ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
[Brick Throwing Case] Convict didn’t come prepared and armed with any weapon at all; Allahabad HC modifies ‘murder’ conviction to ‘grievous hurt’
In a criminal appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 12-09-1989 passed by Additional Session Judge, whereby the convicts were convicted under Section 302 read with 34 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, the division bench of Rajan Roy and Jyotsna Sharma*, JJ. modified the judgment and altered the conviction from Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC to Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced the convict to a term of three years and a fine of Rs. 30,000/-, provided that out of the total amount of fine, Rs. 25,000/- shall be payable to the son of the deceased as compensation. Read more
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Andhra Pradesh High Court grants bail to accused who allegedly stabbed Chief Minister YS Jagan Mohan Reddy in 2018
In a criminal appeal filed by the appellant-accused under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency, 2008 (‘the NIA Act’), challenging the order dated 22-09-2023, the Division Bench of U. Durga Prasad Rao* and Kiranmayee Mandava, JJ., noted that the precise accusation against the appellant was that he unlawfully and intentionally used in the airport, a device or substance or weapon and committed an act of violence which was likely to cause grievous hurt or death. The Court opined that for the purpose of considering the bail application, the violence allegedly committed by the appellant neither caused grievous hurt or death nor was likely to cause grievous hurt or death. Further, the Court opined that the appellant had rightfully stated that mere using the device, substance or weapon and committing the act of violence was not the be all and end all of the offence under Section 3-A(1)(a) of the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against Safety of Civil Aviation Act, 1982 (‘the Act’), unless such violence was likely to cause grievous hurt or death of any person, which was not the case in the present case. Thus, the Court set aside the impugned order and released the appellant on bail on his executing a personal bond for Rs. 25,000 with two sureties each for like sum to the satisfaction of Trial Court. Read more
Controller of Legal Metrology competent authority to fix jurisdiction of license; can restrict license to one city: Andhra Pradesh High Court
In a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda, J., referred to Section 23(2) of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (‘the Act’) and Rule 11(7) of Andhra Pradesh Legal Metrology (Enforcement) Rules, 2011 (‘2011 Rules’) and opined that it was clear that Controller of Legal Metrology, Respondent 2 was vested with powers to issue license and also to fix the jurisdiction of a license. The Court opined that in the present case, the impugned license granted in favour of the petitioner, only to the extent of Guntur District, was in accordance with the aforesaid provisions. Thus, the Court opined that the notification dated 07-05-2015 and proceedings 09-06-2016, were not violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and did not infringe the petitioner’s fundamental to carry on his business in a particular District. Read more
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Bombay High Court grants exemption from Surrogacy Rules to couple facing Genetic Disorder challenges
A petition was filed by a married couple, encountering infertility issues due to the wife’s medical condition, VHL syndrome, opting for surrogacy as the only viable path to parenthood challenging a government notification imposing restrictive conditions, including the prohibition of donor gametes. A division bench of G S Kulkarni and Firdosh P Pooniwalla, JJ., granted exemption from the impugned notification stipulation, i.e., to pursue surrogacy without adherence to donor gamete restrictions. Read more
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Calcutta High Court quashes Section 144 CrPC order; permits State to promulgate more focused order for specific disturbance areas in Sandeskhali
In an application seeking the quashing of an order imposing restrictions under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) in the Sandeskhali Police Station area, lifting the ban on internet services imposed in the Sandeskhali II CD Block, a single-judge bench comprising of Jay Sengupta,* J., quashed the impugned Section 144 CrPC order due to being unlawful and lacking proper reasoning. The Court allowed the State to seek a new order specifying the exact area of disturbance. The Court directed the police to prioritize the arrest of the alleged perpetrators and instructed them to deploy adequate personnel and surveillance technology to maintain peace. Read more
Calcutta High Court upholds the co-owners’ right to enhanced compensation in Land Acquisition case
In a consolidated writ petitions challenging the Collector, Land Acquisition’s order denying enhanced compensation to the petitioners based on a tribunal’s order, a single-judge bench comprising of Suvra Ghosh,* J., upheld the principle of parity among co-owners in land acquisition cases and directed the Land Acquisition Collector, Howrah, to comply with the tribunal’s order within two months. Read more
Calcutta High Court condones 1452 days delay in filing appeal against acquittal; criticises CBI’s approach
In an appeal against order of acquittal, accompanied with an application for the condonation of a delay of 1452 days, almost four years, a single-judge bench comprising of Bibhas Ranjan De,* J., despite criticising the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)’s conduct and acknowledging CBI’s duty to file within the limitation period, condoned the delay in filing the special leave petition, citing the need to advance the cause of justice and considering the explanations provided in the application. The Court also directed the CBI to ensure more vigilance in future proceedings. Read more
Calcutta High Court rejects appeal on compliance of Section 64VB of Insurance Act; directs dispersal of insurance claim
In an appeal against the order of single judge of this Court allowing the insurance claim, a division bench comprising of Surya Prakash Kesarwani* and Rajarshi Bharadwaj, JJ., held that adherence to the terms of the insurance policy is crucial, but the appellant could not reject the claim on the ground of non-compliance with Section 64-VB of the Insurance Act, 1938 after accepting the premium in instalments. The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the impugned order which allowed the insurance claim. Read more
Unresolved factual ‘Factual disputes should be resolved during trial’; Calcutta High Court dismisses interlocutory application and Review motion
In an application seeking directions for repurchasing unsold stock of “Power Team” products and adjustment of the amount payable under the decree, a single-judge bench comprising of Krishna Rao,* J., the defendant’s application and the Review application, stating that the issues raised should be resolved during the trial of the suit and it is inappropriate to grant relief seeking in the application at the interlocutory stage of the ongoing suit. Read more
BSF jawan found guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder for sudden indiscriminate firing which led to a civilian’s death; Calcutta HC commutes sentence
While considering the instant matter wherein the petitioner challenged his conviction and sentence passed by the GSF Court for an offence committed under Section 46 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 i.e., for murder and attempt to murder punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced him to life imprisonment along with dismissal from service; the Bench of Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.*, based on detailed analysis of evidence provided by the prosecution (respondent herein), gave the petitioner benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300 and held that the offence in question was not murder but it was an offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder as specified in Exception 4 to Section 300 and hence, petitioner is punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC and Section 308 Part II instead of Sections 302/307 of the Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 46 of BSF Act, 1968. Read more
DELHI HIGH COURT
Delhi HC refuses concerns against Anant Ambani-Radhika Merchant wedding venue, says ‘pure apprehension that injury may be caused to animals’
In a petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’), the Division Bench of Suresh Kumar Kait* and Girish Kathpalia*, JJ., and opined that the present petition was filed purely on the apprehension that some injury or ill-treatment might be caused to the animals during the events scheduled on 01-03-2024 to 03-03-2024, and such sort of petition could not be entertained simply on the basis of apprehension. Further, since a High-Powered Committee (‘HPC’) had already been constituted after the directions passed in Sudipa Nath v. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine Tri 691, therefore the said Committee was at liberty to be present and oversee the aforesaid event and to take all cautions permissible under law, if any, to ensure that no inhumane behaviour was caused to the animals. Read more
Delhi High Court directs IBBI to frame code of conduct for effective working of Committee of Creditors
Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J.*, opined that the Committee of Creditors (‘CoC’) was entrusted with fiduciary duties and the functions entrusted to CoC were wide in nature, and to effectively deliver the duties entrusted upon it, a code of conduct was of pertinent value. The Court opined that one of the foremost functions of law was to circumscribe power with the responsibility, and the CoC, being entrusted with the fiduciary duty to bring back the Corporate Debtor from the vicious cycle of debt trap, must be saddled with the responsibility of ensuring that the decisions took by it in the exercise of its commercial wisdom should be in tune with the bonafide objectives of the Code. Read more
‘Right to health, heritage and culture must be harmonised and balanced’; Delhi High Court in a petition seeking to desist from demolishing religious structures
In a public interest petition filed for seeking issuance of directions to Respondents 1 and 2 to desist from demolishing/removing the Ashiq Allah Dargah, including the chillagah of Baba Farid and other surrounding historical monuments in Mehrauli or Sanjay Van, the Division Bench of Manmohan, ACJ and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J., took judicial notice of the fact that Delhi was one of the cities, that was worst affected by the pollution. No month had passed when the Air Quality Index did not cross the hazardous mark, and according to the doctors, even lungs of young children were being adversely affected. Thus, the Court opined that right to health, right to breathe and right to heritage and culture had to be harmonised and balanced. Read more
Deliberate practice of trade mark squatting’; Delhi High Court grants permanent injunction to Volans Uptown LLC for its mark ‘Botanic Hearth’
In a case wherein, a quia timet suit filed by plaintiff, Volans Uptown LLC, seeking various remedies including a permanent injunction restraining defendant from passing off goods under plaintiff’s trade mark ‘Botanic Hearth’ (‘the Mark’) and any other derivatives of this mark, Sanjiv Narula, J.*, granted permanent injunction in favour of plaintiff and opined that identical trade mark was likely to mislead the consumers. Read more
Product-by-process claims must be examined on the anvil of a new and unobvious product: Delhi High Court
The appeals were preferred against the decision dated 24-07-2023 passed by a Single Judge disposing of the interim injunction applications and refusing interim relief in terms as prayed for by appellant. The appeals raised an issue of product-by-process claims and their scope as liable to be construed under the provisions of the Patent Act, 1970 (‘the Act’). The Division Bench of Yashwant Varma* and Dharmesh Sharma, JJ., opined that the Single Judge’s decision failed to correctly appreciate the well settled principle of product-by-process terms being an established and recognised mode of drafting claims and such a method being adopted in cases where products resist definition except by resort to process terms. The Court thus held that the legal position as enunciated by the Single Judge suffered from patent and manifest illegalities and thus clearly warranted interference in appeal. Read more
Fundamental right to travel abroad cannot be curtailed only because of default in loan payment: Delhi High Court
In a case wherein petitioner had challenged a Look Out Circular (‘LOC’) issued by Respondent 1, Bureau of Immigration at the instance of Respondent 2, Bank of Baroda, Subramonium Prasad, J.*, quashed LOC and held that issuance of LOC could not be resorted in every case of bank loan default or credit facilities availed for business and fundamental right of citizens to travel abroad could not be curtailed only because of failure to pay bank loans. Read more
Charge sheet not invalidated/vitiated, if documents relied on by prosecution not filed along with it: Delhi High Court
An application under Section 439 read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) was filed on behalf of petitioner for bail in FIR under Sections 454, 380, 420, 468, 471, and 120-B of the Penal Code, 1860. Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, J.*, dismissed the application and opined that the charge sheet was filed against petitioner within the prescribed limit and cognizance was taken by the concerned Court, thus petitioner could not claim the statutory right of default bail under Section 167(2) of CrPC merely because some investigation under Section 173(8) of CrPC might be required. Read more
Weight of carriers like towels, bedsheets cannot be included to determine small/commercial quantity of contraband: Delhi HC
An application was filed under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 seeking regular bail in case registered by the Narcotics Control Bureau, Delhi Zonal Unit (‘NCB’) under Sections 8(c), 21(c), 23(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘NDPS Act’). Vikas Mahajan, J.*, opined that the only incriminating material was the disclosure statement of co-accused Hikamtuallah Hakimi under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, who disclosed that petitioner was to receive the contraband from him. Thus, the Court granted regular bail to petitioner and held that there was no material prima facie to indicate that petitioner had entered into a conspiracy with Hikamtullah Hakimi. Read more
Benefits under MSME Act do not apply retrospectively if registration is obtained after commencement of contract: Delhi HC reiterates
In a case wherein a writ petition filed by petitioner, Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (‘MTNL’), had challenged a decision passed by Respondent 2, Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (‘MSME Council’), accepting the reference of dispute raised by Respondent 3, claimant against petitioner before Respondent 1, the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (‘DIAC’), under Section 18 of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (‘MSME Act’) and further referred the dispute in the said case to DIAC; Subramonium Prasad, J.*, disposed of the writ petition and held that the Court would not enter into the issue at this juncture leaving it open to petitioner to raise the dispute between the parties before Arbitrator by filing appropriate applications under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Read more
Municipal authorities cannot be expected to wipe out all stray animals from roads; duty is to take sincere steps to ensure animals are rehabilitated: Delhi HC
The present contempt petition alleged contumacious and wilful disobedience, by the respondents, of the directions contained in order dated 25-09-2019, passed in a Public Interest Litigation for ensuring that the malady of stray cattle, monkeys, dogs and other such animals on the road and municipal areas in the city were properly dealt with. C. Hari Shankar, J., opined that the order dated 25-09-2019 had to be meaningfully understood, and it could not be expected that the municipal authorities could completely wipe out, from the roads and municipal areas of Delhi, all stray animals, whether cattle, monkeys, dogs or other animals. The duty of the municipal authorities was to take concerted, sincere and optimum steps to ensure that such animals were rehabilitated and did not possess a menace to residents of Delhi or to the traffic plying on the roads. The Court opined that there was a distinction between contempt and enforcement, and considering the status reports filed by the respondents, it could not be said that there was contumacious or wilful disobedience on their part in complying with the directions in its order dated 25-09-2019. Read more
Delhi High Court directs State prompt ex-gratia payment to COVID-19 victim’s family under Mukhyamantri Covid-19 Pariwar Aarthik Sahayata Yojana
A petition was filed seeking directions to the Respondents to release the compensation for which the Petitioner is entitled to under the Mukhyamantri Covid-19 Pariwar Aarthik Sahayata Yojana (MCPASY). Subramonium Prasad, J., directs respondent 3 i.e., the SDM to promptly release the ex-gratia payment under the MCPASY Scheme to the petitioner within two weeks from the date of order. Read more
GUJARAT HIGH COURT
‘No clarity on nature of action taken for removal of unauthorized religious structures’; Gujarat HC directs State to file fresh affidavit
In a suo motu cognizance of the demolition drive by the Vadodara Municipal Corporation for removal of purported religious structures encroaching upon public space, the Division Bench of Sunita Agarwal, CJ and Aniruddha P. Mayee, J. directed the State to file an affidavit on the unauthorized religious structures. Read more
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Award by Facilitation Council without recording failure of conciliation or reference to arbitration void; Jharkhand High Court remits matter
In an appeal challenging judgment dated 3-03-2016 dismissing writ petition holding that a challenge to award passed by Jharkhand MSE Facilitation Council (memo no. 3342 of 12-12-2013) not to be entertained in proceedings under Article 226 of Constitution of India, while liberty was given to the petitioner (‘buyer’) to avail statutory remedy, the Division Bench of Shree Chandrashekhar, ACJ and Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J. followed Supreme Court’s decisions to remit the matter back to the Facilitation Council quashing the previous award since the same was not passed in accordance with the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘1996 Act’) and Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (‘MSME Act’). Read more
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Read why Madras HC refused to quash hate speech case against BJP State President K. Annamalai
In a petition filed by K Annamalai the State President of the Bharatiya Janata Party (‘BJP’) in Tamil Nadu, praying to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him for his remarks against a Christian Missionary NGO, N. Anand Venkatesh, J. while holding that there exists a prima facie intent to create hatred towards a particular religion, refused to quash the criminal proceedings. Further, it said that the statements were made by a person of stature, whose words have a lot of impact on the masses and as a result, they, prima facie, have a psychological impact on the targeted group. Therefore, the non-physical impact of the statements made will also come within the scope of Section 153-A of the IPC. Read more
Date of e-filing final report, not the date on which hard copy is brought before Court, to be taken as date of filing: Madras HC
In a criminal original petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (‘CrPC’) to set aside the impugned docket order of the Trial Court, wherein the statutory bail petition filed by the petitioner was returned on the ground that the charge sheet has already been filed by the respondent, N. Anand Venkatesh,J. while refusing to interfere with the impugned order , said the date on which the hard copy is brought before the Court cannot be taken to be the date of filing and in every case, the date of filing can only be the date on which the e-filing is done and that should be incorporated as the date of filing in the official website. This practice has to be consistently followed by all the Courts in order to avoid any future confusion. Read more
Madras HC sets aside ED’s attachment order for not being in accordance with law, making consequential actions unsustainable
In two writ petitions filed calling for the records pertaining to the Provisional Attachment Order passed by the Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement (‘ED’) and the confirmation order passed by the Adjudicating Authority and quash the same and consequently direct the Special Director and Joint Director of Directorate of Enforcement to remove the attachment on the property, the division bench of M.S. Ramesh and Sunder Mohan*, JJ. while quashing the provisional attachment order passed by ED, and the confirmation order passed by the adjudicating authority, said that the provisional attachment is not in accordance with the law, thus all consequential actions cannot be sustained. Further, it directed the Sub Registrar to remove the encumbrance and issue a fresh encumbrance certificate. Read more
ORISSA HIGH COURT
[Trafficking for Sexual Exploitation] S. 370-A IPC offence made out only when sex worker’s customer has procured her for another person: Orissa HC
In a criminal miscellaneous application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) for quashing the cognizance of the offences under Sections 370(3) and 370-A(2) of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), by the Trial Court, S.S. Misra, JJ. allowed the appeal and quashed the cognizance order by the Trial Court. The Court held that only when the customer performs his role of procuring the women for another, the offence under Section 370-A IPC could be made out. Read more
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Former Military Nurse an ex-serviceman under Punjab Recruitment of Ex-Servicemen Rules: Punjab and Haryana HC
In an intra-court appeal under Clause X of Letters Patent Appeal challenging judgment dismissing civil writ petition, the Division Bench of Ritu Bahri, ACJ and Aman Chaudhary*, J. considered held that the appellant being a Commissioned Officer of the Military Nursing Service was an ex-serviceman as per the Punjab Recruitment of Ex-Servicemen Rules, 1982.Read more
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Rajasthan HC directed Chief Secretary to constitute committee for providing ‘Jyoti Yojna’ benefits to every woman who underwent sterilization after giving birth to one/two girl child
In a writ petition filed by the petitioner seeking direction against the respondents for refund of the fees and expenses incurred by her in her education in pursuance of the Government Scheme ‘Jyoti Yojna’ (‘the Scheme’), Anoop Kumar Dhand, J., opined that the respondents’ action in not providing the benefits of the Scheme to the petitioner and similarly placed persons, was quite arbitrary, unreasonable and amounted to gross abuse of the power and violation of the principle of natural justice and the same was not sustainable in the eyes of law. Thus, the Court directed the respondents to provide the benefits of the Scheme to the petitioner and refund/reimburse her educational fees and other expenses incurred in her education with interest at the rate of nine percent per annum from the date of filing of the writ petition. The Court further issued a general mandamus to the respondents and the Chief Secretary of the State of Rajasthan to constitute a committee headed by the Secretary, Department Medical and Health to provide the benefits of the Scheme to each and every individual, who had one or two girl child and underwent sterilization, in pursuance of the Scheme. Read more
Widowed daughter-in-law is included in definition of dependant; can seek compassionate appointment under Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment Rules, 1996: Raj HC
In a case wherein by special appeal, the appellant had challenged the order dated 28-09-2022, the Division Bench of Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati* and Rajendra Prakash Soni, JJ., opined that in the society, a daughter-in-law, who might be a widow, was always treated as an integral member of the family and possessed all honour and responsibilities of the household. Thus, the Court noted that it failed to understand as to how the widowed daughter-in-law could be discriminated against other first layer components of the family, so far as the definition of the ‘dependent’ was contained in Rule 2(c) of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 (‘1996 Rules’). Thus, the Court opined that the term ‘dependent’ included ‘widowed daughter-in-law’ in the term ‘widowed daughter’ and set aside the impugned order dated 28-09-2022. The Court further directed the respondents to grant compassionate appointment to the appellant within a period of three months from date of receipt of a certified copy of the present judgment. Read more
State first-responder to grievance put forth by citizens; ought to pass appropriate speaking orders addressing aggrieved employee’s concerns: Raj HC
In a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, Sameer Jain, J., opined that the State had the inherent task of being the ‘first-responders’ to the statements of grievance put forth by its citizens, albeit in the capacity of State employees or otherwise. The Court opined that the State was obviously not under the responsibility to address the representations positively in the aggrieved-employees’ favour. Rather, the only requirement it ought to fulfil was providing an ear to their grievance, and thereafter pass appropriate speaking orders in compliance of the principles of natural justice, which might or might not address the aggrieved employee’s concerns to their liking. Thus, the Court directed Chief Secretary for the State to issue instructions to the State instrumentalities for considering the representations of aggrieved parties and dispose the same by way of speaking orders, so that frivolous litigation was cut-down before the courts, which were already exceedingly over-burdened. The Court also directed the respondent-State to pay due and timely heed to the representation preferred by the petitioner on 23-08-2023 and thereafter, pass a speaking order, in compliance with the principles of natural justice within a period of thirty days. Read more
TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Whether power u/s 8 of PMLA conferred on Adjudicating Authority can be exercised only by member having experience in law: Telangana HC clarifies.
Appellant had challenged an order dated 13-03-2023 wherein a Single Judge Bench of this Court (‘the Single Judge’) had quashed provisional order of attachment and show cause notice issued by the Adjudicating Authority formed under provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (‘PMLA’). The Division Bench of Alok Aradhe, CJ.*, and Anil Kumar Jukanti, J., set aside the order passed by the Single Judge and held that under Section 8 of PMLA power could be exercised by the Adjudicating Authority comprising only from member in field of law could not be accepted as it would leave Sections 6(5) and 6(7) of PMLA ineffective. Read more
‘Mere recovery of amount cannot prove alleged demand of bribe’; Telangana HC sets aside conviction against Sub-Inspector of Police
In a case wherein appellant, Sub-Inspector of Police challenged the judgement of the Trial Court where he was convicted for demanding bribe of Rs 5,000, K. Surender, J.*, set aside his conviction and opined that recovery of money could not be made any basis to assume that demand was made by appellant. Read more
TRIPURA HIGH COURT
Calculation must be made as per limits prescribed by Central Govt from time to time in case Payment of Gratuity is applicable on any establishment: Tripura HC
S.D. Purkayastha, J.*, opined that when in any establishment the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (‘the Act’) were applicable, automatically, the calculation should be made as per the limits prescribed by the Central Government from time to time. The Court thus directed respondents to make payment of gratuity to petitioner in accordance with provisions of the Act treating the maximum ceiling limit of the gratuity to be Rs 20 lakh as notified by the Central Government vide notification dated 29-03-2018. Read more
