ACQUITTAL
CHHATISGARH HIGH COURT | Husband accused of having unnatural sex with wife under S. 377 IPC leading to her death, acquitted
In a criminal appeal filed by a husband convicted and sentenced under Sections 376, 377, and 304 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) for the rape and subsequent death of his wife, the Single Judge Bench of Narendra Kumar Vyas, J., allowed the appeal holding that no offence under Sections 376 and 377 could be committed between a husband and wife, and the impugned order of conviction suffered from perversity as the Trial Court provided no finding as to how the offence under Section 304 was made out. Read more HERE
ADVOCATES
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT | “AAG is not public office”; Challenge to Padmesh Mishra’s appointment as AAG in Rajasthan, dismissed
In a writ petition challenging the appointment of Padmesh Mishra, Additional Advocate General (AAG) for the State of Rajasthan, a single-judge bench of Sudesh Bansal, J., dismissed the petition and reiterated that executive decisions related to professional engagements of law officers fall within the domain of the State, subject to minimal judicial interference. Read more HERE
ANCIENT AND PROTECTED MONUMENTS, ARCHAEOLOGY, ART AND ANTIQUITIES
GAUHATI HIGH COURT | Assam directed to survey & protect Ahom Dynasty historical monuments
In a suo motu public interest litigation (‘PIL’) registered by the Court due to a newspaper report regarding illegal activities being carried out by coal smugglers in the Tipam Hills area destroying the historic Tipam Hills, the Division Bench of Vijay Bishnoi, CJ., and Suman Shyam, J., disposed the PIL while directing the State to complete the archaeological exercise and protect the Ahom Dynasty historical monuments and continuously monitor the Tipam Hills for coal smugglers doing illegal mining. Read more HERE
ARBITRATION
DELHI HIGH COURT | Non-Filing of Arbitral Award renders Section 34 petition ‘non-est’; Limitation continues
A Full Bench was constituted questioning whether non-filing of the Arbitral Award itself would render a petition filed under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act as ‘non-est’. A full bench of Rekha Palli, Navin Chawla and Saurabh Banerjee, JJ., held that non-filing of the Arbitral Award along with an application under the Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act would make the said application liable to be treated and declared as non-est, and the limitation prescribed under Section 34(3) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act shall continue to run in spite of such filing. Read more HERE
BAIL
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | ‘He could not handle the barrage of abuses on him and his mother’; Bail to 20-year-old student accused of murdering his bedridden father
In a bail application filed by a 20-year-old management student under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, accused of murdering his father, a Single Judge Bench of Milind N. Jadhav, J., allowed the application holding that the accused was a young adult who could not handle the repeated barrage of abuses hurled by his father-deceased against him and his mother, and he also confessed to his crime thus, he was worthy of an opportunity to continue his education and reform. The Court added that the accused undoubtedly might have committed the direful act, but one would also have to consider the facts that resulted in the death of the father. Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Proximity at workplace results in consensual relationships which on turning sour get reported as crimes; bail granted
A bail application was filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) read with Section 528 of BNSS earlier known as 439 of Criminal Procedure Code (‘CrPC’) read with Section 482 CrPC was filed on behalf of the applicant for grant of regular bail in FIR under Sections 376, 377, 506, 509 and 323 of Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), registered at Police Station Samaypur Badli, Delhi. Neena Bansal Krishna, J., granted bail to the applicant as the veracity of allegations levelled against the applicant shall be tried during trial which is likely to take some time. Read more HERE
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT | Bail granted to rape accused with condition to handover documents, electronic gadgets, social media access for investigation
In an anticipatory bail application filed under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), and Section 438 of CrPC, a single-judge bench of Devnarayan Mishra, J., granted anticipatory bail to the applicant with strict conditions, including cooperation with the investigation and submission of digital evidence. Read more HERE
MADRAS HIGH COURT | Bail denied to Rahul Dinesh Surana, VP of Surana Power Ltd., alleged to have indulged in cheating of Banks and siphoning off public money
The present petition was filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 read with Section 212(6) of the Companies Act, 2013 (‘the Companies Act’), seeking enlargement of the petitioner on bail in a case on the file of the XV Additional City Civil Court, Chennai/Special Court for trial of SFIO Cases. A Single Judge Bench of A.D. Jagadish Chandira, J., opined that petitioner was alleged to have indulged into cheating of Banks and siphoning off the public money using puppet Companies, writing off the stocks, inventories and receivables and thus was facing serious economic offences and fraud of a great magnitude. The Court held that the present petition seeking bail could not be entertained as the presence of the petitioner was required at the stage of framing of charges. Read more HERE
COMPANY LAW
DELHI HIGH COURT | Section 132 of Companies Act upheld; validated NFRA Rules on auditor accountability
A batch of petitions were filed by individual Chartered Accountants as well as auditing firms assailing the validity of Section 132(4) of Companies Act, 2013 and challenging Rules 3, 8, 10 and 11 of the National Financial Reporting Authority Rules, 2018 (NFRA). A division bench of Yashwant Varma and Dharmesh Sharma, upheld the validity being devoid of merit in the challenge based on the arguments of vicarious liability, retroactive operation and a violation of Article 20(1). Read more HERE
CRUELTY
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Limitation for offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC commences from the last act of cruelty
The applicants filed the present application invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) praying to quash FIR dated 06-01-2023 registered against them with police station Killari, Latur and by way of an amendment for quashing the proceeding pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class Ausa, Latur, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’). Read more HERE
ELECTION
DELHI HIGH COURT | Section 29-A of Representation of People Act, 1951 does not confer upon ECI to supervise internal elections of registered political party
In a petition preferred on behalf of petitioner under Article 226 of Constitution seeking to issue notice to petitioner and Respondent 2 to convene a meeting of National Working Committee and elect the office bearers, Jyoti Singh, J., stated that once a political party was registered, Section 29-A of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (‘the Act’) did not confer upon the ECI any supervisory jurisdiction to review whether the party adheres to its constitution and/or to scrutinize the conformity of its internal elections with its constitutional provisions. The Court stated that in the present case, Bahujan Mukti Party was a registered unrecognized political party and no direction could be issued to ECI to exercise supervisory jurisdiction with respect to its internal matters relating to election etc., much less a direction to convene the meeting of the National Working Committee, which was a direction sought by the petitioner. Read more HERE
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
DELHI HIGH COURT | PETER ENGLAND declared as well-known trade mark
In a suit filed on behalf of plaintiff seeking permanent injunction restraining the use of the impugned mark ‘PETER ENGLAND’ by the defendants causing infringement of the plaintiffs’ trade mark, copyright and artistic work on the mark ‘PETER ENGLAND’, , Mini Pushkarna, J., stated that on account of the extensive promotion of its brand undertaken by the plaintiff, and on account of the fact that the plaintiff had numerous stores across the country, it was evident that the customers across India recognize the mark of the plaintiff, i.e., ‘PETER ENGLAND’. Consequently, the decree was passed in the plaintiff’s favour, declaring the plaintiff’s trade mark ‘PETER ENGLAND’, as a well-known trade mark under Section 2(1)(zg) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Read more HERE
JUDICIARY
ORISSA HIGH COURT | Rs. 1 Lakh compensation ordered to be given to Judicial Aspirant for non-evaluation of an answer in OJS 2022
In a petition challenging the legality and validity of the evaluation process in the Odisha Judicial Service Examination (OJS), 2022 and sought evaluation of the left-out answer script by Odisha Public Service Commission (OPSC) in the law of Property and other questions as per the guidelines provided under the scheme of evaluation, the Division Bench of Chittaranjan Dash* and SK Sahoo, JJ. partly entertained the plea as to highlighting a procedural flaw and directed OPSC to maintain stricter scrutiny in its evaluation processes. However, even after re-evaluation of the answer script, the petitioner was not eligible for the next stage of the examination. Read more HERE
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT | Civil Judge candidate who failed after being deprived of 2.5 marks despite writing correct answer, directed to be appointed
In a writ petition filed by a judiciary aspirant who was not awarded 2.5 marks for a correct answer, the Division Bench of Sheel Nagu*, CJ., and Sumeet Goel, J., allowed the petition holding that the petitioner undisputedly gave a correct answer and other candidates who wrote the same answer were awarded marks. The Court directed the State to award the petitioner 2.5 marks and appoint her as a Civil Judge (Jr. Div.). Read more HERE
LOCAL GOVERNMENT, MUNICIPALITIES AND PANCHAYATS
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT | Ordered flat allotment to slum dweller who was arbitrarily disqualified from Chandigarh Small Flats Scheme
In a writ petition filed by a petitioner seeking quashing of the order passed by the Chief Executive Officer of Chandigarh Housing Board (‘Appellate Authority’) under Clause 17 of the Chandigarh Small Flats Scheme, 2006, (‘the Scheme’) whereby the petitioner’s appeal for grant of a flat was rejected, the Division Bench of Sureshwar Thakur* and Vikas Suri, JJ., allowed the petition and directed the authorities to allot the petitioner a flat as per the Scheme holding that the petitioner was arbitrarily disqualified despite being a resident of the colony concerned since 2006. Read more HERE
MAINTENANCE
ORISSA HIGH COURT | ‘Law never appreciates those wives who remain idle despite high qualifications; Quantum of maintenance reduced
In a revision application by the husband against the Family Court’s decision directing the husband to pay Rs.8,000/- per month to the wife for her maintenance in an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’), the Bench of G. Satapathy, allowed the application taking into account the admitted income of the husband and balancing it with the requirement of the husband together with his dependent mother and taking into consideration the responsibility of the husband to maintain his wife, who at the time of filing of the application for grant of maintenance was jobless, but has definite prospect to work and earn her livelihood, reduced the quantum of maintenance by Rs.3,000/- per month. Read more HERE
MATRIMONIAL DISPUTES
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT | No video conferencing for reconciliation in matrimonial disputes; Allowed only after settlement fails
A petition was filed by the husband being aggrieved by the order passed by Family Court rejecting the prayer for reconciliation via video conferencing. Ravi Nath Tilhari, J., held that for the purposes of reconciliation in matrimonial matters before the Family Courts video-conferencing is not permissible. Read more HERE
MEDIATION
DELHI HIGH COURT | ‘Forcing to file written statement during mediation will hamper entire mediation process’; Time spent in mediation excluded for calculation of limitation period
In an appeal filed by Defendants 1-4 under Chapter II Rule 5 of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 challenging an order dated 31-05-2024 passed by the Joint Registrar dismissing the applications filed by the Defendants 1 and 4 seeking condonations of delay in filing the written statement, Subramonium Prasad, J., stated that if the parties were attempting to mediate and settle the dispute and were forced to file written statements then this would hamper the entire mediation process and would be detrimental to the spirit of mediation which ensured a just solution acceptable to all the parties to the dispute thereby achieving a win-win situation. Therefore, the Court was inclined to exclude the time period from 02-11-2022 to 24-01-2023 for calculating the limitation. Read more HERE
MENTAL ILLNESS
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT | No discrimination between mental and physical illness; Directed reimbursement for psychiatric treatment
A petition was filed seeking to quash the Office Note dated 26-10-2019 and letter dated 23-01-2020, by which the Medical Bill for psychiatric treatment of petitioner’s wife has been rejected on the ground that the same is not admissible as per Clause 6.3(i) of Contributory Post Retirement Medicare Scheme for Executives of CIL & its Subsidiaries (CPRMSE) Rules along with direction to reimburse the amount which has been spent by the petitioner for psychiatric treatment of his wife, which has been illegally deducted from the bills raised by the petitioner. Ananda Sen, J., sets aside the impugned office note dated 26-10-2019 along with letter dated 23-01-2020 and held that after promulgation of Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 and especially taking into consideration Section 21(4) of the Act, exclusion of psychiatric treatment in CPRMS is rendered nugatory. Read more HERE
MINING
GAUHATI HIGH COURT | Principal Secretary, DGP directed to file affidavits detailing steps taken against illegal mining in Assam forests
In a batch of PILs challenging the proposed diversion of forest land in Saleki, for setting aside approval granted to Coal India Ltd., declaration of Dehing Patkai forest as an ecologically fragile zone, and other grounds, the Division Bench of Kalyan Rai Surana* and Malasri Nandi, JJ., directed the personal appearance of the Principal Secretary, Home and Political Department, and the DGP on the next date, i.e., 14-02-2025 due to non-compliance of Court order since last 22 months. The Court also directed the filing of affidavits detailing steps taken against illegal mining in Assam forests. Read more HERE
PAROLE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Custody parole granted to jailed MP Abdul Rashid to attend parliamentary session
A petition was filed seeking to direct the special designated NIA court to expeditiously pronounce the Order on the second regular bail application of the Petitioner dated 20-08-2024 in case arising out of FIR dated 30-05-2017 and set aside the order dated 23-12-2024 passed by Trial Court and to treat the instant petition as the second bail application, and adjudicate and grant regular bail to the Petitioner who has been arraigned as Accused 18. Vikas Mahajan, J., granted custody parole to the petitioner for two days i.e. on 11-02-2025 and 13-02-2025 to attend the ongoing Parliamentary Session subject to certain conditions. Read more HERE
PMLA
DELHI HIGH COURT | PMLA proceedings by ED against Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd. in view of Section 32A of IBC, set aside
A petition was filed by Bhushan Power and Steed Limited under Article 226 read with Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) seeking quashing of case filed under Section 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) and all consequential proceedings arising out of or emanating therefrom including the order issuing process dated 17-01-2020 passed by the Special Judge qua the petitioner company. Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J., partly allowed the petition and the order dated 17-01-2020, taking cognizance and issuing process against the Petitioner Company, was set aside. Read more HERE
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
ORISSA HIGH COURT | Magistrate must hear Police Officer and pass reasoned order before ordering investigation under S. 175(3) of BNSS, reiterated
In a criminal petition seeking registration of First Information Report (FIR), the Bench of G. Satapathy, J. the Court reiterated that the correct approach in case of non-registration of FIR is to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate by invoking the provisions of law. Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | ‘Police thoroughly followed the legal procedure’; Trial Court’s view that informing grounds four minutes after arrest was not unreasonable, upheld
In a writ petition filed against the order passed by the Sessions Court wherein the accused’s claim regarding violation of his fundamental right to know the grounds of his arrest under Article 22(1) of the Constitution was rejected, a Single Judge Bench of Dr. Neela Gokhale, J., rejected the writ petition holding that the police had thoroughly followed the legal procedure and there was no violation of the fundamental right of the accused. Read more HERE
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT | Practice directions issued for delays in dispatching Trial Court Records to High Court
The present case arises from concerns regarding the transmission of Trial Court records to the High Court, particularly the delays and irregularities observed in their dispatch. A division bench of Subhendu Samanta and Joymalya Bagchi, JJ., issued practise directions to address the delays and irregularities in the transmission of Trial Court Records to High Court. Read more HERE
GUJARAT HIGH COURT | ‘Cost should be reasonable, not unbearable to litigant’; Cost imposed on litigant who was denied right to file appeal due to non-payment of cost, reduced
In a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution seeking to quash the order passed by the Trial Court wherein a cost of Rs 25,000 was imposed on the petitioner, a Single Judge Bench of Maulik J. Shelat, J., partly allowed the petition holding that the cost imposed was exorbitant and not in consonance with any misconduct on the petitioner’s part. Thus, the Court reduced the cost to Rs 15,000 and highlighted that the Court could indeed impose a cost for frivolous applications, but such cost should be reasonable and not unbearable, keeping in mind other factors such as the conduct of parties. Read more HERE
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT | “Litigant and his lawyer have a basic obligation not to deceive/mislead the Court”; ₹ 50,000/- cost imposed on counsel
In an appeal challenging the dismissal of applications seeking injunctions to prevent demolishing of alleged dwelling houses on disputed land by the Gram Panchayat, a single-judge bench of Rekha Borana, J., rejected the appellants’ claims of residential possession, malicious intent by the Gram Panchayat, and procedural lapses and dismissed the appeals. The Court imposed a cost of ₹ 50,000/- on the counsel and reiterated the ethical obligations of advocates and warned against misuse of judicial resources. Read more HERE
GUJARAT HIGH COURT | ‘No locus of examiner to assail University result’; Examiner’s plea alleging result manipulation by Pandit Deendayala Energy University, rejected
In an appeal filed by an examiner of the Pandit Deendayala Energy University (‘the University’) against the order of the Single Judge rejecting the writ petition contending that the University had manipulated exam results, the Division Bench of Sunita Agarwal, CJ.*, and Pranav Trivedi, J., dismissed the appeal by upholding the impugned order stating that the examiner had no locus to assail the result declared by the University. The Court also stated that filing of the writ petition more than a year after the declaration of results was nothing but sheer abuse of the Court process and imposed a cost of Rs 50,00 to be paid by the examiner within three weeks to the High Court Legal Services Committee for the cause of the orphan students pursuing higher studies. Read more HERE
QUASHMENT OF PROCEEDINGS/ FIR
DELHI HIGH COURT | Precise definition of the word “forthwith” in Section 50 CrPC, analysed; Set aside arrest due to non-compliance
A petition was filed under section 482 CrPC challenging the order dated 18-05-2024 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari District Courts, Delhi whereby the Magistrate remanded the petitioner to police custody for 02 days in FIR registered under sections 342, 344, 365, 368, 370, 370(A), 372, 373, 376, 120-B and 34 of Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act 1956 (ITP Act). Anup Jairam Bhambhani, J., set aside the arrest of the petitioner on the grounds of non-compliance of the mandatory requirements of section 50 of the CrPC and Article 22(1) of the Constitution. Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Case against Nestle India Ltd. for allegedly selling ‘sub-standard’ Maggie noodles, quashed
In the present case, the applicants challenged the complaint lodged on 04-04-2016 by the Food Safety Officer, wherein the applicants were charged for violation of Sections 26(2)(i), 27(2)(c) read with Section 3(1)(zz) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (‘FSS Act’), and Regulation 2.12 of the Food Safety Standards (Food Product Standards and Additives) Regulations, 2011, Regulation 2.1.1 of the Food Safety Standards (Contaminants, Toxins and Residues) Regulations, 2011, punishable under Sections 59 and 66 of the FSS Act. The present application was filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) for quashing of a summary criminal case pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur. A Single Judge Bench of Urmila Joshi-Phalke, J., opined that the report of the Food Analyst dated 31-12-2015 lost its significance as the samples were not analyzed by the Accredited Laboratory under Section 43 of the FSS Act and, therefore, the report which was the foundation for launching the prosecution against the applicants could not be relied upon. The Court thus quashed the summary criminal case. Read more HERE
RIGHT TO PRIVACY
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT | Installing CCTV in residential space without co-trustee/occupant consent violates right to privacy
An appeal was filed challenging the order dated which rejected the prayer of the appellant-plaintiff for discontinuation of the operation of the CCTV cameras installed inside the dwelling house with immediate effect made under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code. A division bench of Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Uday Kumar, JJ., set aside the impugned order and held that the operation of CCTV Camera nos. 5, 10, 11, 12, 13 installed inside the residential portion of the suit property affects the unbridled right of the appellant to enjoy his property with dignity. Read more HERE
SENIOR CITIZENS
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT | “Senior citizens have right to peaceful living”; Son-in-Law’s eviction from Father-in-Law’s property, upheld
In a writ appeal challenging the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM), and Collector concerning eviction of a senior citizen from a property under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (the Act), a division bench of Suresh Kumar Kait, CJ., and Vivek Jain, J., while upholding the eviction order, opined that eviction order was necessary to protect the interests of the senior citizen (Respondent 3) and ensure peaceful living. Read more HERE
SURROGACY
KERALA HIGH COURT | Female can have a surrogate child only after 23 years of age and before completing 50 years; Section 4(c) of Surrogacy Act clarified
In a petition filed to declare that the petitioners fall within the age limit prescribed under Section 4(c) of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 (‘the Act’) and direct Respondent 3 to issue the eligibility certificate for surrogacy to the petitioners, C.S. Dias, J., stated that the terms ‘between’ and ‘to’ used in Section 4(c)(I) of the Act reflected a restriction indicating that a female could have a surrogate child only after attaining the age of 23 years and before completing the age of 50 years, with a similar restriction for males aged between 26 to 55. Thus, considering the facts and legal principles, the Court stated that Respondent 3 had rightly concluded that the wife was ineligible for an eligibility certificate under Section 4(c) of the Act since she had attained the age of 50 years. Consequently, the petitioners’ prayer to declare the wife eligible for an eligibility certificate was rejected. Read more HERE
