ADVOCATES
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | ‘Will cause interference in functions of elected body’; Order of Chairman, Bar Council of U.P. directing constitution of new Elders Committee, stayed
In the present case, Elder Committee, Ekikrit Bar Association, Mati, Kanpur assailed the validity of the impugned order dated 19/20-01-2025, whereby the Chairman, Bar Council of U.P., recalled his previous order dated 12-01-2025 and directed the President/Secretary of the Bar Association to constitute an Elders Committee in the order of seniority and hold elections of the Bar Association under the supervision of a Committee of Observers constituted by the Bar Council. A Single Judge Bench of Kshitij Shailendra, J., opined that once an election schedule was notified and elections were held, the Chairman, Bar Council of U.P. himself, recalling his own order without providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and issuing directions regarding formation of a new Elders Committee was contrary to the decisions of the Division Benches in Bar Association, Fatehgarh v. Bar Council of U.P., Writ-C No.31223 of 2018 (‘Bar Association, Fatehgarh Case’), and Bar Association v. State of U.P., 2013 SCC OnLine All 4646 (‘State of U.P. Case’). Therefore, the impugned order was stayed till the next date of listing. Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Bar Association elections rescheduled to 28-02-2025 following Supreme Court directives
The present applications were filed pertaining to the elections of the various Bar Associations in Delhi, including the Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA) and the District Bar Associations in the wake of judicial intervention concerning the structure, eligibility, and representation within these elections. A full bench of Yashwant Varma, Rekha Palli and C. Hari Shankar, J., directed that the elections shall now stand rescheduled to be held on 28-02-2025. Read more HERE
ARBITRATION
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT | Simply because application to refer parties to arbitration is rejected, right to file written statement cannot be forfeited on same date
In an appeal filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘the Act’) challenging the order dated 27-08-2024, the Division Bench of Ravi Nath Tilhari* and V. Srinivas, JJ., found force in the submission that by the order dated 27-08-2024, the appellant’s right to file a written statement could not be forfeited, as they did not file the written statement within the time provided by the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (‘CPC’). From the perusal of the forfeiture order of filing the written statement, it appeared that because of rejection of application seeking to refer the parties to arbitration, the right to file the written statement was also forfeited on the same date. The Court stated that simply because the application seeking to refer the parties to arbitration was rejected, it could not be that on the same date the right to file written statement was also forfeited. The Court stated that the order dated 27-08-2024, rejecting the arbitration application was maintained. However, the docket order dated 27-08-2024, passed in the suit forfeiting the right to file written statement could not be sustained. Read more HERE
ARMED FORCES
KERALA HIGH COURT | AWHO directed to demolish and reconstruct towers built for defence personnel to prevent casualties
The writ petitions were filed by the owners and the association of the owners of the apartments, situated at Silver Sand Island, Vyttila, Kochi, against the Army Welfare Housing Organisation (‘AWHO’) and others. A Single Judge Bench of Mohammed Nias C.P., J. opined that the distress to the apartment towers was undeniably human induced, causing significant loss and suffering due to cumulative violations of regulatory, structural, and environmental standards. The Court thus, after considering the expert reports, the Kerala Municipalities Act, 1994 (‘the 1994 Act’), the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999 (‘the 1999 ’), and the Disaster Management Act, 2005 (‘the 2005 Act’) and the order passed by the Collector, opined that there was no alternative but to direct AWHO to demolish and reconstruct Towers B and C to prevent casualties and protect lives and properties. Read more HERE
ARREST
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | ‘Whether Section 50 CrPC mandates furnishing grounds of arrest in writing to accused, other than PMLA/UAPA cases?’; Matter referred to Larger Bench
In a case wherein, the petitioner-accused was apprehended for carrying the contraband and FIR under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘the NDPS Act’) was lodged, he stated that his detention was illegal because the grounds of arrest were not given to him in writing at the time of arrest, the Division Bench of Sarang V. Kotwal* and S.M. Modak, JJ., referred the following questions for consideration to a Larger Bench:
-
Whether the ratio of the decisions in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, (2024) 7 SCC 576 (‘Pankaj Bansal Case’), Ram Kishor Arora v. Enforcement Directorate, (2024) 7 SCC 599, Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 8 SCC 254 (‘Prabir Purkayastha Case’), were applicable to Section 501 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) and involving the offences under the other statutes than Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (‘PMLA’) and Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (‘UAPA’)?
-
Whether Section 50 of CrPC mandated the furnishing of the grounds of arrest in writing to the accused? Read more HERE
BAIL
CHATTISGARH HIGH COURT | Bail denied to accused offering High Court Clerk job; Directs for criminal proceedings against person falling for cash-for-job scam
In a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) in an FIR registered under Sections 420, 34 of the Penal Code, 1860, a Single Bench of Ramesh Sinha, CJ., rejected the application stating that there was prima facie involvement of the accused in the fraud, and it was not justifiable to grant bail considering the rise of such fraud cases. The Court also remarked how, despite warnings, people were falling for such scams and stated that the complainant was not fully innocent as he paid money to get a job, thus, he was liable to be criminally prosecuted. Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Bail denied to accused in fake anti-cancer drug racket and counterfeit Keytruda and Opdyta injections
An application was filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) and/or Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code (“CrPC”) read with Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”) seeking grant of regular bail in case dated 22-04-2024 registered under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA, arising out of FIR dated 12-03-2024 registered at Delhi for offences punishable under Sections 274, 275, 276, 420, 468, 471 read with 120-B and 34 of Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”). Chandra Dhari Singh, J., declined to release the applicant on bail as the complexity of the financial trail and its potential societal and national ramifications require continued custodial interrogation. Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | ‘If he goes back to his books, it can reform him’; Bail granted to 19-year-old accused in robbery case, opportunity given to continue education
In a bail application filed by a 19-year-old student under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in an FIR registered under Section 394 read with Section 343 of the Penal Code, 1860, Section 142 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 and Sections 3(1), (ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999, a Single Judge Bench of Milind N. Jadhav, J., allowed the application holding that the accused was a young adult who had missed out on his education and regretted his actions. The Court explained that such an accused should be granted an opportunity in order to reform and rehabilitate him, ensuring that he does not become a hardened criminal. Read more HERE
BIGAMY
CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT | Second wife who was single at the time of marriage cannot be prosecuted for bigamy under S. 494 IPC
In a petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for quashing the criminal proceedings for offences registered under Sections 498-A and 494 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), a Single Judge Bench of Arvind Kumar Verma, JJ., allowed the petition holding that the petitioner (‘second wife’) could not be prosecuted under Section 494 as only the married person or the erring husband/ wife would be held liable for bigamy. Read more HERE
COMMUNAL RIOTS
DELHI HIGH COURT | Premature plea against ‘2020 Delhi’ movie trailer allegedly based on 2020 Delhi Riots, rejected
A petition was filed raising a common grievance that a Movie titled as “2020 Delhi” (‘the Movie’), of which a ‘trailer’ is accessible on social media, depicts a highly prejudicial and distorted account of the riots that took place in North-East Delhi in February, 2020, and thereby create a false and disruptive narrative having serious repercussions. Sachin Datta, J., held that the petition was premature as the film had not yet been released, and declined to grant any relief at this stage. Read more HERE
CONTEMPT OF COURT
MEGHALAYA HIGH COURT | Contempt notice issued to Don Bosco Technical School management for demolishing School building which was under consideration for ‘heritage building’
In a Public Interest Litigation stating that St. Anthony’s Lower Primary School was run in an Assam-type colonial structure of significant architectural and historical value and which was fit to be declared as a heritage building, the Division Bench of IP Mukerji, CJ and W. Diengdoh, J. noted that the School building was entirely demolished even before the consideration of the PIL by the Court. The Court directed that no further activity with regard to demolition, construction, or alteration of the existing building of the said School shall be carried out until further orders of the Court. Read more HERE
GUJARAT HIGH COURT | ‘Epitome of Frivolity’; Applicant slammed for ill-intentioned contempt plea against Advocates & Judges
In an application filed seeking the conviction of advocates representing Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India Ltd (‘Nippon Steel’) as well as three judges of the Court under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (‘the Act’) for seeking and granting an extension of an ad interim relief despite a Civil Application (for Vacating Stay) (‘the Civil Application’) being filed by the applicant under Article 226(3) of the Constitution, the Division Bench of A.S. Supehia and Gita Gopi, JJ., rejected the application holding that it was absolutely ill-conceived, frivolous and filed with an ill-motive to demean the Single Judges and the advocates appearing for Nippon Steel. The Court imposed a cost of Rs. 2 Lakhs for wasting judicial time and directed the Registry to apprise the Chief Justice regarding the periodic removal of videos of Court proceedings from YouTube. Read more HERE
CUSTODY
ORISSA HIGH COURT | ‘Right of child precedes parents’ guilt’; Custody of infant girl restored with biological parents accused of abandoning her and kidnapping male child from hospital
In a criminal application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) for quashing the Trial Court’s decision, whereby the biological parent’s application for custody of their daughter was turned down, who allegedly kidnapped a baby boy from the hospital and abandoned their daughter, the Single Judge Bench of Sibo Sankar Mishra, J., held that while the circumstances surrounding the abandonment of the female child were grave, it was equally important to recognize the maternal instinct and the natural bond between a mother and her child. Thus, the Court allowed the application and restored the custody of the girl child with the biological parents. Read more HERE
DISCHARGE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Mere threats not with intention to cause alarm would not constitute criminal intimidation; Discharge of accused in sexual assault case, upheld
A petition was filed by ‘X’ challenging the order dated 20-08-2019 (‘impugned order’) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-Special FTC (‘ASJ’), Patiala House Courts, pursuant to which Respondent 2 to 5 were discharged in FIR dated 31-01-2019, registered at Police Station RK Puram, for the offences under Sections 376 and 506 of Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’). Amit Mahajan, J., held that the Trial Court has evidently applied its judicial mind and considered the totality of the facts before discharging Respondent 2 — 5 of the alleged offences considering the absence of grave suspicion against them. Read more HERE
EDUCATION LAW
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | ‘Cannot direct the University to lower cut-off standard’; Cancellation of admission upheld after 2 years due to insufficient International Baccalaureate points
The petitioner filed the present petition challenging the order dated 30-08-2022 passed by Respondent 2, Mumbai University (‘the University’), by which the petitioner was held ‘not eligible’ for pursuing the degree course of B.Voc. (Interior Design). The Division Bench of A.S. Chandurkar and M.M. Sathaye*, JJ., opined that if the petitioner did not score the necessary cut-off points, it could not direct the University to lower the cut-off standard and there was nothing wrong with the University insisting upon meeting the criteria of scoring a minimum of 24 International Baccalaureate (‘IB’) points for being eligible to pursue the degree course as per its policy. The Court thus held that the impugned decision of holding the petitioner not eligible for pursuing B.Voc. (Interior Design) degree course was justified. Read more HERE
ENTERTAINMENT, AMUSEMENT, LEISURE AND SPORTS
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT | Yoga certificate not valid sports certificate for purpose of awarding bonus marks for PT Instructor recruitment
While deciding whether the Yoga certificate held by petitioner should be considered a valid sports certificate for the purpose of awarding bonus marks in the recruitment for the post of Physical Training Instructor, a single-judge bench of Arun Monga, J., upheld the respondent’s stand based on the Ministry’s communication dated 21-12-2016, which states that Yoga is not recognized as a sport due to its non-competitive nature. Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Persons not having birth certificate due to socio-economic backwardness cannot be denied opportunity of competing in sporting events
In a petition filed by the petitioners, assailing the conditions stipulated in the communication/notice dated 19-02-2024 issued by Basketball Federation of India (‘Respondent 1’), Sachin Datta, J., stated that merely because of the socio-economic backwardness, persons with no birth certificate could not be denied the opportunity of competing in sporting events. The Court stated that there was also no rationale for disregarding specific provisions in the National Code against Age Fraud in Sports which contemplates medical test/s to be performed for fulfilment/verification of the age criteria. Thus, the Court set aside the eligibility rule/criteria and directed Respondent 1 to adhere to the provisions of the National Code against Age Fraud in Sports. Read more HERE
EXTERNMENT
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT | Cost of ₹50,000 imposed on State for harassment; Chief Secretary directed to caution DMs against politically influenced decisions
In a petition challenging an externment issued by the District Magistrate, Burhanpur, under the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990, a single-judge bench of Vivek Agarwal, J., held that the externment orders issued against the petitioner were illegal, passed without authority, and failed to adhere to the provisions of Section 6 of the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam. The Court imposed a cost of ₹50,000/- on the State for the harassment caused to the petitioner. Read more HERE
HABEAS CORPUS
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT | Missing persons cases can’t be brought under Habeas Corpus, unless illegal detention is established
In a writ petition seeking issuance of a writ of habeas corpus for production of her daughter and two minor children, who went missing from Pune, a division bench of Vinay Saraf and Sanjeev Sachdeva, JJ., held that the writ of habeas corpus was not maintainable in the present case as there was no evidence of unlawful detention. Read more HERE
INCOME TAX
DELHI HIGH COURT | Deductibility of license fees paid by Remfry & Sagar for use of founder’s name and goodwill under Section 37 IT Act, upheld
Two appeals were filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax questioning the correctness of the judgment rendered by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on 06—09-2016 pertaining to Assessment Year 2009-10 and order dated 26-07-2019 pertaining to AY 2011-12. A division bench of Yashwant Varma and Ravinder Dudeja, JJ., dismissed the appeals upholding the impugned orders and ruling that the license fees paid by law firm Remfry & Sagar for the use of its founder’s name and goodwill qualify as a legitimate business expense under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act. Read more HERE
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS
DELHI HIGH COURT | Ad interim injunction granted to leading pharmaceutical company NOVARTIS; restrained use of NOVITAS mark
In a suit filed for permanent injunction restraining infringement of registered trade mark, passing off, dilution, unfair competition for rendition of accounts/damages, delivery up, etc., Mini Pushkarna, J., till the next date of hearing, restrained the defendants or any other acting on its behalf from selling, offering for sale, advertising, directly or indirectly dealing in medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations under the impugned mark ‘NOVITAS’ or any other trade mark/trade name similar to the plaintiffs’ trade mark(s) ‘NOVARTIS’, amounting to infringement of registered trade mark, passing off, dilution and unfair competition. Read more HERE
LABOUR LAW
GUJARAT HIGH COURT | ‘Claim under S. 33-C(2) ID Act limited to pre-exiting right/benefit’; Labour Court’s rejection of workman’s claim, upheld
In a petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the Labour Court’s rejection of the petitioner’s recovery application claiming certain benefits, a Single Judge Bench of M.K. Thakker, J., upheld the Labour Court’s decision and reiterated that the benefit claimed under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (‘ID Act’) had to be a pre-existing benefit or flow from a pre-existing right. Read more HERE
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT | Petition challenging removal of religious structure with ₹ 25,000/- cost, dismissed; motive behind targeting one temple questioned
In a Review petition filed by a journalist challenging the dismissal of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking the removal of a temple established in 2012 on Yashwant Niwas Road, Indore, Madhya Pradesh, a division bench of Vivek Rusia* and Gajendra Singh, JJ., dismissed the petition with a cost of ₹ 25,000/- on the petitioner and held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that he was a public-spirited individual or a social worker to justify filing a PIL. Read more HERE
QUASHMENT OF PROCEEDINGS/ FIR
DELHI HIGH COURT | ‘Fully aware of the familial relationship’; Declines to quash Section 376 FIR, finds prima facie case
A petition was filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (‘CrPC’) (now under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) seeking quashing of FIR registered for the offence punishable under Section 376 of Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom. Chandra Dhari Singh, J., refused to quash the FIR as no compelling material or evidence was placed on record to establish that the continuation of criminal proceedings in the present case amounts to an abuse of the process of law. Read more HERE
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT | ‘Court’s dignity not so brittle that it shatters with stone thrown by madman’; False claim of illegal property grabbing by judges, rejected
In a petition filed by an advocate under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) seeking direction to register the FIR in the present case against the respondents, which included two advocates and four judicial officers, claiming that they had grabbed public property in collusion with each other by misusing their positions, a Single Judge Bench of N.S. Shekhawat, J., rejected the petition holding that the petitioner’s allegations were vague and baseless and he was guilty of undermining the dignity of the Court. The Court also directed the petitioner to deposit Rs 25,000 with the PGI Poor Patient Welfare Fund, Chandigarh, within two months. Read more HERE
SCS, STS, OBCS AND MINORITIES
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | ‘‘Halba’ and ‘Halbi’ are different Scheduled Tribes’; Committee directed to issue validity certificate considering pre-constitutional documents
In the present case, the petitioner filed the present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 17-09-2019 passed by the Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati (Respondent 1), whereby her claim that she belonged to ‘Halba’ Scheduled Tribe was rejected. The Division Bench of Avinash G. Gharote and Abhay J. Mantri*, JJ., stated that the petitioner’s father was already granted the validity of belonging to the Scheduled Tribe ‘Halbi’, therefore, the petitioner could not belong to the Scheduled Tribe ‘Halba’. The Court held that she belonged to the Scheduled Tribe ‘Halbi’. The Court further held that ‘Halba’ and ‘Halbi’ were different Scheduled Tribes. Read more HERE