Rajasthan High Court Weekly Roundup: August 1 To August 7, 2022

Himachal Futuristic Communications Limited v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 211

Karan Johar v. State, Through P.p. & Anr. with other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 212

Judgments/ Orders of the Week

Rajasthan Stamp Act | Duty Can't Be Levied On Transaction Not Having 'Territorial Nexus' With State: High Court

Case Title: Himachal Futuristic Communications Limited v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 211

The Rajasthan High Court recently set aside a single bench decision which permitted levy of duty under the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 on an amalgamation instrument executed outside the State pursuant to sanction of Himachal Pradesh High Court, not only in relation to properties situated in Rajasthan, but also on the transfer of shares.

A division bench comprising Justices Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Birendra Kumar observed,

"... insofar as transfer of shares by virtue of order of amalgamation passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh is concerned, it did not happen within the territory of the State of Rajasthan. Both the companies are situated outside the territory of Rajasthan. The entire proceedings of arrangement and amalgamation and its sanction took place outside the State of Rajasthan. Therefore, to that extent, stamp duty under the Stamp Act of 1998 would not be leviable... "

The bench made it clear that an instrument executed outside the State of Rajasthan would be chargeable with duty when it bears a "territorial nexus"; tt is not that every instrument as specified in the Schedule appended to the Stamp Act of 1998, executed outside the State, becomes chargeable to stamp duty. "Only those relating to any property situated in the State or relating to any matter or thing done or to be done in the State and received in the State."

Koffee With Karan Remarks: Rajasthan Police To File "Closure Report" In Case Against Karan Johar, KL Rahul & Hardik Pandya

Case Title: Karan Johar v. State, Through P.p. & Anr. with other connected matters

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 212

The Rajasthan government on Monday informed the High Court that the Police is set to file a closure report in a criminal case registered against Karan Johar and cricketers KL Rahul and Hardik Pandya over their remarks on the filmmaker's talk show- Koffee With Karan.

Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati was hearing their petitions for quashing of FIRs when the Public Prosecutor informed that final report/ closure report has been chalked on 11.3.2021 and the same is likely to be submitted before the competent court expeditiously.

The trio was booked for allegedly making certain derogatory statements against women during an episode of the Bollywood talk show.

The FIRs were filed by one Devaram Meghwal at police station Luni, Jodhpur under sections 153(A) ,292, 295(A), 504 of IPC, 67 of the Information & Technology Act, 2000 and 3(1)(u) & 3(1)(v) of the SC ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act) 1989.

Other Important Updates

Justice SS Shinde, Known For Sitting Beyond Court Hours, Retires As Rajasthan High Court Chief Justice

The Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court S.S. Shinde demitted office on Monday.

Justice Shinde served a tenure of around 42 days at the Rajasthan High Court.

He took oath as the Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court on 21st June, 2022. He was elevated as an Additional Judge of the High court of Bombay on 17th March 2008 and was then confirmed as Permanent Judge on 13th March 2010.

Notably, during his tenure at Bombay High Court, he hit headlines, as the division bench headed by him sat till 8.30 pm on 9 June 2022, hearing various criminal cases. It heard over 215 out of the 265 cases listed before it. The same bench on 8 June 2022 heard 190 cases.

E-Cigarettes: Rajasthan High Court Asks Centre & State About Steps Taken To Prevent Online Sale

Case Title: Priyansha Gupta v. Union of India & Ors.

The Rajasthan High Court has asked the central and the state governments to file a status report indicating the steps taken to prevent and prohibit online sale of electronic cigarettes.

The development comes in a public interest litigation seeking directions for effective implement of the provisions of Prohibition of Electronic Cigarettes (Production, Manufacture, Import, Export, Transport, Sale, Distribution, Storage, and Advertisement) Act, 2019 and to stop sale, use, consumption, possession of e-cigarettes.

Notice in the PIL filed by Priyansha Gupta, a fourth-year law student, was issued last month. A division bench of Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Shubha Mehta, observed,

"On the next date of hearing, learned counsel for the respective respondents will file affidavit clearly stating as to what steps have been taken to prevent and prohibit online sale of electronic cigarettes. The status of action taken by respective respondents shall also be placed for consideration by this Court on the next date of hearing."

Plea In Rajasthan High Court Challenges "Belated" IOCL Notification Mandating CLAT Clearance For Law Officer Appointment

Case Title: Pratibha Khandelwal v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited and Anr.

A plea has been filed before the Rajasthan High Court challenging the "belated" notification issued by Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. requiring applicants to clear CLAT for applying to the post of Law Officer (Grade A) and Senior Law Officer (Grade A1).

The plea filed by law graduate and Company Secretary Pratibha Khandelwal states that the impugned notice for recruitment was issued on July 21, 2022 that is almost two months after the last date (May 09,2022) for making application for appearing in CLAT-2022. It stated that recruitment notice was published after the test itself was conducted and the result thereof was also declared.

The plea states that the advertisement of the vacancy and mode of recruitment is something which needs to be put in public domain well in advance so that all the eligible candidates who desire to appear for the exam and fight for the vacancy become aware about the same.

It is alleged that the belated publication of advertisement is to favour some specific candidates, who perhaps had the prior knowledge of the vacancy and the eligibility criteria and is illegal, arbitrary and violative of the fundamental right of the Petitioner as well as of other eligible candidates.