Daily Alert for 02-09-2024
Supreme Court of India
Case Name: C.A. No.-010039-010040 - 2024
Judge(s): JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY, JUSTICE S.V.N. BHATTI
Parties: SEETHARAMA SHETTY VS MONAPPA SHETTY
Summary: The Supreme Court of India held that the agreement of sale dated 29.06.1999, with a recital of delivery of possession, conforms to the definition of a conveyance under the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, requiring payment of ad valorem stamp duty. However, the court set aside the direction of the trial court and High Court to pay a penalty of 10 times the deficit stamp duty under Section 34 of the Act. The court held that since the respondent had requested the impounding of the instrument and its referral to the District Registrar under Section 37(2), the trial court should have sent the instrument to the District Registrar to determine the deficit stamp duty and penalty under Section 39 of the Act, which provides for a more discretionary approach in setting the penalty amount. The Supreme Court directed the trial court to send the agreement of sale to the District Registrar to determine the deficit stamp duty and penalty payable, and upon receipt of the compliance certificate, to admit the suit document in evidence without reference to any objection under the Act. All other objections available to the respondents were left open for consideration.
Case Name: C.A. No.-010038-010038 - 2024
Judge(s): JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY, JUSTICE S.V.N. BHATTI
Parties: N.M. THEERTHEGOWDA VS Y.M. ASHOK KUMAR
Summary: The Supreme Court upheld the trial court's order imposing a 10-times penalty on the deficit stamp duty for the agreement of sale, as the appellant had invited the court to decide the issue under Section 34(1) of the Stamp Act. The court distinguished this case from its previous civil appeals where it had allowed the document to be sent to the District Registrar under Section 37(2). As the appellant had chosen the Section 34 route, the court held that the 10-times penalty was correctly levied.
Delhi High Court
Case Name: BAIL APPLN.-1830/20232024:DHC:6658
Judge(s): JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
Parties: RAJENDRA KUMAR TRIPATHI Vs STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)
Summary: The High Court of Delhi dismissed the bail application of Rajendra Kumar Tripathi, who was charged under Sections 420/406 of the IPC, with additional charges under Sections 419/120-B of the IPC and Sections 3/5 of the Emblems and Names Act. The court noted that the petitioner had previously been granted bail by the Magistrate on the basis of a settlement with the complainant, but had failed to honor the settlement and absconded, leading to the cancellation of his bail and the issuance of non-bailable warrants. The court held that the petitioner's past conduct, including his failure to appear regularly before the court, disentitled him to the grant of bail at this stage, despite the offenses being triable by a Magistrate and the maximum sentence under Section 420 IPC being up to 7 years. The court also considered the applicability of Section 436-A Cr.P.C., which grants discretion to the court to continue detention even after the accused has served more than half the maximum sentence, and found that the petitioner's past conduct warranted the continued detention.
Case Name: CS(COMM)-68/20242024:DHC:6691
Judge(s): JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
Parties: VISHESH FILMS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs SUPER CASSETTES INDUSTRIES LIMITED
Summary: The High Court of Delhi held that the Plaintiff's registered trademark "Aashiqui" is a distinctive mark that has acquired secondary meaning through the success of the Aashiqui film franchise, and is not generic or common to trade. The court found that the Defendant's proposed title "Tu Hi Aashiqui Hai" is deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's trademark and likely to cause public confusion about the film's association with the Aashiqui Franchise, even with the Defendant's disclaimer. The court rejected the Defendant's arguments of estoppel and acquiescence, and concluded that the balance of convenience and risk of irreparable harm favor granting an interim injunction to the Plaintiff to restrain the Defendant from using the title "Tu Hi Aashiqui Hai" or any other title containing the "Aashiqui" mark.
Case Name: W.P.(C)-688/20192024:DHC:6634-DB
Judge(s): JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA, JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
Parties: MICROSOFT INDIA (R&D) PVT. LTD. Vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR.
Summary: The High Court held that the Income Tax Assessing Officer failed to comply with the mandatory requirement under Section 144C of the Income Tax Act to first pass a draft assessment order and provide the eligible assessee an opportunity to file objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel. The court ruled that this failure renders the final assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer without jurisdiction and null and void, irrespective of whether the time limit prescribed under Section 153 had expired. The court rejected the revenue's argument that the failure to pass a draft order was merely a procedural irregularity, upholding the consistent position taken in previous decisions that Section 144C confers substantive rights on the assessee. The court quashed the final assessment orders and directed the revenue to take further action in accordance with law.
Case Name: CRL.M.C.-1013/20202024:DHC:6678
Judge(s): JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
Parties: ARVIND KEJRIWAL & ORS. Vs STATE & ANR.
Summary: The High Court of Delhi held that the statements made by the petitioners Arvind Kejriwal, Atishi Marlena, Sushil Kumar Gupta, and Manoj Kumar, alleging that the BJP had deleted the names of certain voters from the electoral rolls, were prima facie defamatory against the BJP and its office bearers. The court found that the complainant, Rajiv Babbar, who was the authorized representative of BJP Delhi Pradesh, falls within the ambit of "some person aggrieved" under Section 199 CrPC and was competent to file the complaint. The court dismissed the petitioners' plea to quash the summoning order, holding that the defense of the statements being made in good faith and for public good needs to be established during the trial.
Case Name: W.P.(C)-12041/20242024:DHC:6697
Judge(s): JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA
Parties: SMT. MANJIRA DEVI AYURVEDA MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL Vs UTTRAKHAND UNIVERSITY OF AYURVEDA & ORS.
Summary: The High Court of Delhi dismissed the writ petition filed by Smt. Manjira Devi Ayurveda Medical College and Hospital, which sought a direction to allow its 2022 batch students to appear for the first-year examinations. The court held that the appropriate forum to hear the matter would be the High Court of Uttarakhand, as the grievance of the petitioner-institute is primarily against the Uttarakhand Ayurveda University, which is located in Uttarakhand. The court cited the judgments in Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India and State of Goa v. Summit Online Trade Solutions (P) Ltd., which established that the mere presence of a respondent's office within the court's territorial jurisdiction does not automatically confer jurisdiction. The court, therefore, dismissed the petition on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction and allowed the petitioner to approach the appropriate court.
Case Name: W.P.(C)-12093/20242024:DHC:6694
Judge(s): JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA
Parties: MASTER HARMANPREET SINGH THROUGH MR. PARAMJEET SINGH Vs DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION, GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
Summary: The High Court of Delhi held that the respondent school's decision to deny admission to the petitioner's child under the EWS category was valid, as the petitioner did not have a valid income certificate on the date of applying for admission, as required by the circular issued by the Directorate of Education. The court noted that the parents belonged to the economically weaker section and were not well-educated, leading to a lack of awareness about the requirement of a valid income certificate. To address this issue, the court directed the DoE to ensure that all notices and circulars related to EWS admissions are issued in both English and Hindi, and to also make informational videos in multiple languages to spread awareness about the admission process and document requirements.
Case Name: CM(M)-459/20232024:DHC:6693
Judge(s): JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
Parties: ADITY A BIRLA FASHION AND RETAIL LIMITED Vs MRS SAROJ TANDON
Summary: The High Court held that the requirement of pre-institution mediation under Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act is mandatory for a counter-claim in a commercial dispute, even if the counter-claim does not seek any urgent interim relief. The court rejected the arguments that the requirement should be treated as optional for counter-claims, and emphasized that the objectives behind the pre-institution mediation requirement apply equally to counter-claims. The court noted that the Supreme Court's judgment in Patil Automation Private Limited has made the declaration regarding the mandatory nature of Section 12-A prospective, with the effective date being August 20, 2022. As the counter-claim in this case was filed prior to that date, the court held that it stands salvaged and protected from rejection.
Case Name: W.P.(C)-13273/20182024:DHC:6682-DB
Judge(s): JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA, JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
Parties: WELL TRANS LOGISTICS INDIA PVT.LTD. Vs ADDL.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS.
Summary: The High Court of Delhi held that the Assessing Officer's reopening of the completed assessment for the Assessment Year 2011-12 under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act did not satisfy the legal requirement of having "reasons to believe" that income had escaped assessment. The court found that the Assessing Officer's reasons were solely based on information received from the Investigating Wing, without any independent application of mind or further enquiry. There was no "close nexus" or "live link" between the material and the belief that income had escaped assessment.
Bombay High Court
Case Name: APPLN/2368/2022
Judge(s): JUSTICE S. G. MEHARE
Parties: ATUL ASHOK MUNDADA Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
Summary: The court held that the learned Judicial Magistrate and Additional Sessions Judge did not err in rejecting the applicant's prayer under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to order a police investigation. The courts applied their discretion appropriately after considering the facts and relevant case law. 2. The courts found that the allegations made by the applicant against the respondents, who were public officials, did not disclose a prima facie cognizable offense that would warrant a mandatory investigation under Section 156(3). The acts alleged were done in the discharge of their official duties, and the applicant failed to obtain the necessary prior sanction under Section 197 of the Code. 3. The courts observed that the dispute appeared to be regarding the disbursement of compensation for land acquired by the municipal authorities, which the applicant should have pursued through the proper legal channels instead of resorting to criminal proceedings against the officials. 4. The High Court dismissed both the criminal applications filed by the applicant, imposing costs of Rs. 25,000 each on the applicant to be paid to the respondent public officials.
Case Name: WP/1190/2024
Judge(s): JUSTICE S. G. MEHARE
Parties: DEEPAK KAILAS AGLAVE Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
Summary: The High Court of Bombay quashed and set aside the externment orders passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate and the Divisional Commissioner against the petitioner under Sections 56 and 59 of the Maharashtra Police Act. The court found that the authorities failed to comply with the legal requirements, as they did not have sufficient objective material to record their subjective satisfaction about the petitioner's involvement in offences involving force or violence. The show cause notice did not adequately disclose the general nature of the material allegations or the fact that witnesses were unwilling to testify due to apprehension about the petitioner's actions. The court also noted the lack of a live link and proximity between the last registered crime and the initiation of the externment proceedings, as well as issues with the vagueness of witness statements and the lack of proper application of mind by the authorities.
Case Name: WP/615/2024
Judge(s): JUSTICE S. G. MEHARE
Parties: HITESH SANTOSH SHINDE ANDOTHERS Vs THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER AND OTHER
Summary: The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioners and quashed the externment orders passed by the Superintendent of Police, Jalgaon and the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik. The court held that while family members can be considered a "gang" under Section 55 of the Maharashtra Police Act, the authorities did not have sufficient objective material to record their subjective satisfaction that the movement or encampment of the alleged gang was causing or calculated to cause danger, alarm, or reasonable suspicion of unlawful designs. The crimes registered against the petitioners appeared to be individualistic in nature and did not show they were affecting the common man or their property. Additionally, the court found that there was no live link and proximity between the registration of crimes and the initiation of the externment proceedings. Since the authorities did not apply their mind properly and did not have sufficient objective material, the court quashed the impugned externment orders.
Case Name: WP/11469/2024
Judge(s): HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE AMIT BORKAR
Parties: INDO ALLIED PROTEIN FOODS PVT LTD Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR FOOD CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AND ORS
Summary: The High Court of Bombay held that the rejection of the petitioners' bids was not arbitrary or contrary to the terms of the tender. The court deferred to the interpretation of the tender conditions provided by the tendering authority, as it was found to be reasonable and in accordance with the law. The court emphasized the need for judicial restraint in matters involving technical evaluations of tenders and held that it would not be appropriate to interfere with the impugned decision, particularly given the public interest in the timely distribution of food kits for the upcoming Gauri-Ganpati festival. The court dismissed the petitions, noting that the decision-making process was not vitiated by arbitrariness, irrationality, or mala fides.
Case Name: WP/11468/2024
Judge(s): HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE AMIT BORKAR
Parties: JUST UNIVERSAL PVT LTD Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
Summary: The High Court held that the petitioners were rightly disqualified by the Technical Evaluation Committee for not meeting the eligibility criteria specified under Condition No. PQ5 of the tender document. The court found the interpretation of the term "providing manpower/laborers" by the tendering authority to be reasonable and in accordance with the overall purpose of the tender. The court emphasized the principle of judicial restraint in matters involving the interpretation of tender documents, stating that the courts should defer to the interpretation provided by the tendering authority unless it is manifestly arbitrary or unreasonable. The court also noted that public interest was a relevant factor, as the timely distribution of food kits for the upcoming festival was important. As the petitioners failed to demonstrate that they met the eligibility criteria, the court refrained from interfering with the decision of the tendering authority. The court dismissed both the writ petitions.
Calcutta High Court
Case Name: WPA/1098/2020
Judge(s): JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK, JUSTICE MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI
Parties: DR. GAURAV GUPTA vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
Summary: The High Court held that the habeas corpus writ petition filed by the father seeking custody of the children was not maintainable in the present case, as multiple proceedings were already pending between the parties before the civil courts under the Hindu Marriage Act, Guardians and Wards Act, and for divorce. The court noted that no special circumstances were established that would prompt the high court to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction in the habeas corpus writ petition, when the custody proceedings were already pending before the civil court. The high court opted to relegate the parties to the pending civil court proceedings to decide the custody and visitation rights, keeping all issues open. The court did not make any findings on the merits of the case or the principles around the welfare of the children, since it was not deciding the custody matter itself. The pending civil court proceedings will determine the custody and visitation rights of the parents.
Case Name: FMA/30/2019
Judge(s): JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK, JUSTICE MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI
Parties: CALCUTTA STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs ASHOKE KUMAR DUTTA
Summary: The High Court of Calcutta disposed of the appeal (FMA 30 of 2019) in terms of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in its judgment in Calcutta State Transport Corporation & Ors. vs. Ashit Chakraborty & Ors. (2023 SCC Online 594). Since the issues raised in the appeal were covered by the Supreme Court's decision, the High Court has extended the same benefits to the private respondent/writ petitioner in this case.
Case Name: MAT/834/2024
Judge(s): JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK, JUSTICE MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI
Parties: INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT CALCUTTA & ORS. vs ANANTA KUMAR DE & ORS.
Summary: The High Court of Calcutta, held that the private respondents (retired library staff) are not entitled to the revised pay scale benefits that were granted to other similarly situated library staff earlier through court orders. The court found that the private respondents' claim is time-barred due to delay, waiver, acquiescence, and laches, as they did not approach the court during their service period to seek the pay scale revision. The court ruled that the previous orders granting the pay scale benefits were not in rem (applying to all similarly situated persons) and that the private respondents, as "fence-sitters", cannot claim the benefits merely because their colleagues were successful in their petitions. The High Court, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment and order that had allowed the private respondents' writ petition.