Latest Laws High Courts Yearly Digest 2022
This is a compilation of Case Analysis of Landmark Judgments delivered by various High Courts in India in the year 2022:
The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Manmohan Patnaik vs Cisco Systems Capital India Pvt. Ltd & Ors. consisting of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani expounds that merely being a signatory to a cheque does not, in and of itself, make a person guilty of the offence u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Laxman Thakur vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) consisting of Justice Jasmeet Singh held that rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act will not be applicable if the collection of the sample itself was faulty.
The Gujarat High Court recently comprising of a bench of Justice Samir J. Dave has recently observed that a charge sheet filed without annexing the FSL report cannot be termed as defective or incomplete and thus, non-filing of the FSL report gives no indefeasible right to the accused to get default bail
The Telangana High Court entertaining the Writ Petition 4180 of 2022 expounds that The acceptance of the One Time Settlement scheme is ultimately for the bank to take a conscious decision. No bank can be compelled to accept a lesser amount under the One Time Settlement scheme despite a bank being able to conduct the auction, secure property, or mortgage property, and no borrower as a matter of right pray for a grant One Time Settlement scheme.
The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Kapil Goel vs Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India & Anr. consisting of Justice Prathiba M. Singh held that Resolution Professional could not have used the name IBBI for his own private entity, since it amounts to misleading the trade and industry, as also the stakeholders.
The Delhi High Court held that the writ petition filed in an attempt to renovate the contract is not permissible under law. A contract cannot be rewritten between the parties by the High Court while exercising Writ Jurisdiction. The terms of the contract are to be altered mutually only as provided under Section 62 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
The Madras High Court reiterated that Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “CCA”) is mandatory and is a jurisdictional fact.
It was opined that a jurisdictional fact should precede the suit and there can be no ex post facto jurisdictional fact.
Further, the Court directed the parties to go for pre-institutional mediation because Plaintiff himself suggested that Defendant should have at least discussed with Plaintiff before taking a unilateral step. On basis of the conciliatory tone and tenor of Plaintiff, the High Court rejected the plaint.
The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of State vs Mohd. Javed Nasir & Ors. consisting of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma held that a statement made u/s 164 CrPC disclosing the offence of rape shall be sufficient to frame charges u/s 376 IPC.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently comprising a bench of Justice Ritu Bahri and Justice Nidhi Gupta has refused to grant permanent alimony to a woman who was divorced by her husband on the ground of “adultery”.
The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Ram Kripal Singh Construction Pvt. Ltd vs NTPC consisting of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani held that an arbitrator rendered ineligible u/s 12(5) cannot continue merely because arbitral proceedings commenced prior to the amendment inserting section 12(5): of Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996.
A division bench of Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice R.C. Khulbe of Uttarakhand HC has dismissed the petition in which he challenged the order whereby the blacklisting order passed against respondent no. 4 has been recalled. The court is of the view that the petitioner being a competitor has no right to be heard before passing such an order on the mere ground that he points out illegality in passing such an order.
A single-judge bench of the Orissa High Court, comprising Justice Chittaranjan Dash denied the application of Section 482 of the CrPC and subsequently dismissed a criminal appeal on account of lack of material to infer that in case the trial proceeds against the present Petitioner, the result would be futile – just because the other co-accused were acquitted.
The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddique vs CPIO, Ministry of Home Affairs consisting of Justice Yashwant Varma held that the disclosure of the proposal and all documents in the Department’s file regarding the grant of sanction for prosecution u/s 45(1) of the UAP Act would stand exempted u/s 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act.
In, Poulami Basu vs The Government of India, A Single Bench of Karnataka HC has held that the right to travel abroad is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. And, where the custody of a child is exclusively granted to the mother by the family court then, Passport officer cannot insist upon the presence or consent of the father of the ward
The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Sunita & Anr. vs Vijay Pal @ Mohd. Sabir & Anr. consisting of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma expounded that whenever a party claims a change in circumstance after an order granting maintenance has been passed u/s 125 CrPC., the appropriate recourse, as rightly pointed out by the learned trial court, would be a petition u/s 127 CrPC and not a fresh petition u/s 125 CrPC
A Single Bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni disposed of the present petition instituted under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 whereby the applicant prayed for the appointment of an Arbitral Tribunal for adjudication of the disputes and differences which arose between the parties under an agreement titled as the Infrastructure and Facility Management Agreement, dated July 14, 2018, by observing that it does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings for appointment of an arbitral tribunal, however, while observing the same, the Court granted the liberty to the applicant to file appropriate proceedings before the Court of Delhi.
The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of DLF Homes Rajapura Pvt. Ltd vs Late O.P. Mehta & Anr. consisting of Justice C. Hari Shankar observed that for applications under Order 22 Rule 3 for substitution of legal heirs, or under O22R9 for setting aside abatement of proceedings, the Court must strike a balance and the delay must be satisfactorily explained.
The Allahabad High Court has held that the right of further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. is given to investigating agency only and no other except them can file an application for the same with the Magistrate.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Anjani Kumar Mishra and Justice Deepak Verma was adjudicating upon a writ seeking directions to investigating agencies to make further investigation u/s Section 173(8) Cr. P.C
The Kerala High Court recently comprising a bench of Justice Kauser Edappagath ruled that a Court can strike off the defence of the defaulter if they deliberately or willfully refuse to comply with its order directing payment of interim maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act
The Patna High Court recently comprising a bench of Chief Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice S. Kumar observed that the Right to Sanitation has been virtually accepted as a Fundamental Right like the right to water, right to health, right to a healthy environment, right to education, and right to dignity directly related to the right of sanitation.
The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Sh. Nardev Soni & Ors. vs Union of India & Ors. consisting of Justices Gaurang Kanth and Siddharth Mridul dismissed a petition seeking quashing of the Notifications issued by the Delhi Administration (Respondent No. 2 herein) u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 regarding the acquisition of a property (‘evacuee property’) while observing that the petitioner should act diligently and approach the writ court in good time.
The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Arindam Saha vs Dipanwita Thakur consisting of Justices Mukta Gupta and Neena Bansal Krishna observed that mere oral assertion of divorce comes in the realm of hearsay evidence and can be of no consequence in the absence of any cogent evidence.
The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Baba Rahim Ali Shah & Anr. vs Sh. Atul Kumar Garg consisting of Justice C. Hari Shankar observed that there are no provisions in the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (“DRC Act”) that empower the Rent Controller to direct the landlord to repair the tenanted premises.
The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Vikramjeet Balhara vs State & Anr. consisting of Justice Asha Menon noted that when an application u/s 91 CrPC is sought to be moved, then ex-facie the documents should disclose “sterling quality”, as even while framing charge, the material produced by the prosecution is measured only to determine if prima facie, a charge is made out against the accused. Evaluation is only after trial and cannot precede it.
The bench of Madras HC in the criminal petition has recently observed that merely because the petitioner was in the place, which is alleged by the respondents to be a brothel being run by some person, the petitioner cannot be fastened with any penal consequence
A Division Bench of Calcutta High Court Comprising Justice Arijit Banerjee and Justice Kausik Chanda while adjudicating upon an appeal preferred against a decision by a Single Judge bench wherein the writ petition of the appellants had been dismissed observed that since the right to property is a valuable right guaranteed under Section Article 300A of the Constitution of India merely on the ground of delay the State cannot deny its obligation to provide compensation for land acquisition.
The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the cases of Ramesh Chandra Sharma & Anr. vs Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi & Haryana and Sangita Bhutoria & Anr. vs Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi & Haryana consisting of Justice Asha Menon observed that the learned Trial Court must see whether a complaint presented was within the period of limitation or not while taking cognizance.
The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Hari Shamsher Kaushik vs Shri Jasbir Singh, Managing Director, M/S Accura Care Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. consisting of Justice Asha Menon while dismissing a petition observed that it is only when the Company is found to have committed an offence u/s 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (‘N.I. Act’) that vicarious liability would attach to the Director.
The Delhi High Court recently comprising of a single judge Bench of Justice C Hari Shankar while observing that the right to lead evidence is pivotal to a fair trial and partakes of the character of natural justice and fair play, remarked that the Court should not be hyper-technical, in the matter of granting an opportunity to lead evidence and the like
The Allahabad High Court has held that mere long detention in jail does not entitle an accused to bail.
The single-judge bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan noted that the period of long incarceration may be considered as one of the grounds for granting bail, but it depends upon the facts and circumstances of the particular case.
Picture Source :
