- Home
- /
- News Updates
- /
- All High Courts Weekly Round-Up:...
All High Courts Weekly Round-Up: May 30 - June 5, 2022
Shrutika Pandey
8 Jun 2022 8:00 AM GMT
Allahabad High Court NOMINAL INDEX Harish Chandra Bhati Versus Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Noida 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 268 Bharat Pumps and Compressors v. Chopra Fabricators 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 269 Laxman Prashad v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 270 Ishan International Educational Society Through its Director v. Shri Mukul Singhal Principal Secretary And...
Allahabad High Court
NOMINAL INDEX
Harish Chandra Bhati Versus Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Noida 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 268
Bharat Pumps and Compressors v. Chopra Fabricators 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 269
Laxman Prashad v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 270
Ishan International Educational Society Through its Director v. Shri Mukul Singhal Principal Secretary And 4 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 271
Sarafat and another v. State of U.P. and connected appeal 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 272
Suresh alias Chaveney v. State Of U.P and connected appeal 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 273
Ramshankar v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 274
Saleem Alias Kaliya Vs. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 275
Hariom Sharma v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 276
Mirza Shafiq Hussain Shafaq And Another v. State Of U.P And Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 277
M/S SJS Gold Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Director Sunil Jaihind Salunkhe And Another v. State Of Up Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrtt. Lko And Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 278
ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE WEEK
Case Title: Harish Chandra Bhati Versus Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Noida
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 268
The High Court directed the centre and the tax department to take action against officials for issuing high-pitched and unreasonable reassessment orders.
The division bench of Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani and Justice Jayant Banerji has observed that the centre should ensure to establish a monitoring cell at the level of government or CBDT within a month if it has not been established so far. The cell will ensure regular monitoring of the Local Committees, as well as follow-up actions and reviews by the Principal Chief Commissioners of Income Tax and Zonal Members, as well as an analysis of the quarterly reports.
Case Title: Bharat Pumps and Compressors v. Chopra Fabricators, Civil Revision No. 53 of 2022
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 269
The High Court held that an application under Section 47 of the CPC is not maintainable in the execution proceedings under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940.
The Single Bench of Justice Piyush Agarwal held that an arbitration award is not a decree as defined under section 2(2) of CPC and therefore, the objection under section 47 of CPC, which can be filed only in execution of decree (as defined under section 2(2) CPC), is not maintainable in the proceedings seeking execution of the award.
Case title - Laxman Prashad v. State of U.P. and Another [CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 273 of 2016]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 270
"The Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They virtually take away the remedy. They are meant with the objective that parties should not resort to dilatory tactics and sleep over their rights. They must seek remedy promptly," the High Court stressed.
The Bench of Justice Shamim Ahmed observed thus as it dismissed a revision plea filed by one Laxman Prashad as barred by limitation. The revisionist had filed the plea with a delay of 756 days.
Case title - Ishan International Educational Society Through its Director v. Shri Mukul Singhal Principal Secretary And 4 Others
Case citation - 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 271
In a significant order, the High Court asked the UP Govt as to what is the requirement to appoint so many Additional Advocate Generals and Chief Standing Counsels at Allahabad High Court (both Benches) to defend the State when already more than 400 State lawyers are impaneled by it.
The Bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal also took expectation to the practice of outsourcing the lawyers on behalf of the State and its various authorities and corporations wherein a big amount of taxpayers' money is being used.
Essentially, the Court was dealing with a contempt petition in a land acquisition matter. When the court reserved its Judgment, the Additional Advocate General M. C. Chaturvedi made a request that his appearance be recorded not only for the State of U.P. but also for the Ghaziabad Development Authority.
Case title - Sarafat and another v. State of U.P. and connected appeal
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 272
The High Court (Lucknow Bench) upheld the life sentence awarded to three murder convicts for killing one Kadhiley in April 2004. The Court also underscored that mere delay in lodging the FIR may not prove fatal in all cases.
The bench of Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Saroj Yadav further stressed that the Court the criminal jurisprudence in India recognizes that the eyesight capacity of those who live in rural areas is far better than compared to the town folks.
"Identification at night between known persons is acknowledged to be possible by voice, silhouette, shadow, and gait also," the Court said as it discarded the argument of the convicts that there was no light at the place of occurrence and therefore, there was no possibility of identification of the assailants in the instant case.
Case title - Suresh alias Chaveney v. State Of U.P and connected appeal
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 273
The High Court acquitted two accused of murder charges. The Court held that the instant case was based on circumstantial evidence and the prosecution had completely failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the complete chain of events and circumstances which unerringly points toward the involvement and guilt of the two appellants.
The Bench of Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Shamim Ahmed also stressed that suspicion, however, strong cannot be allowed to take the place of proof and, therefore, the Court has to be watchful and ensure that conjectures and suspicions do not take place of legal proof.
Case title - Ramshankar v. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12510 of 2019]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 274
The High Court granted bail to a POCSO Accused taking into account the welfare of the child born out of wedlock of Accused and Victim. The Court stressed that the life of a newborn child is at stake and she can't be left to face the stigma during her life.
In the instant case, the accused and the victim (both from the same village) had a love affair and out of fear of the villagers, the accused has eloped with the victim in May 2018 and had undergone marriage in a temple although the said marriage was not registered.
Case title - Saleem Alias Kaliya Vs. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 48222 of 2021]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 275
The Allahabad High Court on Thursday granted bail to a man booked under the Uttar Pradesh Prevention Of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 on the condition that he shall serve the cows for a period of one month in Gaushala after his release from the jail.
The bench of Justice Shekhar Yadav issued this order while granting bail to one Saleem Alias Kaliya, who was booked under Sections 3/8 of the Cow Slaughter Act, 1955.
Case title - Hariom Sharma v. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12379 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 276
The High Court granted bail to a rape accused in view of the fact that the victim had not supported the prosecution's case during the trial and that she had been declared hostile.
The Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh also issued direction to the trial court to take steps for a refund of the compensation paid to her and also, ensure compliance of Section 344 CrPC [Summary procedure for trial for giving false evidence] in the instant case.
"Considering the societal interest, it is high time for the trial court to resort to Section 344 Cr.P.C in appropriate cases. In the present case since the prosecutrix before the trial Court has turned hostile and completely denied the prosecution's version, therefore she is not entitled to the benefit of any compensation paid by the Government, which has been collected from the taxpayers of the country," the court ordered as it granted bail to the accused.
Case title - Mirza Shafiq Hussain Shafaq And Another v. State Of U.P And Another [CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 142 of 2021]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 277
The High Court ordered the deletion of an interim bail condition imposed on an Urdu scholar Mirza Shafiq Husain Shafaq in connection with a matrimonial dispute regarding the deposit of his passport before the S.S.P/S.P concerned.
Calling the bail condition 'onerous', the Bench of Justice Siddharth emphasized upon the fundamental right to travel abroad as it referred to the Punjab and Haryana High Court's decision in the case of Capt. Anila Bhatia vs State Of Haryana. Further, the Court ordered that the condition of the surrender of the passport be deleted.
Case title - M/S SJS Gold Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Director Sunil Jaihind Salunkhe And Another v. State Of Up Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrtt. Lko And Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 278
The High Court observed that non-reporting of the seizure of a bank account (seized by police under Section 102 CrPC) forthwith to the magistrate concerned doesn't render such seizure ipsofact illegal.
The Bench of Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Saroj Yadav observed thus as it relied upon and agreed with Allahabad High Court's order in the case of Amit Singh v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 207.
Other updates from the High Court
The High Court granted interim to a Lucknow University student Kartik Pandey who has been accused of assaulting Professor Ravi Kant after he allegedly made controversial statements against the Kashi Vishwanath temple.
Pandey has also been accused of hurling abuses and casteist slurs at Professor Ravi Kant Chandan. Thereafter, he was booked under Sections 323, 352, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1) (r), 3(1) (s) of SC & ST Act. Pursuant to this, he moved to the High Court seeking a quashing of the FIR.
The High Court asked the Uttar Pradesh Government as to why the machines and protective gears are not being used for cleaning of the drains across the state.
Essentially, the Bench of Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice J. J. Munir was dealing with a suo moto PIL plea wherein the Court had taken note of a news item, which was published in the newspapers on May 24, 2022.
In the news reports it was shown that without any protective gears, open drains were being cleaned up by the persons deployed either by the Nagar Nigam or through contractors. Earlier on May 26, the Court had issued notices to different Authorities in the State.
The High Court ordered an inquiry into the certificates issued by a 'Pradhan' of Arya Samaj temple. The Court issued this order while hearing a criminal writ petition filed by one Kapil Kumar who argued that he had solemnized marriage with the girl and therefore, lodgement of FIR against him was bad in law.
However, the Court expressed doubt over the petitioner's claim of marriage, which was based upon a marriage certificate issued by one Santosh Kumar Shastri claiming himself to be Pradhan of Arya Samaj Krishna Nagar, Prayagraj.
Bombay High Court
Nominal Index
Harish Chandra Damodar vs UOI 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 196
Balusha Santosh Bhasal and Anr. Versus State of Maharashtra and Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 197
Shamrao Piraji Kadam v Prakash Shivaji Chavan and ors 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 198
Pravin Sahebrao Bhogawade v The State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 199
Case Title: Harish Chandra Damodar vs UOI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 196
A person holding a season ticket is a bonafide "passenger," for the purpose of claiming compensation under the Railway Act 1989 even in the absence of an identity card, the Bombay High Court held.
Unless the passenger was using a season ticket issued in someone else's name, a proper season ticket without an identity card, ipso-facto, would not render season ticket invalid or the passenger a ticketless traveller.
Case Title: Balusha Santosh Bhasal and Anr. Versus State of Maharashtra and Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 197
The Bombay High Court directed the Maharashtra Government to consider a law student's representation seeking uniformity in the method and pattern of examination for undergraduate students in all universities across the State.
The court further held that the State should consider the issue as the petitioners were seeking to enforce a decision taken in the meeting between the Minister of Higher and Technical Education, Maharashtra and Vice-Chancellors of all state Universities on April 25, 2022.
3. Service Of Summons Not Complete If Accepted By "Alleged Wife" Of Party Summoned: Bombay High Court
Case Title – Shamrao Piraji Kadam v Prakash Shivaji Chavan and ors
Citation - 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 198
The Bombay High Court held that summons served on a woman claiming to be the respondent's wife cannot be called a valid summons. The court observed that the incident revealed the absence of knowledge about the suit proceedings as well as the ex-parte decree. Consequently, the court condoned the delay in filing the First Appeal before the Appellate Court.
Case Title - Pravin Sahebrao Bhogawade v The State of Maharashtra
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 199
The Bombay High Court clarified that citizens, no matter how anxious they are or how serious their grievance is, are not permitted to take the law in their own hands and/or adversely deal with public officials discharging their lawful duty.
Calcutta High Court
Nominal Index [2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 216 To 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 224]
Sri Anish Loharuka v. The State of West Bengal 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 216
Hafija Laskar v. The State of West Bengal and others 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 217
Susmita Saha Dutta v. Avishek Bandyopadhyay 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 218
Yes Bank Limited v. Malati Saha 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 219
Sulogna Chowdhury v. State of West Bengal & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 220
Pranesh Kumar Kar v. The State of West Bengal & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 221
Abhishek Banerjee & Anr v. The Union of India & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 222
Abhishek Banerjee & Anr v. The Union of India & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 222
In Re: Satyadeo Prasad Shaw 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 224
Orders/Judgments
Case Title: Sri Anish Loharuka v. The State of West Bengal
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 216
The Calcutta High Court while enumerating upon the scope of Section 207 of the CrPC which allows documents relied upon by the prosecution to be supplied to an accused, underscored that when there is a possibility of disclosure of identity of a minor victim of sexual offences then instead of supplying it would be expedient to allow the accused or his lawyer to inspect the said documents. Justice Jay Sengupta observed, "..it is abundantly clear that when there is a possibility of disclosure of identity of a minor victim, albeit minor at the time of commission of offence then instead of supplying, copying such documents to the accused, it would be expedient to allow the accused or his lawyer to inspect the said documents. After all, once a document is supplied to the accused, there is no means to ensure that the identity of the victim would not be disclosed by misusing of such document. However, it has also been provided that the accused would have a right to have such a document inspected by an expert of Information Technology."
Case Title: Hafija Laskar v. The State of West Bengal and others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 217
The Calcutta High Court refused to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus at the instance of the petitioner by opining that the allegation of custodial torture against another accused in a different case cannot ipso facto raise presumption in the mind of the Court that custodial torture is being meted out to the petitioner as well. A Bench comprising Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee opined that there is no material on record to support the apprehension of custodial torture being meted out to the petitioner and accordingly held, "…we do not find from the materials on record any scope of presumption or apprehension of custodial torture against the petitioner. In fact, the mere incident of alleged custodial torture against another person who has been in custody, being the accused in a different case (a near relative of the petitioner, namely Md. Ali @ Subrata Byne), cannot ipso facto raise presumption in the mind of the court regarding the custodial torture of the petitioner as well." The Bench further observed that since there is specific allegation of the petitioner having fled from police custody, it would not be prudent to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, which is a prerogative writ, at the instance of the petitioner.
Case Title: Susmita Saha Dutta v. Avishek Bandyopadhyay
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 218
The Calcutta High Court dismissed a petition seeking initiation of suo motu contempt proceedings against Trinamool Congress (TMC) MP Abhishek Banerjee for his purported derogatory remarks against the judiciary by opining that the remarks do not tantamount to a contumacious act justifying issuance of a suo motu rule of contempt. A Bench comprising Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee refused to initiate contempt proceedings against Banerjee by observing, "In the present case, undoubtedly the comments uttered by the person in question may not be palatable to the general public and/or the members of the Judiciary, however, such nature of the act need not have the effect tantamounting to a contumacious act, justifying issuance of a suo motu rule of contempt." It was also opined that the criteria stipulated in Section 13 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is not applicable in the instant case since the alleged contempt is not of such a nature that it substantially interferes, or tends substantially to interfere with the due course of justice.
4. Intra-Court Appeal Under Clause 15 Of Letters Patent Appeal Not Maintainable Against Orders In Exercise Of Criminal Jurisdiction: Calcutta HC
Case Title: Yes Bank Limited v. Malati Saha
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 219
The Calcutta High Court has recently observed that an intra-court appeal cannot be entertained against an order for initiation of criminal proceedings pursuant to Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. A Bench comprising Justice Arijit Banerjee and Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay placed reliance on the Supreme Court decision in Ram Kishan Fauji v. State of Haryana to observe, "As we understand, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down in the case of Ram Kishan Fauji that where the order in question causes initiation of a criminal proceeding which may result in punishment of the accused person by way of imprisonment or fine, or if by reason of such order, a criminal proceeding stands terminated, then such an order would be considered to have been passed by the Court in exercise of criminal jurisdiction. In such a case, Clause 15 of the Letters Patent would clearly bar an intra-court appeal."
Case Title: Sulogna Chowdhury v. State of West Bengal & Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 220
The Calcutta High Court on Monday refused to issue any interim order in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition against the holding of a public rally on a river bed by West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee on June 1 thereby polluting the Gandheswari river. A Bench comprising Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee observed, "Upon scrutinising the photographs annexed to the present writ petition, it is evident that the alleged river- bed, where the rally is proposed to be held, is absolutely dry and there is no scope of adversely affecting the river water or polluting the same in any manner by virtue of holding such rally." It was further opined that since the respective authorities as well as the private individuals owning a substantial share of the land where the rally is going to be held have sanctioned the holding of the rally, there is no scope to interfere in the present writ petition.
Case Title: Pranesh Kumar Kar v. The State of West Bengal & Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 221
The Calcutta High Court has recently directed the concerned Treasury Officer to pay interest for delayed payment of gratuity and arrear pension amount to an Assistant Teacher, after opining that it is a valuable right of a retired employee. Justice Amrita Sinha observed, "An employee has a statutory right to receive gratuity and pension upon retirement. If payment of such gratuity and pension is delayed the retired employee is surely entitled to get some interest for such delayed payment." The Court also remarked that pension and gratuity are welfare provisions aimed at maintaining the life of a retired employee and his/her dependents and that it is compensatory in nature. Accordingly, the Court directed the concerned Treasury Officer to pay interest to the writ petitioner at the rate of 5% per annum on the gratuity and arrear pension calculated on and from the due date till the date of actual payment, provided the delay caused was not attributable to the petitioner.
Case Title: Abhishek Banerjee & Anr v. The Union of India & Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 222
The Calcutta High Court on Thursday allowed Trinamool Congress's National General Secretary Abhishek Banerjee and his wife Rujira Banerjee to go to Dubai for medical treatment. This comes even as the Enforcement Directorate (ED), which is probing the two in a coal smuggling scam, opposed their travel. Allowing the TMC MLA and his wife to travel to Dubai for medical treatment, Justice Bibek Chaudhuri observed, "Considering the instant application purely on humanitarian ground, this Court permits the petitioner no.1 and his wife to visit Moorfields Eye Hospital, Dubai, United Arab Emirates during the period between 2nd June, 2022 and 10th June, 2022." Directing the petitioners to submit details about their accommodation and the hospital where the medical treatment will be sought, the Court underscored, "The petitioners shall submit the copies of the air tickets and the address where they would stay in Dubai during the particular period to the Enforcement Directorate with the phone numbers of the Hospital and the place of accommodation of the petitioners so that the Enforcement Directorate can keep a track of the whereabouts of the petitioners."
Case Title: Rajina Begam v. The State of West Bengal & Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 223
The Calcutta High Court has recently opined that the power of the Constitutional Court cannot be used as a coercive machinery and thus ordered the aggrieved person to seek relief from the concerned Jurisdictional Magistrate regarding the alleged police inaction. Justice Bibek Chaudhuri was adjudicating upon a case wherein the petitioner had alleged that she had been manhandled and also her modesty had been outraged by the respondent and his associates in an altercation regarding construction over a disputed property. Opining further that the power of the Constitutional Court cannot be used as a coercive machinery, the Court underscored, "The power of the Constitutional Court cannot be used as a coercive machinery upon an individual. If the petitioner has any objection with regard to the course of investigation, she can take appropriate step in the Court of the Jurisdictional Magistrate."
Case Title: In Re: Satyadeo Prasad Shaw
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 224
The Calcutta High Court opined that a litigant should not be penalised for the misconduct of his advocate and accordingly allowed an application seeking condonation of delay of about 9 years and 4 months in filing the revision petition. The counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted before Justice Kaushik Chanda that the petitioner had not been informed by his advocate that his criminal appeal had been dismissed by the concerned Sessions Judge on December 13, 2012. Pursuant to the submissions, the Court underscored, "A litigant should not be penalised for the laches or misconduct on the part of his learned advocate. In the present case, though I am of the view that the petitioner should have been more diligent in pursuing his case before this Court, I am inclined to grant him an opportunity to contest his appeal on merit." Accordingly, the Court condoned the delay in preferring the instant revisional application subject to the condition that the petitioner will pay a cost of Rs.10,000 to the State Legal Services Authority, West Bengal within a period of 2 weeks.
Important Development
The Central Government notified the appointment of judicial officers Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury and Shampa Dutta (Paul) as Additional Judges of the Calcutta High Court. The Supreme Court Collegium in its meeting held on February 1, 2022 had reiterated the aforementioned appointments. Their names were first recommended on September 1, 2021. As per the notification, Dutt's appointment is for a period of two years while Chowdhury has been given a tenure till December 27, 2023.
Delhi High Court
NOMINAL INDEX
Citations 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 513 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 542
Case Title: SH JAGMOHAN KASHYAP v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 513
Case Title: JIVA INSTITUTE OF VEDIC SCIENCE & CULTURE AND ANR v. PUNEET CHHATWAL & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 514
Case Title: HEAD DIGITAL WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED v. TICTOK SKILL GAMES PVT LTD 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 515
Case Title: SH.PANNA LAL v. BHAGMAL KATARIA & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 516
Case Title: KARIM HOTEL PVT LTD versus KAREEM DHANANI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 517
Title: RAHUL MEHRA v. UNION OF INDIA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 518
Case Title: JUSTICE FOR ALL AND ANR v. VENKATESHWAR GLOBAL SCHOOL AND ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 519
Case Title: COLORBAR COSMETICS PRIVATE LIMITED v. FACES COSMETICS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 520
Case Title: Panipat Jalandhar National Highway 1 Tollway Pvt. Ltd. v. NHAI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 521
Case Title: ED v. Jacqueline Fernandez 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 522
Case Title: NEHA DEVI v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 523
Case Title: Shalen Bhardwaj v. Ministry of Home Affairs & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 524
Case Title: Gurjar Samaj Sarv Sangthan Sabha Ekta Samanya Samiti v. Union of India & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 525
Case Title: Himanshu Shekar v. Prabhat Shekhar 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 526
Case Title: CJDARCL LOGISTICS LTD. v. RITES LTD AND OTHERS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 527
Title: VIVEK KUMAR YADAV v. REGISTRAR GENERAL, DELHI HIGH COURT and other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 528
Case Title: BSES RAJDHANI POWER LIMITED & ANR. v. NORTHERN REGIONAL POWER COMMITTEE & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 529
Title: DR PRANNOY ROY & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 530
Case Title: SHEIKH ISHRAFIL v. STATE (NCT) OF DELHI & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 531
Case: National Seeds Corporation Ltd. v. National Agro Seeds Corporation 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 532
Title: SANJIT BAKSHI v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 533
Case Title: RAJESH KAPOOR v. OFFICE OF THE LD. PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 534
Case Title: SMT BABITA SHARMA & ANR. v. THE SHANKAR COOP. URBAN T/C SOCIETY 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 535
Case Title: Juki India Private Limited versus M/s Capital Apparels Technology Private Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 536
Case Title: VAIBHAV SAMPAT MORE v. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY THROUGH ITS CHIEF INVESTIGATION OFFICER 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 537
Case Title: RAHUL MEHRA v. UNION OF INDIA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 538
CaseTitle: ADITI BAKHT v. ABHISHEK AHUJA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 539
Case Title: ED v. Satyendar Jain 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 540
Case Title: NEETA BHARDWAJ & ORS. v. KAMLESH SHARMA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 541
Case Title: ARSHAD AHMAD AND ORS v. STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 542
1. Right To Claim Maintenance Under Domestic Violence Act & U/S 125 CrPC Not Mutually Exclusive: Delhi High Court
Case Title: SH JAGMOHAN KASHYAP v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 513
The Delhi High Court has observed that the right to claim maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure are not mutually exclusive.
Justice Asha Menon was of the view that the aggrieved person can seek interim maintenance before the Magistrate while also seeking a permanent maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.
"The only caveat is that maintenance granted by one court will be factored in by the other court before granting or refusing maintenance," the Court said.
2. Party Alleging Contempt Can't Call Upon Court To Interpret Judicial Order Differently From The Manner In Which It Reads: Delhi High Court
Case Title: JIVA INSTITUTE OF VEDIC SCIENCE & CULTURE AND ANR v. PUNEET CHHATWAL & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 514
The Delhi High Court has observed that a party approaching the Court alleging contempt, cannot call upon the Court, in a contempt jurisdiction, to interpret the judicial order differently from the manner in which it reads and that only those directions which are plainly self-evident have to be taken into account to determine the violation or disobedience.
Justice Jyoti Singh was dealing with a plea alleging contempt of judicial orders passed in a trademark infringement case, thereby seeking direction to hold the respondents guilty of gross, deliberate and continuing contempt of the orders.
3. Use Of Competitor's Trademark As Keyword For Promoting Business On Search Engines/ App Store Violates Rights Of Trademark Owner: Delhi High Court
Case Title: HEAD DIGITAL WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED v. TICTOK SKILL GAMES PVT LTD
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 515
The Delhi High Court has observed that the use of keywords for promoting a business using competitor's trademark would be violative of the rights of the trademark owner.
Justice Pratibha M Singh was of the view that there would be no difference in the use of trade marks as a keyword on search engines as opposed to use as a keyword on App store searches.
"So long as the key words are being used for promoting a business, using a competitor's trade mark, the same would be violative of the rights of the trade mark owner," the Court said.
4. Restoration Applications Are To Be Dealt With Liberally, Right To Represent One's Cause Before Court Is A Fundamental Right: Delhi High Court
Case Title: SH.PANNA LAL v. BHAGMAL KATARIA & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 516
The Delhi High Court has observed that the restoration applications are to be dealt with liberally as the right to represent one's cause before a Court is a fundamental right.
Justice C Hari Shankar was dealing with a plea challenging an order passed by the Senior Civil Judge which had dismissed a restoration application filed by the petitioner.
The petitioner contended, in the restoration application, that on the date when he was absent for the hearing, the proceedings were taken up virtually and that he was unable to join the proceedings.
The Senior Civil Judge, in passing the impugned order, had proceeded solely on the ground that, as per the dates of physical hearing, notified by High Court, the matter was taken up on physical hearing on 30th October, 2021 when the petitioner was absent.
5. Karim's v. Kareem's: Delhi High Court Restrains Businessman From Infringing Trademark Of Old Delhi's Mughlai Food Outlet
Case Title: KARIM HOTEL PVT LTD versus KAREEM DHANANI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 517
Coming to the aid of Old Delhi's popular Mughlai food outlet "Karim's", the Delhi High Court has restrained Mumbai based businessman Kareem Dhanani from opening any further restaurants under deceptively similar marks, till August 8.
Justice Prathibha M. Singh further directed Dhanani to ensure that in the restaurants run by him or by his franchises, no representation is made to the customers that it is associated with the Karim's at Jama Masjid.
Title: RAHUL MEHRA v. UNION OF INDIA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 518
Observing that fairness and legitimacy need to imbue all governmental affairs, the Delhi High Court has observed that it is imperative that no further exemptions be granted to or lenience be shown to National Sports Federations who are not complying with the Government of India's National Sports Code, 2011.
A division bench comprising of Justice Najmi Waziri and Justice Vikas Mahajan added that no NSF or Sports Entity should be seen to be receiving benefits which are unjust.
7. Private Schools Must Fill Up Backlog EWS Seats In Next 5 Yrs: Delhi High Court
Case Title: JUSTICE FOR ALL AND ANR v. VENKATESHWAR GLOBAL SCHOOL AND ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 519
The Delhi High Court has asked the Delhi Government to make every endeavour to ensure that the backlog of unfilled EWS seats in private schools, both on private and government lands, is filled-up in the next five years in a phased manner; i.e., 20% of the vacancies each year, in addition to the mandated annual 25% intake.
A division bench comprising of Justice Najmi Waziri and Justice Vikas Mahajan further directed the Delhi Government to ensure that the 25% seats in the Economic Weaker Section (EWS) category students shall be filled up on the basis of declared sanctioned strength at the entry level, irrespective of the actual number of students admitted in the General category.
Case Title: COLORBAR COSMETICS PRIVATE LIMITED v. FACES COSMETICS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 520
The Delhi High Court has restrained a Canada based company Faces Cosmetics from selling and manufacturing its products under the mark 'Velvette Matte' in the trademark infringement suit filed by Colorbar Cosmetics.
Justice Pratibha M Singh granted ad interim ex parte injunction in favour of Colorbar Cosmetics Private Limited by restraining Faces Cosmetics India Private for manufacturing, selling and offering for sale cosmetics and other products under the mark 'VELVET MATTE' or any other mark identical or deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's mark VELVET MATTE, till September 19, the next date of hearing.
Case Title: Panipat Jalandhar National Highway 1 Tollway Pvt. Ltd. v. NHAI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 521
The High Court of Delhi has held that multiple arbitrations with regard to existing claims on same contract are to be avoided.
The Single Bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait held that permitting the parties to have multiple arbitrations for the adjudication of the existing disputes related to the same contract would entail multiple observations.
The Court further held that there is no absolute bar in terms of Entry 22 to the Vth Schedule against the appointment of the same person as the arbitrator in more than two arbitrations within a period of three years.
10. Delhi High Court Permits Actress Jacqueline Fernandez To Travel Abroad For IIFA Event
Case Title: ED v. Jacqueline Fernandez
Citation: Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 522
The Delhi High Court yesterday upheld a Trial Court order which had granted permission to Bollywood actress Jacqueline Fernandez to travel abroad to Abu Dhabi, UAE for IIFA Awards events. The development comes in backdrop of a money laundering case being probed by Enforcement Directorate involving alleged conman Sukesh Chandrasekhar.
Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain however modified a condition in the trial court order to the extent that the actress shall submit an FDR of Rs. 1 crore alongwith an undertaking that in the case she did not return to the country, the said FDR shall be forfeited in favor of the agency before the concerned Court alongwith surety of Rs. 1 crore.
Case Title: NEHA DEVI v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 523
The Delhi High Court has observed that insistence of spousal consent for organ donation would impinge upon the right of the wife to be in control of her own body.
Interpreting relevant provisions of Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Rules, 2014 as well as Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994, Justice Yashwant Varma further added that a spouse cannot be recognised in law to have a superior or supervening right to control a personal and conscious decision of the donor
Case Title: Shalen Bhardwaj v. Ministry of Home Affairs & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 524
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday directed the Delhi Police to take action against its officials who are found not following Covid-19 masking policy and violating Motor Vehicles Act by not wearing helmets while riding their vehicles.
A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Sachin Datta observed,
"Police officers are equally bound by directions issued by DDMA, as any other citizen. We are of the view that they should lead by example."
Case Title: Gurjar Samaj Sarv Sangthan Sabha Ekta Samanya Samiti v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 525
The Delhi High Court has disposed of a plea against Akshay Kumar starrer "Samrat Prithviraj" for allegedly depicting the ruler as a Rajput King. The plea claimed that Prithviraj Chauhan was a Gurjar King. The film is set to hit the theatres on June 3.
A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Sachin Datta closed the matter after counsel for Yash Raj Films made a categorical statement that the movie is absolutely neutral and does not refer to any caste, either Rajput or Gurjar.
Case Title: Himanshu Shekar v. Prabhat Shekhar
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 526
The High Court of Delhi has held that the embargo under Section 12(5) of the A&C Act would not apply to a distant relative of the parties.
The Single Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru held that in terms of Explanation 1 and Entry 9 to the Seventh Schedule r/w Section 12(5) only spouse, sibling, child, parent or life partner of a party would be ineligible to be appointed as an arbitrator.
The Court observed that the father-in-law of the niece of the parties cannot be held to be a close relative of the parties to attract the rigours of Section 12(5) of the A&C Act.
Case Title: CJDARCL LOGISTICS LTD. v. RITES LTD AND OTHERS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 527
The Delhi High Court today imposed a hefty cost of Rs. 12.5 crores on a private company namely SARR Freights Corporation, for concealing the information about its blacklisting in a tender matter and directed that the said cost shall be utilized for installation and operationalization of a smog tower before the advent of winter season in the city.
A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh directed that the amount of Rs. 12.5 crores shall be deposited by the company with the Registrar General of the High Court within 2 weeks.
The Court said that the smog tower shall be based on the same working and operational guidelines as the Connaught Place smog tower.
A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh directed that the amount of Rs. 12.5 crores shall be deposited by the company with the Registrar General of the High Court within 2 weeks.
Title: VIVEK KUMAR YADAV v. REGISTRAR GENERAL, DELHI HIGH COURT and other connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 528
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a bunch of pleas challenging the final answers keys of the Delhi Judicial Service Preliminary Examination, 2022, which was declared after considering the objections raised by various candidates.
A division bench comprising of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan dismissed four pleas filed the candidates who were unsuccessful in being shortlisted to appear for the Delhi Judicial Service Mains Examination as the marks secured by them in the preliminary examination fell short of the specified threshold.
Case Title: BSES RAJDHANI POWER LIMITED & ANR. v. NORTHERN REGIONAL POWER COMMITTEE & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 529
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday asked the Centre through Ministry of Power to examine the rival claims and consider the validity of the right of the States of Haryana as well as Delhi for continued allocation of Dadri-II power plant.
Justice Yashwant Varma also asked the Centre to explore avenues which may safeguard the interests and projected needs of the two States and take an appropriate decision based on a holistic examination of all the facts that may be placed before it.
Title: DR PRANNOY ROY & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 530
The Delhi High Court has allowed NDTV promoters Prannoy Roy and Radhika Roy to travel abroad between 1st to 30th August, 2022.
The development came in the backdrop of a Look Out Circulars (LOC) having been issued against the duo by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The LOC in turn was opened pursuant to the registration of two FIRs dated 2 June 2017 and 19 August 2019.
Accordingly, an application was filed by Prannoy Roy and Radhika Roy seeking permission from the Court to permit them to travel abroad from August 1 to 30, 2022.
Case Title: SHEIKH ISHRAFIL v. STATE (NCT) OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 531
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea filed by an accused in connection with the Jahangirpuri riots seeking directions on the city police not to harass him and his family members in the name of interrogation.
The plea was filed by one Sheikh Ishrafil, who is alleged by the prosecution to be one of the main conspirators and perpetrators of the entire incident, thereby adding that he was evading the process of law. His eldest son was sent to judicial custody, on allegations of being involved in the riots.
Case: National Seeds Corporation Ltd. v. National Agro Seeds Corporation
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 532
The High Court of Delhi has held that acknowledgment of an amount as due and payable under the ledger/statement of accounts, constitutes a fresh cause of action and extends the period of limitation.
The Division Bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Jasmeet Singh held that the period of limitation for an amount that is shown as outstanding in the book of accounts would get extended from the date of such acknowledgement in terms of Section 18 of the Limitation Act.
Case Title: SANJIT BAKSHI v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 533
The Delhi High Court has observed that taking of cognizance is a judicial function and that the judicial orders cannot be passed in a mechanical or cryptic manner.
Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain has added that at time of taking cognizance, a Magistrate is not required to consider the defence of the proposed accused or to evaluate the merits of the material collected during investigatio or to pass a detail order giving detailed reasons while taking cognizance. The Court added that the order taking cognizance should only reflect application of judicial mind.
Case Title: RAJESH KAPOOR v. OFFICE OF THE LD. PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 534
The Delhi High Court has upheld a circular stipulating that the city's district court employees can be allowed to visit a foreign country only during Summer Vacations, Winter Vacations, Public Holidays and in case of any exigency.
A single judge bench comprising of Justice V Kameswar Rao dismissed a plea challenging the order dated January 31, 2022 passed by the respondent, Office of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, whereby it had rejected the application of the petitioner, who held the post of Senior Personal Assistant in the Court of an Additional Sessions Judge at Rohini Courts.
Case Title: SMT BABITA SHARMA & ANR. v. THE SHANKAR COOP. URBAN T/C SOCIETY
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 535
The Delhi High Court has observed that there is no mandate, in law or otherwise, requiring the executing court to decide the application under Order XXI Rule 26 of Code of Civil Procedure for stay of execution proceedings, on the very first day.
Justice C Hari Shankar added that the Executing Court is entitled to call upon the Decree Holder to file a reply to the application before taking a decision thereon.
Case Title: Juki India Private Limited versus M/s Capital Apparels Technology Private Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 536
The Delhi High Court has ruled that where an MoU has been signed by the parties for settlement of dues arising under an agreement, arbitration can be sought for violation of the terms of the MoU, even if the MoU does not contain an Arbitration Clause.
The Single Bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani held that since the MoU was a part of the dispute covered by the Arbitration Clause contained in the agreement, the dispute between the parties could be referred to arbitration.
Case Title: VAIBHAV SAMPAT MORE v. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY THROUGH ITS CHIEF INVESTIGATION OFFICER
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 537
The Delhi High Court has held that mere smuggling of gold without any connection whatsoever to threatening economic security or monetary stability of India cannot be a terrorist act under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
A division bench comprising of Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Mini Pushkarna granted bail to nine accused persons who had approached the Court by way of filing an appeal challenging the Trial Court order denying bail to them in a matter involving offences under sec. 16, 18, 20 of the UAPA and under sec. 120B, 204, 409 and 471 of IPC.
Case Title: RAHUL MEHRA v. UNION OF INDIA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 538
The Delhi High Court on Friday directed the Centre to ensure that monies, patronage and other facilities to National Sports Federations will be resumed only when they comply with National Sports Code, 2011 and judicial orders.
A division bench comprising of Justice Najmi Waziri and Justice Vikas Mahajan added that the entire exercise of ensuring compliance is expected to be completed by the end of this month. However, in the interim, the Court said that the assistance provided to sportspersons through the Sports Authority of India will be ensured and wherever necessary, augmented.
CaseTitle: ADITI BAKHT v. ABHISHEK AHUJA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 539
The Delhi High Court has said that judges must not act in any manner which gives rise to slightest of doubt in the minds of lawyers and litigants as their conduct is noted and observed by the litigants.
Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma made the said observation while expressing displeasure over the conduct of a Family judge who had shared his personal mobile number with both the parties and admittedly met one of the parties in chamber, which had unnecessarily given a cause of reasonable apprehension of bias.
Case Title: ED v. Satyendar Jain
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 540
The Delhi High Court has stayed the Trial Court direction permitting Health Minister Satyendar Jain's counsel to remain present during his interrogation in connection with a money laundering case.
The condition was imposed by the trial Court while remanding Jain to the agency's custody till June 9.
A single bench comprising of Justice Yogesh Khanna disposed of the interim application filed by the Enforcement Directorate while observing thus:
"….this Court can always permit at visible, but not an audible range during the course of recording of the statement but since there is no apprehension raised in the present matter, hence as a matter of right such direction ought not to have been given in the recording of statement."
Case Title: NEETA BHARDWAJ & ORS. v. KAMLESH SHARMA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 541
Observing that the occupants of the dharamshalas and pujaris cannot claim a vested right to remain in city's Kalkaji Temple premises, the Delhi High Court has directed that such dharamshalas shall be vacated on or before 6th June, 2022.
Justice Pratibha M Singh, who was dealing with a bunch of pleas concerning redevelopment of the temple premises, added that in case of failure to comply with the direction, the concerned SHO shall take steps, in consultation with the Administrator, to evict the said pujaris and the dharamshala occupants.
Case Title: ARSHAD AHMAD AND ORS v. STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 542
The Delhi High Court has observed that in matrimonial offences, quashing of FIR is welcome as it shows that parties have decided to put an end to the lis as well as to the misery they undergo due to a matrimonial case pending between them.
"The fact that now-a-days Sections 376 and 354 of IPC are being used along with Section 498-A IPC, which later on are compromised and are brought to this Court for quashing, needs to be curbed," Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma further added.
Gauhati High Court
Case title - Pratima Deka vs The State Of Assam And 5 Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Gau) 41
The Gauhati High Court has observed that in the Hindu religion, there is no concept of Bigamy and therefore, a second wife is not entitled to a family pension in the existence of the first wife.
The bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi observed thus in a case wherein Petitioner had moved the Court seeking family pension claiming herself to be the wife of one Biren Deka.
She submitted that his husband was working in the Irrigation Department as a Handyman and had passed away in August 2016 therefore, she is entitled to a family pension. She submitted before the Court that she has three children.
Gujarat High Court
NOMINAL INDEX
Subhashchandra Sanatan Mallik Through Babita Subhashchandra Mallik V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 187
Darshan Bipinbhai Trivedi Versus State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 188
Mehulkumar Ramanlal Katpara Versus State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 189
Symphony Limited Versus Raj Cooling System Private Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 190
Ranjeetsinh Gambhirsinh Jadeja V/S Agriculture Produce Market Committee 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 191
Minor Mohit Shankarbhaai Vaghela Through Tejal Shankarbhai Vaghela V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 192
Tejal Pareshbhai Pathak W/O Chirag Prabhashankar Trivedi V/S State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 193
Pravinsinh Jhala V/S State Of Gujarat & 3 Other(S) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 194
Nirmal Jagmohan Sharma Versus High Court Of Gujarat & 1 Other(S) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 195
ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE WEEK
Case Title: Subhashchandra Sanatan Mallik Through Babita Subhashchandra Mallik V/S State Of Gujarat
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 187
The Gujarat High Court while allowing the petition against the order of detention of the Petitioner has held that offences under Section 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and Sections 30 and 35 of the Gujarat Medical Practitioner Act by itself cannot bring the detenu within the fold of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985.
Case Title: Darshan Bipinbhai Trivedi Versus State Of Gujarat
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 188
The Gujarat High Court has made it clear that the Assistant Director of Information (Journalism) Class II Recruitment Rules, 2015 nowhere stipulate that Journalism experience necessarily has to be from a government organization for appointment to the post of Assistant Director of Information (Journalism) Class II.
"Nowhere does Recruitment Rule stipulate that it has to be in only a government or local body or a government undertaking board or the Corporation or a Company. This would amount to restrictive reading of the Rule and, therefore, it cannot be said that the respondent No.3 does not possess the requisite experience," Justice Biren Vaishnav observed.
Case Title: Mehulkumar Ramanlal Katpara Versus State Of Gujarat
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 189
Ensuring that no discrimination is borne by Multi-Purpose Health Workers (Male), the High Court held that they shall be entitled to regular pay scale from their original date of appointment and consequential benefits which were paid to similarly situated employees way back in the year 2011 and 2016.
Justice Biren Vaishnav referred to previous orders of the High Court by wherein Multi-Purpose Health Workers were regularised while observing:
"Multi Purpose Health Worker (Male) who have worked continuously for so many years cannot be discriminated by taking one excuse or the other. There is no rationale in discriminating the present petitioners by treating them as employees on contractual basis when initial contract for which they were appointed is over after 11 months and thereafter, without any break, they are continued for all these years. This is particularly so, when clear cut finding has been recorded by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Special Civil Application No.6289 of 2011 and respondents were party in these proceedings."
Case Title: Symphony Limited Versus Raj Cooling System Private Limited
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 190
The High Court passed a consent decree in terms of a settlement arrived between renowned Symphony coolers and Raj Cooling System Pvt Ltd in connection with a suit for permanent injunction instituted under the Designs Act, 2000.
The suit was filed by Symphony Ltd. alleging infringement of the Designs Act by the Respondent company, alleging that the latter has been selling their product of air cooler having model name ALLWYN AC201 and ALLWYN AC203, whose is similar to Symphony's design vide registration no. 288184.
Case Title: Ranjeetsinh Gambhirsinh Jadeja V/S Agriculture Produce Market Committee
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 191
The High Court held that the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 do not apply to contempt proceedings. In this light, it refused to entertain a contempt petition filed with a delay of over 1 year.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Ashutosh Shastri noted that as per Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, proceedings for contempt cannot be initiated by a Court, either on its own motion or otherwise, after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed
Gujarat High Court Grants Bail To 16-Yr-Old Accused Of Committing Unnatural Sex With 13-Yr-Old
Case Title: Minor Mohit Shankarbhaai Vaghela Through Tejal Shankarbhai Vaghela V/S State Of Gujarat
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 192
The Gujarat High Court granted bail to a 16 years old boy, accused of forcibly committing unnatural sex (sodomy) with a minor boy, aged about 13 years.
Keeping in view Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, a Bench of Justice Samir Dave granted bail to the accused while restraining him from entering the society where the alleged victim resides. In doing so, the Bench allowed the criminal revision application filed under Section 102 of the JJ Act to quash the order passed by the Sessions Court and the JJ Board, refusing bail.
Case Title: Tejal Pareshbhai Pathak W/O Chirag Prabhashankar Trivedi V/S State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 193
While emphasizing on the paramount welfare of children in custody matters and observing that young children need love and warmth of both the parents, the Gujarat High Court recently directed the District Legal Service Authority to attempt conciliation between an estranged couple.
"We would also request the Chairperson, Rajkot District Legal Service Authority to also attempt to bring about the permanent solution between the parties, as according to us, such solution will be quite beneficial. After once the Chairperson undertakes this exercise and if he finds the need for continuity of the process, he will be at liberty to relegate the parties to professional counselors or anyone he deems appropriate," a bench comprising Justice Sonia Gokani and Justice Mauna Bhatt ordered.
Case Title: Pravinsinh Jhala V/S State Of Gujarat & 3 Other(S)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 194
The High Court reiterated that when a government servant is accused of a criminal offence, there has to be a reasonable connection between the act concerned and the performance of his official duty for him to claim that there is need of sanction to prosecute under Section 197 of CrPC.
Holding thus, Justice Nikhil S. Kariel dismissed the applications filed by members of the Police Force, challenging an order passed by the Magistrate taking cognizance of a complaint against them and issuing process under Section 204 of CrPC for the offences punishable under Sections 325, 323 and 114 of IPC.
Case title - Nirmal Jagmohan Sharma Versus High Court Of Gujarat & 1 Other(S)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 195
Citing the limited scope of judicial review with Courts to interfere with stipulations in recruitment advertisements which is the exclusive domain of the executive authority, the Gujarat High Court has dismissed the petition filed by a Civil Judge from Rajasthan seeking the appointment to the post of Civil Judge in Gujarat.
Jammu and Kashmir High Court
1. Office Bearer Can't Be Held Vicariously Liable In Criminal Proceedings Unless Company Is Made Accused: Jammu & Kashmir High Court Reiterates
Case Title: SANDEEP SINGH & ORS. Vs. NISAR AHMAD DAR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 37
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court recently observed that vicarious liability cannot be attached to the office bearers of a company till impleadment of the company as an accused. The observation came from Justice Sanjay Dhar:
"Each and every action of the petitioners was in their capacity as office bearers of the company and whatever they did, the same was done on behalf of the company. Even the money was received from the respondent/complainant in the account of the company. Thus, without impleading the company as an accused, the proceedings against the petitioners could not have been initiated. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has, therefore, erred in issuing process against the petitioners."
Case Title: Neelofar Rasool v/s Imtiyaz Ahmad Ahangar and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JK) 38
High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh, last week, while framing guidelines pertaining to 'protection officer' in Domestic Violence cases said, "It shall neither be the duty of the Protection Officer nor his/her domain to undertake any mediation/conciliation once a Magistrate is seized of a domestic violence case."
The Court said the protection officer is under statutory duty to assist the Magistrate in discharge of his functions under the Act and to carry out directions/orders passed by such Magistrate without making his own interpretation.
Karnataka High Court
Nominal Index:
Sangeeta Gadagin v. State Of Karnataka, & C/W Matters, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 175
Vikram Vincent v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 176
Prakash Sharma S/O Mehdi Sharma v. State By Marathahalli Police Station, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 177
SATHISH K and others v State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 178
The Bangalore Development Authority and Others v. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 179
G.H.Abdul Kadri v. Mohammed Iqbal, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 180
B.A.HARISH GOWDA v. RAVI KUMAR, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 181
SRIKANTAIAH v STATE BY ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU and ANR, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 182
ITI Limited versus Alphion Corporation & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 183
DR. K.RAVINDRANATH SHETTY & others v STATE OF KARNATAKA & others, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 184
BOPPANDA N. KUSHALAPPA v. BALEYADA K. CHERAMANNA and Others, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 185
Dr Yasin Khan v. State of Karnataka and Others, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 186
BHIMAPPA JANTAKAL @ BHIMANNA & others v State of Karnataka and ANR, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 187
SRINIVASA and ANR v STATE BY BEECHANALLI POLICE STATION, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 188
The Vice Chairman Settlement Commission & Anr. versus M/s Zyeta Interiors Pvt. Ltd & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 189
Judgments/ Orders/Reports
Case Title: Sangeeta Gadagin v. State Of Karnataka, & C/W Matters Case No: WP 3522/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 175
The Karnataka High Court has directed the State Government to forthwith take necessary steps to implement the Integrated Child Development Services Scheme (ICDS Scheme) in the state. Otherwise, the Court observed that the fundamental right to nutritious food of 50 lakhs beneficiaries in Karnataka, particularly of pregnant women, lactating mothers and children, stand violated.
Case Title: Vikram Vincent v. State of Karnataka
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 176
The Karnataka High Court has directed the police to investigate alleged charges of performing unnatural sex, levelled against a husband by his estranged wife.
Case Title: Prakash Sharma S/O Mehdi Sharma v. State By Marathahalli Police Station Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4281 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 177
The Karnataka High Court has granted bail to an accused who was working as a receptionist at a hotel which was allegedly being used as a brothel.
Case Title: SATHISH K and others v State of Karnataka Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.4172 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 178
The Karnataka High Court recently held that closure of proceedings on account of settlement arrived at between the parties even for offence of Rape, punishable under Section 376 of the IPC, is permissible. Observing thus, it quashed the proceedings pending against four persons on the complaint made by a woman belonging to the same family.
Case Title: The Bangalore Development Authority and Others v. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 179
The Karnataka High Court has said that proceedings initiated by a father in respect of a claim of title over a property which is decided by the court will bind the son also. He cannot be permitted to agitate for the same cause, following the principle of res-judicata.
Case Title: G.H.Abdul Kadri v. Mohammed Iqbal Case No: Crl.RP.No.1323/2019
Citation; 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 180
The Karnataka High Court has said that a criminal trial cannot be held in the absence of an accused unless personal appearance is dispensed with for valid reasons. There cannot be dispensation of examination of an accused under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) if incriminating evidence appears in the evidence of the witness.
Case Title: B.A.HARISH GOWDA v. RAVI KUMAR Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.175/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 181
The Karnataka High Court has suggested that the Central Government make necessary amendments to Section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code, in order to provide an opportunity to victims to approach the Court in appeal seeking enhancement of sentence imposed on a convict.
Case Title: SRIKANTAIAH v STATE BY ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU and ANR Case no: WRIT PETITION No.12/2022.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 182
The Karnataka High Court has said that a second petition under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) for quashing the criminal proceedings will be maintainable but only in exceptional cases where there are changed circumstances.
Case Title: ITI Limited versus Alphion Corporation & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 183
The Karnataka High Court has ruled that even with respect to a High Court that does not exercise an Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction, a Commercial Division is required to be established for the purpose of considering applications and appeals arising out of an International Commercial Arbitration. The Court added that the said Commercial Division must comprise of a Single Judge.
Case Title: DR. K.RAVINDRANATH SHETTY & others v STATE OF KARNATAKA & others Case No: W.P.No.21453/2009
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 184
The Karnataka High Court has set aside an order of the Land Tribunal conferring occupancy rights in respect of a land in favour of the tenant, on the ground that all the legal heirs of the deceased owner were not arrayed as parties to the proceedings and their right to oppose was snatched away.
Case Title: BOPPANDA N. KUSHALAPPA v. BALEYADA K. CHERAMANNA and Others Case No: C.R.C No.1 OF 2019
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 185
The Karnataka High Court recently clarified that the notification issued by the High Court in the year 1979, has limited scope and invests the power in Senior Civil Judges only for issuance of Succession Certificates under Part-X of the Indian Succession Act and not for Probate.
Case Title: Dr Yasin Khan v. State of Karnataka and Others Case No: WA NO. 100292/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 186
The Karnataka High Court has observed that Constitutional Courts cannot be disproportionately harsh to the arguable guilt of the litigants.
13. SC/ST Act Can't Be Invoked Merely Because Victim's Mother Belongs To Scheduled Caste: Karnataka HC
Case Title: BHIMAPPA JANTAKAL @ BHIMANNA & others v State of Karnataka and ANR Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.101825 OF 2019
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 187
The Karnataka High Court has held that a person, whose one parent belongs to the scheduled caste community and another parent to forward caste, will have to in his complaint under the Schedule Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act, 1989, specifically plead that he belongs to the schedule caste.
Case Title: SRINIVASA and ANR v STATE BY BEECHANALLI POLICE STATION. Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL No.716 OF 2011
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 188
Almost 14 years after an Elephant died due to electrocution, the Karnataka High Court has upheld the conviction handed down to two persons who put up electric fencing around their agricultural land which led to the elephant's death.
A single judge bench of Justice Mohammad Nawaz upheld the conviction handed down to the accused Srinivasa and Basavaraju under Sections 138(1)(a) of the Electricity Act 2003 and Section 429 of IPC. However, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence under Section 9 r/w Section 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act.
Case Title: The Vice Chairman Settlement Commission & Anr. versus M/s Zyeta Interiors Pvt. Ltd & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 189
The Karnataka High Court has ruled that merely because the ratio in which service tax was required to be paid by the service recipient and the service provider was not strictly adhered to, the assessee cannot be made liable to pay double tax by denying him the CENVAT Credit.
Other reports:
Case Title: Raja Rajeshwari Nagara PS Versus Amola Khale
Case No: SPL.C 872/2018
A special court hearing the alleged murder case of journalist Gauri Lankesh has said that it would hear the case on a day to day basis for a week every month as per the convenience of the parties. The next session of the trial would be between 4th to 8th of July 2022.
Kerala High Court
Nominal Index [Citations: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 248 - 258]
SNDP Yogam & Anr v. G. Krishnamoorthy & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 248
Dr. Vikas R.S v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 249
Vijay Babu v. State of Kerala & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 250
Adhila v Commissioner of Police & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 251
Vijith Vijayan v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 252
Aboobacker K.A & Ors v. Joint Regional Transport Officer, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 253
Mannam Sugar Mills Cooperative Ltd v. Deputy Superintendent of Police, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 254
R. Baji & Ors. v. KSRTC & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 255
State of Kerala & Anr. v. P. Gopalakrishnan alias Dileep, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 256
T.A Ansad v. Sanjay Kumar Thunjhunwala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 257
Abdul Gafoor @ Kunhumon v. Asst. Director, Directorate of Enforcement & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 258
Judgments This Week
Case Title: SNDP Yogam & Anr v. G. Krishnamoorthy & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 248
The Kerala High Court has upheld the order of the Ernakulam District Court that a scheme for the administration of the Sree Narayana Dharma Paripalana (SNDP) Yogam shall be framed in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act. A Division Bench of Justice P.B Suresh Kumar and Justice C.S Sudha dismissed the appeal filed by SNDP Yogam, its general secretary Vellappally Natesan and a few others finding no infirmity in the decision of the district court.
Case Title: Dr. Vikas R.S v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 249
The Kerala High Court has dismissed a batch of appeals that assailed the NEET- PG medical prospectus on the ground of incongruity with the Medical Council of India (MCI) Regulations regarding the incentives given to in-service candidates and a connected appeal seeking weightage to service candidates in the open merit quota. Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P Chaly observed that this was a policy decision of the Government to regulate and meet up with the requirements in the respective departments so as to cater for the needs of the public at large and that the appellants had failed to make out any case of arbitrariness, unfairness, malafides or any other legal infirmities susceptible to have been interfered with by the court.
3. Kerala High Court Grants Interim Pre-Arrest Bail To Actor-Producer Vijay Babu In Rape Case
Case Title: Vijay Babu v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 250
The Kerala High Court granted interim pre-arrest bail until the next posting of the case to Malayalam actor-producer Vijay Babu's plea for anticipatory bail in the case where an actress accused him of sexually exploiting her. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas directed so after noting that the actor was willing to submit himself before the jurisdiction of the Court and that he was apprehending immediate arrest from the airport.
Also Read: Vijay Babu Back In India, Interrogation Going On: State Informs Kerala High Court
4. Kerala High Court Reunites Lesbian Couple Forcibly Separated By Parents
Case Title: Adhila v Commissioner of Police & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 251
The Kerala High Court came to the rescue of a lesbian couple by reuniting them after they were forcibly separated by their parents and family members. A Division Bench of Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice C Jayachandran allowed the habeas corpus plea moved by Adhila after her partner, Fathima Noora was taken away by her parents.
5. UAPA Case| Kerala High Court Refuses Bail To 4th Accused Over Alleged Maoist Links
Case Title: Vijith Vijayan v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 252
The Kerala High Court has rejected the bail plea of ​​Vijith Vijayan, the fourth accused in the UAPA case over alleged Maoist links finding that there was prima facie evidence to suggest his involvement in the terror case. A Division Bench of Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice C. Jayachandran observed that the general purport of the secret documents in his handwriting prima facie establishes his active participation of the accused in the organizational development and propagation of ideology, both running contrary to the established administrative machinery controlled by an elected Government.
6. Can't Adopt Rule Of Convenience: Kerala High Court Issues Traffic Directions For Private Transport Buses And Autorickshaws
Case Title: Aboobacker K.A & Ors v. Joint Regional Transport Officer
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 253
The Kerala High Court directed the Police Commissioner and the Regional Transport Authority in Kochi to immediately issue orders prohibiting private transport buses from using horns in city limits and to ensure that they ply only on the extreme left side of city roads. Justice Amit Rawal notified a set of traffic directions for private buses and auto-rickshaws in the Ernakulam district.
Case Title: Mannam Sugar Mills Cooperative Ltd v. Deputy Superintendent of Police
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 254
The Kerala High Court asked the State to issue an additional circular or a clarificatory circular specifically communicating that the illegal erection of flag poles and advertisements in any public place or on pedestrian handrails that affects its use by the common man should be acted against. This direction was issued after Justice Devan Ramachandran was informed that the Additional Chief Secretary had issued a circular to all the local self-government institutions as directed by this Court against the illegal installation of any utilities that could block the traffic.
Case Title: R. Baji & Ors. v. KSRTC & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 255
The Kerala High Court sought the response of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) and the State on a plea moved by the KSRTC employees alleging that they are not being paid salary promptly. Justice Devan Ramachandran took exception to this situation while finding it to be a 'serious predicament' if found to be true and asked KSRTC to explain how it plans to become self-reliant and take care of its employees.
Case Title: State of Kerala & Anr. v. P. Gopalakrishnan alias Dileep
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 256
The Kerala High Court on Friday granted the prosecution an extension till July 15 to conclude the further investigation in the 2017 sexual assault case. Justice Kauser Edappagath thereby allowed the plea moved by the Crime Branch. The prosecution had approached the Court on April 8 seeking an extension to wind up the probe claiming that certain voice clips are highly necessary for proper adjudication of the case to satisfy the Court of the necessity to extend the time frame to complete the further investigation.
Case Title: T.A Ansad v. Sanjay Kumar Thunjhunwala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 257
In an interesting development, the Kerala High Court has ruled that in accident cases where two vehicles are involved, contributory negligence cannot be found against the driver of the other vehicle involved in the accident solely relying on the recitals in the scene mahazar, ignoring the police charge which attributes negligence only against one driver. Justice A. Badharudeen thereby set aside the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and allowed the appeal challenging the impugned award.
Case Title: Abdul Gafoor @ Kunhumon v. Asst. Director, Directorate of Enforcement & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 258
The Kerala High Court has recently ruled that while considering a bail application under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, the twin conditions specified in Section 45(1) of PMLA and the general principles governing the grant of bail under Section 439 of CrPC should be considered. After examining Sections 65 and 71 of the PMLA, Justice Kauser Edappagath found that PMLA has an overriding effect and the provisions of the CrPC would apply only if they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the said Act.
Other Developments
In a noteworthy development, the Kerala High Court orally remarked that the offence of rape should be made gender-neutral while adjudicating upon a matrimonial dispute moved by a divorced couple over custody of their child. Justice A Muhamed Mustaque made the observation when during the course of the case when the party brought up the fact that the husband in the case had once been accused in a rape case. However, the husband's counsel argued that he was currently released on bail and that the said allegation was based on unsubstantiated accusations of sex under a false promise of marriage.
Also Read: Kerala Bar Council To Protest Against Police Atrocities On Advocates
13. Kerala High Court Issues Precautionary Guidelines Amid Rising Covid-19 Cases Among Employees
The Kerala High Court has released an official memorandum with precautionary guidelines to be complied with by the employees in light of the rising number of Covid-19 cases reported at the Court, including wearing masks, maintaining social distancing and avoiding biometric scan for entry in case of employees displaying symptoms.
The Kerala High Court Advocates' Association has released a notice urging junior lawyers and law interns to stick to the dress code prescribed for lawyers by the Bar Council of India and the High Court and to maintain the decorum of the court. The Association in its notice has mentioned that several 'unsavoury' incidents had gone down in court halls since the physical hearings resumed due to recently enrolled junior lawyers and law interns not being accustomed to the 'decorum' of the courts.
15. Kerala High Court Issues Notice On Rape Survivor's Plea To Cancel Bail Of Tattoo Artist Sujeesh
Case Title: X v. State of Kerala & Anr.
The Kerala High Court has issued notice on a plea seeking to cancel the bail granted to tattoo artist Sujeesh P.S, who was accused of rape by multiple women. While admitting the plea moved by one of the survivors, Justice Kauser Edappagath issued notice to the State and Sujeesh. Sujeesh, who runs two tattoo studios in the State, had earlier made the front page for reportedly sexually abusing multiple women while tattooing them. There are currently at least 7 FIRs registered against Sujeesh, two for rape and the others for sexual assault under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code.
Case Title: Muralikrishnan v. State of Kerala & connected matters
The Railway Board informed the Kerala High Court that sufficient details of the technical feasibility of the K-Rail Silverline were not available in the detailed project report (DPR) submitted by the State Railway Development Corporation Ltd. Justice Devan Ramachandran was also informed that the Railways had not concurred with the social impact assessment (SIA) study currently conducted by the State.
A petition has been filed before the Advocate General seeking permission to initiate contempt of court proceedings against dubbing artist and actor K. Bhagyalakshmi for her allegedly contemptuous remarks against the judiciary in the 2017 actor assault case. The plea moved by Kerala High Court Advocate M.R. Dhanil is in light of the fact that Bhagyalakshmi had made certain remarks about the ongoing trial of the actor assault case while speaking at a public function organized at Sahitya Akademi in Thrissur.
Madras High Court
Citations: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 228 To 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 238
NOMINAL INDEX
1. Thanaseelvi Mary v. The Chairman & Managing Director TANGEDCO, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 228
2. Kandasamy v The State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 229
3. Uma Anandan Kuppusamy Krishnamurthy v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 230
4. TR Ramanathan v. Tamil Nadu State Mental Health Authority and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 231
5. NCC Infrastructure Holdings Ltd and Anr. v. TAQA India Power Ventures Pvt. Ltd. Arb. O.P. (Comm. Div) Nos. 410 and 412 of 2021., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 232
6. Federation of Retired Officers of Transport Corporations v Chief Secretary to Government and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 233
7. Mr. Shaik Abdulla v. The Union of India and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 234
8. Dr. S Giridharan and others v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 235
9. SJ Suryah v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 236
10. Abdul Rashid Sahib v. Ramachandran and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 237
11. L Nandagopal Yadav v Mr Udai Pratap Singh and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 238
REPORTS
Case Title: Thanaseelvi Mary v. The Chairman & Managing Director TANGEDCO
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 228
The Madras High Court recently observed that in matters of public employments, equal opportunities should be granted. Whenever a decision is taken with respect to recruitment, the competent authorities are bound to follow the recruitment rules in force by providing equal opportunities to all candidate. However, the court also observed that appointments can never be claimed as a matter of absolute right.
Justice SM Subramaniam was dealing with a batch of writ petitions filed by persons who took part in the process of selection for appointment to the post of Field Assistant (Trainee) in 2016. The court observed that a direction could not be made to the respondents to appoint petitioners as Field Assistants and that too after a lapse of six years. It also held that the writ petitioners have not established any right for the purpose of granting the relief of appointment to the post of Field Assistant, as appointments are to be made in accordance with the recruitment rules in force.
Case Title: Kandasamy v The State of Tamil Nadu and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 229
Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice J Sathya Narayana Prasad of Madras High Court recently observed that even though the courts had a duty to protect the rights of whistleblowers, the whistleblowers are expected to exercise their rights in the manner known to law and excess exercise or high handednedd can never be allowed.
The court observed that rights of both the petitioner and the whistleblower is to be protected. While exercising the rights, If any excessiveness has been committed by any person, the authorities or the persons concerned are empowered to lodge a complaint before higher authorities and before the police authorities for taking appropriate actions in manner known to law. In the event of any such complaint the authorities are expected to act immediately by conducting an enquiry and by following the procedures.
Case Title: Uma Anandan Kuppusamy Krishnamurthy v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 230
The Madras High Court rejected a writ petition seeking directions to the State Government not to demolish any temple which existed as on 15 August 1947. The petitioner had relied on the provisions of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 to state that the temples existing as on 15 August 1947 should not be demolished. However, the Court observed that the writ petition was filed with vague statements, without particulars about the temples. A division bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that a writ petition can be maintained only when there is a cause of action.
"The vague statement of facts cannot be taken to be the basis for filing the writ petition or for its acceptance. Rather, it should be after proper research of the facts so as to bring the material on record to prove the statement of facts given in the writ petition. The petitioner has utterly failed to do so and filed the writ petition seeking directions without showing the name of the temples said to have been constructed on or before 15 August 1947 and suffered from the action of the nature indicated by the petitioner, without causing a notice or following the provisions the provisions of law", the Court observed.
Case Title: TR Ramanathan v. Tamil Nadu State Mental Health Authority and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 231
In a verdict emphasizing the right to dignity of mentally disabled persons, the Madras High Court held that they are entitled to have the assessment done at their residences for the purposes of getting disability certificate under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016.
A single bench of Justice GR Swaminathan issued the direction after taking note of the hardships underwent by a medically disabled person at a mental hospital when he was brought there for the purposes of medical assessment. The court held as under:
"It is clinically appropriate that assessment for issuing such certificates is done at their homes. I therefore hold that persons suffering from mental retardation or mental illness are entitled to have the assessment done at the place where they reside"
The Court also stated that "authorities shall not insist that a person suffering from mental retardation/ mental illness should be physically present in the premises of the certifying institution".
5. Enforcement Of A Foreign Arbitral Award Can Be Filed In More Than One High Court: Madras High Court
Case Title: NCC Infrastructure Holdings Ltd and Anr. v. TAQA India Power Ventures Pvt. Ltd. Arb. O.P. (Comm. Div) Nos. 410 and 412 of 2021.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 232
The High Court of Madras has held that more than one High Court can exercise jurisdiction for the recognition and enforcement of a part of arbitral award if the claims are decided for and against the parties thereto.
The Single Bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy held that the Court for the purpose of the enforcement of a foreign award would be the one within whose jurisdiction either the award debtor carries his business or its assets are located within its jurisdiction.
The Court held that as a corollary at least two High Courts can have jurisdiction if the arbitrator has allowed the claims of both the parties and each party would file an application for the enforcement of the award in the High Court where the assets of the other party are located.
Case Title: Federation of Retired Officers of Transport Corporations v Chief Secretary to Government and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 233
The Madras High Court has observed that persons belonging to the same class cannot be discriminated against by creating an artificial class between them on the basis of date of retirement.
The order of Justice C Saravanan came as a relief to the retired employees of various State Transport Undertakings (STU) who had approached the Court seeking implementation of the recommendations of the VII Central Pay Commission and for revision of their pension.
The Court also observed that the State Transport Undertaking were part of the State Transport Department. Thus, there was an understanding that the salaries and pensions of the employees in STUs will be on par with their counterparts in Government Services. Thus, there was no reason to discriminate those employees who have retired earlier.
Case Title: Mr. Shaik Abdulla v. The Union of India and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 234
The Madras High Court has observed that the pendency of a criminal case that is at the FIR stage is not a bar for the issuance of a passport. However, in cases where the final report has been filed, permission of the concerned Court has to be obtained for issuance of a Passport, it further said.
Justice GR Swaminathan further observed that such a requirement is applicable only when the concerned person wants to leave India and not when the person wants to come back to India.
Case Title: Dr. S Giridharan and others v. State of Tamil Nadu and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 235
Justice GR Swaminathan of the Madras High Court came to the rescue of around 25 doctors by directing the respective medical colleges and the Directorate of Medical Education that they could not withhold the original education certificates collected at the time of admission, merely on the ground that the petitioners had not fulfilled the terms and conditions of the bond for compulsory service.
"It is well settled that an Educational certificate is not a marketable commodity, therefore, there cannot be exercise of any lien in terms of Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. It has been held in catena of cases that management cannot retain the certificates of the students."
Case Title: SJ Suryah v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 236
The Madras High Court recently held that when an assessment order is quashed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on technical grounds, the same cannot be made a ground to evade criminal prosecution before the concerned court under the Income Tax Act.
Justice G Chandrasekharan was considering a plea filed by cine actor SJ Suryah for quashing the prosecutions against him before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.I) Chennai, Alikulam Road on the ground that the Income Tax Appellate Authority had set aside the assessment order against him.
The court observed that the the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal disposed the appeals only on the ground of limitation and not on merits. From the complaint allegation it was clear that despite, giving notice, statutory notice as detailed in the complaint, petitioner has not filed return, paid advance tax and tax demanded, suppressed the real and true income by not filing the return in time. These matters had to be necessarily tried before the Court as the violations were liable to be prosecuted for the offences under Section 276 C (1), 276 C (2), 276 CC and 277 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Case Title: Abdul Rashid Sahib v. Ramachandran and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 237
The Madras High Court recently observed that trial courts should refrain from acting solely on memo filed by the counsel of the party conceding the substantive right of the party viz-a-viz the subject matter of the suit, or right of defence, for passing any non-adjudicatory decree or appealable orders.
Justice N Seshasayee observed that though there is not a complete ban on considering the memo filed by the counsel of the parties, what must be looked into is the effect that the memo and the consequential order will have on the rights of the parties.
The court also held that though a lawyer is authorized to act on behalf of his client through the Vakalatnama, there should be an express authority granted to him to enter into compromise and the same could not be implied.
Case Title: L Nandagopal Yadav v Mr Udai Pratap Singh and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 238
The Madras High Court bench of Justice M Nirmal Kumar recently dismissed a revision petition against the order passed by Metropolitan Magistrate Court Egmore dismissing a defamation complaint against the President and Secretary-General of the All India Yadav Maha Sabha. The petition was filed by one Nandagopal Yadav, who was suspended from the post of Vice President of the Sabha.
The court observed that nowhere in his sworn statement, the petitioner had stated that the imputation had directly or indirectly in the estimation of others lowered the moral or the intellectual character of the petitioner. Further no ingredient was made out for commission of the offence.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
The Centre has notified the appointment nine additional judges as permanent Judges of the Madras High Court. The centre also extended the appointment of Justice A.A. Nakkiran as Additional Judge Of The Madras High Court for another period of one year.
The Supreme Court Collegium had recommended names for appointment as permanent judges and for extension of term as additional judge on May 10 2022.
Case Title: Tamilnadu Pondyplastic Association v The Government of Tamilnadu and another
Case No: Rev.A 89 of 2019 in W.P No 34065 of 2018
In a set of pleas dealing with the disposal of plastic wastes and other items that are likely to cause pollution to the environment, the Tamil Nadu government has informed the Madras High Court that various awareness activities have been undertaken and a Waste Management Policy has been framed by the Planning Commission which has been forwarded to all the Chief Secretaries of the States.
Justice S Vaidyanathan and Justice PT Asha directed the Special Government Pleader and the Assistant Solicitor General to produce the copies of the policy on the next date of the hearing. Since the matter deals with environment pollution, the Court also deemed it fit to suo moto implead the Pollution Control Board.
Case Title: Dr. R Karpagam v. Principal Chief Conservator of Forests & Chief Wildlife Warden and Others
Case No: WP No. 13711 of 2022
The Madras High Court on Thursday issued notices to the National Board of Wildlife and the National Tiger Conservation Authority in a plea seeking to close down and remove all the illegal resorts/ lodges/ farmhouses operated in the Sathyamangalam Tiger Reserve.
The bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq were hearing a petition filed by Dr. R Karpagam, founder of Oli Awareness Movement and a teacher by profession.
The matter will be taken up on June 23 2022.
The Central Government on Friday notified the appointment of Advocates Sunder Mohan and Kabali Kumaresa Babu as Additional Judges of Madras High Court
Orissa High Court
Case Title: Dr. Pabitra Mohan Mallik v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 93
The Orissa High Court has quashed a notification issued by an appealing body of the Odisha Medical Services Association ('OMSA'), which notified election for the Association. A Single Bench of Justice Arindam Sinha, while concluding that the notification was issued without any authority as it was done in violation of the body's constitution, observed,
"This Bench is in respectful agreement with views expressed in Dillip Kumar Nayak (supra) on authority to conduct elections, as must be on basis of law so far as the association is concerned. Basis of law is its constitution. There is clear indication that the provisions therein were not complied with and followed in issuance of impugned notification."
Case Title: Siba Prasanna Pathy v. State of Odisha & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 94
The Orissa High Court has held that there is no absolute rule that one ad-hoc/temporary employee can never be replaced with another ad-hoc employee. It further observed that an ad-hoc employee has no vested right to his post and he can anytime be replaced by any other ad-hoc employee, if found incompetent. In holding so, the Court apparently differed with the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court recently in Manish Gupta and Ors. v. President, Jan Bhagidari Samiti and Ors.
Case Title: Siba Prasanna Pathy v. State of Odisha & Ors.
The Orissa High Court, in the order which held that ad-hoc employees can be replaced by other ad-hoc employees, made certain striking observations against the prevailing situation relating to appointment of guest faculties on a large scale without facilitating the recruitment of regular faculties in educational institutions.
The Single Judge Bench of Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi held that this kind of system has every potential to make a huge 'dent' on the quality of education.
Case Title: Pradip Kumar Sahoo v. Principal Secretary to Govt., School and Mass Education Deptt. & Ors.
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 95
The Orissa High Court, held that it is highly improper to keep the cases of compassionate appointment pending for years, as the very purpose behind the same is to mitigate hardship of a bereaved family. While making orders for compassionate appointment in favour of two persons, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi observed,
"It is stated unequivocally that in all claims for appointment on compassionate grounds, there should not be any delay in appointment. The purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread earner in the family. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress."
Case Title: Mohammad Arif v. Enforcement Directorate
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 96
On Tuesday, the Orissa High Court denied bail to an accused under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) citing 'flight risk'. However, it ordered the Trial Court to expedite and conclude the trial preferably within a period of six months. While dismissing the bail application, a Single Judge of Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi observed,
"Since the petitioner is a resident of Delhi and there is likelihood of flight risk and misuse of the liberty of bail and the trial is likely to suffer, the present case does not inspire the confidence of this Court to use the judicial discretion to grant bail in favour of the petitioner.
Case Title: Bhuban Mohan Behera v. State of Odisha & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 97
The Orissa High Court has held that candidature of a candidate seeking appointment to a public office cannot be outrightly and arbitrarily rejected only on the basis that he holds 'dual degrees'. While providing relief to a candidate, whose application was rejected for such reason, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi opined,
"Indisputably, in the case at hand, this Court is of the opinion that in the matters of appointment, the rules provided by the appointing committee have to be strictly followed. In the present case, OPSC has not provided any instructions for candidates holding dual degrees. Even though this can be considered as a distinctive case, however it is arbitrary to out-rightly reject the candidature of the petitioner."
7. Orissa High Court Denies Bail To Man Accused Of Raping Woman On False Assurance Of Marriage
Case Title: Rajendra Mohanta v. State of Odisha & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 98
The Orissa High Court has recently denied bail to a man, who was accused of having sexual intercourse against the will of a woman on the false assurance of marriage. While rejecting the bail, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi quoted the following observation made by the Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Madanlal,
"Dignity of a woman is a part of her non-perishable and immortal self and no one should ever think of painting it in clay. There cannot be a compromise or settlement as it would be against her honour which matters the most. It is sacrosanct. Sometimes solace is given that the perpetrator of the crime has acceded to enter into wedlock with her which is nothing but putting pressure in an adroit manner; and we say with emphasis that the courts are to remain absolutely away from this subterfuge to adopt a soft approach to the case, for any kind of liberal approach has to be put in the compartment of spectacular error. Or to put it differently, it would be in the realm of a sanctuary of error."
Case Title: Satyananda Sahoo v. State of Odisha & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 99
A Single Judge Bench of the Orissa High Court, comprising of Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi, has recently upheld the order of a Special Court denying default bail under Section 167(2), Cr.P.C. to a person who was accused of uploading 'obscene photographs' of women by creating fake Facebook accounts in their names. It also denied regular bail to the accused by observing
"So far as the prayer of the appellant for release on bail is concerned, taking into account the nature and gravity of the accusation, character of evidence appearing against the appellant, the stringent punishment provided and that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the appellant is not guilty of the offences alleged or not likely to commit any such offences, which is not possible to record in this case, the prayer for bail is devoid of merit."
Case Title: Sukuludei Santa v. Govt. of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 100
The Orissa High Court has held that it is not mandatory for a victim to forward his/her claims for compensation to the appropriate authority through the Legal Services Authorities (LSA). Further, it clarified that the LSAs are there only to provide assistance to claimants for making representations to the administration. A Single Judge Bench of Justice Arindam Sinha observed,
"It could not be shown that Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 mandates claimants of victim compensation to forward their claims through the authority to the administration. The administration has a policy on compensation. The authority merely renders assistance to claimants in moving the administration."
Punjab & Haryana High Court
Nominal Index
Munshi Ram versus Vidya Devi and Another 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 121
Sharma Constructions Joint Venture Versus Punjab Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. and another 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 122
Gurmahabir Singh v. State of Punjab 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 123
Paramjeet @ Kala and Other v. State of Haryana 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 124
Jaswant Kaur v. Lakhwinder Singh and others 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 125
Bhakra Beas Management Board & another Versus Jagdish Ram 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 126
Ayyub Khan and Anr v. Pratap Gurjar and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 127
Rohtash @ Raju v. State of Haryana 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 128
Lawrence Bishnoi v. State of Punjab and others 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 129
Malook Singh v. State of Punjab 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 130
Manpreet Kaur Versus Gurbaksh Singh 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 131
Mukesh Mittal Versus National Faceless Assessment Centre and others 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 132
Ishiqa @ Yashika Vs State of Haryana and others 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 133
Om Roj v. Haryana Staff Selection Commission and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 134
Judgments/ Orders of the Week
Case Title: Munshi Ram versus Vidya Devi and Another
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 121
The Punjab and Haryana High Court while dealing with a revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order of the Rent Controller whereby the application for directing the respondents-landlord to produce relevant documents in their possession was dismissed, has held that the present petition is nothing but an endeavour to embark on an endeavour not relevant to the matter in dispute. A Court would not embark on a roving and fishing enquiry in order to assist a party to collect evidence.
Case Title: Sharma Constructions Joint Venture Versus Punjab Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 122
Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld an order vide which Sharma Constructions Joint Venture was declared technically non-compliant for e-tender floated by Punjab Agro Industries for the supply of gypsum for agriculture use, on the ground of being ineligible. The Court noted that the expert committee of the authorities had examined the issue detail and found the petitioner to be ineligible. The bench observed that a perusal of the Joint Venture Agreement would indicate that there is no clause indicating as to who would be managing the Joint Venture. On the contrary, the document indicates that in spite of constituting the so called Joint Venture, the constituents/ proprietors would continue to manage their own separate firms.
Case Title : Gurmahabir Singh v. State of Punjab
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 123
Punjab and Haryana High Court recently came across a case where the original order of conviction passed by the Trial Court was modified under the signature of the Reader of the Court, during the pendency of an appeal preferred by the convict against the said judgment, thereby enhancing the sentence of the convict from 2 months to two years, held that though all these points need to be decided by the Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran, who herself is administrative head of the Sessions Division, Tarn Taran and on the face of it, it requires an inquiry as to how the corrections were made under the signatures of the Reader of the Court concerned, thereby enhancing the sentence, though in the original order, passed by the trial Court, it was only directed that instead of Section 323 IPC, which is mentioned at two places, Section 326 IPC be substituted at one place and there was no such direction to enhance the sentence from 02 months to 02 years.
Case Title : Paramjeet @ Kala and Other v. State of Haryana 
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 124
The Punjab and Haryana High Court while dealing with an appeal filed by three appellants against the order whereby they were convicted for robbery, if the witness was not confronted with that part of the statement with which the defence wanted to contradict him, then the Court cannot suo moto make use of statements to police not proved in compliance with Section 145 of the Evidence Act that is, by drawing attention to the parts intended for contradiction.
Case Title : Jaswant Kaur v. Lakhwinder Singh and others
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 125
Punjab and Haryana High Court while dealing with an appeal filed by the widow claiming right over the suit property on the basis of natural succession, held that appellant's husband was not the owner of the suit land on the date of his death, therefore, the question of inheritance of the estate does not arise.
Case Title: Bhakra Beas Management Board & another Versus Jagdish Ram
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 126
The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently upheld the order of a single Judge, directing the Bhakra Beas Management Board to give the benefit of 9 years promotional scale to one of its employees, (original petitioner) since the benefit had been extended to a junior. The court observed that the benefit of the circular had been given to the junior who was appointed as Khansama-cum-Chowkidar and the petitioner had already been promoted to that post thus, making him senior but he had not been granted the benefit of 9 years of promotional scale.
Case Title: Ayyub Khan and Anr v. Pratap Gurjar and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 127
The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently allowed the plea of bereaved parents, seeking release of 50% compensation amount that was granted towards loss of their child in a motor accident, to be released from 3 years Fixed Deposit. Justice Alka Sarin referred to the case of H.S. Ahammed Hussain vs. Irfan Ahammed, [2002(3) RCR (Civil) 563], where the Supreme Court held that the amount of compensation awarded in favor of the mothers should not be kept in a fixed deposit in a nationalized bank.
Case Title: Rohtash @ Raju v. State of Haryana
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 128
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that in cases under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, FSL report goes to the root of the case and hence a charge sheet filed without it cannot be treated as a complete chargesheet. It further observed that an application under Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act seeking extension of period for investigation must be supported by a report of public prosecutor which indicates the progress of the investigation and further specifies the compelling reasons for seeking the detention of the accused beyond the period of 180 days.
Case title: Lawrence Bishnoi v. State of Punjab and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 129
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a plea filed by Lawrence Bishnoi in connection with the murder of renowned Punjabi Singer Sidhu Moosewala 29, seeking necessary security arrangements, apprehending a fake encounter by the Punjab Police. Calling the petition 'premature', the Bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur took into account the submission made by Advocate General, Punjab that Bishnoi has not been nominated as an accused in connection with Moosewala's death, therefore, Bishnoi's apprehensions are completely premature.
Case Title : Malook Singh v. State of Punjab
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 130
The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently granted bail to an accused, incarcerated since over two years in connection with alleged offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. "Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has been in custody for a period of 02 years, 09 months and 14 days and the trial is likely to take time, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in detention any longer," Justice Alka Sarin said.
Case Title: Manpreet Kaur Versus Gurbaksh Singh
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 131
The Punjab and Haryana High Court while dealing with a transfer petition invoking Section 24 of CrPC filed by the wife seeking transfer of matrimonial petition u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, held that the distance of sixty kilometers between Bathinda and Faridkot is small, hence it is not an overwhelming reason for this Court to order the transfer of the matter. The applicant wife can appropriately instruct her counsel whenever her presence is not essential and therefore mere such a small distance is no overwhelming reason for this Court to order transfer of the matter.
Case Title: Mukesh Mittal Versus National Faceless Assessment Centre and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 132
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that when a draft assessment order/show cause notice is issued to an assessee, reasonable time ought to be furnished to respond to the notice, so as to comply with the principles of natural justice. Observing thus, a bench comprising Justice Tejinder Singh Dhindsa and Justice Pankaj Jain set aside the re-assessment order passed by the respondent authorities under Section 147 read with Section 144-B of the Income Tax Act 1961 on the very next day.
Case Title: Ishiqa @ Yashika Vs State of Haryana and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 133
The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently directed the Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam to pay compensation of Rs. 95 lakh to the petitioner, a minor girl who got electrocuted from a broken electric pole lying on the street with live electric wires attached to it, resulting in amputation of both arms. The bench comprising Justice Jaishree Thakur held that the facts of the case in hand lead to application of principle of "strict liability" and that in an incident of this nature, inference can be drawn that there has been an element of carelessness on the part of the Electricity Board in maintaining the supply line.
Case Title: Om Roj v. Haryana Staff Selection Commission and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 134
The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that in matters pertaining to the appointment to any office under the State, the general category seats are to be filled from the merit list first and thereafter, the reserved category seats are to be allocated as per the assigned quota. Thus, regardless of whether a candidate is found or not found entitled to reservation sought by him, he still has a right to be considered in an open general category as per the intent of Article 16 of the Indian Constitution, Justice Arun Monga held.
Other updates
Case title: Ajay Pal Singh Middukhera v. State Of Punjab And Others
Brother of the slain Youth Akali Dal (YAD) leader Vicky Middukhera has moved to the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking adequate protection in view of the alleged threat perception from the gang members. Vicky's elder brother Ajaypal Singh Middukhera has moved this plea. The bench of Justice Karamjit Singh has asked the State of Punjab and Punjab Police to look into representation (submitted earlier by Ajay Pal Sigh) and assess threat perception and if the situation so warrants to do the needful in accordance with law and to submit its report in this regard by the next date of hearing (August 18, 2022).
Case title: Om Prakash Soni v. State Of Punjab And Ors.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Monday asked the Punjab State Government as to how the list of persons whose security was withdrawn by it, came out in the public domain. The State Government has been asked to respond to the Court's query by June 2. The bench further added that the relevant information as to whether the order has become public on account of any RTI information or leakage or in collusion of someone having access to the order in question be also brought on record by the adjourned date.
Case title: Harkirat Singh Ghuman v Punjab and Haryana HC
The Supreme Court on Wednesday expressed concerns at the manner in which the Punjab & Haryana High Court had conducted Punjab and Haryana Superior Judicial Services Main Written Examination- 2019. The bench noted that the High Court is conducting examinations for District Judges... courts come down heavily on educational institutions when they conduct exams in a flip flop manner. The manner in which the exam has been conducted is troubling us.
Case Title: Raveena Tandon & Ors v State of Punjab & Ors.
The Punjab & Haryana High Court on Wednesday directed the Punjab Police to not take any coercive steps against Bollywood actress Raveena Tandon, filmmaker Farah Khan, comedian Bharti Singh, Screen Player, Writer Abbas Aziz Dalal & Frames Production in connection with a FIR lodged against them for allegedly hurting religious sentiments during a web show titled as 'Backbenchers' released by Flipkart. It was alleged in the FIR that the petitioners had hurt the religious sentiments of the Christian community by comparing the word "Hallelujah" with a vulgar word & had disrespected the said word.
Rajasthan High Court
Nominal Index
Amit Swami & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan with other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 176
General Manager Rajasthan State Road Transport Corp., Jaipur & Anr. v. Sonu & Anr. with other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 177
Dhanwantri Institute Of Medical Science v. State Of Rajasthan & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 178
Rajendra Kumar Versus The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 179
Navneet Singh Purohit v. Law Prep Tutorial, Through Proprietor Shri Sagar Joshi 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 180
Eptisa Servicios De Ingenieria SL versus Ajmer Smart City Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 181
Judgments/ Orders of the Week
Case Title: Amit Swami & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan with other connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 176
The Rajasthan High Court has recently directed the Rajasthan Subordinate and Ministerial Service Selection Board to re-examine certain disputed questions pertaining to recruitment exam for the post of Patwari, from different experts.
The Court ordered that based on the conclusion of such experts, the Board shall amend the final answer key and give effect to the marks obtained by the candidates and other consequential changes in the result.
The competitive written examination was held in four shifts and the final answer key was issued by the Board on 25.01.2022 on the basis of the decision taken by the Expert Committee on the objections raised by the candidates. Additionally, a list of provisionally selected candidates was issued for the purpose of verification of documents and credentials of the candidates.
Case Title: General Manager Rajasthan State Road Transport Corp., Jaipur & Anr. v. Sonu & Anr. with other connected matters
Citations: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 177
The Rajasthan High Court has directed the State government to evolve a mechanism to ensure affixing of reflectors on all types of Animal Carts, Tractor Trolleys and similar types of rides on road. The Court also directed to ensure that the persons, who ride on roads without adopting proper safety measures, so as to endanger the life and safety of other persons, be dealt strictly under the provisions of relevant penal laws.
Justice Rameshwar Vyas observed,
"Before parting with the judgment with the intent to save several human lives from road accidents this Court deems it fit to direct the State Government to evolve mechanism so as to ensure affixing of reflectors on all types of Animal Carts, Tractor Trolleys and similar types of rides on road."
Case Title: Dhanwantri Institute Of Medical Science v. State Of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 178
The Principal bench of Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur has recently imposed a cost of Rs. 10 lakh on a medical institution for filing a writ petition, which came to be dismissed as withdrawn at Jaipur Bench on 26.04.2022. The present petition at the Principal Seat was filed on the very next day i.e. on 27.04.2022, without disclosing the facts of the former petition.
Justice Vijay Bishnoi, while dismissing the petition, observed,
"Now-a-days, the practice of bench hunting is often noticed, however, it is least expected from the institute providing education for the higher courses to the students to involve in such practice. It is a very sorry state of affairs and the conduct of the petitioner– institution is highly condemnable and contemptuous too. It is not expected from any person approaching the Court to conceal the relevant facts and to make an attempt of mislead the Court."
Case Title: Rajendra Kumar Versus The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 179
The Rajasthan High Court has imposed a cost of Rs.50,000 on the Income Tax department as the action of recovery was without jurisdiction.
The division bench of Justice Prakash Gupta and Justice Sameer Jain has directed the Assessing Officer to issue a refund to the assessee along with interest as specified in law. The department was directed to adjust an excess of 20% of the disputed demand for Assessment Year 2017-18 within a period of thirty days.
The petitioner/assessee contended that in terms of the order under Section 245 of the Income Tax Act, the appeal was preferred by him immediately and as per the provisions of Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee cannot be termed as an assessee in default.
The petitioner contended that the recovery can only be initiated as per the statutory mechanism and that too by a Tax Recovery Officer as mandatory under Section 223 of the Income Tax Act. The refund was established on its own, disregarding departmental circulars, settled legal positions, natural justice principles, statutory mandates, and the provisions of Section 245 of the Income Tax Act.The department's act was arrogant and autocratic, lacking legal authority.
Case Title: Navneet Singh Purohit v. Law Prep Tutorial, Through Proprietor Shri Sagar Joshi
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 180
A vacation bench of Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur has disposed of an appeal filed by CLAT Mentor Navneet Singh Purohit, challenging an ex-parte order of the Trial court imposing teaching restrictions on him, in a civil suit filed by Law Prep Tutorials.
The Trial court had issued a temporary injunction against Navneet Singh, restraining him from running any business/ venture/ teaching service in relation to Law Entrance examination for a period of 2 years in Jaipur and Jodhpur districts, from the alleged date of expiry of the Franchisee Agreement i.e., 02.02.2022.
While disposing of his appeal, the High Court observed that the aforesaid restriction shall only apply qua material, premises, name and anything reflecting "Law Prep". The Court added that this order shall operate till the Trial court makes any fresh orders in accordance with law.
Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati observed,
" It is needless to say that the restriction of teaching imposed upon the appellant shall only be pertaining to the material, premises, name and anything reflecting "Law Prep". This order shall operate till the learned trial court makes any fresh orders in accordance with law."
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.
Other Important Updates
Case Title: Laxman Singh Bhati v. Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Service Selection Board
The Rajasthan High Court has recently ordered the Rajasthan Staff Selection Board to produce the expert committee opinion in relation to the questions of Motor Vehicle Sub-Inspector Recruitment Exam.
The order was passed on the plea filed by Laxman Singh Bhati, who had appeared for the said exam.
The plea prayed for directions to the respondents to delete two questions of different model papers from the final assessment and subsequently re-calculate marks of the petitioner. The plea also sought direction to the respondents to not delete one question from the final answer key and thereafter award the consequential marks to the petitioner.
The directions to change the answer of two questions were also sought in the plea. Subsequently, the plea prayed that results be revised and accordingly the petitioner be considered for appointment to the post of Motor Vehicle Sub-Inspector according to his merit.
2. High Court Seeks Response From "Rajasthan Royals" Over Dues Owed To Police Dept
Case Title: Suo Motu v. State Of Rajasthan
The Rajasthan High Court has recently asked franchise cricket team Rajasthan Royals to file a reply explaining its failure to pay over 850 police officials who were deployed during 2011 Indian Premier League (IPL) matches. The dues allegedly add up to approximately 6.99 crores.
The direction was issued on a suo moto case registered in April 2019, on the basis of a newspaper report published in Dainik Bhaskar, revealing that 850 to 980 police officials were deployed, including 18 senior officers belonging to the cadre of Rajasthan Police Services and 52 Inspectors, on the day the IPL match was held. The report stated that an amount of more than 6.99 Crore, due to the police force, has not been paid by the sponsors of IPL who earn huge revenue by holding the matches.
In furtherance, the Court had issued a show cause notice, as to why a writ in the nature of mandamus be not issued directing the Police Department to recover the outstanding amount due from the sponsors and organisers of IPL matches. The Court had also issued notices to the State of Rajasthan, Rajasthan Cricket Association (RCA) and the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI)Telangana High Court
Case Title : A. Kaluram v. The State of Telangana
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 44
Recently, Justice Juvvadi Sridevi of Telangana High Court directed the police to comply with the requirement of issue of Section 41-A notice under Criminal Procedure Code as the punishment prescribed for the offences alleged was up to seven years. Section 41A is the notice of appearance before police officer in all the cases where the arrest of a person is not required.
Case Title: VAKALAPUDI YUGANDHAR v. THE STATE OF TELANGANA and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 45
The Telangana High Court recently permitted the petitioner, accused under Section 498-A IPC, to travel abroad to pursue his employment subject to executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 1 lakh before the trial Court and offering bank guarantee for the said amount before the departure.
"It is made clear that if the petitioner fails to return to India within the stipulated time, the personal bond and bank guarantee/FDR offered by the petitioner shall stand forfeited in favour of State Government without any notice."
Case Title: C. Parthasarthy v. Director of Enforcement
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 46
In a recent case, the Telangana High Court ruled that accused under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is entitled to statutory bail under Section 167(2) of CrPC if the charge sheet is not submitted in terms of Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C without completion of investigation. Justice K. Lakshman held that:
"At the cost of repetition, this Court holds that the complaint dated 19.03.2022 was not a final complaint based on which cognizance could have been taken. A complaint/report cannot be treated as final report unless the investigation is completed, In the present case, the investigation is admittedly not completed and the statutory period of sixty days expired on 21.03.2022. Therefore, in the absence of complete investigation and absence of filing a final complaint, the Petitioner is entitled for statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C."
Tripura High Court
Case Title: Sri Subhash Pal v. The State of Tripura & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tri) 11
In a significant development, the Tripura High Court has recently ordered the Secretary, Home Department of the State to hold high level meeting with top police officials and to issue an advisory for strict compliance with guidelines rendered in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh. It further mandated all the Officers-in-Charge of police stations to provide free copy of FIR , to the informant, upon registration.
Case Title: Shri Prasenjit Saha v. The State of Tripura
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Trip) 12
The Tripura High Court has denied anticipatory bail to a person, who allegedly was involved in cyber-crimes using the logo of the Director General of Police, Tripura. Expressing shock over the matter, a Single Judge Bench of Justice T. Amarnath Goud observed,
"In view of the serious allegations made by the prosecution, this court feels that the Police Department is not very serious in this matter. Accordingly, this court has no hesitation to consider the request of the petitioner. But at the same time, feeling the responsibility towards the society, the crime of this nature cannot be appreciated. If the DGP himself is taken for a ride by an accused person, this court expresses its concern for the crime."
