High Courts Weekly Round Up

Allahabad High Court Held that a woman employee was entitled to maternity leave for a full period of six months as against only three months she was granted by the respondent District Basic Education officer, Bijnor and directed latter to provide the petitioner woman employee maternity leave with honorarium with effect from 30.12.2018 to 31.3.2019 as was prayed by her.Dismissed a writ petition as "not maintainable" saying that allowing the writ petition would lead to a case of "Bench Hunting" by the petitioner. Bench of Justices B. Amit Sthalekar and Piyush Agrawal in Dheer Singh & Another v. State of U.P. & 3 Others held that a petitioner cannot be allowed to file a writ petition seeking certain reliefs and then withdrawing the same with liberty to file fresh writ petition and again to file same relief before another Bench. Bench noted that same would lead to a case of "Bench hunting" by the petitioner. Bombay High Court Refused to interfere with an order of the family court directing a 75-year-old man to pay Rs.1 lakh in compensation to his 72-year-old wife under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. A division bench of Justice Akhil Kureshi and Justice Sarang Kotwal denied relief to Subhash Anand, the appellant husband who challenged the order of the Family Court, Mumbai, dated September 18, 2018. The court also permitted the respondent wife to access the upper floor of the house where her husband resides on the ground floor.Directed the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM or the BMC) to stop all reclamation work and maintain status quo with regard to the coastal road project for now. A division bench of Chief justice Pradeep Nandrajog and Justice NM Jamdar followed the Supreme Court's lead in environmental jurisprudence and the precautionary principle which flows from the maxim: in dubio pro natura that is 'In case of doubt, in favour of the nature.'Directed one Jivesh Shetty to pay for a new gas connection in the name of his wife as she informed the court that her mother-in-law had removed cooking gas, refrigerator and washing machine out of their matrimonial home on March 16.Issued ex parte directions in a petition mentioned before the bench of Justice ZA Haq and Justice Vinay Joshi of Nagpur, pointing out extreme urgency seeking reliefs on behalf of three minor tribal girls belonging to the 'Gond' and 'Pardhan' tribe classified as a Scheduled Tribe in Maharashtra.Imposed an unprecedented cost of Rs.5 crore on defendants in a suit for selling spurious carbon seamless pipes in a trademark infringement suit payable to Tata Memorial Hospital.Held that once a decree of divorce has been granted, relief cannot be sought by the wife under the Domestic Violence Act.Upheld the method of computation of property tax under capital value method under the Mumbai Municipal Corporations (MMC) Act, but struck down certain rules framed under the said Act in 2010 and 2015 for assessment of capital value of a property.Held the permission granted for construction of a casting yard near Juhu beach as illegal. Although permission for the said casting yard was granted by the Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority (MCZMA), Court deemed it to be illegal. Calcutta High Court Held that the service of a Bishop of the Church of North India (CNI), who had challenged his superannuation, is not a personal service and, therefore, cannot be held to be a contract not specifically enforceable under the Specific Relief Act.Observed that there is discretion in the court in the case of a close relative to permit the power of attorney to address the court. The Division bench comprising Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur said that this discretion can be exercised when the court is assured that the relative appearing on behalf of the petitioner is conversant with the law, the facts and is in a position to address and assist the Court.Dismissed a Public Interest Litigation seeking a direction to Government to frame policy regarding broadcasting of fake news. Delhi High Court Sought the response of the AAP government and the director general (DG) of Tihar Jail on a PIL seeking directions to appoint one law officer each in 16 jails of the national capital in a time-bound manner.Held that the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) is not empowered to punish a citizen just because it is perceived that he/she tried to defraud them. Justice CH Hari Shankar granted relief to one Kulwant Singh who allegedly tried to defraud the Delhi Development Authority and in return the DDA forfeited the money deposited by Singh.Issued notice to the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) on a PIL highlighting lack of basic amenities along the Western (Kundli-Manesar-Palwal) and Eastern Peripheral Expressway (Kundli-Ghaziabad-Pawal) which make for the largest ring ...

High Courts Weekly Round Up

Ashok Kini

Tags