ABUSE OF PROCESS OF COURT
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | ‘Attempt to thwart decrees passed by the Court following due process is an abuse of process of law’; Rs 1 lakh cost imposed
In the present case, an interim application was filed by the applicant, seeking setting aside of the ex-parte Judgment and Order dated 31-7-2023 passed in favour of the respondent whereby the applicant was directed to pay Rs 4,81,02,500 along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. on the principal sum of Rs 3,55,00,000 from 1-4-2018 to 28-2-2021 and further simple interest at the same rate till actual payment and realization. A Single Judge Bench of Abhay Ahuja, J., opined that if there were more than one addresses of the applicant and service was effected or deemed effected on even one of the addresses, that was valid and effective service. The Court further opined that once it was held that the service was duly effected by the respondent, it would not be necessary to consider the second condition for setting aside a decree and Order XXXVII Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (‘CPC’), i.e., facts which would entitle the applicant leave to defend the suit. The Court thus dismissed the interim application and directed the applicant to pay a cost of Rs 1 lakh to the respondent. Read more HERE
ARBITRATION
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT | ‘Limitation period for invoking Arbitration begins from date of notice’; Sole Arbitrator appointed in BSNL Contract Dispute
In an application filed by petitioner, under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of an arbitrator to resolve disputes arising out of an agreement entered into with Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL), a single-judge of Anoop Kumar Dhand, J., held that the application is maintainable as it is not barred by limitation and appointed the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute. Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | OYO v Zostel | Arbitral Award set aside citing public policy violation and non-adjudication of core claims on unenforceable Term Sheet
In a petition filed under Section 34 Arbitration and Conciliation Act by Oravel Stays Private Limited (petitioner) seeking to assail an arbitral award dated 06-03-2021 (impugned award) passed by an arbitral tribunal comprising of a Sole Arbitrator, Sachin Datta, J. set aside impugned award being in in conflict with the “public policy of India”. Read more HERE
TELANGANA HIGH COURT | ‘Blatant disregard of law, desperation to avoid payment’; Rs 5 Lakhs cost imposed on HMDA for filing vexatious pleas to avoid Rs. 179 Cr award
In a revision petition filed by Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (‘HMDA’) against the dismissal of its application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) by the Commercial Court, the Division Bench of Moushumi Bhattacharya* and B.R. Madhusudhan Rao, JJ., dismissed the petition with Rs. 5 Lakhs as cost, holding that HMDA did not give any justification for pursuing an alternative route for challenging the legality of the arbitral award, without exhausting their rights in the pending appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act. Read more HERE
BAIL
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT | ‘Example of internet-famous, unqualified quacks exploiting people’s insecurities’; Anticipatory bail refused to influencer whose hair oil allegedly injured 71 people
In an anticipatory bail application filed by an influencer named Amandeep Singh for an FIR registered under Section 124 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’) and Section 7 of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954 for injuring 71 people with his herbal hair oil, a Single Judge Bench of Harpreet Singh Brar, J., rejected the plea, holding that the present matter was yet another unfortunate example of internet-famous, unqualified quacks taking advantage of common man’s insecurities. The Court also stated that advertising a product that makes tall, misleading claims without any scientific evidence or clinical testing to back it up must be strictly condemned. Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | ‘Adopted similar modus operandi of habitually entering into dubious transactions’; Anticipatory bail plea of real estate agent who allegedly conspired to cheat restaurant owner, rejected
In the present case, an application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS, 2023’) was filed in a case, registered with Vile Parle Police Station, Mumbai, wherein FIR dated 14-4-2025 was registered under Sections 318(4), 316(2), and 61(1) of the BNSS based on the complaint of Respondent 2, Jayprakash Suru Shetty. A Single Judge Bench of Advait M. Sethna, J., noted that the applicant was a party to the MOU dated 22-1-2025 to be executed between Accused 3 and Respondent 2, whereby Respondent 2, who used to run a restaurant was induced to pay Rs 82 lakhs, in the nature of illegal gratification for giving it to BMC officials to transfer the restaurant’s ownership, in the name of Respondent 2. The Court, while rejecting the anticipatory bail application, stated that today Respondent 2 was a victim of such conspiracy hatched by the accused persons and tomorrow there might be someone else. Therefore, the Court held that it would be a travesty of justice if the applicant’s custodial interrogation was stalled or prevented. Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | ‘Granting relief will malign noble profession of advocacy’: Anticipatory bail plea of an advocate in a road rage case, rejected
In an application filed by the applicant (‘accused’) seeking anticipatory bail in a road rage, case wherein the FIR was registered against him for the offence under Section 110/127(2)/351(3)/3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Girish Kathpalia, J. stated that granting anticipatory bail in the case of broad daylight violence of the present nature at a public place would send wrong signals across the society that the aggressor took law in his own hands and walked free just because he happened to be an advocate. All are equal in the eyes of law, and none can be treated as more equal. The Court stated that if such relief was granted to the accused, it would also malign the noble profession of advocacy. The Court stated that the present case was not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the accused and accordingly, dismissed the application. Read more HERE
HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT | ‘Separate orders required for bail bond cancellation and imposing penalty under S. 446 CrPC’; Appeal of a penalised surety, allowed and matter remanded
In an appeal filed against a composite order, whereby the Trial Court imposed penalty of Rs. 50,000 on the appellant and issued a recovery warrant against him under Section 421 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’), a Single Judge Bench of Virender Singh, J., allowed the appeal, holding that separate orders were required to be passed by the Trial Court as per Section 446 of the CrPC, firstly, at the time of cancellation of bail bonds and secondly, at the time of imposing penalty. In this case, the composite order deprived the appellant-surety of the opportunity to put forward his plea regarding non-production of the accused. Read more HERE
COMPENSATION
DELHI HIGH COURT | Despite 10-year-long litigation, not a penny towards compensation; ₹20 Lakh partial compensation pending appeal, directed
An application was filed under section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) by the applicant/respondent seeking release of the decretal amount deposited by the appellants in compliance of order dated 23-12-2024. Anup Jairam Bhambhani, J., directed to release Rs 20 lakhs to the respondent subject to the respondent furnishing an indemnity bond assuring that in the event the appellants prevail in the appellate proceedings, the amount so released shall be refunded to the appellants. Read more HERE
CONTEMPT OF COURT
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT | ‘No justifiable cause for levelling scandalous and contemptuous allegations’; Intemperate remarks & contemptuous language, warned against
In a criminal writ petition filed seeking directions for an inquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation (‘CBI’) into a case of a forged and fabricated will, a Single Judge Bench of Harpreet Singh Brar, J., dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner was unable to provide a satisfactory response regarding approaching the Court directly instead of the jurisdictional Court concerned by filing an appropriate application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’). The Court also held that not only did the petitioner fail to indicate how he was victimised in the matter at hand, but he also made scandalous remarks regarding the integrity of the justice dispensation mechanism. Read more HERE
CRIMINAL TRIAL
DELHI HIGH COURT | Section 377 of IPC cannot be applied to criminalise marital sex
In a revision petition filed by the petitioner (‘husband’) seeking to set aside the order dated 16-2-2023, passed by Additional Sessions Judge (FTSC)(RC), Rohini Courts, Delhi (‘Sessions Court’), Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.*, stated that in the context of a marital relationship, Section 377 of IPC could be applied to criminalise non-penile-vaginal intercourse between a husband and wife. Such an interpretation would be in line with the reasoning and observations of Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 1. The Court stated that no prima facie case was made out against the husband for the offence under Section 377 of Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’). Therefore, the impugned order directing the framing of charge was unsustainable in law and was liable to be set aside. Read more HERE
EDUCATION LAW
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Relief denied to Symbiosis Law School student suspended for her Instagram post on ‘Operation Sindoor’
A Single Judge Bench of Rohit W. Joshi, J., denied relief to the petitioner, a student at Symbiosis Law School, who was placed under immediate suspension from all academic and non-academic activities, for her Instagram post, which appeared to be contrary to the official version of the Government of India in relation to “Operation Sindoor” carried out recently. The Court opined that Symbiosis Law Schools action was not punitive, but, administrative in nature as the order/decision dated 13-5-2025, stated that additional special examination would be conducted for the petitioner if she was exonerated in the disciplinary proceeding. Thus, the Court directed Symbiosis Law School to conduct and complete the enquiry on or before 25-5-2025 and communicate the decision to the petitioner on the same day. Read more HERE
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | Appointment of Aligarh Muslim University’s first woman vice-chancellor Naima Khatoon, upheld
In three petitions challenging the appointment of Professor Naima Khatoon as the first woman Vice-Chancellor of Aligarh Muslim University (‘AMU’), on the ground that her husband, Professor Mohd. Gulrez, had presided over the meetings of the Executive Council and University Court which recommended her name, the Division Bench of Ashwani Kumar Mishra* and Donadi Ramesh, JJ. noted that Professor Khatoon’s qualifications were never in doubt and emphasised her prior service as Principal of the Women’s College of AMU. It observed that her final selection as Vice-Chancellor was made by the Visitor, who exercised independent discretion and against whom no allegations of bias were raised. Accordingly, the Court held that her husband’s role in chairing the recommendatory meetings did not justify setting aside Professor Khatoon’s appointment. The Court upheld the Visitor’s discretion in making the appointment and found no merit in the petitioners’ challenge. Read more HERE
ENVIRONMENT LAW
MEGHALAYA HIGH COURT | ‘Ban on manufacturing plastic of less than 120 microns’; Set of directions to prevent use of plastic issued
In a public interest litigation petition regarding the ban on the use of plastic bags, the Division Bench of IP Mukerji, CJ and W. Diengdoh, J., directed every Deputy Commissioner heading a district to take the following measures: (a) Continue to carry out awareness camps indicating the adverse effects of plastic. (b) Informing and convincing the people by public announcement, through advertisement, billboards, wall writing, other media, that the use of plastic is detrimental to personal health, the environment, and the ecological system; (c) Give reasonable time to persons who have already procured and have possession of plastic less than 120 microns to return the items to the seller or to dispose of them hygienically; (d) Plastic of less than 120 microns in width should not be permitted to be manufactured in the State. The State should take all steps to prevent its clandestine manufacture and subject to (c) above, identify and inspect places where they are in frequent use, seize them and deal with the offenders appropriately. For this purpose, administrative orders may be issued. Read more HERE
FEMA
DELHI HIGH COURT | FEMA does not immunize IPC offences; ₹3,500 Cr Hawala accused can’t escape criminal charges
The petitions were filed challenging their arrests in FIR dated 30-05-2024 registered under sections 120-B, 420, 468, 467, 471, 201 of Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and ECIR dated 31-05-2024 registered by respondents 2 and 3 (ED) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA); as well as their consequent remand to judicial custody vide various orders as detailed in their respective petitions. Anup Jairam Bhambhani, J., quashed the FIR’s and granted release from custody to the petitioner. Read more HERE
INCOME TAX
CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT | Bona fide belief plus genuineness of transaction constitutes reasonable cause under S. 273B, Penalty can’t be imposed under S. 271E of Income Tax Act
In a tax appeal filed by an assessee against a penalty order for violation of Section 269-T of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), the Division Bench of Sanjay K. Agrawal* and Deepak Kumar Tiwari, JJ., allowed the appeal, holding that though a reasonable cause was shown by the assessee for non-compliance with Section 269-T of the Act and the transaction was undisputedly genuine and bona fide, all the three tax authorities ignored Section 273B, and levied a penalty under Section 271E. Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | ‘Offence under S.272-C(2) of Income Tax Act is bailable’; Non-bailable warrant against Arjun Rampal in tax evasion case, quashed
The present petition was filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, challenging order dated 5-12-2019 of issuing process against the petitioner, Arjun Amarjeet Rampal and another order dated 9-4-2025 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 38th Court, Ballard Pier, Mumbai, wherein a non-bailable warrant was issued by the trial court against the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 276-C(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘IT Act’). A Single Judge Bench of Advait M. Sethna, J., opined that the Magistrate passed the order dated 9-4-2025 issuing a non-bailable warrant against the petitioner in a bailable offence. The Court stated that the said order would cause prejudice to the petitioner and thus, quashed and set aside the order dated 9-4-2025. Read more HERE
ILLEGAL/UNAUTHORISED DEVELOPMENT/CONSTRUCTION
GUJARAT HIGH COURT | PIL by self-acclaimed RTI activist on unauthorised construction near Lajpore Central Jail, Rejected and 20 Lakh cost imposed
In a PIL filed by a businessman and self-acclaimed RTI activist against unauthorised construction near the Lajpore Central Jail, Surat, the Division Bench of Sunita Agarwal*, CJ., and Pranav Trivedi, J., dismissed the PIL with Rs. 20 Lakhs as cost, noting that the petitioner had been caught in a case of blackmailing and extortion whereby he would threaten people with fake cases. Read more HERE
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
DELHI HIGH COURT | ‘NEHA’ a common Indian name lacking distinctiveness for exclusive use: Trade mark suit dismissed
In a suit filed by the plaintiff to determine whether the defendant’s use of trade mark ‘NEHA’, amounts to trade mark infringement and/or passing off, Sanjeev Narula, J*., stated that ‘NEHA’ is a common Indian forename, not a coined or inherently distinctive word. The tort of passing off was not a mechanism to prevent all forms of competitive entry, especially in the case of marks that are non-distinctive or commonly used. The Court stated that while the plaintiffs’ goodwill in the trade mark ‘NEHA’ was established, it remained confined to the domain of mehndi, and herbal hair-care preparations. There was insufficient evidence to suggest that such goodwill extended to creams or general cosmetics prior to the institution of the suit. Thus, the Court dismissed the present suit. Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Ad interim injunction granted to Vinay Pictures; Restrains unauthorized use of ‘Andaz Apna Apna’ film’s intellectual property
In a suit seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants from engaging in unauthorized acts amounting to infringement of the plaintiff’s copyright and trade mark, etc., in relation to the iconic Hindi-language feature film “Andaz Apna Apna”, Amit Bansal, J.*, observed that the plaintiff had demonstrated prima facie case for the grant of an interim injunction in its favor, and if ex-parte and interim injunction was not granted, the plaintiff would suffer an irreparable loss. Thus, the Court granted ex-parte ad interim injunction in the plaintiff’s favor. Read more HERE
MAINTENANCE
CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT | Divorced wife living in adultery is disqualified from claiming maintenance under S. 125 CrPC
In a set of two criminal revision petitions filed against the judgment passed by Family Court, whereby, the husband was directed to pay R. 4000/- per month as maintenance to the wife under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’), a Single Judge Bench of Arvind Kumar Verma, J., allowed the petition filed by the husband, holding that a divorced wife who lived in adultery, i.e., lived in illicit relationship with man other than her former husband, was disqualified from claiming maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC. Read more HERE
MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE
KERALA HIGH COURT | ‘For every mishap or death during treatment, Doctor cannot be punished’; Medical negligence case, quashed
In a case where the petitioner, a specialist doctor and Consultant Gastroenterologist at a private hospital in Ernakulam, was booked by the Ernakulam Town North Police for the offence under Section 304A IPC following the death of a patient due to renal complications, a Single Judge Bench of G. Girish, J. held that there was absolutely no material on record to suggest that the petitioner’s actions, prescribing medicines and ordering laboratory evaluation of the patient’s vitals, constituted gross negligence beyond what is expected of a doctor of similar standing. On the contrary, the evidence indicated that the course of treatment adopted by the petitioner was consistent with standard medical practice and would have been followed by other competent professionals under similar circumstances. In light of these observations, the Court concluded that the criminal prosecution amounted to an abuse of the process of law and warranted interference at the threshold. Consequently, the prayer in the petition to quash the proceedings pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam, was allowed. Read more HERE
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT | Acquittal in Section 138 NI Act Case upheld as no legally enforceable debt found on loan of ₹3 lakhs
A criminal appeal was filed challenging the judgment dated 09-11-2022 passed by the II Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Palakol whereby the accused was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on the ground that the Trial Court erred in concluding that the accused did not owe a legally enforceable debt. Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, J., dismissed the appeal being devoid of merits and upheld the acquittal order. Read more HERE
PC & PNDT ACT
DELHI HIGH COURT | Offences under PC & PNDT Act are cognizable, thus, FIR registration and police investigation per se not barred under law
In a petition filed for quashing the FIR registered for the offence under Section 25/26/27 of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Technique (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994, (‘PC & PNDT Act’), Neena Bansal Krishna, J.*, stated that the offences under PC & PNDT Act are cognizable and thus, registration of FIR and investigation by the police per se is not barred under law. The Court stated that the grounds for seeking quashing of the FIR were without merits and accordingly dismissed the petition. Read more HERE
PIL
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT | PIL seeking declaration of Pahalgam terror attack victims as martyrs, rejected
In a public interest litigation seeking declaration of the victims of the Pahalgam Attack as Martyrs/Shaheed and establishment of a memorial for them, the Division Bench of Sheel Nagu*, CJ., and Sumeet Goel, J., rejected the petition, holding that the power to declare a place as a memorial, rename a place, or declare deceased persons as Martyrs/Shaheed is within the exclusive power of the Executive. Read more HERE
PROPERTY TAX
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | Interim relief granted to telecom towers; Property tax notices issued by Lucknow Municipal Corporation, stayed
In a writ petition concerning the issue of whether municipal bodies could impose property taxes on telecommunication towers in light of the enactment of the Telecommunications Act, 2023, a Division Bench of Rajan Roy and Om Prakash Shukla, JJ., stayed the operation of the impugned notices and tax bills issued by the municipal authorities for levying property taxes on such towers. The stay was granted in line with the Court’s earlier order dated 05-03-2025. The Court observed that the matter involved several significant legal questions, notably the extent to which regulations or rules framed under the Uttar Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1959 could be applied following the enactment of the Telecommunications Act, 2023. The Court particularly referred to Section 14(3) and Section 52 of the 2023 Act, noting that these provisions, prima facie, supported the petitioner’s case and suggested that the central legislation would prevail in the event of a conflict with any State law or subordinate legislation made thereunder. Read more HERE
QUASHMENT OF FIR/PROCEEDINGS
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | ‘Police Officers cannot compel citizens or its employees to help them’; FIR against officer who showed difficulty to provide employees as panch witness, quashed
In a case wherein, a FIR was registered against the applicant, serving as the Assistant Commissioner, Social Welfare, Dharashiv, who on the police officer’s letter, showed his incapability to supply his employees working under him, to act as panch witnesses, the Division Bench of Vibha Kankanwadi* and Sanjay A. Deshmukh, JJ., opined that it was very unfortunate that still a mentality prevailed in the Police Department that everybody should give preference to the work directed by the police or to help the police. The Court stated that when the applicant as the head of the said Department showed his difficulty, it could not be taken as willful disobedience or refusal of any order, and thus, it would be unjust to ask the applicant to face the trial. Thus, the Court quashed and set aside the FIR registered against the applicant. Read more HERE
RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL
DELHI HIGH COURT | Right to speedy trial not an abstract or illusory safeguard, cannot be whittled down in MCOCA cases
In an application filed by the applicant (‘accused’) under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’), seeking regular bail in the FIR registered for offence under Sections 3(1)/3(4)/3(5) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (‘MCOCA’), Sanjeev Narula, J.*, as of today, the accused had been in custody for nearly nine years, and despite the prolonged detention, the trial remained far from its conclusion. Further, the status report filed by the State indicated that out of 60 prosecution witnesses, only 35 were examined so far. Thus, the Court stated that the inordinate delay and excessive period of detention violate the accused’s fundamental rights under Article 21 of Constitution. Thus, the Court directed the accused to be released on regular bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 along with surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court concerned. Read more HERE
ROADS AND HIGHWAYS
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | L&T’s plea against MMRDA’s bid process in Rs 6000 crore Elevated Road Project, dismissed; Interim stay on opening of financial bids, discontinued
In the present case, the petitioner, L&T Ltd. preferred a writ petition seeking urgent restraining orders against the respondents to prevent opening of Cover-II which contained the financial bids for the Elevated Road Project, without first notifying the petitioner of the fate of its technical bid. The Division Bench of Kamal Khata and Arif S. Doctor, JJ., noted that the terms of the tender contemplated that reasons should be communicated to the unsuccessful bidder only after the award of the contract and stated that the petitioner accepted Clauses 11.3, 36, and 38 of the Instruction to Bidders (‘ITB’) and participated in the tender, therefore, it would now not be open to the petitioner to agitate to the contrary. The Court opined that the Project was a mega-infrastructure project of significant public importance, thus, any delay of the same would adversely impact the project’s execution and considering the magnitude of the project, evaluation of the bids would take time and even if there was a delay on MMRDA’s part, it could not mean that the project could be further delayed by the petitioner. The Court thus dismissed the petition and discontinued the interim stay on the opening of the financial bids. Read more HERE
SERVICE LAW
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT | ‘Fresh appointments under new Rules extinguish prior contractual conditions’; Order enforcing prior Service Bond, quashed
In a writ petition challenging the order directing compliance with the bond dated 18-09-2021 in light of the petitioner’s subsequent appointments under the Rajasthan Contractual Hiring to Civil Posts Rules, 2022 and her new posting as a Nursing Officer within the State Government, a single-judge bench of Rekha Borana, J., quashed the impugned order and held that bond clause in the 2020 advertisement lost its efficacy upon issuance of the new appointment under the Rajasthan Contractual Hiring to Civil Posts Rules, 2022. Read more HERE
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT | ‘State bound to review within reasonable period of limitation if not prescribed’; Inspector’s demotion 7 years after acquittal in disciplinary proceedings, quashed
In a writ petition filed by an inspector seeking quashing of the order whereby he was punished with a reduction in rank in a disciplinary proceeding, wherein he had already been exonerated 7 years ago, a Single Judge Bench of Jagmohan Bansal, J., allowed the petition, holding that the State was bound to exercise power of review within reasonable period of limitation, which in the instant case could not be more than 3 years. Read more HERE
STAMP DUTY
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | Pendency of Arbitration does not prevent stamp authorities from initiating proceedings; Show Cause notice not an adverse order affecting parties’ rights
In a petition seeking to adjourn stamp recovery proceedings pending before the Collector/District Magistrate, the Single Judge Bench of Piyush Agrawal, J., held that there was no Supreme Court order restraining the stamp authorities from initiating proceedings when an agreement was found deficient in stamp duty. It was undisputed that an Arbitrator had already been appointed, and the matter was pending before the Arbitral Tribunal. The Court concluded that the stamp authority’s proceedings were not without jurisdiction. The Court further clarified that the issuance of a show cause notice does not constitute an adverse order and is necessary to ensure the noticee is aware of the grounds for proposed action and has a fair opportunity to respond. Since the challenge to the show cause notice was premature, the Court declined to intervene and dismissed the writ petition. Read more HERE
SUICIDE
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT | Kota Students Suicide Case | Interim directions deferred while awaiting Supreme Court action
In a suo motu writ petition initiated by the Court in 2016 in response to an alarming rise in student suicides in Kota, Rajasthan, a city known as the coaching hub of India, a Division Bench of Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, CJ., and Mukesh Rajpurohit, J., while expressing deep concern over the continued loss of student lives, chose to defer issuing further directions in light of the Supreme Court’s ongoing proceedings and the respondents’ intention to seek a transfer. Read more HERE
