High Courts Weekly Round-Up

Allahabad High Court Reiterating that the State Government has the power to accord written permission for withdrawal of prosecution, the High Court quashed an order rejecting the application for withdrawal filed by the prosecution, and directed the trial court to consider the application afresh.Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is not community centric or religion centric is perhaps one of the most secular enactment ever made in the country, remarked the High Court recently. Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava observed that the provision in the Criminal Procedure Code is a tool to realise constitutional promise to realize gender justice. Bombay High Court Granted relief to a 69-year-old former employee of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC) who was dismissed from service after an internal enquiry into an accident that occurred 17 years ago that resulted in the death of 33 people.Set aside the conviction of one Jayendra Talereja, in a 23-year-old case wherein the police conducted a search of his shop and found bogus gas regulators resulting in the his conviction under Section 7 read with 3 of the Essential Commodities Act for violating sub-clause (3) of clause 6 of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order, 1988.Held that when a child is being sent abroad for higher education abroad, concurrence of both the parents, particularly the one who is paying for it is necessary. Division bench of Justice Akil Kureshi and Justice SJ Kathawalla were hearing an application filed by one Sheetal Bhatija in her appeal against the family court order wherein the respondent husband was directed to pay both daughters maintenance of Rs.50,000 per month.Enhanced compensation granted to the kin of victims, 10-year-old Savita and her mother, who died in an accident 29 years ago after a State Transport bus dashed against an oncoming tractor trolly. Justice Anuja Prabhudessai set aside the judgement of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Satara dated March 20, 1996 wherein a compensation of Rs.51,800 with interest at the rate of 12% per annum was awarded to Devapa Maskar, father of the deceased child and both her minor siblings. Appeal against the said judgement was allowed. Delhi High Court Held that application for curbing or postponing media reporting of a case can only be moved in the court which is hearing the case on merits, and not any other court.A Division Bench comprising Justice Muralidhar and Justice Talwant Singh admitted Facebook's appeal against the order passed by a Single Bench imposing global injunction on the social media giant under section 79 of Information Technology Act to block defamatory contents uploaded against Baba Ramdev. The Bench also clarified that while no interim stay would be granted, the respondents would not be allowed to move a contempt application before disposal of the appeal.While considering P Chidambaram's plea for interim bail in INX Media case on medical grounds, the High Court directed that a Board should be constituted at AIIMS and Dr Nageshwar Reddy should be a part of it. The Board will then give its report on admission of Chidambaram in the sterilised private ward of AIIMS. If the Board recommends, Chidambaram will be shifted to the sterilised private ward at AIIMS for further treatment.Clarified the position of law on the right of the victim to file an appeal under section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court has held that the said the provision doesn't allow the victim to file an appeal for enhancement of sentence imposed on the convicted person.Held that the courts need not hold trial in commercial suits, even if there are disputed questions of fact, if it comes to the conclusion that the defendant lacks a real prospect of successfully defending the claim. Justice Manmohan reiterated that the intent behind incorporating the summary judgment procedure in the Commercial Court Act, 2015 is to ensure disposal of commercial disputes in a time-bound manner.Held that no relief could be claimed against persons who were not privy to the settlement deed, on the basis of which summary proceedings under Order XXXVII of CPC were instituted, and that such persons could not be made a party to the proceedings.Held that the maximum period for filing reapplication or an affidavit for admission/denial of documents is 45 days and the same has to be mandatory followed.Held that the employees of Autonomous Bodies, which are fully funded by the government, cannot be treated at par with the employees of the central government with regards to pension. The Division Bench of Justice Muralidhar and Justice Talwant Singh held that the benefits of the pension under the Civil Services Rules cannot be extended to Autonomous Bodies without the concurrence of the Finance Ministry.Disposed off all the petitions challenging the Odd-Even...

High Courts Weekly Round-Up

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags