High Courts Weekly Roundup

Week Commencing From August 10, 2020 To August 16, 2020 Bombay High Court 1) 'One Fine Day When The Relationship Turned Sour, She Filed A Complaint'; Bombay HC Grants Bail To Man Accused Of Rape [Ataullah Fakruddin Ansari v. The State of Maharashtra] The bench of Justice Bharati Dangre granted bail to a man accused of rape by a 24-year-old woman who befriended him on Facebook. The Court noted that the FIR was lodged after a discord arose between the two. "The Applicant and the prosecutrix are major and as per the version of the complaint, she encouraged the friendship initially which slowly resulted into a physical one. She had accompanied the Applicant at several places where the Applicant established physical contact with her. She never objected to the same and from January, 2019 till filing of the complaint in March, 2020, allowed the relationship to flourish. Then, one fine day, when the relationship turned sour, she filed the complaint. Prima facie reading of the complaint does not make out a case of sexual indulgence without her consent or against her will but points out a consensual act," the order read. 2) 'God Is Within Us And God Is Everywhere"; Bombay HC Refuses To Allow Members Of Jain Community From Visiting Temples For Paryushan Festival [Ankit Hirji Vora v. Union of India & Ors.] Division bench of Justice SJ Kathawalla and Justice Madhav Jamdar refused to allow members of the Jain community from offering prayers in temples during the holy period of Paryushan festival (between August 15 and August 23) observing that the duty of every right thinking person at this stage is to balance their religious duties with public duty, and their responsibility towards the rest of mankind. "God is within us" and "God is everywhere," the bench remarked while deferring the plea for directions September 7. 3) Staying Exams Behind The Back Of Examinees Willing To Appear Physically, Is Detrimental To Their Interest: Bombay HC [Akash Udaysing Rajput & Ors. v. Maharashtra University of Health Science, Nashik & Ors.] Division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice SP Tavade declined the prayer for stay on examinations proposed to be held on August 17 and August 25 by the Maharashtra University of Health Science, Nashik (MUHS) for the students of Bachelor In Dental Surgery and Masters In Dental Surgery observing that cancellation of such exams behind the back of those examinees who are willing to physically appear for writing the exam will be detrimental to their interest. Thus, the prayer for stay was declined and the Court said that the University shall be at liberty to conduct the examinations scheduled on 17th and 25th August, 2020 by strictly adhering to social distancing norms and other protocol to prevent the contagion. 4) 'Complaint Filed Two Years After The Incident': Bombay HC Grants Anticipatory Bail To Army Major Accused Of Rape [Maj.Aunshuman Mahendra Jha v. State of Maharashtra] Single bench of Justice Bharati Dangre granted bail to Major Aunshuman Jha who is accused of rape by a 28-year-old IT Engineer in a telecom company. They met on a matrimonial site where the applicant introduced himself as a Major in the Army currently posted in Manipur. The Court noted that the fact that the complaint has been filed more than two years after the alleged incident of rape itself creates many questions. Moreover, Justice Dangre opined that at this stage, the custodial interrogation of the applicant is not necessary and with an assurance that he will cooperate with the investigation which in progress, the following ad-interim relief would serve the purpose. Calcutta High Court 1) Courts In India Have Power To Grant Anti-Arbitration Injunction Against Foreign-Seated Arbitration, Albeit Sparingly : Calcutta HC [Balasore Alloys Limited v. Medima LLC] The bench of Justice B. Shekhar Saraf ruled that while civil courts in India do have the power to grant anti-arbitration injunctions against a foreign-seated arbitration, however, this power is to be used sparingly and with abundant caution. The Court observed that in exercising discretion the courts must be satisfied of the following aspects enumerated in the 2003 Supreme Court ruling in Modi Entertainment Network: a) the defendant, against whom injunction is sought, is amenable to the personal jurisdiction of the court; b) if the injunction is declined, the ends of justice will be defeated and injustice will be perpetuated; and c) the principle of comity - respect for the court in which the commencement or continuance of action/proceeding is sought to be restrained - must be borne in mind. Note: Read the original report for more detailed discussion Delhi High Court 1) Undertrials Accused of Economic Offences Not Eligible For Interim Bail As Per High Powered Committee's Criteria: Delhi HC [Malvinder Mohan Singh v. GNCTD & Anr.] ...

High Courts Weekly Roundup

Akshita Saxena

Tags