High Courts Weekly Round Up

Bombay High Court Held that the bare act of touching hands of a fellow colleague is not sufficient to constitute the offence of outraging mode of a woman. Division bench of Justice TV Nalawade and Justice KK Sonawane quashed a FIR filed against Dilip Lomate under Section 354 (assault or criminal force to a woman with intent to outrage her modesty) of the Indian Penal Code. Held that Dream 11, a fantasy sports platform is a game of skill and not a game of chance hence does not qualify as gambling. The court dismissed a PIL filed by an advocate Gurdeep Singh Sachar, who sought directions to initiate criminal action against Dream 11 for allegedly conducting illegal operations of gambling/betting/wagering in the guise of Online Fanstasy Sports Gaming, and for evasion of GST.Though allowed a rape victim to terminate her pregnancy at her own risk, also reminded her that she has an option to give the child in adoption. Calcutta High Court Held that a deed of gift cannot be said to be invalid only because it was registered after the death of donor. Justice Bibek Chaudhury held that it is not necessary for the validity of a deed of gift that it should be registered by the donor himself.Observed that merely because the wife, in her divorce petition, made an allegation that the marriage was not consummated, she need not be subjected to virginity test. Delhi High Court Rapped the Delhi Police for the alleged assault on a tempo driver and his minor son in northwest Delhi's Mukherjee Nagar, saying it was "evidence of police brutality" and how a uniformed force ought not to act.In a huge relief to a civil service aspirant who was not allocated Indian Revenue Service in Civil Services examination, 2017, High Court held that persons professing Sikh religion belonging to 'Jat' community in the State of Rajasthan (except Bharatpur & Dhaulpur Districts) are entitled to get Backward Class Certificate. However, court added that before issuance of such certificate it should be ensured that the person concerned is a permanent resident of that state. Karnataka High Court A division bench of Chief Justice Abhay Oka and Justice H T Narendra Prasad while hearing a bunch of petitions filed by Citizen Action Group and others, by way of an interim order directed the government to appoint NEERI an expert agency. It would study the present lakes and also locate the disappeared lakes.Further it would suggest/ recommend measures for restoration and rejuvenation of the lakes in the city.Also directed the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) to install CCTv cameras, around the lakes to prevent miscreants from damaging lakes in any manner.Observed that a widow cannot be deprived of the property vested in her merely for contracting a second marriage.Suggested to the State government and police authorities to carry out a special drive outside schools, to check on illegal vehicles including auto rickshaws which ferry school children in contravention to the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act.Upheld an order of the local police directing a son to vacate the house of his parents, after it was proved that he along with his wife were troubling them, to the extent of physically assaulting the father, instead of looking after. The parents due to the ill-treatment had been forced to leave their house.Disposing of a batch of nearly three hundred writ petitions, the High Court declared that period prior to April 1, 2014 cannot be taken into consideration for disqualification under Section 164(2)(a) of the Companies Act. Kerala High Court The Chairman and Members of the Central Administrative Tribunal do not occupy the exalted position of a Judge of the High Court, observed the High Court. This observation came from a bench comprising of Justice V. Chitambaresh and Justice Ashok Menon while considering a writ appeal against a single bench order which had allowed a claim of a Judicial Member of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) (who served during the period from 10.7.1989 to 9.7.1994) of retiral benefits as applicable to the Judges of the High Court.Ruled that a person should be given reasonable opportunity of hearing before removing his name from the voters list.Took suo moto notice of the suicide of a businessman, which was allegedly caused due to the refusal of municipal officials in granting sanction to an auditorium built by him. Taking notice of the issue based on media reports, the bench of Chief Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice A K Jayasankaran Nambiar sought a report from the Government on the alleged lapses by the Municipality in granting certificate.Observed that any and every suit relating to a public trust need not be under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, unless the reliefs claimed therein do fall within the matters enumerated in Section 92(1) of the Code. ...

High Courts Weekly Round Up

Ashok Kini

Tags