Weekly Highlights (Jan 31st- Feb 6th)

Weekly Highlights (Jan 31st- Feb 6th)

“Marriages not made in heaven but hell: “Bombay HC Oral remarks in a hearing, dealing with the constant quarrel between a couple

In the instant case of Shivek Ramesh Dhar v. State of Maharashtra” the applicant that is the husband has an FIR registered under sections 498-A, 323, 504, 406, 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code,1860 and the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

While granting anticipatory release to the husband accused of cruelty and dowry demands by his wife, single-judge Justice SV Kotwal noted that they were often at odds and remarked in annoyance that “Marriages not made in heaven but hell”, about how the husband and wife had made their life hell for each other. The Court determined that the husband’s custody will not resolve the matter after examining both sides’ submissions. He told the cops that if the spouse was arrested, they should release him on bail after he posted a Rs 30,000 bail bond with one or more sureties.

Delhi HC refused to hear the PIL for delay of elections in 5 states

On Monday, the Delhi High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Congress leader Jagdish Sharma, which sought to postpone upcoming assembly elections in five states.

The plea was dismissed by a division bench of Justices Vipin Sanghi and Jasmeet Singh, who asked the petitioner if he was living on Mars because Covid instances are declining across the country. Sharma’s counsel withdrew the petition after the judges threatened to levy fees on the petitioner. Assembly elections in the states of UP, Punjab, Manipur, Uttarakhand, and Goa are set to begin next month and go through March. The Election results will be declared in the month of March.

Case Name: Jagdish Sharma v Union of India and Ors

Dr Kafeel Khan challenges his termination in the state-run B.R.D Medical College, files a petition in Allahabad HC

Dr. Kafeel Khan has filed a petition in the Allahabad High Court’s Lucknow Bench, challenging the Uttar Pradesh government’s decision to terminate his employment at the state-run BRD Medical College. Dr Khan, who is suspected of killing children in Gorakhpur’s BRD Medical College in 2017 owing to a shortage of oxygen, was fired from his job in November 2021 because he was in charge of the encephalitis ward at the time of the incident.

Khan claimed in his plea that he was cleared of medical negligence and corruption accusations by an investigation officer on April 15, 2019. Even though his suspension order was stayed by the Allahabad High Court, his services were terminated, according to the plea. Khan further stated that he was on leave on August 10, 2017 (the date of the oxygen catastrophe), and verified in the form of a copy of his leave letter and attendance book. The plea said that “that night, Dr Kafeel called twenty-six persons, including all of the officials of BRD Medical College and the DM of Gorakhpur.”

Mumbai Court Grants Bail To Solicitor In A POCSO Case

In the case of Gajanan Chandrakant Khergamkar v. the State of Maharashtra, the  Mumbai Sessions Court last week granted bail to a solicitor accused of sexually assaulting a 17-year-old girl who was to begin an internship with him.

The same day, she notified her mother about the incident. However, because she was ill, the complaint was filed after three days.

The defendant claimed to be an editor, a lawyer, and a documentary filmmaker who ran a media/legal firm that focused on social issues. He disputed the claims against him and stated that the reason for the delay in filing the FIR was unknown. He stated that he was not required to recover anything, and hence his custody was not necessary.

POCSO Special Judge Nazeera Shaikh noted that the defendant was well-connected in society and had little prospect of fleeing. The judge also stated that setting strict constraints on the accused will address the prosecution’s concerns and fears of tampering with witnesses and evidence.

 Gujarat HC dismisses contempt case against a lawyer who claimed, the court was biased against religion

A  division bench of Chief Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Niral R Mehta was hearing a suo moto contempt case that arose after the respondent stated before Justice KS Jhaveri in December 2006 that “…since some of the Courts are biassed towards passing orders in favour/against a particular religion/community, the Hon’ble Apex Court has ordered to conduct the trial, in such cases, outside the State of Gujarat.”

The matter was finally resolved later when the lawyer submitted a new affidavit to the Court. “I submit that, throughout my 23 years of practice, I have always adhered to my abundant duty to respect the Court without fail, but the incident on December 4, 2006, was unintended.” “I have never harmed the Court’s reputation, and I express my deep regret by tendering an unconditional apology,” the affidavit stated.

The Court dismissed the case after observing that the contents of the affidavit appeared genuine and devoid of malice. When the matter was first heard before the Bench, it was opined that the affidavit of apology tendered by the contemnor was not “happily worded,” and they wanted an unconditional apology from the lawyer. The court asked the council to be cautious in future of such acts.

SC Held Labour Court Cannot Adjudicate On Questions Of Employer-Employee Relationships

In the case of M/s Bombay Chemical Industries v. Deputy Labour Commissioner and Another, Supreme Court held that the Labour Court’s jurisdiction, according to Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, is similar to that of an executing court, and it can only interpret the award or settlement in a case.

Justice MR Shah and BV Nagarathna noted that the Labour Court’s jurisdiction is similar to that of an executing court under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act. The bench dismissed the respondent’s arguments. It was observed that once there was a major dispute that respondent had worked as an employee in the appellant’s establishment, it was not open for the Labour Court to entertain contested questions and decide the case on the appellant’s and respondent’s employer-employee relationship.

Resolution to place Dr BR Ambedkar portrait in all judicial programs: Karnataka HC

Protests erupted in the state of Karnataka on January 27 after a Raichur Principal District and Sessions Judge allegedly removed a portrait of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar from the dais before hoisting the national flag on the 26th January 2022, Republic Day celebrations. Protesters included lawyers, organisations, and political party members in response to a call from a Dalit organisation. The matter was then brought to the attention of the Karnataka High Court.

The High Court of Karnataka passed a resolution on Friday to display a portrait of Dr BR Ambedkar at all official functions of the Courts, including Republic Day, Independence Day, and Constitution Day, at the Principal Bench in Bengaluru, the Benches in Dharwad and Kalaburagi, and all District and Taluk Courts in the State.

Child witness testimony must not be tutored: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court ruled that the only precaution that courts must take when considering the testimony of an injured child witness is to ensure that he is not tutored or influenced and that his testimony is adequately corroborated in the case of Deepak@Deepue v State. A Division Bench of Justices Siddharth Mridul and Anup Jairam Bhambhani held that the Supreme Court and a Coordinating Bench of the Delhi High Court have held that it is not the law to reject the testimony of a child witness even if it is found reliable, and the Indian Evidence Act,1872 does not prescribe any minimum or maximum age to test the competence of a witness under section 118.

Previous articleSC: Limitation commences when a default occurs according to S.9 IBC
Next articleWeekly Highlights ( 31st Jan- 6th Feb)
Hi! I am Anubhuti Awasthi. I am pursuing B.A. LL.B (Hons) from Amity University, Lucknow. Reading and writing keep me alive. I like to explain legal concepts easily. I have a keen interest to take part in moot court competitions and public speaking. I've been an active volunteer of the human rights cause and have worked for it through the various initiatives led at my alma mater. No wonder I've continued to do intensive research and studies on human rights, socio-environmental issues, and criminology. I am driven to contribute my bit towards society at large, by using law as a weapon.