High Courts Weekly Round Up

Allahabad High Court Refusing to grant relief to the Petitioner, the High Court said that when the Rules pertaining to the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Services did not provide, it could not direct the authorities to re-evaluate the answer sheets. Bombay High Court Refused to interfere in proceedings filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by Advocate Amar Mishra against his former clients Alka and KhanduAvhad. Justice SS Shinde heard the criminal writ petition filed by AlkaAvhad challenging process issued by Metropolitan Magistrate, Borivali against her and her husband in an order dated February 23, 2018.convicted Hemant Mittal, a 38-year-old man for rape, 22 years after the said crime was committed. However, the Court did not impose any sentence as Hemant was a juvenile at the time of the incident.Held that any authority under Central Goods and Services Tax Act who conducts seizure of documents or books of a company/individual must not keep them in custody for more than necessary period and copies thereof need to be given to the person from whose custody the said documents or books are seized.Upheld the acquittal of former journalist JignaVora in the murder of senior journalist JyotirmoyDey. Court held that there was no direct evidence to prove Vora's involvement in her colleague's murder.Directed a litigant Rakesh Chavan to work for lawyer and environmentalist Afroz Shah and "do some real social work" to prove his bona fides. Division bench of Chief Justice Pradeep Nandrajog and Justice BharatiDangre was hearing the PIL filed by Chavan wherein it was alleged that respondent company NESCO had filled a lake in Goregaon and was illegally constructing a building over it.Rejected a plea filed by accused Samir Kulkarni seeking video recording of proceedings in the 2008 Malegaon blast trial.Division bench of Justice Ranjit more and Justice NJ Jamadar however reiterated to the Special NIA Court that the trial must be conducted expeditiously as directed earlier by the Supreme Court and the High Court as well. Calcutta High Court Held that an application for anticipatory bail could not be said to be non-maintainable merely because the accused was not in India while seeking it. The order was passed by a division bench of Justice JoymalyaBagchi and Justice Manojit Mandal while hearing multiple anticipatory bail applications filed by two leaders of GorkhaJanmuktiMorcha. Chhattisgarh High Court "A child in the innocent purity of its mind and unsophistication is more likely to come forth with version which is unbiased, unsoiled, natural and forthright. It is less prone to manipulation, motivation and spirit of vendetta. It can as well be spontaneous and inspiring, once the child is enabled to overcome the initial shock and awe, and ensured protection, security, compassion and given confidence to come out with what was seen", held the High Court while reaffirming that testimony of a child witness can be the sole basis for conviction in a criminal trial. Delhi High Court Upheld conviction of two accused persons were convicted under sections 324, 366 and 376(1) and 376 D of the Indian Penal Code for raping a mentally ill woman.Dismissing a batch of seven writ petitions, the High Court said that the Central Bureau of Investigation was empowered to investigate in matters of foreign contribution and upheld the constitutional validity of Section 43 of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 (FCRA). The validity of the corresponding Rule 22 of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Rules, 2011 (FCRR) was also upheld.Asked the government to file an affidavit in a PIL seeking bringing about Uniform a Civil Code in the country.Restored screening Certificate for Punjabi movie "Kaum De Heere", featuring assassinators of former PM Indira Gandhi. The petition titled "Sai Cine Productions v. CBFC &Ors." was filed challenging the order of Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) and Film Certification Appellate Tribunal (FCAT), withdrawing the film's certificate for screening."…a probationer is not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and the service of a probationer can be terminated during the period of probation in terms of the appointment and such termination does not amount to retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2 (oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act", held the High Court while allowing a petition filed by M/s Deccan Charters Private Limited through Advocate Praveen Kumar.Dismissed a suit for defamation, initiated by the Popular Front of India through Advocate Bahar U Barqi against the Times Now group along with its Editor-in-Chief Rahul Shivshankar, Senior Editor Nikunj Garg and Journalist AnandNarasimhan."The purpose and aim of this [Industrial Disputes] Act is not only to provide a permanent machinery for the settlement of ...

High Courts Weekly Round Up

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags