High Courts Weekly Round Up

Judgments/ Orders Allahabad High Court Offences Under SC/ST Act Is Made Out When Offence Is Perpetrated In Public [KP Thakur & Anr. v. State of UP & Anr.] The Allahabad High Court has held that for constituting an offence under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the alleged offence should have been committed in "public view". The single-Judge bench comprising Justice Ram Krishna Gautam clarified that where a person is allegedly insulted for being a member of the SC/ST community behind closed doors, the SC/ST Act cannot be applied. ● No Protection For Married Live In Partners, Holds Allahabad HC [Akhlesh & Anr. v. State of UP & Ors.] The Allahabad High Court on Tuesday held that where a man and a woman, during the subsistence of their marriages to other persons, reside as a live in couple, they will not be entitled to any protection under the law. While dismissing the writ petition moved by a live in couple, who "candidly" stated that they had married to other persons but they now lived with each other, the division bench comprising Justice Bharati Sapru and Justice Piyush Agrawal observed that the sanctity of a marriage has to be preserved. If a party wants to opt out, it can always seek dissolution of the marriage in a valid manner. However, the Courts cannot lend aid to the people who choose to not abide by the law. Calcutta High Court Not Mandatory To Possess Valid Foreign Passport To Apply For Indian Citizenship By Registration [Bismillah Khan v. Union of India] The Calcutta High Court has held that it is not mandatory to possess a valid foreign passport to apply for grant of Indian Citizenship by Registration. Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya observed that the requirement of having a passport has to be read as optional in Form III of the Citizenship Rules, 2009 and the authorities are deemed to have the power to relax such requirement in the event the applicant satisfied the authorities for genuine reasons why the applicant is not in a position to produce such passport. ● Land Acquisition- 'Persons Interested' Include Those Who Have Stake In Compensation Proceedings [Burdwan Development Authority v. Arifa Khatun & Anr.] In a significant ruling, the Calcutta High Court has held that 'persons interested' in land acquisition proceedings include, not only persons who have interest in the acquisition proceedings but also those, who have interest in the consequential compensation proceedings. "To ascertain whether a juristic entity is a 'person interested', one has to see through the process to the source of finance and not merely the paying hands…," the high court has held. The single-Judge bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has made these observations in a batch of Revision Petitions moved by Shrachi Burdwan Developers Private Ltd. against the order for enhancement of compensation. Delhi High Court Limitation Period Applies To Application Filed Under Section 8 Arbitration & Conciliation Act [SSIPL Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd. v. Vama Apparels (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.] The Delhi High Court has held that the provision for filing written statements under section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is governed by the law of limitation. The Single Bench of Justice Prathiba M Singh has ruled that the period of limitation provided for filing written statements in CPC and Commercial Courts Act, 2015, would also apply to written statements filed under section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. ● Delhi HC Imposes Cost On JNU For Lack Of Assistance In A Case [Nishant Khatri v. JNU] In a recent order, the Delhi High Court pulled up the JNU Administration for its "complete lack of assistance" in a writ petition concerning admission of one Nishant Khatri, to the M.Sc P.hd integrated programme. While directing the University to take into account the concerns raised by the Petitioner, Justice Rajiv Shakdher imposed costs of Rs 75,000 to be paid by the University to the Petitioner. Gauhati High Court Burden Of Proving Citizenship Is On The Person Making The Claim: Gauhati HC [Nur Begum v. Union of India] The Gauhati High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the order of a Foreigners Tribunal declaring a person to be a foreigner by observing that the burden of proving citizenship was on the person making the claim. The division bench comprising Justice Manojit Bhuyan and Justice Parthivjyoti Saikia referred to Section 9 of the Foreigners Act 1946 for this observation and held that the petitioner could not prove linkage to any ancestors who were residing in Assam before March 24, 1971, the cut-off date prescribed under Assam Accord. ● Gauhati HC Sets Aside Foreigners Tribunal Order Declaring Son Of Indian Citizens As Foreigner [Pratap Sakharu v. Union of India] The Guahati High Court has come...

High Courts Weekly Round Up

Arabhi Anandan

Tags