city. The order was passed on a petition filed by a retired bank employee who alleged that the police authorities in his area had failed to take steps even though several complaints were filed alleging indiscriminate use of loudspeakers and microphones by some persons in the locality, in which he resided. The petitioner submitted that such public nuisance, caused by noise pollution due to blaring music from loudspeakers which do not have sound limiters, must be prevented by the police.
Chhattisgarh High Court
1. 498-A IPC Report Can't Be Used As Weapon To Teach Lesson To In-Laws To Settle Scores With Husband: Chhattisgarh HC
Case title: Dr. Ramkeshwar Singh vs Smt. Sheela Singh @ Madhusingh [FAM No. 94 of 2013]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Chh) 51
The Chhattisgarh High Court recently observed that the report u/s 498-A IPC cannot be used as a weapon to teach a lesson to the entire family of the husband to settle a matrimonial score with the husband.
The bench of Justice Goutam Bhaduri and Justice Rajani Dubey observed thus while granting a decree of divorce to the husband after noting that there was an irretrievable break-down of marriage that was beyond repairs.
Delhi High Court
Citations 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 634 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 662
M/S. SPML Infra Ltd. versus M/S. Trisquare Switchgears Pvt. Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 634
META PLATFORMS, INC. v. NOUFEL MALOL & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 635
DAMINI MANCHANDA v. AVINASH BHAMBHANI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 636
Fresenius Medical Care Dialysis Service India Pvt. Ltd. v. Kerry Indev Logistics Pvt. Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 637
Pratyush Prasanna v. State NCT of Delhi and other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 638
Mrs. Manharleen Kaur v. Union of India & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 639
JA ENTERTAINMENT PVT LTD v. MS SITHARA ENTERTAINMENT & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 640
ANIL KUMAR TALAN v. STATE (GOVERNMENT NCT OF DELHI) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 641
SHRI SALEK CHAND JAIN v. MINISTRY OF SOCIAL JUSTICE AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 642
Nishant Chawla v. TDSAT 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 643
SMT. SHASHI SEHDEV v. SH. NARENDER KUMAR SHARMA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 644
Triveni Healthcure Private Ltd v. GNCTD 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 645
Avneet Kaur v. Sadhu Singh & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 646
National Research Development Corporation and Anr. versus Mak Controls and Systems Private Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 647
Swastik Pipe Ltd. versus Dimple Verma 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 648
DLF HOMES RAJAPURA PVT. LTD v. LATE O.P. MEHTA & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 649
ALOK TRIPATHI v. STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 650
BHAG SINGH GAMBHIR AND ORS v. RAMA ARORA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 651
Vishwanath Kumar & Ors. v. National Testing Agency & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 652
SNAPDEAL PRIVATE LIMITED v. GODADDYCOM LLC AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 653
SARVINDER SINGH & ANR v. VIPUL TANDON 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 654
NEHA SAINI AND ANR. v. RAGHUBIR SINGH AND ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 655
Delhi Electrical Contractor Welfare Association v. BSES Yamuna Power Limited & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 656
Madan Lal Suryawanshi v. Tara Devi (now deceased through its LRs) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 657
VEENA JOSHI v. CPIO,CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 658
Splendor Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. versus Rajesh Kumar Pasricha 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 659
MS. X v. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 660
DILIP KUMAR v. THE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 661
JAMSHED ADIL KHAN & ANR. v. UNION TERRITORY OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 662
1. Section 8 Application Should Be Filed Within Time Available For Filing Written Statement: Delhi High Court
Case Title: M/S. SPML Infra Ltd. versus M/S. Trisquare Switchgears Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 634
The Delhi High Court has ruled that if a party fails to file an application under Section 8(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) for referring the parties to arbitration within the time available for filing the first statement on the substance of the dispute, which would include a written statement in the context of a suit, the party would forfeit its right to apply under Section 8(1) of the A&C Act.
The Division Bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan held that the amendment to Section 8 of the A&C Act by the 2015 Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act cannot be considered in isolation, in view of the fact that the Parliament has also enacted the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which came into force on the same date as the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015.
The Court observed that by virtue of the amendments made to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by the Commercial Courts Act, the Parliament has curtailed the outer time limit for filing a written statement in a commercial suit. The Court added that the said amendments were made to ensure expeditious adjudication of commercial disputes.
2. Trademark Infringement Suit By Meta: Delhi High Court Permanently Restrains Use Of 'Facebake', Other Facebook Formative Trademarks
Case Title: META PLATFORMS, INC. v. NOUFEL MALOL & ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 635
In a trademark infringement suit filed by Meta (formerly known as Facebook), the Delhi High Court has permanently restrained the use of marks namely 'facebake' and 'facecake', Facebook marks, Facebook Visual Presentation and any other 'Facebook‟ formative trademarks of the social media giant.
Justice Navin Chawla also awarded nominal damages of Rs.50,000 in favour of Meta Platforms Inc. and against the defendants. The Court also directed the defendants to pay cost of the suit to Meta.
Meta moved the Court after being aggrieved over the adoption of the mark "Facebake" by the defendant no.1, namely Noufel Malol, which was allegedly mimicking the visual presentation by copying the colour scheme, font, commercial impression, and overall look and feel of Facebook, and thus was intentionally trading off the significant goodwill established in "Facebook‟ marks.
3. Delhi High Court Restrains Husband From Pursuing Matrimonial Case In Canada During Pendency Of Divorce Petition Filed By Wife In India
Case Title: DAMINI MANCHANDA v. AVINASH BHAMBHANI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 636
The Delhi High Court has taken a serious view of a case wherein the Husband deliberately avoided service in the divorce proceedings filed by his wife in India, refused to appear before the Court here and filed a separate divorce case in Canadian Court.
Justice Amit Bansal passed an interim injunction against the husband restraining him from proceeding with the divorce suit filed by him before the Canadian Court.
4. Subrogation Deed Does Not Terminate The Right Of The Assured To Initiate Arbitration Against The Wrongdoer: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Fresenius Medical Care Dialysis Service India Pvt. Ltd. v. Kerry Indev Logistics Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 637
The Delhi High Court has held that arbitration can be invoked by the insured even after entering into a subrogation-cum-assignment agreement with an insurance company.
The Single Bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva held that subrogation does not put an end to the right of the assured to initiate legal proceedings against the wrongdoer, it merely allows the insurer to step into the shoes of the insured to recover the damages.
5. Delhi High Court Closes Pleas Seeking Dignified Burial/ Cremation Of Dead Bodies Amid COVID-19 Pandemic
Case Title: Pratyush Prasanna v. State NCT of Delhi and other connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 638
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday disposed of a batch of petitions filed amid the surge in cases relating to COVID-19, seeking directions for dignified burial or cremation of dead bodies.
A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad took note of the detailed status report filed by the local bodies, indicating the steps taken for increasing the number of crematoriums and burial grounds in the city.
The Court noted that as per the status report, while the pandemic like situation is not in existence anymore, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi has not received any complaint of any kind in respect of lack of facility to cremate or bury an individual.
6. Candidates Wearing Kara/ Kirpan Must Be Given Advance Notice To Reach Exam Centre One Hour Before Reporting Time: Delhi High Court Tells DSSSB
Case Title: Mrs. Manharleen Kaur v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 639
The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) to ensure that an adequate notice is given to candidates desirous of wearing a kara or kirpan, regarding the additional requirement for them to reach the examination centre one hour before the reporting time. The court directed that the notice must be given well in advance so that no undue hardship is caused to them.
Justice Rekha Palli directed thus while dealing with a plea challenging denial of entry to a Sikh woman, for an exam being conducted by DSSSB, for the reason of her wearing kara.
"It is expected that not only the DSSSB but all other recruiting agencies who conduct similar examinations will take appropriate steps in this regard well before the conduct of the examinations," the Court added.
7. 'Copyright Owners Have Right To Dub Cinema' : Delhi High Court Vacates Stay On Hindi Dub Of Telugu Movie "Bheemla Nayak"
CASE TITLE: JA ENTERTAINMENT PVT LTD v. MS SITHARA ENTERTAINMENT & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 640
The Delhi High Court recently vacated its earlier ex-parte injunction order against M/s Sithara Entertainment which barred it from releasing the Hindi-dubbed version of its Telugu remake of the Malayalam film "Ayyappanum Koshiyum". A single judge bench of Justice Jyoti Singh, while vacating the earlier order, held that the owners of copyright in a cinematographic work will have the right to both sub-title and dub their work.
"...by the operation of law, Defendant No. 1 in its own right as a copyright owner has a right to dub the Telugu film in any language including Hindi and Plaintiff cannot assert any right to restrain Defendant No. 1 from dubbing the Telugu film in Hindi", the Court observed.
The plaintiff JA Entertainment Pvt Ltd, in this suit, had sought for permanent injunction restraining defendants from dubbing the Telugu film "Bheemla Nayak" in Hindi as the plaintiffs have the right for Hindi remake of the Malayalam original.
8. [Matrimonial Disputes] Allowing Fabricated Omnibus Allegations Against Entire Family May Lead To Further Misuse Of Process Of Law: Delhi High Court
Case Title: ANIL KUMAR TALAN v. STATE (GOVERNMENT NCT OF DELHI)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 641
The Delhi High Court has observed that allowing fabricated allegations against the entire family in matrimonial disputes may lead to further misuse of process of law.
"If false implication by fabricated omnibus allegations against entire family in the course of matrimonial disputes and differences, is allowed, it may lead to further misuse of the process of law and assume serious proportions," Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta observed.
The Court made the observation while denying anticipatory bail to father of a married woman in an FIR registered under sec. 182, 192, 195, 203, 389, 420, 469, 470, 471, 500, 120B and 34 of IPC.
9. Central Govt Has Taken Steps To Bring De-Notified Nomadic Tribes Into Mainstream Of The Country: Delhi High Court
Case Title: SHRI SALEK CHAND JAIN v. MINISTRY OF SOCIAL JUSTICE AND ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 642
The Delhi High Court has observed that steps have been taken by the Central Government to bring the de-notified nomadic tribes into the mainstream of the Country.
A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad disposed of a public interest litigation seeking directions to make proper scheme and its implementation so that the each and every member of the de-notified nomadic and semi-nomadic tribes enjoy the fundamental rights guaranteed in the Constitution of India.
It was the case of the petitioner that the members of the de-notified Nomadic Tribes, Semi-Nomadic Tribes and Nomadic Tribes like Banjare, GadiaLuhar, Bawaria, Nat, Kalbelia, Bopa, Sikligar, Singiwal,Kuchbanda, Kalander etc. were being neglected and had not been properly brought into the mainstream.
10. [Disparity In Pay Scale] Classification Based On Mode Of Recruitment, Qualification & Merit Not Unreasonable: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Nishant Chawla v. TDSAT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 643
The Delhi High Court has held that whereas the "Equal Pay for Equal Work" is a constitutional goal, however, there is no absolute application of the principle by default, within or across organisations/ departments.
A single bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh observed that organisations as well as the government have the liberty to set different pay scale, where they make a reasonable, valid and intelligible classification for employees placed at similar grades and work profiles.
"(There are) several considerations to be borne in mind while deciding the issue of parity between two posts, whether in the same organisation or across different organisations/ departments. There is definitely no mathematical application of the principle of parity and "Equal Pay for Equal Work" and it is the Courts of the country that have laid down various factors for deciding the question of parity amongst different designations," the bench observed.
11. [Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC] Recall Applications Can't Be Allowed Merely For Filling Lacuna In Cross-Examination: Delhi High Court
CASE TITLE: SMT. SHASHI SEHDEV v. SH. NARENDER KUMAR SHARMA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 644
The Delhi High Court has held that recall applications under Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC cannot be allowed merely for filling lacuna in cross-examination by engaging a new counsel.
A single judge bench comprising of Justice C. Hari Shankar further held that the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Indian Constitution was intended to be used sparingly for keeping subordinate courts within bounds and not for correcting mere errors.
12. Start-Ups Can't Seek Relaxation Of Tender Conditions As A Matter Of Right, Especially In Field Of Healthcare: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Triveni Healthcure Private Ltd v. GNCTD
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 645
The Delhi High Court has held that a Start-up company cannot claim relaxation in tender processes as a matter of right, especially in certain fields like health care that require past experience and other qualifications.
While dismissing a writ petition filed by a start-up supplier against Delhi govt's Rajiv Gandhi Super Speciality Hospital, a division bench of Chief Justice SC Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad held,
"The executive instruction does not make it mandatory for any establishment to relax the condition in respect of turnover and prior experience/ EMD as the word "may" has been used in the policy Circular dated 10.03.2016."
The executive instruction was issued by the Centre in March 2016, titled 'Relaxation of Norms for Startups and Micro & Small Enterprises in Public Procurement on Prior Experience – Prior Turnover Criteria.'
13. S.7 Family Courts Act | Circumstances Arising Out Of Marital Relationship May Include Not Only Husband & Wife But Also Parents-In-Law: Delhi HC
Case Title: Avneet Kaur v. Sadhu Singh & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 646
The Delhi High Court has held that the words "circumstances arising out of marital relationship" used in reference to filing of suit for injunction under Clause (d) of the explanation to Section 7 (1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 would include not only the husband and wife but may also include the parents-in-law.
A single bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar made it clear that what is to be seen is not the relationship between the parties but whether the circumstances in which the suit is filed arose out of a matrimonial relationship.
If the answer to the aforesaid is in the affirmative, then the provision would apply and the Family Courts would have exclusive jurisdiction to deal with such applications for injunction.
14. Even If The Principal Agreement Is Non-Existent, The Arbitration Clause Would Still Apply: Delhi High Court
Case Title: National Research Development Corporation and Anr. versus Mak Controls and Systems Private Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 647
The Delhi High Court has ruled that even if the principal agreement is non-existent, the arbitration clause contained therein would still apply.
The Single Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao observed that since the issue of limitation and arbitrability was not conclusive against the party, the issue was amenable to the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal.
The petitioner National Research Development Corporation and the respondent Mak Controls and Systems Private Limited entered into a 'Programme Aimed at Technological Self Reliance' Scheme (PATSER Agreement), for development of a GPS. Under the said PATSER Agreement, the respondent was provided financial assistance for the development of the GPS. In terms of the PATSER Agreement, a Royalty Agreement was also entered into between the parties, which provided for details regarding the payment obligations of the respondent.
15. Arbitration Clause Contained In A Tax Invoice Is Binding: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Swastik Pipe Ltd. versus Dimple Verma
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 648
The Delhi High Court has ruled that an arbitration clause contained in a tax invoice is binding between the parties.
Noting that the opposite party had earlier received similar tax invoices, against which it had made payments, the Single Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao ruled that the party could not disown the clear stipulation contained in the tax invoice with regard to any dispute being referred to arbitration.
Certain goods were purchased by the respondent Dimple Verma from the petitioner Swastik Pipe Ltd. on a running account basis. On the basis of tax invoices issued by the petitioner, part payments were subsequently made by the respondent. After the respondent failed to clear the dues, the petitioner invoked the arbitration clause contained in the terms and conditions of the tax invoice. The petitioner filed a petition before the Delhi High Court for appointment of a Sole Arbitrator.
16. [Order XXII Rule 3 CPC] Delay In Filing Application For Substitution Of Legal Heirs Must Be Sufficiently Explained: Delhi High Court
CASE TITLE- DLF HOMES RAJAPURA PVT. LTD v. LATE O.P. MEHTA & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 649
The Delhi High Court has held that applications under Order XXII Rule 3 of CPC for substitution of legal heirs, or under Order XXII Rule 9 of the Code for setting aside abatement of proceedings must be considered liberally. However, the delay in moving such applications must be sufficiently justified.
A single bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar further stated that any such delay must meet the threshold requirement which an application seeking condonation of delay is required to meet.
Briefly, the facts of the case are that a consumer case was preferred by the respondents against the petitioner herein before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC). The consumer case was filed as a joint consumer complaint, and was stated to have been preferred in a representative capacity for the benefit of entire class of persons having the same interest.
17. Duty Of Legal Services Authorities To Ensure That Opportunities To Secure Justice Are Not Denied To Any Individual For Any Reason: Delhi High Court
Case Title: ALOK TRIPATHI v. STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 650
The Delhi High Court has observed that it is the duty of legal services authorities to ensure that opportunities to secure justice are not denied to any individual for any reason whatsoever.
"The principal objective of these Legal Services Authorities is to provide free and efficient legal representation to those sections of the society that are unable to access the same on account of socio-economic," a division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad observed.
The Court was dealing with a public interest litigation filed by a lawyer on the panel of Delhi High Court Legal Service Committee (DHCLSC), seeking direction on the State to provide with the scanned copy or hard copy of the FIR, Chargesheet, evidence or other trial court records of the Under Trial Prisoners (UTPs) on a request or application made in that regard.
18. Document Admitted Or Denied By Witness During Cross Examination Cannot Be Returned, Has To Be Necessarily Placed On Court File: Delhi High Court
Case Title: BHAG SINGH GAMBHIR AND ORS v. RAMA ARORA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 651
The Delhi High Court has observed that if a document produced during cross-examination of a witness is admitted or denied by the said witness, such a document cannot be returned and has to be necessarily placed on the Court file.
Justice Mini Pushkarna was dealing with an application filed on behalf of the plaintiffs in the civil suit under Section 151 of CPC for allowing them to place on record additional documents.
It was the case of the plaintiffs that during the recording of evidence of the defendant witness, the plaintiffs had presented the 'returned envelope' in front of the witness to verify those addresses. However, the Local Commissioner refused to entertain or put those envelopes on record.
19. Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea To Postpone NEET-UG 2022; Asks "How Can 15 Students Seek Rescheduling Of Exam?"
Title: Vishwanath Kumar & Ors. v. National Testing Agency & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 652
The Delhi High Court on Thursday dismissed a writ petition filed by 15 students seeking to postpone the NEET-UG 2022 exam to be held on July 17.
"This is totally a misconceived petition. It's just because these are students, the court will not be harsh. Had it been anyone else, this would have been dismissed with costs", a single bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula orally said while concluding the hearing.
"The pressure can only be eased by self study, not by the manner you are doing this. I wish the students all the best", Justice Narula said.
At the outset, the bench asked the petitioners why they are approaching the Court now, when the schedule of the exam was known in April 2022.
The petitioners' counsel submitted that the admit cards were only issued recently and that the petitioners had been pursuing representations before various authorities.
"How can 15 students ask for rescheduling of the exam? Such petitions should be discouraged", Justice Narula said.
20. Domain Name Registrars Must Create Mechanism For Trademark Owners To Seek Cancellation/ Transfer Of Objectionable Domain Names: Delhi High Court
Case Title: SNAPDEAL PRIVATE LIMITED v. GODADDYCOM LLC AND ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 653
The Delhi High Court has observed that the Domain Name Registrars (DNRs) must create a mechanism by which any trademark owner who has an objection to the registration granted to any domain name, can approach the said DNR and seek cancellation or transfer of the same.
Justice Pratibha M Singh added that the same ought to be fairly considered through the mechanism which ought to be independent and impartial, for eg., through an Ombudsman.
"If the cancellation/suspension/transfer as sought is not agreed to through the said mechanism, then the IP owner can avail of its remedies in accordance with law," the Court observed.
21. If Party Seeking Possession Of Immovable Property Is Aware About Sale In Favour Of A Third Party, It Must Implead The Latter As An Objector: Delhi HC
CASE TITLE: SARVINDER SINGH & ANR v. VIPUL TANDON
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 654
With respect to a decree for the possession of immovable property, the Delhi High Court has held that if the Decree Holders are aware of the sale in favour of the Objectors, they must implead the Objectors in the suit filed by them.
A single judge bench of Justice Amit Bansal observed,
"The manner in which the Decree Holders took possession of the properties from the Objectors was ex facie unlawful. The Decree Holders were aware of the sale in favour of the Objectors and also the possession of the Objectors in the aforesaid portions of the suit property. Despite this knowledge, the Decree Holders did not implead the Objectors in the suit filed by them. Even after the decree was passed, no legal notice was served on the Objectors to vacate the property, nor were they made parties in the execution proceedings and straightaway they were dispossessed from the portions of the suit property, of which they had been in a settled occupation for a long period of time."
22. Order XII Rule 6 CPC | Application For Judgment On Admission Can't Be Disposed Of In Laconic Fashion, Reasoning In Order Must: Delhi High Court
Case Title: NEHA SAINI AND ANR. v. RAGHUBIR SINGH AND ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 655
"An application under Order XII rule 6 cannot be disposed of in such a laconic fashion. There has to be some modicum of reasoning in the order, meeting the grounds in the application," the Delhi High Court has observed.
Order XII Rule 6 of Code of Civil Procedure states that where admissions of fact have been made either in the pleading or otherwise, whether orally or in writing, the Court may at any stage of the suit, either on the application of any party or of its own motion and without waiting for the determination of any other question between the parties, make such order or give such judgment as it may think fit, having regard to such admissions.
23. If Tender Conditions/ Award Of Contract Is In Public Interest, Court Can't Interfere Even If Procedural Aberration/ Error In Assessment Made Out: Delhi HC
Case Title: Delhi Electrical Contractor Welfare Association v. BSES Yamuna Power Limited & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 656
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that while exercising the power of judicial review in matters relating to tenders conditions or award of contracts, Courts must be slow in interfering with the decisions, unless they are perverse.
"If the decision relating to terms or award of contract is bona fide and in public interest, Courts shall not exercise its power of judicial review to interfere, even if a procedural aberration or error in assessment or prejudice to a tender is made out," a division bench comprising Chief Justice SC Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad held.
The observation comes in a writ petition filed by the Delhi Electrical Contractor Welfare Association seeking to quash the Notice Inviting Tenders (NITs) issued by BSES Yamuna Power Limited and BSES Rajdhani Power Limited for award of Electricity Distribution Network.
24. Can't Interfere With Discretionary Order Condoning Delay In Supervisory Jurisdiction U/Art 227 Unless There Is Total Non-Application Of Mind: Delhi HC
Case Title: Madan Lal Suryawanshi v. Tara Devi (now deceased through its LRs)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 657
The Delhi High Court has held that the supervisory jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution does not ordinarily warrant interference with the discretionary exercise of power by trial courts in condoning delay.
A single bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar observed,
" It is only where, therefore, there is complete non-application of mind in condoning delay which is inexorable, or where no reasons for condonation of delay are forthcoming in the order passed by the Court below, that an Article 227 Court would ordinarily interfere."
25. RTI Act | Right To 'Inspection Of Work' Of Any Public Authority U/S 2(j) Does Not Include 'Inspection Of Property': Delhi High Court
CASE TITLE: VEENA JOSHI v. CPIO,CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 658
The Delhi High Court has held that the words "inspection of work" under Section 2(j) of the Right To Information (RTI) Act, 2005 does not include "inspection of property" under its ambit.
Section 2(j) stipulates that right to information means the right to information accessible under the Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right to-- (i) inspection of work, documents, records; (ii) taking notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records; etc.
A single judge bench of Justice Yashwant Varma held that as such, the word "work" under the aforementioned Section is to be read in conjunction with the expressions "documents" and "records" and not property.
26. Prima Facie Case Alone Does Not Entitle A Party To Relief Under Section 17 Of The A&C Act: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Splendor Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. versus Rajesh Kumar Pasricha
Citation: Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 659
The Delhi High Court has ruled that a prima facie case alone does not entitle a party to relief under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) for interim measures.
The Single Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula observed that there were highly disputed questions of fact involved in the dispute relating to the interpretation of the agreement between the parties. Holding that the possible extent of the claim likely to be awarded to the claimant vide the arbitral award cannot be a foregone conclusion, the Court set aside the order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal directing the counter-claimant to secure a certain amount in an application filed under Section 17 of the A&C Act by the claimant for interim measures.
27. Unmarried Woman Pregnant Out Of Consensual Relationship Cannot Seek Termination Of Pregnancy After 20 Weeks: Delhi High Court
CASE TITLE: MS. X v. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 660
Refusing interim relief to a 25 year old unmarried woman seeking termination of her pregnancy of 23 weeks and 5 days, the Delhi High Court has observed that an unmarried woman, whose pregnancy arises out of a consensual relationship, is clearly not covered by any of the Clauses under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules, 2003.
The petitioner's pregnancy would complete 24 weeks on 18th of this month.
A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad observed thus:
"As of today, Rule 3B of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules, 2003, stands, and this Court, while exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, cannot go beyond the Statute. Granting interim relief now would amount to allowing the writ petition itself."
28. Courts Can't Enter Into Merits Of Selection Process Unless Selection Committee Has Been Malafide Or In Violation Of Statutory Rules: Delhi High Court
CASE TITLE: DILIP KUMAR v. THE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 661
The Delhi High Court has held that it is not within the domain of the Courts, sitting in judicial review, to enter into the merits of a selection process, a task which is the prerogative of and in the expert domain of a Selection Committee.
A division bench of Justices Sanjeev Sachdeva and Tushar Rao Gedela observed that it cannot act as an Appellate Authority and substitute its own opinion where the Competent Authority as well as the experts comprising the Search and Selection Committee, who are competent to decide the eligibility and suitability for a given post, have carried out the exercise in due compliance with the relevant statutes.
29. Police Officer Cannot Summon A Person For Investigation From Outside Territorial Limits Of His Station Or Adjoining Station: Delhi High Court
CASE TITLE: JAMSHED ADIL KHAN & ANR. v. UNION TERRITORY OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 662
The Delhi High Court has held that as per Section 160 CrPC, for the purposes of investigation, a police officer cannot summon a person situated outside the territorial limits of his police station or at most the territorial limits of his adjoining police station.
The provision empowers Police officers to require attendance of witnesses.
A single judge bench comprising of Justice Poonam A. Bamba observed, " From the plain reading of the sub-section (1) of Section 160 Cr.P.C, it is evident that for the purposes of investigation, a police officer can require attendance of a person situated within the limits of his own police station or that of the adjoining police station and not someone who is situated beyond the said territorial limits."
Gauhati High Court
1. Animal Sacrifice During Bakrid Permissible Subject To Statutory Prohibitions: Gauhati High Court
Case Title: HIFZUR RAHMAN CHOUDHURY VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Gau) 48
The Gauhati High Court has made it clear that slaughter of animals on the occasion of Bakrid is permissible, subject to the prohibitions contained in various statutes including the Prevention of Cruelty Animal Act, 1960, the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and the Assam Cattle Preservation Act, 2021.
A bench comprising Justices Manash Ranjan Pathak and Manish Choudhury upheld two communications dated June 7 and July 4 issued by the Animal Welfare Board of India and the Assam government respectively, specifying that camels cannot be slaughtered for food at all and wherever the Cow Slaughter Prohibition Act is in force, then slaughtering of cows should not be allowed at all.
Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat V/S Hasmukhbhai @ Harshadbhai Dahyabhai Makwana 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 266
Patel Manubhai Ramabhai V/S State Of Gujarat & 1 other(s) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 267
M/S Harekrushna Infra Projects Pvt Ltd & 1 Other(S) V/S State Bank Of India 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 268
M/s Magirsha Industries versus M/s Gujarat State Fertilizer and Chemicals Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 269
Navinchandra Somchand, Died Through His Heirs & 1 Other(S) V/S Heirs Of Somchand Bechardas & 6 other(s) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 270
Sabirmiya Gulamahemad Ghori V/S Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation & 1 other(s) ) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 271
Rajendrasinh Velubha Jadeja V/S General Manager (Project) ) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 272
R/Special Civil Application No. 12864 of 2021 ) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 273
State Of Gujarat Versus Kishorbhai Devjibhai Parmar & 4 other(s) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 274
abhishek industrial service pvt. Ltd v/s nathabhai bhagwanjibhai rathod & 2 other(s) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 275
Rajubhai Kamabhai Desai V/S State Of Gujarat & 1 other(s)
ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE WEEK
Gravity Of Offence Cannot Overweigh Legal Proof: Gujarat High Court Upholds Acquittal Of POCSO Accused
Case Title: State Of Gujarat V/S Hasmukhbhai @ Harshadbhai Dahyabhai Makwana
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 266
The Gujarat High Court has dismissed the appeal of the State Government challenging the acquittal of a person accused under the POCSO Act, citing lack of evidence. A bench of Justice SH Vora and Justice Rajendran Sareen observed:
"Here in this case it is to be noted that on one side the complainant has alleged against the respondent accused regarding sexual assault upon her victim daughter and merely after a span of 3 to 4 days she has alleged against her own husband regarding sexual assault upon her victim daughter. As such, two contradictory versions have been stated by the complainant within a span of 4 days against two persons and both the allegations are based on suspicion and doubt, one against the present respondent accused and another against her husband. As such, mere suspicion and doubt cannot be considered to be cogent and convincing proof to prove the allegations."
'No Locus': Gujarat High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking CID Probe Into Alleged Corruption & Irregularities In Agriculture Produce Market
Case Title: Patel Manubhai Ramabhai V/S State Of Gujarat & 1 other(s)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 267
The Gujarat High Court dismissed a plea seeking probe by specialized agency like CID (Economic Offences Wing) or Anti-Corruption Bureau into alleged corruption and financial irregularities of "millions of rupees" in the Agriculture Produce Market.
Justice Nirzar Desai observed that the complainant (Applicant herein) could not establish his locus standi and that he could not point out as to how he is aggrieved by the alleged offences committed by the persons named in the application.
Principle Of Promissory Estoppel Applies After Customer Acts On Basis Of Bank's One Time Settlement Scheme: Gujarat High Court
Case Title: M/S Harekrushna Infra Projects Pvt Ltd & 1 Other(S) V/S State Bank Of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 268
The Gujarat High Court has held that once a customer acts on the basis of offer made by a Bank under its One Time Settlement scheme, the principle of promissory estoppel applies and the latter is estopped from acting to the detriment of the former.
"It is clear that the principle of promissory estoppel applies. The bank by its conduct of offering an OTS settlement intended to create legal relations which the petitioners had acted upon in light of the promise made and paid the amount on or before 30th of December 2017. This action was apparently accepted in principle by the bank as not only for the title clearance certificate but valuation reports letters were written by by the bank to the advocates and the valuers. The amounts were paid and accepted by the bank and once the petitioners had acted upon on the promise set out by the bank, the bank cannot be allowed to go back on its proposal on the basis of a letter dated 28th August 2018 stating that the scheme of OTS was not applicable as the cases of the petitioners was reported as fraud."
Dispute Referred To Arbitration Under MSME Act; Court Can Extend The Mandate Of Arbitrator Under Section 29A Of A&C Act: Gujarat High Court
Case Title: M/s Magirsha Industries versus M/s Gujarat State Fertilizer and Chemicals Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 269
The Gujarat High Court has ruled that even in cases where the dispute has been referred to arbitration under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSME Act), the Court is empowered under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) to extend the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal.
The Single Bench of Chief Justice Aravind Kumar held that in view of Section 18(3) of the MSME Act, the provisions of the A&C Act would be applicable once the dispute is referred to arbitration under the MSME Act, and hence, the Court can extend the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 29A of the A&C Act.
S.91/92 Evidence Act Exclude Oral Evidence, Forbid Proving Contents Of Writing Otherwise Than By Writing Itself: Gujarat High Court
Case Title: Navinchandra Somchand, Died Through His Heirs & 1 Other(S) V/S Heirs Of Somchand Bechardas & 6 other(s)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 270
The Gujarat High Court has explained the relationship between Section 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, while holding that the provisions in effect supplement each other.
Section 91 (Evidence of terms of contracts, grants and other dispositions of property reduced to form of documents) relates to lead evidence of terms of contract, grants and other disposition of properties, which are reduced to form of documents. This Section merely forbids proving the contents of writing otherwise than by writing itself.
Section 92 (Exclusion of evidence of oral agreement) deals with conclusiveness of the documentary evidence and provides exceptions in which oral evidence against documentary evidence can be admitted.
Employees Can't Be Held Responsible If Employer Grants Terminal Benefits In Excess Of Their Entitlement: Gujarat High Court Quashes Recovery Order
Case Title: Sabirmiya Gulamahemad Ghori V/S Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation & 1 other(s)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 271
The Gujarat High Court has set aside an order of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation directing recovery of Rs. 63,878 from its former employee on the ground that the terminal benefits were wrongly granted to him at a higher pay-scale than he was entitled to.
Justice Biren Vaishnav relied on several decisions of the High Court where it was held that when employees are paid excess amount, not because of any misrepresentation or fraud on their part and if such employees had no knowledge that the amount that was being paid to them was more than what they were entitled to, they can't be held responsible for a mistake on part of the employer.
Whether 'Appropriate Govt' In Industrial Dispute Concerning Person Working At 'Mine Office' Is Centre Or State Depends On Nature Of Work: Gujarat HC
Case Title: Rajendrasinh Velubha Jadeja V/S General Manager (Project)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 272
The Gujarat High Court has recently explained that when a dispute is raised by employees working in a mine or an office of the mine or ones employed in a mine, it needs to be determined whether the dispute has a nexus to activities in a mine. Only when the industrial dispute concerns a mine can the appropriate government be deemed to be the Central Government as per Sec 2(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Bench explained.
National E-Assessment Centre Acted Thick Skinned: Gujarat High Court
Citation: R/Special Civil Application No. 12864 of 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 273
The Gujarat High Court held that it was pandemic time when the department should have adopted a liberal approach in refusing the request for time for filing objections to the draft assessment order and finally passing the assessment order. The department acted thick-skinned.
The division bench of Justice N.V. Anjaria and Justice Bharghav D. Karia has observed that the assessment proceedings were remanded to the Assessing Officer to be taken up afresh from the stage of the draft assessment order. The court directed the assessing officer to pass an appropriate order after giving the petitioner an opportunity to file a reply.
When Substantial Evidence Is Lacking To Connect Accused With Crime, Other Corroborative Evidence Loses Significance: Gujarat High Court
Case Title: State Of Gujarat Versus Kishorbhai Devjibhai Parmar & 4 other(s)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 274
The Gujarat High Court has held that where substantial evidence to connect an accused with the crime is lacking, other corroborative evidence loses its significance.
In light of the aforesaid, a Bench comprising Justices SH Vora and Rajendra Sareen upheld an order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Court in a criminal case under Sections 143, 147, 148 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act.
Employee's Termination Without Departmental Inquiry Based On Incomplete & Non-Specific Show Cause Notice Violative Of S.25G Of ID Act: Gujarat HC
Case Title: abhishek industrial service pvt. Ltd v/s nathabhai bhagwanjibhai rathod & 2 other(s)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 275
The Gujarat High Court observed that in case of an incomplete show cause notice, to which the respondent workman had no occasion to file his response as expected by the employer, inquiry by issuing specific charge sheet is necessary.
Justice AY Kogje thereby held that when the show cause notice /charge was not specific enough for the workman to respond, termination without proper departmental inquiry was a breach of Section 25(G) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Gujarat High Court Refuses To Cancel Anticipatory Bail Granted To Rape Accused 5 Yrs Ago
Case Title: Rajubhai Kamabhai Desai V/S State Of Gujarat & 1 other(s)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 276
The Gujarat High Court has refused to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to a rape accused five years ago, stating that all this time the applicant-victim did not take a stand that seriousness of offence has not been considered by the Court below and that the accused has not misused his liberty nor violated any condition.
The accused was booked for offences punishable under Sections 376, 366, 328, 395, 397, 344, 406, 420, 506(2) and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.
Jamiat Ulama-E-Hind Moves PIL Against Mandatory Learning Of Bhagavad Gita In Gujarat Schools: Gujarat HC Seeks Govt's Reply
The Gujarat High Court issued a notice to the Gujarat State Government on a plea filed by Jamiat Ulama-E-Hind challenging a resolution of the state government introducing the Bhagavad Gita in schools as a prayer programme, and including it in the curriculum.
The PIL by the Jamiat Ulama-E-Hind has challenged the passed by the State Department of Education mandating the learning of the Shrimad Bhagavad Gita ('the Gita') by teaching its values and principles/ tenets and through stories, shlok singing, recitation and chanting, and reading of stories and prayers in prayer assemblies in the students of Classes 6 to 12 from the academic year 2022-23.
Gujarat High Court Directs Judicial Officers To Strictly Observe Court Working Hours
The High Court of Gujarat has directed all judicial officers in the state to maintain strict observance of court working hours and punctually dispose judicial business.
This was after the High Court's attention was drawn towards the frequent violation of instructions contained in Paragraph 2(B) of Chapter-I of the Civil Manual and various High Court Circulars and letters issued with regard to the observance of court working hours and full-time sitting in courtroom during working hours. Despite various circulars and orders issued by the High Court in the past, it observed that there has been "no improvement in the situation".
Himachal Pradesh High Court
1. Journalist Conducts 'Reality Check' By Procuring COVID E-Passes In Name Of Donald Trump, Amitabh Bachchan: HP High Court Quashes FIR
Case title - AMAN KUMAR BHARDWAJ v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH and others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (HP) 16
The Himachal Pradesh High Court today quashed a criminal case against a Zee News Journalist registered under various sections of IPC and IT Act for conducting a 'reality check' on e-pass registration for inter-State movement by procuring COVID E-passes in the name of Donald Trump and Amitabh Bachan.
The Bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur observed that since Journalist Aman Kumar Bhardwaj (Petitioner) was having doubts regarding the proper working of the verification system of the State (regarding online request for generation of e-passes to enter the state) and that he was not having any other via-media to check and verify the system except for submitting a misleading request.
Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court
Kamaljeet Singh Vs UT of J&K and Ors 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 63
Jaffar Hajam Mohd Abbas and ors. V/s Chairman and Managing Director, FCI & ors 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 64
Enigineering Control Vs. Banday Infratech Pvt. Ltd 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 65
Sanjay Kumar Srivastava & Ors. Vs. Central Bureau Of Investigation 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 66
Waseem Qureshi vs UT of J&K 2022 Livelaw (JKL) 67
Qazi Gousia Jeelani V/s Mehraj Ud Din Najar and ors 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 68
Faizan Amin and another V/s UOI and another 2022 Livelaw (JKL) 69
Mohammad Yousaf vs Union Territory of J&K and other 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 70
Suhail Ahmad Wani V/s SKIMS Medical College Hospital and ors 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 71
Zubair Ahmad Wani Vs. Government Of J&K 2022 Livelaw (JKL) 72
Fayaz Ahmad Sheikh Vs. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 73
Waiz-ul-Islam Vs Union Territory of J&K through NIA Jammu 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 74
1) Offences Alleged Against A Person Must Fall Within Realm Of Disturbing "Public Order" To Warrant Preventive Detention: J&K&L High Court Reiterates
Case Title: Kamaljeet Singh Vs UT of J&K
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 63
A single bench of Justice Rajnesh Oswal held that a detention order passed by a competent authority under Sec 8(1) of J&K Public Safety Act on the ground of disturbance of law & order situation is not sustainable in law as the said provision clearly prescribes "prejudicial to Public order" as a ground to issue detention orders.
The bench further observed that a person may be detained under preventive detention laws provided the case falls within the parameters of law laid down under the Act and the perusal of detention order reveals that in all the FIRs, the allegations against the petitioner are with regard to the commiss ion of offences those do not fall within the realm of "public order" as defined by section 8(3) of the Act.
2) Employment Conditions Can't Take Away Employees' Right To Seek Judicial Review Of Employer's Actions: J&K&L High Court
Case Title: Jaffar Hajam Mohd Abbas and ors. V/s Chairman and Managing Director, FCI & ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 64
The court held that the right to seek judicial review is a vital right conferred by the Constitution and any terms and conditions of employment, which restrain a person to seek legal remedies for enforcement of his rights, are null and void. employer cannot impose such conditions of employment which have the effect of taking away the right of its employees to seek judicial review of the actions of the employer, the bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar underscored.
3) Pre-Condition Of Filing Complaint U/S 138 NI Act Not Fulfilled When Statutory Notice Of Demand Sent On Wrong Address: J&K&L High Court
Case Title: Enigineering Control Vs. Banday Infratech Pvt. Ltd
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(JKL) 65
A bench of Sanjay Dhar ruled The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that an inference of having received the statutory notice of demand by a drawer of a cheque as mandated under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act can be raised only if the notice has been dispatched to his correct address. Such an inference cannot be drawn if the notice has been sent on the incorrect address of the drawer of the cheque, the court observed.
4) If Sanction For Prosecuting Public Servant Under PC Act Is Denied, Prosecuting Agency Can't File Challan Under Other Penal Laws On Same Facts: J&K&L HC
Case Title: Sanjay Kumar Srivastava & Ors. Vs. Central Bureau Of Investigation
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 66
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that once the Central Vigilance Commission after examining the material on record reaches a conclusion that no criminal offence is made out against the accused public servant and the said opinion is accepted by the competent authority, it is not open to the investigating agency to file a challan on the same set of facts against the accused public servant by dropping the offences under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act and confining the challan only to the offences under other penal provisions.
5) Doctrine Of Ejusdem Generis Not Automatically Applicable To Restrict Words Used In Statute If Legislative Intent Is Clear: J&K&L High Court
Case Title: Waseem Qureshi vs UT of J&K
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 67
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that the doctrine of "ejusdem generis" cannot be made automatically applicable to restrict the words used in a statute if otherwise intention of the legislature is clear. It is only in cases where intention of the legislature is clear that the general terms shall not be given broader meaning than required, the aforesaid doctrine will have applicability, Justice Sanjay Dhar recorded.
6) Courts Can't Expand Scope Of Qualification Prescribed By Employer By Reading Into It A Higher Qualification: J&K&L High Court
Case Title: Qazi Gousia Jeelani V/s Mehraj Ud Din Najar
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 68
A division bench comprising Justices Sanjeev Kumar and M A Chaudhary ruled that a person, to be eligible for a post, must possess the qualification prescribed for the post and it is not within the province of the Courts of law to read the higher qualification into the qualification prescribed in the rules or the advertisement as essential qualification.
7) High Court Directs NIT Srinagar To Pay Rs 5 Lacs Compensation Over Unjustifiable Delay In Appointing Candidates Selected As Jr. Engineers
Case Title: Faizan Amin and another V/s UOI and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 69
The bench comprsing Justice Sanjeev Kumar took a strong note of the mushrooming growth in frivolous litigations and said: "To serve the cause of justice and to keep the stream of justice unsullied, it is imperative for the Courts to act tough and discourage the tendency of some litigants to misuse the process of law."
The court further observed: "Time has come to stay firm on frivolous litigation lest it will prevent the Courts from taking up good causes involving adjudication of vital constitutional and other statutory rights of the citizens. It would be no exaggeration to say that a major portion of Court time is wasted in hearing and weeding out frivolous litigation.
8) J&K&L High Court Orders Probe By Anti-Corruption Bureau Into Leakage Of PSA Detention Order Even Before Its Execution
Case Title: Mohammad Yousaf vs Union Territory of J&K and other
Citation: 2022LiveLaw (JKL) 70
A bench of Justice Rajnesh Oswal observed The court further observed that it is at a loss as to understand how the order of detention landed in the hands of the petitioner or his brother without there being any execution of the said detention order. In view of the gravity of the act, the Court directed the Director, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Union Territory of J&K to enquire the issue with regard to the connivance of the officials of the respondents with regard to fact as to how these documents landed with the detenu or his brother without execution of the detention order.
9) In Absence Of Criteria To Break A Tie, Selection Committee May Adopt Its Own Yardstick In Consonance With Article 14: J&K&L High Court
Case Title: Suhail Ahmad Wani V/s SKIMS Medical College Hospital and ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 71
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that in cases of recruitment or drawing of seniority lists where there is neither any statutor y prescription, nor any executive instructions laying down any criteria or guidelines to be followed to break the tie, the only course that is left with a Court adjudicating such matter is to look to the fairness and rationality of the selection process as also the criteria that ought to have been possibly applied to break the tie.
The bench also observed that preferring a candidate having better merit in the academics but not being older in age cannot, by any stretch of reasoning, be said to be unfair, irrational or arbitrary.
10) Anticipatory Bail Plea Not Maintainable By Person Already Enlarged On Bail As He Is Under Constructive Custody: J&K&L High Court
Case Title: Zubair Ahmad Wani Vs. Government Of J&K
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 72
A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Dhar ruled that a person released on bail is already construed to be the in constructive custody and if the law requires him to come back to custody for specified reasons, the application for anticipatory bail will not lie. There cannot be an apprehension of arrest by a person already in the constructive of the law.
Dismissing the bail application the bench observed bench observed that the proper course for the petitioner was to surrender before the Sessions Court and apply for grant of regular bail because he had already been arrested and pursuant to grant of interim regular bail, he was in constructive custody of the law.
11) Simultaneous Prosecution Of Accused U/S 420 IPC & S.138 NI Act On Same Set Of Facts Not "Double Jeopardy": J&K&L High Court
Case Title: Fayaz Ahmad Sheikh Vs. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 73
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that the test to ascertain and uphold the fundamental right against "double jeopardy", which isguaranteed under Article 20(2) of the Constitution, is that whether the former offence and the offence now charged have the same ingredients in the sense that the facts constituting the one are sufficient to justify a conviction of the other and not that the facts relied on by the prosecution are the same in the two trials.
12) Pulwama Terror Attack: J&K&L High Court Dismisses Accused' Appeal Claiming 'Plea Of Juvenility'
Case Title: Waiz-ul-Islam Vs Union Territory of J&K through NIA Jammu
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 74
The division bench comprising Justices Rajnesh Oswal and Mohan Lal observed that if an offence is constituted of several acts and when the accused is major at a time when subsequent act is committed forming part of an offence, he c annot claim to be juvenile. Thus, this court has no hesitation to hold that the appellant was more than 18 years of age and was not juvenile at time of commission of offence.
Jharkhand High Court
1. Summary of Show Cause Notice In Form DRC-01 Is Not A Substitute Of Section 74(1) Show Cause Notice: Jharkhand High Court
Case Title: M/s. Juhi Industries Pvt. Ltd. Versus The State of Jharkhand
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 63
The Jharkhand High Court held that the summary of show cause notice in Form DRC-01 is not a substitute for show cause notice under Section 74(1) of the CGST Act. The division bench of Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice Deepak Roshan has observed that though the petitioner submitted their concise reply, the respondent cannot take benefit of the action as a summary of show cause notice cannot be considered as a show cause notice as mandated under Section 74(1). It is well settled that there is no estoppel against statute, and a bonafide mistake or consent by the assessee cannot confer any jurisdiction upon the proper officer. The jurisdiction must flow from the statute itself. The rules of estoppel are the rules of equity, which have no role in matters of taxation.
2. Minor Student's Dead Body Found Inside School Premises: Jharkhand High Court Directs CBI To 'Reinvestigate' 2016 Murder Case
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 64
Case title - Manbahala Mahto v. State of Jharkhand and others [W.P.(Cr.) No. 73 of 2018]
The Jharkhand High Court last week transferred reinvestigation of a 2016 murder case of a 7th class student to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi stressed that the Court can direct the investigation by an independent agency under the exceptional situation
"In a case where a 16 years' old child has been found murdered in the premises of the school and a poor father is running pillar to post for justice. Thus, it is crystal clear that it is a case of reinvestigation by the independent agency," the Court observed in its order of Friday.
3. 'Modi-Thief' Remark: Jharkhand High Court Dismisses Rahul Gandhi's Plea To Quash Defamation Case Against Himself
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 65
The Jharkhand High Court has dismissed the plea moved by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi seeking to quash the defamation case filed against him for his alleged statement, "why all thieves share the Modi surname".The Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, in its order, observed that the 'right of reputation', as per the judicial interpretation is the dimension of the right of life.
Karnataka High Court
T.SADANANDA PAI v. SUJATHA S PAI. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 255
SYED SHABAJ v. SMT. PREMA & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 256
SHIVASWAMY & Others v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 257
Philips India Limited v. State of Karnataka & Others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 258
Shivu @ Shiv Kumar v. State of Karnataka & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 259
MISS. PRIYANKA PRADEEP GAVADE v. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 260
NIRANJAN HEGDE v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 261
THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD v. THE GENERAL SECRETARY HARIHAR POLYFIBERS, EMPLOYEES UNION & Others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 262
KARAN MENON v. STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 263
P.N.CHANDRASHEKAR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 264
Dhananjay v. Jumma Masjid Malalipete. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 265
1. Hindu Marriage Act | Able-Bodied Husband Having Earning Capacity Can't Seek Permanent Alimony From Wife:Karnataka High Court
Case Title: T.SADANANDA PAI v. SUJATHA S PAI
Case No: M.F.A. NO.1797 OF 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 255
The Karnataka High Court has held that an able bodied man having the capacity to earn cannot seek for permanent alimony on divorce from his wife.
2. 'Sexual Acts Committed With Minor After Marriage': Karnataka High Court Grants Bail To POCSO Accused
Case Title: SYED SHABAJ v. SMT. PREMA & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3422/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 256
The Karnataka High Court has granted bail to an accused arrested under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and Child Marriage Act while noting that the accused had subjected the minor girl to sexual act "after" they had got married, following elopement.
3. Criminal Trespass Complaint Can't Be Made If Property Is Not In Possession Of Complainant: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: SHIVASWAMY & Others v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.2776 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 257
The Karnataka High Court has held that a complaint of criminal trespass cannot be made if the property on which the accused is alleged to have trespassed is not in the possession of the complainant.
4. Decision Of Adjudicating Authority Can't Be Doubted Merely Because It Is Govt Limb, Reliable Evidence Indicating Bias Is Must: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Philips India Limited v. State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: W.A. NO. 557 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 258
The Karnataka High Court has held that there has to be reliable evidence to indicate that the authority adjudicating objections is biased and the decision cannot be questioned merely because the officer is a limb of the Government.
5. False Promise Of Marriage Must Have Direct Nexus To Woman's Decision To Engage In Sexual Act To Attract Offence Of Rape: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Shivu @ Shiv Kumar v. State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: Criminal Petition No 3596/2018
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 259
The Karnataka High Court has observed that false promise of marriage must be of immediate relevance or bear a direct nexus to the woman's decision to engage in the sexual act, to attract an offence of rape.
6. Dysfunctional Limbs Render 100% Functional Disability: Karnataka High Court Orders ₹21.86 Lakh Compensation For Minor Victim In Motor Accident
Case Title: MISS. PRIYANKA PRADEEP GAVADE v. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
Case NO: MFA NO. 25028 OF 2010
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 260
The Karnataka High Court has said if the medical evidence indicates that a minor child cannot straighten one of the lower limbs and one of the upper limbs has lost its power for use, it is as good as the human body becoming useless, so far as the person's ability to work and earn livelihood is concerned. Thus, the minor claimant has become functionally 100% disabled even when the medical expert has stated she has suffered 50 percent disability.
7. Wife Living Separately Commits Suicide In Parental House: Karnataka High Refuses To Quash Dowry Death Case Against Husband Citing Disputed Facts
Case title: NIRANJAN HEGDE v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.5657 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 261
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a husband seeking to quash a case of dowry death registered against him under Sections 304B and 498A of IPC, after his wife, living separately since over two years, committed suicide in her parental house.
8. Karnataka High Court Dismisses Grasim's Plea Against Increase In Employees' Retirement Age To 60 Yrs
Case Title: THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD v. THE GENERAL SECRETARY HARIHAR POLYFIBERS, EMPLOYEES UNION & Others
Case NO: WRIT APPEAL NO. 100250 OF 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 262
The Karnataka High Court at Dharwad has dismissed an intra-court appeal filed by the Management of M/S Grasim Industries, challenging a single judge bench order which upheld the modification of Certified Standing Order passed by the Labour Commissioner, that enhanced the retirement age of employees in private sector from 58 to 60 years.
9. Court Barred U/S 468(2)(c) CrPC From Taking Cognizance If Charge Sheet For Offence With 3 Yrs Punishment Not Filed In 3 Yrs Of Incident: Karnataka HC
Case Title: KARAN MENON v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.9334 OF 2018
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 263
The Karnataka High Court has said that Section 468(2)(c) of CrPC specifies that no court shall take cognizance of the offences punishable with imprisonment for a period of three years after the expiry of three years from the date of alleged incident.
10. FIR For Cognizable Offences Must Be Registered Before Conducting Investigation/ Raid: Karnataka High Court Quashes Case Against Dance Bar
Case Title: P.N.CHANDRASHEKAR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.7589/2019
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 264
The Karnataka High Court has said that registration of a First Information Report (FIR) invoking cognizable offences after conducting the raid on a dance bar is not permissible in law.
11. Malali Mosque Dispute: Karnataka High Court Rejects Challenge To Civil Court's Decision To Decide Maintainability Before Ordering Masjid Survey
Case Title: Dhananjay v. Jumma Masjid Malalipete
Case No: WP 11528/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 265
The Karnataka High Court on Friday rejected a petition filed questioning the decision of the Additional City Civil court in Mangalore to first decide on the aspect of maintainability of the suit for permanent injunction, seeking to restrain the Malali Jumma Masjid authorities from dismantling the old tiled-structure of masjid said to be resembling a temple, before deciding on the application for appointment of a court commissioner to survey the masjid.
1. Karnataka Consumer Forum Orders Byju's To Refund Fees To Student Over Failure To Provide 'Proper Learning App'
A district consumer forum in an ex-parte order issued on May 10, directed Think & Learn Pvt. Ltd, which provides Byjus's learning app, to refund fees of a student who alleged that the ed-tech company did not provide him with a proper learning app and offered a tab which was cheaper in value than the one initially promised.
2. Karnataka HC Judge Records In Written Order The Threat Of Transfer Received From Sitting Judge For Passing Orders Against ACB Chief
Case Title: MAHESH P S v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: CRL.P 4909/2022
Justice H P Sandesh of the Karnataka High Court, who made a sensational revelation last week that he had received an indirect threat of transfer for passing orders against the head of Anti Corruption Bureau(ACB) Seemanth Kumar Singh ADGP, recorded the threat in a written order on Monday.
3. Play Store Payment Policy:Karnataka High Court Upholds Maintainability Of Google India's Plea To RestrainCCI From Exposing Its Confidential Info
Case Title: GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & others Versus COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA & others
Case No: WP 9399/2022
The Karnataka High Court on Friday rejected the application filed by Alliance of Digital India Foundation challenging the maintainability of Google India's plea to restrain the Competition Commission of India (CCI) from divulging the company's confidential information to the complainant (Alliance).
4. Lawyer Moves Karnataka High Court Seeking Police Protection For Justice HP Sandesh, SIT Probe Into "TransferThreat"
Case Title: Ramesh Naik.L v. State of Karnataka
FR NO: 13570/2022
A Karnataka based Advocate has moved the High Court seeking a direction to the state government to provide adequate security (Y, Y+, Z, Z+, whatever is suitable) to Justice H.P. Sandesh, who recently made sensational revelations regarding "transfer threats" for slamming investigations carried out by the Anti-Corruption Bureau in a case allegedly involving Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru (Urban).
5. Bengaluru Court Directs Social Media To Take Down Photo Used To Make Defamatory Claims Against Justices SuryaKant & Pardiwala
Case Title: DIPALI SIKAND And AGADEESH LAXMAN SINGH ALIAS JUGIE SINGH & others
Case No: O.S 4427/2022
The Additional City Civil And Session Court in Bengaluru on Tuesday passed a "John Doe" order directing social media platforms Twitter, Facebook, Linkedin, Instagram and Whatsapp to take down a widely circulated photograph which was used to make false and defamatory claims against Justice Surya Kant and Justice Pardiwala of the Supreme Court, following their remarks against former BJP Spokesperson Nupur Sharma.
Kerala High Court
Nominal Index [Citations 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 340-353]
Dhanya & Anr v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 340
R Baji v Kerala State Road Transport Corporation & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 341
Jeyaprabha R. v. CBI & connected matters, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 342
M/s Holmarc Opto Mechatronics (P) Ltd v. Secretary, Kalamassery Municipality & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 343
Sivalal v. State of Kerala and connected matters, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 344
Martin @ Jinu Sebastian and Anr. V. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 345
State of Kerala & Ors. v. Manager & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 346
Arshom P.M v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 347
Government of Kerala V. Waves Electronic (P) Ltd, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 348
Monson Mavunkal v. State of Kerala & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 349
Kerala State Co-operative Bank Ltd v. S. Viswanathamallan & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 350
Sreejith T.R v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 351
Kerala Christian Professional College Management & Ors v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 352
Case Title: M. Baburaj v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 353
Judgments/Orders This Week
Licence Under Places Of Public Resort Act Is Compulsory To Run A Gym: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Dhanya & Anr v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 340
The Kerala High Court ruled that a licence under the Kerala Places of Public Resort Act, 1963 is necessary for starting and functioning a gymnasium in the State as long as the Act remains in force. Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan thereby directed the State to instruct all Municipalities, Corporations and Panchayats to send notices to the gyms in the State functioning without a license within 3 weeks.
Also Read: 'Only God Can Save These Types Of Lawyers': Kerala High Court After Advocate Argues Against Interest Of His Client
Consider Modernising Toilets, Wash Areas: Kerala High Court Suggests Launching 'Back To KSRTC Movement'
Case Title: R Baji v Kerala State Road Transport Corporation & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 341
The Kerala High Court recommended that the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) be updated with modern facilities to restore public faith in the Corporation, thereby augmenting its revenue. Justice Devan Ramachandran suggested that the KSRTC should begin by improving its facilities such as toilets and wash areas and called this process the 'Back to KSRTC movement'.
Advocates' Welfare Fund Scam: Kerala High Court Denies Pre-Arrest Bail To 7 Accused
Case Title: Jeyaprabha R. v. CBI & connected matters.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 342
The Kerala High Court denied anticipatory bail to seven accused in the scam involving misappropriation of over ₹7.5 crores from the Kerala Advocates Welfare Fund. Justice K. Babu refused pre-arrest bail to the accused pointing out that this could tamper with the ongoing investigation in the matter.
Establishments In Notified Industrial Areas Exempted From Obtaining Building Permit From Local Bodies: Kerala High Court
Case Title: M/s Holmarc Opto Mechatronics (P) Ltd v. Secretary, Kalamassery Municipality & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 343
The Kerala High Court recently held that undertakings being established or proposed to be established in notified industrial areas shall be exempted from obtaining any type of permits from Municipalities or Grama Panchayats for such construction. Justice Shaji P. Chaly added that such exemption is provided to promote industries in the State and to facilitate an easy mechanism to start such establishments without being encumbered by legal complexities.
'Another Life Lost, Yet Another Prosecution Fails': Kerala High Court Acquits 13 RSS Workers In Vishnu Political Murder Case
Case Title: Sivalal v. State of Kerala and connected matters.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 344
The Kerala High Court acquitted 13 Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) activists who were booked and sentenced by a trial court for the political murder of CPI(M) activist Vishnu. A Division Bench of Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice C. Jayachandran acquitted the workers observing that the prosecution case reeked of a deliberate attempt to tutor witnesses, collect evidence and define a scripted story.
Person Driving Without License Has Knowledge That Act Likely To Cause Death: Kerala HC Refuses To Modify Conviction From S.304 To 304A IPC
Case Title: Martin @ Jinu Sebastian and Anr. v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 345
The Kerala High Court has held that when there is knowledge to the accused that the act he has done is likely to cause the death of a person and with the said knowledge he does the act and in consequence thereof the person dies, it will fall under Section 304 Part II IPC. Justice A Badharudeen, while distinguishing between offences falling under Section 304A and Section 304 Part II IPC observed that when intent or knowledge is the direct motivating force of the act, Section 304A of IPC has to make room for the graver and more serious charge of culpable homicide.
State Not Obliged To Pay Salary To Teachers Whose Appointments Are Void Ab Initio: Kerala High Court
Case Title: State of Kerala & Ors. v. Manager & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 346
The Kerala High Court ruled that the State government is not obliged to pay salary to teachers who were appointed in violation of the Kerala Education Rules and the Kerala Education Act. A Division Bench of Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Justice C.S Sudha held that if the appointment defies the law, it is the Manager who is responsible and the Government has no obligation to pay salary to the teacher.
Kerala High Court Denies Default Bail To SFI Leader Saying He Got Involved In 12 Crimes While On Regular Bail
Case Title: Arshom P.M v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 347
The Kerala High Court denied bail to the State Secretary of Students' Federation of India (SFI) who was taken into custody for violation of bail conditions imposed on him. He had allegedly got himself involved in 12 crimes while he was out on bail. Justice Viju Abraham dismissed the bail plea finding that he was not entitled to statutory bail merely because the charge sheet was yet to be filed since the case did not come under the purview of Section 167(2) CrPC.
Promissory Estoppel Can't Be Invoked For Enforcement Of Promise Contrary To Law: Kerala HC Sets Aside Order Allowing 10-Yrs VAT Exemption To SEZ Unit
Case Title: Government of Kerala V. Waves Electronic (P) Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 348
The Kerala High Court recently reversed a judgment passed by a single judge bench allowing a ten-year VAT exemption claimed by SEZ unit relying on the Kerala Industrial Policy 2009, applying the principle of promissory estoppel as per the ratio of Nestle India Ltd. and Llyod Electric and Engineering Ltd. A Division Bench of Justice S. V. Bhatti and Justice Basant Balaji opined that the rule of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked for the enforcement of a promise contrary to law or outside the authority or power of the government or person making that promise.
Kerala High Court Denies Bail To Monson Mavunkal In Sexual Assault Cases
Case Title: Monson Mavunkal v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 349
The Kerala High Court dismissed the bail applications moved by infamous fake antique dealer Monson Mavunkal in a batch of cases where several women have accused him of sexually abusing them. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas dismissed the bail application finding find force in the contention of the prosecution that there is a possibility that he may influence the witnesses if released on bail.
Also Read: Kerala High Court Reserves Verdict In Monson Mavunkal's Bail Pleas In Sexual Assault Cases
Provision Enabling Employee To Get Higher Gratuity Prevails Over One That Limits The Gratuity Amount: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Kerala State Co-operative Bank Ltd v. S. Viswanathamallan & Anr
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 350
The Kerala High Court reiterated that the provision in the Payment of Gratuity Act which enables an employee to opt for better terms of gratuity would prevail over the provision in Kerala State Co-operative Societies Act that limits the amount payable as gratuity. A Division Bench of Justice A.K Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Mohammed Nias C.P added that when two choices are available, the employee cannot be denied the right to receive those higher benefits.
Kerala High Court Grants Bail To Actor Sreejith Ravi In POCSO Case With Conditions
Case Title: Sreejith T.R v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 351
The Kerala High Court granted bail to Malayalam actor Sreejith Ravi in a POCSO case registered against him for allegedly exhibiting nudity in front of children. After perusing the records and medical certificates, and having regard to the fact that he has been in custody since last week, Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas allowed the bail application noting that his continued detention was not warranted.
Scholarship Amount To Be Directly Remitted To College Management's Bank Account For Students With A Larger Family Income: Kerala High Court To Govt
Case Title: Kerala Christian Professional College Management & Ors v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 352
The Kerala High Court recently asked the State to remit the Scholarship amount to the students with an Annual Family Income below Rs.2,50,000/- into their designated accounts and to ensure that this amount is paid by them into the accounts of the Colleges/Managements within a one week or so. Justice Devan Ramachandran also clarified that the amount shall be directly remitted to the account of the management or the college for students with a larger family income.
Production Of Succession Certificate Mandatory When Decree Holder Dies Only If Decree Amount Comes Under 'Debts' Or 'Securities': Kerala High Court
Case Title: M. Baburaj v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 353
The Kerala High Court held that the production of a succession certificate is mandatory as per Section 214(1)(b) of the Succession Act when the decree-holder dies in cases where the decree amount comes under the category 'debts' or 'securities'. Justice A Badharudeen further added that when the decree-holder dies after the deposit has been made, an exemption is made for the production of a succession certificate.
Other Significant Developments
Survivor Objects To Dileep Impleading In Her Plea Before Kerala High Court Seeking Fair Investigation In Actor Assault Case
The survivor in the 2017 actor sexual assault case has filed an objection before the Kerala High Court against the impleading petition filed by actor Dileep in her plea where she raised serious allegations against the State and the trial court judge, suspecting foul play in the ongoing investigation in the case. In her objection, the survivor has contended that the plea was filed to prevent any interference of the actor in the ongoing investigation and that impleading him in the petition would defeat the entire purpose of the case.
Kerala High Court Directs State To Inform Steps Taken To Complete Revival Of Mullassery Canal
The Kerala High Court directed the Special Government Pleader to inform the court about the steps taken at the behest of the Secretary of the Water Department to complete the revival of Mullassery Canal, including the manner in which the work has to be completed and the additional funds required for the same. Justice Devan Ramachandran opined that any delay in the completion of the canal work would create immeasurable trouble for the citizens, more so because of the fact that the KSRTC bus stand is nearby.
Actor Assault Case| Crime Branch Approaches Kerala High Court Seeking 3 More Weeks To Wind Up Probe
The Crime Branch has moved the Kerala High Court seeking another three weeks extension to conclude the further investigation in the 2017 sexual assault case. The time extension petition has attached a copy of the report received from the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) which discloses compelling evidence suggesting that the memory card allegedly containing the visuals of the crime was accessed three times while it was in the custody of the trial court.
Also Read: Dileep Files Objection Against Prosecution's Plea Seeking Extension Of Time To Complete Further Investigation
Also Read: Kerala High Court Asks Prosecution To Collect & Submit Cloned Copy Of Memory Card In A Sealed Cover Before Trial Court By Monday
Senior Journalist Approaches Kerala High Court Against Conferring IPS Cadre To A Retired Police Superintendent With Alleged Criminal Background
Case Title: G. Vipinan v. Union of India & Ors.
Senior Journalist G. Vipinan has approached the Kerala High Court challenging the steps taken to confer Indian Police Service (IPS), Kerala Cadre, to Abdul Rasheed, retired Superintendent of Police, without considering his alleged criminal background. According to the plea filed through Advocate C. Unnikrishnan, in 2008, the petitioner was brutally attacked and grievously hurt for publishing news against the misappropriation of money by the official of Sales Tax Intelligence. The said official was a close friend of the respondent, and the case was closed against him at the instance of the respondent.
Madhya Pradesh High Court
1. "Husband-Wife Expected To Live Together With Sense Of Adjustment": MP High Court Upholds RCR Decree As Wife Reconciles With Husband
Case title - DIMPLE@RANI RAWAT v. ASHOK RAWAT [FIRST APPEAL No. 728 of 2021]
Citation: Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 172
"It needs no mention that institution of marriage is a pious institution with solemnity attached to it. Husband and wife both are expected to live together with sense of adjustment and co-existence. By virtue of marriage, two individuals after marriage acquire a recognized status. It is the duty of the couple to maintain that status with utmost sense of mutual trust and faith," observed the Madhya Pradesh High Court recently.
2. Substitution Of Appointment On Compassionate Grounds Through Contractual Employment Not Permitted: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case Title: DHARMENDRA KUMAR TRIPATHI versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 174
The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently held that the Government authorities do not have the right to convert an appointment on compassionate grounds on a contractual basis even if there aren't any posts available to accommodate the dependent of the deceased employee. Holding the appointment of the Petitioner on a contractual basis as illegal, the division bench of Chief Justice Ravi Malimath and Justice Vishal Mishra observed-
An appointment on compassionate grounds is an appointment to a regular post. Therefore, all consequences will follow. An appointment based on contract would entail the consequences that arise out of a contractual appointment. The rules do not permit substitution of an appointment on compassionate grounds through contractual appointment. Therefore, the appointment of the petitioner on contractual ground is illegal. The respondents had no authority to do so. The further contention that as on that day the posts were not available may be a matter of fact to be ascertained. Even assuming the posts were not available that does not give a right to the respondents to convert an appointment on compassionate grounds on contractual basis. Hence, we do not find any ground in the said contention.
Madras High Court
A weekly round-up of important cases from Madras High Court and its subordinate courts.
Citations: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 294 To 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 307
O. Paneerselvam v. AIADMK and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 294
S.Ramesh v. Union of India and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 295
P.Velumani v. The State and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 296
C Sivakumar v. A Srividhya, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 297
V.S.J.Dinakaran v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Benami Prohibition) and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 298
Union Bank of India Officers Association and another v. Union Bank of India and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 299
K.Lal Bhagadhur Sasthri v. The Director of Medical Education and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 300
E.Seshan v. Union of India and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 301
C Joseph Vijay v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC), 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 302
Kunnamkulam Paper Mills Ltd. and ors v. Securities and Exchange Board of India, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 303
Dr.Sreejith V.Ravi v. The State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 304
B.C. Mohankumar Versus Superintendent of Central Goods & Service Tax, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 305
Bava Bahrudeen @ Mannai Bava v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 306
Asan Basha @ Ashan Batcha and another v. The State, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 307
1. Madras High Court Refuses To Stall AIADMK General Council Meeting, Rejects Plea By Ex-CM Paneerselvam
Case Title: O. Paneerselvam v. AIADMK and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 294
The Madras High Court on Monday refused to interfere with the general council meeting of the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK). Justice Krishnan Ramasamy noted that out of the 2665 members of the General Assembly, more than 2100 members have expressed desire to conduct the meeting. "In a democratic set up, the will of the majority will prevail", the court remarked.
The court also reprimanded the manner in which the petitioner was repeatedly approaching the court instead of participating in the meeting and putting forward his ideas. While allowing the conduct of the meeting according to law, the court also held that if anyone was aggrieved that the meeting was not conducted in accordance with law, they could move with a Civil Suit to that effect.
2. Extradition Act | Magistrate Holding Enquiry Need Not Be The One Within Whose Jurisdiction The Fugitive Was Apprehended: Madras High Court
Case Title: S.Ramesh v. Union of India and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 295
The Madras High Court recently reiterated that the Central Government has the liberty under the Extradition Act to choose any Magistrate to deal with the fugitive criminals. Such Magistrate need not be the one within whose jurisdiction the fugitive was apprehended.
Justice R Vijayakumar relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Rosiline George Vs. Union of India and others where the court had observed as under:
It is obvious from the plain language of Section 5 of the Act that the Central Government can direct any Magistrate to hold inquiry provided the said Magistrate would have had jurisdiction to inquire into the offence if it had been an offence committed within the local limits of his jurisdiction.....The Act, being a special provision dealing with the extradition of fugitive criminals, shall exclude from application the general provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In any case, Section 5 of the said code gives overriding effect to the special jurisdiction created under any special or local laws. Sections 177, 188 and 190 of the Code have no application to the proceedings under the Act.
3. Madras High Court Deprecates Trend Of Implicating Advocates As Accused For Offences Alleged Against Their Clients
Case Title: P.Velumani v. The State and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 296
While quashing proceeding against an advocate for trespass, the Madras High Court observed that there is a recent trend where the advocates are implicated along with their clients for offences alleged to be committed by the clients with an object of achieving the intended result quickly. Such practice should be condemned and deprecated.
Justice Murali Shankar of the Madurai Bench observed:
"A new trend has been emerging in implicating the Advocates as accused along with their clients with ulterior motive of achieving the intended result quickly or immediately. The practice of implicating the Advocates along with their clients for the offences alleged to have committed by the clients is to be condemned and such a practice is to be deprecated."
4. Wife Suspecting Husband's Character, Levelling Allegations Of Extra Marital Affair Before His Colleagues Amounts To Cruelty: Madras High Court
Case Title: C Sivakumar v. A Srividhya
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 297
While granting the relief of divorce to a husband on the ground of cruelty by his wife, the bench of Justice V.M Velumani and Justice S Sounthar recently observed that the act of wife suspecting the character of the husband and making allegations of extra marital affair in the presence of his colleagues would all amount to mental cruelty. The court also noted that the respondent wife had also given police complaint connecting the appellant husband with his female colleagues without specifically naming anybody. Such a police complaint would also amount to cruelty when it is not substantiated by any evidence. The court observed that during the time of separation, the respondent had removed her thali chain. The court opined that tying of Thali Chain was an essential ritual in marriage ceremony and its removal was an unceremonious act.
5. [Prohibition Of Benami Transaction Act] Opportunity For Cross-Examination Need Not Be Provided At The Stage Of Show-Cause Notice: Madras HC
Case Title: V.S.J.Dinakaran v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Benami Prohibition) and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 298
While confirming the order of the single judge dismissing a challenge to the provisional attachment under Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, the Madras High Court held that there is no provision for providing an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses from whom they have collected the information regarding benami property, at the preliminary stage and therefore, the question of violation of the principles of natural justice does not arise at the preliminary stage. It is applicable only during the adjudicatory proceedings.
A division bench of Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Sathya Narayana Prasad observed:
"The provisions of law mandate the respondent authorities to furnish such documents, particulars or evidence and provide an opportunity of being heard to the appellant only at the stage of adjudication proceedings; and there is no provision under the Act to provide an opportunity to the appellant to cross examine the witnesses at the preliminary stage."
6. "Leave Travel Concession For Traveling Abroad Not A Statutory Right": Madras High Court Dismisses Plea By Union Bank Officers
Case Title: Union Bank of India Officers Association and another v. Union Bank of India and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 299
Dismissing a writ petition filed against a circular issued by the Union Bank of India taking away Leave Travel Concession for travel abroad, Justice SM Subramaniam observed that such decision was taken in view of the policy of the Government and in the absence of any statutory right, the same did not warrant interference. The court observed as under:
Concessions or facilities extended by way of Administrative Instructions beyond the scope of the rules cannot be construed as an absolute right to the employees.. Regulation 44 remains as the same, providing right to travel within India by the shortest route and therefore, the Administrative Instruction/ Circular, granting an additional facility by way of discretion to travel abroad is to be construed as concession/facility and cannot be construed as a service right, so as to enforce the same.
7. NEET: Madras High Court Grants ₹1 Lakh Compensation To Aspirant Who Missed Counselling Registration Due To Poor Internet Connectivity In His Village
Case Title: K.Lal Bhagadhur Sasthri v. The Director of Medical Education and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 300
Observing that digitisation should lead to empowerment and not deprivation, the Madras High Court recently directed the Director of Medical Education and its Selection Committee to award a compensation of Rs. 1 lakh to a student who failed to register himself for the NEET counselling process due to technical glitches and poor internet connectivity in his village, thereby losing admission prospects.
The Madurai Bench of Justice GR Swaminathan observed that the state had an obligation to compensate a student who was deprived of his entitlement due to "digital divide". The court also directed the Department to ensure that the selection procedure is conducted in such a way so that incidents like these do not occur in future.
8. Madras High Court Issues Directions To Prevent Illegal Transport & Slaughtering Of Animals, Says Police Failed To Take Action Against Defaulters
Case Title: E.Seshan v. Union of India and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 301
The Madras High Court recently expressed alarm at the "day in and day out" illegal transportation and slaughter of cows and other animals in open places in the State.
A division bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice N Mala observed that such situation can arise only when the administration fails to ensure compliance of the provisions of the statutory laws and does not take timely action against the defaulters.
The court was hearing a plea claiming that the provisions with respect to prevention of cruelty to animals namely the Tamil Nadu Animal Preservation Act, 1958, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960; the Transport of Animals Rules, 1978, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Transport of Animals on Foot) Rules, 2001; the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Slaughter House) Rules, 2001, the Prevention of Cruelty in Animals (Regulation of Livestock Markets) Rules, 2017 and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance of Case Property Animals) Rules, 2017 etc were being violated in the state. The court found merit in the plea and issued a slew of directions for protection of animals
9. Actor Vijay's BMW Entry Tax Case: Madras High Court Rules Penalty For Non-Payment To Be Calculated From Date Of Order For Payment, Not Date Of Import
Case Title: C Joseph Vijay v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 302
Madras High Court on Friday disposed of a writ petition filed actor Vijay challenging the order of Commercial Tax Department directing the actor to pay penalty for non-payment of entry tax for a BMW X5 luxury car imported by him from the United States in 2005.
The bench of Justice R Suresh Kumar directed that the penalty for non-payment of entry tax could be levied only from 29th January, 2019 when a division bench of the court had directed that car importers were liable to pay entry tax. The court held that the penalty was to be calculated from the date of the order till the actual payment of the entry tax and not from the day of actual import.
10. Omission In Framing Of Charge Not Fatal By Itself Unless Prejudice Caused To Accused: Madras High Court
Case Title: Kunnamkulam Paper Mills Ltd. and ors v. Securities and Exchange Board of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 303
The Madras High Court recently imposed a penalty upon a company for allotting shares in violation of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 and opined that though the charge was not separately framed under Section 24(2), the penalty was imposed by the authority keeping in mind the ingredients of the section.
The bench of Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy thus imposed two penalties on the company. Firstly, under the unamended Section 24(1) of the Act for allotting shares in violation of the act and secondly under the amended Section 24(2) of the Act for violating the directions of SEBI.
11. Breach Of Compulsory Service Bond: Madras High Court Orders Doctor To Either Serve For 2 Yrs Or Pay ₹50 Lakh As Damages
Case Title: Dr.Sreejith V.Ravi v. The State of Tamil Nadu and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 304
The Madras High Court recently directed a doctor, who was in violation of his compulsory service bond executed for a period of 10 years, to either serve a bond period of two years or pay an amount of Rs. 50 lakh in breach thereof.
The court thus set aside the impugned order passed by the Dean of Tirunelveli Medical College wherein the college had called upon the young Doctor to pay a sum of Rs. 2 crores as damages for breach of bond condition.
Justice GR Swaminathan of the Madurai Bench observed as under:
I am more than certain that when it comes recovery of bond amount, the authorities will adopt an uniform policy throughout the State. Either the petitioner has to serve for the bond period of two years atleast from now on or he has to pay the amount of Rs.50 Lakhs as fixed by the Government themselves. The impugned order is quashed with the aforesaid clarifications.
12. Madras High Court Quashes Non-Speaking Order Rejecting The GST Registration Application
Case Title: B.C. Mohankumar Versus Superintendent of Central Goods & Service Tax
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 305
The Madras High Court bench of Justice Anitha Sumanth has quashed the non-speaking order rejecting the GST registration application. The court held that if the assessing authority is inclined to reject the application, which he is entitled to, he must assign reasons for such objection and adhere to proper procedure, including due process.
13. Madras High Court Grants Bail To Man Booked Under UAPA Over Facebook Posts Allegedly Instigating Muslims To Act Against Hindus
Case Title: Bava Bahrudeen @ Mannai Bava v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 306
The Madras High Court recently allowed a criminal appeal and granted bail to a man booked by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) over his social media posts, allegedly instigating Muslims to act against Hindus and create communal disharmony amongst different religions.
The bench of Justice S Vaidyanathan and Justice AD Jagadish Chandira opined that there was no evidence to prove that the appellant was involved in any violent activity and the only allegation was regarding uploading of Facebook posts. The court was also satisfied that the organization was not a terrorist organization. Considering that the appellant was in custody for more than 300 days and that there was no likelihood of the trial being completed at the earliest, the court was inclined to grant bail to the appellant.
14. Karnataka Hijab Row: Madras High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To TN Thowheed Jamath Members Accused Of Threatening Judges
Case Title: Asan Basha @ Ashan Batcha and another v. The State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 307
The Madras High Court recently granted anticipatory bail to seven members of Tamil Nadu Thowheed Jamath who participated in the meetings against the recent Karnataka High Court Hijab judgment. The anticipatory bail was granted keeping in view that the prime accused had already been granted bail and after taking on record the joint affidavit filed by the petitioners tendering their unconditional apology.
Justice Murali Shankar of the Madurai Bench, while granting bail also observed that every person has a right to express their views but the same should be done in a good faith. In the present case, the speakers had in fact exceeded the limits and went to the extent of threatening the Judges of High Courts and Supreme Court.
1. "Conversion Therapy" For LGBTQ+ Persons Must Be Treated As Professional Misconduct: Madras High Court Directs National Medical Commission
Case Title: S Sushma and Anr v. Director General of Police and Ors
Case No: WP 7284 of 2021
While issuing a slew of directions for the upliftment of the LGBTQ+ community, the Madras High Court has directed the National Medical Commission to enlist "Conversion Therapy" as professional misconduct.
This comes in continuation of the earlier directions issued by the court wherein the Commission was directed to ensure that the State Medical Councils shall notify conversion therapy as misconduct in their rules so that there is consistency bet the Commission rules and the Council rules.
When the matter came up on Friday, Justice Anand Venkatesh looked into the Draft Conduct Regulations 2022, which has been put in the public domain and suggestions have been invited. The court noted that only gender-based discrimination had been included as misconduct and "Conversion Therapy" was conspicuously absent.
2. AIADMK Headquarters Sealing: Madras High Court Directs State To File Report, Video Of Alleged Clashes
Case Title: Edappadi K.Palaniswamy v. The Revenue Divisional Officer cum Sub Divisional Magistrate
Case No: CRL OP 16343 of 2022
The Madras High Court on Thursday directed the State to file its report on the recent violence that broke out at the AIADMK Party Headquarters and the subsequent lock and seal that was imposed by the Revenue Department.
The bench of Justice N Sathish Kumar was hearing the pleas filed by former Chief Minister O Paneerselvam and the new incumbent General Secretary Edappadi Palaniswamy challenging the lock and seal of the party headquarters.
Orissa High Court
1. State of Odisha & Ors. v. Radhakanta Tripathy & Anr., 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 109
2. Gobardhan Gadaba @ Gadava v. State of Odisha, 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 110
3. Naba Krishna Mahapatra v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 111
4. Kishore Bira v. State of Odisha, 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 112
5. M/s. Patel Brothers & Co., Sambalpur v. State of Odisha, 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 113
Judgments/Orders Reported This Week:
1. Human Rights Commission Can Only 'Recommend' Compensation U/S 18 Of Protection Of Human Rights Act: Orissa High Court
Case Title: State of Odisha & Ors. v. Radhakanta Tripathy & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 109
The Orissa High Court held that Section 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 empowers Human Rights Commission only to 'recommend' and not to direct compensation. Notably, the Section provides for steps to be taken by the Commission "during and after inquiry". A Single Bench of Justice Arindam Sinha observed,
"Section 18 provides for steps during and after inquiry. As aforesaid there was omission by the Commission to conduct inquiry and as such section 18 could not be invoked by it for any of the steps to be taken thereunder. Having said that, the provision only empowers the Commission to recommend."
2. No Legal Mandate That Two Years Must Be Added To Outer Age Limit Determined By 'Ossification Test': Orissa High Court
Case Title: Gobardhan Gadaba @ Gadava v. State of Odisha
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 110
The Orissa High Court held that there is no law that two years mandatorily be added to the outer limit of age as determined by 'ossification test'. While rejecting an argument to that effect, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Sashikanta Mishra observed,
"…there is no law which mandates that in each and every case two years have to be added to the outer age limit determined by the ossification test. It would rather be prudent for the Court to accept the higher range of the age determined by the ossification report which, in the instant case is 16 years."
3. Bar Against 'Inter-District Transfer' Not Applicable To Govt Teachers With Disabilities: Orissa High Court
Case Title: Naba Krishna Mahapatra v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 111
In an important decision, which can be tagged as a remarkable quantum leap in the field of disability jurisprudence, the Orissa High Court held that bar against 'inter-district transfer' cannot be made applicable to teachers who are recognised as persons with disabilities. A Single Judge Bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi observed,
"Hence, it may be concluded that the bar under 1977 rules for inter district transfer shall not be applicable on a person with disability. Moreover, in view of provision of Right of Persons with Disability Act, 2016, read with the Govt. Notification (supra) permits inter district transfer of a person with disability."
4. NDPS Act | Possession Not Proved Merely By Sitting In Vehicle From Which Contraband Is Seized: Orissa High Court
Case Title: Kishore Bira v. State of Odisha
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 112
The High Court held that a person merely sitting in a vehicle from which contrabands were seized does not necessarily point to the fact that the said person had possession of those contrabands. While granting bail to the petitioner, who was booked under the NDPS Act and detained for being found from a vehicle which carried ganja, a Single Judge Bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi placed heavy reliance on the observations made in Avtar Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab, wherein the Apex Court had reached a similar conclusion.
5. "Tobacco & Tobacco Products" In Schedule To Odisha Entry Tax Act Include 'Bidi': Orissa High Court
Case Title: M/s. Patel Brothers & Co., Sambalpur v. State of Odisha
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 113
The Orissa High Court held that 'bidi' comes under the purview of "tobacco and tobacco products" as provided under Entry 16, Part I of the Schedule to the Odisha Entry Tax Act, 1999 ('OET Act'). A Division Bench of Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar and Justice Radha Krishna Pattanaik observed,
"Although learned counsel for the Petitioner sought to contend that under Entry 31 'cigarette and lighter' is a separate item and therefore unless there is a separate entry for 'bidi' it would not be amenable to entry tax in terms of the OET Act, the Court is unable to agree with the above contention. The expression 'tobacco and tobacco products' is wide enough to include 'bidi'..."
Punjab and Haryana High Court
Rakesh Jain v. Central Bureau of Investigation 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 181
Sukhjeet Kumar VERSUS State of Punjab and others 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 182
Paramjit Singh Through Lrs v. Gurdial Singh And Others 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 183
State Of U.T. Chandigarh Versus Shankar 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 184
Bhagirath @ Bhaga (deceased) thr. LRs Versus Ranjit Singh and others 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 186
M/s Garg Construction Company versus State of Haryana and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 185
Mahammad Shehbaz v. State of Punjab and others 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 187
Smt. Parkash Devi Versus Rajinder Kumar (Since Deceased) Through His Lrs. And Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 188
M/s Garg Construction Company Versus State of Haryana and others 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 189
S.139 Evidence Act | IO Who Merely Collected Documents Can't Be Cross-Examined With Regard To Its Contents: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case Title: Rakesh Jain v. Central Bureau of Investigation
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 181
The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently refused to grant permission for cross-examination of an Investigating Officer who had collected documents against the Petitioner-accused in a corruption case, citing Section 139 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Authority Exercising Revisional Jurisdiction Cannot Evaluate Comparative Merits Of Parties Competing For Appointment: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case Title: Sukhjeet Kumar VERSUS State of Punjab and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 182
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear, in this case with respect to appointment of Lambardar, that an authority exercising revisional jurisdiction cannot compare merits and de-merits of the parties involved. In this case, the appointment of the petitioner as Lambardar by the Collector was set aside by the Financial Commissioner, stating that the Collector had not considered the comparative merits and de-merits of the parties. While doing so, the Financial Commissioner also confirmed the appointment of Respondent no. 6 instead.
[Order 47 Rule 1 CPC] Review Lies Against Error Apparent On Record, Can't Be Disguised As Appeal For Re-Hearing: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case Title: Paramjit Singh Through Lrs v. Gurdial Singh And Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 183
The Punjab and Haryana High Court, while dealing with a review application in terms of Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC, held that question of relinquishment of share in the property by any of the parties cannot be commented upon in review petition.
Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Trial Court Judgement Finding Prosecution Story In NDPS Case 'Fake' Considering Discrepancies In Evidence
Case Title: State Of U.T. Chandigarh Versus Shankar
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 184
The Punjab and Haryana High Court, while dealing with an appeal preferred by the UT administration of Chandigarh against the judgment of the Trial Court in a matter registered under Section 20 of NDPS Act, held that the trial Court was correct in holding that the prosecution witnesses are not trustworthy and the seal, samples, documents etc. are tampered.
Section 11 Application Barred By Limitation; Parties Cannot Be Referred To Arbitration: Punjab and Haryana High Court
Case Title: M/s Garg Construction Company versus State of Haryana and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 185
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has reiterated that if the application for appointment of arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) is hopelessly time-barred, no arbitrator can be appointed by the High Court.
Order 6 Rule 17 CPC | Party Must Show That Proposed Amendment Could Not Have Been Brought Earlier Despite Exercise Of Due Diligence: P&H High Court
Case Title: Bhagirath @ Bhaga (deceased) thr. LRs Versus Ranjit Singh and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 186
The Punjab and Haryana High Court while upholding Trial Court's judgment dismissing an application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC for amendment of written statement on ground of delay, held that parties seeking amendment must show that despite exercise of due diligence, the proposed amendment could not have been brought forth earlier or before the commencement of the trial.
Sufficient Material & Solid Reasons Required For Declining Parole: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case Title: Mahammad Shehbaz v. State of Punjab and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 187
The Punjab and Haryana High Court while allowing a criminal writ petition challenging refusal of parole to the petitioner-convict has held that release on parole is part of the reformative process.
S.202 Indian Contract Act | Agency In Which Agent Has Interest Is Neither Terminated By Insanity Nor Death Of Principal: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case Title: Smt. Parkash Devi Versus Rajinder Kumar (Since Deceased) Through His Lrs. And Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 188
Punjab and Haryana High Court recently held that as per illustration (b) of Section 202 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, an agency in which the agent has an interest is neither terminated by insanity nor by the death of the principal.
Limitation Period Of 3 Yrs For Filing Application U/S 11 Arbitration Act Commences From Elapse Of 30 Days From Demand Of Arbitration: P&H High Court
Case Title: M/s Garg Construction Company Versus State of Haryana and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 189
The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently dismissed an application under Section 11(6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of an arbitrator filed by the applicant in 2017, on the ground of it being barred by limitation.
Other Important Judgements/Updates
"Shaheen Bagh Dadi" Tweet: Punjab & Haryana High Directs Lower Court To Adjourn Defamation Case Against Kangana Ranaut Beyond Sept 8
Case Title: Kangana Ranaut v Mahinder Kaur
The Punjab and Haryana High Court directed the Trial Court to adjourn criminal defamation proceedings initiated against Bollywood actress Kangana Ranaut over her 'Shaheen Bagh Dadi' tweet, beyond September 8, 2022. The complaint was filed in January 2021 wherein Kaur had alleged that actor during farmer protest had made defamatory tweet by comparing Kaur with "Dadi" at Shaheen Bagh, stating that such protestors could be hired.
Telangana High Court
1. S.22 SRA | Civil Courts May Grant Ancillary Reliefs To Give Full Effect To Decree For Specific Performance: Telangana High Court
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 60
The Telangana High Court recently upheld an order passed by the Executing Court directing removal of illegal structures raised in the suit schedule property after passing of a decree for specific performance, ordering delivery of possession, in favour of the defendants/ decree holders.
2. Drugs & Cosmetics Act | Complainant Must Prove "Exclusive Possession" Of Premises By Accused From Where Recovery Is Made: Telangana High Court
Case Title: The Drugs Inspector v. Chippa Thirupathi
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 61
The Telangana High Court recently observed that a complainant under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 is duty bound to prove the "exclusive possession" of premises by the accused where drugs have been found.
3. De-Casting Of Sand In Patta Lands Not 'Commercial Mining Activity'; Can Be Conducted Within Eco Sensitive Zone: Telangana High Court
Case Title: Bolusani Gowri Shankar v. The State of Telangana
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 62
The Telangana High Court recently set aside notices served to pattadars by government authorities, asking them to stop de-casting of lands on the alleged ground that the subject lands were falling in Eco Sensitive Zone (ESZ).
1. Married Woman Wilfully Cohabitating With Another Man Can't Prosecute Him For Rape Under False Promise Of Marriage: Telangana High Court
Case Title: The State of Telangana versus Dasari Murali
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 63
The Telangana High Court has made it clear that a married woman, wilfully cohabitating with another man, cannot prosecute him for Rape on his refusal to marry her. Justice K. Surender observed,
"When there is a subsisting marriage, the question of respondent/accused marrying P.W.1 would not arise for the reason of such marriage being an offence punishable for bigamy and invalid...The physical relation amongst P.W.1 and the respondent/accused being one of consent, the question of rape does not arise."
2. S.354 IPC Not Attracted If Woman Herself Didn't Perceive The Act Of 'Catching Hold Of Her Hand' As Invading Her Decency: Telangana High Court
Case Title: K.Rattaiah @ Ratnaji v. The State of Andhra Pradesh
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 64
Telangana High Court has recently observed that if a woman herself doesn't perceive the act of 'catching hold of her hand' as invading her decency, then such an act on part of an accused would not attract the ingredients of Section 354 of IPC.
3. Erroneous Recording of Place Of Supply As The Location Of Unregistered Recipient: Telangana High Court Remands The Matter
Case Title: M/s Ani Technologies Private Limited Versus State of Telangana
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 65
The Telangana High Court ruled that, while the department referred to Section12(9) of the IGST Act, the department erroneously recorded that, in the instance of an unregistered receiver, the place of supply should be the recipient's location. It prima facie appears to be in contravention of Section 12(9) of the IGST Act.
The division bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Surepalli Nanda said, "it is prima facie evident that if the passenger is not registered under GST and avails transportation service, by way of legal fiction, the place of supply would be the place where the passenger embarks or starts his journey."
4. Telangana High Court Holds Telangana Value Added Tax (Second Amendment) Act, 2017 To Be Unconstitutional
Case Title: M/s. Sri Sri Engineering Works and others Versus The Deputy Commissioner (CT), Begumpet Division, Hyderabad, and others.
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 66
The Telangana High Court has held that the Telangana Value Added Tax (Second Amendment) Act, 2017 is unconstitutional. The division bench of Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice P. Madhavi Devi has observed that the intention of Parliament in ushering in the GST regime through the Constitution Amendment Act, enactment of the CGST Act and simultaneous enactment of various State GST Acts by the State Legislatures was to avoid a multiplicity of taxes by subsuming those indirect taxes into a single tax called GST. However, the amendments brought in by the Second Amendment Act were wholly inconsistent with the scheme of the Constitution Amendment Act read with the CGST Act and the TGST Act.
5. Consensual Physical Acts Cannot Be Taken As Defense If Girl Is Below 18 Yrs Of Age: Telangana High Court Upholds POCSO Conviction
Case Title: Vanka Rajesh Raju v. The State of Telangana
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 67
The Telangana High Court has reiterated that the defense that acts of physical relationship was consensual between the accused and victim girl cannot be considered where the age of the girl was below 18 years.
6. If Age Of Victim Girl Is Suspicious & Not Proved, Benefit Of Doubt Is Extended To Accused Under POCSO Act: Telangana High Court
Case Title: Guda Mahender v. The State of Telangana
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 68
In a recent case, the Telangana High Court ruled that benefit of doubt has to be extended to the accused under the POCSO Act, if the age of the victim girl cannot be proved by prosecution to be below 18 years of age.
7. 'Necessary Steps Being Taken': Telangana High Court On PIL To Make Environmental Science A Compulsory Subject At School & University
Case Title: T DHANGOPAL RAO v. CHIEF SECY., HYD., TG
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 69
The Telangana High Court has disposed of a PIL seeking a direction to the respondent-State to make Environmental Science a compulsory subject following the decision in MC Mehta v. Union of India (1992).
8. Margin Of Error In Determining Age By Radiological/ Ossification Test Is Two Years On Either Side: Telangana High Court Overturns POCSO Conviction
Case Title: Mekala Shiva v. The State of Telangana
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 70
Recently, the Telangana High Court overturned the POCSO conviction as the age of the victim girl could be above 18 years of age on applying the margin of error to the age determined by doctor on radiological/ossification examination.
9. Impossible For The Party To Fulfil Its Obligations Under The Contract; Parties Cannot Be Referred To Arbitration: Telangana High Court
Case Title: Veeraboina Yadaiah versus Ramakanth Dande
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 71
The Telangana High Court has ruled since it was impossible for a party to fulfil its obligations under an agreement, in view of the doctrine of frustration, the parties cannot be referred to arbitration, despite the presence of an arbitration clause.
10. Contempt Action Not Warranted Unless Clear Case Of Unexplainable Wilful Disobedience Is Made Out: Telangana High Court
Case Title: Ganta Sudheer Kumar versus Sri T Nagi Reddy, Commissioner, Bhongir Municipality, Bhongir, Yadadri Bhongir District & others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 72
The Telangana High Court recently observed that disobedience of orders of the Court strikes at the very root of the rule of law on which the judicial system rests. However, such action should not be initiated unless a clear case of contumacious conduct, not explainable otherwise, arises.
Uttarakhand High Court
1. Cancellation Of GST Registration Affects Right To Livelihood, Writ Petition Is Maintainable: Uttarakhand High Court
Case Title: Vinod Kumar Versus Commissioner Uttarakhand State GST and others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Utt) 23
The Uttarakhand High Court has held that the cancellation of GST registration affects the right to livelihood and the writ petition is maintainable. The division bench headed by the Acting Chief Justice Sanjaya Kumar Mishra and Justice Ramesh Chandra Khulbe has observed that the appellant is denied his right to livelihood because of the cancellation of his GST Registration number. He has no remedy to appeal. It shall be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution as the right to livelihood springs from the right to life as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.