This week’s roundup delves into various important legal developments across High Courts, such as Bar Council strikes, Rs 500 crore crypto fraud, unregulated sale of sharp knives, defamation case against TV Today Network, BJP MLA Captain R. Tamil Selvan election win, Premji Invest trade mark case, bail denied to Amtek Group Arvind Dham, key updates on Mumbai Metro line 5, and more.
ADVOCATES
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | ‘First-gen lawyers overlooked in State representation; only influential lawyers get opportunity’; UPSRTC directed to devise merit-based appointment system
In a writ petition filed by the heirs of a deceased bus conductor seeking payment of their father’s dues, the Single Judge Bench of Ajay Bhanot, J., noted that the present petition was eventually filed due to the professional negligence or incompetence of the counsels appointed by the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (‘UPSRTC’) at the Labour Court. The Court further commented on the nature of appointments of counsels for State or State-run corporations, wherein only those lawyers who belonged to influential families were given opportunities. Accordingly, the Court directed UPSRTC to devise a fair and transparent system of appointment by holding a Board Meeting before the next date of hearing. Read more HERE
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | “Revenue proceedings pending endlessly, poor litigants only able to file writ petitions”: Surprise expressed over 68 adjournments due to Bar Council strikes
In a writ petition filed for expediting the proceedings in a village land case pending under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, before the Revenue Court, the Single Judge Bench of Alok Mathur, J., expressed astonishment over the fact that the matter was adjourned 68 times due to calls for boycott or condolence by the Rudauli Bar Association. Noting this, the Court directed the President and General Secretary of the Rudauli Bar Association to appear in person to explain the regular call for boycott and why appropriate action must not be taken against them for creating such a sorry state of affairs. Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | An advocate is bound by the client’s instructions and is not obligated to verify their truthfulness
In the presentappeal instituted under Clause X of Letters Patent, the appellant assailed the judgment and order dated 15-4-2025 passed by the Single Judge, whereby the writ petition challenging the orders dated 6-10-2023 and 11-11-2024 passed by the Bar Council of Delhi (‘BCD’) and Bar Council of India (‘BCI’) was dismissed. The Single Judge therein had observed that the advocates representing the opposing party had no fiduciary or professional relationship vis-a-vis the appellant.. A Division Bench of Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, C.J.* and Tushar Rao Gedela, J., stated that that an Advocate is bound by the instructions given to him by his client and it does not form part of his duty to verify the truthfulness or veracity of such instructions. Further, the Court pointed out that allegations made by the appellant against respondents 3 to 5 did not constitute “professional misconduct” under Section 35 of Advocates Act, 1961(‘1961 Act’). Thus, not finding any irregularity or illegality in the judgment and order passed by the Single Judge, the appeal was dismissed. Read more HERE
ARBITRATION
DELHI HIGH COURT | Injunction under S. 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act cannot be granted to restrain board meeting for removal of Director
The present appeal was filed under Section 37(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘the Act’) against the order dated 9-6-2025 (‘impugned order’), passed by the District Judge under Section 9 of the Act, wherein the Appellant company was restrained from convening board meeting dated 15-4-2025 and Extraordinary General Meeting (‘EGM’) dated 12-5-2025. he Single Judge Bench of Anil Kshetarpal, J., held that injunction under Section 9 of the Act cannot be granted with the purpose of restraining the Appellant company from convening a meeting concerning the proposed removal of the Respondent from the directorship of the Appellant company. Read more HERE
ARREST
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Empty Arrest Form, non- compliance of Section 50 of CrPC by the police; Arrest upheld as illegal
In a habeas corpus writ petition filed by the petitioner, where he was not informed the reasons for his arrest and was kept under custody for over a year, the Division Bench comprising of Ravindra V. Ghuge* and Gautam A. Ankhad, JJ, declared the arrest as illegal and directed the Sessions Court for his immediate release. The Court held that the police authorities have made completely false statement that the grounds of arrest were communicated in writing when no such record could be produced from the station diary, therefore, have committed gross violation of the rights of the petitioner. Read more HERE
BAIL
HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT | ‘Grave impact on nation’s economy’; Bail refused to accused in Rs 500 crore crypto fraud
The present bail application was filed by the petitioner, involved in a Rs 500 crore crypto-currency fraud, for grant of regular bail in a case under Sections 420 and 120-B of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), read with Section 5 of the H.P. Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 1999 and Sections 21 and 23 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019. A Single Judge Bench of Sushil Kukreja, J., held that the petitioner could not be granted bail considering the larger interest of public and the State, as he was involved in an economic offence of a magnitude that adversely impacted the nation’s economy and there was no substantial change in his circumstances since his previous bail application. Read more HERE
KERALA HIGH COURT | ‘Trial cannot be concluded in the near future’; Bail granted to four PFI Members in BJP Activist S.K. Sreenivasan Murder Case
The two criminal appeals were preferred under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (‘NIA Act’), by accused persons a against the order of the Special Court that denied their bail applications in respect of a case involving murder of a BJP activist, S.K. Sreenivasan, in furtherance of the agenda of the Popular Front of India (‘PFI’) to establish Islamic Rule in India. The Division Bench of Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and K.V. Jayakumar*, JJ., granted bail to the accused persons, observing that the trial cannot be concluded in the near future, even if the stay is vacated and other accused persons in the same case were already out on bail. Read more HERE
CHILD RIGHTS
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT |‘Person’s right to privacy cannot override right of child to know parentage’: Plea challenging order for DNA test, dismissed
In a revision petition filed to set aside the order passed by the Trial Court ordering DNA test of the petitioner, a Single Judge Bench of Archana Puri J. dismissed the same with modification of conducting of the test and held that a child has a right to know his parentage in the context of denial of relationship by the father. The Court held that the right of privacy of a person cannot override the right of the child, as in case both come out to be strangers then no injustice would have been done to the person undertaking the DNA test. Read more HERE
CRIMES AGAINST WOMEN
HIMACHAL PRADESJ HIGH COURT | Can clicking a woman’s photograph attract the offence of stalking under S. 78 BNS?
In a petition filed by the accused for a pre-arrest bail in a case registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 221, 224, 351(2) and 78 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’), a Single Judge Bench of Rakesh Kainthla, J., allowed the present petition, observing that Section 78 BNS was the only non-bailable offence and its ingredients were not satisfied in the present set of facts and further held that the custodial interrogation of the accused was also not needed, making his detention useless. Read more HERE
CRIMINAL TRIAL
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT | Explanation sought from Trial Judge regarding delay of seven weeks in conducting cross-examination of key witness
In the present case, a petition was filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’), by the accused for the grant of regular bail in FIR under Sections 148, 149, 302, 323, 452, 506, 427 and 120-B of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’). A Single Judge Bench of Sumeet Goel, J., found that trial proceedings were not carried out properly and thus sought an explanation from the Trial Judge concerned regarding the delay of seven weeks in conducting cross-examination of the key witness. The Court accordingly deferred the hearing of the case. Read more HERE
CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT | Suo motu cognizance taken of unregulated sale of sharp knives as stabbing incidents surge
In a suo motu public interest litigation (‘PIL’) registered regarding the unregulated sale of sharp knives, the Division Bench of Ramesh Sinha, CJ., and Bibhu Datta Guru, J., noted that the easy availability of such weapons exacerbated the rising problem of increased stabbing incidents and posed a threat to public safety. Accordingly, the Court sought an affidavit from the Home Department on the matter. Read more HERE
CONVICTION
DELHI HIGH COURT | Brandishing/Exhibiting knife to generate fear or apprehension in the victim’s mind sufficient under Section 397 IPC; Conviction upheld in robbery case
In an appeal filed to assail the judgement of conviction dated 20-5-2024 vide which the appellant was convicted under Sections 392, 397, 411, and 34 of Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) for robbery with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt. A Single Judge Bench of Manoj Kumar Ohri J., dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction of the appellant under Section 397/392/411/34 IPC stating that simple exhibition, brandishing or even holding sharp-edged weapon i.e. knife openly to generate fear or apprehension in the victim’s mind is sufficient to secure a conviction under Section 397 IPC. Read more HERE
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | “Being MLA, he should’ve restrained, but refusing to stay conviction is injustice to him, his electorate”: Abbas Ansari’s conviction stayed in hate speech case
In a criminal revision petition filed by politician Abbas Ansari seeking quashing of order passed by Appellate Court whereby the Appellate Court refused to stay/suspend the conviction passed against him by the Trial Court in a criminal case filed under Sections 171F, 506, 186, 189, 153A, 120B of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), the Single Judge Bench of Sameer Jain, J., allowed the petition, holding that it was not a case where the prayer to suspend the conviction should be refused. Read more HERE
DEBT, FINANCIAL AND MONETARY LAWS
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Maharashtra Airport Development Company directed to refund around Rs. 10.29 crores to Wipro in MIHAN-IT Park Project
In a writ petition filed by Wipro against Maharashtra Airport Development Company Limited (MADC), seeking refund of the advance payment made by it for the development of IT Park in Multi Modal International Passenger and Cargo Hub Airport at Nagpur (MIHAN) project, the Division Bench of Alok Aradhe, CJ. and Sandeep V. Marne*, J., directed MADC to refund the advance amount of around Rs. 10.29 crores to Wipro. The Court held that claim of MADC, that the forfeiture was done as the payment made was Earnest Money Deposit, was incorrect as the said amount was referred as “advance money” in the Letter of Acceptance (LOA). Additionally, it was opined by the Court that in absence of explicit clause in the contract regarding the forfeiture of the advance money in case of breach of contract, the same is impermissible as per Section 74 of the Contract Act, 1872. Read more HERE
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | ‘Can’t allow borrowers to wiggle out of liability by using tenancy mechanism’; Directed grant of secured asset’s possession to Axis Bank
In a writ petition filed by Axis Bank seeking a direction to the Sub- Divisional Magistrate (‘SDM’) to take physical possession of the suit property that Axis bank had acquired as a secured asset under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (‘SARFAESI Act’), 2002, the Division Bench of Shekhar B. Saraf* and Praveen Kumar Giri, JJ., held that it was patently clear that the registered lease deed was executed by the borrower after taking the loan, without the knowledge of the secured creditor, Axis Bank. Accordingly, the Court directed the authorities to give possession of the suit property to Axis Bank within 8 weeks. Read more HERE
DEFAMATION
DELHI HIGH COURT | Interim relief granted to ICICI Bank in defamation case against ex-employee
In a suit filed for relief of permanent injunction restraining the Defendant, an ex-employee of Plaintiff 2 (ICICI Bank), from making and publishing defamatory statements against ICICI Bank, the Single Judge Bench of Amit Bansal, J, held that publication of abusive statements and videos after discharge of service amounted to defamation. The Court further restrained the Defendant from publishing, distributing or sharing any other content disparaging ICICI Bank till the next hearing. Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Notice issued by Magistrate to HDFC Bank’s MD-CEO in defamation case, quashed
In a criminal writ petition filed by the MD CEO of HDFC Bank against the order of issue notice passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gurgaon (‘Judicial Magistrate’) against him, a Single Judge Bench of S.M. Modak, J., stated that when Section 223 of BNSS is perused, the Magistrate must take cognizance of an offence, he is expected to examine the complainant on oath and witnesses. Thus, after filing of complaint there must be verification and when prior to decision on taking cognizance, the accused needs to be heard. Hearing the accused cannot be interpreted prior to recording the verification and the statement of witnesses. Thus, the Court quashed the notice issued by the Judicial Magistrate to the HDFC Bank’s MD-CEO in the defamation case filed against him and stated that the Judicial Magistrate may proceed with the matter by recording the verification of the complainant and all witnesses and then pass the appropriate order. Read more HERE
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT | Petition to set aside defamation case against TV Today Network, dismissed
In the present case, a petition was filed by petitioner, TV Today Network, for setting aside the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (‘the Magistrate’), whereby a direction was issued to register a non-cognizable case against the TV Today Network for commission of offence under Section 500 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’). A Single Judge Bench of Tribhuvan Dahiya J. stated that neither the Magistrate had issued any direction under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) to register an FIR, nor had any been registered. The Court stated that investigation was carried out based on complaint by Respondent 2 disclosing non-cognizable offence against the TV Today Network, and charge sheet had been filed pursuant to directions issued under Section 155(2) of the CrPC. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition to set aside the defamation case. Read more HERE
DISABLED PERSONS
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT | PNB directed to restore promotion of bank officer with 70% locomotor disability
The Division Bench of Sujoy Paul* and Smita Das De, JJ., were hearing a matter wherein a bank officer with a locomotor disability (the petitioner), approached the Court after reverting from his promotion, as he could not accept a transfer to Patna and sought posting at Kolkata in accordance with the Punjab National Bank’s (‘PNB’) own policy of accommodating persons with disabilities. The petitioner alleged that the reversion was not voluntary but compelled by the circumstances and pressure. Considering the petitioner’s grievances, the Court found that the petitioner could not be held responsible for not participating in the promotional process because of bar imposed by PNB. The Court emphasised that, since petitioner’s genuine request could not fetch any result, hence he sought reversion, therefore, such reversion could not be treated as ‘voluntary’ in nature. Therefore, the Court directed PNB to restore the petitioner’s promotion and post him to Kolkata office. Read more HERE
DOWRY
DELHI HIGH COURT | Mere crying of woman does not prove dowry harassment: Discharge of husband and in-laws upheld in dowry death case
The present petition was filed by the deceased’s father under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) read with Article 227 Constitution against the impugned order dated 3-4-2017 vide which the District and Sessions Judge upheld the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate (‘MM’) discharging Respondents 3 to 5 under Sections 498-A/304-B/34 of Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’). A Single Judge Bench of Neena Bansal Krishna J., finding no merit in the petition, dismissed it stating that merely because the deceased woman was crying, cannot per se make out any case of dowry harassment. The Court stated that there was nothing on record to even remotely suggest that there was any harassment of the deceased for fulfilling respondents’ demand for money. Read more HERE
ELECTION LAW
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | ‘Supreme Court’s decision in 2018 not given effect till now’; ECI’s affidavit on not publishing verification reports of candidates’ asset disclosure forms, sought
In a public interest litigation (‘PIL’) regarding non-publication of verification reports made by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (‘CBDT’) of the asset disclosure forms of the election candidates, the Division Bench of Manjive Shukla and Rajan Roy, JJ., stated that prima facie, from the documents on record it appeared that if at all the verification reports had to be published, it was to be published by the Election Commission of India (‘ECI’). Accordingly, the Court directed ECI to furnish an affidavit in this regard. Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Plea against BJP MLA Captain R. Tamil Selvan’s election win in Sion—Koliwada, dismissed
A Single Judge Bench of Milind N. Jadhav, J., dismissed an election petition filed by Ganesh Kumar Yadav (the petitioner) challenging the validity of Captain R. Tamil Selvan’s (the respondent) election from the 179 Sion—Koliwada Constituency, held on 20-11-2024. The election was challenged on the ground of it being void under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Representation of the People’s Act 1951 (‘RP Act’), and directions were sought under Section 125A of the RP Act. Consequently, an application was filed by Respondent for dismissal under Section 86 of the RP Act read with Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (‘CPC’). Rejecting the plea, the Court held that the present Election Petition did not disclose any cause of action under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) read with Section 83 of the RP Act and was liable to be rejected without trial. The Court emphasised that once Respondent’s nomination was held valid, it was deemed accepted under Section 33 of the RP Act and could only be rejected during scrutiny under Section 36(2) of the said Act. Read more HERE
HOUSING
DELHI HIGH COURT | Share apportioned by a Family Settlement Agreement cannot be modified by Builder’s Agreement
In an appeal filed under Sections 96 and 151 read with Order 41 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 against the order dated 4-10-2024 (impugned order) directing the Appellants to handover possession of one-half of the fourth floor of the suit property to the Respondents and paying mesne profits to the tune of Rs. 48,000 per month along with 6 per cent per annum interest, the Division Bench of Anil Kshetarpal* and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, JJ, upheld the impugned order and dismissed the appeal. The Court further stated that the shares of family members in a suit property apportioned by a family settlement agreement, cannot be modified by a builders’ agreement. Read more HERE
INSOLVENCY AND BANKCRUPTCY LAWS
MADRAS HIGH COURT | NCLT bound to appoint applicant-recommended Interim Resolution Professional under Ss. 7 and 10 of IBC
The present petition was filed by the petitioner, an Insolvency Professional, to partially quash the order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (‘NCLT’) appointing another person as Interim Resolution Professional (‘IRP’) of Annie Traders (P) Ltd. (‘the Company’), terming it arbitrary, violative of Section 16(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘IB Code’). The Division Bench of Anita Sumanth* and N. Senthilkumar, JJ., while allowing the petition held that the order of the NCLT substituting the IRP proposed by the applicant with an IRP of its own choice, for reasons of its own, could not be sustained. The Court emphasised that for applications under Sections 7 or 10 of the IB Code, the applicant’s recommended professional must be appointed as IRP, unless disciplinary proceedings are pending, leaving no discretion to the NCLT. Read more HERE
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
DELHI HIGH COURT | Interim relief granted to Hero Motocorp in ‘DESTINY’ scooters Trade mark infringement suit
In the present case,Hero Motocorp Ltd. (plaintiff) sought a decree of permanent injunction for infringement of its trade mark, passing off, unfair competition and other ancillary reliefs in respect of its trade mark ‘DESTINY’, ‘DESTINI’ and ‘DESTINI PRIME’ (‘Subject Marks’) under Classes 12 and 37. A Single Judge Bench of Tejas Karia J., granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction in favour of Hero MotoCorp Ltd., restraining Urban Electric Mobility (P) Ltd. and its associated entities (defendants) from using the marks ‘DESTINY’, ‘DESTINY+’ and ‘DESTINY PRO’ (‘impugned marks’) for two wheelers. It observed that irreparable injury would be caused to Hero Motocorp Ltd. if the defendants are allowed to continue to use the Impugned Marks. Read more HERE
RAJASHAN HIGH COURT | Speedy disposal of Trademark application a Fundamental Right under Article 21
In a civil writ petition filed by the petitioner seeking direction against the Registrar of Trademarks to decide the Trademark application pending for more than 15 years, a Single-Judge Bench of Anoop Kumar Dhand, J., held that the right to a speedy and expeditious disposal of trademark applications is an integral part of the fundamental right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court issued a general direction to the Registrar of Trademarks to decide all pending applications expeditiously and emphasized that excessive delays keep the parties in state of uncertainty and prevent them from moving forward with their lives and businesses. Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Interim relief granted to Premji Invest, orders blocking of fake Apps and websites misusing its trade mark
In an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 for an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining Defendants 1, 2 and 20 from accessing and operating fake domain names, websites and applications using the trade mark ‘PREMJI INVEST’, a Single Judge Bench of Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J, allowed the application for ex-parte ad interim injunction. The Court further granted a dynamic injunction restraining any future or continuing infringement of the ‘INVEST PREMJI’ mark by directing the Department of Telecommunication (‘DOT’) and Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (‘MEIT’) to take immediate steps for removal and blocking of any fake domain names, websites and applications within 24 hours of receipt of information from Invest Premji.Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | ‘No copyright on film title’: Relief denied to ‘LOOTERE’ film producers against web series with same title
In a copyright infringement case seeking temporary injunction, filed by the plaintiff against the use of the title “LOOTERE” for the cinematographic work, the Single Judge Bench of Sandeep V. Marne, J., dismissed the application and held that copyright subsists in a cinematographic film itself, as well as in its literary work, thus, as long as the story of the two films is different, mere similarity in the title would not give rise to an actionable claim under the provisions of the Copyright Act, 1957 (‘Copyright Act’). Thus, the Court stated that since title of a book or a film does not constitute a ‘work’ within the meaning of Section 2(y) of the Copyright Act, no copyright can subsist in a mere film title. Read more HERE
JUDICIARY
MEGHALAYA HIGH COURT | Appointment of 2022 Magistrate First-Class for District Council Court, Shillong, declared invalid; Ordered Creation of Supernumerary Post
In an appeal filed by a candidate for Magistrates First-Class, challenging the entire process of appointment, a Division Judge Bench of I.P. Mukerji* CJ. and W. Diengdoh J. invalidated the appointment of 2022 Magistrate First-Class for the Subordinate District Council Court, Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council, Shillong. The Court held that the waiting list could not be used to fill up any other vacancy for which a new selection process had to be initiated and ordered the creation of one supernumerary post where the appellant would be at liberty to participate. Read more HERE
MEDICAL AND HEALTH LAW
KERALA HIGH COURT | S. 304-A IPC attracted only when death is direct or proximate result of doctor’s rash or negligent act
The present petition was filed by the on-call Medical Officer (‘accused’) seeking quashment of criminal proceedings for medical negligence under Section 304-A of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) in relation to the death of a remand prisoner. A Single Judge Bench of V.G. Arun, J., quashed the proceedings against the accused observing that a medical practitioner would only be liable under Section 304-A IPC if he would have committed a rash or negligent act that resulted in the patient’s death. Read more HERE
PMLA
DELHI HIGH COURT | Bail denied to former promoter of Amtek Group Arvind Dham in approx. 27000 crore bank fraud case
The present application was filed by Arvind Dham, promoter of the Amtek Group under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) read with Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (‘PMLA’), seeking grant of regular bail in FIR dated 21-12-2022 and 29-12-2022 under Sections 120-B/420 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and Section 7(c), Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘1988 Act’). Additionally, SFIO investigations disclosed commission of offences under Section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013. The Single Judge Bench of Ravinder Dudeja, J., observed that Arvind Dham was allegedly involved in diversion and laundering of multi crores and allegations against him pertained to economic offence of exceptional magnitude, involving complex, deliberate, and sustained criminal conduct causing grave loss to public sector banks. While Arvind Dham might be ailing, adequate medical care could be provided in custody under judicial supervision. The Court stated that the trial was at a nascent stage, and the statutory conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA were not satisfied, therefore, the application was dismissed as there was no ground for bail. Read more HERE
POCSO
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT | ‘POCSO Act is gender neutral’; Sexual assault case refused tp be quashed against woman
In a criminal petition filed by a 52-year-old woman for quashment of allegations of sexual assault against a minor boy, a single-judge bench of M. Nagaprasanna, J., held that the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO Act’) being a progressive enactment, is intended to safeguard the sanctity of childhood. It is rooted in gender neutrality with its beneficent object being the protection of all children, irrespective of sex. Therefore, POCSO Act is gender neutral. The Court further held that a woman can be prosecuted for offences under Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act. The Court observed that delay in registration of the crime cannot become a reason for quashment of the proceedings owing to the nature of offence and tender age of the victim. The Court observed that the argument that psychological trauma cannot result in an erection would tumble down, in the light of several studies, that psychological trauma does not always prelude physiological or biological reactions, especially ones of coercion and fear. Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Paternal Uncle set free after 10 years conviction quashed in 3-year-old niece’s sexual assault case due to non-examination of victim and insufficient evidence
In an appeal filed by the Appellant against the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik, dated 30-09-2015, convicting him under Sections 376(2)(f), 377, and 363 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), the Division Bench of Suman Shyam* and Shyam C. Chandak, JJ., allowed the appeal and held that the failure to examine the victim or the Police Sub-Inspector (‘PSI’) without any explanation amounted to denial of a fair trial. The Court emphasised that this deprived the Accused of an opportunity to prove his innocence and concluded that the conviction under Sections 376(2)(f) and 377 IPC was liable to be set aside by giving the benefit of doubt. Read more HERE
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
KERALA HIGH COURT | Guidelines for police conduct during arrests in court premises, clarified; Established two-tier grievance redressal mechanism
In a Public Interest Litigation initiated suo motu, based on a letter dated 10-09-2024 from the Kerala High Court Advocates’ Association, the court took cognizance of an incident involving an altercation between an advocate and police officials within the premises of the Judicial First-Class Magistrate Court in Alappuzha District. The division bench, consisting of Dr. A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar* and Jobin Sebastian, JJ., clarified the guidelines to be followed by police personnel when arresting individuals within court premises in the State. Additionally, the Court directed the establishment of a two-tier grievance redressal mechanism at both the State and district levels. Further clarifications were also provided regarding the report prepared by the State Police Chief on the code of conduct to be followed by police personnel while in court premises. Read more HERE
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | “Regrettable that Trial Court failed to conduct any effective proceedings”; Relief granted to woman in dowry case pending since 2004
In a writ petition filed by the Head of the Department (‘HOD’) of Zoology at the Hindu College, seeking directions to the Trial Court to commence the proceedings in a criminal case filed under Sections 498A, 504, 506, 323 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), read with Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (‘DPA’) as well as expeditious disposal of another complaint case pending before the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) (‘ACJ’) / Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (‘ACJM’), Moradabad, the Single Judge Bench of Vinod Diwakar, J., stated that after the considerable lapse of more than two decades since the initial FIR was registered, it was regrettable that the Trial Court had failed to commence or conduct any effective proceedings in the matter. Accordingly, the Court held that such judicial inertia demanded its urgent intervention and issued a slew of directions for the speedy disposal of the criminal cases. Read more HERE
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT | “Court cannot permit to perpetuate illegality”; Petition challenging retrospective promotion of Assistant Sub-Inspectors, allowed
In a petition filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking to set aside an order granting ante-dated promotion to respondents and to declare them senior to the respondents concerned. A Single Judge Bench of Jagmohan Bansal J. allowed the same and held that the retrospective promotion of Assistant Sub-Inspectors was illegal, and the Court cannot permit to perpetuate it. Read more HERE
JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT | State’s ‘favouritism’ in appointing ‘ineligible person’ as Director of Family Welfare, condemned
The present petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu Bench (‘Tribunal’) passed on 26-03-2025 on the ground that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that Respondent 1 had no locus standi to challenge the Government Order (‘GO’) dated 23-12-2024 by which the petitioner was appointed as the Director, Family Welfare, MCH & Immunization (Director, Family Welfare’). The Division Bench of Sanjeev Kumar* and Sanjay Parihar, JJ., dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner was ineligible for appointment as the Director, Family Welfare as he was not even a member of J&K Health and Family Welfare (Gazetted) Service (‘Gazetted Service’). Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | ‘Forum shopping cannot be allowed to litigants’; Rs. 50,000 cost on litigant who sought recusal of Judges on scurrilous bribery allegations
In an interim application filed by the petitioner for recusal of sitting judges, on the grounds of corruption, from hearing the three writ petitions filed by him, the Single Judge Bench of Milind N. Jadhav, J., dismissed the said application with exemplary cost of Rs. 50,000 and held that such complaint is sheer abuse of process of law as the allegations were completely unsubstantiated allegations against two Judges of the Court. The Court opined that recusal cannot be forced by the litigant, and the litigants cannot be allowed “forum shopping” until they get a bench to their liking. Read more HERE
PROPERTY LAW
DELHI HIGH COURT | ‘Blatant denial of right to fair hearing’; Fresh trial ordered for a petty case under Defacement of Property Act, 2007
In the present case, a petition was filed under Article 226 of Constitution read with Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) for quashing judgment and order on sentence dated 23-4-2018 of Metropolitan Magistrate (‘MM’), whereby the Trial Court had conducted the trial in undue haste and the petitioner was denied a fair opportunity of being heard or engage counsel for his defence. A Single Judge Bench of Neena Bansal Krishna, J., opined that although Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (‘1958 Act’) protected against disqualification due to admonition, the issue in the present case was of blatant denial of right to fair hearing and the judgment, patently on the face of it was against the law. The Court observed that though the legislation had thought it appropriate to not let the conviction resulting in petty sentence be challengeable, but the present case was of patent illegality, thus the Court set aside the judgment and order on sentence dated 23-4-2018. Further, the Court ordered fresh trial to be conducted, after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to engage a counsel and right of fair trial. Read more HERE
PUBLIC SERVICES
CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT | “Causing great hardship to public at large”: Transport Commissioner’s appearance sought for city buses ceasing operation in few days of restarting
In a suo motu public interest litigation (‘PIL’) filed regarding the poor condition of the bus system in the State, the Division Bench of Ramesh Sinha, CJ., and Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J., noted that contrary to the claim of the Secretary-cum-Transport Commissioner, Department of Transport, Chhattisgarh (‘TC’), that five city buses had commenced operation, the buses stopped functioning in a few days after starting operation. The Court directed the TC to appear personally and explain why he filed a misleading affidavit and why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him. Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Mangrove clearance, launch of dedicated mangrove website: Key updates on construction of Mumbai Metro line 5
In a case concerning construction of a depot for the metro line by Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (‘petitioner’) and seeking permission for the same, as there was a complete ban on felling of mangroves in Maharashtra. The Division Bench of Revati Mohite Dere and Dr. Neela Gokhale, JJ., asked AGP to take instructions from the Department concerned, that whether it was possible to constitute a Committee comprising a retired Judge well-versed in environmental matters; a representative of a reputed NGO and any other Government representative concerned with environmental issues, to examine the in-principle approval granted for the entire project, so as to enable the Committee to consider whether there are any viable alternatives to minimize destruction of trees/mangroves. The matter is next listed on 3-9-2025. Read more HERE
MADRAS HIGH COURT | Greater Chennai Corpn.’s Resolution for privatisation of sanitary work refused to be quashed
The petitioner, a General Workers Union (the ‘Union’) filed two writ petitions seeking to quash Greater Chennai Corpn.’s (‘GCC’) Resolution by which conservancy operations in two zones were outsourced to a private concessionaire. A Single Judge Bench of K. Surender, J., held that privatising the sanitary work of the Zones in GCC was a policy decision taken in the interest of improvement of sanitary conditions and waste management. The Court emphasised that since the Government had decided to privatise Solid Waste Management and sanitary work to keep the city clean, and the Resolution did not violate any law or was unconstitutional, the question of quashing it did not arise. Read more HERE
RESERVATION
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | 3% reservation in Goa medical colleges for children of Govt or private sector employees, quashed
In a writ petition filed by an MBBS aspirant challenging clause 5.7 of the prospectus issued by Director of Technical Education, Goa, which reserved 3% seats in favour of Children of Central/State Government Employees and Persons in Private Occupations, the Division Bench comprising of Bharati Dangre* and Nivedita P. Mehta, JJ., quashed the reservation provided in the said clause. The Court held that the said clause did not withstand the scrutiny of Article 14 of Constitution as it was not based on any intelligible differentia nor it had any nexus with the object of the selection process, i.e. to have admission on merit. Additionally, it was held that merit alone, must be allowed to for the process of admission for every seat, which received relaxation by reservation contemplated only by the Constitution or by a statute, or any law made by the State Legislature. Read more HERE
RIGHT TO INFORMATION
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT | Inside order holding Nirmithi Kendra a Public Authority under RTI Act
In a writ petition filed by the Nirmithi Kendra, challenging an order by the State Information Commissioner that directed them to furnish information under Right to Information Act, 2005 (‘RTI Act’) while imposing a penalty, a Single-Judge Bench of Suraj Govindaraj, J., held that Nirmithi Kendra is a Public Authority under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act and is liable to furnish information. The Court observed that the Nirmithi Kendras were established by a Government Order, its governing body consisted of government officials, and it received government funding, making it subject to the RTI Act. Read more HERE
SCS, STS, OBCS AND MINORITIES
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT | ‘University authorities cannot play with life of students’; BIT MESRA to pay Rs 20 Lakhs compensation in Dalit student death case
In the present case, appeals were filled by the appellants for bail in FIR under Section 103/3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’) and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 on account of assault of the deceased, a student of BIT MESRA, Ranchi, in the campus who had succumbed to his injuries. A Single Judge Bench of Sanjay Prasad, J., held that the College should be the campus of study and not a place of quarrel, groupism, or for showing bossism and nefarious activities for assaulting the other students. The students should also refrain from participating in such nefarious design and for showing supremacy over the others except in the case of self-defense. Thus, the Court dismissed the appeals and held that the University authorities could not play with the life of students and that for the tortious and vicarious liability, the College Administration should pay Rs 20,00,000 to the parents of the deceased as compensation. Read more HERE
SERVICE LAW
ORISSA HIGH COURT | Maths Lecturer to get promoted under 2014 Placement Rules due to quashing of rejection order
The present petition was filed by the petitioner, a Mathematics Lecturer of a Non-Government Aided Junior College, challenging the order of the Commissioner-Cum-Secretary to Government, Department of Higher Education, which denied his claim for promotion to Senior Lecturer and Reader. A Single Judge Bench of Dixit Krishna Shripad, J., while allowing the petition, quashed the rejection order that denied promotion to the Lecturer under the Orissa Non-Government Aided College Lecturers’ Placement Rules, 2014 (‘2014 Placement Rules’) and held that the Lecturer satisfied the eligibility conditions under the 2014 Rules, and further directed the State to grant the benefits prospectively. Read more HERE
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT | Rs.50,000 fine imposed on State for unjustified withholding of pension, citing violation of litigation policy
In a petition filed by the Petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to quash the order charging him after his retirement for events that took place 14 years ago during 2010-2011, alleging negligence in execution of Optimum Utilization of Vacant Government Land Scheme project at Verka Milk Plant, ilk Plant, Amritsar, a Single Judge Bench of Harpreet Singh Brar J. disposed of the same holding that it violated Rule 2.2 (b), Note 2, Clause Punjab Civil Services Rule, Volume II. Since the Petitioner’s pensionary dues were unjustifiably withheld, the Court directed the Respondents to pay costs of Rs 50,000 to the Petitioner. Read more HERE
PUBJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT | State ordered to consider ex-CRPF’s plea for appointment in Ex-servicemen category
In a petition filed by the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeking a direction to the respondent to appoint him to the post of Male Constable (Driver), a Single Judge Bench of Jagmohan Bansal, J., disposed of the same and held that the State would look into grievance of the petitioner of his appointment in ex-servicemen category and pass an appropriate order within six months. Read more HERE
TAX
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Capital gains tax applies to vintage car sale when no evidence of personal use is adduced
The present appeal was filed by the Assessee challenging the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal’s (‘ITAT’) decision treating profit from the sale of a vintage car as taxable capital gains rather than exempt as a “personal effect”. The Assessee argued that the car was his personal asset and should not attract capital gains tax. The Division Bench of Alok Aradhe, CJ*., and Sandeep V. Marne, J., held that for an article to qualify as a “personal effect”, there must be evidence of personal use. Since, the Assessee failed to adduce any evidence with regard to the vintage car being put to personal use, therefore, the Court upheld ITAT’s order and rule that pride of possession did not constitute personal use under Section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘1961 Act’). Read more HERE
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT | Pending investigation against co-accused cannot be sole ground to deny bail to accused under Section 132 CGST Act
In the present case, two petitions were filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) seeking regular bail in the case filed under Sections 132(1)(b) and 132(1)(c) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (‘CGST Act’). A Single Judge Bench of Harpreet Singh Brar, J., held that an accused in a complaint under Section 132 of the CGST Act could not be denied the concession of bail solely on the ground that the investigation remained pending against a co-accused. Thus, the Court released the petitioners on regular bail. Read more HERE
