- Home
- /
- News Updates
- /
- All High Courts Weekly Roundup:...
All High Courts Weekly Roundup: March 28 - April 3, 2022
Shrutika Pandey
6 April 2022 4:30 AM GMT
Allahabad High Court CITATIONS 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 142 TO 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 157 NOMINAL INDEX Gopal Krishna Shankdhar @ Krishna Gopal Shankdhar v. Shri Manoj Kumar Agarwal And 2 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 142 Aparna Purohit v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 143 Smt. Shalinee Dubey @ Radhika Dubey v. Abhishek Tripathi @ Gopal 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 144 State Of...
Allahabad High Court
CITATIONS 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 142 TO 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 157
NOMINAL INDEX
Gopal Krishna Shankdhar @ Krishna Gopal Shankdhar v. Shri Manoj Kumar Agarwal And 2 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 142
Aparna Purohit v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 143
Smt. Shalinee Dubey @ Radhika Dubey v. Abhishek Tripathi @ Gopal 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 144
State Of U.P. Through Secretary Revenue And 4 Others v. State Public Service Tribunal And 4 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 145
Anokhi Lal Second Bail v. State of U.P 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 146
Inayat Altaf Shekh And 3 Others. v. State Of UP and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 147
Anant Mishra @ Amit Mishra @ Surya Prakash Mishra v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 148
Ram Prasad Rajouriya Vs. State Of U.P. And 5 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 149
Fareed In Jail v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 150
Raj Kumar and Raj Kishore v. The State 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 151
Ram Yagya And Others v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 152
Kheem Singh Bora @ Matrey @ Prakash @ Rajan @ Vijaypahru v. State Of U.P. Thru A.T.S. Lucknow 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 153
Sandeep Mittal v. State of U.P. and Another and connected matter 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 154
M/S. Shree Ram Engineering Works Versus Commissioner Of Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 155
M/s Tirupati Stationary Pvt. Ltd v. State of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 156
State of U.P. v. Swami Sachichidanand Har Sakchhi And Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 157
Judgments/Orders of the Week
Case title - Gopal Krishna Shankdhar @ Krishna Gopal Shankdhar v. Shri Manoj Kumar Agarwal And 2 Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 142
The Allahabad High Court observed that in rent disputes, it is no concern of the Courts to dictate to the landlord how, and in what manner, he/she should live or prescribe for him/her a residential standard of their own.
Referring to the Apex Court's ruling in the case of Prativa Devi (Smt.) Vs. T.V. Krishnan 1996 (5) SCC 353, the Bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal also stressed that the landlord is the best judge of his residential requirement and that there is no law that deprives the landlord of beneficial enjoyment of his/her property.
Case title - Aparna Purohit v. State of U.P. and Another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 143
The Allahabad High Court granted final anticipatory bail to Amazon Prime Video head Aparna Purohit who is facing an FIR registered in Lucknow, for allegedly depicting Hindu gods in a bad light in the web series Tandav.
The Bench of Justice Krishan Pahal considered the overall facts and circumstances of the case and consequently, came to the conclusion that the applicant deserved to be granted anticipatory bail.
Case title - Smt. Shalinee Dubey @ Radhika Dubey v. Abhishek Tripathi @ Gopal
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 144
The Allahabad High Court observed that once an application under S. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [Maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings] has been allowed and uninterrupted litigation expenses are being paid to a party to a matrimonial dispute, he/she cannot move transfer application on the ground of distance and financial stress.
The Bench of Justice Neeraj Tiwari observed thus as it took into account the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Abhilasha Gupta vs. Harimohan Gupta 2021 9 SCC 730, wherein the Apex Court had taken the view that once the application under Section 24 of Act, 1955 is allowed and the particular matrimonial dispute is at the verge of the final decision, the transfer application can't be allowed.
4. Departmental Inquiry Against Govt Servant Can't Be Made A Casual Exercise: Allahabad High Court
Case title - State Of U.P. Through Secretary Revenue And 4 Others v. State Public Service Tribunal And 4 Others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 145
The Allahabad High Court has said that a departmental inquiry against a government servant is not to be treated as a casual exercise and the principles of natural justice are required to be observed so as to ensure not only that justice is done but is manifestly seen to be done.
The Bench of Justice Yogendra Kumar Srivastava observed thus as it upheld an order of the UP State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow setting aside the order of punishment passed by the State of UP against respondent no. 2 (deceased govt employee).
Case title - Anokhi Lal Second Bail v. State of U.P
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 146
The Allahabad High Court observed that if there is no possibility to conclude the trial in near future and the accused applicant is in jail for a substantial long period then such a long period of incarceration may be considered as a fresh ground for the purpose of grant of bail.
The Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan observed thus while granting bail to one Anokhi Lal under Sections 498-A & 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act who had been in jail since April 2018.
The Court relied upon the ruling of the Apex Court in the case of Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation Criminal Appeal No. 693/2021 and Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb LL 2021 SC 56, wherein the Supreme Court had favored granting of bail to the accused taking into account their long period of incarceration.
Case title - Inayat Altaf Shekh And 3 Others. v. State Of UP and Another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 147
In a significant observation, the Allahabad High Court has stressed that the unity of India is not made of bamboo reeds that will bend to the passing winds of empty slogans, and that the foundations of our nation are more enduring.
The Bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot observed thus while granting bail to 3 Kashmiri students who were arrested in October on sedition charges for allegedly raising pro-Pakistan slogans following Pakistan's victory in a T20 Cricket World Cup match against India.
Read more here: Kashmiri Students Accused Of Celebrating Pakistan's T20 Win Against India Granted Bail By Allahabad High Court
Case title: Anant Mishra @ Amit Mishra @ Surya Prakash Mishra v. State of U.P. and Another
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 148
The Allahabad High Court observed that considering the testimony of witnesses if one accused is acquitted, no criminal proceeding can be sustained against co-accused on the same set of witnesses with the same allegation/case.
The Bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Gupta observed thus as it quashed Section 364-A [Kidnapping for ransom] r/w Section 34 IPC charges against one Anant Mishra while taking into account the fact that on the basis of the testimony of same set of prosecution witnesses, the main accused in the matter were already acquitted by the court below.
Case title - Ram Prasad Rajouriya Vs. State Of U.P. And 5 Others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 149
"In the last 40 years, the values have gone down and now litigants can go to any extent to mislead the court. They have no respect for the truth," the Allahabad High Court recently observed while dismissing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea with ₹50,000/- cost.
The Bench of Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice J. J. Munir issued this order while dealing with a PIL plea filed by one Ram Prasad Rajouriya seeking action two persons alleging that they had embezzled the money of the Government meant for the development of Gram Panchayat.
Case title - Fareed In Jail v. State of U.P.
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 150
Taking into account the recent ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Saudan Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (Crl.Appeal No.308/ 2022), the Allahabad High Court on Wednesday granted bail to one Fareed who has already served over a total of 16 years in jail.
The Bench of Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Saroj Yadav also took into account the recent observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Suleman v State of Uttar Pradesh| Criminal Appeal No.491/2022.
It may be noted that while in Saudan Singh Case (supra), expressing concern about the long pendency of criminal appeals before the Allahabad High Court, the Supreme Court, on Feb 25, laid down some broad parameters that can be adopted by the High Court while granting bail.
Case title - Raj Kumar and Raj Kishore v. The State
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 151
Rejecting the theory put up by a convict of Right To Private defence, the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) UPHELD the life imprisonment awarded by the trial court to the convict/Raj Kumar (appellant no 1) in a 41-year-old murder case.
The Bench of Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Saroj Yadav however, SET ASIDE the conviction of appellant no. 2/Raj Kishore under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC in connection with the same murder case, as it noted that the prosecution had failed to prove a prior meeting of minds between appellant no. 1 (Raj Kumar)/Murder Convict and appellant no. 2 (Raj Kishore).
Case title - Ram Yagya And Others v. State of U.P.
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 152
Taking into account the recent ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Saudan Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (Crl.Appeal No.308/ 2022), the Allahabad High Court on Thursday granted bail to one Hari Bhawan who has already served over a total of 17 years in jail.
The Bench of Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Saroj Yadav also took into account the recent observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Suleman v State of Uttar Pradesh| Criminal Appeal No.491/2022.
It may be noted that while in Saudan Singh Case (supra), expressing concern about the long pendency of criminal appeals before the Allahabad High Court, the Supreme Court, on Feb 25, laid down some broad parameters that can be adopted by the High Court while granting bail.
12. Allahabad High Court Denies Bail To Alleged Maoist Kheem Singh Bora Booked Under UAPA By UP Police
Case title - Kheem Singh Bora @ Matrey @ Prakash @ Rajan @ Vijaypahru v. State Of U.P. Thru A.T.S. Lucknow
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 153
The Allahabad High Court DENIED bail to an alleged Maoist leader Kheem Singh Bora who was arrested by the Uttar Pradesh Anti-Terrorist Squad (ATS) in July 2019 from the Bareilly railway station.
Bora, who is carrying a reward of Rs 50,000 (as announced by Uttarakhand police in 2017), had moved to the High Court seeking bail in connection with a case registered against him under Sections 3/25 of Arms Act and 20/38 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
However, the Bench of Justice Krishan Pahal denied him bail in view of the fact that he is wanted in five criminal cases and that he is stated to be the State Secretary of the banned organization Communist Party of India (Maoist) for the State of Uttarakhand.
Case title - Sandeep Mittal v. State of U.P. and Another and connected matter
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 154
The Allahabad High Court dismissed two pleas seeking direction to the High Court administration to provide the benefit of the 10% reservation to the E.W.S. General Category candidates for Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service, 2020.
Stressing that once the advertisement is out, it would not be just and proper for the authorities to insert any new clause, the Bench of Justice Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Justice Ajai Tyagi dismissed the pleas.
Case Title: M/S. Shree Ram Engineering Works Versus Commissioner Of Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 155
The Allahabad High Court bench of Justice Piyush Agrawal has ruled that once the partner of the firm was available at the time of the survey, who must have signed the survey report, he could very easily request to correct the entries or refuse to sign the survey report, if it was not recorded as per his statement.
The applicant/assessee is in the business of manufacturing and selling rough C.I. Castings. The business premises of the applicant were surveyed on August 18, 2010, where certain exhibits were seized. The books of account as well as an estimation of turnover were made, which was assailed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has partly allowed the appeal.
Case Title: M/s Tirupati Stationary Pvt. Ltd v. State of U.P.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 156
The Allahabad High Court has held that the requirement of a pre-deposit under Section 19 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 ('MSME Act') would prevail over the provisions of Order XXVII Rule 8-A of Code of Civil Procedure and any other law that may allow the Courts' discretion while dealing with the requirement to pre-deposit a disputed amount in an application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.
Case title - State of U.P. v. Swami Sachichidanand Har Sakchhi And Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 157
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a revision plea filed by the State Government against the discharge order passed by Special Judge (D.A.A.), Etah in 2001 in favor of BJP MP Sakshi Maharaj in connection with a rape and kidnapping case.
The Bench of Justice Shamim Ahmed upheld the discharge order by taking into account the findings of the trial court that there was no evidence of allegation of kidnapping, loot or rape against the MP Maharaj and other accused persons.
Important Weekly Updates From the High Court/UP courts
Case title - Abbas Ansari And Another v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others
The Allahabad High Court stayed the arrest of Mau Sadar MLA Abbas Ansari, the son of jailed politician Mukhtar Ansari in connection with the Hisab-Kitab Remark case registered against him for his alleged statement threatening the government officials with payback at a public rally in Mau district earlier this month.
It may be noted that at a public rally during the election campaigning, Ansari had said that he had asked the Chief of Samajwadi Party (SP), Akhilesh Yadav not to transfer the government officials for the next six months if the SP alliance government is formed in Uttar Pradesh, as their 'Hisab Kitab' would be done first.
Case title - In-Re v. Vikram Sharma (Clerk)
The Allahabad High Court issued a contempt notice who wrote a letter alleging that in the District Court, all the Judges, Officers, and employees are dishonest and that they have murdered the Constitution of India.
The bench of Justice Suneet Kumar and Justice Umesh Chandra Sharma issued notice to Contemptnor [Vikram Sharma (Clerk)] while refusing to accept his unconditional apology for writing the letter stating the aforesaid in the year 2016.
Case title - Gomti River Bank Residents through Secretary Girdhar Gopal v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Housing and Urban Development and others
Taking a strict view of the matter of schools operating in the residential areas of Lucknow in violation of safety standards and concerned rules and regulations, the Allahabad High Court has directed a committee headed by the District Magistrate to conduct an inspection in this regard and submit a report before the Court.
The bench of Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Alok Mathur has ordered the DM-led committee to conduct an inspection of 16 such schools in the capital and submit a report in this regard on April 18, which is the next date of hearing.
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title : M/s. Mitra S.P. (P) Ltd. Versus Dhiren Kuma
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 38
The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently observed that High Court cannot issue writs under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the orders of the Labour Court as it is a Civil Court and only supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 can be exercised
"While challenging an award under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Labour Court exercises powers and jurisdiction of a Civil Court and that orders passed by a Civil Court can only be challenged before the High Court by way of a Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India," it held.
Case Title: Ravi Ramesh Babu Versus The State Of Andhra Pradesh
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 39
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has recently reiterated that impounding of a passport cannot be done by the Court under Section 104 CrPC even when a criminal case is pending.
The criminal petition was filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure seeking to quash the order of the Court of Principal Sessions Judge and to return the passport of the petitioner to allow him to travel to USA after its renewal.
Case Title: S Muragan @ Muruga Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 40
The Andhra Pradesh High Court in a recent case observed that the accused had created hurdles from time to time so that the trial could not be completed. As a consequence, the accused/petitioner is not entitled to bail as it cannot take advantage of their own dilatory tactics.
Case Title : A. Satyanarayana, Versus M. Panduranga Rao
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 41
The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently ruled that where the rate of interest is fixed in the contract, it would be open to the Court to vary the rate of interest from the date of the suit till the date of recovery of the amount on equitable grounds, if the amount of interest is exorbitant.
Case Title : K Prabhakar Reddy Versus Lakkaraja Munirathnam
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 42
The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently reiterated the principles with regard to cross-examination as not merely being a technical rule of evidence but a rule of essential justice.
Case Title: Dommeti Chakradhar Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 43
The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently granted bail to an accused on whom the non-bailable warrant was issued due to his absence during issue of summons. The court observed that the accused had no knowledge of the summons as he had changed his residence and therefore could not appear on the dates before the trial Court.
The criminal Petition was filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to enlarge the Petitioner on bail.
Case Title : Geddam Bullayya Versus The State Of Andhra Pradesh
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 44
In a recent writ petition, the Andhra Pradesh High Court directed the deceased's body to be exhumed and a fresh postmortem to be conducted as the medical evidence did not seem conclusive from the Police Case Diary. The Writ Petition was filed for Mandamus against respondents who were police officers for not conducting a free and fair investigation into Crime and to handover the case to an independent agency i.e. CBCID for investigation into the matter.
Case Title: N. Srinath Reddy Versus State of Andhra Pradesh
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 45
In a recent case, Justice R. Raghunandan Rao of the Andhra Pradesh High Court has reiterated the principle that absence of reasons in an order as to why conditions and penalty are imposed is a violation of natural justice principle.
The petitioner had been granted a quarry lease for Black Granite over an extent of land for a period of 20 years. The said lease had been determined by an order of Director, Mines and Geology. Aggrieved by the Order, a Revision was filed under the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1996. The revision was allowed but a condition was imposed towards penalty.
Case Title: N.Gopinath Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 46
The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently exercised its inherent powers under Section 482, CrPC to quash a FIR which had not made a company as co-accused even though the transaction was made with the company.
Case Title: Lance Naik Korrapati Kishore Kumar Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 47
In a recent case, Justice Satyanarayana Murthy of Andhra Pradesh High Court, passed a detailed order stating that show-cause notice and the final order cannot have different reasons or grounds as it denies the noticee the opportunity to rebut the allegations.
Case Title: Sri Madarnanchi Rama Swamy Dharmasatram Private Trust Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 48
The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently dismissed the writ petition which brought up for consideration seriously disputed questions of facts that are matters of evidence, and held that the same falls outside the writ jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Case Title: SM/s. Sree Constructions, Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 49
The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently allowed the writ petition by an assesse as there was no notice given to him before contemplating to pass an adverse Tax Assessment Order which is violative of Section 75(4) of CGST Act, 2017.
Case Title : Dommaraju Vinay, Versus The State of A.P.
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 50
The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently allowed writ petition holding that statutory notice before confiscation of essential commodity is mandatory under Section 6B of the Essential Commodities Act.
The case of the petitioner was that they were the owners of the seized rice and lorry respectively. The petitioner was dealer in food grains and he purchased paddy and converted it into rice. While he was transporting the same with e-way bills through the subject lorry, the same was seized along with lorry alleging that the subject rice was Public Distribution System (PDS) rice. The petitioners filed a petition with the respondent seeking release of the seized rice along with lorry by enclosing all the necessary documents but without taking the same into consideration, the respondent passed an order ordering confiscation of the seized stock to the Government.
Case Title: Pedapudi Alfred Johnson Jeyakaran Jesudasan Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 51
The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently ordered the impounding of Power of Attorney (GPA) which was executed outside India. The GPA was not stamped within three months after it had been first received in India as per Section 18 of Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
"Though the instrument was executed outside India and it was not duly stamped and presented before 3rd respondent within the period of three months, the said authority can impound the same and collect the required stamp duty and penalty and validate the document."
Case Title: Gadda Ramesh Versus The State of Andhra Prades
Citation :2022 LiveLaw (AP) 52
In a recent case, Justice R. Raghunandan Rao held that the courts cannot intervene in matters of extension of license as license is treated as a contract.
The petitioner had obtained a license for running a Mobile Canteen in the premises of HOD Building Complex, Vijayawada. On account of pandemic and consequent lockdown during the second and third waves and on account of unseasonal rains and cyclones, the petitioner had suffered huge losses. On account of the said losses, the petitioner had given representation to the respondent seeing extension of the license period for a further term of 6 months.
Case Title: Byalla Devadas Versus Sivapuram Rama Yogeswara Rao
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw ( AP) 53
In a recent case, the Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that no time limit is fixed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act for sending disputed writings to the handwriting expert and it can be done at any stage of trial. Furthermore, the handwriting on a disputed document cannot be compared with the signatures on Vakalat and Written Statement as these are not assured standard documents.
Bombay High Court
Nominal Index
Mad Man Film Ventures Pvt. Ltd. Versus Reliance Entertainment Studios Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 102
Sonia Fazal Khan & Ors Versus Union of India & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 103
Gautam Thapar v/s. Central Bureau of Investigation 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 104
Trilok Singh Gandhi vs Rajendra Kaushalraj Mehta 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 105
Sadiq Shafi Qureshi v M.D. and C.E.O.,Union Bank of India and ors 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 106
V.N.Reddy v The Superintending Engineer and ors 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 107
Sabhajit Ramyash Yadav and ors v State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 108
Satara District Bar Association, Satara v State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 109
Hotel & Restaurant Association (Western India) and Ors. v. Commissioner, State Excise and Ors. with connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 110
Varsha Deepak Desale v The State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 111
Bhagyashri v Jagdish 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 112
Babi Krushna Pawar v The State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 113
Tata Communications Transformation Services Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 114
Rajal Mahadu Gurud and othrs vs State of Maharashtra & others 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 115
ORDERS/JUDGMENTS
1. Bombay High Court Rejects Plea To Stay OTT Release of Movie 83 On Hotstar & Netflix
Case Title: Mad Man Film Ventures Pvt. Ltd. Versus Reliance Entertainment Studios Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 102
Observing that prima facie - Netflix Global LLC and Star India have antecedent (prior) rights to exploit the film '83' on satellite and digital media for 10 years, the Bombay High Court refused ad-interim relief to Mad Man Film Ventures Pvt Ltd to stall the film's OTT release.
The bench observed that Netflix and Star were not part of the consent terms, therefore its clauses couldn't be enforced against them. Moreover, Madman cannot seek injunction when the said rights have been acknowledged in the same document (Consent Terms) which granted Madman the rights qua the Film.
2.Son Can't Claim Right Or Share In Parents' Flats While They Are Alive : Bombay High Court
Case Title: Sonia Fazal Khan & Ors Versus Union of India & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 103
A son doesn't have any right, title or settled and enforceable share in his parent's flats till they are alive, the Bombay High Court has observed.
A division bench of Justices Gautam Patel and Madhav Jamdar rejected the son's suggestion that he has a settled and enforceable share in either of the flats in the lifetime of the real owners, his parents, as being "laughable." "The fact that he is their son does not make either of their flats 'a shared household", the bench said.
"Asif(Son) can have no right, title or interest whatsoever in either of these flats — one in his father's name and other in his mother's name — so long as his parents are alive. The suggestion that Asif has a settled and enforceable share in either of the flats in the lifetimes of the real owners, his parents, is laughable."
3. Yes Bank Fraud Case: Bombay High Court Grants Bail To Avantha Group Promoter Gautam Thapar
Case Title - Gautam Thapar v/s. Central Bureau of Investigation
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 104
Bombay High Court granted bail to Avantha Group promoter Gautam Thapar accused in a case being investigated by the CBI regarding his alleged involvement in a loan fraud against Yes bank.
The court relied on the clarificatory decision of the Supreme Court in its order dated December, 16 2021 that " if during the course of investigation, there has been no cause to arrest the accused, merely because a charge sheet is filed, would not be an ipso facto cause to arrest the petitioner, an aspect in general clarified by us in Criminal Appeal No.838/2021 in Siddharth v/s. State of Uttar Pradesh and anr."
Case Title: Trilok Singh Gandhi vs Rajendra Kaushalraj Mehta
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 105
Giving precedence to the ripe age of a litigant, the Bombay High Court directed Small Causes Court to conclude a 92-year old's cross-examination in a dispute under the Rent Control Act, irrespective of a transfer application filed by the other side pending before the Principal Judge of that court.
Keeping in mind the age of petitioner Trilok Singh Gandhi, the court directed that his cross-examination be completed within two months of receipt of the order and directed the respondent to cooperate with the trial.
Case Title : Sadiq Shafi Qureshi v M.D. and C.E.O.,Union Bank of India and ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 106
The HC held that an employee who is entitled under the applicable laws to withdraw his offer of voluntary retirement before the intended date of such voluntary retirement, loses his right to do so by accepting the retirement benefits.
"We find that the petitioner's conduct of receiving various service benefits from 14.09.2017 disentitle him to the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service as prayed by him."
Case Title :M/s. V.N.Reddy v The Superintending Engineer and ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 107
The Bombay High Court reiterated that a writ court should not ordinarily exercise its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in contractual matters, unless the same is expedient in public interest.
The bench of Justices A.S. Chandurkar and G.A. Sanap took note of the Supreme Court's observations in Bharat Coking Coal Limited and others vs. AMR Dev Prabha and others, that the power of judicial review should not be permitted to be invoked in contractual disputes to protect private interest at the cost of public interest or to decide contractual disputes.
It observed, "although the threshold for the public interest to exist need not be high nevertheless it is essential to prevent bypassing of civil Courts and use of constitutional avenues for enforcement of contractual obligations."
Case Title: Sabhajit Ramyash Yadav and ors v State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 108
The Bombay High court recently came to the rescue of flat purchasers and allowed interim reliefs against private developers in writ petitions. A bench of Justices S.J. Kathawalla and Milind N. Jadhav regarded that inaction of government bodies against private developers is affecting the rights of innocent individuals. Hence, the court can exercise writ jurisdiction to protect their interests.
Case Title :Satara District Bar Association, Satara v State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 109
The HC rejected a writ petition filed by Satara District Bar Association, opposing its decision to establish the Court of an Additional District Judge and the Court of a Civil Judge in Maharashtra's Wai town. The Association had stated that the decision would put Judicial officers, staff and litigants to great difficulty.
"The real difficulty with this Petition is that it is unclear what is the legal right that the Petitioner is asserting when it says that this High Court should not consider establishing a Court at Wai. It seems to us that this is entirely self-serving...We do not deny that the Bar has a role to play in the administration of justice. We however emphatically assert that it is the interest of the litigants that is paramount and the role of the Court and all those who enable its functioning, whether Judges or lawyers, are meant to assist the delivery of justice to the litigant."
Case Title: Hotel & Restaurant Association (Western India) and Ors. v. Commissioner, State Excise and Ors. with connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 110
The Bombay High Court has dismissed a bunch of petitions seeking concessions on license renewal fees for vending foreign liquor calling them "at best, worthless from start to finish and, at worst, thoroughly irresponsible."
The court called the arguments made on behalf of the petitioners as that of "mind-numbing insensitivity" as the foreign liquor vending hotels "put themselves on the same level as the true victims who fell to the onslaught of the Covid-19 pandemic."
"We believe it is time to send a firm signal that the time of the court is not to be taken for granted, nor should there be any attempt to gamble on litigation. When a court's time is squandered on frivolous matters, there will be consequences," the bench observed.
Case Title : Smt. Varsha Deepak Desale v The State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 111
The HC came to the rescue of a widow, who was denied compassionate appointment by the Education Department in place of her deceased husband who was working as a Peon in an educational premises.
She was denied the benefit on the ground that the proposal seeking sanction to the new staffing pattern is pending with the Government. "There is no necessity to have sanction to the new staffing pattern for appointment on compassionate ground, therefore, the petition deserves to be allowed."
Case Title : Bhagyashri v Jagdish
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 112
In a rare instance the Bombay High Court upheld two orders of the civil court in Nanded, directing a wife, working as a teacher, to pay Rs 3,000 maintenance to her husband by directing the school principal to deduct Rs. 5000 from her salary towards unpaid maintenance since August 2017.
The court rejected the wife's contention that since the couple's marriage had ended with a divorce decree in 2015, after nearly 23 years, the husband couldn't now seek monthly maintenance.
Relying on Section 24 and 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the court said, they confer a right on the needy spouse to claim interim or permanent alimony, where a decree of restitution of conjugal rights or divorce has been passed.
Case Title :Babi Krushna Pawar v The State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 113
The Bombay High Court held that the HC Office should accept appeals filed by advocates appointed by the Legal Aid Service Authority or the court, even if the advocate fails to attach certified copies of the judgements they are challenging.
"Office to accept the papers and register the same as in other proceedings. These directions would be applicable to all Advocates who are appointed either by the Court or by the Legal Aid Services Authority. Non-filing of the certified copy of the judgment shall not be an impediment to accept the papers and register the Appeals by the office," the bench said.
13. Bombay High Court Quashes Reassessment Notice Against Tata Communications Transformation Services
Case Title: Tata Communications Transformation Services Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 114
The petitioner/assessee has challenged the initiation of assessment proceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for different assessment years. All notices for the initiation of assessment proceedings have been issued after April 1, 2021
The issue raised was whether, after the introduction of new provisions for reassessment of income by virtue of the Finance Act, 2021, with effect from April 1, 2021, substituting the then existing provisions, the substituted provisions would survive and be used for issuing notices for reassessment for the past period.
The court held that when the Income Tax Act, 1961 specifies that something is to be done in a particular manner, then, that thing must be done in that specified manner alone, and any other method of performance cannot be upheld. Hence, notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 after April 1, 2021 must comply with the amended provisions of the law and cannot be sustained on the basis of the erstwhile provision.
Case Title- Rajal Mahadu Gurud and othrs vs State of Maharashtra & others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 115
The Bombay High Court has granted bail to 10 tribals accused in the Palghar mob lynching cases of 2020 in which three people were lynched including two Sadhus. The court denied bail to eight others. Earlier, in January 2021, the special court granted bail to 89 accused in the case.
The court distinguished between those present at the site and merely involved in instigating the attackers from those who are seen assaulting the deceased in the video footage.
She observed that "no overt act" of violence is attributed to the 10 even though they are seen in the CCTV footage. "Now when the investigation is complete, their custody is not warranted and they are entitled to be released on bail."
Calcutta High Court
Nominal Index
Anubrata Mondal v. Union of India & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 94
Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited v. Optimal Power Synergy Ltd 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 95
In Re : Guddu Mondal @ Guddu Ali Mondal & Anr 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 96
Dr. Santi Prasad Sinha v. Md. Abdul Gani Ansari and others 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 97
Abu Fazel Fakir & Ors v. The State of West Bengal 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 98
Md. Abdul Gani Ansari v. State of West Bengal & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 99
Rajesh K.V. @ Rajesh Kaleerakath Venugopal v. Visva-Bharati & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 100
Sabitri Bhunya v. The State of West Bengal and Others 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 101
Central Bureau of Investigation v. Biman Kumar Saha & Anr 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 102
Dr. Santi Prasad Sinha v. Laxmi Tunga & ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 103
Irina Mullick v. The State of West Bengal & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 104
Judgements/ Orders
Case Title: Anubrata Mondal v. Union of India & Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 94
The Calcutta High Court upheld a Single Bench order refusing to grant protection from arrest to Trinamool Congress (TMC) leader Anubrata Mondal in the ongoing cattle smuggling case, probed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). A Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj observed that the order of the Single Bench does not suffer form any error. Furthermore, the Court dismissed the plea of the appellant that he is suffering from various medical ailments due to which he is being unable to appear before the CBI for the purpose of investigation by observing that sufficient material has been placed on record to show that Mondal has been travelling to different places and had even come down to Kolkata, near the place where he was asked to appear for questioning by the CBI. "..this Court also finds substance in the arguments of learned Counsel for respondents that the plea of the appellant that he is suffering from various ailments due to which he is unable to appear for the purpose of investigation, is unsustainable as material has been placed on record to show that the appellant is travelling to different places and had even come to Kolkata, near the place where he is required to appear in pursuant to notice. Appellant is seeking the interim protection to the effect that no coercive steps should be taken against him but there is no material on record showing that any such steps are intended by the respondent", the Court observed.
Case Title: Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited v. Optimal Power Synergy Ltd
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 95
The Calcutta High Court has recently observed that the discretion conferred upon a Court to stay an award or a decree under Section 19 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSME Act) is broader in scope compared to Section 36(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) where the discretion is limited to granting stay of an award subject to appropriate conditions. Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya noted that the rights of an award holder are enhanced under Section 19 of the MSME Act compared to Section 36(3) of the Arbitration Act with the object to not hasten the death of the enterprise under the weight of financial pressures aggravated by initiation of proceedings for realization of its dues from supply of materials to a buyer. "The object is to ensure that the small or medium scale enterprise survives; the object is not to hasten the death of the enterprise under the weight of financial pressures aggravated by initiation of proceedings for realization of its dues from supply of materials to a buyer. Section 19 of the MSME Act matches the object of the Act and strengthens its core by broadening the contours for stay of an award / decree compared to section 36(3) of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 where the discretion is limited to granting stay of an award subject to appropriate conditions. There is no mandate to allow withdrawal of the amount deposited by the Award-holder", the Court observed.
Case Title: In Re : Guddu Mondal @ Guddu Ali Mondal & Anr
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 96
The Calcutta High Court directed the Registrar (IT) of the High Court to prepare a list of appeals where the appellants are in jail for 14 years or more and list those matters before the Court for consideration of bail within 2 weeks. The direction was issued while suspending the sentence and granting bail to two accused persons who were found to have suffered inordinate incarceration for about 20 years. A Bench comprising Justice Bivas Pattanayak and Justice Joymalya Bagchi ordered, "A large number of appeals are pending in this High Court too where the appellants-convicts are incarcerating in jail for a protracted period of time. Taking judicial notice of such fact, we are of the view similar exercise ought to be undertaken in this Court also. Accordingly, we direct the Registrar (IT) to prepare a list of appeals where the appellants are in jail for 14 years or more and list those matters before this Bench for consideration of bail within a fortnight."
Case Title: Dr. Santi Prasad Sinha v. Md. Abdul Gani Ansari and others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 97
The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday upheld a Single Judge's order directing former West Bengal School Service Commission (SSC) advisor S.P. Sinha to furnish details about his properties to the Court while adjudicating upon a plea pertaining to the alleged irregularities in the appointment of 'Group-D' (non-teaching staff) in sponsored Secondary and Higher Secondary schools under the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (WBBSE) on the purported recommendation by the WBSSC. Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay in the impugned order had directed S.P. Sinha, the Advisor of the School Service Commission and the Convenor of the Five-Member Committee constituted by the Education Department to disclose in an affidavit details about his assets after suspecting corruption during the recruitment of staff in different schools by the SSC in recent years. A Division Bench comprising Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Rabindranath Samanta ordered, "Taking into account the thought process behind the direction passed upon the appellant to file affidavit of assets, we do not find any element warranting interference at this stage. However, we make it clear that such affidavit of assets shall remain in a sealed cover and shall not be divulged or circulated to the litigating parties or the Counsels and shall be appropriately dealt with at the time of final decision to be taken on the issues involved therein." The time for filing such an affidavit was also extended by 5 days.
Case Title: Abu Fazel Fakir & Ors v. The State of West Bengal
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 98
The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday reduced the sentence awarded to persons concurrently convicted under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code after noting that they are mostly agricultural labourers who had fallen prey to the hands of political powers without having any knowledge about politics. Justice Bibek Chaudhuri noted that the incident had occurred in the year 2008 and that the appellants had been facing trial for the last 14 years. Opining that the appellants had suffered mental agony due to the long pendency of the instant criminal proceedings, the Court underscored, "The appellants are facing trial before the learned court below and also in this court for last 14 years. They have suffered tremendous mental agony during these years with pendency of a criminal case on their head. All the appellants are villagers, mostly maintain their livelihood as agricultural labourer. Some of the convicts are village housewives. The appellants do not know the intricacies of political ideology they become supporters of different political parties without having any knowledge about politics. They are practically preys and pawns in the hands of political powers."
Case Title: Md. Abdul Gani Ansari v. State of West Bengal & Ors.
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 99
Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay of the Calcutta High Court on Wednesday passed a scathing order against the observations made by a Division Bench in a case pertaining to the alleged irregularities in the appointment of 'Group-D' (non-teaching staff) in sponsored Secondary and Higher Secondary schools under the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (WBBSE) on the purported recommendation by the West Bengal School Service Commission (WBSSC). Justice Gangopadhyay in an order dated March 25 had directed S.P. Sinha, former Advisor of the School Service Commission and the Convenor of the Five-Member Committee constituted by the Education Department to disclose in an affidavit details about his assets after suspecting corruption during the recruitment of staff in different schools by the SSC in recent years. Against this order, an appeal had been filed before a Division Bench comprising Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Rabindranath Samanta seeking a stay. Although the Division Bench had declined to issue a stay on the impugned order and had directed Sinha to file the required affidavit, it had underscored that such an affidavit of assets should be filed before the Court in a sealed cover and should not be divulged or circulated to the litigating parties or their counsels. Recording serious displeasure against such an order by the Division Bench, Justice Gangopadhyay observed, "I do not know what this court will do with a sealed cover in this proceeding when the hand of this appeal court has been tied by the above observation. I have been prevented from taking any consequential step on going through the said affidavit of assets."
Case Title: Rajesh K.V. @ Rajesh Kaleerakath Venugopal v. Visva-Bharati & Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 100
The Calcutta High Court set aside a showcase notice and the subsequent suspension of a Visva Bharati University assistant professor after observing that the Registrar (Acting) did not have the power to initiate disciplinary action against the professor. The Visva Bharati authorities had on February 24, 2021, showcaused Rajesh Kaleerakath Venugopal, assistant professor of Rabindra dance and drama at the varsity's Sangeet Bhavana, asking him to clarify why action would not be taken against him for negligence in duty and misconduct. Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya directed, "This Court is of the view that since the Registrar (Acting) did not have the power to initiate disciplinary action against the petitioner, who is an Adhyapaka of the University, the defect of jurisdiction goes to the root of the matter and nullifies all subsequent steps taken thereafter. The Charge-sheet and the order of suspension are hence without authority and should be quashed on that basis. In other words, to quote the legal maxim sublato fundamento cadit opus, if the foundation of the action is removed, the superstructure must fall".
Case Title: Sabitri Bhunya v. The State of West Bengal and Others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 101
The Calcutta High Court ordered that every order of acquittal must be forwarded to the District Magistrate and the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) for due intimation to the victim as per Section 2(wa) of the CrPC. The Court further directed that in every order of acquittal, the concerned trial court at the foot of the judgment must endorse the right of the victim to prefer an appeal as per the proviso to Section 372 CrPC and if necessary, to avail free legal assistance through the legal services authorities concerned to prefer such an appeal. A Bench comprising Justice Bivas Pattanayak and Justice Joymalya Bagchi directed, "(a) Copy of the judgment of acquittal be forwarded to the District Magistrate and DLSA concerned for due intimation to the victim as defined under section 2(wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (b) In every copy of the judgment which ends in acquittal, the trial court shall at the foot of the judgment endorse the right of the victim to prefer an appeal under proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and if necessary, to avail free legal assistance through the legal services authorities concerned to prefer and prosecute such appeal (c) Necessary steps be taken to amend the Criminal Rules and Orders and incorporate such requirement in the aforesaid Rules."
Case Title: Central Bureau of Investigation v. Biman Kumar Saha & Anr
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 102
The Calcutta High Court has recently refused to grant relief under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for condonation of delay of about 302 days in filing an appeal. Justice Bibek Chaudhuri remarked that the government agency is not a privileged litigant and no explanation is forthcoming as to why the heads of various offices of CBI took such an unusual time to release the record of the case for the purpose of filing the appeal. "..the Government or a Government agency is not a privileged litigant. The Government agency is required to explain the delay in the same manner like that of an ordinary litigant to get the relief of condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act", the Court underscored. Further opining that it has not been explained why the CBI took such an unusual time to file the appeal after the expiry of almost 302 days of limitation, the Court observed, "The petitioner has stated in the said paragraph different dates when the file was sent to different offices of CBI. It has not been stated why the office of various heads of office of CBI took unusual time to release the record and finally allowed the appeal to be filed after expiry of 302 days of Limitation."
10. Calcutta High Court Stays Single Judge Order For CBI Probe In SSC 'Group D' Recruitment Scam
Case Title: Dr. Santi Prasad Sinha v. Laxmi Tunga & ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 103
The Calcutta High Court on Friday stayed a Single Judge's order directing the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to conduct a probe into the alleged irregularities in the appointment of 'Group-D' (non-teaching staff) in sponsored Secondary and Higher Secondary schools under the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (WBBSE) on the purported recommendation by the West Bengal School Service Commission (WBSSC). A Division Bench comprising Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee was informed by the concerned counsels that an inquiry Committee headed by Justice Ranjit Kumar Bagh, former judge of the High Court is looking into the issue of illegal appointments of group-D employees and that the Committee has directed Sinha to appear before it on April 5. Opining that there is a likelihood of conflicting findings if two parallel proceedings are allowed to proceed simultaneously, the Court directed the CBI to not register any FIR against Sinha or interrogate him any further until the next date of hearing that is slated to take place on April 4. "..if these two parallel proceedings are allowed to run simultaneously there is likelihood of conflict of findings and also having regard to the fact that the original documents relating to such alleged illegal appointments are presently lying in the custody of the learned Registrar General of this court in terms of the order passed by the Regular Bench, the Central Bureau of Investigation shall not register any first information report against the present appellant nor they will put appellant for further interrogation, if any, till Monday next, that is, April 4, 2022", the Court observed.
Case Title: Irina Mullick v. The State of West Bengal & Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 104
The Calcutta High Court directed the State Bank of India (SBI) to process the loan application of a third-year law student who had applied for an education loan under the 'West Bengal Student Credit Card Scheme' notified by the State government on June 30, 2021. The West Bengal Student Credit Card Scheme was framed by the State Higher Education Department for providing Credit Cards to students for pursuing higher education. Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya was adjudicating upon a plea moved by Irina Mullick, a third year law student whose loan application of Rs 2,50,000 was rejected by the SBI because of the low CIBIL score of her father. CIBIL is a measure of the credit- worthiness of an applicant. Opining that the State government should ensure that no student in need of money is compelled to sacrifice his or her education, the Court underscored, "The State Government is thus requested to ensure that no student who is in need of money, is forced to sacrifice his/her education or future career aspirations for want of timely financial intervention." Directing the petitioner to make a fresh loan application under the State government scheme, the Court ordered SBI to process such an application within 2 weeks thereafter.
Important Developments
Case Title: Soumendu Adhikari v. State of West Bengal
The West Bengal government and the State Election Commission on Tuesday opposed the prayer of the BJP that a forensic audit of the CCTV cameras used during the recently concluded Contai Municipality elections should be conducted by an independent agency such as Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL), New Delhi. The Calcutta High Court was adjudicating upon a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition moved by BJP leader Soumendu Adhikari alleging that large scale violence and rigging of votes had taken place in the recently concluded Contai Municipality elections. Elections to 108 municipalities in the State including the Contai municipality took place on February 27. On Tuesday, senior advocate Paramjit Patwalia appearing for Adhikari prayed before the Court that a forensic audit of the CCTV cameras should be conducted by a central agency such as the CFSL, New Delhi. He further submitted that it must be discerned whether the CCTV cameras were operational and whether any violence took place as alleged. However, such a prayer was vehemently objected to by senior advocate Jayanta Mitra appearing for the SEC by contending that since the main prayers in the writ petition cannot be granted due to the constitutional bar under Article 243-ZG (b) of the Constitution of India, a direction for issuing interim orders can also not be sustained. Article 243-ZG (b) prohibits any election to any municipality to be called in question except by way of an election petition filed before the appropriate authority.
Case Title: Purnima Kandu & Anr v. State of West Bengal
The Calcutta High Court directed the Superintendent of Police, Purulia to submit the case diary and a brief status report pertaining to the investigation into the death of former Congress councillor of Jhalda Municipality in Purulia, Tapan Kandu who was reportedly shot dead by miscreants a fortnight ago. Justice Rajasekhar Mantha was adjudicating upon a plea moved by the widow of the deceased Councillor seeking a CBI probe on the ground that no progress in the investigation has been made by the State investigating authorities."This Court prima facie finds that the Jhalda Police might have been in violation of the dicta of the Supreme Courtin the case of Lalita Kumari vs. Govt. Of U.P. & Ors reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1. However, unless the progress of investigation is ascertained, it would be premature to form any opinion on the main prayer made in the writ petition for transfer of the investigation from the State Police to CBI", the Court observed. The Court further ordered the Superintendent of Police, Purulia to submit the case diary and the status report on the next date of hearing which is slated to take place on April 1, 2022.
3. 11-Yr Old Raped In WB's Basirhat: Calcutta High Court Calls For Case Diary, Seeks Medical Report
Case Title: Sumitra Bhattacharyya v. State of West Bengal and other connected matters
The Calcutta High Court on Thursday directed the State government to submit the case diary along with a status report pertaining to the investigation into the gruesome incident of rape of a minor 11 year old girl at Matia in North 24-Parganas' Basirhat on the next date of hearing that is to take place on April 4. The Court further ordered that a report should also be submitted informing the Court about the current medical condition of the minor victim. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj directed Advocate General S.N Mookherjee to produce before the Court a report in the form of an affidavit containing the stage and status of investigation into the incident. The Bench further called for the case diary to be filed before the Court on the next date of hearing that is slated to take place on April 4. "Having regard to the seriousness of the matter, we direct the learned Advocate General to produce the report in the form of affidavit about the stage and status of the investigation along with the case diary. He is also directed to produce a report relating to the medical condition of the victim", the Court ordered.
Case Title: Laxmi Tunga v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay of the Calcutta High Court on Thursday has once again ordered a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into the alleged irregularities in the appointment of 'Group-D' (non-teaching staff) in sponsored Secondary and Higher Secondary schools under the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (WBBSE) on the purported recommendation by the West Bengal School Service Commission (WBSSC). The Judge on Thursday directed the regional head of the CBI to call upon S.P. Sinha, former Advisor of the School Service Commission in course of the day and start questioning him. The CBI has been directed to initiate the interrogation by midnight. Opining that the former advisor of the Commission has been found to be 'one of the kingpins of this corruption', the Court ordered, "In such circumstances a thorough probe is required to bust the racket of giving illegal appointments. I have found from other similar matters that the said Dr. Santi Prasad Sinha as one of the kingpins of this corruption of giving illegal public appointment. Hence, I direct the regional head of the Central Bureau of Investigation to call Mr. S. P. Sinha in course of the day and start questioning him. The CBI is directed to initiate the said interrogation in course of the day - I mean by 12 midnight today."
Case Title: Laxmi Tunga v. The State of West Bengal & Ors
Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay of the Calcutta High Court took on record the preliminary report submitted by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) pertaining to the probe into the alleged irregularities in the appointment of 'Group-D' (non-teaching staff) in sponsored Secondary and Higher Secondary schools under the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (WBBSE) on the purported recommendation by the West Bengal School Service Commission (WBSSC). The Court also directed the CBI to call for questioning all members of the High Powered Committee which had been constituted in 2016 by the Education Department of the West Bengal government to oversee the recruitment of close to 13,000 non-teaching staff in government-aided schools. After the panel was dissolved last year, allegations of irregular recruitment had surfaced. "I direct the CBI to take steps forthwith to call the above persons for asking questions in respect of this illegal appointment scam in public employment and they are to be called in the course of the day. When they will be questioned, will be decided by the CBI. I am not giving any guideline to that effect, but they are to be called in course of the day and they are directed to attend the office of the CBI as soon as they will be called by the CBI", the Court ordered.
Case Title: Purnima Kandu & Anr v. State of West Bengal
The Calcutta High Court on Friday took on record a detailed report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Purulia pertaining to the investigation into the death of former Congress councillor of Jhalda Municipality in Purulia, Tapan Kandu who was reportedly shot dead by miscreants on March 13. "A very detailed report has been submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Purulia and the same is taken on record. It appears that as on date two persons have been arrested. It further appears that Special Investigating Team involving C.I.D., West Bengal has also joined the investigation and is overseeing the same", the Court recorded in the order. Opining that the Court would consider whether the investigation requires to be transferred to the CBI on the next date of hearing, the Court observed, "The principal prayer of the petitioners for transfer of investigation from the State to the C.B.I. shall be considered on the adjourned date". Accordingly, the matter for listed for further hearing on April 4 at 2pm. The Court however underscored that the investigation by the State authorities may continue in the meantime.
Chhattisgarh High Court
Case Title: Charanjeet Singh Saini v. M/s Ispan India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Chh) 22
The Chhattisgarh High Court recently held that a director could not be prosecuted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act without the company being arraigned as an accused Justice Gautam Bhaduri allowed the petition to quash the impugned orders and noted that only directors of the company are made the accused without making specific averments about the role played by them, and leaving the company out of the proceedings. The complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act would thus not lie.
Case title - Rajeshwari v. Bhunu Ram and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Chh) 23
The Chhattisgarh High Court recently held that an unmarried daughter can claim marriage expenses from her parents under the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. The bench of Justice Goutam Bhaduri and Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal held thus while hearing and allowing a petition filed by a 35-year-old woman, Rajeshwari.
Delhi High Court
CITATIONS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 242 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 265
NOMINAL INDEX
MOHD ARIF & ORS. v. SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 242
PAWANDEEP SINGH v. THE REGISTRAR OF TRADEMARKS & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 243
HIMANI WALIA v. HEMANT WALIA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 244
LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER v. FUTURETIMES TECHNOLOGY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 245
Anand Kumar Pandey v. GNCTD 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 246
BHAGWAN SINGH v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 247
MOHAMMAD ASHFAQ HUSSAIN v. NIA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 248
ANI MEDIA PVT. LTD. v. VINAY G DAVID & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 249
ANJALI BHARDWAJ v. CPIO, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 250
PUJA AGGARWAL v. PRAVESH NARULA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 251
VANDANA VERMA v. ROOP SINGH & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 252
RUIA EXPORTS & ANR. v. MONEYWISE FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT.LTD & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 253
BURBERRY LTD v. ADITYA VERMA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 254
REENA PASWAN & ANR v. UOI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 255
Union of India v. Bahareh Bakshi 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 256
SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC SOUTH EAST ASIA (HQ) PTE LTD v. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE 3 (1)(2), NEW DELHI AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 257
MANKIND PHARMA LIMITED v. TATA MEDICAL AND DIAGNOSTICS LIMITED 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 258
Tata Teleservices Limited versus Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 259
RADICO KHAITAN LIMITED v. SARAO DISTILLERY (OPC) PVT. LTD. & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 260
DELHI WAQF BOARD Through its Chairman v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 261
Radhika Ashar v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 262
Ankur Gupta v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 263
JA Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Sithara Entertainment & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 264
Rakesh v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 265
ORDERS/JUDGMENTS
1. Party Claiming Private Right In Civil Suit Entitled To File Writ Petition Requiring Municipal Corporation To Discharge Its Duty: Delhi High Court
Case Title: MOHD ARIF & ORS. v. SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 242
The Delhi High Court has adjudicated an issue as to whether a petitioner who has filed a civil suit claiming certain private rights is disentitled to file a writ petition seeking a direction to the Municipal Corporation to carry out its duty.
Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva has observed that the power exercised by a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is for ensuring that the administrative authorities perform their duties and that the same is clearly distinct from a civil right that a private party may exercise against another private party.
The Court further observed that merely because the petitioner had filed a civil suit for partition claiming the relief for injunction and no interim order was granted, does not condone the illegal action of a private entity of carrying out illegal unauthorised construction contrary to municipal bye-laws and the Master Plan or preclude a High Court from exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution to ensure compliance of the municipal bye-laws as well as the Master Plan.
2. "Refusal Of Trademark Sans Hearing Contrary To Natural Justice": Delhi HC Asks Controller General To Devise Proper Mechanism For Show Cause Hearings
Case Title: PAWANDEEP SINGH v. THE REGISTRAR OF TRADEMARKS & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 243
Observing that refusal of a trademark without even affording an opportunity of hearing to the applicant would be contrary to the fundamental tenets of natural justice, the Delhi High Court has asked the Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks (CGPDTM) to devise a proper mechanism for holding show cause hearings.
Further noting that the Trademark Registry deals with lakhs of applications every year, Justice Pratibha M Singh opined that the utilization of a platform for virtual conference hearing wherein only three individuals are permitted to join at a time, would be grossly insufficient and an outdated mode of holding hearings.
3. Not Mandatory To Register Or Pay Stamp Duty On Family Settlements Arrived At Orally, Put Into Writing Only For Purpose Of Info: Delhi HC
Case Title: HIMANI WALIA v. HEMANT WALIA & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 244
The Delhi High Court has observed that there is no requirement to compulsorily register family settlements and to pay stamp duty for the same when such settlement is initially arrived at as an oral partition, however, later is put into writing for the purpose of information.
" The partition had been agreed upon between the parties by way of oral agreement with the intervention of their counsels. The memorandum of settlement does not itself partition the properties, but only records the same as an aid of memory ," Justice Pratibha M Singh observed.
The Court was dealing with an application in a partition suit seeking waiver of payment of stamp duty in respect of the assets inherited by the various parties from the estate in question.
4. Trademark Infringement: Delhi High Court Grants Permanent Injunction Against Now Banned 'Club Factory' Website In Suit By Louis Vuitton
Title: LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER v. FUTURETIMES TECHNOLOGY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 245
The Delhi High Court has granted permanent injunction against 'Club Factory', a China based portal which was banned by the Indian Government amid pandemic, in the trademark infringement suit filed by luxury brand 'Louis Vuitton'.
Justice Pratibha M Singh permanently restrained owners of website "www.clubfactory.com from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale directly or indirectly any goods including face masks etc., bearing the registered marks of Louis Vuitton on its portal or any other portal run by them.
The Court also directed the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) and Ministry of Electronic and Information Technology (MeiTY) to issue instructions to all internet service providers to block the website www.clubfactory.com so that the same is also not accessible through VPN or other platforms.
5. Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea Against Reopening Of Schools For Unvaccinated Children, Says No Data Suggesting They Are At High Risk Of Covid-19
Case Title: Anand Kumar Pandey v. GNCTD
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 246
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday dismissed a public interest litigation challenging the Delhi government's decision to resume physical classes for school-going children, from nursery to class 12th from April 1, 2022.
The Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla orally remarked,
"There has to be a balance. Children are losing much more by missing school...There are reports highlighting the psychological aspects on growth of children. They are not able to develop social, oral and inter-personal skills."
Schools in Delhi will resume functioning in offline mode at 100% capacity for all classes from April 1, 2022. As per the DDMA guidelines, schools will run only physical classes and no online classes will be held.
6. CPC Second Appeal | Can't Interfere With Orders Solely On Ground Of Sympathy, Substantial Question Of Law Must: Delhi High Court
Case Title: BHAGWAN SINGH v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 247
The Delhi High Court has observed that a High Court cannot interfere with an order in second appeal under sec. 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, solely on the ground of sympathy in the absence of any substantial question of law.
Sec. 100 of the CPC gives a procedural right of second appeal to either of the parties to a civil suit who had been adversely affected by the decree passed by a civil court. The second appeal lies to the High Court only if the court is satisfied that it involves a substantial question of law.
"Section 100 of the CPC permits the Court to interfere only if there is a substantial question of law, which arises from the orders of the courts below. Absence the existence of any SQL, the Section 100 Court cannot interfere with the order under challenge solely on the ground of sympathy," Justice C Hari Shankar observed.
7. Delhi High Court Refuses To Entertain PIL Seeking Probe Into Organizations Allegedly Siphoning Off Covid-19 Crowdfunds For Terrorist Activities
Title: MOHAMMAD ASHFAQ HUSSAIN v. NIA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 248
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday refused to entertain a public interest litigation seeking probe into several foreign organizations that collected crowd funds under the garb of helping India amid the second wave of COVID-19 pandemic in April 2021 and allegedly siphoned off the same for funding terrorist activities.
The Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla observed that the government is cognizant of the issue and thus, no case is made out for judicial interference in the matter. It observed,
" Learned counsel the petitioner has herself tendered in Court communication received from Enforcement Directorate on 7 March 2022, requiring the petitioner to provide the relevant documents on the basis of which the petitioner has made the aforesaid claims. Counsel submits that the details have been provided to the ED. There is no reason for this court to assume that the Central government and its agencies are not alive to this problem, particularly when ED has sought the Petitioner's response."
8. Delhi High Court Grants Permanent Injunction Against 'ANINEWSINDIA' In Trademark Infringement Suit By News Agency 'ANI'
Case Title: ANI MEDIA PVT. LTD. v. VINAY G DAVID & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 249
The Delhi High Court has granted permanent injunction against 'ANINEWSINDIA' in a trademark infringement suit filed by news agency 'ANI'.
Justice Pratibha M Singh permanently injuncted the owners of ANINEWSINDIA from using the trademark 'ANI' or any other derivatives including the logo form, either with or without the word 'news' and 'India' as 'aninewsindia', 'aninews' or in any other manner on the internet or social media platform including Instagram and Facebook.
The suit was filed by ANI seeking protection of the registered trademark 'ANI' which was adopted by it in the year 1971.
9. Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking Details Of SC Collegium's December 2018 Meeting
Case Title: ANJALI BHARDWAJ v. CPIO, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 250
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea challenging an order of Central Information Commission (CIC) denying information sought regarding the decisions taken by the Supreme Court Collegium in a meeting held on December 12, 2018.
Justice Yashwant Varma passed the order after reserving it earlier this week. The Court heard Advocate Prashant Bhushan appearing for the petitioner, activist Anjali Bhardwaj.
The Court noted that the disclosures made by the respondents seemed to indicate that no resolution with respect to the agenda items was drawn by members who constituted the Collegium on 12 December 2018.
The Court was thus of the view that there was no ground to doubt the disclosure made that no resolution was drawn and that no cogent material was placed on the record which convinced the Court to take a contrary view.
10. Stand Of Defendant Irrelevant When Court Is Dealing With Application Under Order VII Rule 11 Of CPC: Delhi High Court
Title: PUJA AGGARWAL v. PRAVESH NARULA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 251
The Delhi High Court has observed that in a case where the Court is dealing with an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the stand of the defendant is irrelevant.
Adding that what is required to be looked into is the averments and documents filed alongwith the plaint, Justice Asha Menon observed thus:
"When the court is dealing with an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, it is required to look at the averments in the plaint and plaint alone. The documents filed alongwith the plaint can also be considered. However, the stand of the defendant is irrelevant."
11. Order 38 Rule 5 CPC | Suit Property Can't Be Attached Mechanically Or Merely For Asking Of Plaintiff: Delhi High Court
Case Title: VANDANA VERMA v. ROOP SINGH & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 252
The Delhi High Court has observed that the power under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of Code of Civil Procedure cannot be exercised by High Court mechanically or merely for the asking of plaintiff to the suit.
Justice Amit Bansal observed,
" provisions of Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the CPC have to be used sparingly and that the plaintiff has to satisfy the Court that the defendant is seeking to remove or dispose of whole or part of his property with the intention of obstructing or delaying the execution of the decree that may be passed against him. "
The Bench took note of the Supreme Court's judgment in Raman Tech. & Process Engg. Co. & Anr. Vs. Solanki Traders, (2008) 2 SCC 302, where it was held that purpose of Order 38 Rule 5 is not to convert an unsecured debt into a secured debt. Any attempt by a plaintiff to utilise the provisions of Order 38 Rule 5 as a leverage for coercing the defendant to settle the suit claim should be discouraged.
12. Party's Participation Insufficient To Infuse Life To Arbitral Proceedings If Award Is Void Due To Arbitrator's Ineligibility: Delhi HC Opines Prima Facie
Case Title: RUIA EXPORTS & ANR. v. MONEYWISE FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT.LTD & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 253
Expressing a prima facie opinion, the Delhi High Court has observed that the participation of any party is not sufficient to infuse life to arbitral proceedings if the award is void ab initio on the ground of ineligibility of an arbitrator.
Justice Vibhu Bakhru made the said observation while staying the enforcement of an arbitral award in the case of Ruia Exports & Another v. Moneywise Financial Services Private Limited & Others.
"Prima facie, if the award is void ab initio on the ground of ineligibility of an arbitrator, the participation of any party in the arbitral proceedings may not be sufficient to infuse life to the arbitral proceedings," the Court said.
13. No Call To Have Expert Witness To Testify To Use Of Identical Mark In Registered Trademark Infringement Or Passing Off Cases: Delhi High Court
Title: BURBERRY LTD v. ADITYA VERMA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 254
The Delhi High Court has observed that in a case of infringement of registered Trade Marks or passing off, similarity of the marks used is to be considered and that there is no call to have an expert witness to testify to the use of an identical or similar Trade Mark.
Justice Asha Menon added that the emphasis is on the branding and not on the manufacture of the goods in question. It is the false branding that results in the product being counterfeit, the Court added.
The Court was dealing with a Regular First Appeal filed under sec. 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 & 2 CPC and Section 151 CPC by the plaintiff before the Trial Court. The appeal was filed against the judgment dated 7th November, 2019 wherein the suit was dismissed.
14. Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Eviction Of Chirag Paswan From Govt Bungalow
Case Title: REENA PASWAN & ANR v. UOI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 255
The Delhi High Court has refused to interfere with the eviction of Lok Janshakti Party (LJP) MP Chirag Paswan from a government Bungalow situated in city's Janpath area which was originally allotted to his later father, Former Union Minister Ram Vilas Paswan.
Justice Yashwant Varma dismissed a petition filed by Reena Paswan, Chirag Paswan's mother.
"This is not your party headquarters," the Judge orally remarked at the outset.
The Directorate of Estates (DoE) had issued an eviction order last year. In August last year, the Central Government had issued an eviction notice to Chirag Paswan and other occupants of the government bungalow in question regarding vacation of the same.
15. 'Not Always Possible To Produce Indian Spouse For Processing OCI Card Application': Delhi High Court Upholds Single Judge's Order
Case Title: Union of India v. Bahareh Bakshi
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 256
The Delhi High Court has upheld an order passed by the single judge excusing an Iranian woman from producing her estranged Indian husband before the authorities for processing her OCI (Overseas Citizen of India) card application.
The single judge had held that presence of both spouses for the purpose of processing an OCI card application is not mandatory
Upholding this view, the Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla observed,
" Normally, the spouse would also appear for their interaction before the authorities. However, that may not be possible to secure in all cases, such as, where a matrimonial dispute has erupted between the parties. There could also be cases where the Indian spouse may die, or go missing. In such situations, it may not be possible for the applicant to produce their Indian spouse. "
16. Non Specification Of Penalty Provisions In Penalty Notice And Denial Of Immunity; Delhi High Court Holds That Assessee Is Eligible For Immunity, Says Tax Payer Should Be Incentivised.
Title: SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC SOUTH EAST ASIA (HQ) PTE LTD v. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE 3 (1)(2), NEW DELHI AND ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 257
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the action of income tax authorities denying the benefit of immunity from penalty under Section 270AA of Income Tax Act to the assessee on the ground that penalty was initiated under Section 270A for misreporting of income is arbitrary since the penalty notice issued by the authorities failed to specify the limb under which the penalty proceedings were initiated.
The Bench, consisting of Justices Manmohan and Dinesh Kumar Sharma, held that since the authorities had failed to specify whether action was taken against the assessee for "underreporting" or "misreporting" of income under Section 270A of the Act, the order of the income tax authorities denying immunity from imposition of penalty was erroneous and arbitrary.
17. Delhi High Court Refuses Interim Injunction In Trademark Infringement Suit By Mankind Pharma Against RTPCR Testing Kit 'OMISURE'
Case Title: MANKIND PHARMA LIMITED v. TATA MEDICAL AND DIAGNOSTICS LIMITED
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 258
The Delhi High Court has refused to pass an ad interim injunction against Tata Medical and Diagnostics Limited, manufacturer of 'OMISURE', an RTPCR kit used for detecting COVID-19 Omicron variant.
Justice Pratibha M Singh was dealing with a suit filed by Mankind Pharma Limited seeking permanent injunction for infringement of trademark. The Plaintiff claimed to be the 5th largest pharmaceutical company in India with a large range of medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations. The Plaintiff therefore sought protection of its registered trademark 'OMIPURE' which was adopted by the Plaintiff in the year 2007.
18. Disputed Tax Demand, Pre-Condition To Deposit 20 % Of The Disputed Tax For Stay Of Recovery Proceedings, Can Be Relaxed In Appropriate Cases: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Tata Teleservices Limited versus Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 259
The Delhi High Court has ruled that requirement of payment of twenty per cent of disputed tax demand is not a pre-requisite in all cases for putting recovery of demand in abeyance during the pendency of the first appeal.
The Bench, consisting of Justices Manmohan and Dinesh Kumar Sharma, held that the order of the income tax authority disposing of assessee's application for stay against recovery of disputed tax demand without considering the issues of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury to the assessee was a non-reasoned order.
19. Trademark Infringement: Delhi High Court Grants Interim Injunction In Favour Of "Magic Moments", Restrains Mark 'Evening Moment'
Case Title: RADICO KHAITAN LIMITED v. SARAO DISTILLERY (OPC) PVT. LTD. & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 260
The Delhi High Court has granted ad interim injunction in favour of manufacturer of "MAGIC MOMENTS" liquor in a trademark infringement suit over use of the mark 'EVENING MOMENT' as being deceptively similar to it's registered trademark for alcoholic beverages.
The suit was filed by Radico Khaitan Limited, one of the largest manufacturers and sellers of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) in India, having MAGIC MOMENTS as one of its leading products. The grievance in the present suit was that the Defendant No.1 was using the mark 'EVENING MOMENT' for whisky manufactured by it. The Defendant No.2 was the proprietor of the impugned trademark 'EVENING MOMENT'.
Justice Pratibha M Singh restrained Defendants from using the mark 'EVENING MOMENT' or any other mark consisting of the word 'MOMENT/MOMENTS' in respect of any alcoholic beverages manufactured, sold or offered by sale by them.
20. Delhi High Court Allows Reopening Of Five Floors Of Masjid In Nizamuddin Markaz During Ramzan
Case Title: DELHI WAQF BOARD Through its Chairman v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 261
The Delhi High Court has allowed reopening of five floors, including Ground floor as well as four floors, of the masjid premises in Nizamuddin Markaz for offering of prayers during Ramzan month.
Justice Jasmeet Singh also directed that the CCTV cameras be made functional at entry, exit and staircase area of each floor.
Public entry was banned at the Nizamuddin Markaz in the aftermath of Tablighi Jamaat members testing positive for Covid-19 in 2020. This comes in a plea filed by Delhi Waqf Board seeking to ease restrictions at the Nizamuddin Markaz, which has been locked since March 31, 2020.
The Court further directed that while namaaz and religious prayers shall be permitted in the Masjid during Ramzan, it clarified that no clarified that no Tablighi activities and lectures can take place.
21. "This Is Not End Of Life, Appear Next Year": Delhi High Court Refuses To Extend Internship Cut-Off Date For Ayush PG Entrance Test 2021
Case Title: Radhika Ashar v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 262
The Delhi High Court last week dismissed an appeal seeking to extend the cut-off date for completion of Internship towards determination of eligibility for All India Ayush Post-graduate Entrance Test, 2021.
" Appear next year. This is not the end of life," the Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla orally remarked while dismissing the appeal.
The prescribed cut-off date by which a candidate must have completed his/her compulsory one year rotational internship to appear in the examination is December 31, 2021. The Appellants herein claim to have completed their internships in January 2022.
22. 'Motivated Exercise At Behest Of Defaulting Borrowers': Delhi High Court Imposes 1L Cost On PIL Questioning Auction Sale Of Mortgaged Assets
Case Title: Ankur Gupta v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 263
The Delhi High court recently imposed Rs. 1 lakh as cost on a litigant for filing a frivolous PIL with the objective of obstructing the sale of a property that was mortgaged by the borrowers (two private developers) with a financial institution to secure their loan.
The Petitioner had sought action against the financial institution for allegedly sourcing huge amount of money to the illegal group of companies as financial favour. However, during the hearing, the Court noted that the petitioner questioned the manner in which the mortgaged asset was sold by the Financial Institution to recover the loan.
A similar challenge to the auction sale of the mortgaged asset at the behest of the borrowers had already failed, it was informed.
23. Delhi High Court Passes Injunction Order Against Sithara Entertainment &Ors.
Title: JA Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Sithara Entertainment & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 264
Commercial Suit was instituted before the Delhi High Court by JA Entertainment Pvt Ltd, against M/s. SitharaEntertainment and others. It was argued before the Court that in light of the Assignment of Hindi remake right in favour of JA Entertainment Pvt Ltd, by the original Malayalam film's producer the exclusivity to exploit the same would vest with JA Entertainment Pvt Ltd, alone and any attempt by M/s. Sithara Entertainment would infringe upon the copyright and commercial rights of JA Entertainment Pvt Ltd. The court was further informed that the nature of rights granted by Gold Coin Motion Picture Company in favor of M/s. SitharaEntertainment was only restricted to remake and dubbing of the original Malayalam film in Telugu language alone, hence, copyright vested in favour of M/s. Sithara Entertainmentwould be restricted in Telugu language. This contention was supported with the Madras High Court Division Bench case of Thiagarajan Kumararaja v.Capital Film Works (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
In view of the above facts and arguments the Hon'ble Justice Jyoti Singh of the Hon'ble Delh High Court was pleased to grant an Ex-parte Ad-interim injunction against Defendants till next date of the hearing for the Hindi dubbed version of the Telugu film titled "Bheemla Nayak" in the matter from releasing the same theatrically and/or on any platform or from distributing the same in any capacity. The matter is scheduled to be listed on 11th July 2022 before the Registrar and on 1stAugust 2022 before the Delhi High Court.
24. 'What Kind Of Matter Is This?': Delhi High Court Refuses To Hear Plea To Award 'Bharat Ratna' To Industrialist Ratan Tata
Case Title: Rakesh v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 265
The Delhi High Court has refused to hear a PIL seeking to award 'Bharat Ratna' to industrialist Ratan Tata. The plea sought the award citing Tata's invaluable service to the country and for leading an "unblemished life".
At the outset, the Division bench of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla made it clear that it is not for the Courts to decide as to who should be conferred the award.
" What kind of matter is this? Are we supposed to decide all this? You approach the government if you want. We can't interfere," the Bench orally said.
The PIL was filed by one Rakesh, claiming to be a social activist. He stated that Ratan Tata dedicated his whole life for the welfare of the country. In this regard, he highlighted how Tata has been a "great businessman" while also encouraging and investing with young entrepreneurs. The plea also highlighted his contributions during the Covid-19 pandemic.
Gauhati High Court
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Gau) 22
The Gauhati High Court has directed the state government to pay and release the salary to the contractual Ayurvedic doctors at par with the contractual Allopathic Medical Officers of the NHM [National Health Mission], Assam with retrospective effect from December 18, 2018. The bench of Justice Michael Zothankhuma ordered thus as it took into account the order of the Uttarakhand High Court and the Supreme Court's recent order upholding the same to reach this conclusion that the Ayurvedic doctors would have to be treated at par with the Allopathic Medical Officers and Dental Medical Officers under the NHM.
Gujarat High Court
CITATIONS 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 94 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 103
Nominal Index
Mahendra Harilal Parekh vs Meenaben Hirenbhai Parekh 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 94
Niraj Jaidev Arya Versus State of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 95
Gitaben Govindbhai Patel vs Rameshbhai Hirabhai Patel 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 96
\Mohsinkhan Muso Murajkhan v. Directorate General Of Police 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 97
Chandra Darshan Developers Through Partner Versus Hiralal Gopalbhai 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 98
M/s Dilipkumar Chandulal Versus State of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 99
STATE OF GUJARAT Versus RAVAL DEEPAKKKUMAR SHANKERCHAND & 2 other(s) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 100
Shri Shakti Cotton Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commercial Tax Officer 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 101
Bahdurbhai Devarabhai Khavad Versus Dy. Executive Engineer,Surendranagar Jal Sinchan Sub Division & 1 Other(S) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 102
Shree Radhekrushna Ginning And Pressing Pvt. Ltd. Through Director Yash Pareshbhai Khachar Versus State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 103
1. Probate Shall Be Granted Only To An Executor Appointed By The Will: Gujarat High Court
Case Title: Mahendra Harilal Parekh vs Meenaben Hirenbhai Parekh
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 94
The Bench comprising Justice Ashokkumar Joshi of the Gujarat High Court has been hearing an Article 227 petition challenging the order of the Trial Judge pertaining to an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC.
The brief facts of the case were that the deceased mother of the Petitioners/Appellants was the owner of certain movable and immovable properties and had executed a will in 2013 in favour of the Petitioners/Appellants. Subsequent to the death of the mother, the Petitioners became owners of the properties and preferred an application seeking the probate of the will while the Trial Judge invited objections against the application.
The Respondent therein filed an objection against the issuance of probate in favour of the Petitioners. The Petitioners therefore preferred the application in question in 2016 seeking amendment of probate application praying for the replacement of the word Probate by Letter of Administration. This application was rejected and hence the petition was filed.
2. Fraudulent Claim of ITC, Revenue Interest is Protected by Attachment: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail
Case Title: Niraj Jaidev Arya Versus State of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 95
The Gujarat High Court bench of Justice Gita Gopi has granted bail to the accused of fraudulently availing the input tax credit (ITC) as the department has attached the immovable properties, which were much beyond the alleged GST evasion.
The applicant, a designated partner and managing director of "Utkarsh Ispat LLP," which is in the business of purchasing mild steel scrap and, thereafter, converting it into mild steel billet. The department conducted a search and seizure operation at the factory and office premises of the LLP and at the residence of the applicant on the ground that several purchase transactions had been made from fictitious entities.
3. Gujarat High Court Grants Interim Injunction On Immovable Property Based On 'Agreement To Sell'
Case Title: Gitaben Govindbhai Patel vs Rameshbhai Hirabhai Patel
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 96
The Gujarat High Court ordered interim injunction on an immovable property and restrained its owner from changing its status during the pendency of the suit, based on an agreement to sell arrived at between the parties.
The Bench comprising Justice AP Thaker observed,
"So far as the suit based on agreement to sell for specific performance of contract, even if that agreement to sell is not registered, same can be considered for collateral purpose... If there is contract of agreement to sell and the same is not refused by the defendant and further when legal notice has been issued to the defendant for purpose of that contract, if no injunction is granted in favour of the plaintiff, then, there might be multiplicity of litigation in case defendant transfers the property during the pendency of the litigation."
Case title - Mohsinkhan Muso Murajkhan v. Directorate General Of Police
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 97
Quashing a detention order passed u/s 3 (2) of the Prevention of Illicit Trafficking in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 [PITNDPS Act], the Gujarat High Court on Tuesday observed that simpliciter registration of FIR by itself cannot have any nexus with the breach of maintenance of public order.
With this, the Bench of Justice A. P. Thaker ALLOWED the plea moved by detenue Mohsinkhan and QUASHED the impugned order of detention (dated 29.11.2021) passed by the respondent – detaining.
Case Title: Chandra Darshan Developers Through Partner Versus Hiralal Gopalbhai
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 98
"The object of the interlocutory injunction, it is stated is to protect the plaintiff against injury by violation of his rights for which he could not adequately be compensated in damages recoverable in the action if the uncertainty were resolved in his favour at the trial", the Gujarat High Court has opined.
The Bench comprising Justice AP Thaker was considering an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) against the order passed by the Magistrate Court in a Special Civil Suit restricting the Defendants (Appellants, herein) from selling, transferring, mortgaging or passing any interest to third party in the suit property.
6. Dealer's GST Registration Can't Be Cancelled For Inadvertent Mistake Of CA: Gujarat High Court
Case Title: M/s Dilipkumar Chandulal Versus State of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 99
The Gujarat High Court bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Nisha M. Thakore has ruled that the dealer should not be forced to pay a hefty price for the cancellation of the GST registration for the chartered accountant's mistake.
The writ was against the the cancellation of the GST registration. The chartered accountant of the assessee wanted the HUF registration to be cancelled. Instead of inserting the registration number of the HUF, inadvertently, the CA inserted the registration number of the proprietorship. In such circumstances, the registration of the proprietary firm under the GST was cancelled.
Case Title: STATE OF GUJARAT Versus RAVAL DEEPAKKKUMAR SHANKERCHAND & 2 other(s)
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 100
The Gujarat High Court has reiterated that without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained.
"The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 IPC are: (i) the abetment; (ii) the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. The act of the accused, however, insulting the deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself, constitute the abetment of suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide."
Case Title: Shri Shakti Cotton Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commercial Tax Officer
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 101
The Gujarat High Court bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Nisha M. Thakore has condemned the act of the department for attaching the personal immovable properties of the director even though the tax dues were settled under the Tax Resolution Scheme.
The writ-petitioner/assessee, a company which is a taxable entity, has incurred liability towards the payment of tax under the provisions of the GVAT Act. The company incurred a liability in the year 2013. The company preferred an application under the "Vera Samadhan Yojana, 2019". An application was filed on November 6th, 2019. In accordance with the scheme, the company was required to pay an amount, and upon deposit of the amount, the interest to the tune of Rs.60,53,560 was waived. The company deposited the amount under the scheme and discharged its total liability.
Case Title: Bahdurbhai Devarabhai Khavad Versus Dy. Executive Engineer,Surendranagar Jal Sinchan Sub Division & 1 Other(S)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 102
Averring that there was no delay in making payment of pensionary benefits as alleged by the Appellants, the Gujarat High Court has refused to interfere in the Letters Patent Appeal seeking Respondent authorities to pay all the consequential pensionary benefits and 18% interest on delayed payment.
The Appellant herein had his services terminated against which he and other persons had filed a reference which was allowed. Accordingly, the Appellant was held to be entitled to similar benefits as another similarly placed daily wager. The Appellant had also approached the Court by way of Section 12 of Contempt of Courts Act wherein the Division Bench had observed:
"In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the respondents have not fully complied with the directions issued by this Court. As much as pensionary benefits are extended and received by the applicant, during the pendency of this application, we are of the view that it is not a fit case to be proceeded further under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971."
10. Distinction Between "Attachment Of Property" And "Charge Over Property": Gujarat High Court Explains
Case Title: Shree Radhekrushna Ginning And Pressing Pvt. Ltd. Through Director Yash Pareshbhai Khachar Versus State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 103
"Attachment creates no charge or lien upon the attached property. It merely prevents and avoids private alienations; it does not confer any title on the attaching creditors", the Gujarat High Court affirmed in a judgment.
Justice JB Pardiwala was hearing a writ application under Art 226 wherein the Applicant had prayed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus for the quashment of the order by Respondent No. 2 and thereby release the charge on the property of the Applicant
Other updates from High Court
A 36-year-old orphan lady from Surat, Kajal Manjula has moved a writ petition before the Gujarat High Court seeking a specific direction to the State Government authorities to issue her a special 'No Religion, No Caste' certificate.
The petitioner has sought this direction in the larger interest of justice as she has averred in her plea that Society as well as her family make her suffer a lot and therefore, she decided to get a Special 'No Religion, No Caste' Certificate.
Himachal Pradesh High Court
Case title - Rajesh Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (HP) 8
While upholding the conviction of a man under the POCSO Act for sexually assaulting a 12-year-old girl, the Himachal Pradesh High Court on Tuesday observed that it is not necessary that every bite, that too of a child of 12 years old who is trying to rescue herself from the clutches of 37 years old person, would cause injury, abrasion or teeth marks on the body of the accused.
Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh High Court
Case title - KHURSHID AHMAD DAR v. UNION TERRITORY OF J&K
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 14
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has observed that the Courts cannot make a declaration that a particular drug is a 'manufactured drug' or a 'psychotropic substance' under the NDPS Act. The Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar observed thus as it and that this is the job of the Government to take decisions over including a particular drug in the list of 'manufactured drugs' or 'psychotropic substances' under the NDPS Act. Under these circumstances, the Bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur held that the absence of external injury, abrasion of teeth marks on the body of the accused would be of no consequence and the same can't be the basis of acquittal of the accused.
Jharkhand High Court
Case Title: Exide Industries Limited Versus The State Of Jharkhand And Other
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 29
The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that Input Tax Credit can be denied on Inter-State sale or transfer of stock under Section 18(8)(ix) of the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 only when some manufacturing activity is undertaken by the assessee in the State. The Bench, consisting of Justices Aparesh Kumar Singh and Deepak Roshan, has held that in a taxing statue there is no room for intendment and therefore Section 18(8)(ix) cannot be stretched to cover persons who are not manufacturers so as to deny them Input Tax Credit under the Act.
Case Title: Narsingh Ispat Limited Vs Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 30
The Jharkhand High Court bench of Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice Deepak Roshan has ruled that if an assessee disputes the liability of interest, either disputes its calculation or the leviability of interest, then the only option left for the Assessing Officer is to initiate a proceeding either under Section 74 or 74 of the CGST Act for adjudication of the liability of interest. The petitioner/assessee challenged the Circular dated 10.02.2020 issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) which prescribes that interest payable on delayed payment of taxes can be recovered under the provisions of Section 79 read with Section 75 (12) of the JGST Act.
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 31
Case title - Amitabh Choudhary v. The State of Jharkhand and another
The Jharkhand High Court has observed that holding a public political meeting by a candidate of election, after coming into force of Model Code of Conduct followed by the issuance of prohibitory order under Section 144 Cr.P.C. of the aforesaid nature, would prima facie amount to formation of unlawful assembly. The Bench of Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary further clarified that the common object of such an assembly, prima facie, would be to act in violation of the prohibitory order issued under Section 144 Cr.
Karanataka High Court
Nominal Index:
State Of Karnataka v. Asif Rasoolsab Sanadi, 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 92
Muthanna Mapangada vThe State Of Karnataka, 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 93
S. Shyamala @ Kathyayani v. B. N. Mallikarjunaiah, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 94
Tanaji S/O Nayaku Nikam v. Bharati W/O Tanaji Nikam, 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 95
Irfan Pasha v State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 96
Mrs Dephny Gladys Lobo v. Asst Commissioner And President Senior Citizen Maintenance Tribunal, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 97
P.C.Padmamba v Channaveeramma R, 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 98
Rehan Khan v. Hon'ble Prime Minister of India, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 99
Judgments:
Case Title: State Of Karnataka v. Asif Rasoolsab Sanadi Case No:Crl.A.No.100190/2017
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 92
Observing that, "there is no reason for the victim girl to give false evidence against her own father," the Karnataka High Court recently set aside an acquittal order passed by the trial court and sentenced the accused to suffer 10 years rigorous imprisonment, for sexually assaulting his daughter when she was a minor.
A division bench of Justice H.T.Narendra Prasad and Justice Rajendra Badamikar noted that the victim must have undergone a lot of mental agony and shock by her father's act. It thus allowed the appeal filed by the prosecution and set aside the trial court judgement dated February 3, 2017, acquitting Asif Rasoolsab Sanadi.
Case Title: Muthanna Mapangada vThe State Of Karnataka, Case No: Writ Petition No.12880 Of 2021
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 93
The Karnataka High Court has permitted two aviation enthusiast/ certified pilots to fly microlight aircraft once a week in accordance with law, from the grass airstrip which they have built on their own lands in Kodagu district.
A division bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice S R Krishna Kumar while disposing of the petition filed by Muthanna Mapangada and Kudimada Somanna Subbayya, said, "Meanwhile, the petitioners shall be entitled to fly the subject Micro-light Aircraft strictly in accordance with law once a week till the matter is decided by the respondent No.6 (Director General Of Civil Aviation)."
Case Title: S. SHYAMALA @ KATHYAYANI v. B. N. MALLIKARJUNAIAH Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.3352/2016
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 94
The Karnataka High Court has said that merely for the reason that the wife was demanding a separate house and that she was in the habit of leaving the matrimonial house and going to her sister's and parents' house, the same cannot be termed as "cruelty" for the purpose of seeking a decree of divorce by the husband.
Case Title: Tanaji S/O Nayaku Nikam v. Bharati W/O Tanaji Nikam Case No: Regular First Appeal No.100256/2015
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 95
The Karnataka High Court has said that in absence of a specific pleading made by the defendants to a suit before the trial court that properties in the suit were self acquired, it is presumed that such properties acquired subsequently are with the aid of joint family properties and as such they acquire the character of joint family.
A division bench of Justice H.T.Narendra Prasad and Justice Rajendra Badamikar said, "When there is no specific plea in the written statement, presumption is that, the properties acquired subsequently are with the aid of the joint family properties and as such, they acquire the character of joint family itself."
Case Title: Irfan Pasha v State of Karnataka Case No: Criminal Appeal no 755/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 96
The Karnataka High Court has said that an order passed by the Special Court on an application filed under section 20 of the National Investigation Agency Act, seeking to transfer the case from the special court, is an interlocutory order and the same cannot be challenged in appeal under section 21 of the Act, before the High Court.
A full bench comprising of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi, Justice B Veerappa and Justice P Krishna Bhat while deciding on a reference said, "An interlocutory application rejected by the Special Court vide order dated 22.02.2021 would not give rise to filing of an appeal under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008."
6: Only 'Indian Citizens' Can Initiate Proceedings Under Senior Citizens Act: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: MRS DEPHNY GLADYS LOBO v. ASST COMMISSIONER AND PRESIDENT SENIOR CITIZEN MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL, Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.6720/2016
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 97
The Karnataka High Court has held that only 'Indian Citizens' can initiate proceedings under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
A Single Judge bench of Justice P. Krishna Bhat said, "It is evident that one of the essential elements for being designated a 'Senior Citizen' for the purposes of the Act is the person being an Indian citizen."
Case Title: P.C.Padmamba v Channaveeramma R Case No: R.S.A. No.5/2017
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 98
The Karnataka High Court has said that the power conferred on the registering officer under the Registration Act is fundamentally to enable him to satisfy himself about the identity of the person who has presented the document and enquire with him as to whether he has executed the document so presented by him and this power cannot be enlarged by examining the witnesses, scribe etc.
8. Karnataka High Court Rejects Plea To Award Bharat Ratna Award To Late Seer Shivakumara Swami
Case Title: Rehan Khan v. Hon'ble Prime Minister of India Case No: WP 139/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 99
The Karnataka High Court on Friday dismissed a public interest litigation filed by one Rehan Khan, seeking a direction be issued to the Prime Minister of India through its Principal Secretary to consider the representation made by him for conferring Bharat Ratna award on late Dr Sri Sri Shivakumara Swami.
Other reports:
Case Title: High Court Legal Services Committee v. State Of Karnataka
Case No: WP 18628/2019
The Karnataka High Court on Monday directed the state government to take appropriate steps to establish goshalas in the lands identified by it in each district of the state, for the welfare of stray animals. The court also directed the government to file a status report on the work carried out in this regard by the next date of hearing.
A division bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice S R Krishna Kumar was informed by the government that it has identified lands and allocated money for establishing goshalas in each district. A compliance report was submitted to the court.
Case Title: Adinarayan Shetty v. State Of Karnataka
Case No: WP 13605/2021
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday suggested M/S Simplex Infrastructures Ltd to file an undertaking in court by Monday indicating that it would complete the four-lane Ejipura-Kendriya Sadana flyover in the Koramangala area of Bengaluru in a time bound manner.
A division bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice S R Krishan Kumar said, "Considering the facts that in case a new agency is engaged in completing the remaining work of the project flyover and the process involved in engaging new agency which may delay the project and also considering the requirement of completion of project in public interest. We permit the Respondent 4 (M/S Simplex Infrastructures Ltd) to file an affidavit giving undertaking to complete the project within a time bound manner."
Case Title: Vasudeva Reddy v. B.S. Yediyurappa
Case No: PCR No. 51 / 2013
A Special Court in Bengaluru, has ordered the registration of a criminal case under provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, against former Chief Minister of the state BS Yediyurappa, in connection with a land denotification case pertaining to the 2006-07 period when Yediyurappa was the Deputy Chief Minister.
Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge B. Jayantha Kumar, dealing exclusively with criminal cases related to elected representatives, in its order dated March 26 said, "Register a Special Criminal Case against the accused No.2 Sri B.S.Yeddyurappa for the offence punishable under Sec.13(1)(d) R/w Sec.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Issue summons to accused No.2 for his attendance only after filing of list of witnesses as required under Sec.204(2) Cr.P.C and the process fee is paid."
4. Karnataka Court Orders Probe Against Minister KS Eshwarappa For Alleged Hate Speech, Sedition
Case Title: Riyaz Ahamed v. K.S.Eshwarappa
Case No: PCR.No.5716/2022
A Special Magistrate's Court in Bengaluru on Wednesday issued a direction under section 156(3) of CrPC, directing the local Police to investigate a private complaint filed against State Minister of Rural Development, KS Eshwarappa, alleging offence of Sedition and promoting religious enmity. The complaint also names one Chenny @ Channabasappa as an accused.
Kerala High Court
Nominal Index [Citations 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 149 - 159]
Chandra Choodan Nair S. v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 149
M.V. Chackochan & Ors v. Union of India & Ors. & connected matters., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 150
Sulaiman v. State of Kerala & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 151
Suo motu v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 152
Sunil N.S v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 153
Nair Service Society v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 154
Udaya Sounds v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 155
K.A John & Anr v. State of Kerala & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 156
Nisha Haneefa v. Abdul Latheef & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 157
Leelamma Eapen v. District Magistrate & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 158
Vijayakumar v State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 159
Judgments This Week
1. Govt Servants Can't Participate In Any Strike; Absence From Work 'Dies Non': Kerala High Court
Case Title: Chandra Choodan Nair S. v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 149
The High Court barred the government employees from participating in the ongoing two-day nationwide strike organised by the National Convention of Workers against the policies of the Centre while directing the State to declare dies non on the protest days. It declared that the participation of government servants in the ongoing two-day strike is 'illegal'. A Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P Chaly directed the State to issue directions prohibiting the same while adding that no government servant shall participate in the strike as it was against Rule 86 of the Kerala Government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1960.
Case Title: M.V. Chackochan & Ors v. Union of India & Ors. & connected matters.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 150
The Court held that the State government was justified in acquiring land in furtherance of its K-Rail SilverLine Project invoking provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (LARR Act). Justice N. Nagaresh observed that the Railways Act, 1989 would not apply to this case since the Silver Line Project was not yet declared as a Special Railway Project by the Centre.
Case Title: Sulaiman v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 151
The Court recently ruled that one cannot prefer an appeal under provide to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against a trial court's order, challenging the adequacy of sentence imposed upon the convict. Observing so, a Division Bench of Justice K. Vinod Chandran and C. Jayachandran dismissed a criminal appeal adding that such an appeal can only be preferred by the State under Section 377 of CrPC.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 152
The Court refused to interfere with a long-standing ritual at the Sree Poornathrayeesa Temple, Thripunithara, where the temple tantri washes the feet of 12 priests. A Division Bench of Justice Anil K Narendran and Justice P.G Ajithkumar had taken suo motu cognisance of a news report alleging that in the said Temple, devotees were made to wash the feet of 12 brahmins for the atonement of their sins. However, upon verifying, it was brought out that the news report was incorrect.
5. Actor Sexual Assault Case | Kerala High Court Denies Bail To Prime Accused Pulsar Suni
Case Title: Sunil N.S v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 153
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday declined to grant regular bail to Pulsar Suni, the prime accused in the sensational 2017 sexual assault case where a prominent actress was abducted and raped in a moving vehicle pursuant to a conspiracy. Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan rejected the application noting that bail cannot be granted at this stage. It will convey a wrong signal to the society, the Court said.
Case Title: Nair Service Society v. State of Kerala & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 154
The Court disposed of the plea filed by Nair Service Society seeking the implementation of the comprehensive survey suggested by the Justice AV Ramakrishna Pilla Commission to ascertain the economically weaker sections (EWS) in the State who are eligible for 10% reservation as per the 103rd Constitutional amendment. Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan disposed of the petition after the State submitted that owing to its financial state and the aftermath of the Covid pandemic, it was not in a position to implement the said recommendation for a comprehensive survey.
Case Title: Udaya Sounds v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 155
The Court has ruled that the income tax department is not authorized to retain the title deeds seized by them under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act on the ground that a Special Leave Petition filed by the Assessee against the assessment order is pending before the Supreme Court. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas held that since the Income Tax Act confers the tax authorities the power to retain seized documents beyond the assessment order only till proceedings under the Act are completed, therefore documents seized by the department cannot be retained by them on the ground of pendency of Special Leave Petition (SLP) since an SLP filed under Article 136 of the Constitution of India cannot be regarded as a proceeding under the Income Tax Act.
Case Title: KA John & Anr v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 156
The Court dismissed an appeal moved by Orthodox parishioners against a single-judge order that refused to intervene in the consecration of new catholicos of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church without canonically inviting the Patriarch of Antioch. A Division Bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Sophy Thomas refused to interfere with the impugned order noting that there exists no pubic law element in the issue of the consecration process.
9. Family Courts Not To Remain A Neutral Umpire, Can Order Enquiry To Find Out Truth: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Nisha Haneefa v. Abdul Latheef & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 157
In a significant decision, the Court has issued a few observations regarding the foundational function of the Family Courts in India, while asserting that a Family Court is not the mirror of an ordinary Civil Court and that it is empowered with inquisitorial powers as well. A Division Bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Sophy Thomas observed that the presiding officer of a Family Court was not expected to remain a neutral umpire while resolving disputes, but was empowered to find out the truth by utilising a fair approach.
Case Title: Leelamma Eapen v. District Magistrate & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 158
The Court has ruled that the power of the Maintenance Tribunal under the Senior Citizens Act is not circumscribed to mere ordering of monthly allowance for the maintenance of senior citizens where their children/relatives refuse to maintain them but to ensure maintenance from their own earnings to lead a dignified life. Justice Murali Purushothaman held that the Maintenance Tribunal has the jurisdiction and powers to issue directions to the children or relative not to deprive the senior citizen of their earnings so that they can maintain themself.
Case Title: Vijayakumar v State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 159
The Court has quashed the proceedings initiated against a Notary Public who is the 5th accused in the murder of Roy Thomas, one of the series of murders popularly known as the 'Koodathayi murder case' where six members of a family were killed over a span of 17 years by administering cyanide in their food. The petitioner was accused of attesting a forged will deed executed by the deceased's father, thereby joining the criminal conspiracy with the other accused persons.
Other Developments
Case Title: Muralikrishnan v. State of Kerala & connected matters
The Court reprimanded the State government over how it was progressing with the survey in furtherance of its K-Rail Silver Line project and directed it to justify the manner in which the survey stones were being installed by its instrumentalities. Justice Devan Ramachandran raised concern over the ongoing Social Impact Assessment that the authorities were conducting in many parts of the State by installing yellow boundary stones marked K-Rail on them.
Also Read: 'Why Concrete Poles Engraved With 'K-Rail' Used Instead Of Ordinary Survey Stones?' Kerala High Court Raises Further Queries On SilverLine
Case Title: M.K. Uthaman v. State of Kerala
The Court has declined to grant interim relief in the plea challenging the constitutionality of the Kerala Maritime Board (Amendment) Ordinance, 2022. Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan noted that since only one of the Board members had raised a grievance, the matter could be decided after the vacation while adding that a stay was not necessary for the meantime since the Board was not in existence yet.
Case Title: Suma Devi v. S. Sherla Beegam
Pathanamthitta Municipal Corporation Secretary Sherla Beegam was arrested and produced before the Court in a contempt case for her failure to appear before the court despite being summoned several times. After she was produced, Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan asked her not to repeat this behaviour in the future and to seek an appeal or review if she was not content with the order passed in the case instead of refusing to cooperate with the Court proceedings.
15. Kerala High Court Reserves Order In Dileep's Plea To Quash FIR In Murder Conspiracy Case
Case Title: P. Gopalakrishnan @ Dileep & Ors v. State of Kerala & Anr.
The Court reserved orders in the plea moved by Dileep to quash the FIR filed by the Crime Branch of Kerala Police against him and five others for conspiring to murder the investigation officials in the 2017 actor rape case, in which Dileep is facing trial as the chief conspirator. Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A extensively heard all the parties in detail over a period of three days before reserving verdict in the case. The Judge said that the order will be delivered within a week. The prosecution has undertaken not to file the final report in this case before that.
16. Nun Rape Case : State Moves Kerala High Court Challenging Bishop Franco Mulakkal's Acquittal
Case Title: State of Kerala v. Bishop Franco Mulakkal
In a much-anticipated move, the State has filed an appeal against the decision of the Additional District and Sessions Court acquitting Bishop Franco Mulakkal of the Catholic Church in the nun rape case. The Additional District and Sessions Court in Kottayam had in January acquitted Mulakkal in the case finding the survivor's testimony to be unreliable.
Case Title: State of Kerala v. Devipriya & Ors.
The State government argued before the Court that the concerned pink police officer who harassed a minor girl and her father last year should pay the compensation ordered by the Single Judge. (Pink police is a special women protection squad of Kerala police). The said officer was found guilty of having harassed them in public gaze casting accusations of theft on the duo and the video of the incident had also garnered public attention.
Case Title: XXX v. Union of India
The High Court came across another plea moved by a sexually abused minor girl seeking permission to undergo medical termination of her over 26-week old pregnancy. Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan disposed of the plea moved by the girl's mother. The Court noted that since the medical report stated that the fetus is 26 weeks of gestational age, free from congenital anomalies with high chances of survival, it was not in a position to order the termination of pregnancy.
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Prahlad Singh Parmar Vs. State of MP and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 85
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior Bench recently held that the power of Juvenile Justice Board to grant bail under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 ("the Act") does not require a preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the JJ Act. Justice G.S. Ahluwalia was essentially dealing with a criminal revision under Section 102 of the Act, wherein the Applicant was challenging the order passed by the JJB, whereby it granted bail under Section 12 of the Act to a child alleged to be in conflict with law.
Case Title : Rajnish Kumar Tiwari V The State Of Madhya Pradesh and ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 86
The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently set aside an order of preventive detention on the ground that the detenu was not given an opportunity to submit a representation before the detaining authority, which was in violation of his fundamental rights under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.The division bench of Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice M.S. Bhatti was essentially dealing with a writ petition filed by the Petitioner, wherein he was seeking directions of the Court to quash the order of his detention, passed by the District Magistrate pursuant to his power under Section 3 of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980.
Case Title :Kanak Kumar Shrivastava V The Registrar General And Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 87
The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently upheld its decision of not interfering with the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, directing compulsory retirement of a court reader as punishment for taking bribe of Rs. 10. The division bench of Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice M.S. Bhatti was essentially dealing with a writ petition filed by the Petitioner seeking direction of the Court to quash the impugned orders of his punishment and arrears for the period of his suspension.
Case Title: VISHAL KUSHWAHA v. MRS. RAGINI KUSHWAHA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 88
The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently held that the period of one year of living in separation is a must to the filing of an application for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act and that waiver of this period under Section 14 of the Act is not permissible. The division bench of Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice D.K. Paliwal was dealing with first appeal under Section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 preferred by the Appellant/husband against the order of the lower court, whereby the application for mutual divorce of the Appellant and his wife under Section 13B of the Act was rejected.
Case Title: PRIVATE PARAMEDICAL COLLEGES WELFARE ASSOCIATION v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 89
Dismissing a PIL, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh recently imposed cost of Rs 1 Lakh on the Petitioner, observing that 'the provisions of public interest litigation were misused'. It further held that 'in the guise of preventing criminal action, no public interest litigation would lie The division bench of Chief Justice Ravi Malimath and Justice P.K. Kaurav was essentially dealing with a writ petition filed in the nature of a PIL by an Association of Medical Colleges.
Case Title :Pahalwan Singh Vs State Of Madhya Pradesh & Another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 90
The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently allowed an application to recall Prosecutrix in a rape case for re-examination, corollary to 'material development' in the matter. She had filed an affidavit before the Court in support of the Applicant/accused in his bail application, stating that he had not committed any crime upon her and that she would not object to him being enlarged on bail.
Meghalaya High Court
Nominal Index:
1. Benedic R. Marak v. State of Meghalaya & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Meg) 1
2. Megha Technical & Engineers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Meghalaya & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Meg) 2
3. Sanjeeb Ch. Marak v. State of Meghalaya & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Meg) 3
4. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Shillong Regional Unit, Shillong v. Shri Ajay Babu Manda 2022 LiveLaw (Meg) 4
5. Shri Delican Shadap & Anr. v. Smti. Dal Nongtri & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Meg) 5
6. Cheerfulson Snaitang v. State of Meghalaya 2022 LiveLaw (Meg) 6
7. M/s Saj Food Products Pvt. Ltd. Versus State of Meghalaya & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Meg) 7
8. Miss Bisakha Geonka v. North Eastern Indira Gandhi Regional Institute of Health & Medical Sciences & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Meg) 8
9. Union of India & Ors. v. Dharamvir Singh 2022 LiveLaw (Meg) 9
10. North Eastern Indira Gandhi Regional Institution of Health and Medical Sciences & Anr. v. Bisakha Goenka 2022 LiveLaw (Meg) 10
11. Shri. Skhemborlang Suting & Anr. v. State of Meghalaya & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Meg) 11
12. Morningstar Nongsiej v. State of Meghalaya 2022 LiveLaw (Meg) 12
Digest Of Cases Reported:
Case Title: Benedic R. Marak v. State of Meghalaya & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Meg) 1
The High Court refused to interfere with a notice issued by the Governor of Meghalaya under Rule 36(5) of the Assam and Meghalaya Autonomous Districts (Constitution of District Councils) Rules, 1951, whereby the District Council had been summoned to take up a no-confidence motion against the Executive Committee of the Garo Hills Autonomous District Council. Stressing upon the need to urgently conduct a floor test, Justice H.S. Thangkhiew observed:
"It has to be kept in mind that the District Council as constituted under the Sixth Schedule is a democratic legislative institution apart from other functions, wherein members are elected, and to prove majority or strength in the house in such institutions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a number of decisions has consistently held that in the event of conflicting alliances or claims, a floor test can be directed to avoid uncertainty and to ensure smooth running of a democratic institution which would in turn ensure stability."
Case Title: Megha Technical & Engineers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Meghalaya & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Meg) 2
The High Court has nullified the Meghalaya Cement Cess Act, 2010, holding it to be arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional. While rebuking the State for irrationally raising revenue through the legislation, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice W. Diengdoh held that the principle is too well established to be questioned. Yet, it will not do for a State in a constitutional republic wedded to the rule of law to suggest that it may indulge in arbitrary or irrational or illegal generation of funds without being liable to return the same upon the Court finding the process to be illegal.
Case Title: Sanjeeb Ch. Marak v. State of Meghalaya & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Meg) 3
The High Court upheld the removal (sans inquiry) of a member of the State Police Force who was found passing on information pertaining to police operations and movements to a banned and extremist outfit by the name of Garo National Liberation Army. Finding justification in the move to remove him from service without giving him an opportunity to defend the charges levelled against him, the Bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice W. Diengdoh observed,
"When a member of the police force was found betraying his own force and supplying information to an extremist outfit that the police organisation was trying to deal with, it was justifiable on the part of the disciplinary authority to consider it to be not reasonably practicable to afford the writ petitioner an opportunity of dealing with the charge against him in the course of any inquiry."
Case Title: Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Shillong Regional Unit, Shillong v. Shri Ajay Babu Manda
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Meg) 4
A Single Judge Bench of Justice W. Diengdoh has held that Magistrate cannot employ his power under Sections 451/457, Cr.P.C. when trial or inquiry has not been set in motion. Sections 451 and 457 deal with an order for custody and disposal of property pending trial and procedure by police upon seizure of property respectively. While setting aside the order of the Magistrate under such Sections, observed,
"…at the time of passing of the original impugned order, the matter was still under investigation by the Customs officials and the stage of prosecution has not yet commenced as evident from the fact that the relevant sanction for prosecution by the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs have not yet been issued to enable the Court to take cognizance of the offence. Therefore, the learned Magistrate in the absence of a trial or inquiry could not have passed the said impugned order under Section 451/457 Cr.P.C."
Case Title: Shri Delican Shadap & Anr. v. Smti. Dal Nongtri & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Meg) 5
The Court held that a plaintiff may file application under Section 151 read with Order XX Rule 6A, where suit filed by him is conclusively decided but no formal decree was drawn to that effect. The Single Judge Bench of Justice H.S. Thangkhiew relied on the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Sir Sobha Singh and Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Shashi Mohan Kapur (Deceased), wherein it was ruled that so long as the formal decree is not passed, the order was to be treated as a decree during the interregnum period by virtue of Order XX Rule 6A(2) of the Code. In other words, notwithstanding the fact that the decree had not been passed, yet by virtue of principle underlined in Order XX Rule 6A(2) of the Code, the order had the effect of a decree till the date of actual passing of the decree by the Court for the purposes of execution or for any other purpose. This empowered the Executing Court to entertain the execution application and decide the objections raised by the respondent on merits.
Case Title: Cheerfulson Snaitang v. State of Meghalaya
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Meg) 6
A Division Bench of the High Court comprising of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice W. Diengdoh held that rubbing male organ on vagina or urethra of prosecutrix despite she wearing her underpants, would still amount to penetration for the purpose of Section 375(b), IPC. Further it observed, penetration for the purpose of Section 375 of the Penal Code does not have to be complete. Any element of penetration would suffice for the purpose of the relevant provision. Section 375(b) of the Penal Code recognises that insertion, to any extent, of any object into the vagina or urethra would amount to rape. Accordingly, even if it be accepted that the appellant herein forced his organ into the vagina or urethra of the victim despite the victim wearing her underpants, it would still amount to penetration for the purpose of Section 375(b) of the Penal Code.
Case Title: M/s Saj Food Products Pvt. Ltd. Versus State of Meghalaya & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Meg) 7
A Division Bench of the High Court, consisting of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice W. Diengdoh, ruled that rusk is not bread and the Value Added Tax (VAT) exemption available to bread in the state of Meghalaya must not be extended to rusk. The Court relied upon Vasantham Foundry v. Union of India & Ors., wherein the Supreme Court held that cast iron casting could not be regarded as cast iron since the manufactured cast iron was subjected to a further process of manufacture to be converted into cast iron castings, similarly in the present case, the same ingredients that go into the manufacture of bread may, doubtlessly, be used by the petitioner, but upon such bread being manufactured by the petitioner, the petitioner subjects such bread to a further process of manufacturing activity to arrive at its finished product of rusk. Quite obviously, some value is added to bread to make it into rusk, and that would attract VAT.
Case Title: Miss Bisakha Geonka v. North Eastern Indira Gandhi Regional Institute of Health & Medical Sciences & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Meg) 8
The High Court came to the rescue of a National Eligibility Cum Entrance Test (NEET) candidate who missed her counselling because e-counselling invitation mail was delivered in the spam folder of her e-mail. While allowing the writ petition, a Single Judge Bench of Justice H.S. Thangkhiew observed,
"In this age of technology and in the prevalent COVID situation, a lot of such lapses have occurred especially when it concerns matters like these which involves communication through digital platforms. It is undisputed that the petitioner as per the merit list for the second counselling was placed at No. 4, and as such was assured of a seat for the MBBS Course, had she attended the counselling as scheduled, but however, due to the situation that had prevented her from appearing for the e-counselling, she is at risk of being deprived of a seat to pursue the MBBS Course."
Case Title: Union of India & Ors. v. Dharamvir Singh
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Meg) 9
A Division Bench of the High Court comprising of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice W. Diengdoh ruled that 'disciplinary proceedings' should be sparingly quashed in their entirety, only when the 'show-cause notice' leading to such proceedings is bad. In other words, they should only be quashed in their entirety, when the proceedings were bad ab initio. The Bench held that judicial precedents instruct that it is a tall order for a show-cause notice to be quashed, just like an FIR may be quashed only in the rare case when no ingredients of any offence is made out therein.
Case Title: North Eastern Indira Gandhi Regional Institution of Health and Medical Sciences & Anr. v. Bisakha Goenka
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Meg) 10
In an interesting development, a Division Bench of the High Court, comprising of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice W. Diengdoh, has conditionally affirmed the decision of the Single Judge, who had provided relief to a National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) candidate, whose initial e-counselling invitation mail was delivered in her 'spam box'. It observed that there was an element of discretion available to the writ court, considering the peculiar facts of this case; and, though the fundamental principle that ought to have guided the writ court was that upon a default being committed by a candidate, whatever be the circumstances, the consequences of the default must rest with the candidate, since the last placed candidate among the remaining four in this case, quite fortuitously, did not accept the seat, a window opened up for the writ petitioner which has been offered by the writ court in exercise of its discretion. In the circumstances in which the discretion has been exercised, it cannot be said to be perverse.
It concluded that though it does not appear that any right vested in any waitlisted candidate has been prejudiced as a result of the impugned order; however, if any of them lodges a challenge and succeeds, the consequences have to be borne by the writ petitioner. To such extent, the writ petitioner's admission, if at all, was held to be provisional for a period of six months.
Case Title: Shri. Skhemborlang Suting & Anr. v. State of Meghalaya & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Meg) 11
A Single Judge Bench of Justice W. Diengdoh quashed an FIR and criminal proceedings in a POCSO case registered against a man as it noted that the accused man and victim-wife were living with each other as husband and wife and out of the said union, a child was born. The Bench, however, stressed that such cases of consensual or voluntary sexual intercourse with an underage girl by an adult man while they are living as husband and where the wife gives birth to a child, are complex. Further, the Court noted that being a child and not capable of giving consent, the act of sexual contact made by the husband-accused was contemplated to be punished as aggravated penetrative sexual assault. However, the Court further opined that the act committed under the circumstances of the instant case cannot be called or termed in any logical or rational sense as a case of assault as there was no threat or attempt to inflict offensive physical contact or bodily harm on the girl has been made out.
Case Title: Morningstar Nongsiej v. State of Meghalaya
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Meg) 12
The High Court held that the expression "came on top of me" must be construed as a euphemism for commission of 'penetrative sexual assault'. A Division Bench Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice W. Diengdoh observed that the statement of the victim recorded in course of her deposition at the trial must be seen in the milieu of how a woman in this country, particularly a girl child, would be intimidated in the foreign and suffocating atmosphere of a court and in the presence of rank strangers to describe how she had been violated. Thus, the expression, "came on top of me" must be seen to be a euphemism for the offender having violated her in the sense of having committed penetrative sexual assault.
Orissa High Court
Case Title: Asutosh Amrit Patnaik v. State of Orissa & Ors.
Case Citation:2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 37
The Orissa High Court has held that mere pendency of criminal cases cannot be the sole ground to deny renewal of passport of a person. A Single Judge Bench of Justice Biswanath Rath observed,
"…in the opinion of this Court there is in fact no restriction in the renewal of the passport or even grant of passport in the pendency of the criminal proceeding involving the party concerned which may be a time based renewal or grant."
Punjab and Haryana High Court
Case Title : Amit Sureshmal Lodha v State of Haryana
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 47
Punjab and Haryana High Court recently permitted an Overseas Indian citizen, booked for offences of Cheating and Criminal breach of trust by the Reawri Police, to visit the United States of America for a family reunion. The bench comprising Justice Vikas Bahl held that the petitioner has a fundamental right to travel abroad, which can be regulated by imposing certain conditions on him. It observed that the Court is required to "draw a balance" between the right of the petitioner to travel abroad on one hand and the right of the prosecution on another.
Case title - Shailabh Mendiratta v. State Of Haryana And Anr
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 48
The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently quashed an FIR against a man who had been booked under Sections 386 [Extortion by putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt] & 506 [Punishment for criminal intimidation] IPC for allegedly sending a WhatsApp message to the complainant using the term 'straight shooter' to extort money. The Bench of Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal concluded that the WhatsApp message containing the term 'straight shooter' didn't indicate that the complainant was put in fear of injury, or there was any inducement to deliver property or valuable security by the Accused.
Case Title: Smt. Khazani Devi Versus The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court & others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 49
Punjab and Haryana High Court has reiterated that in the absence of any prescribed limitation, it has to be a reasonable time within which the party aggrieved has to approach the court. The Court was dealing with a petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned award dated 20.09.2012 wherein the termination of service of the husband of the petitioner was answered against him by the Labour Court.
Case title - Sunil Kumar Gulati v. State of Punjab and another
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 50
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed that at the stage of filing an application by the prosecution to obtain the voice sample of the accused for the purposes of further investigation, the production of a certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act is not necessary. The Bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan observes thus as it relied upon the ruling of Arjun Pandit Rao Khotkar Vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and others (2020) 7 SCC 1, wherein it was held by the Apex Court that Section 65-B (4) of the Act does not mention the stage of furnishing the certificate.
Case Title: M/s Paras Ram Milkhi Ram versus Sudarshan Tea. Pvt. Ltd. and Another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 51
Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that Summons by registered post acknowledgment due cannot directly be sent by the Court where the suit is instituted to a defendant residing outside its jurisdiction The bench comprising Justice Alka Sarin held,
"where the defendant resides outside the jurisdiction of the Court in which the suit is instituted and the Court directs that summons on such a defendant be served by registered post acknowledgement due, such summons have to be first sent to the Court having jurisdiction where the defendant resides and that Court would thereupon proceed to serve the defendant as if the summons were issued by that Court."
Case Title : Pt. B.D. Sharma University of Health and Sciences v Kavita and others
Citation:2022 LiveLaw (PH) 52
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the plea of violation of principles of natural justice is not entitled to be accepted by the courts unless, it is shown in the facts and circumstances of a case that rights of a party have been prejudicially affected.
"If the facts are such that only one result is possible then even if principles of natural justice have been violated the Court will ignore the same," Justice Sudhir Mittal observed.
Case title - Aman Lohan and others v. State of Haryana and others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 53
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that heinous offences such as attempt to murder punishable under 307 IPC is not compoundable between parties merely by stating that they have entered into a compromise and want to live in brotherhood, peace, and harmony. The bench of Justice Anoop Chitkara further held that without the background of friendship, the closeness of family, strong bonds, or being in relations, the explanation that 'parties want to live in brotherhood, peace, and harmony' is meaningless to permit compounding of a heinous offence punishable under section 307 IPC.
Case Title : Ravi Parkash Sharma v State of Punjab
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 54
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that directions to take voice sample of accused does not infringe his/her rights under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. The bench comprising Justice Avneesh Jhingan dismissed the petition, challenging the Lower Court's order which directed the Petitioner-accused to give his voice sample. It observed that the infringement of the fundamental right to privacy cannot be raised to create a bubble to scuttle the investigation.
Rajasthan High Court
1. Non-Availability Of Form GST ITC-02A On GSTN Portal: Rajasthan High Court Allows ITC In GSTR-3B
Case Title: Pacific Industries Ltd. Versus Union Of India | D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12190/2019
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 113
The Rajasthan High Court bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani has allowed the Input Tax Credit (ITC) under GST in GSTR-3B Return as FORM GST ITC-02A was not available on the GSTN Portal at the time of its insertion. The petitioner, a registered dealer under the GST regime, with two industrial units registered in Udaipur. The Union of India prescribed Form GST ITC-02A under the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 which had to be uploaded on the GSTN Portal through which, unutilised input tax credit was permitted to be transferred to a newly registered unit of the assessee within the same state. The State of Rajasthan has also prescribed the Form GST ITC-02A by amending the Rules of 2017.
2. Administrative Committee Of Rajasthan High Court Says 'No Need' To Use A4 Size Paper
Case Title: Lakshya Purohit v. Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 114
The Rajasthan High Court has disposed of a public interest litigation seeking directions for usage of A4 size papers for judicial filings and other court proceedings. The division bench of Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani and Justice Sandeep Mehta took note of the decision taken on High Court's administrative side that the present regime may continue and no change is needed. Presently, the High Court follows General Rules (Civil and Criminal), 2018 which provides that all pleadings, applications, petitions and any other relevant paper of whatsoever nature filed in the course of judicial proceedings shall be printed in double space on stout durable papers of "foolscap size".
Case Title: Pratap Singh Shekhawat v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 115
The Rajasthan High Court has refused to hear a public interest litigation against alleged illegal religious conversions and erection of unauthorized religious structures in the Ganganagr city, stating that it cannot decide disputed questions of facts in writ jurisdiction. The Bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani however granted liberty to the Petitioners to raise their grievance before the competent authorities.
