ACQUITTAL
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT | Voluntarily accompanied accused in crowded place; no injury marks on body of victim’; Rape accused acquitted in a POCSO case
In an appeal filed by the appellant (‘accused’) against the judgment dated 05-08-2022, the Division Bench of Sureshwar Thakur* and Kuldeep Tiwari, JJ., after perusal of relevant portion of the cross- examination of the prosecution, observed that it was openly suggestive, that the victim voluntarily accompanied the accused to the crime site, especially when she had stated that she did not suffer any internal or external injury marks on any part of her body during the course of her being allegedly subjected to physical relations with the accused. Moreover, when the motorcycle was driven by the accused in the crowded places and the victim was coerced to occupy the pillion seat of the motorcycle, the victim ought to have invited the attention of passer-by by raising shrieks and cries. Thus, the Court concluded that the victim had voluntarily joined the company of the accused, and since there was no injury marks on the victim, the incident, if any, which occurred amongst the victim and the accused, was entirely consensual. Read more HERE
BAIL
DELHI HIGH COURT | Bail granted to anti-CAA protest accused in money laundering case under PMLA and UAPA
A bail application was filed by applicants under Section 439 read with Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code seeking regular bail dated 21-09-2022 for the commission of offence under sections 3 and 4 read with section 70 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (‘PMLA’). Jasmeet Singh, J., granted bail to the applicants subject to certain conditions. Read more HERE
MADRAS HIGH COURT answers | Does the right to default bail accrues upon the expiry of the statutory period if an investigation extension application is pending?
In a criminal revision case filed under Sections 397 read with Section 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) , to set aside the order of extension of investigation passed by the Principal Special Judge under Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981 and Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘NDPS Act’) and to enlarge the accused on bail, Sunder Mohan, J. reiterated that if an extension application is pending, the right of the accused to obtain default bail, would not accrue to the accused. Further, noting that the Public Prosecutor had failed to explain why further detention was necessary for the purpose of the investigation, set aside the impugned order which had extended the statutory period for investigation. Therefore, as the extension order was overturned, the right to statutory bail was revived, and the accused persons were entitled to be released on bail. Read more HERE
CRIMINAL TRIAL
JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT | Doctrine “Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” doesn’t apply in India; Courts must separate reliable evidence from exaggerations
In a 24-year-old assault case, a Division Bench of Sanjay Dhar* and Rajnesh Oswal, JJ., held that the principle “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” does not apply to Indian Courts and courts must separate reliable evidence from exaggerations. Despite discrepancies regarding injuries to others, the Court held that the evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused/respondent 1 grievously injured complainant prosecution witness. Read more HERE
CUSTOMS
DELHI HIGH COURT | Detention order on woman’s personal gold jewellery set aside, Exempts ‘personal effects’ from customs duty
In a petition seeking seeking to quash the order of the Joint Commissioner of Customs(‘JCC’) wherein the petitioner was penalised for carrying gold jewellery in her baggage through the non-dutiable customs line of the airport, the division bench of Yashwant Verma and Ravinder Dudeja*, JJ., quashed the impugned order and held that personal jewellery of the passenger will not be subject to the monetary prescriptions under Rules 3 and 4 of the Baggage Rules, 2016 (‘the 2016 Rules’). Read more HERE
ORISSA HIGH COURT | No social welfare surcharge payable on custom duty exempted under MEIS Scheme
In a civil writ petition challenging the requirement to pay social welfare surcharge (‘SWS’) on customs duty for import of petroleum coke which is exempted under scrip issued under the Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS), the Division Bench of Arindam Sinha and MS Sahoo, JJ. allowed the petition holding that SWS which is leviable on customs duty will be zero where a trader is exempted from paying customs duty under the MEIS. The Court directed that the petitioner was entitled to and gets declaration that it is not required to pay SWS calculated on customs duty, exempted under scrip held by it. Read more HERE
EDUCATION LAW
MEGHALAYA HIGH COURT | Relief denied to 5th-semester law student falling short on attendance to take exams citing mandate of law
In a writ petition instituted by a 5th Semester law student of Shillong Law College to condone the shortfall in attendance of 70% for which he has been held to be ineligible by the College to take the End Semester Exams (5th semester Exams), H. S. Thangkhiew, J. refused to grant any relief to the student citing Rule 12 of the Legal Education, 2008 which allows relief to only extent of 65%, and whereas the student had only attended 60% classes. Read more HERE
ENVIRONMENT LAW
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT | Swarn Rekha River Revival Project | Directed synergy between State Government, Municipal Corporation & Counsels
In the case concerning preparation and submission of a Detailed Project Report (DPR) by the Municipal Corporation, Gwalior, for the Swarn Rekha River project, a Division bench of Anand Pathak and Roopesh Chandra Varshney, JJ., directed the Municipal Corporation to facilitate the early requisition of the vetting report from MANIT, Bhopal, preferably within one month and instructed the MANIT to respond affirmatively and submit the report within the specified time. Read more HERE
EXCISE
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT | ‘Person wanting to do liquor trade have to accept conditions as framed by State’; petition to quash prohibition of operation of bars/pubs beyond midnight in Haryana dismissed
In a petition filed for quashing Clause 9.8.8 of the Haryana Excise Policy 2024-2025, to the extent that it prohibited the bars/ pubs in all other districts of the State of Haryana barring Gurugram and Faridabad from operating beyond 12.00 midnight, the Division Bench of Sanjeev Prakash Sharma* and Sanjay Vashisth, JJ., stated that once the petitioners obtained the license under the said Excise Policy and were doing their business in the terms laid down therein, they could not turn around and challenge part of the said policy which did not suit them. Principle of ‘take it or leave it’ had to be accepted and applied in contractual matters. Where a person wanted to do liquor trade, he would have to accept the conditions as framed by the State. Change in excise policy for each year was well known to all. The Court stated that no one had stopped the petitioners from doing business at Gurugram, if they found it to be more lucrative. The contention that the petitioners’ business was affected because of the change in the excise policy for the subsequent year was also found to be without basis, as the person carrying on liquor trade would know what was in store for him for the entire year. Thus, the Court dismissed the present petition. Read more HERE
HUMAN AND CIVIL RIGHTS
KERALA HIGH COURT | Collector and Police directed to ensure safe pilgrimage to Sabarimala during Mandala-Makaravilakku Festival
In a suo motu case initiated for providing amenities and facilities to the Sabarimala pilgrims and for effective crowd management during the ongoing Mandala-Makaravilakku festival, the division bench of Anil K. Narendran* and Muralee Krishna S., JJ., directed District Collector and District Police Chief, Pathanamthitta to take necessary steps to ensure that no issues are being created by the traders who have opposed inspections, causing inconvenience to the pilgrims. Read more HERE
INJUNCTION
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Temporary injunction granted to HDFC Life Insurance against an unknown person who sought to extort money by threatening to leak customer data
A Single Judge Bench of R.I. Chagla, J., granted temporary injunction in favour of applicant-HDFC Life Insurance Co. Ltd. against Defendant 6-an unknown person, who wanted to extort money from applicant by threatening to leak confidential customer data. The Court, thus, restrained Defendant 6 from using, copying, publishing, distributing, transmitting, communicating, or disclosing to any person, confidential information and any other information relating to applicant that was not available in the public domain. Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | ‘Individual’s reputation integral part of personality, cannot be unjustly tarnished under guise of freedom of speech’: Interim relief granted to Harsh Beniwal
In a suit filed by the plaintiffs seeking a decree of permanent and mandatory injunction along with damages and other consequential reliefs., a Single Judge Bench of Vikas Mahajan, J., stated that it was trite law that an individual’s reputation was an integral part of his/her personality and could not be unjustly tarnished under the guise of freedom of speech. It is equally trite law that dignity and honour of an individual could not be allowed to be defamed on the ground of right of free speech and expression. Read more HERE
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Chrome21 India restrained from infringing Hind Rectifiers’s mark ‘HIRECT’; declares ‘HIRECT’ as a well-known trade mark
In the present case, plaintiff sought an injunction restraining defendants from infringing plaintiffs registered trade mark ‘HIRECT’ and passing of the impugned mark ‘HIRECT’ as that of plaintiffs registered trade mark. A Single Judge Bench of R.I. Chagla, J., held that till final disposal of the present suit, defendants were restrained from infringing the registered device marks in Classes 9 and 35, by use of the impugned domain name/website ‘www.hirect.in’ and/or ‘www.hirect.us’ and/or any other mark and/or domain name identical and/or deceptively similar to the registered marks of plaintiff. Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Personality rights of renowned cardiac surgeon Dr Devi Shetty protected; temporarily restrained infringement of Narayana Health trade marks
In a suit filed for seeking permanent injunction restraining infringement of personality and publicity rights of Devi Prasad Shetty, a renowned cardiac surgeon (‘Plaintiff 1’), a Single Judge Bench of Mini Pushkarna, J., stated that the plaintiffs had demonstrated a prima facie case for the grant of injunction and in case, no ex parte ad interim injunction was granted, the plaintiffs would suffer an irreparable loss. Further, balance of convenience also lies in plaintiff’s favour, and against the defendants. Read more HERE
MAINTAINENCE
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT | Upheld maintenance for wife and daughter; Rejected claims challenging legal marriage despite pending appeal
A revision application was filed by the petitioner (wife) challenging the correctness, legality and propriety of the impugned judgment dated 16-11-2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge that allowed the criminal revision application in part and the order passed by the 3rd Judicial Magistrate was modified by directing the Opposite Party 2 (husband) to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000 only per month as maintenance allowance to the daughter of the petitioner and set aside the maintenance allowance allowed by the Court in favour of the wife on the ground that she failed to prove that she is married wife of the Opposite Party 2. Ajay Kumar Gupta, J., sets aside the judgment by the Sessions Judge, which denied the Petitioner’s status as a legal wife and upheld the Trial Court’s award of ₹2,000 per month as maintenance to the petitioner and the enhanced maintenance of ₹3,000 per month for the child awarded by the Sessions Judge. Read more HERE
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
GUJARAT HIGH COURT | Tribunal’s order condoning delay of 22 years 8 months for vague & ambiguous reasoning akin to ‘non-speaking order’ set aside
In a special civil application against the order of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, Ahmedabad wherein the delay of approximately 22 years and 8 months in challenging the order passed by the Deputy Collector was condoned, Nikhil S. Kariel, J. found the reasoning which weighed with the Tribunal’s decision was not sufficient cause for condoning the delay. Hence, the order required interference on the ground that it was almost akin to a non-speaking order. Read more HERE
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT | Multiple FIRs clubbed in financial mismanagement allegations against Creative Credit Cooperative Society
In a petition seeking consolidation of FIRs and a single bail order for efficiency and to avoid financial and procedural hardship, a single-judge bench of Arun Monga, J., directed the clubbing of all FIRs and held that the Bail granted in the principal FIR would apply to all clubbed cases unless circumstances warranted cancellation. Read more HERE
GAUHATI HIGH COURT | Thorough inquiry regarding monument’s antiquity and age required before declaring it as ‘ancient’
The present appeal was filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 24-03-2014 passed by the Single Judge in a case, whereby the prayer of petitioners for setting aside the impugned declaration of the Christian Cemetery in question as a Heritage site was rejected. The Division Bench of Vijay Bishnoi, CJ., and Kaushik Goswami*, J., opined that there was no record to show that any enquiry was conducted by the Superintendent as to the antiquity and age of the Cemetery and procedures as laid down under Section 3 of the Assam Ancient Monuments and Records Act, 1959 (‘the 1959 Act’) read with Rules 3 and 4 of the Assam Ancient Monuments and Record Rules, 1964 (‘the 1964 Rules’) were not undertaken by the State Government. The Court held that the impugned declaration of the Christian Cemetery by the jurisdictional District Magistrate was ultra vires, per-se illegal, null and void. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order dated 24-03-2014 passed by the Single Judge and the impugned orders dated 25-10-2005 and 27-11-2006 issued by the District Magistrate, Kamrup (M) were set aside. Read more HERE
PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT
DELHI HIGH COURT | Amtek Group promoter’s petition to quash his arrest and remand orders in money laundering case dismissed
In a petition seeking to quash the arrest memo and arrest order for the petitioner on 09-07-2024 and consequent remand orders, a Single Judge Bench of Anish Dayal, J., after careful perusal of the grounds of arrest and remand orders, stated that the assessment of the arresting officer that there was a necessity to arrest in July 2024 could not be faulted. The Court observed that there were substantial reasons summarized in the grounds of arrest which prima facie pointed to a large-scale diversion of public money through complex corporate transactions, intra-group financial management, potentially benami properties, lower-rung employees being appointed as directors, numerous shell companies, centralisation of control with the petitioner and his family, the inability to shore up the huge amounts of loan even during the insolvency proceedings despite personal guarantees. Thus, the Court stated that the petitioner’s arrest did not fall foul of the provision of Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (‘PMLA’), and that judicial review of the grounds for arrest did not invite an adverse inference from this Court. Read more HERE
QUASHMENT OF PROCEEDINGS
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT | ‘No mention of accused persons awareness of caste at time of alleged incident; even otherwise remarks not made in public place’: SC/ST Act case quashed
In a petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) seeking to quash the criminal complaint under Sections 323, 506 and 34 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and Section 3(x)(ii)(viii) of Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (‘the SC and ST Act’), a Single Judge Bench of N.S. Shekhawat, J., Court observed that in the present case, Respondent 2 had filed an FIR by alleging that the petitioners (‘accused persons’) had used caste related derogatory remarks against him. However, the Court stated that it had nowhere been mentioned in the complaint by Respondent 2 that the accused persons were aware that he belonged to a scheduled caste. Even otherwise, the utterances did not constitute an offence as the alleged incident had not taken place in a public place. Thus, the prosecution of the accused persons under Section 3(x)(ii)(viii) of the SC and ST Act, as such, was not warranted. Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | ‘Upon detecting fraud, bank has implied duty to exercise reasonable care and take prompt action’; SBI directed to compensate loss of Rs. 2.6 Lakhs incurred by cyber fraud victim
In a writ petition filed to seek directions for quashing the rejection order passed by the State Bank of India (‘SBI’) (Greater Noida Branch) (respondents 2 and 3) and to direct the respondents to restore the amount illegally siphoned off from the petitioner’s SBI savings account by unknown parties, a Single Judge Bench of Dharmesh Sharma, J. set aside the impugned order dated 20-10-2021 passed by the Banking Ombudsman (‘BO’) and issued a writ of mandamus against SBI to pay the amount withdrawn in an unauthorized manner along with 9 percent interest within four weeks. Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | ‘Statements in charge-sheet, too far-fetched and fall short of any instigation/incitement’; abetment to suicide case set aside against a Judicial Officer
The present application was filed by applicant-accused, seeking quashing and setting aside of a case, registered with the Mahatma Gandhi Chowk Police Station, Miraj on 24-06-2016 against him, invoking Sections 306 and 34 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’). The Division Bench of Bharati Dangre* and Manjusha Deshpande, JJ., opined that the material in the charge-sheet in form of statements implicating the accused in the property dispute between his brother and the complainant’s father-the deceased, were too far-fetched and fell short of any instigation/incitement and further, a bare reference to his presence in Miraj in the month of May, where he was alleged to have threatened the deceased and asked him to vacate the property was not sufficient to attract instigation/incitement, as the offence was registered on 24-06-2016. The Court opined that if the power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) was not exercised, then the accused would have to unnecessarily face the rigmarole of trial, which ultimately would result in his acquittal, as no material in the charge-sheet attracted the ingredients of Section 306 of IPC. The Court thus quashed and set aside the case registered against the accused. Read more HERE
REMISSION
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | ‘Police personnel strangulating pregnant wife not exceptionally brutal/violent’; Husband held eligible for remission
In the present case, petitioner, who was convicted in a case by the Court of 2nd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, was seeking release based on the categorization permitted under Annexure-I Category 2(b) of the Government Resolution dated 15-03-2010, issued under Section 432 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’). The State Government vide its order dated 14-09-2018, refused to extend the benefit of categorization to petitioner as petitioner was Police personnel and had murdered his pregnant wife. The Division Bench of Nitin W. Sambre* and Vrushali V. Joshi, JJ., opined that only because petitioner was an employee of Police department, and murdered his pregnant wife would not disentitle him to get the benefit of remission which was provided under resolution dated 15-03-2010. The Court held that the State’s refusal to admit petitioner for remission could not be sustained and thus, quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 14-09-2018. The Court categorized petitioner under category 2(b) of Annexure-I appended to the resolution and held that petitioner committed crime with premeditation, therefore, petitioner was liable to undergo 22 years’ imprisonment including remission. Read more HERE
SERVICE LAW
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT | ‘Army authorities chose to relieve themselves from onerous obligations’; Disability pension of a soldier discharged from service on compassionate grounds upheld
In a petition for setting aside the order dated 07-03-2019, as passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal (‘Tribunal’), whereby Respondent 1’s claim for the grant of disability pension was allowed, the Division Bench of Sureshwar Thakur* and Sudeepti Sharma, JJ., stated that the army authorities had chosen to relieve themselves from onerous obligation of providing disability pension to Respondent 1. The acceptance of Respondent 1’s plea for his release on compassionate grounds, had resulted in army authorities escaping their onerous statutory obligations. The Court stated that rendering the law laid down in Sukhvinder Singh v. Union of India, (2014) 14 SCC 364, (‘Sukhvinder Singh’s case’) inapplicable on Respondent 1, merely because of his plea of release on compassionate ground, would be gross injustice because if otherwise the soldier was unfit to be retained in service, he was naturally required to be bestowed the benefit of disability pension. Further, no adverse remarks were awarded to Respondent 1, during the term of his serving in the Army. Thus, the Court dismissed the present writ petition and upheld the order passed by the Tribunal. Read more HERE
MANIPUR HIGH COURT | [Art. 311(2)(c)] Governor’s sanction without ‘subjective satisfaction’; Sub-Inspector’s reinstatement upheld
In an intra-Court appeal against the decision of Single Judge wherein it was held that the satisfaction of the Governor as envisaged in Article 311(2) Second proviso, Clause (c) of the Constitution of India for dismissing a person by invoking the provision is the personal satisfaction of the Governor, a full bench of Siddharth Mridul, CJ., Ahanthem Bimol Singh, and Golmei Gaiphulshillu Kabui*, JJ., held that the satisfaction mentioned in Article 311(2)(c) is subjective but that satisfaction is to be arrived at by perusing relevant evidence and documents, which were not presented in this case. The Court held that the respondent had been dismissed in a malafide manner at the end of the disciplinary inquiry by abruptly invoking Article 311(2)(c). Read more HERE
