News Updates

High Courts Weekly Round-Up

23 Sep 2019 11:30 AM GMT
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...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

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 Laxmi v. Union of India &Ors, whereby directions had been issued to all States /Union Territories to ensure the proper treatment, aftercare and rehabilitation is provided to all the victims of acid attack.
  • Held that non-inclusion of the parents and sister of the deceased workman dying in harness, in the list of dependants to be appointed on compassionate ground, is unjust and frustrates the very object the scheme for compassionate appointment.

Karnataka High Court

  • Held that online sale of liqour cannot be allowed in the absence of enabling provisions under the Karnataka Excise Act to grant such licenses or permissions.
  • Issued notice to State Government and Isha Foundation, headed by JaggiVasudev, directing them to file their objection in three weeks, to a Public Interest Litigation filed seeking directions to the foundation not to collect any funds from the public for the 'Cauvery calling project'.
  • Warned of taking appropriate action against the Tree authority/officers if it does not commence tree census in Bengaluru by October 10.
  • Rejected a review petition filed by fugitive economic offender Vijay Mallya, challenging a coordinate bench order which in turn had upheld the order by Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), asking Mallya to deposit a sum of Rs.3101 Crore, as a precondition for hearing his appeal against a Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) order.

Kerala High Court

  • Expressing serious concerns about the trend of Government Hospital Doctors who hunt for greener pastures and lucrative postings in the private sector or abroad and indulge in private practice, the High Court observed that the money-maniac syndrome that afflicts the medical profession has to be taken care of.
  • In a notable judgment, the High Court discharged alleged Maoist leader Roopesh of charges under Unlawful Activities Prevention Act and sedition under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code on the ground of irregularities in the order granting sanction for prosecution.
  • In a landmark judgment, the High Court declared that right to access internet is a fundamental right forming part of right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court added that it also forms part of right to education.

Madhya Pradesh High Court

  • Imposed fine of Rs. 50,000 on Medanta Hospital, Indore for not having an Internal Complaints Committee, required to be constituted under Section 4(1) of the Sexual Harassment of Women At Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (the Act). It also directed the hospital to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 25 lakhs to the Complainant in the case for failing to address her case of sexual harassment.

Madras High Court

  • Set aside some provisions of Central Goods and Services Tax Act which provides for the constitution of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal and the qualification and appointment of members, as unconstitutional.
  • Held that social media companies cannot escape liability for the damage done to society through fake news or rumours spread through their platforms, and said they need to be held accountable for such misuse by users.

Patna High Court

  • A single judge of the High Court refused to hear a petition and placed it before the Chief Justice for listing it before any other appropriate bench after the counsel for the Petitioner in the matter entered the chambers of the Secretaries where orders are typed out.
  • A division bench of the High Court upheld the order of a Single Judge of the high court, directing that any correction required in the body of the petitions/ applications filed by a party must be done either by filing a supplementary affidavit on oath or with the leave of the Court in special circumstances.
  • A Division Bench of the High Court comprising Justices Shivaji Pandey and ParthSarthyissued notice on a petition challenging the recommendation made by the High Court collegium last July for elevation of 15 advocates as HC Judges.

Rajasthan High Court

  • Issued notices to four police officers, seeking their reply on the arrest of an RTI activist, Nand Lal Vyas, from his house in Jodhpur last year.

Telangana High Court

  • Upheld the constitutional validity of the Telangana Heritage (Protection, Preservation, Conservation and Maintenance) Act, 2017, (impugned Act) and stated that merely because a law was badly drafted, could not be the reason for setting aside the same. The court also reiterated that the decision of the Council of Ministers to demolish heritage site of IrrumManzil was arbitrary.

Uttarakhand High Court

  • Set aside an order passed by a single judge of the high court whereby a provision denying maternity leaves to female government servants having two or more living children was struck down as unconstitutional.
  • To uphold the vires of recently inserted stipulation in UttarakhandPanchayati Raj Act, 2016 disqualifying a person being appointed as Pradhan, Up-Pradhan and a member of the Gram Panchayat, if he has more than two living children, the High Court read down the same and declared that the disqualification , in terms of the said provision, would apply only to cases where persons, having two children or more, have a third child or more after 25.07.2019.

Next Story
Share it