High Court Round UpLegal RoundUpTribunals/Regulatory Bodies/Commissions Monthly Roundup

7 Interesting Picks of the Week Gone by.


Under Muslim Personal law, can Family Court dissolve the marriage of a couple? Bom HC elaborates

The Division Bench of V.K. Jadhav and Sandipkumar C. More, JJ., addressed whether Family Court under Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 read with Section 7(1)(b) Explanation (b) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 declare the matrimonial status of a wife and husband.

Read full report here…


Judges required to seek political clearance qua private visits abroad: Did Del HC strike down Ministry of External Affairs’ Office Memorandum requiring the same? Read decision

The Division Bench of Rajiv Shakdher and Jasmeet Singh, JJ., strikes down the OM dated 13-7-2021, to the extent it requires Judges of the Supreme Court and the High Court to seek political clearance qua private visits abroad.

Read full report here…


Signatures on the Vakalat and the Written Statement cannot be considered as signatures of comparable and assured standard for want of expert opinion under S. 45 Evidence Act

The petitioner/defendant filed written statement contending that the suit promissory note is a forged document and his signatures were forged. At the evidence stage, the petitioner filed an interim application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to send a promissory note to the handwriting expert by receiving specimen writings in the four promissory notes which are annexed to the said application and to receive his specimen signatures in the open Court along with the vakalatnama and written statement for comparison. The respondent/plaintiff filed counter and opposed the said application.

Read full report here…


Law Officers perform their duties without profit motive and with a service mentality for a nominal fee as compared to their lucrative private practice: Madras HC

Expressing that, Legal profession is a noble profession, and it is the lawyer, who plays a predominant role in securing every citizen life and personal liberty fundamental and statutory rights ensured by the ConstitutionM. Govindaraj, J., observed that, Law Officers perform their duties without profit motive and with a service mentality for a nominal fee as compared to their lucrative private practice

Read full report here…


Mother alleged to have extra-marital affair, will father be granted custody of children? Guj HC decides

Ashok Kumar C. Joshi, J., denied granting child custody to father, wherein the mother was alleged to have extra-marital affairs.

Read full report here…


If a girl runs away voluntarily without any persuasion, can boy with whom she eloped be held responsible for abducting the girl? Chh HC explains

Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J., held that, when the accused has not played an active role or persuaded the victim and the victim voluntarily left the protection of her parents and having the capacity to know her action, no offence of abduction is made out.

Read full report here…


Promotional activity for IPL not covered under ‘Business Auxillary Service’; Anil Kumble not liable to pay Service Tax

The Coram of P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member) and P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) allowed appeals against the order of First Appellate Authority which upheld the demand for service tax by the adjudicating authority.

Read full report here…

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: The Division Bench of Rajiv Shakdher and Jasmeet Singh, JJ., strikes down the OM dated 13-7-2021, to the extent it requires Judges of the Supreme Court and the High Court to seek political clearance qua private visits abroad.

Why was the present application filed?

  • Set aside and/or quash the notification/office memorandum dated 13-7-2021 issued by the Union of India through Ministry of External Affairs
  • Set aside the communication issued by the Ministry of Law and Justice
  • Stay the operation of the notification/office memorandum dated 13-7-2021 issued by the Union of India through the Ministry of External Affairs during the pendency of the present application.

Concern was with regard to the aspect embedded in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Office Memorandum dated 13-7-2021 requiring the Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts to obtain political clearance for private visits abroad.

The sum and substance of the O.M. was that it required judges of Constitutional Courts i.e., the Supreme Court and the High Court to seek political clearance qua private visits to foreign countries, infringes not only their right of privacy but also, in a sense, degrades and/or diminishes the high office that they hold.

High Court noted that on 15-2-2011, guidelines had been issued concerning foreign visits by Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts.

This Court by a decision dated 25-5-2012 had issued a slew of directions concerning the above-said guidelines. Though the Court did not deem it fit to pass any directions vis-à-vis the paragraph with regard to dispensing with the requirement of the Judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts to obtain political clearance for private foreign visits.

Bench opined that the O.M dated 13-7-2021, requiring the Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts to seek political clearance for private foreign visits is uncalled for, given the high offices they are holding, especially given the fact that nothing has changed since the 2011 guidelines were issued.

With regard to the relief sought in clause (b) was concerned, the said will have to be partially allowed as it was a communication addressed by the Government of India, Ministry of law and Justice, Department of Justice to the Secretary-General, Supreme Court of India and the Registrar Generals of High Courts requiring them to take “appropriate action” in consonance with the O.M. Since Court has struck down the O.M. to the extent it requires judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts to the obtain political clearance qua foreign (private) visit, the said communication, which is, dated 18.08.2021 will get truncated to that degree.

In view of the above analysis, the application was closed. [Aman Vachar v. Union of India, WP (C) No. 2712 of 1991, decided on 1-4-2022]


Advocates before the Court:

For the Petitioner:

Petitioner-in-person

For the Respondent:

Mr Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General of India with Mr Imon Bhattacharya, Adv.