LatestLaws.com's High Courts Yearly Digest of 2024
LatestLaws.com's High Courts Yearly Digest of 2024, compiled exclusively for you, contains landmark decisions on Consitution, Arbitration, Company Law, Intellectual Property Rights, Criminal Law, Marriage and Divorce laws, and much more in one place. Stay updated, Good People, with LatestLaws.com!
- ADMINISTRATIVE CASES
- Once a candidate voluntarily participates in the selection process, he cannot be permitted to challenge the same after emerging unsuccessful, Read Judgment
The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to assail the order dated 06.04.2018 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal vide which the learned Tribunal rejected the original application preferred by the petitioner wherein the petitioner had sought appointment to the post of Junior (ECG) Technician. The Court observed that if the petitioner had any grievance against the change of the
selection criteria he should have raised a grievance at that stage itself.
- Acquittal on the ground of benefit of doubt in moral turpitude cases is not an absolute bar for appointment in the Armed Forces, Read Judgment
The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that acquittal on the ground of benefit of doubt in moral turpitude, cases is not an absolute bar for appointment in the Armed Forces, and in the present case, there was the acquittal of the petitioner and respondent though was no bound to continue petitioner in the service yet being public authority was duty bound to examine the case of the petitioner thoroughly.
- Statutory condition for not granting compassionate appointment cannot be extended to children, Read Judgment
The Allahabad High Court held that the statutory condition for not granting compassionate appointment cannot be extended to the children of the deceased if the spouse of the deceased employee is already in government employment at the time of the death of his father would be irrelevant since his earning may be utilised for providing for his own family, wife and children.
The High Court of Calcutta, while allowing a Writ Petition challenging the final gradation list of Assistant Engineers (Civil) published by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation dated 5th July 2021 wherein the promotees superseded the petitioners and directly recruited Assistant Engineers (Civil), held that if the appointment/promotion is made after a fair assessment of all eligible candidates and the appointee continues in the position without interruption until established rules for regular substantive appointments regularize their service, there is no justification to exclude their acting service when determining seniority.
- Bombay High Court declared that it is important to give reasons to employees before termination of employees, Read Judgment
The Hon’ble Bombay High Court held that the employer cannot prevent the requirement of communicating reasons to the employee before termination during the probation period. Further, just providing notice or a one-month salary is not sufficient to terminate employment.
The Bombay High Court clarified that a mere contribution to the Provident Fund does not ipso facto make someone an employer. A bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep V. Marne further clarified that even preparing an accident report and providing necessary medical treatment was a basic gesture and did not establish an employer-employee relationship.
- Orissa High Court ruled: 'No Work, No Pay' is not absolute, especially if the Employer is to blame, Read Judgment
Recently a Single Bench of the Orissa High Court ruled that the “no work, no pay” principle is not universally applicable, particularly when the employer is responsible for not employing the services of the concerned employee.
The High Court of Kerala ruled that promotions should be determined based on the date of vacancy occurrence, with the first qualified person being considered for promotion. Additionally, it held that when on the date of occurrence of vacancy, there is more than one competent person in the feeder category, then promotions are based on merit and ability and seniority will be considered only when merit and ability are approximately equal and that there was no conflict between the special rules and general rules given in Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958 (‘KS&SSR’).
The Patna High Court, while allowing a petition filed against the order of blacklisting dated 24.08.2018 issued by Respondent No. 6, held that the authority exercising the power of blacklisting or debarring a contractor exercises quasi-judicial powers and, therefore, it is incumbent upon him to act fairly after following the due procedure and in compliance with the principle of natural justice.
- Jharkhand High Court opined: Failing to report for work without authorization will be viewed as misbehaviour, Read Judgment
The single judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court held that if an employee is absent from duty without leave, the same shall be treated as misconduct, and after obtaining the explanation from the concerned employee, proceedings shall be drawn up and punishment can be inflicted. After explanation, if it is found that the concerned employee remained absent from duty due to any sufficient reason, he/she shall be granted leave admissible for that period.
- The doctrine ‘he who heard must decide’ applies to adjudicate tax-related matters to uphold principles of natural justice, Read Judgment
The High Court of Kerala allowed a petition that challenged the order which was passed by an officer who never heard the Petitioner. The Bench ruled that the doctrine "he who heard must decide/he who decides must hear" applies to statutory authorities, requiring the "proper officer" to individually adjudicate tax-related issues to uphold the principles of natural justice. It was also emphasized that Section 75(4) of the KGST/CGST Act mandates a hearing if requested in writing or if an adverse decision is anticipated, to ensure fair tax determination.
- Promotion is not a right granted to an employee, an employee has the right to be considered for promotion, Read Judgment
The single judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court held that though the promotion is not a right of an employee, the right of consideration is accrued when junior to the employee concerned has been considered for promotion.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court in a petition filed seeking of FIR under Section 306 of the IPC, observed that it is true that the administration of the department or an office requires certain hold and control of the employees by superiors, but it does not require humiliation and bullying at workplace.
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court ruled that Section 29A(4) contemplates two situations i.e., one where the mandate is not extended and the time of 12 months has expired as per Section 29 (1) second where the mandate has been extended for a further six months by consent of parties under Section 29 (3).
It was opined that in either situation, the Court has the power to extend the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal. The consent of parties is only contemplated under Section 29A (3) and not under Section 29A(4).
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, against an Order, vide which the challenge to an Award under Section 34 of the Act,1996, was allowed and the Arbitral Award was set aside. The Court observed that the scope of a challenge under Section 34 and Section 37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 is limited to the grounds stipulated in Section 34.
- Mere contravention of the substantive law of India, by itself, is not a ground to set aside an Arbitral Award, Read Judgment
The High Court of Jharkhand, while dismissing an appeal directed against the judgment dated 25th February 2020 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Commercial Court, in Commercial Case, dismissing the petition filed on behalf of the appellant under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenging the award dated 11th March 2018 passed by the learned Arbitrator, held that an arbitral award may be set aside if the Court finds that it is vitiated by patent illegality appearing on the face of the award.
The single Judge Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the use of the word may “in Section 34 of Civil Procedure Code confers a discretion of the Court to award or not to award interest or to award interest at such rate as it deems fit”.
The Allahabad High Court, while setting aside an arbitration order reiterated that the period of limitation for challenging an award under Section 34 of the Act commences from the date on which the party making the application has received a signed copy of the arbitral award.
The division judge bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for purposes of execution of the arbitration award.
- Mere communication of a decision to go to Arbitration cannot be construed as an Arbitration Agreement between parties u/S. 7 of the Act, Read Judgment
The High Court of Calcutta, while disposing of a review application filed by the Applicant seeking review of an order dated 1 December 2022 passed under section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, held that an arbitration clause cannot be deemed to have been incorporated by way of a subsequent Circular unless it is specifically referred to and included in the original agreement between the parties.
- The Court can appoint an Arbitrator only if parties fail to refer the disputes to the Arbitrator even after notice, Read Judgment
The single-judge bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that to maintain an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 it is required to show that the respondents had failed to act as required under the arbitration clause, and had failed to refer the disputes to the Arbitrator even after a notice invoking the arbitration clause had been served on the respondents.
- Misplacement of file by the advocate is not sufficient ground for condonation delay of 966 days, Read Judgment
The Allahabad High Court, while dismissing an appeal seeking condonation of delay held that the misplacement of the file by the advocate during the shifting of office, during the festival period, is not sufficient ground for condonation delay of 966 days and the explanation provided was insufficient for the Court to exercise its discretion in condoning the delay.
- The limitation period for an application under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act is three calendar months, and not 90 days’, Read Judgment
The High Court of Calcutta, while disposing of an application filed u/s 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for setting aside an arbitral award dated 19th May 2016 passed by the sole arbitrator, held that the instant application u/s 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act for setting aside an arbitral award dated 19th May 2016 may very well be filed without any application for condonation of delay on or before 19th August 2016, i.e. within 3(three) English calendar month after excluding the date of receipt of the award.
The High Court of Calcutta, while dismissing applications filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, arising from arbitration clauses embodied in two similar contracts between the parties, held that the decision of whether to take the claim of the petitioner to arbitration lies within the exclusive discretion of the respondent, which is unjust and lopsided. The petitioner, in such case, has to pay according to its portion of the claim but has no participation in the arbitration, which is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and ought to be struck down.
The High Court of Calcutta, while disposing of an application filed by the award debtor under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for enforcement of an ex parte award, held that the courts, in a proceeding under Section 11 of the Act, can exercise the jurisdiction to nullify the appointments made by the authorities when there has been failure of procedure or ex facie contravention of the inherent facets of the Arbitration Clause.
- Article 226 remains untouched by the non-obstante clause given u/S 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, Read Judgment
The Allahabad High Court observed that Article 226/227 is a constitutional provision which remains untouched by the non-obstante clause of Section 5 of the Act, and though petitions can be filed under Article 227 against judgments allowing or dismissing first appeals under Section 37 of the Act, yet the High Court would be extremely circumspect in interfering with the same, taking into account the statutory policy as adumbrated.
The single-judge bench of the Bombay High Court held that SARFAESI proceedings are like enforcement proceedings, while arbitration is in the context of an adjudicatory proceeding. The SARFAESI proceedings and arbitration proceedings thus can proceed parallelly.
The Delhi High Court has directed that e-filing be made mandatory in both Civil jurisdictions and Criminal complaint cases before the District Courts.
The division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora observed that it is in the interest of all the stakeholders that the e-filing process is made robust in the District judiciary so that parties, as well as advocates, can easily avail the facility of filing pleadings, documents, and interim application online.
Noting that with the "Centralised Filing System" being successfully implemented in Patiala House District Courts and working efficiently, the court was inclined to implement it in all the District Courts as well.
- Grant of parole is a privilege and not a right, Read Judgment
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court ruled that the grant of parole is a privilege and not a right to be extended in routine for the periods over and above as specified in the Rules only in exceptional circumstances.
- Fundamental Right to travel abroad cannot be curtailed only because of failure to pay a bank loan, Read Judgment
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court opined that merely because the Office Memorandum permits the issuance of a lookout circular in exceptional circumstances, even when an individual is not involved in any offense under the IPC or any other penal law, the said power should be used in exceptional circumstances and not as a matter of routine.
The term ‘detrimental to the economic interests’ must be of such a magnitude that it can significantly affect the economic interest of the country. The issuance of a lookout circular cannot be resorted to in every case of bank loan defaults or credit facilities availed for business and the Fundamental Right of a citizen of the country to travel abroad cannot be curtailed only because of failure to pay a bank loan more so when the person against whom the lookout circular is opened has not been even arrayed as an accused in any offense for the misappropriation or siphoning off the loan amounts.
- Each candidate has a right to express political opinions, Read Judgment
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court expounded that in a democratic election, each candidate has a right to express political opinions, and move freely in order to campaign for elections, on an equal basis with other political parties and candidates, and for the aforesaid purpose, the right of the candidates to security of their life and property is recognized.
- Writ of Mandamus cannot be issued in the absence of any statute rule or policy decision, Read Judgment
The High Court of Jharkhand while dismissing a petition seeking issuance of direction upon the respondent Union of India to implement the ratified convention instead of Maternity benefits for the State of Jharkhand in terms of the mandate of Article 253 of the Constitution of India read with Schedule VII-Union List entry 14 reiterated that a mandamus can be issued where the Government or public authority has failed to exercise or wrongly exercised the discretion conferred upon it by a statute or a rule or a policy decision and no mandamus can be issued in absence of any statute or a rule or a policy decision.
- Demolition should be the last recourse and be exercised only after providing an opportunity to get regularization of the house, Read Judgment
The Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that it has become fashionable now for local administration and local bodies to demolish any house by drawing up proceedings without complying with the Principal of Natural Justice and publishing it in the newspaper.
Further, it was expounded that no person has a right to construct the house without building permission, or if the building permission is there then no construction is permissible in the MOS area. In either case, demolition should be the last recourse to be followed that too after giving a proper opportunity to the owner of the house to get it regularized.
The High Court of Rajasthan in a bench comprising Hon’ble Justice Sameer Jain held that the state is a welfare state and therefore is the ‘first responder’ to the grievances as posed by the citizens in any regard. It was further opined that the speaking orders are to be passed in cases of employee representation after due consideration to undo the act of not paying heed to the representations by the governmental servants.
- Right to receive a pension is a right to property protected under Article 300A of the Constitution of India, Read Judgment
The Patna High Court, while allowing an appeal filed against an order passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the claim of the writ petitioner-appellant herein for interest over the delayed payment of retiral benefits/dues was not acceded to, held that denial of interest over the delayed payment of due pension and gratuity would cause a miscarriage of justice.
The High Court of Calcutta, while allowing a petition challenging the action of the respondent whereby it disconnected the electricity connection of the petitioner without any notice, held that the language and manner in which sub-section (2) of Section 56 of the 2003 Act is couched makes the provision of the time bar stipulated therein mandatory in nature.
- Law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is binding on all the Courts within the territory of India, Read Judgment
The single-judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court held that as per Article 141 of the Constitution of India, the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is binding on all the Courts within the territory of India and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court applies to all pending proceedings.
The Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court expounded that any interference by the High Courts entertaining petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and issuing directions after the commencement of the electoral process has the effect of interpreting, obstructing, or protracting the election proceedings, in such a situation remedy should be postponed till after the completion of such proceedings and after the elections are over, the aggrieved candidate would have the remedy of filing an election petition. The High Courts are not supposed to exercise the writ jurisdiction but the same can be exercised only in exceptional and rare cases.
- Duty of the Court to reject a petition that is based on a purely technical stand to gain an unfair advantage over the other parties, Read Judgment
The Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court ruled that in matters that pertain to the larger public interest the power under Article 226 of the Constitution is not fettered by any limitation. By raising technical objections, a party to litigation cannot be permitted to frustrate the basic object and purpose behind the writs. The High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution issues prerogative writs to any person or authority within the territory or throughout the territories any directions, orders including writs like habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warrantor and certiorari, or any of them, for enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose.
The Allahabad High Court held that even if the petitioners have not married each other, no one can restrain an adult from going anywhere that he/she likes, staying with a person of his/her choice, or solemnizing marriage according to his/her will or wish. This is a right that flows from Article 21 of the Constitution.
It was opined that honour killing in such matters is not an unknown phenomenon and it is very important to save human life from extinction on account of misguided emotions or notions of morality. This issue is quite independent of the issue of matrimony that the parties have entered into. No citizen can kill another for holding a different opinion and it is the foremost duty of the State to preserve human life.
- Maternity Act provisions did not apply to the private educational institution before 6th March 2020, Read Judgment
The High Court of Kerala allowed a petition that challenged the order which directed the Petitioner to give maternity benefits and bonuses to the Respondent under the Maternity Act. The Court ruled that the provisions of the Maternity Act did not apply to the private educational institution before 6th March 2020, as on this day, the Kerala Government issued a notification bringing the private educational institution including school education within the ambit of the provisions of the Maternity Act.
The Calcutta High Court, in a PIL requesting the court's intervention due to instances of post-poll violence, passed an interim order directing an extension of the tenure of Central Forces deployed in West Bengal during the Lok Sabha elections.
The Allahabad High Court observed that while the Constitution of India grants citizens the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate their religion, it does not allow any citizen to convert another citizen from one religion to another, and every person has the liberty to choose, practice, and express their religious beliefs; however, this personal freedom does not extend to a collective right to proselytize, which means attempting to convert others to one's religion.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court set aside the expulsion of a student from the Indian Institute of Management, Rohtak, finding that it violated the principle of double jeopardy. The student had faced multiple disciplinary actions, including fines and expulsion from the hostel and program. The High Court ruled that the expulsion was based on prior punishments and lacked proper authority, as it was imposed by an unauthorized committee. It also criticized the flawed appeal process, where the petitioner was denied a personal hearing and reasoned order.
- In Judicial Exams meritorious reserved category candidates can migrate to general vacancies, Read Judgment
Recently, the Madhya Pradesh High Court directed that meritorious reserved category candidates be extended the benefit of migration to unreserved categories at all stages of recruitment conducted by its Examination cell. The Court emphasized the constitutional principle of equality under Article 14 and Article 16 and clarified that merit must prevail across all stages of the selection process.
The Jharkhand High Court in its recent judgment remarked that “if an individual is arrested solely on the grounds that such action is deemed necessary for the smooth conduct of Assembly Elections, it would essentially grant the administration unchecked, unrestrained power to detain any person under the Act during the election period.”
This, the Court asserted, would constitute a direct infringement on the liberty of citizens. The Court subsequently overturned the order of preventive detention.
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court ruled that the right of the Investigating Officer for further investigation in terms of Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. is not taken away only because the charge sheet is filed under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. against the accused. Ordinarily, though, all the documents relied upon by the prosecution should accompany the charge- sheet, nonetheless, if for some plausible reasons, all the documents are not filed along with the charge sheet, this itself, would not invalidate or vitiate the charge sheet.
If upon the material produced along with the charge sheet, the Court is satisfied about the commission of an offense and thereupon takes cognizance of the offence allegedly committed by the accused, it is immaterial whether the further investigation in terms of Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. is pending or not, qua other accused or for production of some documents not available at the time of filing of the charge-sheet.
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that the parameter in an inquiry under Section 340(1) Cr.P.C. is whether a prima facie case is made out, which if unrebutted, may have a reasonable likelihood to establish the specified offence and whether it is also ‘expedient in the interest of justice’ to take such action. Thus, the Court is required to keep the overall factual matrix in consideration, and only in case the Court is of the opinion that it is ‘expedient in the interest of justice’, such permission needs to be granted.
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court opined that a person can be directed to be declared as a proclaimed offender under Sub-section (4) of Section 82 Cr.PC only if he is accused of an offence punishable under sections 302, 304, 364, 367, 382, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400, 402, 436, 449, 459, or 460 IPC.
In the present case, offences invoked are Sections 420/120B/34 IPC, which have not been specified under Section 82(4) Cr.P.C, hence to the extent order declared Petitioner as PO was to be set aside.
A person who is accused of offences other than the ones enumerated in Section 82(4) Cr.P.C. and qua whom a proclamation has been published under Section 82(1) Cr.P.C. would be a ‘Proclaimed Person’, therefore, the Petitioner’s status as a proclaimed person would not be affected.
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court expounded that the objective for ‘further investigation’ remains to find the truth and bring evidence on record for ensuring substantial justice. However, this right does not extend to mere ‘reinvestigation’ or ‘fresh investigation’ to be started ab initio. If the circumstances deserve a further investigation, the power of the jurisdictional court to direct the police to conduct further investigation cannot have any inhibition, and the same is not ruled out merely because cognizance has been taken by the Court.
Whether further investigation should or should not be directed is within the discretion of the jurisdictional court which exercises the discretion on the facts of each case, before the trial actually commences by framing of charge. A fair trial is imperative in the dispensation of justice.
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court expounded that whenever a woman makes a reasoned choice to establish physical relations after fully understanding the consequences of such action, the ‘consent’ cannot be said to be based on a misconception of fact until and unless there is clear evidence that a false promise with no intention of upholding the same was given by the maker at the time of making the promise. The said promise must be of immediate relevance and bear a direct nexus to a decision by the woman to engage in a sexual act.
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court opined that witnesses are the eyes and ears of justice and to ensure a fair trial, it needs to be ensured that witnesses are able to depose against an accused without any apprehension or threat to their lives, specifically when the offenders may be habitual or hardened criminals or may be involved in an organized crime.
The State has a constitutional obligation and duty to protect the life and liberty of the witnesses, who apprehend a threat to their lives and a proactive role needs to be adopted in protecting such witnesses.
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court expounded that for the purpose of registration of FIR and criminal case under Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (“MCOCA”), the registration of FIR meeting the requirement of Section 2(1) (d), (e) and (f) of MCOCA coupled with the fact that the concerned Court has taken cognizance, is to be satisfied.
It was ruled that what is important is whether the commission of an offence by the accused would constitute ‘continuing unlawful activity’ as a member of an organized crime syndicate and so long as the said requirement is not met, the conviction under Section 3 of MCOCA may not be upheld.
Recently, the Delhi High Court has expounded that "petitioner / accused cannot be precluded from leading evidence in defence with respect to messages exchanged between him and prosecutrix, which the accused considers would substantiate his defence and prove his innocence. Merely because the phone of the accused was not seized during an investigation or was not handed over by the petitioner to the IO."
The Delhi HC Bench, comprising of Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, was hearing a Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging an order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ).
- Delhi High Court clarified Jurisdictional limits for Bail, granted ‘Transit Anticipatory Bail’, Read Judgment
Recently, the Delhi High Court granted the applicant limited transit bail for two weeks to pursue bail in Nagaland, where the FIR was filed. The case involved allegations that a social media post incited communal hatred against Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The applicant contested the legality of his arrest in New Delhi, citing procedural violations and insufficient grounds for the SC/ST Act.
The Court emphasized that bail requires the applicant to be in judicial custody and highlighted the significance of territorial jurisdiction. It affirmed the concept of “transit anticipatory bail” for individual liberty. Upon reviewing the SC/ST Act allegations, the Court found no evidence of caste-based targeting in the applicant’s social media post.
"The leap from physical relations or samband to sexual assault and then to penetrative sexual assault has to be established on record by means of evidence, and the same cannot be presumed or deduced as an inference."- Delhi HC
The Court addressed the validity of a conviction under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) and the POCSO Act in a case involving a 14-year-old girl. The Court examined the Trial Court's reasoning and highlighted the lack of substantive analysis in convicting the Appellant. The Court noted that the survivor's testimony, along with other key pieces of evidence, failed to establish a clear case of sexual assault. This observation raises important questions about the standards required to prove such charges in similar cases.
"The right to medical claim cannot be denied merely because the name of the hospital is not included in the Government Order."- Delhi HC
This important statement by the Delhi High Court came in the context of a petition challenging the denial of medical reimbursement for emergency treatment. The Court further highlighted that the real test should focus on the fact of treatment rather than bureaucratic formalities, referencing the Supreme Court's earlier rulings on the matter.
- When a person touches a child, there is a presumption under Section 30 that it was with sexual intent, Read Judgment
The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed a petition, filed for quashing the order framing the charge sheet. The Court observed that where a person touches a child, there is a presumption under Section 30 that it was with sexual intent and the burden lies upon the accused to prove otherwise.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed an appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the award/judgment dated 30.08.2010, passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, with a prayer to set aside the impugned award/judgment and to award the compensation, as claimed by them. The Court observed that Proof of negligence is the condition precedent in all cases for the grant of compensation Under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
- An accused cannot be denied bail solely based on an apprehension that he is likely to abscond and influence the witnesses, Read Judgment
The Himachal Pradesh High Court allowed a petition, seeking regular bail in a case registered for the commission of an offense punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The Court observed that the police have a right to seek the cancellation in case the petitioner violates any of the conditions, however, bail cannot be denied based on the apprehension alone.
- When a promise of marriage is given after the physical relationship, the offense of Rape will not be made out, Read Judgment
The single judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court held that when consent is obtained on a false promise of marriage there will be no consent and Section 376 will be attracted. When such a promise of marriage is given after the physical relationship, the offense of rape will not be made out. Whether the promise of marriage preceded or followed a consensual physical relationship is a question of fact that will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.
- When the age of a victim in a POCSO case is estimated to be around 16-18 years, the benefit of it has to be given to the accused, Read Judgment
The Patna High Court, while allowing an appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the judgment of conviction dated 18.03.2023 passed by learned Special Judge, Exclusive POCSO Court-cum-Additional District & Sessions Judge, whereby the concerned Trial Court convicted the present appellant for the offenses punishable under Sections 363, 366(A), 376 DA of the Indian Penal Act and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, held that that sufficient margin either way has to be allowed while determining the age on the basis of the radiological examination.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court quashed and set aside FIR and criminal proceedings pertaining to rape case taking note that bitterness led to the said FIR, and that the accused and victim were in a live-in relationship, and their marriage was solemnized even before the said FIR was registered.
The Bench of Justice Ranjan Sharma with the help of a catena of cases further laid down the principles to be followed by Court while dealing with pleas seeking to quash criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable sexual offences based on compromise.
The High Court of Calcutta, while allowing a petition filed by the petitioner to quash the order passed by the learned Special Judge vide which it took cognizance of the offense on the ground that there is sufficient material to proceed against the accused persons, held that unless there is a specific order under Section 156(3) of the CrPC passed by the Magistrate/Special Judge, directing the police authority to treat the complaint as an FIR and register a specific case, any complaint sent for inquiry under Section 202 of the CrPC cannot be registered as FIR.
The Allahabad High Court, while dismissing a petition seeking quashing of proceedings against the petitioner, accused under Sections 376, 313 IPC and Sections 3/4 POCSO Act, held that when an offence is made out against the accused irrespective of the fact that whether the prosecutrix was a consenting party or not, then certainly, the prosecution cannot be quashed merely on the ground that at a later stage, the prosecutrix has entered into a compromise and once the consent of the minor prosecutrix is immaterial for registration of offence, then such consent shall still remain immaterial for all practical purposes at all the stages including for compromise.
The Allahabad High Court, while granting bail to the petitioner, accused under the POCSO Act observed that a false depiction of a victim as a minor in POCSO Act cases is an abuse of the process of court and further stated that a Medical Report determining the age of a POCSO Act offence is an imperative requirement of law and an absolute necessity of justice.
- Execution of a Sale Deed claiming someone else’s property to be one’s own does not amount to Forgery, Read Judgment
The High Court of Calcutta, while allowing a petition filed for quashing the proceedings under Sections 406/468/471/419/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, held that when a document is executed by a person claiming a property which is not his, he is not claiming that he is someone else nor is he claiming that he is authorized by someone else.
The High Court of Punjab & Haryana, while allowing a petition filed by the petitioner seeking the concession of regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in a case registered under Sections 302, 148, 149, 201, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, held that the alleged motive to commit the crime in question was an apprehension in the mind of the accused party that the deceased would transfer his property in the name of his brother and nephews.
- A person accused of rape cannot be discharged merely based on DNA Report when the case diary contains direct evidence against him, Read Judgment
The High Court of Calcutta, while dismissing a petition filed for setting aside the impugned order dated 16.01.2017 as well as quashing the proceedings pending before the Learned Additional Sessions, held that though the DNA report shows the present petitioner is not the biological father of the female baby, the accused cannot be discharged because a DNA analysis report cannot be said to be the conclusive evidence regarding rape and can only be used as corroborative evidence in the trial.
- Juveniles tried as adults cannot be deprived of their right to bail under Juvenile Justice Act, Read Judgment
Recently, the Uttarakhand High Court has extended bail to a juvenile accused under Sections 376(3) and 506 of the IPC, and Section 5(j)(ii)/6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. Justice Ravindra Maithani expounded that even if a Child in Conflict with Law (CIL) is tried as an adult under Section 18(3) of the Act, their bail application must be considered under Section 12 of the same Act.
- If the case is not made out, non-interference of the same will amount to an abuse of process of law, Read Judgment
The single judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court held that there is no doubt that the High Courts are very slow in quashing of the entire criminal proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C., if the case is made out, however, at the same time if the case is not made out, non-interference of the same will amount to abuse of process of law.
- Court has an exclusive right to alter the charge based on evidence under Section 216 of CrPC, Read Judgment
The High Court of Kerala ruled that the power to alter charges lies exclusively with the Court and can be exercised at any time before judgment. In this case, the Court allowed the public prosecutor's application to alter the charge based on evidence indicating a more serious offence, invoking its authority under Section 216 of the CrPC.
- When the testimony of the eyewitness is credible, then it is not necessary to prove the motive behind the offence, Read Judgment
The division judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court held that when there is an eyewitness, who had seen the commission of murder and their evidence is credible, it is not necessary that the prosecution has to prove the motive behind the offence.
The Patna High Court, while dismissing an appeal filed against the judgment/order passed by the Learned Trial Court vide which the accused was acquitted, held that in cases of circumstantial evidence, all the facts must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, that they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty.
- Unlawful demand of dowry soon before death is sine-qua-non for the offence under Section 304-B IPC, Read Judgment
The division judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court held that unlawful demand of dowry soon before death is sine-qua-non for the offence under Section 304 B IPC. The court in the absence of proof of dowry demand granted benefit of doubt to the accused person convicted for the offense under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code.
- Sexual Intent makes Physical Contact an offence under POCSO, Read Judgment
Recently, the Kerala High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging the Special Court’s refusal to discharge an accused in a case involving allegations under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). The Court upheld the Special Court’s observation that prima facie evidence of sexual assault as defined under Section 7 of the POCSO Act, was established. The High Court further emphasized the statutory presumption of culpable mental state under Sections 29 and 30 of the Act.
Recently, the Kerala High Court held that acts of body shaming by a husband and his family members could prima facie constitute cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Court emphasized that such acts fall within Explanation (a) of Section 498A, which penalizes willful conduct likely to cause mental or physical harm to the wife or drive her to harm herself.
- The need for urgent societal transformation and stringent legal measures cannot be overstated, for the dignity of women, Read Judgment
The Rajasthan High Court expounded that "The need for urgent societal transformation and stringent legal measures cannot be overstated, for the dignity of women in Rajasthan—and indeed, across India—hinges on the dismantling of such archaic norms".
HC Bench overturned the acquittal of two individuals charged with dowry-related harassment and the murder of their daughter-in-law, Kaushalya.
Despite the Trial Court granting the benefit of doubt, the High Court found sufficient evidence, including witness testimonies and the suspicious cremation of the victim’s body. Emphasizing the persistence of dowry deaths, the Court concluded that the trial court had misread key evidence and allowed the appeal, resulting in the conviction of the accused.
Recently, the Bombay High Court, while dealing with a criminal application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., held that the application to quash an FIR and criminal proceedings was not maintainable. The matter involved allegations of dowry harassment and cruelty under Section 498A, 323, 504 and 506 of the IPC. The Court observed that the conduct of the applicants in withholding custody of the minor child born to the informant and her husband and defying judicial orders impacted the maintainability of the application.
The Court highlighted the preventive nature of detention laws and the serious threat posed by illicit drug trafficking to public health and safety, stressing the importance of maintaining public order.
High Court Bench expounded that "In preventive detention cases no offence is to be proved nor is any charge formulated. The justification of such detention is suspicion and reasonability."
In its recent judgment the division judge bench of the Calcutta High Court held that “the term ‘quarrel’, by its very definition, involves two parties. As such, fault cannot be attributed solely to one of the parties for an altercation or quarrel.”
The court in this case refused to grant divorce on the ground of cruelty by holding that quarrel doesn’t come within the ambit of "cruelty" as envisaged in law.
- Delhi High Court came to the rescue of Louis Vuitton as Mr. Shoes was Injuncted from using Letters LV, Read Judgment
Recently, the Delhi High Court dealt with a trademark infringement suit filed by Louis Vuitton Malletier (LVM) seeking a permanent injunction against the defendants for infringing its well-known ‘LV’ trademark. The Court granted relief in favor of the plaintiff, issuing a decree restraining the defendants from using the ‘LV’ marks and other related remedies.
Recently, the Delhi High Court allowed a writ petition, quashing the revocation of the petitioner’s joining as Vice President (Finance) with Hindustan Urvarak & Rasayan Ltd. The Court held that since the petitioner had obtained a relieving letter from his previous employer, Brahmaputra Valley Fertilizer Corporation Limited (BVFCL), there was no barrier to his appointment. The Court observed that the petitioner’s inability to provide the relieving letter initially was the sole reason for his joining revocation.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court allowed a petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order passed by the Learned Civil Judge vide which an application filed under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure was allowed after impleadment of the petitioner as defendant No.2 in the Civil Suit. The Court observed that the application which was filed under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the respondent/plaintiff, seeking amendment of the plaint was completely vague in the absence of specific averments therein as to what actually the respondent/plaintiff intended to incorporate in the plaint by way of amendment and where exactly in the plaint the amendments were to be incorporated.
- An order contravening procedure under Order IX Rule 8 of CPC is not a decree and can be dismissed for default, Read Judgment
The Patna High Court, while setting aside the order of a family court which dismissed the petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act without hearing the husband observed that an order of this nature contravenes the provisions of Order IX Rule 8 of the Code, which lays down the procedure to be followed in absence of the plaintiff and the order is not appealable but advisable.
- Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act provides that an agreement to do an act impossible in itself is void, Read Judgment
The division judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court held that Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act provides that an agreement to do an act impossible in itself is void, and impossibility, as envisaged under section 56, is not the literal impossibility and would refer to a situation in which it becomes impermissible before the parties to carry on their respective obligations.
- [Order VI Rule 17] The Court cannot reject an Amendment Application partly without assigning reasons for the same, Read Judgment
The High Court of Calcutta, while disposing of a petition filed against an order dated 7th December 2020 passed by the Learned Civil Judge in a title suit, held that no reason was assigned as to why the other part of the amendment is liable to be disallowed and it caused perversity in the order impugned.
- Defendant cannot be permitted to file a counter-claim after the issues are framed even in cases when the claim may not be time-barred, Read Judgment
The High Court of Calcutta, while dismissing a petition filed for quashing an order dated December 5, 2022, passed by the learned Civil Judge vide which the learned court rejected a counterclaim filed by the defendants/petitioners, held that delay should not be a ground for rejection of a counterclaim and also that a counterclaim could be filed even after the filing of a written statement. However, the counter-claim should not be allowed mechanically, for the mere asking.
- Plaintiff cannot refuse the burden to prove the main relief sought, after having secured Interlocutory relief, Read Judgment
The Patna High Court, while dismissing a suit seeking the arrest of the vessel “ESPERNZA III” and a decree directing the defendant to deliver 263 TABP coils, held that having taken advantage of an interim order, which virtually amounted to the final relief, the plaintiff cannot now contend that there is no obligation of the plaintiff to discharge the burden of proof and prove its case.
- The court cannot condone the delay in filing the written statement only on the ground that the defendant is a Government concern, Read Judgment
The High Court of Calcutta, while allowing a revision petition filed for quashing the proceedings pending before the Ld. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate under Sections 420/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, held that defendant no. 1 was well aware and conversant with the issues involved, including the prescribed period of limitation for filing the written statement, and hence defendant no.1/ Government authority cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation.
The High Court of Allahabad, while dismissing a petition filed by the petitioner, praying to set aside the impugned order dated 11.05.2018 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, under section 13 Hindu Marriage Act, held that where the respondent has applied under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for the grant of litigation expenses, the said respondent cannot be compelled to file a written statement unless an order is passed on the said application.
The single-judge bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that under Section 60(1) (g) of C.P.C., stipends and gratuities allowed to pensioners of the Government are not liable to attachment. Earned leave encashment is not a stipend or gratuity so as to fall under Section 60 (1) (g) of C.P.C.
- The provisions of O. VIII R. 1 of C.P.C. to file the written statement within a maximum period of 90 days is directory not mandatory’, Read Judgment
The Single Judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court held that the purpose of providing the time schedule for filing the written statement under Order VIII Rule 1 of C.P.C. is to expedite and not to scuttle the hearing. The provisions spell out a disability on the defendant. It does not impose an embargo on the power of the Court to extend the time.
The Patna High Court, while allowing a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 15.10.2022 passed by learned Additional District Judge-whereby and whereunder the learned Appellate Court rejected the amendment petition filed by the petitioner, held that in a disputed question of fact like a wrong boundary and its correction, the court could not order for appointment of a Survey Knowing Pleader Commissioner as Commissioner could not be appointed to collect evidence on behalf of the parties.
- When two or more proceedings are pending in different courts between the same parties, they should be tried together by the same Judge, Read Judgment
The single judge bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that when two or more proceedings are pending in different Courts between the same parties which raise common questions of fact and law, and when the decisions in the cases are interdependent, it is desirable that they should be tried together by the same Judge so as to avoid multiplicity in trial of the same issues and conflict of decisions, due to that by invoking powers vested under Section 24 of CPC.
- Rajasthan High Court enhanced Compensation for 18-year-old accident victim, recognizing Semi-Skilled Labour potential, Read Judgment
Recently, the Rajasthan High Court decided on an appeal against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal’s judgment, wherein the tribunal had awarded compensation of Rs. 8,04,000 to the claimant. The Court modified the compensation amount, observing that the calculation of the deceased’s income based on the minimum wages for unskilled labour was unreasonable given his potential for a brighter future, and instead, deemed the income should reflect semi-skilled labour wages.
The High Court of Calcutta, while dismissing an appeal filed against a preliminary decree passed in a partition suit, declaring the shares of the plaintiff and defendants respectively to be 1/3rd each in respect of the suit property, held that a mere dearth of appropriate reasons or improper reasons would not vitiate a judgment and the Appellate Court can always supply further reasons if the Appellate Court concurs with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Trial Judge.
The High Court of Calcutta in its recent ruling held that “if a fact comes to the knowledge of the opposite party after the filing of the principal written objection, it can still be incorporated under Order 6, Rule 17 of the CPC (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”), provided the amendment is relevant and does not introduce new pleas that could surprise the other party.”
This ruling was made while dismissing a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which challenged the order dated 16.11.2019 passed by the Learned Civil Judge in a case arising out of a Title Suit.
- Grave and uncorroborated allegations of cruelty against the spouse, unsubstantiated during the divorce proceedings amount to cruelty, Read Judgment
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court opined that though filing of a criminal complaint per se cannot amount to cruelty, however, such grave and uncorroborated allegations of cruelty unsubstantiated during the divorce proceedings, are all acts of cruelty.
- If the cause of action is independent of the Marital Relationship, the matter would be outside the purview of the Family Court, Read Judgment
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that the mere existence of a marital relationship between the litigating parties howsoever tangential cannot be the basis or the foundation for the proceedings being brought before a Family Court. The Bench opined that an assertion of a particular suit or proceeding being liable to be tried exclusively by the Family Court would succeed only if it is established that there is a direct nexus between the cause of action and the marital relationship. If the cause of action is independent of the marital relationship, the matter would be outside the purview of the family court.
Recently, the Delhi High Court annulled a Marriage registration Certificate issued under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 (SMA) for a couple married under Islamic Sharia Law, citing an error due to the absence of an effective online mechanism for registering such marriages under the Delhi (Compulsory Registration of Marriage) Order, 2014. The Court observed that this gap led the petitioners to register their marriage under the SMA, later complicating its dissolution.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court allowed a petition, filed for quashing the FIR registered against the petitioner. The Court observed that where the separated wife alleged that she was made to undergo sexual intercourse on the promise of marriage, no offense is made out, as she could not have married without divorcing her husband.
The Hon’ble Bombay High Court noted that as in the present case, due to the medical condition of the wife, it was imperative for the petitioners to proceed to achieve parenthood by surrogacy, however, in doing so, the petitioners could not be foisted with the compliance of the impugned rules, namely, Rule 1(d)(I), as set out in the notification dated 14 March 2023 as the purpose of the Surrogacy act is to weed out unethical practices from Surrogacy and is a women-centric law.
In the light of the above discussion, the Court was of the clear opinion that if the protection as prayed for was not granted to the Petitioners it would certainly prejudice their legal rights to achieve parenthood through surrogacy which they ought to be permitted without the insistence on the compliances of condition as stipulated under the impugned notification dated 14 March 2023.
- Natural guardian does not require the permission of the court to sell minor’s undivided interest in Joint Family Property, Read Judgment
The Allahabad High Court held that there need be no natural guardian for the minor's undivided interest in the joint family property, as provided under sections 6 and 12 of the Act, the previous permission of the Court under Section 8 of disposing of the undivided interest of the minor in the joint family property is not required.
- Marriage between Hindus governed by HMA, cannot be dissolved by way of compromise in proceedings u/S 125 CrPC, Read Judgment
The Allahabad High Court held that marriage between two Hindus is governed under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act and the only manner in which such marriage can be dissolved is by passing an appropriate decree by the competent court in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the marriage cannot be dissolved by way of a compromise entered into at the time of proceedings for maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC.
- Case of compassionate appointment of a married daughter would not be rejected solely on the ground of her marital status, Read Judgment
The Allahabad High Court in a petition filed by a married daughter seeking compassionate appointment held that brothers being in government service and mothers receiving pension were not a bar of petitioner (married daughter) seeking compassionate appointment.
- No utility in prolonging proceedings under the Dowry Prohibition Act when the Family Court nullified the marriage, Read Judgment
The Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that the primary consideration during the framing of charges is to ascertain the presence of a prima facie case and there is no requirement to delve into the probative value of the materials on record.
- Probate proceedings are not the appropriate stage to adjudicate on the title and interest of a testator, Read Judgment
The Patna High Court held that probate proceedings are not a place for the determination of question of title or interest over a property and the determination over the question of title could be done only by filing a separate suit.
The High Court of Calcutta, while dismissing an appeal filed by the defendant-wife against a decree of divorce granted on the grounds of cruelty and desertion, held that while deciding a first appeal, it is not for the Appellate Court to substitute its own findings for those of the trial court unless the judgment of the learned Trial Judge is vitiated by perversity or an error of law or fact.
- The subsistence of a valid marriage is a prerequisite for passing any order under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C, Read Judgment
The single judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court held that subsistence of a valid marriage is a prerequisite for passing any order under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. The court set aside the order passed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure while holding that unless the petitioner is validly divorced from his first wife, the marriage of the petitioner will have no legal sanctity.
- Divorce on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown of a marriage cannot be granted solely based on the length of separation period, Read Judgment
The Allahabad High Court, in an appeal filed by the husband against the order rejecting the divorce petition on account of cruelty on the part of the wife, observed that the relationship between the parties may still remain despite a troubled marriage, but divorce cannot be granted on grounds of irretrievable breakdown of marriage solely based on the length of separate period between the husband and the wife.
The division judge bench of the Bombay High Court ruled that a daughter would not have any right, either limited or absolute, by inheritance prior to coming into force of the Act of 1956 in the property of her deceased father, who died prior to 1956 leaving behind him in addition to such daughter, his widow as well.
- High Court Upheld Legal Rights of Wife and Child in Maintenance Case: No Strict Proof of Marriage Required, Read Judgment
The Calcutta High Court recently ruled on a maintenance case involving a woman and her child. After her second marriage to Opposite Party No. 2 ended in separation and financial hardship, the woman sought maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court emphasized that strict proof of marriage is not required for maintenance claims and upheld the lower court’s decision to increase the child’s maintenance. The Court also affirmed the woman’s entitlement to maintenance, recognizing her marriage and child’s legitimacy as established in prior civil proceedings.
The Kerala High Court Bench expounded that, “It is unpardonable and impermissible in any civilized society to judge a woman solely on the basis of her dress, or to thus conclude upon her virtue or her modesty, which surely can only be construed as being clothed by rigid notions of patriarchy."
This remark by the Kerala High Court came in response to a Family Court decision that denied a mother custody of her children based on sexist assumptions about her attire and emotional reaction to her divorce. The Court condemned these findings, highlighting the need to reject patriarchal biases in custody matters.
- DRT shall be approached against the measures of secured creditors under section 17 of the SARFESI Act, Read Judgment
The Delhi High Court while going through the provisions of the SARFESI Act with regards to measures of secured creditors and remedies available against the same, noted that when there is an efficacious remedy available under section 17 of the act to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "DRT") then the same shall be approached for the cases where the petitioner has issues with the measures taken by secured creditors for enforcement of security.
- Delhi High Court expounded that issuance of lookout circular cannot be resorted to in every case of bank loan, Read Judgment
The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi expounded that Section 11A(2) of the IBC says that precedence is to be given to an application if the application under Section 54C is already pending and the application under Section 7, 9 or 10 is filed or if the application under Section 7, 9 or 10 is pending and the application under Section 54C is filed within 14 days of the filing of the said application then the precedence has to be given to the said application but Section 11A(3) cast an exception as it provides that where an application under Section 54C is filed after fourteen days of the filing of the application under Section 7, 9 or 10 then it has not to be given precedence rather the precedence has to be given to the application filed under Section 7, 9 or 10 of the IBC.
- Madras High Court upheld constitutional validity of 2 tier-control and monitoring system under IBC, Read Judgment
The Hon’ble Madras High Court ruled that the power of suspension is not a punishment and is an ad- interim measure and if one has to be issued with show cause notice, then the very purpose of ad-interim suspension is lost. Therefore, the requirement of issuance of show cause notice cannot be read into a provision of ad-interim suspension.
The Court opined that mere conferment of authority on IBBI and IPAs for supervision control and disciplinary proceedings by itself cannot be held to be conferring of unbridled power. The Regulations and Bye-laws which are framed under Section 204 of the IBC clearly provide checks and balances. The procedure for taking disciplinary action and the appellate remedies are provided. Therefore, it cannot be said to be confirmation of excessive or unbridled power.
Accordingly, the constitutional validity of the Regulation 23A provisions of Chapter III of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘IBC’), more particularly, Section 204 (a) (b) (c) (d) and (e) of the Act was upheld.
- The pendency of a proceeding u/S. 95, IBC does not automatically entail a moratorium u/S. 96 on a wilful defaulter proceeding, Read Judgment
The High Court of Calcutta, while disposing of a petition filed by the petitioner, challenging a Show-cause Notice dated March 1, 2024, issued by the respondent-Authorities for declaring the petitioners as wilful defaulters in terms of the Master Circular on Wilful Defaulters issued by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), held that the yardsticks of declaration of a wilful defaulter under the Master Circular are different from a recovery proceeding or a relatable proceeding; such declaration is merely to disseminate credit information pertaining to wilful defaulters for cautioning banks and financial institutions.
The Allahabad High Court held that on commencement of the insolvency resolution process, the moratorium u/s 14 of I.B.C. prohibiting the proceeding u/s 138/141 N.I. Act will be applicable only against the corporate debtor and not against the natural persons like the directors of the company for their vicarious liability.
- NCLAT, Delhi ruled that IBC proceedings can still be initiated against the Corporate Debtor which is stuck off, Read Judgment
The Hon’ble NCLAT, Principal Bench Delhi opined that IBC proceedings can still be initiated against the Corporate Debtor which is stuck off. Further, the liabilities of the company cannot be simply washed out by action of company of non-compliance of the provisions of Companies Act, non-filing of the relevant financial documents and other filings.
- NCLAT, Delhi: Payment made in wrong bank account cannot amount to discharge of liabilities, Read Judgment
The Hon’ble NCLAT, Principal Bench Delhi examined the issue whether the cyber fraud committed against the Respondent falls within the ambit and canvas of pre-existing dispute in terms of the statutory construct of IBC.
On analysis of the material on record, the Bench opined that the Respondents admitted that they had become a victim of fraud by “an unknown third party”. Further, the complaint was filed against the unknown persons and not the Appellant. Hence, prima facie this could not be treated as a dispute inter se between the parties.
It was further held that Appellant could not have been held responsible in any manner for the payment being made in the wrong bank account. Since, payments were not made in the right bank account, the same could not be said to be discharge of liabilities.
- NCLAT, New Delhi expounded: even if no plea raised against limitation, it has to be examined, Read Judgment
The NCLAT, New Delhi Bench ruled that even if there is no plea raised regarding limitation, the court is obliged to examine the question of limitation before proceeding further in an application.
The Bench noted the pleadings of the State Bank of India and expounded that it contains the extension of limitation under Section 18 of the Limitation Act and when the pleadings are on the record which provide for extension of limitation no error could be said to be committed by NCLT in admitting Section 95 application against the personal guarantor.
- NCLAT, New Delhi opined that permission to file fresh petition under Sec 9 cannot be claimed as a matter of right, Read Judgment
The NCLAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi ruled that IBC proceedings are proceedings, which insist on timeline for completion of the proceedings. Timeline is an important and cardinal principle in IBC process. When an Application under Section 9 proceeded for more than a year, without there being any valid reason, the Appellant, cannot claim as a matter of right that it ought to have been permitted to file a fresh petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).
- NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT
- Liability of a partner is vicarious and the partnership firm itself must be impleaded in a proceeding under Section 138 of the NI Act, Read Judgment
The Delhi High Court allowed a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., by the petitioners seeking to assail the order dated 17.07.2023 passed by learned ASJ in Criminal Revision, whereby the order of summoning dated 30.09.2021 passed by the Trial Court was upheld. The Court observed that though the complainant sought to overcome the said issue by way of filing an amended memo of parties, however, the same would not come to its rescue.
The Delhi High Court in a bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Navin Chawla allowed a petition seeking quashing of a complaint as far as the petitioners herein are concerned. The Court observed that though, it may be true that the cheque is in discharge of the alleged liability of Petitioner No. 1, it is only Mr. Satish Gupta who can be prosecuted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
- Delhi High Court ruled that Section 141 NI Act has no applicability to a proprietary concern, Read Judgment
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court expounded that Section 141 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (‘NI Act’) has no applicability to a proprietary concern and relates to offences by a company, firm, or association of individuals.
Further, it was held that since a ‘proprietary concern’ is not a separate entity from the ‘proprietor’, it may not be necessary to array ‘proprietary concern’ separately in the facts and circumstances of the case, since the liability incurred by the petitioner is in the personal capacity.
- The person who has signed the cheque in question is only liable for prosecution under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, Read Judgment
The single judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court held that if the case is arising out of the Negotiable Instruments Act, only on bald allegation section 420 IPC cannot be added in such type of cases, and the learned court was only required to proceed against the person who has signed the cheque in light of section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. When the provision and procedure are prescribed in the statute, it was not expected that the complainant would take a different method.
- Himachal Pradesh High Court upheld conviction u/s.138 NI Act: Defence of Misuse of Security Cheque failed, Read Judgment
The Himachal Pradesh High Court was dealing with a Criminal Revision Petition challenging a Session Judge’s decision affirming the conviction order passed by a Magistrate, whereby the petitioner-accused was found guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused had been sentenced to undergo six months of simple imprisonment and pay compensation of ₹3,30,000.
- Can a director be sued under Sec.138 NI Act without impleading Company as Accused? HC replied, Read Judgment
Recently, the Jharkhand High Court addressed a matter involving the quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Court considered whether the absence of the company as an accused could invalidate proceedings against its directors. It observed that while a company must generally be a named party in such cases, its directors can still face prosecution if they were responsible for issuing the dishonoured cheques in their official capacity.
- TAX RELATED CASES
- Mere non-filing of returns for a period does not mean that a person’s GST registration can be cancelled retrospectively for the period when returns were filed, Read Judgment
The Delhi High Court disposed of a petition impugning the order dated 13.02.2021, whereby the GST registration of the petitioner was cancelled retrospectively with effect from 15.07.2017. The Court observed that the proper officer may cancel the GST registration of a person from such date including any retrospective date, as he may deem fit if the circumstances set out in Section 29(2) are satisfied.
- The objective behind the GST Act is the levy and collection of Tax on the Intra state supply of Goods or Services, Read Judgment
The division judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court held that the cancellation of registration shall ensue serious civil consequences for the petitioner and his entire business shall come to a standstill. The provisions under sections 30, 45, 46, 47, etc. are intended to provide opportunity to the defaulter Firm so as the Firm continues its business. Therefore, a liberal approach is required to be taken in these matters notwithstanding the period prescribed under section 30 of the GST Act having been lapsed.
- Treating an interest paid as a capital item after treating it as a revenue item by Assessing Officer amounts to change of opinion, Read Judgment
The High Court of Calcutta, while dismissing an appeal filed against the order of the ITAT vide which it allowed the appeal filed by the assessee on the issue of jurisdiction, held that once the Assessing Officer has consciously applied his mind to not treat the interest paid and the interest received as revenue items, and instead treated it as capital items, subsequent proceedings under Section 147 of the Act, 1961 were clearly based on a change of opinion.
Picture Source :
