High Courts Weekly Roundup [Nov 1, 2021 To Nov 7, 2021]

Allahabad High Court 1. Re-evaluate Cases For Remission After 14 Yrs Of Incarceration Even If Appeals Are Pending In HC: Allahabad HC To UP Govt [Raggu Baniya @ Raghwendra v. State of U.P] The High Court has directed the Uttar Pradesh Government to instruct the District Magistrates of all the districts to re-evaluate the cases for remission after 14 years of incarceration even if appeals in such cases are pending in the High Court. The Bench of Justice Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Justice Ajai Tyagi ordered thus while hearing an appeal filed by a rape convict challenging his life imprisonment sentence awarded by Additional Session Judge, Special Court (Dakaity Affected Area), District Kanpur Dehat. 2. Its The Responsibility Of The Administration To Identify Safe Areas For Sale Of Firecrackers: Allahabad High Court [Manoj Mittal v. Union Of India And 4 Others] The High Court observed that it is the responsibility of the administration to identify the safe areas where the sale of fire crackers shall be permissible. The Bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot was hearing the plea of one Manoj Mittal, whose application for renewal of licence regarding the storage and sale of crakers was rejected by the Saharanpur District administration earlier this year. 3. State Not Expected To Take Land Of People & Not Pay Compensation- Allahabad HC Seeks State Chief Secretaries' Affidavits [Jeet Narayan Yadav & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.] Stressing that the state is not expected to take the land of the people and not pay the compensation, the High Court sought the personal affidavits of Additional Chief Secretaries of the Uttar Pradesh state regarding the grievance of people who seek compensation for their land acquired by the state government. The Bench of Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Piyush Agrawal was hearing the plea 3 petitioners submitting that their land had been taken, however, no compensation had been paid to them. Other developments: Discharge Of Sewage Water Into Ganga & Yamuna Rivers: Allahabad HC Forms Committee, Orders Testing Of Samples In IITsNeed To Develop A Mechanism To Hear Cases Despite Lawyers Being On Strike So That Litigants Don't Suffer: Allahabad HC Bombay High Court 1. Bombay HC Berates State Over Its Probe Failure To Secure Man's Presence Despite Wife's 13-Yr Long Fight, Orders 50K Compensation [Kamalbai W/o Gangadhar (Patil) Biradar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors] Dealing with a Habeas corpus plea filed by a woman seeking the presence of her husband for the last 13 years, the High Court recently granted 50,000/- compensation to her noting that the state machinery had failed to trace her husband. The Bench of Justice V. K. Jadhav and Justice Shrikant D. Kulkarni noted that it was very saddening that despite pursuing the litigation for the last 13 years, she couldn't get the fruits of her efforts. 2. Lack Of Aadhaar Linkage No Reason To Deny Benefits Under Food Security Act : Bombay High Court [Ganpat Dharma Mengal & others v. Tehsildar Office, Murbad and Others] Noting that several tribals were denied supplies under the Public Distribution System due to the non-linking of their Aadhar Cards, even as the fortunates eagerly awaited Diwali, the Bombay High Court ordered the Tehsildar of Murbad to distribute supplies to nearly 90 tribals by November 4. In an interim order, Justices Prasanna Varale and Madhav Jamdar observed no logic, reason or rationale for denying the benefits of distribution of food grains under the National Food Security Act, 2013 (NFSA) to the tribals on raising certain technical grounds. Also Read: Bombay High Court Restrains Sale Of Raymond's Former Chairman - Vijaypat Singhania's Autobiography On Raymond's Plea 3. Companies Act 2013 - Proposed Shareholder Resolution Must Be Legal For EGM To Be Called : Bombay High Court [Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd. v. Invesco Developing Markets Fund & Others] The High Court has recently ruled that a shareholder resolution requisitioned under Section 100 of the Companies Act, 2013 must be legal so as to demand the Board of Directors hold an Extraordinary General Meeting (hereinafter EGM). Justice G.S. Patel was hearing a suit filed by Zee Enterprises Limited, a public limited and listed company seeking an injunction against Invesco (investors and shareholders that holds 17.88% equity in ZEE) from acting in furtherance of a requisition notice on the grounds that it's illegal, ultra vires, invalid, bad in law and incapable of implementation. 4. Aryan Khan Case : Bombay High Court Dismisses Sam D'souza's Pre-Arrest Bail Plea The High Court refused to entertain the application seeking pre-arrest bail filed by Sanville (Sam) D'Souza, the consultant linked to extortion and payoff allegations against NCB officials and others in the Aryan Khan case. A vacation bench led by Justice S...

High Courts Weekly Roundup [Nov 1, 2021 To Nov 7, 2021]

Hannah M Varghese

Tags