ADVOCATES
DELHI HIGH COURT | Advocate directed to render pro bono legal services for his misbehaviour and unnecessary aggressive behaviour in courtroom
In a contempt reference placed before the present Court, in view of the order dated 23-11-2024, passed by the ASJ (SC POCSO) South East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi (‘the Trial Court’) wherein it was recorded that respondent (‘contemnor’) was an Advocate who misbehaved and raised his voice in Court and had also indulged in unnecessary aggressive behaviour in the Court, the Division Bench of Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, JJ., directed the contemnor, to render pro bono services to at least two accused persons in the Trial Court. Read more HERE
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT | S. 30 of Advocates Act | Advocates can appear in confiscation proceedings but have no right to cross-examine
In a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the confiscation proceedings and the order dated 15-01-2025, which denied the petitioner right to engage an advocate in the confiscation case, a single-judge bench of Vishal Dhagat, J., reaffirmed the right of advocates to appear in confiscation proceedings under Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (Advocates Act). However, the Court clarified that while legal representation is permitted, the right to cross-examine remain restricted. Read more HERE
BAIL
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT | ‘Taliban-style punishment’; Anticipatory bail denied to a man accused of parading victims with blackened faces & ‘I am a thief’ placards
In an anticipatory bail application filed by the accused for an FIR registered against him under Sections 127, 356, 74, 75, 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’), a Single Judge Bench of Namit Kumar, J., dismissed the application holding that the accused had acted in a Taliban style manner by blackening the faces of victims, parading them with placards and uploading a video of the same. The Court also held that the accused had been avoiding the process of law, and his custodial interrogation was necessary, thus if he was granted bail at this stage, he might influence or intimidate the witnesses and destroy the evidence. Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | ‘Returning money does not end the crime’; Anticipatory bail denied to bank employee accused of siphoning Rs. 46.58 Lakhs
In an anticipatory bail application filed by the accused, a bank employee who allegedly siphoned money of customers, for an FIR registered under Sections 316(2), 316(5), 318(2) and 318(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, a Single Judge Bench of Rajesh S. Patil, J., rejected the application, holding that the physical presence of the accused for interrogation was necessary for completion of the investigation. Moreover, there was a possibility that she would pressure and threaten the witnesses and tamper with the evidence. Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Bail granted to a man accused in Chandni Chowk currency trader Robbery and Murder case
A bail application was filed by the petitioner seeking regular bail in connection with FIR registered at Police Station Shahdara, Delhi, under Sections 302, 394, and 120-B of Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. Vikas Mahajan, J., held that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of regular bail subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000 and one surety bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. Read more HERE
CRUELTY
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT | Spouse indulging in vulgar conversation with opposite gender, despite objections, amounts to Mental Cruelty
In an appeal challenging the decree of divorce granted on the ground of mental cruelty, a Division Bench of Vivek Rusia* and Gajendra Singh, JJ., affirmed the divorce decree and held that a spouse engaging in vulgar conversations with individuals outside marriage amounts to mental cruelty. Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | ‘Quarrels between husband & wife not cruelty under S. 498-A IPC’; Proceedings against husband and in-laws, quashed
In an application filed seeking quashing of the chargesheet and proceedings registered against the petitioners- husband and in-laws of respondent 2- wife under Sections 498-A of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) read with Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (‘IT Act’), a Single Judge Bench of Parthivjyoti Saikia, J., allowed the application, holding that quarrels between husband and wife or the demand of divorce by the husband or his relatives did not amount to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A of the IPC. Read more HERE
MADRAS HIGH COURT | ‘Wife watching porn privately, engaging in self-pleasure do not constitute cruelty to husband’; Divorce denied to husband
In a civil miscellaneous appeal filed against the judgment passed by the Family Court, wherein the Court dismissed the divorce petition of the husband concluding that the ground under Section 13(1)(ia) and (v) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955,(‘HMA’) had not been established, the division bench of G.R. Swaminathan* and R. Poornima, JJ. while upholding the Family Court’s judgment, held that: Indulging in self-pleasure could not be grounds for the dissolution of marriage. This could not be considered cruelty to the husband. It was not sufficient to merely show that the wife was suffering from a venereal disease, Section 13(1)(v) of HMA must have been interpreted to ensure that the afflicted party had been allowed the opportunity to prove that their condition had not been caused by any fault of their own. Read more HERE
CUSTOMS
DELHI HIGH COURT | Subsequent Notice under Section 28(4) of Customs Act cannot supplement prior notice under Section 28(1)
A petition was filed challenging the show cause notice dated 01-09-2023 issued under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962, by the respondents against the petitioner. The Division Bench of Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, JJ., quashed the impugned notice and held that the issuance of a second notice based on the same factual matrix was legally untenable and an abuse of the statutory process emphasizing that a subsequent notice under Section 28(4) could not supplement a prior notice under Section 28(1), as both provisions operate independently. Read more HERE
DIVORCE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Statutory cooling-off period for divorce of Yuzvendra Chahal & Dhanashree Verma, waived; Family Court directed to decide divorce plea by 20th March
In a writ petition filed by cricketer Yuzvendra Chahal against the order of the Family court rejecting his application seeking waiver of the statutory cooling-off period of six months under Section 13-B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘HMA’) and grant of immediate decree of divorce (‘the application’), a Single Judge Bench of Madhav J. Jamdar, J., allowed the petition holding that the parties had genuinely settled their differences and the Family Court’s reliance on the Marriage Counsellor’s report to observe that the consent terms had not been complied with and that the counselling was incomplete, was clearly erroneous. In light of the fact that Chahal would not be available after 21-03-2025 due to the Indian Premier League (‘IPL’), the Court directed the Family Court to decide the divorce petition by 20-03-2025. Read more HERE
ENCROACHMENT
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Municipal Corpn., Thane directed to demolish remaining structure of illegal mosque at the end of Ramadan month
In the present case, a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed by the petitioners, who were the owners of piece and parcel of land bearing Survey No. 46 admeasuring 18,122 sq.m. situated in Birivade, Thane, within the jurisdiction of Respondent 1, praying to issue appropriate writ, order, or direction requiring Respondents 1 and 2 to initiate proceedings under Section 260 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 read with Sections 52, 53, 54, and 55 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 against Respondent 3 and its Trustees- Respondents 4 to 9, for demolishing the unauthorized and illegal encroachment on portion of the said lands. The Division Bench of A.S. Gadkari* and Kamal Khata, JJ., did not accept the contention that due to strong opposition from a mob which had gathered on 19-4-2025 at the site of an unauthorized construction of a mosque (‘the writ structure’), the remaining demolition work could not be completed. The Court thus directed Respondent 1 to undertake the remaining demolition work immediately after the holy month of Ramadan/Ramzan ends and shall complete it within a period of two weeks, i.e. by 14-4-2025. Read more HERE
FAMILY AND PERSONAL LAWS
MADRAS HIGH COURT | Constitutionality of S. 13 of Family Courts Act upheld; Principles in Paradip Port Trust Case, affirmed
In a writ petition seeking writ of declaration, declaring Section 13 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 as unconstitutional, the division bench of S.M. Subramaniam* and K. Rajasekar, JJ. while affirming the principles laid down in Paradip Port Trust, Paradip v. Their Workmen, (1977) 2 SCC 339, reiterated that no party can claim as a matter of right, a right to be represented through lawyer. It is open to the legislature to put restrictions on such representation by legal practitioner, having regard to the aims and object of the Act. Thus, the Court upheld the constitutionality of Section 13 of the Family Courts Act. Read more HERE
ENTERTAINMENT, AMUSEMENT, LEISURE AND SPORTS
DELHI HIGH COURT | Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports directed to ensure parity in participation of male, female athletes in sporting events organized by National Sports Federations
In a petition filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the notification dated 13-02-2025 (‘impugned notification’) issued by the Badminton Association of India, which notified the selection criteria for participation in the Para-Badminton events under the 2nd Khelo India Para Games, 2025, Sachin Datta, J., directed the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports to ensure that parity was maintained in the participation of male and female athletes in sporting events organized by the National Sports Federations. The Court further directed to ensure that the pool of participating athletes was broad enough to include not only these athletes who have participated in international events, but the same must also adequately accommodate athletes who have participated in domestic / local / Khelo India Games events. Read more HERE
ENVIRONMENT LAW
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT | Notification exempting 62 Species of ‘Forest Produce’ from Transit Rules, struck down
In a writ petition challenging the notification amended on 11-04-2017 exempting 63 species of forest produce from the operation of regulatory provisions under the Transit Rules, 2000, a 3-judges bench of Suresh Kumar Kait, CJ., Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari* and Vivek Jain, JJ., struct down the impugned notification as unconstitutional and held that the striking down the impugned notification does not automatically revive past exemptions. The Court ordered the Status quo and directed the State to do fresh review. The Court further directed the State to implement stricter environmental oversight before future exemptions. Read more HERE
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
DELHI HIGH COURT | ₹3.34 cr damages awarded against Medserve for selling counterfeit Johnson & Johnson surgical products
A suit was filed by Johnson & Johnson (plaintiff), a globally recognized pharmaceutical and healthcare company, seeking a permanent injunction against the defendants, for trademark infringement, counterfeiting, and passing off. Johnson & Johnson, through its subsidiary Ethicon, manufactures medical devices under the trademarks ‘SURGICEL’ and ‘ETHICON’. Amit Bansal, J., granted permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and imposed damages of 3 crores against the defendants jointly and severally. Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | ‘No deceptive similarity to each other’; Bona fide use of surname ‘JANGID’ as trademark, upheld
A suit was filed by Jangeer Singh Trading (plaintiff) seeking a permanent injunction restraining Yogesh Jangid Trading (defendant) from infringing and passing off the plaintiff’s trademark seeking claims for rendition of accounts and damages. Amit Bansal, J., held tha the defendant, during the pendency of the suit, shall not use the mark ‘JANGIR’ or ‘JANGEER’ and ‘JANGID’ on a stand-alone basis and shall only use the device mark exactly in the same manner for which he has been granted registration in classes 7 and 35. Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | ₹30.91 lakh awarded as costs & damages to Himalaya for ‘Liv.52’ trademark infringement by ‘Liv-333’
A suit was filed by Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd. (plaintiff) seeking permanent injunction restraining infringement of plaintiff’s trademarks and logo, ‘Liv.52’ and against defendants’ use of the infringing marks, ‘Liv-333’ and along with other incidental reliefs. Mini Pushkarna, J., granted injunction along with nominal damages in favour of the plaintiff due to continued and willful infringement of the plaintiffs’ ’Liv.52’ mark by the defendants. Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | TAJ declared a well-known trade mark in respect of hotels and other related services in hospitality industry
In a suit filed by the plaintiff seeking relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing on the plaintiff’s trademarks and copyright, as well as from passing off their services as those of the plaintiff, along with other ancillary relief , Amit Bansal, J., stated that the plaintiff fulfilled all the criteria set out in Section 11(6) read with Section 11(7) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (‘the Act’) for declaring the (‘TAJ marks’) as well-known trade marks in respect of hotels and other related services in the hospitality industry. The Court passed a decree declaring the the TAJ marks as well-known trade marks within the meaning of Section 2(1)(zg) of the Act. Read more HERE
JUVENILES
DELHI HIGH COURT | No unqualified right for the complainant to be heard at every stage of bail proceedings under JJ Act, 2015
A criminal revision petition was filed under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (“JJ Act”) has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the order dated 16-09-2023 (“impugned order”) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-01 (Children Court), Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (“ASJ”) in criminal appeal whereby the appeal against two orders dated 28th October, 2022 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board-III, Delhi (hereinafter “JJB”) was dismissed. Chandra Dhari Singh, J., held that upheld the impugned order dated 16-09-2023 passed by the ASJ in Criminal Appeal as it correctly upheld the findings of JJB and no jurisdictional error, procedural irregularity or legal infirmity was demonstrated that would warrant interference by this Court. Read more HERE
LAND ACQUISITION
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | State warned of ‘heavy penalty’ for unauthorised land utilisation without due acquisition process; Ordered compensation for landowner
In a writ petition challenging the order passed by the District Level Committee, which had rejected the petitioner’s claim for compensation for land used by State Authorities, the division bench of Manoj Kumar Gupta and Anish Kumar Gupta*, JJ. ruled in favor of the petitioner. The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to compensation for the land utilised by the State Authorities, and the compensation must be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Read more HERE
MADRAS HIGH COURT | CMRL allowed to acquire land near two Hindu temples for metro station construction
In a petition filed by United India Insurance Company Ltd. (‘UIIC’)praying for quashing the notice issued by the Chennai Metro Rail Limited (‘CMRL’) under Section 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 (‘the Act’), calling upon the petitioner to show cause within 30 days as to why the property should not be acquired, the Single Judge Bench of N Anand Venkatesh, J. quashed the impugned notice, and allowed CMRL to proceed with its original intended plan immediately, by having the Metro Station within the premises of Arul Mighu Sri Rathina Vinayagar and Durgai Amman Temple. Read more HERE
LOAN
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT | Plea challenging constitutional validity of Karnataka Micro Loan and Small Loan (Prevention of Coercive Actions) Ordinance, 2025, dismissed
The present writ petition was filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution praying to direct declaring the Karnataka Micro Loan and Small Loan (Prevention of Coercive Actions) Ordinance, 2025 (‘the Ordinance’) as unconstitutional, arbitrary, and beyond the legislative competence of the State Government and further, direct the respondents to clarify that motor vehicle/asset financing businesses were outside the purview of the Ordinance. Read more HERE
MAINTENANCE
ORISSA HIGH COURT | ‘Well qualified husband who quits job to avoid paying maintenance to wife cannot be appreciated in civilised society’: Interim maintenance to wife upheld
In a civil writ petition by the husband against the Family Court’s decision, whereby, he was directed to pay pedente lite maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month to the respondent-wife and her child, the Single Judge Bench of G. Satapathy*, J., dismissed the petition considering the factors such as- standard of living, social standing of the husband, his qualification, past employment in a reputed organization, and balancing the same with his requirement vis-a-vis the requirement of wife and the daughter of the party. The Court upheld that the Trial Court had not committed any illegality in awarding Rs.15,000/- per month. Read more HERE
ORISSA HIGH COURT | Section 25(2) of HMA | Court can modify and grant maintenance exceeding the claimed amount upon proof of material change in circumstances
In a matrimonial appeal by the husband against Family Court’s decision, whereby the maintenance payable to the respondent-wife was enhanced from Rs. 1,500 per month to Rs. 10,000 per month, on the ground that the enhancement was beyond the relief sought by the wife and that, the Family Court failed to properly assess his financial liabilities, the Division Bench of B. P. Routray and Chittaranjan Dash, JJ. dismissed the appeal reiterating that the Court is not debarred from awarding the amount exceeding the claimed amount as judicial discretion must be exercised to provide a fair and just maintenance amount, considering the dependent’s actual needs and the payer’s financial capability, even if the claim was initially understated. Read more HERE
MOTOR VEHICLES
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | ‘Not an industry carried on by/ under Central Government’s authority’; State Government held to be appropriate Government for ARAI
The present petition arose out of challenge to the Award dated 15-5-2024 passed by the Presiding Officer, First Labour Court, Pune, in a case by which the reference relating to termination of the petitioner’s services with effect from 8-8-2005 was rejected. A Single Judge Bench of Sandeep V. Marne, J., stated that the Central Government did not authorize ARAI to carry out every function that it undertook, and that the respondent-Automotive Research Association of India (‘ARAI’) was not an industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government and it was just an association formed by Indian Vehicles Manufacturers. The Court held that the Labour Court’s finding that the Appropriate Government for ARAI was the Central Government was set aside as the Appropriate Government for ARAI was the State Government. Read more HERE
POCSO
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | Grabbing breasts, breaking minor’s Pajama string not attempt to rape, but ‘aggravated sexual assault’: Summoning order, modified
In a criminal revision filed against the summoning order passed by Special Judge in complaint case, whereby the accused 1 and 2 have been summoned to face trial for charge under Sections 376 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) read with Section 18 of Protection of Children from Sexual offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO Act’) , and accused 3 (Father of accused 2) was summoned for charge under Sections 504 and 506 IPC, the single judge bench of Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J. while modifying the impugned order, held that mere fact that accused 1 and 2 grabbed the breasts of the victim and one of them broke the string of her pyjama and tried to drag her beneath the culvert and in the meanwhile on interference of passersby the accused persons fled away from the spot leaving the victim behind, is not sufficient to hold that a case of Section 376, 511 IPC or Section 376 IPC read with Section 18 of POCSO Act has been made out against the accused persons. Read more HERE
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
DELHI HIGH COURT | ‘Luxury litigation pursued by SBI’; SBI’s plea against adverse remarks by Magistrate citing delay and laches, dismissed
The petitions filed by SBI (petitioner) arise out of adverse remarks made by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM), North-West District, Rohini Courts, Delhi, in the course of proceedings initiated under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) seeking the expungement of these remarks, contending that they were beyond the jurisdictional scope of the proceedings and had caused reputational harm. Dharmesh Sharma, J., dismissed the petition as the present litigation is ill-conceived and palpably suffering from inordinate delay and barred by laches for having been filed after almost two years of arising of the cause of action. Read more HERE
MADRAS HIGH COURT | Pleadings in a suit are not a ‘document’ or ‘Instrument’; Cannot be registered by authorities or entered in the encumbrance certificate
In a writ petition filed for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the Sub Registrar of the Department of Registration to delete the entry relating to petitioner’s land based on the order passed by the Additional District Judge, from the Encumbrance Register, the Single Judge Bench of N. Anand Venkatesh, J. held that pleadings do not satisfy the requirements both under the Registration Act, 1908 and under the Stamp Act, 1899 and therefore, cannot be registered and entries cannot be made. Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | ‘Unwarranted interference by Revisional Court’; Adani’s discharge reinstated in cheating case worth Rs. 388 Crores
In a set of two writ petitions filed by Adani Enterprises Ltd. (‘Adani’) against the orders passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (‘Sessions Court’) setting aside the discharge orders passed in favour of Adani by the Trial Court in a capital market manipulation case worth Rs. 388.11 Crores, a Single Judge Bench of R.N Laddha, J., allowed the petitions, holding that the Sessions Court interfered despite finding no infirmity in the Trial Court’s orders. The Court also held that the complaint failed to satisfy the essential ingredients of cheating under Section 420 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), and consequently, the ancillary charge of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B of the IPC also became unsustainable. Read more HERE
KERALA HIGH COURT | ‘Teachers should not be under constant threat of criminal charges’: Preliminary inquiry before registering criminal cases against educators, mandated
In a matter wherein, a teacher charged with offences punishable under Section 118(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023 (‘BNS’) and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (‘JJ Act’), P.V. Kunhikrishnan, J. while granting bail to the accused teacher, held that any complaint received against a teacher in connection with their activities within an educational institution must undergo a mandatory preliminary inquiry, as outlined under Section 173(3)(i), before any case is registered. The Court further stated that a notice may be issued to the teacher, if necessary, to conduct the preliminary inquiry, but the teacher should not be arrested during this process. Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate cannot transfer a case from one Court or another on application or suo motu under Section 450 BNSS
In a petition filed under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) challenging the order dated 07-06-2024, whereby a complaint case was transferred by Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, West Delhi, Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J., stated that under Section 410 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) and Section 450 of BNSS, the power conferred upon the Chief Judicial Magistrate was only administrative in nature. The Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate could not “transfer” a case from one Court or another upon an application being moved or suo motu. The Court further stated that Respondent 2 should be at liberty to move a proper application before Principal District and Sessions Judge under Section 448 of BNSS for transfer of case from one Court to another. Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | No fresh cause of action arises from continuing non-compliance with consent decree; Contempt petition dismissed for being time-barred
A petition was filed by the petitioner under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for the alleged wilful disobedience and disregard of the consent decree dated 01-06-2009 passed by this Court. Dharmesh Sharma, J., held that the petition was ex facie barred by limitation under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, as the cause of action arose when the respondent failed to pay the balance amount by 31-12-2012. Read more HERE
QUASHMENT OF PROCEEDINGS/ FIR
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | ‘Every action disliked by a class may not lead to outrage of religious sentiments’; Case against Kailash Kher for hurting religious feelings in Lord Shiva song, quashed
In a writ petition filed by the famous singer Kailash Kher seeking quashing of a complaint registered against him under Sections 295A and 298 of the Penal Code,1860 (‘IPC’) for singing in a Lord Shiva song with a specific depiction, the Division Bench of Bharati Dangre* and Shyam C. Chandak, JJ., allowed the petition holding that merely because Kailash Kher was singing the song being surrounded by a large number of people who independently performed their roles assigned to them, the ingredients of Section 295A of IPC were not made out. Similarly, regarding Section 298 of IPC, the Court held that the complainant failed to make out even a prima facie case of his religious feelings being wounded with a deliberate intention attributed to Kailash Kher. Read more HERE
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT | Misuse of Advocate-Client Relationship | FIR in Rape allegations against Advocate refused to be quashed
In an application filed, by an advocate, under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) seeking quashment of FIR registered against him under Section 376(2)(n) of Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), a single-judge bench of G. S. Ahluwalia, J., dismissed the application as the misuse of a professional relationship by an advocate to exploit his client under coercion is a serious offense that cannot be ignored. Read more HERE
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT | ‘Miserably failed to act as quasi-judicial authorities’; Bribery case quashed against police officer, remanded it to Appellate Authority
A petition was filed by a police constable, convicted of receiving Rs. 13 Lakhs in bribe, seeking quashing of the Disciplinary Authority’s order stopping three annual increments with permanent effect, the Appellate Authority’s order dismissing his appeal, the Revisional Authority’s order dismissing his revision plea. A Single Judge Bench of Jagmohan Bansal, J., allowed the petition and quashed the impugned orders, holding that the authorities miserably failed to act as quasi-judicial authorities as they passed orders mechanically without recording any reasons therein. The Court also noted that despite serious allegations of recovery of 10 kg ganja and bribery, the State did not initiate criminal proceedings against either of the parties. Read more HERE
RENT CONTROL AND EVICTION
KERALA HIGH COURT | ‘Subsequent events must completely negate landlord’s genuine need, to overturn eviction order’: RCAA order granting possession to landlord, upheld
In a revision petition filed by the tenant challenging the order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (‘RCAA’) , wherein the Appellate Authority set aside the order of dismissal of the eviction petition by the Rent Control Court, and held that the landlord is entitled to get vacant possession of the petition-scheduled building as per Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (‘the Act’), the division bench of A. Muhamed Mustaque and P. Krishna Kumar*, JJ. said that in a case where an eviction order has already been passed, only subsequent events that fully undermine or negate the landlord’s genuine need for eviction can be used as a valid reason to cancel or overturn that eviction order. In the present case, the landlords’ need could not be said to have been completely eclipsed by subsequent events. Thus, the Court upheld the Appellate Authority’s findings, confirming that the landlords genuinely require vacant possession of the tenanted premises. As a result, the revision petition was dismissed, though the tenant was permitted to remain in the petition-scheduled building for an additional period of four months, subject to certain conditions. Read more HERE
SERVICE LAW
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT | Exemption from Efficiency Test for promotion is a one-time exception, not a matter of Right
In a writ petition filed by Junior Personal Assistants (JPAs) employed under the Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur challenging the requirement to pass an Efficiency Test for promotion to the post of Personal Assistant-cum-Judgment Writer, a Division Bench of Shree Chandrashekhar* and Kuldeep Mathur, JJ., allowed the petition to the extent that the 2020 batch is barred from competing for pre-2020 vacancies and the Efficiency Test results shall be published, and promotions must to be granted as per the prescribed method. The Court further held that government employees have no inherent right to promotion, but only the right to be considered under existing rules. Read more HERE
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | AMU directed to ensure clarity in future advertisements for lecturer posts; Criticized repetition of ambiguity
In a writ petition, wherein the petitioners have prayed for an order allowing them to participate in the selection process initiated pursuant to the Advertisement dated 03-07-2019 and Advertisement dated 11-06-2020 issued by Aligarh Muslim University (‘AMU’) for the post of Lecturer (Chemistry), the Single Judge Bench of Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J. directed AMU to adhere to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Mohd. Sohrab Khan v. Aligarh Muslim University, (2009) 4 SCC 555, in letter and spirit. It further instructed the Registrar of AMU to ensure that future advertisements are clear and free from ambiguity. Specifically, terms like “concerned/relevant/allied subject” should be avoided, and the qualifications must be clearly stated to allow all eligible candidates to participate, preventing any prejudice due to unclear language. Read more HERE
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT | State can’t deny honorarium to frontline workers compelled to work during COVID-19 pandemic
In a petition filed by frontline workers compelled to work during COVID-19 pandemic seeking payment of honorarium with interest, a single-judge bench of G. S. Ahluwalia, J., while recognising petitioners’ services rendered during the COVID-19 crisis, held that since the petitioners were compelled to work during the COVID-19 pandemic, respondents cannot run away from their liability to pay their honorarium. Read more HERE
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT | Constitution of expert committee to review 14 years’ pension restoration period under Rajasthan Civil Services Rules, suggested
In a petition filed by retired government employees challenging the period of restoration of full pension under Rule 29 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1996, a Division Bench of Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, CJ., and Bhuwan Goyal, J., suggested the State to form a Committee of Experts to evaluate the petitioners’ grievances and submit recommendations within six months. Read more HERE
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT | ‘Audacity to emphatically rely upon forged certificates, portray victimization’; Police probe directed into forged medical certificates for job appointment
In a writ petition for quashing of the show cause notice issued to the petitioners-candidates regarding the production of forged medical certificates and the debarment order whereby the petitioners were debarred for three years, a Single Judge Bench of Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J., disposed of the petition, holding that the candidates violated law and sought preferential treatment against the competing candidates by not only seeking a scribe but also claiming extra time to write in the exam on the basis of documents which were prima facie forged. Additionally, the Court directed a probe into such cases of forgery and the issuance of the certificates produced by the candidates. Read more HERE
TOLL
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | PIL against imposing double toll fees for non-FASTag vehicles, dismissed
The present PIL raised a challenge to the Circulars dated 12-2-2021 and 14-2-2021 issued by Respondent 2-NHAI, whereby commuters without FASTag were mandatorily required to pay double toll fees instead of the actual toll fees, by way of penalty from 15-2-2021. The petition stated that conversion of cash lanes into FASTag-exclusive lanes was illegal, arbitrary, and violative of due process of law and thus, sought quashing of these circulars and a directive to keep at least one lane as a hybrid lane to allow cash payments or any other modes to the commuters to pay the toll fees. The Division Bench of Alok Aradhe, C.J., and Bharati Dangre*, J., held that the diversion of the vehicle to the left lane, where it was permitted to pay the toll fee in cash, but double of the fee, which would have otherwise been levied on the vehicle, if it was fitted with FASTag, was strictly in accordance with the National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules, 2008 (‘the 2008 Rules’). The Court dismissed the PIL and stated that to encourage use of FASTag, in place of cash, it was imperative for the vehicles to pay double fee, and it was a rationale decision taken by Respondent 1. Read more HERE
