High Court Round UpHigh CourtsLegal RoundUpTribunals/Regulatory Bodies/Commissions Monthly Roundup

Here are our interesting picks from the stories reported this week:


To operate in State of Maharashtra, Uber and other unlicensed aggregators to apply for license before 16th March 2022: Bom HC


The Division Bench of Dipankar Datta, CJ and Vinay Joshi, J., directed UBER and other transport aggregators who have not obtained a license as per Section 93(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act to apply for the license before 16th March 2022 otherwise they shall not be able to operate in the State of Maharashtra.

Read full report, here…


Wife leaves matrimonial home and never returns after several requests and legal notice under S. 9 of HMA, alleges husband of several cruelties without any evidence: Would it amount to desertion and cruelty by wife? Del HC answers


Noting the separation of 12 years between the husband and wife, the Division Bench of Vipin Sanghi and Jasmeet Singh, JJ., found that the wife had subjected the husband to desertion and cruelty, hence decree of divorce be granted.

Read full report, here…


Right of residence under DV Act is exclusive to and isolated from any right that may arise under S. 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: Del HC


“The existence of the strained relationship between the Petitioner and the Respondent has been well established by the fact that there are more than about 60 criminal and civil cases pending between the parties.”

Read full report, here…


Law on Theft | Daughter-in-law thrown out of matrimonial home and accused of removal of letters from possession of matrimonial home: Whether Del HC will find her guilty under S. 380 IPC or not?


Chandra Dhari Singh, J., noted that instant dispute has arisen out of matrimonial discord between two people which had also, led to the filing of more than 50 criminal and civil cases between not only the husband and the wife but also their family members. It was found that for the sole purpose of harassing the other party such cases were filed by persons with no just cause or reason and substantial ground for allegations.

Read full report, here…


SC-ST Act is prospective or retrospective? Kar HC quashes criminal proceedings for offences committed in the year 1975


“…it has been a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that when the act complained of is not an offence when committed; a free citizen cannot be brought to book merely because such act is criminalized in a subsequent legislation.”

Read full report, here…


Wife, a banker, misusing her position to get details of in-laws’ bank accounts to show husband evading payment of maintenance: Is wife guilty of criminal breach of trust? Court analyses


Manner of bringing the information before Court of law may not be morally right but it cannot be said by this act of petitioner that, petitioner caused or intended to cause any wrongful loss to petitioners or to cause wrongful gain to herself as merely by disclosing this information, no pecuniary benefit is stated to have been received by petitioner and if any maintenance or any other amount is granted by Court of law, that cannot be termed to be wrongful gain to petitioner.

Read full report, here…


Spanking on back of a woman without her consent, by a man would constitute an offence under Stalking as defined under S. 354D (1)(i) IPC? Court explains


Mere presence is not ground for common intention for proving the prior meeting of minds.

Read full report, here…


7 entities indulged in anti-competitive agreement for supply of signages for branches/offices/ATMs of SBI: E-mails exchanged between parties formed basis for manipulation of bidding process

Noting that in respect of cases concerning cartels that are hidden or secret, there is little or no documentary evidence and may be quite fragmentary, Coram of Ashok Kumar Gupta (Chairperson) and Sangeeta Verma and Bhagwant Singh Bishnoi (Members)  imposed penalties on 7 entities and signages for bid-rigging activities and cartelization with respect to the supply of signage for branches, offices and ATMs of State Bank of India.

Read full report, here…


Can SEBI proceed against a Chartered Accountant for lack of his due diligence? SAT analyses

“Lack of due diligence can only lead to professional negligence which would amount to a misconduct which could be taken up only by ICAI.”

Read full report, here…

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: Chandra Dhari Singh, J., noted that instant dispute has arisen out of matrimonial discord between two people which had also, led to the filing of more than 50 criminal and civil cases between not only the husband and the wife but also their family members. It was found that for the sole purpose of harassing the other party such cases were filed by persons with no just cause or reason and substantial ground for allegations.

A petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 had been filed against the order passed by the Special Judge (PC ACT) CBI arising out of Summoning Order passed in a case registered for an offence punishable under Section 380 of the Penal Code, 1860.

Factual Matrix

Petitioner and son of respondent 2 solemnized their marriage and respondent 2 was the father-in-law of the petitioner.

It was alleged by the petitioner that her husband used to continuously torture, harass and humiliate her for dowry and other issues since the very beginning of marriage and was maltreated by him and his family members.

It was also stated that the petitioner was having an illicit relationship that was supported by his family members, later on, the petitioner was treated in an inhumane manner and thrown out of the matrimonial house.

Amongst the number of cases filed by the parties, one of the cases which were filed by the petitioner gave rise to the present petition which was filed under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. In the said case, Metropolitan Magistrate passed an order wherein it was observed that the husband of the petitioner was the 50% owner of the co-owned house, the petitioner was residing on the first floor of the said matrimonial home till the day she was dispossessed from the house and that there was a prima facie case that the husband was having an illicit affair. Hence, the petitioner was entitled to the right of residence.

The petitioner came to know that a notice of summons was issued by Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate against her order in a complaint case filed by respondent 2 under Section 380 of the IPC for allegedly removing certain letters from the deemed possession of respondent 2 while he was not present at his house.

On being aggrieved with the above order, the petitioner filed a criminal petition which was disposed by a coordinate bench of this Court against the Order of Summoning. Petitioner’s revision petition was also dismissed by the Session Court.

In the present petition, the petitioner has impugned the Session’s Court order by way of which the Session Judge observed that a prima facie ground had been made out to allege that the Petitioner committed theft of the letters in possession of the Respondent 2.

Analysis, Law and Decision

High Court expressed that, it is a well-settled position of law that while issuing summons to the accused the Court concerned has to be prima facie satisfied with the charges alleged against the accused.

As per the provisions for an offence under Section 380 of IPC, the person committing the offence shall firstly, remove any movable property from the possession of a person, secondly, do so without his consent and thirdly, remove such property with dishonest intention.

“…intention must be to cause wrongful gain to one and wrongful loss to another, and in terms of theft, while removing the movable property out of the possession of a person, the person committing theft must have such kind of intention.”

In Court’s opinion, even if the Petitioner picked up the letters lying on the floor of the part of the house in possession of the Respondent 2, the dishonest intention, of causing wrongful gain to herself or any other person and wrongful loss to the Respondent 2 or anyone else, could not be established at the preliminary stage.

No dishonest intention was found in the actions of the petitioner. Therefore, the offence of theft was not made out against the petitioner.

Elaborating further, with regard to the powers of Revisional Court, High Court held that the Revisional Court ought to have appreciated that the Court below did not consider that prima facie an offence of theft was not made out against the petitioner as the ingredients of offence under Section 380 IPC were not met.

In view of the above petition was allowed and disposed of. [Anjani Gupta v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2022 SCC OnLine Del 699, decided on 8-3-2022]


Advocates before the Court:

For the Petitioner:

Arvind Varma, Sr. Advocate with Abhishek Chhabra, Advocate

For the Respondent:

Raghuvinder Varma, APP for State with SI Laukesh Kumar, P.S. Preet Vihar.

Puneet Goel, Advocate for R-2

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: Prathiba M. Singh, J. while addressing the matter, expressed that

“…in the opinion of this Court, all cases of family disputes cannot be characterised as cases under the DV Act.”

Plaintiff had filed a suit against his son and daughter-in-law, respectively.

In view of various disputes between the plaintiff and his son/daughter-in-law, he sought the permanent and mandatory injunction, damages seeking vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property and removal of his son and daughter-in-law. Damages and mesne profits were also sought by the plaintiff.

 Issues:

  • Condonation of delay of 342 days, in filing the present second appeal.
  • Merits of matter.

Analysis, Law and Decision

High Court stated that there was no delay in filing the present appeal.

Several disputes arose amongst the said family members, which, according to Plaintiff, were due to the interference of the family members of the daughter-in-law, including the mother and the brothers of the daughter-in-law.

There was no document on record to show the existence of a HUF, of which, Plaintiff was alleged to be the Karta.

Plea of ‘shared household’ appeared to have clearly been put up on behalf of the daughter-in-law, as a faint plea, and as an argument of last resort.

There were no complaints that had been preferred against the father-in-law and there were no cases filed or pending under the DV Act, or any other legislation at the instance of the daughter-in-law.

Further, the Bench stated that the father was merely seeking to evict both his son and daughter-in-law, on the strength of his ownership of the suit property.

Adding to the above, Court stated that the settled position of law is that proceedings under the DV Act are not required and the same can also be raised as defence in the suit, the basic requirements of the said Act ought to be satisfied.

The present is not a case where the case set up is one under the DV Act, involving domestic violence. 

High Court highlighted the peculiar facts:

  • The ownership of the Plaintiff in the suit property is not in dispute.
  • The sale of the property of the mother, which took place in 2011, was never challenged by the Defendants.
  • The purchase of this suit property in the name of the Plaintiff was never challenged by the Defendants.
  • There is no complaint of Domestic Violence raised by the daughter-in-law before any forum. In fact, to the contrary, the Plaintiff has filed complaints against his son and daughter-in-law with police repeatedly, alleging ill-treatment and abuse.
  • The Defendants i.e., the son and daughter-in-law are living together peacefully. The written statement before the trial court was filed jointly. The first appeal was also filed jointly, and so is the present second appeal. There is no estrangement or marital discord between them.
  • The order passed in the application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC has also been executed and the Defendants have already moved out of the suit property and are living in alternate premises.

In light of the above stated facts and noting that they are distinguishable from the facts of Satish Chandra Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja, [2020 (11) SCALE 476] and Vanitha v. Deputy Commr., [2020 (14) SCALE 210]

Court dismissed the appeal. [Aarti Sharma v. Ganga Saran, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 4110, decided on 24-08-2021]


Advocates before the Court:

For the Appellants: Zahid Ali, Advocate

For the Respondent: Ashok Kumar Tiwari, Advocate

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of R.K. Gauba, JJ. dismissed a petition filed by the petitioner-husband invoking inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 CrPC to assail the order of the first appellate court.

The facts of the matter were that the respondent-wife had filed a case against the husband and his parents under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. He sought various reliefs including protection orders under Section 18 and an order as to right to residence under Section 19 besides other monetary reliefs. As to the residential house which was in question, the husband challenged the claim of the wife on the ground that the said residential house was his father’s property. On the issue of the wife’s interest in the said property, the Magistrate accepted husband’s submission. The wife, thereafter, moved an application under Section 91 CrPC before the Magistrate asserting that the husband made false representations. She prayed for the summoning of certain relevant documents that would show that the said property was transferred in a clandestine manner only to defeat her rights. Pursuant thereto, the husband was directed to file an affidavit disclosing his bank account details along with account statements. The husband approached the Sessions Court against the order of the Magistrate on the contention that the Magistrate had found against the wife on the issue of her interest in the said property. However, his appeal was dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the instant petition was filed.

The High Court, on consideration of facts, noted that any interim order was denied to the wife by the Magistrate as well as the first appellate court. It was observed that the wife having been denied any interim order could not be deprived of the right to prove her case by leading evidence so as to demolish and discredit the defence set up vis-a-vis the said property. It was her contention that the property was acquired by the husband availing of his own resources, though in the name of the father and, therefore, benami. It was her burden to prove her contention in such regard. In such circumstances, the Court held that her right to bring requisite evidence, by having the necessary records summoned with the assistance of the court, could not be taken away. The High Court found no error in the reasoning of the Session Court which held that order of the Magistrate was purely a procedural order which did not decide or determine the rights or liabilities of the parties. In view of the aforesaid, the petition filed by the husband was dismissed. [Dinesh Kumar v. Ruchi Ahuja,2018 SCC OnLine Del 11973, decided on 03-10-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of R.K. Gauba, J. dismissed a petition filed by the petitioner-wife for a right to possession in the house owned by her father-in-law.

The wife had filed a suit under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 impleading her husband and father-in-law. Concededly, the wife lived with her son in a portion of the house which was owned by the father-in-law. The wife submitted that she was allowed to live in the said house under a family arrangement. She claimed a right to possession in the shared household under the Act. The question that arose for consideration was whether the property in question or any portion thereof could be described under the facts and circumstances as a shared household?

The High Court perused Section 2(s) of the Act which describes a shared household. It was conceded at the bar that right of residence under the above mentioned special legislation can be claimed and pressed only against the husband and not against the father-in-law. It was observed as inherent in definition of shared household that the person against whom the right of residence is claimed qua the household described as such, should have a right, title or interest therein. In the facts of the present case, it was held that the wife has no such right of residence, as her claim which was through her husband could not be sustained. The partition suit filed by the husband against his father as also the claim brought through her son had already been rejected by the civil court which had attained finality. It was held that the petitioner was only a permissive user of the house and as such could not force herself on the owner of the property, particularly when she had no vested or legal right to claim residence in his property. For reaching the said conclusion, the Court relied on the Supreme Court decision in S.R. Batra v. Taruna Batra, (2007) 3 SCC 169. The petition was accordingly dismissed. [Manju Gupta v. Pankaj Gupta,2018 SCC OnLine Del 11337, Order dated 30-08-2018]

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: In a matter relating to eviction of the tenant, the bench of J. Chelameswar and Abhay Manohar Sapre, JJ held that any female, if she is having a legal right of residence in the building, is entitled to seek eviction of the tenant from such building for her need.

In the case the landlady of a shop had asked the tenant to vacate the property on account that her daughter, who had a clinic adjacent to the concerned shop, wanted to expand her clinic as the area of the existing shop was inadequate to run a clinic. The Tenant, however, contended that the need of the appellant was not bona-fide as the appellant’s daughter was not a member of family as defined under Section 3(g) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 because she is a married daughter whereas Section 3(g)(iii) include only an “unmarried daughter”. The Allahabad High Court had overturned the ruling of the Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge and the first appellate court and had held that the daughter was not a family member under the Act.

The Court, rejected the said contention of the tenant and held that the inclusive part of the definition under Section 3(g) of the Act, which is enacted only for the benefit of “female” in relation to the landlord, adds one more category of person in addition to those specified in clauses (i) to (iii), namely, “any female having a legal right of residence in that building”. In other words, in order to claim the benefit of expression “family”, a female must have a “legal right of residence” in the building.

Considering the fact that appellant’s husband, the original owner of the property in question, died intestate and on his death, the appellant, two sons and four daughters inherited the estate left by Dr. Ahsan Ahmad, which included the building, the Court said that the appellant’s daughter was a family member under the Act and hence, the appellant’s need was bona-fide. [Gulshera Khanam v. Aftab Ahmad, 2016 SCC OnLine SC 1001, decided on 27.09.2016]