High Courts Weekly Roundup [March 29 - April 4, 2021]

Allahabad High Court 1. Delay- "Rip Van Winkles Have a Place in Literature, But Not in Law": Allahabad High Court [Ganga Sahay & Ors. v. Deputy Director of Consolidation & Ors.] A Single Bench comprising of Justice Ajay Bhanot observed that the rule of delay and laches, as a policy of litigative repose, creates certainty in legal relations and curtails fruitless litigation thereby ensuring that the administration of justice is not clogged by pointless litigation. The observation was made while dismissing a writ petition filed after a delay of more than 4 years, by observing it to be barred by the rule of delay and laches, without there being any satisfactory explanation as to the delay. 2. Parents Being Harassed Via SMS To Pay School Fees, Even For Lockdown Duration: Plea Alleges Before Allahabad High Court Whereas the Uttar Pradesh Government is yet to respond to a query put by Allahabad High Court regarding regulation of school fees during suspension of physical classes, yet another PIL has been filed challenging exorbitant and arbitrary levy of fees by private schools in the State. The plea has been filed by members of the Parents Association in Moradabad, alleging that the parents and the children are constantly being harassed by private schools via SMS and Whatsapp messages, to pay arbitrary and exorbitant school fees for the session of 2020-2021, even for the duration the schools were closed and no services were provided, during the nationwide lockdowns. Bombay High Court 1. DRT Cannot Adjudicate Civil Rights Claimed Vis-a-Vis Security Interest Which Are Outside Sec 13/17 SARFAESI : Bombay High Court [Bank of Baroda v. Gopal Shriram Panda & Anr.] A division bench comprising Justices SB Shurke and Avinash G Gharote resolved the issue of the jurisdiction of the civil courts vis-a-vis the Debts Recovery Tribunal with respect to the security interest under the SARFAESI Act. It held that the bar under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, is not absolute, but is restricted to examination by the DRT of the actions of the secured creditor under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act and the rights available under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. DRT cannot embark on an adjudication of the civil rights claimed vis-a-vis the security interest, such as right of partition, specific performance, reliefs under Sections 31 and 34 of the Specific Relief Act, pre-emption, redemption, declaration in respect of a property. Access full report to read a list of findings 2. "Such Petitions Are Filed For Cheap Publicity" – Bombay High Court Pulls Up Petitioner Over Plea Seeking Probe Against Param Bir Singh And Anil Deshmukh A Division Bench headed by Justice SS Shinde observed that prima facie the petition filed by practising advocate Dr Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil seeking a CBI inquiry into allegations of corruption against State Home Minister Anil Deshmukh and others are done for "cheap publicity." The bench came down heavily on Patil the moment the hearing began, citing a shoddily drafted petition. "You say you are a doctorate in criminology but please show us a single paragraph drafted by you. Your entire petition is based on extracting paragraphs from a letter," the bench observed. It added that the contents of Patil's petition were primarily based on the letter former Mumbai Police Commissioner Param Bir Singh has written to the Chief Minister of Maharashtra Uddhav Thackeray, making serious allegations of corruption against the State Home Minister Anil Deshmukh. 3. Maharashtra Government Notifies Appellate Authorities Under POSH Act After Filing Of Art. 226 Petition Before Bombay High Court [Dasharath Kallappa Bhosale v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.] Over seven years after coming into force of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act and Rules in 2013, the Maharashtra Government yesterday issued a notification appointing the Appellate Authority under the Act. The Industries, Energy and Labour Department of the State appointed "Industrial Courts", constituted under section 10 of the Maharashtra Industrial Relations Act, 1947, as the Appellate Authority under the POSH Act in respect of Industrial Establishments that fall under State jurisdiction. The development comes in response to a writ petition filed by a Pune based educationist, accused of sexually harassing an employee at the school where he is a member of the Managing Committee. Advocate Dr. Chinmay Bhosale appearing for the Petitioner informed the High Court that the Petitioner was held guilty of the alleged misdeeds by a Local Complaints Committee, Pune and the former wished to challenge the conviction order. However, in the absence of an appropriate notified appellate authority under section 2(a) of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 [as per the provisions of Rule 11 of the POSH Rules] the...

High Courts Weekly Roundup [March 29 - April 4, 2021]

Akshita Saxena

Tags