High Courts Weekly Round Up
Bombay High Court
- Observed that the DNA report can be challenged only on the ground of possibility of tampering of the blood sample of the accused, at any stage. Justice V. M. Deshpande observed thus while considering an appeal filed by a man convicted by the Trial Court in a minor-rape case. The Trial court, among other evidences, also relied on the DNA report which stated that the accused was biological father of aborted fetus of victim.
- Released two women rescued from an alleged prostitution racket, pointing out that they cannot be kept in custody for more than three weeks, in the absence of an order of rehabilitation passed by a Magistrate within 21 days.
- Held that it is mandatory for promoters to fully disclose their construction plans in a sanctioned layout plan to flat owners and take their consent in case any additional construction is to be done.
- Granted relief to a man convicted of murder and held that he shall be considered for early release after completing 24 years in prison.
- Observed that if the wife is not comfortable because of the approach and attitude of the parents of her husband and the treatment given to her by them, she has just cause to live separate and demand maintenance. Justice VK Jadhav dismissed the revision petition filed by the husband challenging the Family court order that had dismissed his petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights. The Family court had ordered him to pay maintenance to his wife.
- Acquitted a man convicted of raping his 15-year-old student who took tuition from him. The court held that a rape victim's evidence stands on a higher pedestal than that of an injured witness. Justice AM Badar said the prosecution was unable to prove that the alleged victim was under 18 at the time of the incident and also, that the relationship between the two was consensual.
- Ruled a man to be "legally insane", despite the fact that he was found to not be suffering from any mental disorder by the Yerwada Mental Hospital. The order was passed by a Bench comprising Justice SS Shinde and Justice RG Avachat.
Calcutta High Court
- Observed that consensual cohabitation between two adults of the same sex cannot be termed as illegal. The bench comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur observed thus while disposing a habeas corpus petition filed by one woman (X) who alleged that her lesbian partner (Y) is under illegal confinement.
- While dismissing an infringement suit by Tea Board against Indian Tobacco Company(ITC), held that therights of Geographical Indication(GI) can be enforced only in respect of goods and not services.
- A Division bench of the High Court gave a split verdict in an appeal filed by a woman against a district court order granting divorce to her husband on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.
Delhi High Court
- Dismissed an injunction application filed by Independent News Service Pvt Ltd (INSPL), to restrain SucheritaKukreti, its channel India TV's newsreader, from joining any rival television channel till November 30, 2019.
- Sought a response from the Enforcement Directorate on corporate lobbyist Deepak Talwar's plea challenging his detention after being brought here from Dubai.
- Awarded 3.85 Crores as damages to UK-based Whatman International Ltd for infringement of its trademark, WHATMAN, by various persons.
- Issuedthe revised result of the Delhi Judicial Service Preliminary Examination pursuant to the January 30 judgment of the high court after which two questions were deleted and one mark awarded to all candidates while two answers were held to be correct for one particular question.
- Dismissed a plea seeking framing of guidelines by the government to regulate the functioning of online media streaming platforms like Netflix and Amazon Prime Video. A bench of Chief Justice Rajendra Menon and Justice V K Rao rejected the petition after the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting informed it that online platforms are not required to obtain any licence from the ministry.
Gujarat High Court
- Grantedanticipatory bail to social activistTeestaSetalvad and her husband Javed Anand in the Rs 1.4 crore alleged fund embezzlement case related to their NGO Sabrang Trust. While allowing their anticipatory bail plea, Justice J B Pardiwala directed Setalvad and Anand to cooperate with the probe and appear before the investigating agency, the city crime branch, on February 15.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court
- Recently clarified that the provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 are available in addition to remedies available under other laws.
Kerala High Court
- Held that the PSC advisees are entitled to be appointed to the post of 'Reserved Conductors' in the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation. The bench comprising of Justice V. Chitambaresh and Justice R. Narayana Pisharadi allowed the writ appeal filed by PSC Advisees against the single bench order that had dismissed their plea.
- Dismissing a batch of writ petitions, the High Court repelled the challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 174 of the Kerala Goods and Services Tax 2017 (KGST Act), which reserved the power to state to proceed against pre-existing liabilities under Kerala Value Added Tax Act 2003(KVAT).
Madhya PradeshHigh Court
- Quashed a detention order passed under the National Security Act(NSA) holding that, special reasons are to be given for passing order of preventive detention against a person already under custody.
Madras High Court
- Observed that system of negative marking system in competitive examinations requires reconsideration and has to be done away with. Justice R. Mahadevan, while disposing of a petition filed by Nelson Prabhakarobserved that the very system of awarding negative marks is improper and against the principles of fairness, equality and equity. The judge said that this system does not, in anyway, helps the examiner to analyse the intelligence, aptitude or knowledge of the students in any manner.
- Held that Rule 481 of Tamil Nadu Prison Rules, 1983 is unconstitutional to the extent it provides for deduction of 50% of the wages from the prisoners.
Punjab & Haryana High Court
- Quashed a case against a government doctor, opining that he cannot be charged with negligence just because the patient complained of pain and passed away soon after reaching home.
Rajasthan High Court
- Refused to allow the return of a 10-year-old boy to Canada, despite an order passed by a Canadian court directing his return to the country to his father.