High Courts Weekly Round-Up

Allahabad High Court Time-Bound Contractual Services On Honorarium Basis Cannot Be Classified To Be An Office Of Profit [Neelam Nigam v. State of UP] Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi held that time-bound contractual services on honorarium basis cannot be termed to be an office of profit and hence, an elected pradhan, receiving honorarium in a private contractual service, alone is not a decisive factor to state that he is disqualified from being pradhan. Holding an office of profit by an elected pradhan leads to disqualification for membership of a Gram Panchayat, by virtue of Section 5-A(c) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. ● Allahabad HC Dismisses Plea To Revoke Citizenship Of Akshay Kumar & Alia Bhatt,Asks Petitioner To Move Appropriate Forum [Lalta Prasad Pandey v. Akshay Kumar & Ors.] The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court dismissed a petition seeking seizure of citizenships of film artists Akshay Kumar and Alia Bhatt, for want of jurisdiction. The court has however granted liberty to the Petitioner to approach the appropriate court having territorial jurisdiction, or the competent authority to look into the matter. The order was passed by a two-Judge bench comprising Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice Manish Kumar. Bombay High Court TDS Not Applicable On Discounts Given By Telecom Service Provider To The Distributors Of Prepaid SIM Cards [Commisioner of Income Tax (TDS) Pune v. Vodafone Cellular Ltd.] The Bombay High Court in a significant order held that TDS provisions under section 194H of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are not attracted to discounts given by telecom service providers to the distributors of prepaid SIM cards. Division bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Milind Jadhav were hearing an appeal filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal wherein it was held that discounts given by the assessee (Vodafone in this case) to its distributors on prepaid SIM cards do not require deduction of tax u/s. 194H of the Act and subsequent penalty u/s.271C is not applicable. ● Abettor In Rape Case Will Face Same Punishment As Rape Accused; Bombay HC Dismisses Convict's Appeal in POCSO Case [Sunil v. State Of Maharashtra] The Bombay High Court last month dismissed an appeal filed by one Sunil Ramteke, a 28-year-old labourer from Nagpur, who was convicted under 376(2)(i)(j) read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code and under provisions of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 for abetting the rape of a 13-year-old girl in Fegad village. Justice VM Deshpande of the Nagpur bench heard Ramteke's appeal and concluded that he was abettor and he abetted co-accused Golu to commit rape on the victim, a minor girl. ● Challenge To An Election Cannot Be Based On Conjectures; Bombay HC Dismisses Election Petition Challenging Nitin Gadkari's Election From Nagpur [Manohar v. The Election Commission of India] The Bombay High Court on Tuesday dismissed an election petition filed by one Manohar Dabrase challenging Union Minister Nitin Gadkari's election from Nagpur constituency in 2019 Lok Sabha elections. Justice AS Chandurkar held that the said election petition was liable to be rejected under provisions of Order VII Rule 11 (a) of the Code as there was absence of complete cause of action for declaring the election of the returned candidate to be void under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the said Act. ● 'Persons Can't Be Called Traitors Or Anti-Nationals For Opposing CAA' : Bombay HC Quashes Sec 144 Order [Iftekhar Zakee Sahikh v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.] The Bombay High Court quashed the order passed under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to prohibit protests and demonstrations in the wake of country wide agitation against the Citizenship Amendment Act. A division bench comprising Justice TV Nalawade and Justice MG Sewlikar gave the verdict in a petition filed by one Iftekhar Zakee Shaikh, whose request to hold peaceful demonstrations at old Idgah Maidan at Majalgaon, District Beed was declined citing operation of a Section 144 order passed by Additional District Magistrate Beed. ● Bhima Koregaon: Sufficient Material To Enable Court to Record Prima Facie Opinion Regarding Commission Of Offence u/UAPA [The State of Maharashtra v. Gautam Navlakha & The State of Maharashtra v. Anand Teltumbde] The Bombay High Court rejected anticipatory bail applications filed by journalist Gautam Navlakha and academician/scholar Anand Teltumbde, accused in the case regarding caste based violence that took place at Bhima Koregaon in Pune on January 1, 2018. Justice PD Naik perused through the sealed envelope submitted by the Special Public Prosecutor Aruna Pai which contained "additional material" against both the accused and observed, "Apart from the material produced in sealed envelope, there is...

High Courts Weekly Round-Up

Arabhi Anandan

Tags