High Courts Weekly Round-Up

Allahabad High Court Reiterated that a housing society is not an industry within the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and its employees are not workmen.Recalling an order passed in a criminal case, the High Court observed that bar contained in section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code applies for review, and not recall.In a petition filed by NCC Ltd., the High Court stayed opening of financial bids in tender for procurement of plant - design, supply and installation, floated by PurvanchalVidyutVitran Nigam. Bombay High Court Imposed a cost of Rs.1 lakh on Abhivyakti, an NGO that filed a public interest litigation claiming that 6 hectares of land owned by City Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited (CIDCO) in Sector 18-19 at Khargar, Navi Mumbai is a water body connected to the Panvel creek.Imposed a cost of Rs.50,000 on Dr.VikramDeshmukh and seized his mobile phone along with his Aadhar card after the court clerk saw him making a video of proceedings and told the sheristedar.Granted relief to five final year law students and directed Mumbai University along with the Controller of Examinations to release their marksheets and passing certificates after determining the legitimacy of their records, so that they are allowed to appear for the All India Bar Exam held on September 15, Sunday.In a significant decision, the High Court held that mere possession or storage of gutka/pan masala cannot come under the definition of "danger" as contemplated under Section 188 of Indian Penal Code.Quashed the criminal proceedings against investor Mahesh Murthy on allegations of outraging the modesty of a woman 14 years ago on the grounds of limitation, noting that continuance of the said proceedings would be an abuse of process of law.Continued to hear the matter regarding felling of trees at Aarey Colony in Mumbai for the purposes of building a car shed for Mumbai Metro.In Bai Mamubai Trust v. Suchitra, the High Court delivered a judgment on the question whether GST is leviable on the services provided by the Court Receiver appointed under Order XL of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The judgment was rendered by Justice S.J. Kathawalla.Directed the Economic Offences Wing, Mumbai to register an FIR within 5 days after concluding that prima facie officials of Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) colluded with defaulting developers and builders who failed to surrender surplus area which belongs to the State under Development Control Regulation.Held that inter-corporate loan given by one company to another registered under the Companies Act, would not amount to a "deposit" within the meaning and for the purpose of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999. Delhi High Court Passed an order restraining any organisation from holding beauty pageant competitions with the title 'Miss India' or 'Mr India', or with any other title deceptively similar to them.Issued directions to the Delhi Government while disposing off a series of writ petitions filed by Human Rights Law Network which pertained to the cause of prison reforms in Delhi.Refused to entertain a PIL filed by NGO, Suraz India Trust, through its chairman Rajiv Daiya, against whom the Supreme Court had earlier issued orders, directing its Registry to not accept any applications filed by them.Issued notice in a PIL seeking the court's assistance in directing the State authorities to construct footpaths with assistive pathways for the blind and specially-abled individuals, and to ensure proper upkeep of the footpaths in the NCT of Delhi.Passed directions in order to curb the wastage of valuable court time due to confusions regarding the serving of copies to the other party.Held that even in the case of commercial suits the period of limitation for filing of the written statement shall start from the date of first service and not the second or any subsequent service.Passed an order restraining the Municipal Corporation from utilising a part of private land for the purpose of road widening, without acquiring it under the law and in the absence of any compensation paid to the owners.Directed the central government to consider the application of IGNOU seeking recognition of a PG Diploma course offered by it, under section 11(2) of the Indian Medical Council Act. Gujarat High Court In a 361 paged judgment, the High Court dismissed a batch of writ petitions filed by farmers challenging the acquisition of their lands for the purpose of Mumbai – Ahmedabad High Speed Rail Project (Bullet Train)Suspended the ten year jail sentence imposed on a man convicted for 'Cow Slaughter'. Jharkhand High Court Asked the State govt. to file an affidavit within a week regarding compliance of the order passed by the Supreme Court in ...

High Courts Weekly Round-Up

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags