ACQUITTAL
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | ‘No other evidence except victim’s bare words’; Father acquitted for allegedly having sexual intercourse with daughter
In the present case, the judgment and order dated 23-02-2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Amravait, was challenged whereby the Judge convicted appellant-victim’s father for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(f), 376(2)(j), 376(2)(n), 323, and 506 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and under Sections 4, 8, and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO Act’). The Judge sentenced appellant to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs 5,000 and, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment of six months for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(j) of IPC. A Single Judge Bench of G.A. Sanap, J., opined that the father who looked after the victim in the absence of her mother, would not commit such an act with his daughter. The Court further noted that the Medical Officer on the victim’s examination did not notice the injury on her body and similarly, the doctor did not notice an injury to her genitals, except an old, healed hymen, which could not be attributed to appellant. The Court stated that appellant was entitled to get the benefit of the doubt and therefore, appellant was acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(f), 376(2)(j), 376(2)(n), 323, and 506 of IPC. Read more HERE
ADVOCATES
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | ‘Principles of natural justice thrown to the winds’; License suspension order of female advocate for alleged misconduct, stayed
In the present case, petitioner prayed for urgent ad-interim relief of stay to the impugned order which was stated to be passed by Respondent 2, Bar Council of India (‘BCI’), thereby suspending petitioner’s licence to practice for two years, although the complaint against petitioner was filed before Respondent 1, Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (‘BCMG’) under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (‘the 1961 Act’). The Division Bench of G. S. Kulkarni and Advait M. Sethna, JJ., opined that not only substantive fairness, but procedural fairness was required to be adhered to, by respondents in conducting the impugned proceedings against petitioner. The Court thus till final disposal of the petition, stayed the impugned order dated 14-04-2024 passed by BCI and held that petitioner was entitled to practice as an advocate, duly enrolled on the rolls of the BCMG. Read more HERE
BAIL
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Bail granted to IIM graduate for drunk driving; directs community service holding a ‘Don’t Drink and Drive’ banner
In a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) in an FIR under Sections 110, 132, 281, 324(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’) and Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, a Single Judge Bench of Milind N. Jadhav, J., allowed the application while holding that the applicant-accused’s further incarceration was not warranted considering his future prospects since he was young and highly educated. The Court granted bail subject to furnishing a bail bond worth Rs 1 Lakh and community service wherein the accused would stand near a check post every weekend for three months while holding a banner warning against drinking and driving. Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Bail granted to four co-owners of coaching centre basement in flooding case leading to death of three civil services aspirants
In the bail applications filed under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) seeking regular bail in an offence registered under Sections 105, 106(1), 115(2), 290, 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’), Sanjeev Narula, J., noted that the prosecution had primarily relied on clause (d) of the lease deed dated 05-1-2024, by which knowledge of the lessor and lessee was established, as it was clearly mentioned that the lessee intended to use the scheduled property for the commercial purpose/for coaching institutes only. However, the Court stated that prima facie, it was unable to find how such a standard clause could attribute ‘knowledge’, under section 105 of the BNS, onto the accused persons. Thus, the Court found the present case fit for granting bail. Accordingly, the order dated 13-09-2024, granting interim bail to the accused persons, was now confirmed as regular bail on the same terms and conditions. Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Anticipatory bail denied to wife accused of inflicting severe burns on husband with boiling water and red chilli powder
An anticipatory bail application was filed by the accused who allegedly caused severe burn injuries to her husband, seeking bail on grounds of gender and arguing that she was a victim of domestic violence inflicted by her husband. Swarana Kanta Sharma, J., rejected anticipatory bail considering the nature of injuries, way the injuries were caused and the overall facts and circumstances of the case. Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Sexual assault against minors also attacks their innocence and sense of safety; often leave permanent psychological scars; Bail application of POCSO accused, dismissed
In a bail application filed by the applicant (‘accused’) under Section 483 read with Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) seeking grant of regular bail in a case registered under Sections 75/76 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 10/12 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Swarana Kanta Sharma, J., stated that the present case reflected a profound trauma suffered by the victim, a minor, at the hands of a person she trusted — her neighbour, in whose house she had gone to play, and whom she addressed as chacha. The Court stated that the crimes of sexual assault against minors were not just violations of their physical integrity but also attacked their innocence and sense of safety and often leave permanent psychological scars. Thus, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the Court stated that no case for grant of regular bail was made out at this stage, and accordingly, dismissed the present application. Read more HERE
CONVICTION
KERALA HIGH COURT | ‘Merely smoking is no ground to conclude that victim is of deviant character’; Conviction u/s 377 IPC, upheld
In an appeal filed by the appellants (‘accused persons’) under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) challenging the conviction entered and sentence passed against them for the offence punishable under Section 377 of Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), C.S. Sudha, J., stated that the victim had agreed that he used to smoke, but not drink. Merely because the victim admitted that he used to smoke, would not be a ground to conclude that he was of a deviant character. The Court stated that there was no reason to disbelieve the victim, who had clearly deposed regarding the over acts of the accused persons. It was highly improbable and unlikely for the victim to have fabricated such a false story against the accused persons, especially when he had no motive or reason(s) to do so. The Court stated that there was no reason to disbelieve the victim, and accordingly, dismissed the appeal. Read more HERE
DELAY/ LATCHES
DELHI HIGH COURT | ‘Disdainful disregard’ by the Government of its constitutional obligation; Delhi Govt slammed for delaying 14 CAG Reports
A petition was filed by Vijender Gupta, leader of the opposition (LOP) in the Legislative Assembly seeking to issue an appropriate direction to direct respondent 1 and 2 to forward the 14 CAG Reports in a time bound manner to the Respondent 3 and further direct Respondent 3 to take all necessary and consequential action for discharge of their Constitutional obligation under Article 151(2) for summoning the special sitting of the Legislative Assembly and to table those reports before the Legislative Assembly of Delhi in a time bound manner. Sachin Datta, J., declined to accept the prayer at this stage as the current Legislative Assembly is at the fag end of its current term and directed the respondents to take adequate steps once the new Legislative Assembly is constituted. Read more HERE
EXTRADITION
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT | Relief under Section 21 of Extradition Act denied to alleged gangster Sukhpreet Budha
In a batch of petitions filed by alleged gangster Sukhpreet Singh Dhaliwal, commonly known as Sukhpreet Budha, seeking protection under Section 21 of the Extradition Act, 1962 (‘the Act’), the Single Judge Bench of Harpreet Singh Brar, J., dismissed the petitions holding that the rigours of Section 21 of the Act did not apply to Sukhpreet’s case since he came to India of his own vwwolition and was not extradited by the Union. The Court directed the authorities to expeditiously investigate the pending FIRs. Read more HERE
HUMAN AND CIVIL RIGHTS
DELHI HIGH COURT | Human Rights Commissions not meant to be ‘toothless tigers’; must be ‘fierce defenders’ safeguarding the right to live without fear and with dignity
In a petition filed by the petitioner-the deceased’s father, who lost his life in the alleged fake encounter, seeking impartial CBI inquiry and give compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs to the legal heirs of all the deceased gang members, the Division Bench of Prathiba M. Singh* and Amit Sharma, JJ., did not agree with the stand of the Delhi Police that in each and every case, the NHRC ought to be forced to approach the Court for implementation of its own decisions, as the National Human Rights Commission (‘NHRC’) was not meant to become a litigant before Courts. The Court stated that the Human Rights Commissions were not to be ‘toothless tigers’ but must be ‘fierce defenders’ safeguarding the most basic right of humans i.e., the right to live without fear and to live with dignity. Read more HERE
INJUNCTION
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | ‘Distributor contractually obliged to maintain favourable reflection & protect goodwill’; Distributor injuncted from damaging Wonderchef’s reputation
In an application filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘the Act’) filed by Wonderchef Home Appliances (‘Wonderchef’) against the respondent, its distributor in Australia, seeking an injunction against the distributor from making any disparaging statements or taking any actions that may harm Wonderchef’s reputation and brand name, a Single Judge Bench of Somasekhar Sundaresan, J., allowed the petition and injuncted the distributor for 90 days from indulging in any action that would violate the agreement between the parties (‘the Agreement’) which provided that the distributor shall conduct business in a manner that would always reflect favourably on Wonderchef’s reputation and products. Read more HERE
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Registry directed to register Khadi’s device mark “PRAKRITIK PAINT” in respect of cow dung based paints
In the present case, the petitioner challenged the order dated 17-08-2023 passed by the respondent, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for registration of its device mark in Class 2, was refused registration under Section 9(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (‘the 1999 Act‘). A Single Judge Bench of Manish Pitale, J., stated that the effect of registration of the trade mark “KHADI PRAKRITIK PAINT” in the petitioner’s favour was also ignored as the same Registry had granted registration to the petitioner for its device mark . The Court opined that as registration to the device mark was granted to the petitioner, it was not appropriate for the Registrar to refuse registration for the subject device mark to the petitioner. Thus, the Court directed that the petitioner’s application for registration of the subject device mark should be allowed to proceed for registration. Read more HERE
LIMITATION
DELHI HIGH COURT | ‘Casual approach unmindful of law of limitation’; Condonation of delay plea of Railways in appeal against compensation of Rs 6 Lakhs, denied
In a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution against the orders passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (‘National Commission’) and State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (‘State Commission’) against the Railway Authorities due to delay in filing their appeal, a Single Bench of Ravindra Dudeja, J., dismissed the petition holding that the explanation offered by the Railway Authorities depicted their casual approach that was unmindful of the law despite being aware of its provisions and that the impugned orders did not reflect complete lack of jurisdiction or perversity, thus, they could not be interfered with under Article 227. Read more HERE
LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIP
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT | Are married individuals, in live-in-relationships with others, entitled to police protection? Matter referred to larger bench
While deciding the issue related to whether protection orders should be granted in live-in relationships involving married individuals, a single-judge bench of Anoop Kumar Dhand, J., referred the matter to larger bench due to presence of many conflicting judgments in order to resolve the conflict and provide clarity. Read more HERE
MAINTAINANCE
KERALA HIGH COURT | Wife’s temporary job will not disentitle her to claim maintenance from husband, if income from said job is insufficient for her maintenance
In the two revision petitions filed challenging the order dated 25-10-2023, passed by the Family Court, Pathanamthitta (‘Family Court’), Kauser Edappagath, J., stated that wife’s temporary job, even if it provided some income, would not disentitle her to claim maintenance from her husband, if she asserted that the said income was insufficient for her maintenance. Thus, considering the overall facts and discussions, the Court set aside the finding in the impugned order that the wife was not entitled to claim maintenance from the husband. The Court stated that the wife could very well claim maintenance from her husband and accordingly, remitted the matter back to Family Court to decide the quantum of maintenance. Read more HERE
MINES AND MINERALS
GAUHATI HIGH COURT | Suo motu cognizance taken of Umrangso Coal Mine Tragedy; directs filing of status report by State on actions taken against rat-hole mining
On 28-01-2025, the Division Bench of Vijay Bishnoi*, CJ., and Kaushik Goswami, J., took suo motu cognizance of the coal mine tragedy that took place in Umrangso, Dima Hasao, Assam and directed the State to file a status report on the actions taken by it for curbing rat hole mining in Assam by 07-02-2025. Read more HERE
PANCHAYAT
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Sarpanch resigning under Section 29 of Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 entitled to withdraw the same during its verification in Panchayat meeting
In the present case, the petitioner challenged order dated 07-06-2024 passed by the Collector, Raigad for declaring that a vacancy had occurred on the post of Sarpanch of village Ainghar, Roha, Raigad, and appointing returning officer to conduct elections for vacant post of Sarpanch. The petitioner was aggrieved by the Collector’s action in treating that her resignation on the post of Sarpanch had taken effect under the provisions of Section 29 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 (‘the 1959 Act’), even though she had withdrawn the resignation during the meeting of the Gram Panchayat convened for verification of her resignation. Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | ‘Immunity granted under S. 35 of Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 is for post and not person’; Notice of no confidence motion against woman sarpanch, set aside
In the present case, petitioner-Sarpanch challenged the notice dated 11-12-2024 of Respondent 2, Tahsildar Paithan, convening the meeting of no confidence motion under Section 35(2) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 (‘Panchayats Act’). The Division Bench of S.G. Mehare* and Shailesh P. Brahme, JJ., opined that the words “date of election” occurring in 4th proviso to Section 35(3) of the Panchayats Act was situation specific and not person specific, and the immunity granted was qua the post and not qua the person. Thus, the words “date of election” referred to the date of election of first Sarpanch and not the date of election of last elected Sarpanch. The Court thus quashed and set aside the impugned notice dated 11-12-2024 for no confidence motion. Read more HERE
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT | ‘Audi alteram partem cannot be used to cure self-suffered wound’; Relief refused to be granted to electricity firm that overcharged residents
In a writ petition filed by the petitioner-firm against an order passed by the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum (‘Consumer Forum’) contending that they did not receive a notice of the proceedings, a Single Judge Bench of Kuldeep Tiwari, J., dismissed the petition holding that the petitioner was aware of the proceedings as the petitioner’s principal, i.e., Max Height Metro View Apartment (‘respondent 5’), responded to the proceedings and the bill for the month of July 2024, charged by the petitioner was in accordance with the direction issued by the Consumer Forum during the proceedings. Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Releasing pleadings and documents to media before Courts had the opportunity to consider the same, is not acceptable
A contempt case was filed against the order dated 28-10-2024 passed by a Single Judge in a criminal case filed by Hero Moto Corp. challenging the order dated 19-07-2023 passed in complaint case wherein the Judicial Magistrate directed registration of FIR against the petitioner filed on 21-07-2024, by the contemnor respondent herein who was a director of Brain Logistics Pvt. Ltd. (‘BLPL’). A division bench of Prathiba M Singh and Amit Sharma, JJ., sentenced the respondent to two weeks of simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further simple imprisonment for 07 days considering that his frivolous allegations against the Court as also the Registry of the Delhi High Court with respect to listing matters is completely baseless and if ignored, would over a period of time lead to erosion of faith in the well-established and fair systems and procedures of the Court. Read more HERE
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT | All wrong cannot be cured by the writ Court; Vishva Hindu Parishad’s petition for book stall request at International Kolkata Book Fair, dismissed
A petition was filed by Visva Hindu Parishad (petitioner 1), a registered society engaged in social, religious, and philanthropic activities, and its Honorary Vice President (petitioner 2) seeking mandamus against the Publishers and Booksellers Guild (“the Guild”) claiming that their application for a 600 sq. ft. stall at the book fair was ignored without any communication from the Guild. Amrita Sinha, J., dismissed the petition as it does not appear that the Guild is infringing upon any of the rights of the petitioners as it is not standing in the way of the petitioners from publishing their books or newspapers. Read more HERE
PAROLE
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT | Rule 11(1)(v) of Rajasthan Parole Rules recognises wife’s impending delivery as valid ground for emergent parole
In a criminal writ petition seeking release on parole to attend wife’s delivery, a single-judge bench of Anoop Kumar Dhand, J., directed the District Magistrate to promptly decide petitioner’s pending parole application within four days from the date of this order, considering the urgency of the matter. Read more HERE
QUASHMENT OF PROCEEDINGS/ FIR
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | ‘Individual’s liberty cannot be curtailed merely because he participated in political rally that later turned violent’; Preventive detention order quashed
The present petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order of preventive detention dated 05-02-2024 passed by the District Magistrate, Beed under Section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers Drug-Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (‘the 1981 Act’) and the subsequent order dated 07-11-2024 passed by Respondent 1 confirming the said order dated 05-02-2024. The Division Bench of Vibha Kankanwadi and Rohit W. Joshi*, JJ., opined that there could absolutely be no justification for curtailing liberty of an individual merely on the ground of participation in a political rally, although the same might have taken an ugly violent turn. Thus, the Court quashed and set aside the preventive detention order dated 05-02-2024 and confirmation order dated 07-11-2024. Read more HERE
SERVICE LAW
CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT | ‘No difference if law graduate candidate not enrolled’; Candidates without Bar Enrollment allowed to appear in Civil Judge Exam
In a writ petition filed by a judiciary aspirant against the amendment made in the Chhattisgarh Lower Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2006 (‘the Rules’) that disallowed her from appearing in the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Examination, 2024 (‘the Civil Judge Exam’) as she was not enrolled under the Advocates Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), the Division Bench of Ramesh Sinha, CJ, and Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J., allowed the petitioner and other candidates who were not enrolled under the Act to appear in the Civil Judge Exam while holding that a candidate who was a law graduate, whether or not enrolled as an Advocate, would hardly make any difference as they would have to go through the same scrutiny as other candidates who were enrolled. The Court also directed that the deadline for filling out the online form be extended by a month. Read more HERE
