High Courts Weekly Round Up

Bombay High Court Bombay HC Restores 42-Year-Old Suit, Allows 22-Year-Old Petition And Directs Trial Judge To Expedite Hearing The Single Bench of Justice AS Gadkari allowed a writ petition filed by one Kamala Bharwani (since deceased) in 1998 wherein orders of the trial court dismissing a suit filed by her in 1978 were challenged. The trial court had dismissed the said suit for want of prosecution and further rejected the petitioner's application for restoration of the suit. The court concluded that the trial judge had committed an error in not allowing the said application for restoration of a suit filed by the petitioner's advocate for the restoration of the Suit and quashed the impugned orders dated June 26, 1998. Bombay HC Allows Egyptian Man's Habeas Corpus Plea Against In-Laws Division Bench of Justices SS Shinde and NB Suryavanshi allowed a criminal writ petition filed by Khaled Kassem, an Egyptian citizen who sought the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus against his sister-in-law and mother-in-law for alleged illegally confining his 11-month old son Kian. Court also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Yashita Sahu v. State of Rajasthan and observed- "...just because the parents are at war with each other, does not mean that the child should be denied the care, affection, love or protection of any one of the two parents." Thus, the Court allowed the said petition and granted Kian's custody to the petitioner. Calcutta High Court Indulgence In 'Sting Operation' Purportedly In Public Interest Does Not Extinguish Criminal Liability The bench comprising Justices Suvra Ghosh and Joymalya Bagchi held that indulgence in 'sting operation' purportedly in public interest does not extinguish the criminal liability of an individual. The court rejected the petitioner's explanation that they were only conducting bona fide sting operations to unravel corruption. Reliance was placed on Rajat Prasad v. CBI, (2014) 6 SCC 495. Chattisgarh High Court Chhattisgarh HC Directs State To Reconsider Its Appointment Of Deputy Advocate General The Division Bench comprising of Justices PR Ramachandra Menon and Parth Prateem Sahu directed the State Government to reconsider its appointment of Rajneesh Singh Baghel as Deputy Advocate General, who is accused in a criminal case. The issue raised was whether an accused in a criminal case pending trial and being prosecuted by the State can be identified and appointed by the State as a Deputy Advocate General for conducting the cases of the State. The bench observed that process and procedure cannot be justified by the State simply saying that 'a person is innocent until found guilty' and that registration of a criminal case is not a bar for a person to practice as an Advocate under Section 24A of the Advocates Act. Delhi High Court Live Ammunition In Baggage: Delhi HC Quashes FIR Against Lady Traveller The Single Bench of Justice Anu Malhotra held that if there is nothing in the FIR which indicates a conscious and knowledgeable possession of a firearm, no case can proceed under section 25 of the Arms Act. While quashing the FIR the court noted that for possession of a firearm under the Arms Act, there must be an element of conscious possession in the person charged with such an offense, and when there's no actual physical possession, she has power or control over the weapon. Delhi HC Imposes Cost For Seeking Review By Blaming The Senior Counsel The Single Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar held that a review petition can be allowed only on the grounds stipulated in Order XLVII, read with Section 114 of CPC and not on grounds which the petitioner chose not to press during arguments. The court also imposed costs of Rs. 25,000 on the petitioner. The court said the expression "any other sufficient reasons" in Order XLVII read with Section 114 of CPC has to be interpreted ejusdem generis to the expressions that precede it. Reliance was placed on Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury, (1995) 1 SCC 170. Gujarat High Court Gujarat HC Quashes Notifications For Levying IGST On Ocean Freight Services Division Bench comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and A C Rao has held that imposition of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) on ocean freight for services provided by a person in a non-taxable territory was impermissible and quashed two IGST notifications (No.8/2017 and No.10/2017) as ultra vires. The ruling was delivered in a batch of petitions filed by importers who are from various countries on FOB(Free On Board) and CIF (sum of Cost, Insurance and Freight) basis. 'Two-Finger Test' Unconstitutional As Violative Of Woman's Right To Privacy & Dignity Division Bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Bhargav D Karia held that the "archaic and outdated" practice of a two-finger test, conducted to determine the virginity/consent of a rape ...

High Courts Weekly Round Up

Arabhi Anandan

Tags