- Home
- /
- News Updates
- /
- All High Courts Weekly Round-Up:...
All High Courts Weekly Round-Up: June 6 - June 12, 2022
Shrutika Pandey
15 Jun 2022 6:45 AM GMT
Allahabad High Court NOMINAL INDEX Bhavesh Jain v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 279 Shyam Sunder Prasad v. Central Bureau Of Investigation Lucknow 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 280 Vijay Mishra v. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 281 Ram Pravesh And 3 Other v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 282 Basharat...
Allahabad High Court
NOMINAL INDEX
Bhavesh Jain v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 279
Shyam Sunder Prasad v. Central Bureau Of Investigation Lucknow 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 280
Vijay Mishra v. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 281
Ram Pravesh And 3 Other v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 282
Basharat Ullah v. State Of U.P. And 6 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 283
Jagveer Vs. State Of U.P. And Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 284
Wali Hassan v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 285
Up Judicial Services Association Thru. Its Secy. General Harendra Bahadur Singh And 39 Others v. State Of Up Thru. Its Add. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Appointment Civil Secrtt. Lko And Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 286
Ravi Pratap Mishra v. State of U.P. and others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 287
Neeraj Chaturvedi v. Central Bank Of India, Human Resource Deptt. Thru.General Manager And 2 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 288
Rameshwar And Another v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 289
Mohit Preet Kapoor v. Sumit Kapoor 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 290
Judgments/Orders of the Week
Case title - Bhavesh Jain v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 279
The Allahabad High Court quashed criminal proceedings against an accused (Bhavesh Jain) in the 2016 Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam recruitment scam case.
The Bench of Justice Vikas Kunvar Srivastav noted that the complaint and the charge sheet submitted against the accused, a software engineer, did not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence under the relevant sections of the I.P.C.
Case title - Shyam Sunder Prasad v. Central Bureau Of Investigation Lucknow [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 588 of 2022]
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 280
The High Court observed that the trial court has the power to allow the prosecution to produce the certificates under Section 65-B (4) of the Indian Evidence Act at a later point of time during the trial.
The Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh observed thus as it upheld the order of the trial court allowing an application filed by the prosecution under section 311 CrPC to bring on record two certificates under section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as they were not filed in property form during the filming of the charge sheet.
It may be noted that Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act requires the production of a certificate for leading secondary evidence of an electronic record. This provision aims to sanctify secondary evidence in electronic form, generated by a computer.
Case title - Vijay Mishra v. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 584 of 2022]
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 281
In an order passed in a criminal revision, the High Court explained the essential ingredients to constitute an offence punishable under Section 308 IPC [attempt to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder].
Case title - Ram Pravesh And 3 Other v. State of U.P. and Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 650 of 2022]
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 282
The High Court observed that matrimonial dispute between the husband and wife should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themself through a compromise deed duly filed and verified by the Court.
The Bench of Justice Chandra Kumar Rai observed thus as it quashed criminal proceedings initiated by an FIR lodged by the wife against the husband and his family members under Sections 498-A, 323 IPC, and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act
Case title - Basharat Ullah v. State Of U.P. And 6 Others [WRIT - A No. - 1959 of 2022]
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 283
"It is deplorable that the representative of the public compel the public servant to pass illegal orders and the public servant comply their illegal dictates without any demur," observed the High Court in one of its orders.
The Bench of Justice Siddharth made this stern remark while allowing a plea filed by one Basrat Ullah challenging an order passed by Special Secretary, UP Govt removing him as the Principal of Madarsa Darul Uloom Ahle Sunnat Badrool Uloom at District Basti.
Case title - Jagveer Vs. State Of U.P. And Another [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 718 of 2006]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 284
The High Court observed that once the Magistrate has taken cognizance for offences under certain sections/offences, it has no power to review its own order for dropping section(s) from the cognizance order.
The Bench of Justice Raj Beer Singh observed thus as it upheld an order of the magistrate rejecting an application filed by the accused/petitioner to withdraw cognizance order in connection with one of the offences of the charge sheet (on which the magistrate had earlier taken cognizance).
Case title - Wali Hassan v. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18303 of 2020]
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 285
The High Court granted conditional bail to an NDPS Accused Wali Hasan, accused of smuggling 201 kg of ganja in view of the fact that the sampling of the Ganja was not done as per the Standing Order/Instruction No.1 of 1989.
The Bench of Justice Chandra Kumar Rai ordered to release the applicant- Wali Hassan on bail on his furnishing a personal bonds and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.
Case title - Up Judicial Services Association Thru. Its Secy. General Harendra Bahadur Singh And 39 Others v. State Of Up Thru. Its Add. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Appointment Civil Secrtt. Lko And Another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 286
The High Court dismissed a petition filed by UP Judicial Services Association along with some of the judicial officers (having less than 3 years of experience as of December 31, 2021) seeking a direction allowing them to appear for the suitability test 2020 for promotion to UP Higher Judicial Services.
The Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed that the High Court committee's decision to include the names of only those judges who have completed three years in service can't be interfered with by the Court in its Writ jurisdiction.
Case title - Ravi Pratap Mishra v. State of U.P. and others [SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 289 of 2022]
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 287
The High Court observed that failure to properly advertise vacant posts is a violation of the fundamental right of the prospective/potential candidates and is also unfair to such candidates. The Bench of Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice J. J. Munir issued this order.
Essentially, one Ravi Pratap Mishra had moved before the single judge stating that he was appointed as a clerk in a school, however, Mishra the District Inspector Of School had refused to sanction his appointment as a clerk on the ground that the advertisement clerical recruitment had been published in a newspaper having less circulation in the concerned area.
Case title - Neeraj Chaturvedi v. Central Bank Of India, Human Resource Deptt. Thru.General Manager And 2 Others [WRIT - A No. - 3793 of 2022]
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 288
The High Court quashed an order transferring an employee of the Central Bank of India from one place to another as it noted that his wife is a permanently disabled person having 100% disability.
The Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan noted that as the husband (employee) is the caregiver of her wife [as defined under Section 2 (d) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016], therefore, as per the bank's transfer policy, he shall be exempted from routine/ rotational transfer.
Case title - Rameshwar And Another v. State of U.P. and Another [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2173 of 2022]
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 289
Explaining the scope and power of the court under Section 319 CrPC, the High Court observed that this provision allows the court to summon those persons who are not named in the charge sheet to appear and face trial (in certain circumstances).
The Bench of Justice Vikas Budhwar observed that the very object of engrafting section 319 Cr.P.C. is to not allow a person who deserves to be tried to go scot-free.
Case title - Mohit Preet Kapoor v. Sumit Kapoor [FIRST APPEAL No. - 351 of 2020]
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 290
The High Court observed that the act of the wife in visiting her parents house frequently without taking consent of her husband and other family members can neither constitute the offence of desertion nor amounts to cruelty.
The Bench of Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Krishan Pahal observed thus as it allowed an appeal filed by the Appellant/wife challenging the judgment and order passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bareilly under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act granting divorce decree in favor of the husband.
Other updates from the High Court
The High Court took cognizance of the issue of pendency of cases in revenue courts of Uttar Pradesh and has sought the response of the Uttar Pradesh government and the state bar council over the steps taken by them to ameliorate and ease the grave situation.
The Bench of Justice Jaspreet Singh has sought the responses of the Chief Secretary (Revenue), State of U.P., Chairman, Board of Revenue at Prayagraj and Lucknow, Principal Secretary (Law), State of U.P., and Chairman, Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh and has posted the matter for further hearing on August 3.
In a significant order, the High Court directed the Uttar Pradesh Government to hand over every sanitary worker a printed pamphlet enlisting their rights and entitlements.
In this regard, the Bench of Justice Chandra Kumar Rai and Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta has asked the State Government to prepare a brief one-page pamphlet specifying the rights and entitlements of the sanitary workers and publish the same in the newspapers.
Bombay High Court
Nominal Index
Nauman Suleman Khan v State of Maharashtra & anr 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 200
Dr. Lekha Rajesh Visaria v The State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 201
D.K. Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd versus Kishore Agarwal and Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 202
Becharabhai B. Chauhan v Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. And connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 203
Anurag S/o. Padmesh Gupta vs Bank of India 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 204
Suresh Ladak Bhagat v The State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 205
Nawab Malik vs UOI 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 206
Gautam Kamlakar Pardeshi and anr v The State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 207
Seema Jagdish Patil v The National Hi-Speed Rail Corporation Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 208
Judgments/Orders
Case Title: Nauman Suleman Khan v State of Maharashtra & anr
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 200
The Bombay High court quashed an FIR under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) for penetrative sexual assault, as the victim girl (now a major) said that she and the accused were allegedly in love and are now to be married.
The court observed it was "inclined to accept the request for quashing the FIR, only by considering their future. If the prosecution still remains, it will come in their peaceful life."
Case Title: Dr. Lekha Rajesh Visaria v The State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 201
The Bombay High Court pulled up the complainant teacher for putting up banners seeking the principal's arrest, while granting anticipatory bail to the principal accused of hurling casteist remarks, a punishable offence under the SC/ST Act, at an "under-performing" teacher.
"Once the complaint is lodged, FIR registered, the publication of the banner is uncalled for. Complainant cannot seek extra judicial remedies to pressurize the prosecution. Prosecution will carry out the investigation on the basis of cogent material on record and its investigation process. Parties should desist from such acts and allow the prosecution to do its duty in accordance with law."
Case Title: D.K. Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd versus Kishore Agarwal and Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 202
The Bombay High Court held that once the Court is satisfied regarding the existence of an arbitration agreement between the parties, the Court can decline to make a reference to arbitration only if it is satisfied that the dispute is non-existent or that it has become a deadwood.
The Single Bench reiterated that the scope of enquiry under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) is extremely limited and that the arbitrability of the dispute is required to be determined by the Arbitral Tribunal.
Case Title : Becharabhai B. Chauhan v Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. And connected matters
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 203
The Bombay High Court upheld the eviction orders passed against a group of unauthorized occupants, claiming tenancy rights on the premises of Mumbai International Airport.
A Single bench of Justice Sandeep K. Shinde observed that the land in question was acquired by the State in 1947 and hence, even if the owner himself tries to retain possession thereof, he will become a trespasser. Reliance was placed on Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and others.
Case Title: Anurag S/o. Padmesh Gupta vs Bank of India
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 204
The Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) cannot restrain a citizen from travelling abroad since there is no specific or implied provision empowering it under the Recovery of Debts Due To Banks and Financial Institutions Act 1993, the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court held.
The bench of Justices AS Chandurkar and Amit Borkar observed that a citizen's right to travel abroad forms part of "personal liberty" defined under Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, to restrain a person from travelling abroad, it was necessary to have such a provision under the Act.
"The State has not made any law or provision in the said Act seeking to deprive or regulate the right of a person to travel abroad. The order is, therefore, liable to be set aside."
Case Title : Suresh Ladak Bhagat v The State of Maharashtra
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 205
The Bombay High court set aside the conviction of a man in connection with the murder of his wife, even though her body was found in their home and he was found near the deceased.
A Bench reasoned that the accused has a right to maintain silence and it is for the prosecution to first prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, before the accused can be asked to explain the circumstances in his defence.
It noted that as per section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, the initial burden is on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. If the prosecution is unable to conclusively prove that the accused harmed his wife, the onus would not shift upon the accused to explain the circumstances in which his wife has died, and her dead body is found in the house occupied by the accused and the deceased.
Case Title – Nawab Malik vs UOI
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 206
Bombay High Court refused immediate relief to Maharashtra Cabinet Minister Nawab Malik to cast his vote in the Rajya Sabha elections today with liberty to approach the appropriate bench.
The court said that the petition under Article 227 and 482 CrPC was not maintainable and Malik was at liberty to approach the bench hearing bail applications.
"From the tenor of the application before special court and this Court, the primary prayer is for releasing petitioner for casting his vote on execution of a bond. The bond which can be referred to, can only be a bail bond under 439,437 of the CrPC. The petitioner is an undertrial and subject matter is to be decided by the appropriate bench. He should have moved the application before the bench for relief," the court said.
Case Title : Gautam Kamlakar Pardeshi and anr v The State of Maharashtra
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 207
The Bombay High Court held that the "last seen theory," whereby the accused is the last person spotted with the victim, is not enough to hold him guilty of the crime in the absence of a correlation with the time of the victim's demise.
The prosecution must establish the time when the deceased was last seen with the accused and the time of death, the court added. "Unless there is proximity in the time of last seen and the time of death, the evidence cannot be taken into consideration to convict the accused."
Case Title : Seema Jagdish Patil v The National Hi-Speed Rail Corporation Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 208
Compensation or income received by certain land-owners on account of the property acquired by the National Hi-Speed Rail Corporation Ltd (NHSRCL) for the Mumbai-Ahmedabad bullet train project through private negotiations and sale deed is exempted from tax, the Bombay High Court held.
A division bench observed that merely because the compensation amount to the land-owner is agreed upon, it would not change the character of acquisition, from that of compulsory acquisition to the voluntary sale under the Act.
Calcutta High Court
Nominal Index [Citations 225-234]
State of West Bengal v. Purnima Kandu 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 225
Goutam Saren v. Union of India & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 226
Anup Gupta v. State of West Bengal and others 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 227
Protima Dutta v. The State of West Bengal & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 228
Soumen Nandy v. The State of West Bengal & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 229
Mousumi Narayan (Nee Pal) v. The State of West Bengal & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 230
Usthi United Primary Teachers Welfare Association & Anr v. The State of West Bengal & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 231
Central Bureau of Investigation (Special Case No.04/99) v. Ms. S.R.Ramamani & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 232
Suvendu Adhikari v. Abhishek Banerjee 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 233
Nipika Agarwal Proprietress of S.N. Trading Versus Assistant Commissioner of State Tax 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 234
Orders/Judgments
1. Calcutta HC Upholds Single Judge Order For CBI Probe Into Congress Councillor Tapan Kandu's Murder
Case Title: State of West Bengal v. Purnima Kandu
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 225
The Calcutta High Court on Monday upheld the order of a Single Judge bench for a CBI probe into the death of former Congress councillor of Jhalda Municipality in Purulia, Tapan Kandu who was reportedly shot dead by miscreants on March 13. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj noted that the counsel appearing for the CBI has pointed out that the CBI has already taken over the investigation and substantial progress in the investigation has been done. Opining that no case of interference is made out, the Court observed, "In view of the circumstances noted above, we do not find any error in the order of the learned Single Judge and no case of interference is made out. We make it clear that any observation made by the learned Single Judge in the order under challenge or by this Court in this order are only tentative for the purpose of deciding the present issue and they will not prejudice the trial in any manner."
Case Title: Goutam Saren v. Union of India & Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 226
The Calcutta High Court came down heavily on the Central Administrative Tribunal for failing to dispose of a matter within a month despite its earlier order, by labelling it to be a 'sordid state of affairs'. A Bench comprising Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) and Justice Harish Tandon underscored, "It is the sordid state of affairs that despite all requests having been made to the officers manning the tribunal to dispose of the matter within a month from the date of the communication of this order, no substantial progress could be seen therefrom." Opining that the time limit set forth is mandatory, the Court further observed, "The time limit set forth hereinabove, is peremptory and mandatory. If necessary, the tribunal shall fix the date on day to day basis in order to adhere to the time fixed by this Court in the impugned order."
Case Title: Anup Gupta v. State of West Bengal and others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 227
The Calcutta High Court while adjudicating upon a plea alleging illegal appointment of assistant teachers for Class 9 and Class 10 in State-run schools, directed West Bengal Board of Secondary Education to set aside the appointment of a mathematics teacher. In the instant case, one Siddique Gazi was working as a mathematics teacher at Soluadanga High School in Murshidabad since February 2021. Justice Rajasekhar Mantha took on record the report filed by Ashok Kumar Saha, Assistant Secretary, West Bengal Central School Service Commission wherein the Commission had admitted that the appointment of Gazi as Assistant Teacher in the subject of Mathematics in OBC for Class IX & X under the State Level Selection Test, 2016 has been a mistake. Directing the Board of Secondary Education to immediately cancel his appointment, the Court underscored, "In that view of the matter, appointment of Siddik Gazi as Assistant Teacher by the Board of Secondary Education shall stand quashed and set aside. The Board shall take immediate consequential steps. An illegal appointment cannot confer any right on an appointee." The Court stated that it will consider on June 8 whether the said appointment was obtained by fraud or other malpractice. It further directed that no arrears whatsoever in any form shall be paid to the illegal appointee in the meantime.
Case Title: Protima Dutta v. The State of West Bengal & Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 228
The Calcutta High Court transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) the probe relating to murder of Trinamool Congress leader Tapan Dutta. The CID West Bengal which was probing the case was directed to immediately handover the investigation to the CBI. Dutta, then vice-president of Trinamool Congress' Bally Jagacha block unit in Howrah, was shot dead on May 6, 2011. The block unit was spearheading a movement to stop the filling up of 750-acre wetland, when Datta was killed. Pursuant to the rival submissions, Justice Rajasekhar Mantha opined that the pressure on the State police to shield certain persons and their nefarious actions cannot be ruled out and accordingly observed, "This Court's mind is not free from doubt that the murder in question might have been the result of a rivalry and a conspiracy. The victim may have been obstructing huge monetary and/or political gain that some persons were after. Such persons are politically powerful and well connected. A fair and effective investigation may indeed open a can of worms, or expose any likely role of influential persons. The pressure on the State police and the investigation agencies to shield certain persons and their nefarious actions cannot therefore be ruled out. Change of the investigating and prosecuting agency in the instant case is also necessary to instil faith in the family of the victim and the public at large."
Case Title: Soumen Nandy v. The State of West Bengal & Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 229
The Calcutta High Court ordered a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in a case related to primary teacher recruitment and directed the central agency to submit their report in a closed envelope on June 15. Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay was apprised by the petitioner that former state minister and IPS officer Upendra Nath Biswas had named one Chandan Mondal of Bagda, North 24 Parganas for allegedly giving jobs of primary school teachers in lieu of money. Incidentally, Upendra Nath Biswas is a former additional director of the CBI. It was further alleged that Mondal is hands-in-glove with Ministers of the Education Department of Government of West Bengal. Ordering for a CBI probe, the Court underscored, "Serious allegation by one responsible person, who was none other than the Ex-Additional Director of CBI and a Cabinet Minister of the State Government in the first five years of the Government, has come before this court which is serious corrupt practice. I hold this aspect is to be thoroughly investigated by the CBI and such investigation is required to be started forthwith. The Police of this State is otherwise very efficient but controlled by some persons in power and cannot act freely which is common knowledge and without showing any disrespect to the Police authority I hold that CBI is the appropriate authority to investigate the matter."
Case Title: Mousumi Narayan (Nee Pal) v. The State of West Bengal & Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 230
The Calcutta High Court on Wednesday transferred an investigation into a criminal case to the West Bengal CID after noting that the lawyer of the petitioner had been threatened by the concerned inspector of the local police station. Justice Bibek Chaudhuri directed the Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIG) of the West Bengal CID to appoint an Officer to investigate the case and accordingly observed, "Since the learned advocate for the petitioner was even threatened by the police inspector being the well wisher of the opposite parties, this Court is of the view that both Kasba Police Station Case No.254 of 2021 and Anandapur Police Station Case No.63 dated 5th April, 2022 ought to be investigated by a competent officer of C.I.D., West Bengal. Therefore, the Officers-in-charge of Kasba P.S. and Anandapur P.S. are directed to hand over the case diary of the above mentioned case to the Officer, CID for further investigation as appointed by the D.I.G., C.I.D." The Court thus ordered for a copy of this order to be sent to the D.I.G., C.I.D., Government of West Bengal at Bhawani Bhawan, Alipore.
Case Title: Usthi United Primary Teachers Welfare Association & Anr v. The State of West Bengal & Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 231
The Calcutta High Court allowed a Primary Teachers' Welfare Association to conduct a peaceful protest rally on June 11 from Raja Subodh Mullick Square Park to Rani Rashmoni Avenue in Kolkata. Justice Shampa Sarkar however imposed a host of conditions and further underscored that the police authorities shall be at liberty to ensure that no breach of peace takes place and law and order is maintained. The Court further noted that the police authorities have not objected to such a rally and that the petitioner wishes to have a peaceful rally with limited number of loudspeakers and vehicles.
Case Title: Central Bureau of Investigation (Special Case No.04/99) v. Ms. S.R.Ramamani & Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 232
The Calcutta High Court vide order dated June 8, 2022, has suggested that the CBI issue a fresh circular empowering the Additional Solicitor General (ASG) and the Public Prosecutor to give their opinion to the Director of Prosecution on filing appeals challenging court orders, to cut down on delay. Justice Bibek Chaudhuri had expressed displeasure at the agency for filing appeals after the expiry of the limitation period.
The Court had noted that the CBI officers were failing to comply with the CBI manual which stipulates detailed provisions to avoid delay and ensure filing of appeals and revisions within the limitation period. Accordingly, the Court had opined that the issue could not be decided without hearing the CBI Director and thus sought his virtual appearance. On Wednesday, Justice Chaudhuri reiterated his proposal when CBI Director-General S K Jaiswal was present via virtual mode during the hearing.
Case Title: Suvendu Adhikari v. Abhishek Banerjee
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 233
The Calcutta High Court ordered the transfer of a defamation suit filed by Trinamool Congress (TMC) national general secretary Abhishek Banerjee against BJP MLA and Leader of Opposition in West Bengal Assembly Suvendu Adhikari from a Court in Diamond Harbour, South 24-Parganas to a City Civil Court in Calcutta. Adhikari had moved an application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) seeking transfer of the suit now pending in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court, Diamond Harbour, South 24-Parganas to the court of Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Calcutta. Justice Rabindranath Samanta observed, "Having heard learned counsels appearing for the parties and considering the balance of convenience and inconvenience of the respective parties, I feel that it would be wise to withdraw Title Suit No.19 of 2021 from the court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court, Diamond Harbour and transfer the suit to learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Calcutta." The concerned Chief Judge was also ordered to make all endeavour so that the suit is disposed of as expeditiously as possible.
Case Title: Nipika Agarwal Proprietress of S.N. Trading Versus Assistant Commissioner of State Tax
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 234
The Calcutta High Court bench has held that assessees should be given the opportunity to produce evidence which has an impact on tax liability. The division bench of Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Bibhas Ranjan De has observed that tax authorities must adjudicate upon the tax liability in accordance with the law. Similarly, if the assessee is unable to present certain evidence that affects the tax liability, the assessee should be given a reasonable opportunity to bring the evidence to the attention of the tax authorities. "We are of the view that another opportunity should be granted to the appellant/writ petitioner to place the document dated August 25, 2021 before the revisional authority. The appellant/writ petitioner is at liberty to approach the revisional authority within a fortnight from this date with regard to the order of assessment dated May 3, 2021. If so approached, the revisional authority is requested to reconsider its order passed on refund, taking into account the document dated August 25, 2021 in accordance with law," the court said.
Important Developments
Case Title: Anindya Sundar Das v. State of West Bengal
The Calcutta High Court on Monday sought response from the State government in a Public Interest Litigation petition seeking compensation to the tune of Rs 1 crore for the family members of the minor victim in the Hanshkhali gangrape and murder case which is currently being probed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The PIL filed by petitioner Anindya Sundar Das alleged that no compensation has yet been provided by the State government to the family members of the deceased victim. Accordingly, the petitioner prayed for the issuance of directions to the West Bengal Legal Services Authority and the Nadia District Legal Services Authority to grant the compensation amount. The counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted before a Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj on Monday that the Court has the power to direct the grant of interim compensation to the family members of the deceased victim as per various rulings of the Supreme Court. Taking cognisance of the grievance raised, the Court directed the State government to file an affidavit-in-opposition within a period of 3 weeks. Furthermore, the petitioner was also ordered to file a reply to the State's affidavit-in-opposition before the next date of hearing which is slated to take place on June 28.
2. PIL Filed In Calcutta High Court Seeking CBI Probe Into Singer KK's Death
A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed before the Calcutta High Court seeking a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into the death of singer-composer Krishnakumar Kunnath popularly known as KK, who passed away on Tuesday hours after performing in a concert at Kolkata. He was in the city for a two-day concert, and fell ill during an event at Nazrul Mancha. He is reported to have died of a suspected heart attack. The PIL filed through advocate Ravi Shankar Chattopadhyay was mentioned before a Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj on Monday seeking an urgent listing of the plea. The Division Bench directed the concerned counsel to file the PIL and further remarked that it would consider an urgent hearing of the petition. The petitioner has argued that there was utter mismanagement at Nazrul Manch and that negligence on part of the local administration was one of the reasons behind the chaos. Thus, the plea contended that a CBI probe is necessary.
Case Title: Shaista Afreen and Ors v. State of West Bengal
A plea has been raised before the Calcutta High Court on Monday on behalf of the parents of the deceased minor victim in the Hanshkhali gangrape and murder case, citing misconduct of concerned State police authorities. The Court had earlier ordered a probe by the CBI into the case. The counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted before a Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj that the parents of the victim are present in Court and that they have alleged misconduct by the concerned police authorities. The Court was further apprised that the parents are aggrieved by the actions of the Inspector-in-Charge and the second officer of the concerned police station. Taking cognisance of the matter, the Court permitted the counsel to place on record the grievances raised in the form of an affidavit before the next date of hearing which is slated to take place on June 13.
The Calcutta High Court sought response from the State government as well the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in a plea against the constitution of a five-member fact-finding committee of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) to probe into the violence in Birbhum district of West Bengal, in which ten persons were killed allegedly in retaliation to the murder of local All India Trinamool Congress (TMC) leader Bhadu Sheikh. The plea filed by petitioner one Preeti Kar contended that since the CBI is already enquiring into the incident, no 'parallel enquiry' by the fact finding committee of the BJP is required as it might delay the progress of the overall investigation. Taking cognisance of the grievance raised, a Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj directed the counsel for the petitioner to serve copies of the plea to all concerned counsels including the CBI within 2 days. Furthermore, the Court directed the CBI as well as the State government to obtain instructions in the matter before the next date of hearing which is slated to take place on June 13.
Case Title: The Court on its own Motion In re: The Brutal Incident of Bogtui Village, Rampurhat, Birbhum
The Calcutta High Court took on record the second progress report filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) with respect to the the violence in Birbhum district of West Bengal, in which ten persons were killed allegedly in retaliation to the murder of local All India Trinamool Congress (TMC) leader Bhadu Sheikh. The CBI also filed its first status report with respect to the investigation into the murder of TMC leader Bhadu Sheikh. The counsel appearing for the CBI apprised a Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj that substantial progress has been made in the investigation and that the chargesheet is likely to be filed within 2 weeks. Recording these submissions, the Court adjourned the hearing to June 13.
6. Calcutta High Court Seeks State's Response On PIL Against 'Biswa Bangla' Logo On Govt School Uniform
Case Title: Soumen Halder v. The State Of West Bengal & ors
The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday sought response from the State government in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition against the decision of the West Bengal government to introduce blue-and-white coloured uniforms for students in all State-run schools which will also feature the 'Biswa Bangla' logo. According to a notification dated March 16 issued by the Paschim Banga Samagra Siksha Mission, students of all government, semi-government and government-aided schools in Bengal will have a common uniform in a blue and white colour scheme which will also feature the Bengal government's 'Biswa Bangla' logo. The PIL filed by petitioner one Soumen Halder seeks an interim stay of such a notification and further avers that encryption of logos in the uniforms of students is a 'political stunt' by the TMC-led government. Taking cognisance of the grievance raised, a Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj directed the State government to file an affidavit-in-opposition within 4 weeks. The petitioner was further ordered to file a reply to the affidavit-in-opposition within 2 weeks thereafter. Accordingly, the matter was listed for further hearing on August 1.
Case Title: Suvendu Adhikari and Ors v. Hon'ble Speaker, West Bengal Legislative Assembly
The Calcutta High Court observed that the pendency of the petition challenging the Speaker's decision to suspend Leader of the Opposition Suvendu Adhikari and four other BJP MLAs from the West Bengal Legislative Assembly would not stand in the way of the parties in resolving the issue. Five BJP MLAs, including Suvendu Adhikari, were suspended by the West Bengal Assembly Speaker on March 28 for their alleged unruly conduct in the House. Adhikari, along with BJP legislators Dipak Burman, Shankar Ghosh, Manoj Tigga and Narahari Mahato, were suspended by the Speaker for future sessions this year. Justice Rajasekhar Mantha underscored that the pendency of the plea would not stand in the way of the parties resolving the issue and accordingly observed, "Pendency of the writ petition and hearing of the matter shall not stand in the way of the parties in resolving the issues in accordance with rules."
Case Title: Pallabi Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal
A letter has been addressed to the Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court on Saturday seeking immediate constitution of a Bench to urgently adjudicate upon a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking deployment of central forces in light of the ongoing protests in Howrah against remarks by BJP leaders against Prophet Mohammed. The letter written by advocate Susmita Saha Dutta avers that the law and order is at stake in West Bengal and that the lawlessness is beyond the control of the State administration. It further stipulates, "My Lord, hope Your Lordship will appreciate that law and order in the State of West Bengal is at stake and this lawlessness is beyond the control of the State administration; resultant the present disturbance which has now taken the shape of communal riot will spread like bonfire in the event this Hon'ble Court does not make judicial intervention at once". The PIL filed by petitioner Pallabi Chatterjee seek deployment of central paramilitary forces to tackle the alleged lawlessness that has taken the shape of communal riots. It has further sought for an investigation by the National Investigating Agency (NIA) to probe into the incidents of violence. The petitioner has further submitted that the police authorities are mute spectators and that such inaction on the part of police authorities are violative of the fundamental right to life enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Delhi High Court
NOMINAL INDEX
Citations 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 543 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 565
VISHAL PIPES LIMITED v. BHAVYA PIPE INDUSTRY 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 543
CAPITOL ART HOUSE (P) LTD v. NEHA DATTA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 544
M/s Schneider Electric India Pvt. Ltd. Versus ACIT 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 545
Karida Real Estates Private Limited Versus ACIT 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 546
JAMAHIR ALIAS JAWAHAR v. THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 547
HELL ENERGY MAGYARORSZAG KFT. v. & BEN GROUPO PVT. LTD. & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 548
INDIA TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED (ITDC) v. BOUGAINVILLEA MULTIPLEX ENTERTAINMENT CENTRE PVT. LTD. (BMEL) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 549
M/s Sat Kartar Tour N Travels versus Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 550
Charu v. High Court of Delhi 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 551
In Re: Housing for the Poor in Delhi 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 552
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER EXCISE v. M/S 2 BANDITS RESTAURANT 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 553
DUSHYANT KUMAR v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 554
PRAKASH SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 555
M/s Shakti Oil And Chemical Co. Versus Commissioner of DGST Delhi 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 556
HARYANA STATE JUDO ASSOCIATION v. JUDO FEDERATION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 557
MAMTA DEVI AND ORS v. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 558
TARUN AND ORS v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 559
DELHI SIKH GURDWARA MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE & ORS. v. RAVINDER KAUR BHATIA & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 560
JYOTI @ GAYATRI v. ROHIT SHARMA @ SANTOSH SHARMA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 561
YOGESH JAGIA v. JINDL BIOCHEM PVT LTD 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 562
MASTER DIVYAM BHATEJA THROUGH FATHER MR VINOD BHATEJA v. BHAI PARMANAND VIDYA MANDIR AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 563
UEM India Pvt. Ltd. versus ONGC Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 564
NAVED v. THE STATE 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 565
1. IPR Suits Below Rs. 3 Lakhs Threshold To Be Listed First Before District Judge (Commercial) To Determine Whether Valuation Is Deliberately Undervalued: Delhi HC
Case Title: VISHAL PIPES LIMITED v. BHAVYA PIPE INDUSTRY
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 543
The Delhi High Court has held that in a case where a plaintiff values an IPR suit in the city district courts below the threshold of Rs.3 lakhs, such suits would be listed before the District Judge (Commercial) first in order to determine as to whether the valuation is arbitrarily whimsical or deliberately undervalued.
Justice Pratibha M Singh added that it would be mandatory for IPR suits to be ascribed a 'specified value', in the absence of which the valuation of the suit below Rs.3 lakhs would be arbitrary, whimsical and wholly unreasonable.
"This Court is cognizant of the fact that the valuation of intellectual property is by itself a very complex process. It is clarified that the Commercial Court is not expected to value the specific IP on the basis of any mathematical formulae but to broadly take into consideration whether the said IP would be worth more than Rs. 3 lakhs, which is the threshold for the Commercial Court to exercise jurisdiction," the Court said.
2. Re-Examination Can't Be Used To Give Chance To Witness To Undo Statement Made In Cross Examination & Fill Lacunae In Evidence: Delhi High Court
Case Title: CAPITOL ART HOUSE (P) LTD v. NEHA DATTA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 544
The Delhi High Court has observed that the opportunity of re-examination cannot be used to give a chance to a witness to undo its statement made in cross-examination and fill in the lacunae in evidence.
Justice Amit Bansal was dealing with a suit filed seeking to injunct the defendants, who were occupants, from unlawfully entering any part of the first floor including the balcony of a Shop on the ground floor of the premises.
Issues were framed in the suit on 2nd August, 2019 and a Local Commissioner was appointed to record evidence of the parties.
3. Show Cause Notice Mailed To The Wrong Email Address: Delhi High Court Remands The Matter To The Assessing Officer For A Fresh Decision
Case Title: M/s Schneider Electric India Pvt. Ltd. Versus ACIT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 545
The Delhi High Court, consisting of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Preetam Singh Arora, has remanded the matter to the assessing officer for a fresh decision as the department mailed the show cause notice to the wrong email address.
The petitioner/assessee submitted that the department alleged that the petitioner's claim for IGST Refund was incorrect and, hence, the amount "is required to be disallowed." An IGST refund, being a balance sheet item, is not a claim made in the profit and loss account and it cannot be termed as "income chargeable to tax having escaped assessment". Hence, in terms of Section 147 of the Income Tax Act as well as the first proviso to Section 148, the show cause notice was patently illegal.
4. Delhi High Court Quashes Reassessment Order Issued Without Considering The Reply Filed By The Assessee
Case Title: Karida Real Estates Private Limited Versus ACIT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 546
The Delhi High Court, consisting of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Preetam Singh Arora, has quashed the reassessment order issued without considering the reply filed by the assessee.
The petitioner/assessee stated that the reassessment proceedings initiated by the department were void ab initio. The proceedings were initiated in the name of "Damian Estate Developers Private Limited", which was a non-existent entity as it had amalgamated with the petitioner company with effect from April 1st, 2016.
5. "Diabolic & Brutal": Delhi High Court Awards Imprisonment For Remainder Of Life To Three For Gang Rape & Murder Of 3-Yr-Old
Case Title: JAMAHIR ALIAS JAWAHAR v. THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 547
The Delhi High Court has awarded life sentence (for remainder of life) to three men for gang rape and murder of a three year old minor child observing that the same was done in a diabolic and brutal manner.
Upholding the conviction of the three, a division bench comprising of Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Mini Pushkarna exercised its appellate jurisdiction by awarding life sentence under Section 376(2) and 302 of Indian Penal Code. It observed that the imprisonment of life for the remainder of life would be an appropriate sentence in the facts of the case.
The prosecution case was that an FIR was received 6th January, 2012 informing that a dead body of girl aged about 3-4 years was found in city's Ramesh Nagar. The body was found by an MCD sweeper who took it out while cleaning a nala. The same was identified later by minor's father.
Read Also: Trial Court Cannot Qualify Life Imprisonment Awarded By It To Remainder Of Natural Life: Delhi High Court Reiterates
6. Delhi High Court Awards ₹5 Lakhs Cost In Favour Of Hungarian Company 'Hell Energy' In Trademark Infringement Suit
Case Title: HELL ENERGY MAGYARORSZAG KFT. v. & BEN GROUPO PVT. LTD. & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 548
The Delhi High Court has awarded a cost of Rs. 5 lakhs in favour of a Hungarian Company engaged in the business of production and sale of energy drinks under the brand names 'HELL' and 'HELL ENERGY' in a trademark infringement suit filed by it.
Justice Pratibha M Singh directed that the said amount be paid by July 15, noting the fact that mediation proceedings between the parties were not successful and also that the Defendants were ex-distributors of the company in question.
7. Entities Under Article 12 Expected To Fully Disclose Relevant Facts Regarding Property/ Assets For Fair Commercial Transactions: Delhi High Court
Case Title: INDIA TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED (ITDC) v. BOUGAINVILLEA MULTIPLEX ENTERTAINMENT CENTRE PVT. LTD. (BMEL)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 549
Observing that fairness of procedure is in public interest, the Delhi High Court has said that full disclosure of relevant facts and developments apropos a property or asset or a commercial entity, is expected for a fair commercial transaction, especially from entities under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
A division bench comprising of Justice Najmi Waziri and Justice Vikas Mahajan further added that it is expected that actions of such entities would always be imbued with the spirit of fairness.
The Court made the observations while dismissing an appeal filed by India Tourism Development Corporation Limited (ITDC) under sec. 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenging the order passed by the Single Judge dismissing its petition under sec. 34 of the Act against an Arbitral Award.
8. Order Passed By The Arbitrator Allowing Meetings As Per Convenience Of Parties, Would Not Change The Seat Of Arbitration: Delhi High Court
Case Title: M/s Sat Kartar Tour N Travels versus Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 550
The Delhi High Court has ruled that an order passed by the Arbitrator holding that the arbitral proceedings shall be conducted at any other place, would not change the seat of Arbitration as provided in the Arbitration Clause.
The Single Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao held that the Arbitrator cannot decide anything contrary to what has been decided by the parties.
The petitioner M/s Sat Kartar Tour N Travels was awarded a contract by the respondent Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (ONGC) for hiring services. Thereafter, the respondent terminated the contract vide a notice. The petitioner issued a legal notice invoking the Arbitration Clause and called upon the respondent to appoint an Arbitrator.
9. DJS 2022 | Reserved Category Candidate Can Rectify Bonafide Mistake Of Applying In General Category If No Prejudice Is Caused To Any Person: Delhi HC
Case Title: Charu Kain v. High Court of Delhi
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 551
The Delhi High Court has held that a person of a reserved category, committing a bona fide mistake of applying under General category for an examination should be given an opportunity to rectify the same, so long as their action does not cause prejudice to any person.
In this case, the petitioner, who is currently posted as an Additional Civil Judge, Junior Division, Uttar Pradesh Judicial Services had appeared for the Delhi Judicial Service Preliminary Examination, 2022 as a General Category candidate, instead of a Reserved category (SC) candidate due to a bona fide mistake. Here, had the petitioner been considered as a Reserved Category candidate (SC), she would make the cut off for appearing in the Mains examination as she had secured 119.5 marks, which was above the cut off (115.5 marks) for Reserved Category candidates. However, she did not make the cut off for the General Category which was higher than 119.5.
10. Slum Dwellers Rehabilitation: Delhi High Court Takes Suo Moto Cognizance Of Non-Allotment Of Low-Cost Flats Under JNNURM Scheme
Case Title: In Re: Housing for the Poor in Delhi
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 552
The Delhi High Court has taken suo moto cognizance of non-allotment of flats constructed under Centre's Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission Scheme, which was to be implemented by the Delhi Government, for rehabilitation of slum dwellers in the city.
Justice Pratibha M Singh noted that a large number of houses were either constructed or partially constructed but the same were yet to be allotted for rehabilitation of slum dwellers.
11. License Of Liquor Vend Cannot Be Cancelled Merely Because Public Sentiment May Be Opposed To Its Location: Delhi High Court
Case Title: DEPUTY COMMISSIONER EXCISE v. M/S 2 BANDITS RESTAURANT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 553
The Delhi High Court has observed that unless the license of a liquor vend is shown to fall foul of any statutory provision or otherwise established to be in violation of any rule or regulation, the same cannot possibly merit cancellation, merely because "public sentiment" may be opposed to its location.
Justice Yashwant Varma further added that public opinion or sentiment is not a factor relevant or germane under the Delhi Excise Act for locating a liquor vend.
The Court was dealing with a petition preferred by the Department of Excise assailing the order of 28 June 2019 passed by the Financial Commissioner. The impugned order restored the excise license which was granted to the respondent, M/S 2 Bandits Restaurant, setting aside an order in terms of which the same had been cancelled.
12. Court May Note Objections On Oral Evidence During Trial, Admissibility To Be Decided While Pronouncing Verdict & Not At Time Of Examination: Delhi HC
Case Title: DUSHYANT KUMAR v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 554
The Delhi High Court has observed that the question whether the evidence is to be included or excluded from consideration while pronouncing the final verdict is to be taken at the end and not at the time of examination.
Justice Jasmeet Singh added that where the Court finds that any question put by the defense is inadmissible or not relevant, it should record its observation and thereafter permit the witness to answer the question.
The Court was dealing with a plea challenging the rejection of questions by the Special CBI Judge of Rouse Avenue Courts, during the cross-examination of a prosecution witness in November 2021.
13. Newspaper Or Agency Engaged In Disseminating News Cannot Be Viewed As Performing Public Function: Delhi High Court
Case Title: PRAKASH SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 555
The Delhi High Court has observed that a newspaper or an agency engaged in the dissemination of news cannot be viewed as performing a public function.
Justice Yashwant Varma dismissed a writ petition filed by one Prakash Singh laying allegations of racial discrimination and harassment against Agence France-Presse, a French private international news agency, against him. The Court dismissed the plea as not being maintainable.
Advocate Raghav Awasthi appearing for the petitioner drew the attention of the Court to the fact that Agence France-Presse was constituted by an Act of Parliament of France.
It was argued that its essential functions would indicate that it was an autonomous civil entity which had been constituted for the purpose to seek out, in France as well as abroad, the elements of a complete and objective information service and also to place that information at the disposal of users in exchange for payment.
14. Delhi High Court Orders To De-seal Business Premises, Directs Assessee To Produce Documents
Case Title: M/s Shakti Oil And Chemical Co. Versus Commissioner of DGST Delhi
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 556
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Poonam S. Bamba has ordered the department to de-seal business premises and directed the assessee to produce documents.
The department has sealed the business premises of the petitioner under Section 67 (4) of the Central Goods and Service Tax, 2017 for the want of documents.
As per Section 67 (4) of the Central Goods and Service Tax, 2017, the officer authorised shall have the power to seal or break open the door of any premises or to break open any almirah, electronic devices, box, receptacle or receptacle in which any goods, accounts, registers or documents of the person are suspected to be concealed, where access to such premises, almirah, electronic devices, box, or receptacle is denied.
15. Delhi High Court Appoints Former Justice Pankaj Naqvi As Administrator To Handle Affairs Of Judo Federation Of India
Case Title: HARYANA STATE JUDO ASSOCIATION v. JUDO FEDERATION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 557
The Delhi High Court has appointed former Allahabad High Court judge, Justice Pankaj Naqvi, as administrator to handle day to day affairs of Judo Federation of India.
Justice Yashwant Varma also directed that in the interim, the erstwhile President, General Secretary and Treasurer of the Federation shall extend all cooperation to the Administrator in conducting the affairs of the Federation.
"The Administrator shall be authorized to make appropriate arrangements for the governance of the Federation until elections are held," the Court added.
16. Delhi High Court Asks Parties To Clean Yamuna River For 45 Days, Quashes Assault FIR Based On Compromise
Case Title: MAMTA DEVI AND ORS v. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 558
While quashing an FIR registered after a fight resulting in simple injuries, the Delhi High Court directed the complainant as well as the respondent parties to clean river Yamuna for a period or 45 days.
Justice Jasmeet Singh directed the parties to work with Delhi Jal Board Team under the supervision of Member, Drainage.
"At the end of satisfactory service, the petitioners and respondents will be given a certificate by Delhi Jal Board for Yamua Cleaning and this certificate by each of the petitioners and respondents must be placed on record within one week of their receipt," the Court directed.
17. Tendency To File Cases Of Outraging Woman's Modesty In Disputes Between Neighbours To Settle Scores Needs To Be Curbed: Delhi High Court
Case Title: TARUN AND ORS v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 559
The Delhi High Court has observed that the tendency of filing cases of outraging modesty of a woman under Section 354 and 509 of Indian Penal Code, in the disputes between neighbours to settle scores needs to be curbed.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma made the observation while quashing an FIR registered under sec. 354, 452, 506, 509, 354B and 34 of Indian Penal Code.
The complainant had stated that the parties were neighbours and a dispute had arisen over some misunderstanding, pursuant to which cross FIRs were registered.
18. Institutions That Can't Pay Long Outstanding Salaries For Years Draws Attention To Its Right To Continue As An Employer: Delhi High Court
Case Title: DELHI SIKH GURDWARA MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE & ORS. v. RAVINDER KAUR BHATIA & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 560
The Delhi High Court has observed that an institution which cannot pay its long outstanding salaries for years, which are statutorily due, draws attention to its financial stability and its right to continue as an employer.
A division bench comprising of Justice Najmi Waziri and Justice Vikas Mahajan was of the opinion that it is for the State Government to look into the matter and ensure that the educational institutions comply with and conform to the strict norms of law.
The Court was dealing with an LPA filed by Delhi Sukh Gurudwara Management Committee concerning non-payment of outstanding amount to teachers paid under the Sixth Pay Commission for the past eight years.
19. S.127 CrPC | Must Consider Husband's Financial Status, Changed Circumstances While Determining Maintenance In Matrimonial Dispute: Delhi High Court
Case Title: JYOTI @ GAYATRI v. ROHIT SHARMA @ SANTOSH SHARMA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 561
The Delhi High Court has observed that the determination of maintenance in matrimonial disputes depends on the financial status of the husband and the standard of living that the wife was accustomed to in her matrimonial home.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh added that the financial capacity of the husband, his actual income with reasonable expenses for his own maintenance, and dependant family members whom he is obliged to maintain under the law including the liabilities, would be required to be taken into consideration, to arrive at the appropriate quantum of maintenance to be paid.
The Court was of the view that the phrase "change of circumstances" referred to in Section 127(1) of CrPC is a comprehensive phrase which also includes change of circumstances of husband.
20. Summoning Of Accused A Serious Matter, Criminal Law Cannot Be Set Into Motion As A Matter Of Course: Delhi High Court
Case Title: YOGESH JAGIA v. JINDL BIOCHEM PVT LTD
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 562
The Delhi High Court has observed that summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and that the Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh further added that a Magistrate is the silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidences before summoning of the accused and must carefully scrutinize the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused.
The Court was dealing with a plea filed by a practicing Advocate enrolled with Bar Council of Delhi since 1991 and the Respondent Complainant was a real estate development company.
21. Right To Education Under RTE Act Cannot Be Unconditionally Enforced Against Private Unaided Schools: Delhi High Court
Case Title: MASTER DIVYAM BHATEJA THROUGH FATHER MR VINOD BHATEJA v. BHAI PARMANAND VIDYA MANDIR AND ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 563
The Delhi High Court has observed that while the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 guarantees the right to education, however, it nowhere provides that the said right can be unconditionally enforced against a private unaided school.
A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Sachin Datta upheld the validity of Rules 35 (Striking off the name from the rolls) and 167 (Name of the student to be struck off for non-payment of fees and contributions) of Delhi School Education Rules, 1973.
The plea filed by a minor through his father had challenged the said Rules as being ultra vires to Articles 19(1)(a), 21 and 21A read with provisions of Right of Children to free and compulsory Education Act, 2009 and contrary to the provisions of section 75 of Juvenile Justice care and Protection Act, 2015.
22. Party Can Raise Additional Grounds Based On The Award Passed After The Case Is Remitted To Tribunal Under Section 34(4) Of A&C Act: Delhi High Court
Case Title: UEM India Pvt. Ltd. versus ONGC Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 564
The Delhi High Court has ruled that an order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal, after the matter is remanded back to it by the Court under Section 34(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), is not a fresh arbitral award that can be challenged by filing a separate petition under Section 34(1).
The Court observed that during the pendency of the proceedings before the Delhi High Court for challenging the arbitral award, the matter was remitted back to the Arbitral Tribunal by the Court, and that the Tribunal thereafter passed an order.
The Single Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru held that a party cannot be precluded from raising additional grounds, which had arisen as a result of the subsequent order passed by Arbitral Tribunal, to challenge the arbitral award.
23. Police Post Not A Place Where Public Servants Are To Be Attacked With Fire Arms, Dandas Or By Pelting Stones On Them: Delhi High Court
Title: NAVED v. THE STATE
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 565
While denying bail to a man accused of attacking a Police Post and firing at the police officials from an illegal weapon, the Delhi High Court has observed that the Police Post is not a place where the public servants are supposed to be attacked with fire-arms, Dandas and Lathis or by pelting stones on them.
Justice Talwant Singh was of the prima facie view that the FSL report showed that the man was holding a fire-arm in his hand. The Court also noted that a sub inspector, complainant in the matter, was the main target of the attack by the accused persons, who had sustained severe injuries.
The Sub Inspector was the Chowki In-charge, whose place of posting being the Police Post was attacked by a group of people, who were armed with Dandas, Lathis.
Gujarat High Court
NOMINAL INDEX
Iqbal Hasanali Syed V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 196
Rajeshkumar Umeshgiri Gauswami V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 197
Rajnibhai Ranchoodbhai Patel V/S Gandhinagar Jilla Sahakari Kharid Vechan Sangh Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 198
Divya Simandhar Construction Private Limited V/S Vadodara Municipal Corporation 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 199
Sing Traders Versus State of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 200
Mahendrabhai Manglabhai Bodat vs State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 201
Jatinkumar Kishorkumar Bhatt Versus State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 202
Lite Bite Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 203
Bhupendra Aatmaramdas Patel v. State of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 204
Sandip Dalpatbhai Kikani v/s Indian Oil Corporation 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 205
krupeshbhai n. Patel v/s vadodara urban development authority 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 206
Chairman And Managing Director Union Bank Of India & 1 V/S Jaykant R Gohil Chairman And Managing Director Union Bank Of India & 1 another 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 207
JUDGMENTS/ORDERS OF THE WEEK
Gujarat High Court Refuses To Quash Extortion FIR Against Ex-ASG IH Syed
Case Title: Iqbal Hasanali Syed V/S State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 196
The High Court refused to quash a FIR registered against former Assistant Solicitor General and Senior Advocate IH Syed for alleged assault and extortion, stating that the investigation is underway and thus, it is too early to opine on his innocence.
"If the allegations found to be true, it is a very serious matter as being an advocate and that too, a designated senior advocate is expected to be an upright and he is supposed to know the law. Therefore, at this stage, no interference of this Court in exercising the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is called for and the Investigating Agency cannot be restrained in performing the statutory duties under the relevant provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure," Justice Samir Dave said.
Case Title: Rajeshkumar Umeshgiri Gauswami V/S State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 197
The High Court reiterated that registration of FIR within a period of 45 days from the date of seizing machinery allegedly involved in illegal mining activities is mandatory under Rule 12 of the Gujarat Mineral Rules, 2017, failing which, the authorities concerned would be liable to release the seized material.
The Single bench of Justice Vaibhavi Nanavati relied on Nathubhai Jinabhai Gamara v. State of Gujarat, where a predecessor bench had held that in absence of any F.I.R. registered beyond the specified period, the action of the respondent authority seizing the machines, is illegal.
Case Title: Rajnibhai Ranchoodbhai Patel V/S Gandhinagar Jilla Sahakari Kharid Vechan Sangh Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 198
Concluding that the medical store where the Petitioner, a pharmacist, was employed had closed down and the Respondent Sangh did not own or exercise control over the store anymore, the High Court has found the termination of the Petitioner to be in accordance with law and refused to interfere with his retrenchment.
Significantly, the Bench comprising Justice Aniruddha Mayee noted that the Petitioner had accepted certain amounts as legal dues and other terminal benefits without objection. Hence, the Bench refused to hold the Petitioner's termination as illegal.
Case Title: Divya Simandhar Construction Private Limited V/S Vadodara Municipal Corporation
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 199
The High Court permitted the Vadodara Municipal Corporation to rely on a previous blacklisting order passed by it against a Road Contractor, which was set aside by the High Court for being non-compliant with principles of natural justice while issuing a fresh notice to the contractor in relation to three work orders.
However, the Bench comprising Chief Justice Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Ashutosh J. Shastri made it clear that the Corporation shall have to justify the same while passing the final order in the matter.
"Merely because said resolution dated 31.12.2019 has been set aside would not by itself empower the petitioner to contend that respondent could not rely upon the same inasmuch as the Coordinate Bench while setting aside the order dated 31.12.2018 has remanded the matter back to the Corporation for adjudication afresh. If the authorities deem it proper to rely upon their own earlier order, it is for them to justify it while passing the final order. In that view of the matter, we do not see any infirmity to interfere at this juncture."
Gujarat High Court Quashes Non-Speaking And Vague GST Cancellation Order
Case Title: Sing Traders Versus State of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 200
The High Court bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala as he then was and Justice Nisha M. Thakore has quashed the GST cancellation order as it was non-speaking and vague.
The writ applicant/assessee is registered under the Gujarat Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. A show cause notice was issued by the State Tax Officer on Form GST REG-17/31 under Section 29 of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 22(1) of the CGST Rules, 2017.
Case Title: Mahendrabhai Manglabhai Bodat vs State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 201
The High Court granted bail to an accused under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, while observing that rigours of bail under Section 37 of the Act does not apply in case of non-commercial quantity and hence, regular bail can be allowed.
Section 37 of the NDPS Act stipulates that persons accused of offences under the Act involving commercial quantity, shall not be released on bail unless the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. However, for non-commercial quantity, there is no such bar for grant of bail under the provision.
Case Title : Jatinkumar Kishorkumar Bhatt Versus State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 202
The High Court held that a reserved category meritorious candidate should be allowed to merge in the class of unreserved category because of his own merits, as depriving such candidate from securing a birth in the unreserved category results into communally dividing a homogeneous class of meritorious candidates.
In this case, an advertisement for the post of Sub-Inspector, Class III was issued by the Recruitment Board inviting online applications for a total of 1,382 posts to be filled in. The petitioners are candidates who took the preliminary examination and aspire to appear for the main examination.
Case Title: Lite Bite Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India, R/Petn. Under Arbitration Act No. 26 of 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 203
The High Court held that a party cannot circumvent the dispute resolution process after agreeing on the same.
The Court held that party is bound to follow the mechanism provided under the arbitration clause that requires it to first raise the dispute before the DRC and pre-deposit the amount in dispute if no challenge is made to the validity of terms of the clause
The Court held that a party cannot circumvent the dispute resolution process provided under the agreement after agreeing on the same with open eyes unless a challenge is made to the validity of such a clause.
Case Title : Bhupendra Aatmaramdas Patel v. State of Gujarat| C/SCA/7676/2017| 10 June 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 204
Justice Bhargav D. Karia of the High Court has held that in case of voluntary retirement from service, if the appointing authority does not permit or refuse to grant the permission for retirement before the expiry of the period specified in the said notice, the retirement shall become effective from the date of expiry of the said period.
In this case, the petitioner was appointed for the post of Deputy Engineer at Hemchandracharya North Gujarat University in 1992. He served a notice for voluntary retirement in 2013 upon the University on completion of 20 years of qualifying service. In the said letter the petitioner stated that the petitioner would retire voluntarily w.e.f. 06.01.2014. The Respondent-University did not issue any intimation with regard to any order rejecting or accepting the voluntary retirement of the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that as per Rule 48 of the Gujarat Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 2002, the petitioner is deemed to have retired on 06.01.2014 on expiry of the three months' notice period.
Case Title: Sandip Dalpatbhai Kikani v/s Indian Oil Corporation
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 205
Opining that the scope of judicial review in contractual matters, particularly which require technical know-how is limited, the High Court refused to interfere with the order passed by the Dispute Resolution Panel where the Petitioner's challenge to the show cause notices issued by Indian Oil Corporation were dismissed.
Case Title: krupeshbhai n. Patel v/s vadodara urban development authority
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 206
The High Court dismissed a petition seeking a declaration that Vadodara Urban Development Authority (VUDA) was legally not entitled to demand betterment charges, incremental charges, contribution charges etc. at the time of preparing and sanctioning the draft Town Planning Scheme.
Case Title: Chairman And Managing Director Union Bank Of India & 1 V/S Jaykant R Gohil Chairman And Managing Director Union Bank Of India & 1
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 207
The High Court came to the rescue of a retired Branch Manager, accused by the employer-bank of causing it monetary loss by haphazardly sanctioning loans, and ordered the latter to clear the former's retiral dues.
Justice Biren Vaishnav observed that the order forfeiting the Respondent-employee's gratuity was an "afterthought" as the same was issued only after the penalty of dismissal was modified to compulsory retirement and after the respondent approached the bank seeking payment of gratuity.
Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh High Court
Case Title: NASIR AHMAD WANI & ORS. Vs. POLICE STATION NEEMUCH & ORS.
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JK) 39
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, while hearing a plea seeking anticipatory bail under section 438 CrPC, has ruled that it has no jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail to a person against whom a case has been registered with a police station which is situated outside the local limits of its jurisdiction under the Code.
Case Title: Abdul Rehman Dar Vs. State of J&K & Anr
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JK) 40
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has recently reiterated that holding departmental proceedings and recording finding of guilt against any delinquent and imposing punishment for the same, is quasi-judicial function and not administrative function.
Quashing an order issued by Secretary J&K State Board of School Education (BOSE) Srinagar against the petitioner, who was working as Senior Assistant in the Board, the court has observed that the penalty of withholding promotion of the petitioner from the date he becomes due for next promotion, is arbitrary and is not sustainable for the reason that no departmental enquiry was conducted into the alleged misconduct.
Case Title : Riyaz Ahmad Mir V Union Territory of J&K & Ors.
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JK) 41
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court recently quashed a preventive detention order against a person who was already facing trial in a case with a similar accusation and had previously been enlarged on bail by a competent court in the matter.
The Detention Order had been issued by Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir with a view to prevent the petitioner from committing any of the acts within the meaning of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988.
Case Title : Naik Bibhu Prasad v Union of India and others
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JK) 42
The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has recently observed that there is no provision in the POCSO Act that bars the jurisdiction of Summary General Court Martial (SGCM) to try the offences mentioned thereunder.
Judge Rajnesh Oswal observed that
"There is no provision in the Act of 2012 that bars the jurisdiction of SGCM to try the offences under the Act of 2012. Rather section 42-A of Act of 2012 provides that the provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of provisions of any other law for the time being in force and in case of any inconsistency only, the provisions of this Act shall have overriding effect on the provisions of any such law to the extent of inconsistency."
Case Title : GHULAM RASOOL MUGHAL v GH. AHMAD HAJAM
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JK) 43
The Jammu and Kashmir & Ladakh High Court recently held that the consequence of a criminal complaint being dismissed in default is acquittal of accused and the complainant has no other option but to avail statutory remedy against the same; he cannot seek restoration of the proceedings.
Holding thus, it quashed the order passed by a Munsiff Court, whereby the complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act was restored to its original number, on a restoration application filed by the complainant (respondent before the High Court).
Karnataka High Court
Nominal Index:
CITATIONS: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 190 To 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 201
ANAND C. @ ANKU GOWDA & others v. CHANDRAMMA 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 190
ACHUT D. NAYAK & Others v THE SUB-DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 191
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. ABDUL S/O MEHABOOB TAHASILDAR and C/W matter. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 192
DIVYA & ANR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA and Anr 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 193
M/S. CREST FACILITY MANAGEMENT v UNION OF INDIA 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 194
K. SRINIVAS & others v. THE KARNATAKA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION & others 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 195
DR CHIDANANDA P MANSUR v. UNION OF INDIA & others 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 196
BASAVARAJ ITAGI & others v. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 197
M/s Abhiram Infra Projects Private Limited versus The Commissioner, Karnataka Slum Development Board 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 198
SAMANTHA CHRISTINA DELFINA WILLIS & ANR v STATE OF KARNATAKA and others 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 199
Ananda v. State Of Karnataka 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 200
MAHAMMAD ALI AKBAR @ ALI UMAR v State of Karnataka 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 201
Judgments/Orders/Reports
1. Bigamy Is A Continuing Offence; Wife's Consent For Second Marriage Immaterial: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: ANAND C. @ ANKU GOWDA & others v. CHANDRAMMA
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.9849 OF 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 190
The Karnataka High Court has said that bigamy under section 494 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is a continuing offence and the consent of wife for the subsequent marriage would become immaterial for consideration of the offence.
Case Title: ACHUT D. NAYAK & Others v THE SUB-DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100284 OF 2019
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 191
The Karnataka High Court has said that the power under Sections 133, 138 and 139 of CrPC to prevent public nuisance has to be exercised by affording sufficient opportunities to the parties and to record evidence and to arrive at a legal finding that the action of the person has resulted in nuisance to the general public at large.
Case Title: NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. ABDUL S/O MEHABOOB TAHASILDAR, and C/W matter.
Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 103807 OF 2016
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 192
The Karnataka High Court has held that 'Loss of future prospects' has to be factored in, notwithstanding the fact that it is not a case of death but a case of injury without amputation resulting in whole body disability, which ultimately has a bearing on the reduced earning capacity.
Case Title: DIVYA & ANR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA and Anr
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.675 OF 2020
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 193
The Karnataka High Court has said the bar under Section 199 CrPC on a Magistrate from exercising powers under section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) on a complaint involving offences punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, would be applicable even in cases where offences are alleged for other offences in addition with Section 500 of the IPC.
The Karnataka High Court has held that 'Loss of future prospects' has to be factored in, notwithstanding the fact that it is not a case of death but a case of injury without amputation resulting in whole body disability, which ultimately has a bearing on the reduced earning capacity.
Case Title: M/S. CREST FACILITY MANAGEMENT v UNION OF INDIA
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.39350/2019
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 194
The Karnataka High Court has said that blacklisting or debarring of a Contractor from participating in any contract has civil consequences and thus, prior notice indicating the reasons for blacklisting and debarment has to be communicated and on receiving reply, a final order may be passed.
Case Title: K. SRINIVAS & others v. THE KARNATAKA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION & others
Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO.408 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 195
The Karnataka High Court has upheld the order of State Election Commission, disqualifying four persons from continuing as the elected members of Municipality over their failure to lodge a true and correct account of electoral expenditure with the Returning Officer within prescribed time.
Case Title: DR CHIDANANDA P MANSUR v. UNION OF INDIA & others
Case no: W.A. NO.100198/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 196
The Karnataka High Court has observed that fixation of retirement age of public servants has a direct bearing on the state exchequer as well as employment opportunities for others. In view thereof, it dismissed a writ petition filed by the former Dean of a College, seeking directions to the state government to continue his service upto the age of 65 years, instead of 62 years.
Case Title: BASAVARAJ ITAGI & others v. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
Case no: W.P.NO.9494 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 197
The Karnataka High Court recently set aside the practical examinations conducted for the student-petitioners pursuing their final year MBBS course at certain colleges affiliated to Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences (RGUHS), in a plea alleging that the same was not conducted in accordance with law and was done in violation of the University guidelines.
Case Title: M/s Abhiram Infra Projects Private Limited versus The Commissioner, Karnataka Slum Development Board
Case No.: WRIT PETITION No.4845 OF 2021
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 198
The Karnataka High Court has ruled that in the absence of an application filed under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) for correction of typographical errors in the arbitral award, the Court cannot pass an order modifying and correcting the arbitral award on the basis of a Memo filed before it by a party.
Case title: SAMANTHA CHRISTINA DELFINA WILLIS & ANR v STATE OF KARNATAKA and others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.24602 OF 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 199
The Karnataka High Court has held that a power of attorney holder of an accused cannot maintain a petition be it under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. or Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
11.S.216 CrPC | Charge Can Be Altered Anytime During Trial: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Ananda v. State Of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.1829 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 200
The Karnataka High Court has held that under Section 216 of the Criminal procedure Code (Cr.P.C) the trial court can alter the charge framed even if the trial has progressed to a large extent.
Case Title: MAHAMMAD ALI AKBAR @ ALI UMAR v State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.4449 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 201
The Karnataka High Court has held that on the child attaining 18 years of age, the rigor under Section 33(5) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Act gets diluted and sequentially, will not become a bar for seeking recalling and further cross-examination of the victim under Section 311 of the CrPC on an application made by the accused.
Other reports
Case Title: RAMESH NAIK L v STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: WP 10674/2022
The Karnataka High Court on Monday directed the State government to place on record measures taken by authorities to implement the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001, which prescribes the methodology for Street/ Stray dog population management.
2. APP Vacancies: Karnataka High Court Directs State To Hold Recruitment Exam In Six Weeks
Case Title: High Court of Karnataka v. State of Karnataka
Case No: WP 48130/2019
The Karnataka High Court has directed the state government to hold an examination for filling up the vacant post of Assistant Public Prosecutors in the state and declare the results thereof in six weeks.
Case Title: Rakesh P v. State of Karnataka
Case No: Writ Petition No 4574/ 2021
The Karnataka High Court on Friday asked the state government to respond to the allegations relating to grant of permanent licenses for installing loudspeakers in Mosques.
Kerala High Court
Nominal Index [Citations 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 259 - 273]
Nushath Koyamu v. Union of India & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 259
Sharafudheen V.T v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 260
Manager, KPM Higher Secondary School & Anr v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 261
Anzar v. Sreedeviyamma & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 262
Kerala State Board of International Human Rights Council v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 263
K.P. Sasikala & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 264
Suo Motu v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 265
Jaffer Khan v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 266
Ayshommabi AM @ Aysha Sulthana v Union Territory of Lakshadweep, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 267
K.M. Abdul Jaleel v. Thazhe Iravath Rabiya & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 268
S. Dhanalakshmi v. Sahal V.J & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 269
Swapna Prabha Suresh & Anr. v. Station House Officer & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 270
Anoop v State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 271
Antony v. V.K. Suresh & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 272
Dhruv Sai Kiran v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 273
Judgments This Week:
Case Title: Nushath Koyamu v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 259
The Court has recently ruled that failure to supply the documents which were relied upon by the detaining authority for arriving at the subjective satisfaction to pass the detention order affects the rights of the detenus under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, particularly when they were specifically requested for by them. A Division Bench of Justice A.K Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Mohammed Nias C.P, therefore, quashed the detention order observing that the non-supply of the documents had vitally affected the right of the detenus under Article 22(5).
Case Title: Sharafudheen V.T v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 260
The Court recently dismissed a habeas corpus petition filed by a husband seeking the production of his wife in an interfaith marriage finding that the wife had grave apprehensions about her safety at the petitioner's residence. A Division Bench of Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice C. Jayachandran dismissed the petition filed by the husband contending that his wife has been illegally confined by her father.
Case Title: Manager, KPM Higher Secondary School & Anr v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 261
The Court stayed the operation of the recent amendments to the Kerala Education Rules (KER) for one month as an interim relief in a plea that challenged certain provisions of the said amendment. Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan took the prima facie view that the petitioners had made out a good case on merits.
Case Title: Anzar v. Sreedeviyamma & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 262
The Court has recently ruled that an amendment application containing inconsistent pleas with that of the original written statement can be submitted without withdrawing wilful admission raised in the statement and that such applications were bound to be admissible. Justice A. Badharudeen thereby set aside the order of the lower court which had dismissed an amendment application finding it to be inconsistent with the petitioner's earlier stand in his written statement.
Case Title: Kerala State Board of International Human Rights Council v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 263
The High Court dismissed the petition challenging the transfer of ADGP S. Sreejith from the post of Crime Branch chief and the supervising officer of the 2017 actor sexual assault case. A Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly dismissed the petition noting that the Court cannot interfere in the State's policy matters after the State submitted a report containing the transfer order and information on the new investigation team as directed.
6. Kerala High Court Quashes Proceedings Against K.P Sasikala, SJR Kumar In Sabarimala Violence Case
Case Title: K.P. Sasikala & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 264
The High Court recently dropped all charges against Hindu Aikya Vedi leader K. P. Sasikala and General Convenor of Sabarimala Karma Samithi SJR Kumar for purportedly triggering a dawn-to-dusk hartal in the State to protest the entry of women into Sabarimala temple in 2018. The said hartal had resulted in large-scale vandalism against which a PIL was moved before this Court to fix liability for the damages caused. Justice Ziyad Rahman quashed the final report filed against the petitioners finding that the allegations were not properly substantiated by the prosecution.
Case Title: Suo Motu v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 265
The Court has recently held that the use of high-power audio systems with multiple boosters, power amplifiers, speakers and sub-woofers producing loud noise is legally impermissible in motor vehicles. A Division Bench of Justice Anil K Narendran and Justice P G Ajithkumar added that loud sound produced by such audio systems with a rating of several thousand watts PMPO (Peak Music Power Output) will not only impair the hearing of the driver and the passengers but also cause a distraction to other drivers and road users.
Case Title: Jaffer Khan v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 266
The Court has directed the State Government to finalise the appointment of an independent Chief Investigating Officer in the State Police Complaints Authority (SPCA) within 60 days from April 2022. A Division Bench of Chief Justice S Manikumar and Justice Shaji P Chaly decided so after the State submitted an affidavit seeking 60 days' time in total to scrutinize the applications, shortlist the candidates, fix the date of interview, conduct the interview, verify the documents and for the final appointment.
9. Kerala High Court Stays Sedition Proceedings Against Filmmaker Aisha Sultana For 3 Months
Case Title: Ayshommabi AM @ Aysha Sulthana v Union Territory of Lakshadweep
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 267
The Court granted interim relief to filmmaker Aisha Sultana by staying the sedition proceedings pending against her arising from the FIR registered in 2021 by the Lakshadweep Police for a period of 3 months. Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A passed the interim order in a plea moved by the filmmaker seeking to quash all proceedings under Section 124A of IPC based on the recent order of the Supreme Court staying all investigations and trials in sedition cases.
Case Title: K.M. Abdul Jaleel v. Thazhe Iravath Rabiya & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 268
The Court has ruled that a commission for local inspection can only be set up by a court to ascertain matters which are necessary to elucidate the issues involved in the dispute and not on a mere asking by one of the litigating parties. Justice A. Badharudeen added that the appointment of a commission to ascertain issues irrelevant to the dispute is an abuse of the process of court with intent to protract the matter and that such practices should be well curtailed.
Case Title: S. Dhanalakshmi v. Sahal V.J & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 269
The High Court has recently held that where a defendant raises the question of jurisdiction and an issue is framed in the suit regarding jurisdiction, for the convenience of the parties, the same should be tried as a preliminary issue. Justice A. Badharudeen added that the finding regarding jurisdiction at the final stage would only cause undue hardship to the parties.
Case Title: Swapna Prabha Suresh & Anr. v. Station House Officer & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 270
The Court closed the pre-arrest bail plea moved by Swapna Suresh and Sarith P.S in a case registered against Suresh for allegedly spreading false information against MLA K.T Jaleel, Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan and the Government. Justice Viju Abraham closed the plea after recording the Public Prosecutor's submission that the second petitioner (Sarith) was not even implicated in the crime and that an anticipatory bail plea was therefore not maintainable. The Judge also observed that the offences alleged in the FIR registered against Suresh under Section 153 (provocation with the intention to cause riot) and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of IPC were both bailable offences.
Case Title: Anoop v State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 271
The Court expressed its concerns over adolescents being unaware of the consequences of having sexual relationships with each other, even if they are consensual, under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and the amended Section 376 of IPC. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas was adjudicating upon a bail application when he commented on the alarming rise in the number of sexual offences being committed against school children, most of them being cases where teenagers indulged in sexual relationships, oblivious to the severe consequences under the POCSO Act.
Case Title: Antony v. V.K. Suresh & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 272
The Court has recently established that a claimant who was compensated by his own insurer is not entitled to get any compensation again for the very same damages from the owner or insurer of the offending vehicle in cases of motor accidents. Justice A. Badharudeen held so after finding that the Apex Court had held that the law of insurance recognises an equitable corollary of the principle of indemnity; when the insurer had indemnified the insured, the rights and remedies of the insured against the wrongdoer stand transferred to the insurer.
Case Title: Dhruv Sai Kiran v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 273
The Court ruled that the decision taken by the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) to revise and alter the admission guidelines for Kendriya Vidyalayas after the admission process had already started, is arbitrary, unreasonable, irrational and not taken in public interest. Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. added that while the National Education Policy 2020 (NEP) may be laudable when adopting and implementing such policies, the State ought to have been careful not to trample upon the rights of minor children while striving to uphold the rights of others.
Other Developments
Case Title: R. Baji v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Ltd.
The Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) has submitted a counter affidavit before the Court asserting that it has been contemplating new measures to increase its productivity and thereby generate more revenue, in a plea moved by the KSRTC employees alleging that they are not being paid salary promptly. In its counter-affidavit, KSRTC has submitted that it was undergoing an acute financial crisis and that at present it was not feasible to formulate any scheme for prompt payment of salary on the first week of every month due to scarcity of funds.
Case Title: State of Kerala v. XXX
The State has approached the Court challenging the order of the Ernakulam Additional Special Sessions Court rejecting the Crime Branch's petition to forward the memory card allegedly containing the visuals of the crime in the 2017 actor sexual assault case for forensic examination. The said memory card is a crucial piece of evidence in the ongoing trial in the 2017 case and has been marked as an exhibit before the trial court. During the examination of the memory card, the FSL experts noticed a change in the hash value of the card, which indicates unauthorised access.
18. Kerala High Court Extends Interim Pre-Arrest Bail Granted To Actor-Producer Vijay Babu In Rape Case
Case Title: Vijay Babu v. State of Kerala & Anr.
The Court extended till Monday, the interim anticipatory bail granted to actor-producer Vijay Babu in the case where an actress accused him of sexually exploiting her. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas extended the interim bail when he was informed that the DGP was indisposed and required time to appear in the case.
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case Title: SHOBIT TRIPATHI versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 157
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior Bench recently denied bail to the CEO of a Janpad Panchayat who allegedly embezzled money set out for the beneficiaries of the Vivah Sahayata Yojna. The Court observed that it was prima facie a white colour crime case and that it appeared to be a big scam where crores of Rupees were siphoned off-
Further investigation is still going on regarding role of other culprits. Incidentally, other two accused namely Yogendra Sharma and Hemant Sahu were neither Govt. employees nor were contractual employees in any manner but were working at the instance of applicant prima facie, therefore, possibility cannot be ruled out that some more members must be involved in commission of offence. It appears to be a big scam where crores of rupees were siphoned off on the pretext of giving benefit of विवाह सहायता योजना to poor construction workers.
Case title - Manohar Silawat vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 158
The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently quashed a rape case against a man registered at the instance of his 'second wife' as the Court noted that it was a frivolous case and her version indicated false allegations against the man.
The Bench of Justice Anand Pathak observed that it was vexatious and frivolous litigation just to exert pressure on the man to extract money or an attempt made by the prosecutrix ('second wife') to convert domestic dispute into criminal allegations.
Madras High Court
Citations: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 239 To 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 247
NOMINAL INDEX
K Ravichandran and others v. The Chief Secretary and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 239
S Nalini v The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 240
P Arumugam v. The General Manager(Administration) TNCSC and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 241
S Gopikrishnan v. Regional Officer, CBFC and others, 2022 LiveLaw(Mad) 242
Deputy Commissioner of Police v. C Duraisamy, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 243
P. Sukumar v. The State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 244
State v. A Duraimurugan Pandian Sattai @ Duraimurugan and Another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 245
Northern Arc Capital Limited v Sambandh Finance Private Limited and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 246
K Arumugam v State and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 247
REPORTS
Case Title: K Ravichandran and others v. The Chief Secretary and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 239
Justice M. S Ramesh of the Madras High Court recently came to the rescue of employees of Co-operative societies and directed the Chief Secretary, the Secretary (Co-operation), and the Registrar of Co-operative societies, Government of Puducherry to pass orders for disbursement of unpaid salaries, earned leave encashment, EPF Contributions, ESI benefits, and other admissible entailments, due to them for their respective services. The court directed the dues to be paid within three months from receipt of copy of the order.
The court held that even though Society cannot be Characterized as a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, a writ was maintainable to enforce a statutory public duty cast upon the Society. In the present case, since there was a public duty upon the Government, the petition was maintainable.
Case Title: S Nalini v The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 240
S. Nalini, who was one of the convicts in the Rajiv Gandhi Assassination Case, recently withdrew an application she had moved before the Madras High Court seeking emergency leave for her husband- Sridharan alias Murugan, another convict in the case.
When the matter came up before the bench of Justice S Vaidyanathan and Justice A D Jagadish Chandra on Monday, the prison officials informed the Court that Nalini's representation was rejected in light of the prison offences committed by her husband Murugan. The Superintendent had passed the aforesaid order in terms of Rule 12 of Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982.
In light of the same, the petitioner decided to withdraw the present writ petition and challenge the order of rejection passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons before the appellate authority.
Case Title: P Arumugam v. The General Manager(Administration) TNCSC and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 241
The Madras High Court recently observed that whenever complaints are made to the Statutory Authorities, they are expected to act upon the same and not keep it pending indefinitely. The authorities are expected to consider the matter on merits and pass appropriate orders in reasonable time.
Justice MS Ramesh of the Madurai Bench observed as follows:
"It is needless to point out that whenever a representation of this nature is made to a Statutory Authority, there is a duty cast upon the respondents to consider the same on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in one way or other, instead of keeping the same pending indefinitely. As such, non-consideration of the representation by the Statutory Authority would amount to dereliction of duty and hence, this Court will be justified in invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and direct them to consider the same within a stipulated time."
Case Title: S Gopikrishnan v. Regional Officer, CBFC and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Mad) 242
A litigant on Wednesday withdrew his petition in Madras High Court seeking directions to the Central Board of Film Certification to telecast statutory warning with the words "Knives and Sickles used in this movie are made of paper and colour water is used as blood" in forthcoming films.
The plea was withdrawn after the bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice N Mala warned of dismissing the plea with costs. The bench observed that the petition was moved merely for publicity and without any materials.
Highlighting that the certification by CBFC is appealable, the court suggested that in case the litigant had a complaint regarding the certification of certain movies, he could challenge the same before the appropriate authority.
Case Title: Deputy Commissioner of Police v. C Duraisamy
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 243
The Madras High Court on Wednesday commuted the death sentence of Marudupandian to life imprisonment in the Kannagi-Murugesan Honour Killing case. Marudupandian is Kannagi's brother. The Court also confirmed the life sentence of others including Kannagi's father Duraisamy. Further, two convicts were acquitted of the offence.
Justice PN Prakash and Justice AA Nakkiran passed the orders on a reference made by the Special Court, Cuddalore. The convicts had also appealed against the order of the special court.
"There are no castes, dear child. Identifying persons on the basis of upper caste and lower caste is a sin." the court quoted these words of Mahakavi Subramanya Bharathiyar, and expressed deep anguish over the fact that even after almost a century of his demise, these lines of the Mahakavi seem to remain only in the primary school textbooks and nowhere else. The court also suggested common burial for Dalits and non Dalits in the countryside as a means of annihilation of caste in the country.
Case Title: P. Sukumar v. The State of Tamil Nadu and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 244
The Madras High Court on Wednesday dismissed a petition filed one Sukumar for forming an Investigation Team under the head of a retired High Court Judge for inquiring into the alleged irregularities committed by the Election officer cum Revenue Divisional officer while conducting the elections to the Water User Association.
While dismissing the petition, the bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice N Mala observed that the petition was not one for public interest but was a "private interest litigation". The court also held that a direction for investigation by a retired Judge cannot be issued unless it is determined that the matter requires serious investigation or is of great public interest.
Case Title: State v. A Duraimurugan Pandian Sattai @ Duraimurugan and Another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 245
Justice B Pugalendhi of the Madras High Court recently observed that social media intermediaries operating in India are governed by the Acts and Rules of the land. They have a duty to ascertain that videos are in accordance with the policies and guidelines. If these videos are found to be in violation, they have a duty to block such channels without insisting on FIRs or any Court orders.
"There is a contract between the intermediaries and the channels. In case of any violation of the conditions, it is the duty of the intermediaries to remove or block the channel as per the terms of their agreement...The intermediaries are not expected to insist for FIR or any court orders to remove the videos which are in violation of their guidelines. If it is not blocked or removed even after it was brought to their knowledge, the intermediaries are committing the offence under Section 69A (3) of the Information Technology Act."
Case Title: Northern Arc Capital Limited v Sambandh Finance Private Limited and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 246
While discussing extensively the scope of issuing summary judgments, the Madras High Court recently observed that suits cannot be summarily decreed at the instance of a plaintiff unless such plaintiff satisfies the court that the suit claim stands duly proved.
The two requirements for the grant of summary judgments under Rule 3 Order XIII-A CPC are that the applicant should establish that the counterparty has no real prospect of successfully defending the claim/succeeding the claim and that there is no other compelling reason why the claim should not be disposed of before recording oral evidence.
With reference to an application for summary judgment, Justice Senthil Kumar Ramamoorthy observed that both the parties are required to set out the grounds on which the application is being prosecuted or defended, along with all documents proposed to be relied upon for such purpose. The court also observed that even though the Rules stands so, the burden of proof is primarily on the applicant. Thus, the applicant had to establish that the counterparty had no real prospect of defending the claim or succeeding in the claim.
Case Title: K Arumugam v State and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 247
The Madras High Court recently quashed the FIR against a man, who tried to reconcile the differences between a couple through compromise, but was himself dragged into the embroil with the filing of a FIR against him by one of the spouse.
"It is a classical case, good samaritan turned into foe in the process of conciliation between the husband and wife," Justice G Ilangovan observed at the outset.
The court also observed that the offence under Section 294(b) IPC would not stand in the present case as the alleged offence had taken place in the house of the accused and not in a public place or in public view. The court also opined that the allegation made against the petitioner under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act 1998 would not attract.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
1. Two Additional Judges Take Oath In Madras High Court
Justice Sunder Mohan and Justice Kabali Kumaresh Babu were sworn in as Additional Judges of the Madras High Court on Monday. Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari administered the oath for the newly appointed judges.
The centre had notified their appointment as Additional Judges of the Madras High Court on June 3rd 2022.
With their swearing in, the Madras High Court now has a working strength of 58 judges as against the sanctioned strength of 75.
2. Rajiv Gandhi Assassination: Madras High Court Reserves Order On Convicts' Plea For Premature Release
Case Title: S. Nalini v. State of Tamil Nadu and others
Case No: W.P 7615 of 2022
The Madras High Court on Monday reserved orders on a plea filed by S. Nalini and RP Ravichandran for their premature release.
When the matter came up before the bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice N Mala, the court stated that the powers of the Supreme Court under Article 142 could not be compared to the powers of the High Court under Article 226.
The court stated that if the petitioner was seeking a release on the basis of the recent Supreme Court order releasing Perarivalan, the petitioner could move the Supreme Court.
The court also considered remanding the matter. This was objected by the counsel for the petitioner who contended that even in Perarivalan's case, the Supreme Court was against remanding the matter and that the same would be without any use.
Case Title: S Karthik Gopinath v. State and another
Case No: Crl OP 13166 of 2022
Youtuber S. Karthik Gopinath has moved the Madras High Court seeking to quash the FIR filed against him for allegedly misappropriating funds worth several lakhs, collected for renovation of the Arulmigu Madhura Kaliamman Temple in Perambalur district. The Police had also filed an application for custodial interrogation.
When the matter came up before Justice N Sathish Kumar on Tuesday, the court adjourned the hearing while directing the Police to submit the details of misappropriation. In the meanwhile, the court directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate to decide upon the bail application moved by the petitioner on Wednesday itself.
4. Madras High Court Appoints First Woman Mace Bearer
In a first, the Madras High Court has appointed a woman mace bearer. Justice R.N Manjula is the first to utilise the services of the court's first woman mace bearer. Justice Manjula is also a member of the Gender Sensitisation and Internal Complaints Committee-I (GSICC-I)
The Mace bearer/ Chobdar, a position traditionally held by men, is an officer who carries the mace and walks before a dignitary signifying the dignitary's power. In courts, the mace helps in the free passage of Judges between the court halls.
Case Title: Minor & Anr v. K Vijay
Case No: O.P No. 599/ 2018
A Full Bench comprised of Justice PN Prakash, Justice R Mahadevan, Justice M Sunder, Justice N Anand Venkatesh and Justice AA Nakkiran of the Madras High Court on Friday commenced hearing a matter pertaining to the original jurisdiction of High Court to hear child custody and guardianship matters, owing to the advent of the Family Courts Act, 1984.
On Friday, the court primarily heard arguments on how the decision in Mary Thomas case was still a good law and how the High Court continues to have simultaneous jurisdiction. The arguments against the exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court will be considered on 13th June 2022 at 2:30pm.
Orissa High Court
Case Title: Sanjay Kumar Naik v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 101
The Orissa High Court has dismissed the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by one Sanjay Kumar Naik, seeking cancellation of T-20 International match between India and South Africa at Barabati Stadium, Cuttack. The match is scheduled to be held on 12th June 2022.
A vacation Bench comprising Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Murahari Sri Raman dismissed the petition after the State provided assurance of safety and security at the stadium premises.
2. Commissioner Can't Allow Deposit Of Interest Payment In Instalments: Orissa High Court
Case Title: M/s. P.K. Ores Pvt. Ltd. @ M/S. PK Minings Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Sales Tax
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 102
The Orissa High Court bench of Justices Jawant Singh and Murahari Sri Raman has held that the Commissioner of CT & GST is not empowered to allow the deposit of interest payments in instalments.
The petitioner/assesee contended that, in accordance with Section 39 read with Section 59 of the OGST Act, self-assessment returns on Form GSTR-3B and GSTR-1 were filed for the fiscal year 2019–20. While reviewing self-assessed returns for each tax period, the CT & GST Officer noted that the petitioner had filed the returns late.
Punjab and Haryana High Court
Nominal Index
1.Jaswinder Singh @ Jass VERSUS State of Punjab 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 135
2.Ghanso @ Kalo v. State of Punjab 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 136
3.Rohit @ Mirchi Versus State of Haryana 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 137
4.Kanta Devi and Others versus Paripuran Singh and Others 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 138
5.Phool Singh and Another versus Amit Kumar and Others 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 139
6.Rajnandini Metal Ltd. Versus Union Of India 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 140
7.Robin Gupta v. MS Stratford Educational Management Pvt Ltd And Others 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 141
Judgments/ Orders of the Week
Case Title: Jaswinder Singh @ Jass VERSUS State of Punjab
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 135
The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently refused to doubt the prosecution's story in a NDPS case, merely on the ground that the alleged secret information on the basis of which the accused was apprehended was shared with a Gazetted officer, even before his apprehension. The bench also held that Section 37 of the Act provides stringent condition for bail in case of recovery of commercial quantity and the custody in itself will not be the only consideration for the grant of regular bail, considering the quantity of recovery.
Ghanso @ Kalo v. State of Punjab
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 136
The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently held that on account of delay in the conclusion of trial, rigors of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act can be relaxed to an extent and prayer of the accused for bail can be considered despite that she was found in possession of a commercial quantity of contraband. Section 37 bars grant of bail to persons accused of an offence punishable for offences under section 19 or section 24 or section 27A of the Act and also for offences involving commercial quantity.
Case Title: Rohit @ Mirchi Versus State of Haryana
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 137
The Punjab and Haryana High Court, while dealing with a petition seeking regular bail of the accused in FIR relating to physical abuse and abduction of complainant's brother, who later committed suicide, held that the compromise cannot be taken as a ground at this stage for grant of bail. The bench comprising Justice Avneesh Jhingan further held that the allegations in the FIR are serious and there are chances of the complainant being influenced because other co-accused are not yet arrested.
Case Title: Kanta Devi and Others versus Paripuran Singh and Others
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 138
The Punjab and Haryana High Court, while dealing with a petition challenging Trial Court's order vide which application by the plaintiff-petitioners for framing an additional issue was dismissed, held that an additional issue can be framed at any point of time during trial. The bench comprising Justice Alka Sarin however, upheld the Trial Court's order stating that the issues already framed are broad enough to cover the entire controversy in issue.
Case Title: Phool Singh and Another versus Amit Kumar and Others
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 139
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that an unregistered agreement to sell, being in contravention of the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908, cannot be accepted by the Court for granting possession in favour of the claimant party. No documentary evidence was placed on the record to show petitioner's possession. Thus, the Court refused to grant injunction stating that the plaintiff-petitioners have not been able to make out a prima facie case in their favour and neither is the balance of convenience in their favour.
6. No Reason To Believe That Input Tax Credit Is Fraudulently Availed: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case Title: Rajnandini Metal Ltd. Versus Union Of India
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 140
The Punjab and Haryana High Court bench of Justices Tejinder Singh Dhindsa and Pankaj Jain has held that there should be reason to believe that the input tax credit available in the Electronic Credit Ledger was obtained fraudulently or that the assesses are ineligible. The relevant officer must record the reasons, and a speaking order must be issued.
Case Title : Robin Gupta v. MS Stratford Educational Management Pvt Ltd And Others
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 141
Punjab and Haryana High Court in a case where the parties suffered a statement before the Lok Adalat and agreed to pray for passing a consent decree which, due to lack of proper advice was not passed held that the Court has sufficient powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as well as Section 151 of CPC to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated. It further held that a Constitutional Court would not be constrained by procedural law unless there is specific prohibition neither will it be constraint by hyper-technicalities.
Rajasthan High Court
Nominal Index
Eptisa Servicios De Ingenieria SL versus Ajmer Smart City Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 181
Hemant Nahta v. The Honble Speaker, Rajasthan Assembly & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 182
Geetanjali Medical College And Hospital v. The Union of India with other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 183
Case Title: Eptisa Servicios De Ingenieria SL versus Ajmer Smart City Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 181
The Rajasthan High Court has ruled that the arbitral award cannot be remitted back to the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 34 (4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) if there are no findings recorded in the arbitral award on the contentious issues.
The Single Bench of Justice Ashok Kumar Gaur reiterated that discretionary powers under Section 34 (4) of the A&C Act cannot be exercised under the guise of additional reasons or for filling up the gaps in the reasoning. The Court held that in the absence of any findings on the contentious issues in the award, no amount of reasons can cure the defect in the award.
An arbitral award was challenged by the respondent/ award debtor Ajmer Smart City Limited by filing an application under Section 34 of the A&C Act before the Commercial Court. The petitioner/award holder Eptisa Servicios De Ingenieria filed an application under Section 34 (4) of the A&C Act before the Commercial Court. The Commercial Court passed an order dismissing the application of the petitioner. Against this order, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court.
Case Title: Hemant Nahta v. The Honble Speaker, Rajasthan Assembly & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 182
The vacation bench of Rajasthan High Court dismissed an application which sought interim stay on declaration of results of Rajya Sabha Elections till the disposal of writ petitions pertaining to disqualification of the six Rajasthan MLAs who originally were elected as Members of Bahujan Samaj Party and were later on considered as Members of the Indian National Congress.
The order passed by the Speaker was challenged by Bahujan Samaj Party and Madan Dilawar, a sitting MLA of Bharatiya Janta Party and their petitions were disposed of by the Single Judge on 24.08.2020. The petitioner informed the court that the challenge against the single Judge's order has been pending before the Apex Court and no interim order has been passed by the Apex Court.
Case Title: Geetanjali Medical College And Hospital v. The Union of India with other connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 183
The Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur has observed that Medical Assessment & Rating Board (MARB) has jurisdiction to issue directions for stoppage of admissions but prima facie, it lacks the authority to issue cancellation of admission.
Essentially, a batch of writ petitions were filed by medical colleges and its students, challenging the recommendations made by MARB for withdrawal of letter of permission, cancellation of admission in undergraduate and postgraduate courses for the academic year 2021-22 in the petitioner-institutions.
On 28.04.2022, the court had passed an interim order protecting the admissions already granted to the students in various undergraduate or postgraduate courses in the petitioner institutions for the academic session 2021-22.
Other Important Updates
1. Rajasthan High Court Gets Husband-Wife Duo As Judges
The Acting Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court, Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava administered the oath to two new judges, namely Justice Shubha Mehta and Justice Kuldeep Mathur.
The swearing-in ceremony is noteworthy because this is the first time in the history of the Rajasthan High Court that a husband-wife duo will be sitting at the High Court at the same time. Notably, Justice Shubha Mehta is married to Justice Mahendra Kumar Goyal, who was elevated to the Bench on November 6, 2019 and has been serving as the Rajasthan High Court judge since then.
The Rajasthan High Court has a total sanctioned strength of 50 Judges, which includes 38 permanent and 12 additional judges. Presently, there exist no additionally appointed judge working in the High Court. With the new appointments, the working strength of the High has now increased to 27
Justice Kuldeep Mathur has been appointed from Advocate's quota while Justice Shubha Mehta has been appointed from Judicial service quota.
Case Title: Akhil Bhartiya Vidyarthi Parishad (Abvp) v. The State Of Rajasthan with other connected matters
While reviewing the status report of the court monitored Special Operation Group in the matter pertaining to the paper leak of Rajasthan Eligibility Examination for Teacher (REET) 2021, the division bench of Rajasthan High Court has recently ordered to investigate the role of D.P. Jaroli, former Chairman of Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan (RBSE) and to interrogate him, if necessary.
On perusal of the records, the court observed that the concerned Chairman had engaged all the coordinators which included the disputed coordinators Pradeep Parashar, who is said to be involved in the leakage.
The court noted that presently there is no material except the allegation that Pradeep Parashar's involvement was at the instance of the concerned Chairman. It is submitted before the court that Pradeep Parashar managed to enter into the activity of movement of question papers which were kept in the boxes as the Collector of the concerned District had shared the confidential information with regard to the places where question papers were kept.
Case Title: Gopal Singh Bareth v. State Of Rajasthan
While hearing a public interest litigation seeking to institutionalise effective machinery and mechanism for rescue and post rescue rehabilitation of all child labourers in the State of Rajasthan, a division bench of the High Court has observed that a firm and concrete action plan is required from the state to curb child labour activities in the state.
The present public interest litigation is filed by Advocate Gopal Singh Bareth.
Notably, in compliance with the court's previous order on 17.06.2020, the state has formed a high level committee comprising the Secretary, Department of Labour and the Labour Commissioner as Chairman and Secretary of that committee respectively. Further, detailed directions were also issued in the present matter on 28.09.2020 by the court.
A Sikar based Advocate Hansraj Mawaliya died yesterday after setting himself on fire inside the Sub-Divisional Magistrate's office.
In his suicide note, the advocate has alleged that Sikar's Sub-Divisional Magistrate Rakesh Kumar and Khandela Station House Officer Ghasiram Meena had been harassing him for bribe for every hearing in the court.
It was also alleged in the suicide note that the concerned SHO was threatening him for speaking anything against the SDM Rakesh Kumar.
In pursuant to the above development, the Rajasthan High Court Bar Association, Jaipur has condemned the tragic incident and has raised demands from the State government to suspend and arrest the concerned officers and employees with immediate effect.
Telangana High Court
Case Title: Jakka Vinod Kumar Reddy v. Mr. A. R. Srinivas and 3 others
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 47
In a recent case, the Telangana High Court sentenced an IPS Officer and three police officers to 4 weeks of imprisonment in a contempt case. Justice G. Radha Rani ruled:
In the present case, the contemnors had violated the direction of the Court for issuing notice of appearance in terms of Section 41-A Cr.P.C. to the accused within two weeks from the date of institution of the case as per the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar's case. Violations, which are likely to infringe upon the faith of the public in the administration of justice and the court system must be punished, to prevent repetition of such behaviour and the adverse impact on public faith. Contempt proceedings are initiated to ensure compliance with the orders of the Court and adherence to the rule of law. The directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court are binding and must be obeyed by all concerned in strict sense.
