Appointments & TransfersNews

The President appoints the following as the Judges of High Court of Telangana in that order of seniority, with effect from the date they assume charge of their respective offices.

  1. Enugula Venkata Venugopal @ E.V. Venugopal;
  2. Nagesh Bheemapaka;
  3. Pull a Karthik @ P. Elamadar;
  4. Kaja Sarath @ K. Sharath. 

 

The President appoint Jaggannagari Sreenivas Rao and Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao, to be Additional Judges of the High Court of Telangana, in that order of seniority, for a period of two years, with effect from the date they assume charge of their respective offices

Telangana High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Telangana High Court: The Division Bench of P. Naveen Rao and Sambasivarao Naidu, JJ. allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order holding a dispute arising out of an agreement concerning immovable property which is exclusively used in trade or commerce and whose ‘specified value’ is more than one crore is a commercial dispute and must be tried in a commercial court only.

The first respondent (R1) and the Appellant entered into Lease agreement with respect to property called as “Durgam Cheruvu Eco Tourism Deck and Party Area” for a period of ten years. However, the differences arose regarding taking over possession of the subject property and payment of lease amount. The Department for Youth Advancement and Culture, on request, granted R1, waiver of rent for a certain period, and R1 further claimed additional waiver from appellant vide representation, which was rejected, and strained relationships further, resulting in both taking recourse to arbitration for settling disputes vide Clause 10 Lease Agreement. An application under Section 9 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was filed before ACJ City Civil Court seeking interim protection. The city civil court granted interim injunction in favour of R1 subject to deposit of monthly payments. Assailing this order, a present appeal was filed.

The appellant contended that since the transaction is commercial in nature and monetary value of the disputed property is above One crore , the ordinary Civil Court has no jurisdiction and the individual has to seek remedy under provisions of Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

The respondent submitted that only disputes which are of commercial nature must be resolved by the Commercial Court. In the present case, it was a lease agreement and not all contracts are commercial in nature. Besides, no commercial activity had commenced on the property due to which the dispute is not a commercial dispute and hence not maintainable before the Civil Court.

The Court observed that on a cumulative reading of Sections 2(1)(c)(vii), 10 and 12 Commercial Courts Act, 2015, it is apparent that if a dispute arising out of an agreement concerning immovable property which is exclusively used in trade or commerce and whose ‘specified value’ is more than one crore, then, it is a ‘commercial dispute’ and only the commercial Court has jurisdiction to deal with application filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The Court further noted that from the clauses of the lease agreement, it is evident that the appellant earlier granted lease of the schedule property to another lessee for the very same purpose and said lessee built certain, tents, structures, fixtures, and micro-brewery. Disputes arose between earlier lessee and appellant and litigation is pending in the Courts. The terms of the lease agreement clearly indicate that the suit schedule land was already used for commercial purposes by an earlier lessee. Therefore, Section 2(1)(c)(vii) Commercial Courts Act, 2015, is attracted and dispute inter se between the appellant and the respondents is a commercial dispute.

The Court thus held “It is not in dispute that arrears of rent were more than two crores. Therefore, the ‘specified value’ of the subject dispute is more than one crore and in view of specific provision in Section 10 read with Section 12 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, application under Section 9 of the Act, 1996 must be filed in a designated Commercial Court only and Civil Court has no jurisdiction to deal with such applications”

[Telangana State Tourism Development Corp Ltd. v. A.A. Avocations Pvt. Ltd, 2022 SCC OnLine TS 1266, decided on 09-06-2022]


Advocates who appeared in this case :

M. Surender Rao and Zeeshan Adnan Mahmood, Advocates, for the Appellant;

P. Mohith Reddy, Advocate, for the Respondent;


*Arunima Bose, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief

Appointments & TransfersNews


DELHI HIGH COURT


The President transfers Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, Chief Justice, Telangana High Court, as the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court. 


GAUHATI HIGH COURT


The President appoints Justice Rashmin Manharbhai Chhaya, Judge of the Gujarat High Court, to be the Chief Justice of Gauhati High Court with effect from the date he assumes charge of his office.

 


RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT


The President appoints Justice Shinde Sambhaji Shiwaji, Judge of the Bombay High Court, to be the Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court with effect from the date he assumes,charge of his office.

 


UTTRAKHAND HIGH COURT


The President appoints Justice Vipin Sanghi, Judge of the Delhi High Court, to be the Chief Justice of Uttarakhand High Court with effect from the date he assumes charge of his office.

 


HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT


The President appoints Justice Amjad Ahtesham Sayed, Judge of the Bombay High Court, to be the Chief Justice of Himachal Pradesh High Court with effect from the date he assumes charge of his office.

 


TELANGANA HIGH COURT


The President appoints Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, Judge of the Telangana High Court, to be the Chief Justice of Telangana High Court with effect from the date he assumes charge of his office.



KARNATAKA HIGH COURT


The President appoints Justice Alok Aradhe, senior-most Judge of the Karnataka High Court, to perform the duties of the office of the Chief Justice of that High Court, with effect from 03.07.2022.

 

Ministry Of Law & Justice

 

Telangana High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Telangana High Court: Sathish Reddy, J., while addressing a maintenance case, expressed that, the wife’s earning capacity cannot be a bar from awarding her maintenance.

Factual Background


Instant case was filed by the petitioners to set aside the order of the lower Court wherein the said petition was filed by the petitioners under Section 125 (1) CrPC seeking interim maintenance which was allowed directing the first respondent to pay Rs 7,000 per month each to petitioners 2 and 3.

Petitioner 1 was the wife and petitioners 2 and 3, children of the first respondent. Further, the petitioners a petition before the lower Court was filed seeking interim maintenance of Rs 12,000 per month to each of the petitioners 2 and 3 and Rs 10,000 per month to petitioner 1.

Further, the Family Court directed the first respondent, the husband of petitioner 1, to pay Rs. 7,000/- per month each to petitioners 2 and 3 towards interim maintenance from the date of the petition, pending disposal of maintenance case. The petition to the extent of petitioner 1 was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners preferred this revision.

Analysis, Law and Decision


High Court stated that the Supreme Court decision in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, made it amply clear that,

“If wife is earning, it cannot operate as a bar from awarding maintenance to suit the lifestyle of her husband in the matrimonial home.”

In the present matter, Family Court had only dismissed the interim application filed by the first petitioner on the ground that she herself had mentioned that she was earning Rs 20,000/- per month.

In Court’s opinion, Family Court had passed a well-reasoned order which required no interference. [Nikhat Fatima v. Syed Razi Ahmed, 2022 SCC OnLine TS 911, decided on 21-4-2022]

Appointments & TransfersNews

Supreme Court Collegium has recommended the transfer of Mr Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, Chief Justice, Telangana High Court to Delhi High Court.


Supreme Court Collegium

[Notification dt. 17-5-2022]

Telangana High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Telangana High Court: G Radha Rani, J., disposed of the petition and directed the petitioner to approach the EI Court under Section 75 of the ESI Act by filing an appropriate application.

The facts of the case are such that the petitioner in partnership with one P. Praveen Kumar was carrying on mechanical, electrical and electronic engineering works in the name of Isha Engineering with effect from 22-2-200. The petitioner registered his establishment with the respondent corporation i.e. Employees State Insurance i.e ESI. It was alleged that as the firm sustained losses, the partnership was closed in the year 2011 and since then the petitioner had no contacts with the Managing Partner. The petitioner failed to pay contributions for certain years and notices were issued which were not responded.  Thus, ESI determined contribution under Section 45 ESI Act and issued order under Section 45A as none of the partners were able to bring any record regarding closure of the establishment. Despite bringing the said fact to the notice of the respondents, the respondents were insisting for payment of the said amount. As such the petitioner was constrained to file the instant Writ Petition.

Counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner had got an alternative and effective remedy under Sections 75 of ESI Act. The petitioner filed the writ petition invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court without availing the said remedy. As such the writ petition was liable to be dismissed on the above ground. It was further submitted that both the partners have overall supervision and power over the business of the firm and both of them were responsible for conducting the affairs of the business which would mean that the petitioner was not a sleeping partner. Even if the whereabouts of the Managing Partner were not known, the petitioner was the responsible person to clear the recovery dues. The respondent Corporation followed the due procedure as per the provisions of ESI Act, 1948. The petitioner failed to produce relevant documents or proof of evidence about the closure of the unit and prayed to dismiss the petition by vacating the interim order.

The Court relied on judgment Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trademarks, Mumbai, (1998) 8 SCC 1  and observed that alternative statutory remedy is not a constitutional bar to the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in at least three contingencies: (i) where the writ petition seeks enforcement of any of the fundamental rights; (ii) where there is violation of principles of natural justice; or (iii) where the order or the proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged.

The Court further observed that in the present case the writ petition is not filed for enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights nor there was any violation of the Principals of Natural Justice as show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and opportunities are provided to the petitioner to submit his written representation as well as for personal hearing, some of which were availed by him by sending his representative and some not availed by him even after receipt of notice. The order passed is not without jurisdiction nor are vires of any Act challenged in this case. The petitioner failed to produce the documentary evidence in support of his contention about closure of the firm before the concerned authorities. The petitioner directly approached this court by filing the writ petition without availing the statutory remedy of appeal provided under the Act. The High Court cannot adjudicate the disputed issues and such disputed issues are to be decided with reference to the original documents and evidences to be produced by the respective parties.

The Court thus held the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to approach the EI Court under Section 75 of the ESI Act by filing an appropriate application and the EI Court is directed to dispose of the said application in accordance with law. The respondent shall not take any coercive steps for recovery of the purported due amount from the petitioner for a period of 60 days. [C. Chandra Mohan Reddy v. UOI, Writ Petition No. 30176 OF 2021, decided on 12-04-2022]


Arunima Bose, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.

Telangana High Court
Appointments & TransfersNews

President appoints S/Shri (1) Kasoju Surendhar alias K. Surender, (2) Smt. Surepalli Nanda, (3) Mummineni Sudheer Kumar, (4) Smt. Juvvadi Sridevi alias Kuchadi Sridevi, (5) Natcharaju Shravan Kumar Venkat, (6) Smt. Gunnu Anupama Chakravarthy,(7) Smt. Maturi Girija Priyadarsini alias Priyadarshini, (8) Sambasivarao Naidu, (9) Anugu Santhosh Reddy and (10) Dr. Devaraju Nagarjun, to be Judges of the Telangana High Court, in that order of seniority, with effect from the date they assume charge of their respective offices.


Ministry of Law and Justice

[Notification dt. 24-3-2022]

Telangana High Court
Appointments & TransfersNews

President appoints S/Shri (1) Kasoju Surendhar alias K. Surender, (2) Smt. Surepalli Nanda, (3) Mummineni Sudheer Kumar, (4) Smt. Juvvadi Sridevi alias Kuchadi Sridevi, (5) Natcharaju Shravan Kumar Venkat, (6) Smt. Gunnu Anupama Chakravarthy,(7) Smt. Maturi Girija Priyadarsini alias Priyadarshini, (8) Sambasivarao Naidu, (9) Anugu SanthoshReddy and (10) Dr. Devaraju Nagarjun, to be Judges of the Telangana High Court, in that order of seniority, with effect from the date they assume charge of their respective offices.


Ministry of Law and Justice

[Notification dt. 22-3-2022]

Telangana High Court
Appointments & TransfersNews

The Supreme Court Collegium has approved the proposal for the elevation of the following persons as Judges in the Telangana High Court:

ADVOCATES:


1. Shri Kasoju Surendhar @ K. Surender,

2. Shri Chada Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy,

3. Smt. Surepalli Nanda,

4. Shri Mummineni Sudheer Kumar,

5. Smt. Juvvadi Sridevi @ Kuchadi Sridevi,

6. Shri Mirza Safiulla Baig, and

7. Shri Natcharaju Shravan Kumar Venkat.


JUDICIAL OFFICERS:


1. Smt. G. Anupama Chakravarthy,

2. Smt. M.G. Priyadarshini,

3. Shri Sambasivarao Naidu,

4. Shri A. Santosh Reddy, and

5. Dr. D. Nagarjun.


Supreme Court of India

[Collegium Statement dt. 1-2-2022]

Know thy Judge

“There should be effort to find out cases where there is possibility of settlement of cases…Serious thinking on ADR is required.”

                                                                                       Justice R. Subhash Reddy[1]


As Justice Ramayyagari Subhash Reddy prepares to bid adieu, we endeavor to take you to a trip down the memory lane of his tenure in the Supreme Court.


Travelling Back in Time 


Justice R. Subhash Reddy was born on 5th January, 1957 in an agricultural family in Kamaram Village of Chinna Shankarampet Mandal, Medak District. He did his primary education in Upper Primary School and Higher Education from Zilla Parishad High School, Sankarampet, and graduation from Andhra Vidyalaya College, Hyderabad and obtained his Degree in Law from the University College of Law, Osmania University, Hyderabad.[2]

♦Did You Know? Justice R. Subhash Reddy has deep interest in matters of philosophy, culture, music and education.[3]                                    


Career at a Glance    


              

Advocate- 1980-2002 

Justice Reddy enrolled as an advocate on 30-10-1980 in Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh and joined the Chambers of Sri Justice B. Subhashan Reddy. Post enrolment, Justice Reddy practised at Andhra Pradesh High Court, Civil Court Tribunals and Supreme Court.  

Justice Reddy’s stint as an advocate stretched over a staggering period of 22 years during which he argued on issues related to Civil, Criminal, Constitutional, Revenue, Taxation, Labour, Company and Service matters in both original and appellate side. His specialisation however was in Constitutional Law.[4] Justice Subhash Reddy was also elected unanimously as the President of the AP High Court Advocates Association for the year 2001-2002.[5]

♦Did you Know? He was Standing Counsel for premier institutions like S.V. University and Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University.[6]

The High Courts- Elevation as a Judge- 2002-2018 

On 2nd February, 2002, Justice Reddy was elevated as an Additional Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and sworn in as Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court on 24-06-2004. He was later elevated as Chief Justice of Gujarat High Court on 13th February, 2016.[7]


Notable High Court Decisions  


Andhra Pradesh High Court/ Hyderabad High Court

A.P. Civil Liberties Committee (APCLC) v. Govt. of A.P., 2009 SCC OnLine AP 50 

The 5 Judge Bench of Goda Raghuram, V.V.S. Rao, R. Subhash Reddy, Ramesh Ranghanathan and G. Bhavani Prasad, JJ., held that where a police officer causes death of a person, acting or purporting to act in discharge of official duties or in self-defense as the case may be, the first information relating to such circumstance (even when by a Police/Public Official; whether an alleged perpetrator is named or not) shall be recorded and registered as FIR, enumerating the relevant provisions of Law, (u/Sec. 154(1) Cr.P.C.) and shall be investigated (u/Sec. 156/157 Cr.P.C.).

K. Swarna Kumari v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, 2006 SCC OnLine AP 97

Re. Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, Rules 20(4) and 45(1) proviso, Full Bench of the Court comprising of T. Meena Kumari, A. Gopal Reddy, Goda Raghuram, T.CH. Surya Rao and R. Subhash Reddy, JJ., held, violation of principles of natural justice by itself is not sufficient to invalidate punishment unless a clear prejudice suffered thereby is pleaded and demonstrated.  

Gangaraju Sowmini (Dr.) v. Alavala Sudhakar Reddy, 2016 SCC OnLine Hyd 430 

The 3-Judge Bench of Before R. Subhash Reddy, G. Chandraiah and Nooty Ramamohana Rao, JJ., held that as per the language under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 r/w. Rule 2(g) of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, even the legal representatives who are non-dependants can also lay a claim for payment of compensation by making application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

Gujarat High Court 

Bar Council of Gujarat v. Jalpa Pradeepbhai Desai, 2016 SCC OnLine Guj 5080 

While dismissing an appeal filed by a respondent petitioner who applied for a certificate of practice to the Bar Council of Gujarat while simultaneously rendering services at a corporation, the Division Bench of R. Subhash Reddy, CJ and Vipul M. Pancholi, J said that an advocate who works as a full-time salaried employee of any person, government, firm, corporation or concern, is not entitled to grant of certificate of practice under the Advocates Act, 1961 in view of Rule 49 of the Bar Council of India Rules.

Read More


Prati Shailesh Patel v. State of Gujarat, 2016 SCC OnLine Guj 1909 

While dealing with the constitutionality of Gujarat Professional Medical Educational Colleges or Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fees) (Amendment) Ordinance, 2016, the bench comprising of R. Subhash Reddy, CJ and Vipul M. Pancholi, J. quashed the Ordinance to the extent of removing genuine NRI/NRI proper i.e. children or wards of the Non-Resident Indian from the quota in medical colleges.

Read More


Dayaram Khemkaran Verma v. State of Gujarat, 2016 SCC OnLine Guj 1821

While dealing with the constitutionality of the Gujarat Unreserved Economically Weaker Sections (Reservation of Seats in Educational Institutions in the State and of Appointments and Posts in services under the State) Ordinance, 2016 providing reservation of seats in the educational institutions in the State and of appointments and posts in the services under the State in favour of the Economically Weaker Sections of unreserved categories, the bench comprising of R. Subhash Reddy CJ., and Vipul M. Pancholi, J. held the Ordinance unconstitutional and contrary to fundamental rights.

Read More                                 


THE SUPREME COURT- 2018-2022


On 1st November, 2018, the Ministry of Law and Justice notified the appointment of Justice R. Subhash Reddy to the Supreme Court of India by the President[8] and on 2nd November, 2018, Justice Reddy assumed charge of his office as a Judge of Supreme Court.[9]

♦Did You Know? Justice Reddy is the first Judge from the newly carved State of Telangana to become a Judge of the Supreme Court.[10] 


 Notable Judgments 


Kantaru Rajeevaru (Right to Religion, In re-9 J.) v. Indian Young Lawyers Assn., (2020) 2 SCC 52 

The 9-judge bench of SA Bobde, CJ and R Banumathi, Ashok Bhushan, L Nageswara Rao, M M Shantanagoudar, S A Nazeer, R Subhash Reddy, B R Gavai and Surya Kant, JJ, while framing seven issues in the Sabrimala reference, opined that the same can be refered to a larger bench in its Review jurisdiction.

Read More


Shah Faesal v. Union of India, (2020) 4 SCC 1 

In a writ petition filled under Article 32 of the Constitution of India pertaining to two Constitution Orders issued by the President of India in exercise of his powers under Article 370 of the Constitution of India, a Full judge Constitution bench of NV Ramana, SK Kaul, R. Subhash Reddy, BR Gavai and Surya Kant, JJ, held that no cause was made out to refer the matter to a larger bench as there is no conflict between the judgments in the Prem Nath Kaul v. State of J & K, AIR 1959 SC 749 and the Sampat Prakash v. State of J & K, AIR 1970 SC 1118. The Court observed that-

Judgments cannot be interpreted in a vacuum, separate from their facts and context. Observations made in a judgment cannot be selectively picked in order to give them a particular meaning.”

Read More 


Foundation for Media Professionals v. UT of J&K, (2020) 5 SCC 746

“National security concerns and human rights must be reasonably and defensibly adjusted with one another, in line with the constitutional principles.” 

A 3-judge bench of NV Ramana, R Subhash Reddy and BR Gavai JJ., observed that

While it might be desirable and convenient to have better internet in the present circumstances, wherein there is a world wide pandemic and a national lockdown. However, the fact that outside forces are trying to infiltrate the borders and destabilize the integrity of the nation, as well as cause incidents resulting in the death of innocent citizens and security forces every day cannot be ignored.” 

and directed the constitution of a Special Committee comprising Secretaries of the Union Ministry of Home Affairs and Department of Communications, Ministry of Communications and the Chief Secretary of Jammu & Kashmir to review 4G connectivity in Jammu & Kashmir as 2G service available in the Union Territory is not sufficient for education and business purposes.

Read More…


Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, 

The Bench of Indu Malhotra and R. Subhash Reddy, JJ., framed guidelines on the issue of maintenance of wife, covering overlapping jurisdiction under different enactments for payment of maintenance, payment of Interim Maintenance, the criteria for determining the quantum of maintenance, the date from which maintenance is to be awarded, and enforcement of orders of maintenance.

Read More


R. Natarajan v. State of T.N., (2021) 7 SCC 204

In an appeal regarding dowry death case the Division Bench of Navin Sinha and R. Subhash Reddy, JJ., granted acquittal to an old aged couple. Opining that the Courts below had failed to consider the evidences available on the standard of “beyond reasonable doubt” The Bench stated,

“Conviction of the appellants was not maintainable on a probability in absence of direct evidence. The benefit of doubt ought to have been given to the appellants.”

Read More


State of Kerala v. Leesamma Joseph, (2021) 9 SCC 208

Dealing with the issue relating to the right of promotion under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, the bench of Sanjay Kishan Kaul and R. Subhash Reddy, JJ., held that a person with disability should be considered for promotion along with other persons working in the feeder cadre. The Court explained that the mandate of Section 32 of the 1995 Act enjoins the government to identify posts that can be filled up with persons with disability. Thus, even posts in promotional cadre have to be identified for PwD and such posts have to be reserved for PwD. The identification of such posts is no doubt a prerequisite for reservation in promotion for PwD.

Read More 


Sk. Ahmed v. State of Telangana, (2021) 9 SCC 59

The bench of Ashok Bhushan and R. Subhash Reddy, JJ., laid down the essential ingredients required to be proved by prosecution to convict an accused under Section 364A IPC, i.e. kidnapping for ransom.

Read More


Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, (2020) 3 SCC 637

“Liberty and security have always been at loggerheads. The question before us, simply put, is what do we need more, liberty or security?” 

A 3-judge bench comprising of NV Ramana, R Subhash Reddy and BR Gavai JJ, directed the J&K administration to review all orders imposing curbs on telecom and internet services in the state and put them in public domain.

The Court held that the freedom of speech and expression and freedom to carry on any trade, business or occupation over the medium of internet is embodied under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

The Court also observed that suspension of the internet should only be for a reasonable duration and periodic review should be done on it. The Prohibitory orders  passed under Section 144 CrPC cannot be imposed to suppress legitimate expression of opinion or grievance or exercise of any democratic rights.

As emergency does not shield the actions of Government completely; disagreement does not justify destabilisation; the beacon of rule of law shines always.”

Read More…


Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India [EWS Reservation], 2020 SCC OnLine SC 624

Without looking into the merit of the case on the validity of impugned amendments i.e. Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019 which provides for grant of 10% quota to Economically Weaker Sections (EWSs) in jobs and admissions in the general category, a 3-judge bench comprising of S.A. Bobde CJ., R. Subhash Reddy and B.R. Gavai JJ., only examined whether the petitions involve a substantial question of law or not.

The Court held that the said amendments run contrary to the judgment in case of Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 as it exceeds the ceiling cap of 50%, therefore, involves a substantial question of law which is to be examined by a Bench of 5-Judges as per Article 145(3) of the Constitution of India read with Order XXXVIII Rule 1(1) of the Supreme Court of Rules, 2013.

Whether the impugned Amendment Act violates basic structure of the Constitution, by applying the tests of ‘width’ and ‘identity’ with reference to equality provisions of the Constitution, is a matter which constitutes substantial question of law within the meaning of the provisions as referred above. Further, on the plea of ceiling of 50% for affirmative action, it is the case of the respondent-Union of India that though ordinarily 50% is the rule but same will not prevent to amend the Constitution itself in view of the existing special circumstances to uplift the members of the society belonging to economically weaker sections.

Read More… 


Abhilasha v. Parkash, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 736 

“The maintenance as contemplated under Act, 1956 is a larger concept as compared to concept of maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.” 

A 3-judge bench of Ashok Bhushan, R Subash Reddy and MR Shah, JJ., held that an unmarried Hindu daughter can claim maintenance from her father till she is married, relying on Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions & Maintenance Act, 1956, provided she pleads and proves that she is unable to maintain herself.

The right of unmarried daughter under Section 20 to claim maintenance from her father when she is unable to maintain herself is absolute and the right given to unmarried daughter under Section 20 is right granted under personal law, which can very well be enforced by her against her father.” 

The Court upheld the order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class as well as learned Additional Magistrate because the application was filed under Section 125 CrPC and while deciding proceedings under Section 125 CrPC, Judicial Magistrate First Class could not have exercised the jurisdiction under Section 20(3) of Act, 1956.

Read More…


Praneeth K v. University Grants Commission, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 688 

While upholding the validity of the revised University Grants Commission (UGC) guidelines dated July 6, 2020, a 3-judge bench of Ashok Bhushan, R Subhash Reddy and MR Shah, JJ., held that the State/State Disaster Management Authority’s decision to promote the students in the final year/terminal semester on the basis of previous performance and internal assessment is beyond the jurisdiction of Disaster Management Act, 2005 and they cannot promote students without holding final year university examinations amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

When the State Disaster Management Authority and State Government take a decision that for mitigation or prevention of disaster it is not possible to hold physical examination in the State, the said decision was within the four corners of Disaster Management Act, 2005. However, the decision of the Disaster Management Authority or the State Government that students should be promoted without appearing in the final year/terminal semester examination, is not within the domain of the Disaster Management Act, 2005.

Read More… 


Rakesh Kumar Agarwalla v. National Law School of India University, (2021) 1 SCC 539 

 “Different National Law Universities have been established by different statues and have statutory functions and obligations to achieve a common purpose and to give a boost to legal education in the country.” 

A 3-judge bench of Ashok Bhushan, R Subhash Reddy and MR Shah, JJ., quashed the National Law Aptitude Exam (NLAT) conducted by National Law School of India University (NLSIU), Bengaluru and directed the admission of students in NLSIU has to be necessarily through Common Law Admission Test (CLAT).

CLAT being an All India Examination for different National Law Universities has achieved its own importance and prominence in legal education. The steps taken by National Law Universities to form a Consortium and to cooperate with each other in conduct of CLAT is towards discharge of their public duty entrusted under the different statutes. The duty to uphold its integrity lies on the shoulder of each and every member.”

Read More… 


Pravasi Legal Cell v. Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 799 

“We cannot lose sight of the present situation prevailing in the country and across the globe” 

A 3-judge bench of Ashik Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy, JJ observed that Strict enforcement of Civil Aviation Requirements at this moment may not yield any meaningful result for any stake holderand directed refund of air-fare during the lockdown period, when domestic and international flights’ operation was suspended.

Read More…


Ashwani Kumar v. Union of India, (2020) 8 SCC 808 

The bench of Ashok Bhushan and R. Subhash Reddy, JJ has directed that all old age people who are eligible for pension should be regularly paid pension and those identified older people should be provided necessary medicines, masks, sanitizers and other essential goods by respective States.

Read More 


XYZ v. State of Gujarat, (2019) 10 SCC 337 

“Whether in a given case power under Section 482 is to be exercised or not, depends on the contents of the complaint, and the material placed on record.” 

A 3-judge bench of UU Lalit, Indu Malhotra and R. Subhash Reddy, JJ, hearing an appeal against the verdict of Gujarat High Court that quashed the criminal proceedings against a man accused for sexually assaulting and blackmailing his employee, held that exercise of inherent powers of High Court under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 to quash FIR, when there are serious triable allegations in complaint is bad in law.

Justice Reddy opined that

where sexual intercourse by the accused is proved and the question is whether it was without the consent of the woman alleged to have been raped, and such woman states in her evidence before the Court that she did not consent, the court shall presume that she did not consent.

Read More…


Skill Lotto Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 990 

The 3-judge bench of Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy and MR Shah, JJ has upheld the constitutionality of imposition of GST on lotteries, betting and gambling. The Bench further held that while determining the taxable value of lottery the prize money is not to be excluded for the purpose of levy of GST.

Read More 


Krishna Lal Chawla v. State of U.P., (2021) 5 SCC 435 

The Division Bench of Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and R. Subhash Reddy, JJ., addressed the instant case dealing with vexatious complaint. The Bench, while expressing concern over such practises emphasised over the need of scrutinising such complaints at its initiation.

Read More 


Khushi Ram v. Nawal Singh, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 128 

The bench of Ashok Bhushan and R. Subhash Reddy, JJ., has held that when heirs of father of a female are included as person who can possibly succeed, it cannot be held that they are strangers and not the members of the family qua the female. The Court also held that consent decree recognising pre-existing rights created by oral family settlement does not require registration under Section 17 of Registration Act, 1908.

Read More  


Soorajmull Nagarmull v. Brijesh Mehrotra, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1252

The Division Bench of R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ., held that once the fresh notification is issued by the State for land acquisition, no cause of action survive on previous notification and actions taken therein, when that proceeding is declared lapsed. Quoting the case of R.N. Dey v. Bhagyabati Pramanik, (2000) 4 SCC 400, the Bench stated,

“Discretion given to the court in dealing with the proceedings under Contempt of Courts Act is to be exercised for maintenance of court’s dignity and majesty of law and further an aggrieved party has no right to insist that court should exercise such jurisdiction, inasmuch as contempt is between contemner and the court.”

Read More


Parveen v. State of Haryana, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1184 

The bench of R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ., held that the confessional statements of the co-accused, in absence of other acceptable corroborative evidence, are not enough to convict an accused for conspiracy.

Read More 


State of Bihar v. Arbind Jee, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 821 

The bench of R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ., held that retrospective seniority cannot be claimed from a date when an employee is not even borne in service.

Read More 


Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Private Ltd. v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 418 

The bench of Sanjay Kishan Kaul and R. Subhash Reddy, JJ issued directions with respect to motor vehicle accident claims and observed that the Central Government shall develop an online platform accessible to the tribunals, police authorities and insurers throughout India, as each State having an independent online platform for submission of accident reports, claims and responses to claims, will hamper efficient adjudication of claims, especially where the victim of the accident is not a resident of State where accident has occurred.

Read More 


Ishwari Lal Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2019) 10 SCC 437

A 3-judge bench comprising of R. F. Nariman, Surya Kant and R. Subhash Reddy JJ., placing reliance on the case of Sushil Murmu v. State of Jharkhand: (2004) 2 SCC 338, opined that this case fulfils the test of rarest of rare cases as it involved gruesome murder for human sacrifice of 2 yr old boy.

Justice Reddy observed that Having regard to age of the accused, they were not possessed of the basic humanness, they completely lacked the psyche or mindset which can be amenable for any reformation.”  

The Court also placed emphasised on extra-judicial confession and opined that

It is true that extrajudicial confession, is a weak piece of evidence but at the same time if the same is corroborated by other evidences on record, such confession can be taken into consideration to prove the guilt of the accused.” 


Thingujam Achouba Singh v. H. Nabachandra Singh, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 370

“The eligibility criteria will be within the domain of the employer and no candidate can seek as a matter of right, to provide relaxation clause.” 

A Division Bench headed by R. Subhash Reddy J., while quashing the order of the High Court of Manipur by which the advertisement dated 16.08.2016 was quashed, held that to provide relaxation clause in eligibility criteria is within the domain of the employer and High Court has not power to provide a relaxation which is not notified in the advertisement.

While it is open for the employer to notify such criteria for relaxation when sufficient candidates are not available, at the same time nobody can claim such relaxation as a matter of right.” 


Notable Dissents 


Ravi v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 9 SCC 622

“A civic society has a `fundamental’ and `human’ right to live free from any kind of psycho fear, threat, danger or insecurity at the hands of anti-social elements.”

A 3-judge bench comprising of R. F. Nariman, Surya Kant and R. Subhash Reddy JJ., following the judgment in the case of California v. Ramos, 463 U.S. 992 where it was observed that “qualitative difference of death from all other punishments requires a correspondingly greater degree of scrutiny of the capital sentencing determination” and upheld (2:1) the death penalty awarded to an accused for rape and murder of a two- year old girl. The Court observed that the Sentencing Policy needs to strike a balance between (a) deterrent effect and (b) complete reformation for integration of the offender.  

Justice R. Subhash Reddy dissenting on the question of sentence noted that, I am of the view that, this is not a fit case where the appellant is to be awarded capital punishment, i.e, death penalty. According to him the mitigating circumstances of the Appellant dominated the aggravating circumstances and that there is no proof to show that reform or rehabilitation of the convict is not possible. Moreover, the conviction is solely based on circumstantial evidence, if no special reasons exist, the extreme punishment of death penalty should not be imposed.

Relying on the judgement in the case of Jagmohan Singh v. State of U.P., (1973) 1 SCC 20 and Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1979) 3 SCC 727, Justice Reddy observed that

In the aforesaid judgment, while considering the scope of Section 235(2) read with Section 354(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court has held that, in fixing the degree of punishment or in making the choice of sentence for various offences, including one under Section 302 IPC, the Court should not confine its consideration “principally or merely” to the circumstances connected with the particular crime, but also due consideration to the circumstances of the criminal. However, it is observed that, what is the relative weight to be given to the aggravating and mitigating factors, depends on facts and circumstances of each case.” 


† Sucheta Sarkar, Editorial Assistant, EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd. 

[1] Session 9 – ADR Mechanism and Role of Judges, Regional Judicial Conference on Strengthening Justice Delivery System: Tools & Techniques, Organized by Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, Karnataka Judicial Academy and National Judicial Academy 27th February, 2015 to 1st March, 2015.

[2] Supreme Court, Chief Justice and Judges

[3] Sri Justice R. Subhash Reddy, Telangana High Court

[4] SC Observer, Justice R. Subhash Reddy

[5][ Sri Justice R. Subhash Reddy, Telangana High Court

[6] Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.Subhash Reddy, Gujarat High Court

[7]Supreme Court, Chief Justice and Judges

[8] Ministry of Law and Justice, Order of Appointment

[9] Supreme Court, Chief Justice and Judges

[10]The New Indian Express, Subhash Reddy to join Supreme Court

Telangana High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Telangana High Court: Division Bench of Satish Chandra Sharma, CJ and B. Vijaysen Reddy, J. decides whether an educational institution is covered within the meaning and definition ‘establishment’ under the Telangana Shops and Establishments Act, 1988.

Factual Matrix

Appellant institution was undisputedly an educational institution, and the respondent 3/employee was appointed in the year 1985 as an attender and tendered resignation in 2009 and service dues were also settled.

Basic Question to be answered:

Whether an educational institution is covered within the meaning and definition ‘establishment’ as defined under Section 2(10) of the Telangana Shops and Establishments Act, 1988?

Analysis, Law and Decision

It was stated that undisputedly, the institution in question was governed by the provisions of the Telangana Education Act, 1982 and the said Act provides for redressal of grievance of the nature involved in the present writ appeal.

Further, it was added that whether an educational institution falls within the meaning of ‘establishment’ or not, has been looked into by the Supreme Court in the case of Ruth Soren v. Managing Committee, (2001) 2 SCC 115. In the said case, a similar definition under the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act, 1953 was considered.

Supreme Court keeping in view the definition ‘establishment’ under the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act, which is similar to the definition under the Telangana Shops and Establishment Act held that an educational institution does not fall within the scope of establishment under the Act and therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court once the Supreme Court has held that an educational institution is not an establishment, though it may fall within the meaning ‘industry’, but will certainly not fall within the meaning and term ‘establishment’.

Therefore, order passed by the appellate authority was set aside.

Once this Court is of the view that this Court has arrived at a conclusion that the order passed by respondent 2 was without jurisdiction, this Court can certainly interfere with the same even though there is an alternative remedy of appeal before the Deputy Commissioner of labour.

Hence, writ appeal was allowed. [St Anns College for Women v. State of Telangana, 2021 SCC OnLine TS 1448, decided on 12-11-2021]


Advocates before the Court:

Petitioner Advocate: K V Bhanu Prasad

Respondent Advocate: GP for Labour TG

Telangana High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Telangana High Court: K. Lakshman, J., while addressing a very pertinent issue expressed that,

Intention of the Legislature is to reduce the accidents and deaths that may be caused due to driving of vehicles in intoxicated condition, and it is not the intention to harass the owners of the vehicles by detaining the vehicles for days together.

 What has been challenged?

Power of police officers to seize the vehicle from its driver/rider, who is in an intoxicated condition.

Analysis, Law and Decision

High Court while analysing the submissions stated that as per Section 185(b) of the MV Act, 1988, whoever, while driving, or attempting to drive, a motor vehicle, is under the influence of drug to such an extent as to be incapable of exercising proper control over the vehicle, is punishable. Therefore, driving a vehicle in an intoxicated condition is an offence. Thus, a person in an intoxicated condition is barred from driving a vehicle.

As per Section 202(1) of the Act, 1988 if the police officer finds a person driving the vehicle in an intoxicated condition and if he/she considers that such person is not capable of driving the vehicle under such condition, he/she may detain or take steps for the temporary disposal of the vehicle.

Court in view of the Act, 1988, the Telangana Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 stated that the Police Officers do not have the power to detain/seize the vehicles on the ground that the person driving the vehicle was found in an intoxicated condition.

Bench explained that, for instance, a person drives the vehicle alone and Police Officer finds him in an intoxicated condition and that such person is unable to drive the vehicle, then the Police Officer has the power to seize the certificate of registration and can detain/seize the vehicle and keep it in a nearest police station/appropriate place for safe custody. At the same time, it is the duty of the Police Officer to release the said vehicle either to the owner or to any authorized person who is not in drunken condition and who is in a position to drive the vehicle and holds a valid license. If there are two persons present in the car, the person driving the vehicle found in an intoxicated condition and the other person has a valid driving license and is found not in intoxicated condition and in a position to drive the vehicle, then the police shall not seize/detain the vehicle and permit the other person to drive the vehicle.

High Court elaborated further observing that Police Officers do not have the power to detain/seize the vehicles under Sections – 19 (1) (f), 185, 206, 207 of the Act, 1988 and Rule 21 (16) of the Central Rules. They have to release the vehicle in terms of Rule – 448A of the T.S. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.

Bench also noted the Supreme Court decision of S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India, (2018) 13 SCC 516, wherein while considering the steep increase in the accidents and deaths due to driving of vehicles by the drivers in intoxication condition has issued several directives.

It was brought to the notice of this Court that the Senior Officials of the State are building up pressure on the officials of the Prohibition & Excise Department, Telangana State, to collect more revenue by sale of liquor. The said officials have also been building up pressure to collect more revenue through ‘drunk and drive’ by imposing challans.

Bench stated that the above approach of the State is not appreciable.

High Court expressed that,

It is the fundamental duty of the citizens to take all precautions to avoid road accidents and deaths and also to follow the guidelines issued by the State and the Central Governments from time to time on ‘road safety’.

Conclusion

Bench expressed that this Court had previously held that under the MV Act the Police Officers do not have the power to take custody of the vehicle driven under intoxicated condition and directed the authorities/officials who have custody of the vehicle in question to release the same on the production of certificate of registration relating to the said vehicle and on production of proof of identity and also a valid driving license.

Court issued the following directions to the Police Authorities:

(a) If the driver/rider of the vehicle is found under the influence of alcohol, he/she should not be allowed to drive the vehicle. However, if the police finds another person accompanying the driver/rider not in an intoxicated condition and having a valid driving license, shall permit such person to drive the vehicle without seizing/ detaining the vehicle, subject to Section 202 of the M.V. Act, 1988;

(b) If there is no other person other than the person who drives the vehicle in an intoxicated condition, then the concerned Police Officer or the intoxicated driver shall immediately inform any nearest relative or friend to take back the custody of the vehicle;

(c) If no one comes to take back the custody of the vehicle, then the concerned Police Official shall temporarily take possession of the vehicle, and keep the vehicle in the nearest police station or any other appropriate authorized place for safe custody. However, it is made clear that the Police do not have power to detain/seize vehicle on the ground that its driver/rider drove it in an intoxicated condition.

(d) The Police or any other Official who has the custody of such vehicle shall release the same either to the owner or any authorized person on production of certificate of registration (RC) of the said vehicle, proof of identity and a valid driving license;

(e) If the concerned Police come to a conclusion that prosecution of driver or owner or both is necessary, he shall file charge sheet against him/them before the concerned Magistrate within three (03) days from the date of seizure of vehicle. The vehicle shall be released by the Officer who detained it after prosecution is completed under intimation to the concerned Regional Transport Authorities;

(f) Magistrates are directed to receive the charge sheets within three (03) days from the date of seizure in compliance of Rule – 448-A (iv) of the Telangana State Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 if the charge sheets are otherwise in order.

(g) The Police Officers of the State are directed to strictly follow the procedure laid down under Rule – 448-A of the T.S. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.

(h) If no one claims the custody of the vehicle, the police shall take necessary steps in accordance with law;

(i) Any breach of the above directives will amount to Contempt and necessary proceedings will be initiated against the concerned Police.

In view of the above, petitions were disposed of. [Prannoy Pandy v. State of Telangana, 2021 SCC OnLine TS 1426, decided on 29-10-2021]


Advocates before the Court:

For the Petitioner: P SHASHI KIRAN

Telangana High Court
Appointments & TransfersNews

Justice Kanneganti Lalitha Kumari, Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court transferred as Judge of the Telangana High Court.


Ministry of Law and Justice

[Notification dt. 28-10-2021]

Telangana High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Telangana High Court: Expressing that, A woman has the right to make choice to carry pregnancy, at the same time, it’s her right not to carry the pregnancy, subject to conditions and restrictions enumerated under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, B. Vijaysen Reddy, J., permitted termination of pregnancy of a 16-year-old girl though the gestation period crossed 24 weeks.

Instant petition was filed by a 16-year-old girl through her natural guardian seeking direction to respondent 4 to terminate her pregnancy medically, as per the provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 and as amended in 2021.

Factual Background

It was stated that the 16-year-old girl was sexually exploited by one of her extended family members further she was also threatened and emotionally abused with dire consequences.

Due to not keeping good health, she was taken for a medical checkup to respondent 4/hospital and as directed by the said hospital on approaching another hospital she was diagnosed with foetus of 25 weeks.

On enquiry by the parents, petitioner stated that she was threatened with dire consequences and the accused threatened to kill her mother. FIR was registered for the offences under Sections 376 (2) and 506 of Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 6 read with 5 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

Medical Opinion

It was submitted that there was a threat to the physical and mental health of the petitioner, aged 16 years, as the formation of foetus is not a choice but purely circumstantial, as the pregnancy is the result of sexual assault and rape. The petitioner at her tender age is not in a position to bear the child physically, mentally and financially. Considering the situation of the petitioner, who is in dire need of protection and dependency, she is not in a stage to bear or nourish the foetus.

Law

The upper limit for medical termination of pregnancy prior to the 2021 amendments was 20 weeks, which has been extended to 24 weeks.

Court had directed the Medical Board to submit a report after examining the petitioner.

Analysis and Decision

As per the Medical Board, the gestational age of foetus was 26 to 27 weeks and expected date of delivery was 6-1-2022.

Further, the Medical Board certified that the petitioner was fit for termination of pregnancy, however, it was stated that there may be medical complications like bleeding and petitioner may be subjected to surgical procedure, which required anesthesia.

However, it was noted that under Explanation 2 to Section 3(2) of the Act of 2021, there was a presumption that anguish caused to the rape victim by pregnancy shall be presumed to constitute a grave injury to the mental health of the pregnant woman.

Court stated that,

Though there is restriction under the statute for terminating pregnancy, if the gestation of foetus is more than 24 weeks, it is settled law that the Constitutional Courts are empowered to direct termination of pregnancy.

Adding to the above, Bench observed that if the petitioner is compelled to continue with pregnancy caused by rape, it would infringe her right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

If the petitioner is not permitted to terminate the pregnancy, there is every possibility of the petitioner undergoing severe physical and mental stress, which may have adverse effect on her future health and prospects.

 In Court’s opinion, the life of the foetus or to be born child cannot be placed at higher pedestal than that of the life of the petitioner.

Right of Woman to make Choice of Pregnancy and Terminate pregnancy

 Dignity, self-respect, healthy living etc., are facets of right to life and personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which also include right of a woman to make a choice of pregnancy and terminate pregnancy, in case, where pregnancy is caused by rape or sexual abuse or for that matter unplanned pregnancy, subject to reasonable restrictions under law.

 Therefore, in view of the above petition was allowed. [xxxx v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine TS 1345, decided on 5-10-2021]


Advocates before the Court:

Petitioner Advocate: Katta Sravya

Respondent Advocate: Namavarapu Rajeshwar Raoassgi

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: A Division Bench of Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh, JJ. dismissed a writ petition filed by an advocate seeking to stall elevation of a judicial officer as a Judge of the Telangana High Court. The Supreme Court said that the petition was a gross abuse of the process of law and imposed costs of Rs 5 lakh on the petitioner.

The petitioner, B. Sailesh Saxena, is an advocate enrolled with the Bar Council of Telangana since the year 2000. He filed the instant petition seeking a writ of mandamus or an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Union of India, State of Telangana and Registrar (Vigilance & Administration) of the Telangana High Court to consider his representation and take necessary action as per law. In effect, the petitioner stated that the recommendation of Venkateswara Reddy, Registrar General of the Telangana High Court should not be processed for elevation as a Judge of the High Court. The petitioner made various allegations against the Registrar General and other persons.

Proceedings before the High Court

The Supreme Court took notice of the writ petition filed by the petitioner before the Hyderabad High Court which was decided vide B. Sailesh Saxena v. Union of India, 2018 SCC OnLine Hyd 267. The Supreme Court discussed the ramifications of that judgment.

In that petition, the petitioner claimed that he was a legal advisor for the family of a Member of Parliament and legal counsel for other politically connected persons. He claimed to have suffered on account of political prejudices as the petitioner and his family members were being subjected to torture due to harassment by police authorities. The High Court had noted that there are various criminal complaints pending investigation against the petitioner himself. One such complaint was lodged by the Registrar General (whose elevation as a Judge the petitioner was now trying to stall) in his capacity as the then Registrar (Judicial), pursuant to a direction issued by the High Court. The allegation was that the petitioner had filed writ petitions on behalf of fictitious non-existent persons.

The case of the petitioner before the High Court was that multiple FIRs were being filed with a view to harass the petitioner, and the complaint registered at the instance of the Registrar pursuant to the direction of the Court would also fall in the same category. The High Court was of the opinion that the Registrar as a responsible officer only followed the direction passed by the High Court and, thus, what the petitioner attempted to do was to derail the course of investigation in the complaints lodged against him.

The instant writ petition

The Supreme Court said that it was surprised at the brazenness of the petitioner now filing a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. It was observed:

“We are surprised as the brazenness of the petitioner now filing the present petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, the aforesaid being the finding against him, to now somehow see that the elevation of [the Registrar General] does not take place on the account of these proceedings initiated by the petitioner. This is gross abuse of process of law.”

Observing that there exist sufficient safeguards in the system for appointment of Judges to the High Court, the Supreme Court explained:

“The process of appointment of judges to the High Court is under a well known established process where the collegium of the High Court considers recommending the names and in case of judicial officers by seniority and on merits. Thereafter, the proposed IB inputs and other inputs are obtained and the Government processes the names. The collegium of the Supreme Court has the benefit of all the material before taking a call on whether to recommend the name or not. The appointment takes place thereafter by issuance of warrants of appointment. “

Conclusion

The Supreme Court considered the endeavour of the petitioner as one of harassing the Registrar General of the Telangana High Court and abusing the court proceedings. The Court was of the view that since nothing else seem to deter the petitioner in such endeavours, imposition of costs seems to be the only solution.

The Court dismissed the writ petition with costs of Rs 5 lakh to be deposited by the petitioner with the Supreme Court Advocates On Record Welfare Fund. Additionally, the Bar Council of Telangana was directed to examine the petitioner’s conduct as a member of the “noble profession”. [B. Sailesh Saxena v. Union of India, WP (Civil) No. 555 of 2020, decided on 3-9-2021]


Advocates before the Court:

For Petitioner(s):

V. Chidambresh, Sr. Adv.

Aakash Sirohi, AOR

Telangana High Court
Appointments & TransfersNews

Appointment of Acting Chief Justice


President appoints Justice Mamidanna Satya Ratna Sri Ramachandra Rao, senior-most Judge of Telangana High Court, to perform the duties of the office of the Chief Justice of that High Court with effect from the date Kumari Justice Hima Kohli relinquishes the charge as Chief Justice of the Telangana High Court consequent upon her appointment as Judge of the Supreme Court of India.


Ministry of Law and Justice

[Notification dt. 27-8-2021]

Telangana High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Telangana High Court: G. Sri Devi, J., rejected a bail application on noting the fact that a minor girl was continuously sexually assaulted by her mother’s live-in partner resulting in her getting pregnant.

Instant criminal petition under Section 437 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was filed by the petitioner/A-2 to release her on bail for the offences under Sections 376(2)(f)(n), 376(3), 342 and 50 of the Penal Code, 1860.

Analysis, Law and Decision

Bench noted that the petitioner/A-2 after the death of her husband had developed intimacy with A-1 and both the petitioner and A-1 were staying together by maintaining a live-in-relationship.

Further, it was noted that the petitioner allowed A-1 to commit sexual assault on her minor daughter, as a result of which her minor daughter, due to a continuous assault upon her by A-1 became pregnant and also gave birth to a male child. After giving birth, also the victim became pregnant twice and A-1 gave pills to her for abortion. The DNA test also revealed that A-1 is the biological father of the male child born to the victim girl.

In view of the above nature of allegations levelled against the petitioner, which were grave and heinous in nature, Court rejected the bail application of the petitioner.

High Court while dismissing the criminal petition, stated that since the charge sheet was already submitted, the trial court was directed to commence and conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible.[Shabana Begum v. State of Telangana, CRLP 4703 of 2021, decided on 3-08-2021]


Advocates before the Court:

Petitioner Advocate: Ramani Vemuganti

Respondent Advocate: Public Prosecutor TG

Telangana High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Telangana High Court: K. Lakshman, J., refused to quash a subsequent complaint filed by the wife against her husband (and others), where a prior complaint alleging offence under Section 498-A Penal Code, 1860 was already pending.

Instant criminal petition was filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Petitioners were accused of offences under Sections 498-A, 494 and 506 of Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

Respondent 2 had registered a crime against petitioner 1/husband of respondent 2 for the offence under Section 498-A IPC.

Allegations against the petitioners were that during the subsistence of the marriage with petitioner 1 and respondent 2, petitioner 1 married petitioner 6 with the help of petitioner 2 to 5 and therefore, they committed the offence punishable under Section 494 IPC.

Petitioner submitted that during the pendency of the first complaint, registration of the second complaint with regard to the very same allegations between the very same parties is not maintainable. He has also placed reliance on the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Arnab Ranjan Goswami v. Union of India, (2020) 14 SCC 12

Analysis, Law and Decision

Bench noted that in the first complaint, the allegation of respondent 2 was with regard to the harassment by petitioner 1 demanding additional dowry.

Whereas in the second complaint, allegation against the petitioners was that during the subsistence of marriage, petitioner 1 married petitioner 6 and petitioners 2 to 5 assisted them in getting the said marriage. Hence, they committed “bigamy” punishable under Section 494 IPC.

Considering the fact that there are matrimonial disputes pending between petitioner 1 and respondent 2, and also considering the punishment prescribed for the offences alleged against the petitioners, the criminal petition was disposed of directing the Investigating Officer to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 41-A CrPC and also the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273.

[B. Vikram Singh v. State of Telangana, Criminal Petition No. 4130 of 2021, decided on 3-06-2021]

Telangana High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Telangana High Court: K. Lakshman, J., allowed a criminal petition and quashed a criminal case filed against the petitioner-accused as the ingredients of the alleged offence were lacking in the contents of the charge sheet.

Present criminal petition was filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Petitioner was accused of offences under Section 498-A Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

The only allegation against accused 4 was that he stayed with the daughter of respondent 1/victim along with accused 1, cousin of the petitioner and during that period, accused 4 supported and instigated the accused and abused daughter of respondent 1, though he was in no way concerned.

It was submitted that petitioner/accused 4 was unnecessarily implicated as he had nothing to do with the matrimonial life of the victim and accused 1.

Supreme Court in the decision of Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667, dealt with Section 498-A IPC as to social responsibility and obligations to maintain social fibre of family life.

In another decision, Supreme Court in Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P., (2012) 10 SCC 741, it was held that mere casual reference of names of family members in a matrimonial dispute without allegation of active involvement in the matter would not justify taking cognizance against them overlooking the fact borne out of experience that there is a tendency to involve the entire family members of the household in the domestic quarrel taking place in a matrimonial dispute specifically if it happens soon after the wedding. It is further held that even if there are allegations of overt act indicating the complicity of the members of the family named in the First Information Report in a given case, cognizance would be unjustified but if the First Information Report does not disclose specific allegation against the accused more so, against the co-accused specifically in a matter arising out of matrimonial bickering, it would be a clear abuse of the legal and judicial process to mechanically send the named accused in the First Information Report to undergo the trial unless of course, the First Information Report discloses specific allegations which would persuade the Court to take cognizance of the offence alleged against the relatives of the main accused who are prima facie not found to have indulged in physical and mental torture of the complainant wife.

In Rajesh Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2018) 10 SCC 472, the Supreme Court, considering the misuse of Section 498-A IPC and remedial measures etc., gave certain directions.

Bench stated that in view of the above-stated law laid down by the Supreme Court, the name of the petitioner/A4 was not there in the complaint. In the Charge Sheet, there was no mention of the basis on which the name of the petitioner was shown.

Court stated that the only allegation against the petitioner was that he stayed with accused 1 and victim in a flat and had supported and instigated accused and also abused victim, even though he was in no way concerned.

Hence, there was no mention of the alleged harassment of the victim by the petitioner/accused 4.

Petitioner/A.4 stayed for about 1 ½ year and during that period he used to support and instigate A.1 to abuse the victim. Thus, even in the statement of victim, there was no mention of the alleged harassment of the victim by the petitioner/A.4.

In view of the above discussion, ingredients of Section 498-A IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the DP Act were lacking in the contents of the charge sheet. Therefore, Court opined that proceedings against petitioner/A4 cannot be continued and were liable to be quashed. [Gundapaneni Rakesh v. Thatiparthi Jithender, 2021 SCC OnLine TS 677, decided on 01-06-2021]


Advocates before the Court:

For Petitioner: K. Venu Madhav

For Respondent 1: A. Prabhakar Rao

For Respondent 2: Assistant Public Prosecutor

Telangana High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Telangana High Court: Abhinand Kumar Shavili, J., addressed a matter wherein the name and logo of a company were in dispute.

Instant petition was filed to seek a writ of mandamus.

Petitioner’s contention was that it is a registered company under the Companies Act, 1956. Respondent 3 approached the 2nd respondent under Section 22 of the Companies Act (now Section 16 of the new Companies Act, 2013) disputing the name and logo of the petitioner as the same was resembling with the 3rd respondents’ name and logo.

Analysis and Decision 

GSK – Widely Known

Bench stated that 2nd respondent had rightly passed orders directing the petitioner to change the name suitably by deleting the word ‘GSK’ from its existing name as it was similar to that of 3rd respondent and was widely known as GSK even prior to the incorporation of the petitioner-company.

What had 2nd respondent Ordered?

2nd respondent had ordered the name of the petitioner’s company be changed suitably by deleting the word ‘GSK’ from its existing name within a period of 3 months from the date of that order.

Contention of ‘Limitation’ – Rejected

With regard to the contention of limitation raised by the petitioner that the application filed by respondent 3 before 2nd respondent was barred by limitation, Court noted that the said application was filed under the old Act where the period of limitation was 5 years and the petitioner’s company was incorporated in 2008, whereas the 3rd respondent had filed an application before the 2nd respondent in 2012 which would mean that 3rd respondent has filed well within the period of limitation

Contention with respect to –Orders passed by 2nd respondent contrary to Trade Marks Act, 1999

Petitioner failed to show how Section 35 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 was being violated, more so, petitioner itself was not registered under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Hence the said contention was also rejected.

Therefore, in view of the above, Court did not find it appropriate to interfere with the case of the petitioner and the petition was dismissed. [G.S.K. Life Sciences (P) Ltd. v. Union of  India, 2021 SCC OnLine TS 634, decided on 20-04-2021]


Also, Read what Section 35 Trademarks Act, 1999 is?

Section 35:

Saving for use of name, address or description of goods or services, – Nothing in this Act shall entitle the proprietor or a registered user of a registered trade mark to interfere with any bona fide use by a person of his own name or that of his place of business, or of the name, or of the name of the place of business, of any of his predecessors in  business, or the use by any person of any bona fide description of the character or quality of his goods or services.”