LatestLaws.com's Monthly Digest (June 2023)
Get monthly updates on landmark decisions on Consitution, Arbitration, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Laws, Company Law, Intellectual Property Rights, Criminal Law, Marriage and Divorce laws, and much more in one place with LatestLaws.com's Monthly Digest, for you exclusively! Stay updated, Good People with LatestLaws.com!
- ARBITRATION
The Delhi High Court reprised the grounds for invalidating an award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Hon'ble Ms. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna outlined that an award could be invalidated if it violated the fundamental policy of Indian law, the interest of India, justice or morality, or resulted in patent illegality.
The Delhi High Court while addressing the maintainability of an appeal filed under section 37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, stated that the Jurisdiction of the court under Section 37 of the Act is limited in scope.
- Delhi High Court refuses enforcement of foreign award as it was contrary to Indian Judicial approach
The Delhi High Court ruled that enforcement of a foreign award could be refused under Section 48(2)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1996”) if it was contrary to the fundamental policy of Indian law, the interests of India, or justice or morality.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar opined that the execution of the Foreign Public Agreement of 2016, as sought by the Petitioner, would not be in line with the judicial approach or comply with the principles of natural justice.
The single Bench of Justice Bivas Pattanayak of the Calcutta High Court in the case of M.D. Creations & Others Vs Ashok Kumar Gupta held that application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India can be invoked on the ground of patent lack in inherent jurisdiction or exceptional circumstances or ‘bad faith’ of the opposite party.
In a recent ruling, the Bombay High Court has clarified the conditions under which the bar under Section 238 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) can be invoked and its impact on applications filed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (A&C Act). The court held that the mere filing of an application under Section 7(1) of the IBC is not sufficient to invoke the bar, emphasizing the need for the Adjudicating Authority's satisfaction as prescribed by Section 7(4) and 7(5)(a) of the IBC.
The division judge bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Pankaj Mithal of the Apex Court in the case of Ghanshyam Vs Yogendra Rathi held that the power of attorney executed is of no consequence if neither sale deed has been executed nor any action pursuant thereof has been taken by the power of attorney holder.
The Supreme Court has held that even though an agreement to sell may not be regarded as a transaction of sale but the prospective purchaser having performed his part of the contract acquires possessory title over the property.
Furthermore, such possession cannot be invaded by the transferer, hence, entitling the owner right for an eviction decree with mesne profits.
The Delhi High Court while granting Leave to Defend opined that summary suits cannot be decreed solely based on stale cheques.
The Delhi High Court has opined that the power conferred by Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”). could be exercised at any stage of a suit.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prateek Jalan opined that Order VII Rule 11(d) is not limited to statutory prohibitions alone but also encompasses causes of action barred by judicial decisions.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court set aside the order passed by First Appellate Court and observed that a registered sale deed is not a public document but a private document and production of the sale deed does not dispense with the need for proof of execution of the document.
The Bombay High Court allowed a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, seeking a direction to Respondent No.3 to immediately release the amount quantified in the impugned order without insisting on a joint Application. The Court observed that merely because the Defendant is not coming forward or is not available or he does not intend or is not agreeable to give his consent for a joint application to be presented for the refund of Court fees, cannot defeat the legal rights of the applicant like the Petitioner to receive the Court fees.
The Bombay High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the order passed by Respondent No.1, vide which it dismissed the Petitioners’ Application seeking condonation of delay in filing an Appeal under Section 4(3) read with Section 45 (1A) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas Act, 1971. The Court observed that it is only in cases where, for some compelling reason, it is not practicable to serve notice that service of such notice shall be dispensed with.
The Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the legality, propriety, and correctness of the order dated 4th October 2021 passed by Civil Judge in Regular Civil Suit, which was confirmed by District Judge vide order dated 19th August 2022 passed in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal.
The Court observed that though in the case in hand, there is a recital in the registered sale deed relied on by the plaintiff that possession of the suit land was handed over to the plaintiff, considering the affidavits of the adjoining land owners, filed on record, the Court is of the prima facie view that the plaintiff has failed to prove his possession over the suit property.
The Bombay High Court partly allowed an appeal challenging the judgment and order passed by the First Appellate Court vide which the Court had dismissed the appeal by upholding the findings recorded by the Trial Court.
The Court observed that the building or structure and land are both normally the subject matter of the lease, and even if the building or superstructure is destroyed, that would not determine the lease when the land, which is the site of the building, continues to exist.
The Single Bench of Justice Bibhas Ranjan De of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Shree Gopal Tantia @ Gopal Prasad Tantia Vs The State of West Bengal & another quashed the proceedings against the Petitioner as there were no specific allegations and privity of contract.
The Calcutta High Court recently addressed a property dispute case involving a contentious question of whether a property transaction constituted a benami transaction. The Division bench comprising Justice Tapabrata Chakroborty and Justice Partha Sarthi Chatterjee made an observation stating that in Indian society, when a husband provides the consideration money for purchasing property in his wife's name, it does not automatically indicate a benami transaction. Although the source of money holds significance, it is not the sole determining factor. The crucial aspect to establish in a benami claim is the intention of the individual who supplied the consideration money, which becomes the vital fact to be proven by the party asserting the benami transaction.
C. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
1. Delhi High Court expounds: Criteria for Interference and Judicial Restraint under Article 226
The Delhi High Court bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amit Mahajan held that while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Courts were expected to intervene if there was a self-evident error that could be demonstrated without lengthy examination of the evidence.
The High Court opined that the Court can use jurisdiction only when there is gross failure of justice. The High Court cannot sit as an Appellate Court or re-appreciate the evidence based on which the Tribunal/Court passes an order, especially when they are technical in nature.
The Delhi High Court, led by Hon’ble Mr Justice Vibhu Bakhru has expounded on the matter, clarifying that the Competition Commission of India does not possess any authority over the activities conducted by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India.
The Allahabad High Court dismissed two writ petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 23.08.2022, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, whereby the learned Judge dismissed the revision applications filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 11.04.2022 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class.
The court observed that the animals have emotions, feelings, and senses similar to a human being; the only difference is that the animals cannot speak and therefore, though their rights are recognized under the law, they cannot assert the same.
The Allahabad High Court dismissed an anticipatory bail application filed for bail in a case concerning statements made on YouTube. The court observed that the applicant does not have the right to propagate his religion in a manner that may result in an adverse effect on public order and he cannot propagate his religion in a manner that may be prejudicial to the health and well-being of the informant.
The Supreme Court opined that the rule of the BCI which mandates a candidate to complete a law course from a college that is recognized/approved by the BCI is a valid rule. The BCI has the power under Section 49 read with Section 24(3)(d) of the Advocates Act, 1961 to frame norms for enrollment as an Advocate.
The Bombay High Court dismissed an application filed under Section 482 of the CrPC, 1973 challenging the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, whereby the learned Magistrate rejected the application made by the applicant-accused for his discharge.
The Court observed that the criminal prosecution cannot be quashed only because the other side has filed a civil suit with respect to the same transaction; the criminal proceedings can continue on the same set of facts even if the facts disclose the civil dispute as well.
The Division Bench of Orissa HC dismissed a PIL challenging the circular issued by RBI and called it a publicity interest litigation in the garb of public interest. The court further stated that a publicity interest litigation should be nipped in the bud so that valuable time of the Court is saved which can be effectively utilized in reducing huge pendency of cases.
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court has granted a compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs to the family of an undertrial who was killed by a co-prisoner inside Srinagar Central Jail in 2013. The Court, while delivering its judgment, highlighted that the prison authorities cannot evade their responsibility of ensuring the safety and security of undertrial prisoners, emphasizing that prisoners are entitled to their constitutional rights.
The Madras High Court has expanded the interpretation of Article 17 of the Indian Constitution, which forbids untouchability in any form. Justice SM Subramaniam made important remarks, stating that untouchability encompasses not only caste-based discrimination but also practices of social ostracism and exclusion rooted in ideas of purity, pollution, and hierarchy. The court's verdict emphasized that all practices resembling untouchability fall under the purview of Article 17 and are deemed unacceptable.
- CRIMINAL LAW
The Delhi High Court Single Judge Bench, led by Hon’ble Justice Amit Sharma, elucidated the requirement for the prosecution to showcase how the evidence gathered during the investigation corroborates the accusations stated in the complaint.
Moreover, the Court emphasised that the prosecution must establish the applicability of these allegations to the accused, especially in cases where additional conditions are stipulated by the law for granting bail related to particular offences.
The Delhi High Court expounded that filing a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “CrPC”) in the guise of a second revision petition is not maintainable.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amit Sharma clarified that once a person has already chosen to file a revision, either before the High Court or the Sessions Court, they are precluded from approaching the other court for the same matter.
The Delhi High Court opined the scope of reappreciation of evidence by a higher court in a criminal revision. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amit Sharma held that a higher court may reappreciate evidence only if the lower court's findings are found to be entirely irrational or absurd.
The division judge bench of Justice K.M. Joseph and Justice Aravind Kumar of the apex court in the case of Sebil Elanjimpally Vs The State of Orissa held that the co-accused who has not surrendered cannot be a germane factor to decline bail.
The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Minor K Through Brother D vs State & Anr. consisting of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani iterated that the clear position of law in relation to medical termination of pregnancy is that it only requires the consent of the ‘woman’. But since the woman, in this case, was a 14-year-old minor, the law required that consent be taken from the ‘guardian’ of the woman within the meaning of section 2(a) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971.
The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Malvinder Mohan Singh vs State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. consisting of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma held that no order under Section 401 (2) of CrPC shall be made to the prejudice of the accused or other person unless he has had an opportunity of being heard either personally or by pleader in his own defence.
The High Court of Delhi has expounded that decision about the nature of a “promise to marry” must await a thorough assessment and evaluation of evidence at the trial and shouldn’t be done at the bail-plea stage.
The Supreme Court has observed that under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a court holding a trial to proceed against any person not mentioned as an accused in the FIR but has committed a crime is ought to be tried together with the accused who is facing trial.
The Division-Judge bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Pankaj Mittal also noted that the court holding the trial must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt, as formed at the stage of a charge being framed.
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, while upholding the acquittal of a Police officer in a 20-year-old rape case, emphasized that the examination-in-chief of a witness cannot be considered to establish liability unless the opposing party is given a fair opportunity to cross-examine the witness regarding the information presented during the examination-in-chief.
The single-judge bench of Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Sutapa Adhikari and Ors. Vs The State of West Bengal & Anr held that Section 160 of the Cr.P.C empowers a police officer to require the attendance of witness and therefore under the garb of section 160 of the Cr.P.C. a person unconnected with the offense, cannot be directed to appear through a notice under Section 160.
The Division-Judge bench of Justice Jitendra Nath Mishra and Justice Dipankar Datta observed that the involvement of a person, who is not mentioned in the FIR as an accused should be in the commission of a crime must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt at the stage of a charge being framed to be tried along with person mentioned as an accused in the FIR.
The Delhi High Court expounded that individuals accused of non-bailable offences have the right to seek bail if the Court determined that the Prosecution had failed to establish a prima facie case.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amit Sharma further stated that the Accused could be detained in custody during the trial and such detention was not considered a violation of Article 21 because it was authorised by law.
The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Raj Kumar & Anr. vs State consisting of Justices Mukta Gupta and Poonam A. Bamba held that the absence of semen which could on DNA analysis account for the allies of the two Appellants does not discredit the version of the prosecutrix that she was raped by the two appellants one after another. For an offence of rape, it is sufficient to prove that there was penetration.
- INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS
The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of AGFA NV & Anr. vs The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs & Anr. consisting of Justice Amit Bansal opined that as the number of Patent filings in India is rapidly increasing, there is an imminent need to update the Manual of Patent Office Practice and Procedure so that the Examiners and Controllers can get better guidance on dealing with intricate matters like objections of lack of clarity and succinctness.
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that in cases where the possibility of conviction is bleak on account of a compromise between the parties, Court in its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C can quash the proceedings to secure the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of this Court.
The Bombay High Court declined to provide interim relief to Atomberg Technologies Pvt. Ltd. in their case against Luker Electric Technologies Pvt. Ltd., where Atomberg accused Luker of copying the design of one of its ceiling fans.
A single judge bench of Justice Manish Pitale observed that Atomberg did not present sufficient evidence for design infringement, as the design was already available to the public before registration. Therefore, the court suggested that the design registration itself could be subject to cancellation under section 19(b) of the Designs Act, 2000.
The Delhi High Court refrained Dabur from using WhatsApp advertisements that targeted Nihar Naturals. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Chawla opined that a prima facie case has been established by the Plaintiff only with respect to WhatsApp Advertisement and therefore, Dabur was restrained from sending out such communications that disparaged the goodwill and reputation of Nihar Naturals.
The Delhi High Court opined that the objection on lack of inventiveness under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) has to be explained. In the present case, the order rejected the patent based on "common general knowledge" without providing any reference or explanation as to why such knowledge would apply to that feature.
Additionally, the Bench highlighted the importance of updating the manual of the Patent Office to stay abreast of the growing number of patent applications in India and to effectively handle intricate issues like objections related to lack of clarity and succinctness.
- FAMILY LAW
The single-judge bench of Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Deepak Chatterjee @ Dipak Chatterjee & Ors. Vs The State of West Bengal & Anr held that the opposite party/wife never resided with the petitioners and thus the question of being inflicted with cruelty as defined/laid down under Section 498A IPC does not arise.
Recently, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has granted the dissolution of a marriage, stating that a wife cannot be compelled to live with her husband while he maintains a concubine.
Justice Satyen Vaidya, presiding over a bench, dismissed a petition filed by a husband who accused his wife of cruelty and desertion to oppose the plea for dissolution of the marriage. In delivering the verdict, the high court emphasized that no wife should be compelled to reside in a marital home where her husband cohabits with another woman.
The Kerala High Court has ruled that live-in relationships are not recognized as marriages under the law. According to the court, only marriages solemnized following personal or secular laws are considered legally valid unions. As a result, a couple living together based on an agreement cannot claim it to be a marriage or seek a divorce on that basis. The decision was made by a bench of Justices A Muhamed Mustaque and Sophy Thomas in response to an appeal by an interfaith couple. The couple had filed a plea for divorce in the family court, which was dismissed on the grounds that their marriage was not solemnized under the Special Marriage Act.
The Bombay High Court dismissed an application challenging the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, whereby the learned Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the applicant and allowed the Criminal Appeal filed by the non-applicant and enhanced the amount of maintenance.
The Court observed that the Court noted that the wife is entitled to lead the life and maintain the lifestyle and standard that she was accustomed to while staying with the husband.
The Kerala High Court recently directed a laborer to enhance the monthly maintenance allowance for his paralyzed wife and son. The Court passed the said direction noting that the laborer had been neglecting his wife and refusing to take care of the child.
The Single Judge Bench of Justice VG Arun observed that in such cases, the court must be cognizant of the prime objective of Section 125 CrPC, which stipulates maintenance, which is to ensure that the neglected wife, children And parents should not be left in a 'state of distress, destitution and starvation'.
"The court must also be satisfied of the existence of the following factors; i) that the defendant has neglected or refused to maintain the claimant. (ii) that the claimant has no means of maintaining himself (iii) that the defendant has sufficient means to maintain the claimant."
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has recently dismissed a petition seeking contempt proceedings against a Respondent-wife for allegedly violating the terms of a settlement in a divorce case. The Court expounded that parties involved in a divorce by mutual consent have an absolute and indefeasible right to withdraw their consent or petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act.
Justice Satyen Vaidya, presiding over the single Bench, clarified that the Respondent's right to withdraw her consent for a mutual divorce is a fundamental right that cannot be challenged. It was emphasized that any directive issued by the Court, instructing the parties to abide by the settlement terms, should not be interpreted as negating or infringing upon this right.
- NARCOTICS DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT (NDPS)
In a recent ruling, the Kerala High Court held that the decision of the Additional Sessions Judge in an NDPS case, allowing an application for an extension of detention and investigation period, was deemed illegal due to the Court's failure to inform the accused about the application and their right to object.
Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. emphasized that the Court's failure to provide oral notice would invalidate the entire proceedings. The virtual presence of the accused alone does not suffice, as they were unaware of the application's filing and were not given a chance to raise objections formally, the court noted
The Punjab and Haryana High Court observed that the provisions of Section 36-A(4) of the NDPS Act insofar as the requirement of a report being made by the Public Prosecutor for extension of time is concerned, are mandatory in nature.
Picture Source :
