- ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
In a Writ petition challenging the transfer order, the Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court noted that in the exercise of jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution, the court would not indulge in probing into the reasons behind the administrative decision especially when there is no material to infer mala fide or coloured exercise of power behind such decision. Read More
The Kerala High Court Bench comprising Justice Benchu Kurian Thomas while dealing with the plea filed by a doctor under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”) set aside the bail granted by a sessions court to two persons who allegedly attacked a doctor after a woman gave birth to a still-born child at the hospital.
The Bench observed that Doctors continue to face threats when a mishap occurs to a patient. Even for the slightest provocation, health personnel are attacked. Despite legislation prevailing in the State of Kerala and the repeated court orders to treat attacks on health personnel as a serious crime, violence against them continue.
The casual approach adopted by the Courts while dealing with instances of attacks on health personnel also contribute to the tendency to resort to such violence.
It was opined that as per Section 4(4) of the Healthcare Act, 2012 the harm caused to healthcare professionals in the discharge of their duties is to be treated as violence and is a non-bailable offence. Read More
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that it would be treading on thin ice if the courts were to venture into reviewing the decision of experts who form a part of a selection board and it is not within the domain of the Courts to enter into the merits of a selection process, only in case of malfeasance or violations of statutory rules can the court intervene.
The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Raghunath vs Delhi Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Board & Anr. consisting of Justice Prathiba M. Singh reiterated that the right to a pension of construction workers cannot be denied solely because of a difference in their birth dates, as long as the worker's identification can be proved and the claim is not fraudulent. Read More
The Division Bench of Himachal Pradesh while considering the writ petition noted that the contract services of an employee before the regularisation of his services have to be considered while calculating the time period of employment for the purposes of pension, especially when the initial contractual employment is not for a short or limited period.
The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs vs Sadanand Chaudhary consisting of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan, while rejecting applications regarding condonation of delay in filing an appeal, held that condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the government departments.
The Supreme Court overturned an Allahabad High Court decision and ruled that the appointment of teachers should be governed by the rules in place before the amendment of Regulation 17 Chapter II of the U.P Intermediate Education Act of 1921, as long as the appointment process had already begun. The Court found that approval from the DIOS was mandatory for teacher appointments and that a candidate had no inherent right to be appointed without it. Read More
- ARBITRATION CASES
In an Arbitration appeal, the Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court noted that as per the scheme of Section 26 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Amendment Act, 2015, the amendments are prospective in nature and since the court proceedings started when the appeal was filed, they cannot apply on a case even when the amendment came into force during the proceedings.
The Supreme Court explained that an arbitration agreement within a contract exigible for Stamp Duty could not be enforced if it is inadequately stamped or signed. The decision was upheld by a 3:2 ratio, with Justice Bose and Justice Ravikumar agreeing with Justice Joseph. They concluded that an instrument subject to stamp duty, including an arbitration clause, but not stamped cannot be considered a legally enforceable contract under Section 2(h) of the Contract Act and is not enforceable under Section 2(g) of the Contract Act. However, Justice Rastogi and Justice Roy opined that the arbitration agreement could still be enforced, even if the substantive instrument lacked stamp duty or had insufficient stamping, as the deficiency could be rectified. Read More
- CIVIL CASES
The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition seeking to issue a direction to the insurance company to pay to the petitioner the amount payable under policy Nos. 256487214 and 256487400. A single judge bench of this Court comprising Hon’ble Justice Kshitij Shailendra held that the term "material fact" is not defined in the Act and, therefore, any fact which goes to the root of the Contract of Insurance and has a bearing on the risk involved would be "material". Read More
While dealing with a second appeal u/s 100 CPC, Justice Sandeep Sharma noted that the High Court is restrained from re-appreciating the evidence available on record unless the judgments of the courts below are found perverse, but even when there was no perversity as such in the current scenario, the case has just been discussed based upon a correct appreciation of evidence and it deserved to be upheld. Read More
The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Attar Singh & Ors. vs Mahinder Singh & Anr. consisting of Justice C. Hari Shankar held that the setting aside of the preliminary decree would ipso facto result in setting aside of the final decree, even without an order of the Court to that effect. Read More
The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of M/S The Commerical Electric Works & Ors vs Sharda Gupta consisting of Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora held that landlord cannot recover possession of the tenanted premises if the tenant didn't reveal issues that could be considered in court at the stage of defend. Read More
While adjudicating on the contention that there is a statutory appeal that should be used by the petitioner instead of approaching the writ court, the Orissa High Court noted that it would be great injustice on the petitioner to direct him to approach the civil Court because the appeal, being a continuation of the suit, cannot be adjudicated in the absence of the evidence of the field inquiry report. Read More
The division judge bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal of the Apex Court in the case of G. Nagaraj & Anr. Vs B.P. Mruthunjayanna & Ors held that merely because there were some inconsistent averments in the plaint, that was not sufficient to come to a conclusion that the cause of action was not disclosed in the plaint. Read More
The Supreme Court firmly stated that any clever drafting or legal manoeuvring could not circumvent the provisions of the Limitation Act in lawsuits. In accordance with Order VII Rule XI of the CPC, the court dismissed the plaint on the grounds of being vexatious, illusory, and barred by limitation. Read More
- CONSTITUTIONAL CASES
The Kerala High Court while dealing with the plea filed by the All Indian Digital Cable Federation (“AIDCF”) challenging the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India's (TRAI) new Tariff Order, under which broadcasters had increased channel prices for cable TV operators for inclusion in the bouquet from INR 12 to INR 19 per channel, dismissed the Petition and held that there were effective discussions among the stakeholders and the power was exercised by the authority in terms of the powers conferred under Section 11 r/w Sections 36 and 37 of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the “TRAI Act, 1997”), it cannot be said that there was arbitrariness or illegality or any other legal infirmities on the part of the authority in introducing the 2022 Regulations and the Tariff Order. Read More
The Kerala High Court while dismissing the Writ Petition alleging the State's Top officials of influencing others to destroy the Petitioner's life, imposed a cost of Rs.25,000/- on the Petitioner, payable to the Kerala Legal Services Authority.
The Court in this case highlighted that the Petitioner had not indicated any specific action done by the Respondents for seeking the issuance of directions to suspend them. It was discerned that the pleadings in the petition were vague and insufficient to grant any of the reliefs sought for. The Court was of the staunch opinion that despite the "wanton allegations" against the Respondents, no material was produced to justify the same. The High Court further took note that the Magistrate had also dismissed the complaint by the Petitioner earlier. Read More
In a review petition, the Division Bench of the Orissa High Court noted the judicial stance and the law regarding the scope of review and held that the scope is very limited and there are certain grounds only on whose basis a review petition can be admitted, other than them a party cannot use the mechanism of review like another appeal. It was further noted that if the party is aggrieved it may approach a higher court, but entertaining a review to reconsider the case would amount to exceeding its jurisdiction. Read More
The Orissa High Court while correcting the erroneous reading and interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions expounds in an appeal under Section 373 of CrPC, the appellate Court has the power to make any consequential or incidental order that may be just or proper. This power includes the power to stay the operation of the order impugned in the appeal. Read More
A division bench comprising Hon’ble Justice N.V. Anjaria and Niral R. Mehta of Gujarat High Court recently held that the right to consume safe and hygienic food is a fundamental aspect of the right to life enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court, while denying relief to illegal meat shops, emphasized that it is the responsibility of the State authorities to ensure the safety of food, and they fulfill this duty by implementing and enforcing the food safety regulations and other statutory measures. Read More
The Supreme Court upheld the writ petition lodged against the CBI for its act of submitting supplementary chargesheets right before the expiry of 60 days, intending to deprive the Accused of their right to default bail. It was critical to prevent the investigation agency from misusing its authority. The right to default bail was upheld as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Apex Court, therefore, granted interim bail in favour of the Accused. Read More
- CRIMINAL CASES
The Supreme Court, in a landmark ruling, overturned a detention order passed by the Delhi High Court. The Court reflected that preventive detention legislation is a remnant of colonialism and grants excessive authority to the government. These laws must be examined carefully as they have the potential to be misused by the authority. Any failure to adhere to procedural requirements would accrue in favour of the detenue. Read More
A single judge bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court, comprising Deepak Kumar Tiwari, was adjudicating on a bail application filed by the appellant who was charged under Sections 376 and 376(2)(n), 323 and 506 IPC, inter alia.
The Court was inclined to give him a regular bail considering the intricacies of such cases where it becomes very important to determine whether the consent of the woman had a direct nexus to the false promise, if any, made to her for marriage. In this case, the complainant herself did not oppose the appellant’s prayer for bail. Thus, the appellant was granted a regular bail by the court. Read More
A single-judge bench of the Madras High Court comprising Justice V. Sivagnanam dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner contending that the police did not take any action even when a case was being made out against the respondents.
The Court held that the police rightly denied the registration of the FIR since no cognizable offence was being made out. The petitioner and the respondents were residing in the same house and any such wordy quarrel has to be considered trivial. Read More
The Bombay High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the FIR registered against the petitioner.
The Court observed that in order to constitute an offence punishable under Section 186 of the IPC, it is for the public servant who has been obstructed in the discharge of his public functions to voluntarily come forward and allege the obstruction. Read More
The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Ms. M Prosecutrix vs State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. consisting of Justice Anish Dayal held that mere apprehension of the petitioner (which can be subjective) cannot become a ground for the transfer of rape cases to POCSO courts even though the offence does not involve provisions of the POCSO Act.
The division judge bench of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice C.T. Ravikumar of the Apex court in the case of Central Bureau Investigation Vs Vikas Mishra @ Vikash Mishra held that there cannot be any police custody beyond 15 days from the date of arrest. Read More
The Orissa High Court while quashing the criminal proceeding because of compromise u/s 493 of IPC which is compoundable in nature, noted that there isn’t a list of cases whose proceedings can be quashed based on compromise, but if in case of the compromise the conviction of the offender is a remote and bleak possibility, and continuance of criminal case would be futile exercise of power, then the criminal cases can be quashed.
It was also clarified that in no way the offenses of mental depravity can be quashed on the basis of compromise between the parties. Read More
The division judge bench of Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Partha Sarathi Sen of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Idrish Ansary Vs The State of West Bengal held that merely because the purported confession was in writing it would not escape the exclusion clause engrafted in Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Read More
The division judge bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal of the Apex Court in the case of Soundarajan Vs State Rep. by the inspector of police vigilance anti-corruption Dindigul held that the Trial Court and the public prosecutor have a duty to be vigilant while framing charges against the accused, and if a proper charge is not framed, it is his duty to apply to the Court to frame an appropriate charge. Read More
- INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY CODE CASES
The Jharkhand High Court expounded that the definition of Public Servant has wide and expansive scope, therefore Resolution Professional (“RP”) would come within the ambit of a Public Servant as defined under Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “PCA”).
The Bench further noted that RP is appointed during the resolution process before the NCLT with its approval and hence, RP is a public servant.
The definition of Public Servant is not limited to those employed with the Government or its instrumentalities and drawing a salary from the public exchequer.
It was further held that the functions relate to matters concerning loans by Banks which are primarily investments from the public. Therefore, the functions discharged by RP would fall under a public duty as per Section 2-c(viii) of the PCA. Read More
The NCLT, Kolkata Bench has opined that arbitral proceedings cannot continue after Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code,2016 (hereinafter referred to as “IBC”) application was admitted. The Section 14 moratorium comes into effect when the application under Section 7 is admitted and therefore, the continuation of arbitral proceedings would be in violation of Section 14 of IBC. Read More
The NCLT, Mumbai Bench ruled that if there is a work contract between the parties and there exists a dispute regarding the quantum of work done and amount paid, the same would amount to pre-existing dispute and hence, Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “IBC”) application will be liable to be dismissed. Read More
The NCLT, Kochi Bench expounded that for a Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “IBC”) application to be disposed of, impleadment of an Independent Chartered Accountant is not necessary. Regarding, the impleadment of the shareholder of the Corporate Debtor, it was ruled that neither he is a necessary party nor a proper party. Therefore, even the shareholder is not required to be impleaded as a party.
The NCLT, Mumbai Bench opined that a petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “IBC”) is not maintainable if there exists a pre-existing dispute between the parties.
In the present case, the parties entered into a yearly clearance and forwarding Agent Agreement against which even the Corporate Debtor had counterclaims. Therefore, the Bench ruled that this was evidence of the fact that there existed pre-existing dispute between the parties. Read More
- MATRIMONIAL CASES
In a petition praying for conducting a DNA test of the child, Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua noted that according to the facts, it was evident that the couple had access to each other after marriage and that was conclusive proof for the legitimacy of the child, and presumption under section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act would be attracted and hence, DNA test cannot be ordered. Read More
The Allahabad High Court observing the fact that since there was no application filed by the Respondent under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, held that the grant of maintenance under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act in favor of the Respondent is manifestly erroneous and illegal. Read More
The Bombay High Court allowed an application filed under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice Act 2015 for challenging the Order dated 8th March 2022, passed by the learned District Judge by which the Judge had rejected the application filed by the applicants for the adoption of the minor child.
The court observed that the reason given by the Competent Court is not only contrary to the provisions of the JJ Act but is also contrary to the recommendation made by the District Child Welfare Officer and the Assistant Director of CARA. Read More
The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Seema Devi vs Shree Ranjit Kumar Bhagat consisting of Justices Sanjeev Sachdeva and Vikas Mahajan held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, it shall be lawful for either party to the marriage to marry again if no appeal is filed against an ex-parte divorce decree within the period of limitation. Read More
- NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT CASES
In an appeal, while agreeing with the judgment of the trial court, Justice Ajay Mohan Goel noted that even though there is no formal notice under the NI Act, the demand for the amount of the cheque bounce is necessary and without it, notice will not be a notice in the eye of the law. Read More
The Orissa High Court observed that only the drawer of the cheque can be held liable u/s 138 of the NI Act, but if there is a joint account and all the holders have signed the cheque then all of them will be liable, and therefore the court below was directed to examine if the cheque was signed by the petitioner or only the wife who is the drawer of the cheque.
Picture Source :
