haryana hc

Repetitive and unnecessary litigations will attract fines: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Filing similar petitions repeatedly with alterations for a favorable outcome will not be exercised and would attract fines and punishment for wasting the judicial time amid the pandemic. Punjab & Haryana High Court gave the decision in the case of Vijay Lata vs. Rajiv Arora [CRM-M-43025-2020] presided over by the single bench of Hon’ble Justice Alka Sarin.

In the above-cited case, the appellant approached the court for the fifth time for seeking the same relief under the same provisions of law by cleverly re-wording some portions of her petition. Court noted that the present petition was vaguely drafted and the petitioner tried to conceal all the previous orders passed by the Trials courts or the other High courts.

It was observed that Petitioner was expelled from Kurukshetra University from the designation of a lecturer and therefore, she challenged her termination by filing CWP No.1986 of 1993 in the trial court, which eventually got dismissed. The petitioner again filed a petition for recalling the order, which again got dismissed. Petitioner then decided to move to the Supreme Court and challenged both the dismissed orders. But her SLP was again dismissed by the Supreme Court.

The petitioner thereafter filed Civil Suit No.186 of 1994 seeking a decree of declaration and a consequential decree of the mandatory injunction to the effect that her services should not have been terminated and that she should be reinstated, challenging therein also the appointment of Naresh Kumar in her place.

The HC bench observed that none of the previously passed judgments or decrees were attached to the present petition. And when she couldn’t be successful on the civil side, the petitioner then set in motion a series of proceedings on the criminal side. Appeals were made u/s 340 CrPC on 17-12-20.  HC stated, “A perusal of the above-narrated facts would make it clear that the petitioner has already unsuccessfully knocked on the doors of this Court several times by invoking the provisions of Section 340 CrPC”.

Later HC contended that “The present proceedings must be labeled as nothing more than an abuse of the process of the Court particularly in view of the fact that with respect to the same subject-matter several similar petitions had already been filed by the petitioner against this very respondent which were all dismissed. The earlier orders passed by this Court declining any relief to the petitioner in her petitions filed under Section 340 CrPC still hold good and have not been set aside by the Supreme Court”.

Referring to the previous judgments in the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan [(2005) 2 SCC 42] HC noted that there was no justifiable reason to entertain the present petition. The court said that because the petitioner had concealed all the past orders in the present petition, she didn’t come to court with clean hands.

HC contended that “It is well settled that litigants who, with an intent to deceive and mislead the Courts, initiate proceedings without full disclosure of facts, such litigants have come with unclean hands and are not entitled to relief”.

And hence, the HC bench decided to dismiss the petition of the woman with a fine of Rs 25000/- because she moved to the High Court and Subordinate Courts repeatedly in several rounds of litigation for the same matter.

Click here to read Judgement


Plea for allowing live-body donation dismissed: Allahabad High Court

A plea seeking a direction to enable and make it lawful for the petitioner to perform Live Body Donation (Jeevit Deh Dan) of his human body and of all his living organs and tissues was dismissed by the Allahabad High Court. The High Court presided over by J. S. Yadav and J. J Banerji dismissed the plea made in the case of Ranjan Srivastava Vs. Union of India, [Public Interest Litigation No. 49 of 2021].

The facts of the case are that plea was filed by one Ranjan Srivastava to seek directions to enable and make it lawful for medical doctors/hospitals/institutions to perform the necessary medical procedures on him for his act of Live Body Donation. In his plea he sought directions from the Court that living organs and tissues from the body of the petitioner could be transplanted into the bodies of the desperately suffering needy could be done.

The Petitioner pleaded that the fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution gave the petitioner a right to walk into an operation theatre of a suitable facility at a suitable time and for making multiple gifts of life to desperately suffering and dying individuals.

The Court in this case analyzed the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994, which includes provisions for the regulation of removal, storage and transplantation of human organs and tissues for therapeutic purposes and for the prevention of commercial dealings in human organs and tissues and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Further, Section 9 of the act includes restrictions on removal and transplantation of human organs and tissues.

The Court in this case was of the opinion that, “If we accede to the relief sought for by the petitioner in the present writ petition, the same would contrary to the restrictions imposed u/s 9 of the Act of 1994. It is further noticed from the provisions of the Act of 1994 that detail procedure is laid down under Chapter II of the Act of 1994 which deals with the manner for the removal of human organs or tissues or both.”

The Court further held that, “Since ample provisions have been made in the Act of 1994 as regard to removal, storage and transplantation of human organs and tissues for therapeutic purposes, we are not inclined to grant the relief as sought for by the petitioner in this petition being misconceived.”

Click here to read the Judgment


Both the limbs of Order XXIII Rule 1(3) must be satisfied for withdrawal of suit: Calcutta High Court

Both the limbs of Order XXIII Rule 1(3) must be satisfied for the withdrawal of any suit by the plaintiff. The court can allow a suit to be withdrawn by the plaintiff only if the two conditions mentioned under the provision are fulfilled. This assertion was made by the Calcutta High Court presided by J. Debangsu Basak in the case of Mahesh Properties Pvt Ltd. vs. Partha Pratim Majra & Anr. [IA No. GA 4 of 2020] [Old No. 1709 of 2019] [In CS 265 of 2016].

The executor had applied for grant of probate of the will of Kiran Wadan Bhagat since deceased was one of the sons of Late Lajpat Rai Bhagat who was the sole and absolute owner of 7 bighas of land in Panihati Municipality, Parganas. He had died intestate leaving behind his widow Jagjit Bhagat, three sons The widow of Late Lajpat Rai Bhagat died leaving the three sons and one daughter as his heirs and legal representatives. After the death of Kiran since deceased, his four daughters had executed a registered power of attorney dated June 20, 2005 and appointed their brother Ajay Wadan as their lawful and constituted attorney. Ajay Wadan and Ravi Wadan had transferred one half share of the property to various persons one of whom is the purchaser herein. The father of the executor had filed a suit being before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Sealdah against the purchasers claiming inter alia for a decree of declaration with the deed of conveyance executed by Ravi Wadan and the daughters of Kiran Wadan is null and void and not binding upon the plaintiff. The father of the executor had claimed that by virtue of a probate granted by the learned District Delegate at Barrackpore District, Parganas of the Will of Ravi Wadan, he is the owner of the suit property. The executor had applied for grant of probate of the Will of Late Kiran which was granted.

The honorable High Court contended, “In the facts of the present case, the executor has not claimed that, there is any formal defect in the probate proceedings filed by the executor. The application for withdrawal has not specified any ground far less sufficient ground for allowing the executor to institute a fresh suit for the subject matter. In such circumstances, since neither of the two limbs of Order XXIII Rule 1(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 have been satisfied by the executor, an unconditional leave to withdraw the proceedings to be filed before any other Court, cannot be granted as has been prayed for.”

Click here to read judgment


Accused has a choice to either furnish surety or give fixed deposit in case of bail : Himachal Pradesh High Court

Courts can impose restrictive conditions upon grant of bail subject to the evidence produced. The High Court bench consisting of J. Anoop Chitkara laid down strict conditions upon the petitioner seeking grant of bail in the case of Dinesh Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh [Cr. MP(M) No. 67 of 2021].

The petitioner, came up to the court seeking regular bail on the ground that he was innocent. The petitioner had been accused of establishing sexual relation with the victim, a female aged 30 years and belonging to the Scheduled Caste Community, under the false promise that he would marry her. The victim filed an FIR against the petitioner claiming that he had stayed with her for four years under the promise of marriage and continued to have sexual relation during the entire period. He also promised the victim to solemnize Court Marriage in 2021. However, he was discreetly engaged with some other girl and upon confrontation about the same, he told the victim that such engagement was because of the family pressure and he was unhappy with the same. He continued to have coitus with her after this and even gave her contraceptive pills.

The Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that incarceration before the proof of guilt would cause grave injustice to the petitioner and his family. The Counsel for the State on the other hand contended that if the Court was inclined towards granting him bail then such a bond must be subject to very stringent conditions. This would take care of any possibility of the accused influencing the investigation, tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses and the likelihood of fleeting justice. Relying on the case of Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT Of Delhi) [(2020) 5 SCC 1, Para 92], the counsel argued that the Court could impose restrictive conditions subject to the evidence produced.

The High Court, upon analysis of the case stated that the victim continued to have coitus with the petitioner even when she came to know that he was engaged with another women, and hence, any further incarceration of the petitioner would not be justified. Due to this, the petitioner is eligible for bail. Relaying on the case of Manish Lal Shrivastava v. State of Himachal Pradesh [CrMPM No. 1734 of 2020], the court observed that “Any Court granting bail with sureties should give a choice to the accused to either furnish surety bonds or give a fixed deposit, with a further option to switch over to another”. Further, the court asked the petitioner to surrender all firearms along with license within 30 days, which he, subject to the provisions of the Indian Arms Act, 1959, could claim back in case of acquittal. Further that the bail could be cancelled if during the pendency of the trail the petitioner repeats or commits any offence where the sentence prescribed is more than seven years or if he violated any condition stipulated in the present order.

Click here to read judgement

Law Firm Bangalore

Interference in academic matters amounts to Judicial over-reach: Bombay High Court

To interfere in matters in which it has little, or no expertise would amount to judicial over-reach. The Bombay High Court refused to pass allow and pass directions in a plea to spread awareness on the Constitution of India, Right to Information Act and Consumer Protection Act amongst citizens. The High Court presided over by CJ. D Datta and J. R.V. Ghuge laid down the ration in the case of Sanjay Bhaskarrao Kale Vs. Union of India & Ors., [PIL No. 116 of 2016].

The Petitioner in this case is a social activist and in his plea he seeks directions from the Court to spread awareness of the contents of the Constitution of India, the Right to Information Act and the Consumer Protection Act among the masses by including such laws as compulsory subjects of education at high level of studies, i.e., Undergraduate and Post-Graduate courses.  

The Petitioner in his plea was of the opinion that if laws are to be enforced there is a need to make people aware about the same too. He further stated that, “keeping the citizens informed is an obligation of the Government. It is equally the responsibility of the society to adequately educate every component of it so that social level is kept up.”

The Bench in this case noted that the petitioner wanted the judges to act as academicians and interfere in academic matters, a field in which they have very little or no expertise. The Court stated that, “As Judges, we primarily don the hat of an adjudicator. Having regard to the manifold activities in relation to administrative work that we perforce are bound to discharge, we also don other hats. An attempt is made by the petitioner by presenting this Public Interest Litigation to make us don the hat of an academician too and interfere in academic matters, a field of activity where we have little or no expertise. There could be a judicial over-reach and stepping into the domain of the other organs of the State, if we were to entertain the prayers in this PIL petition.”

The Court referred to the foreword of Justice KK Mathew’s book titled ‘Democracy, Equality and Freedom’, which reads “…in our present dispensation, a Judge cannot, except for honourable exceptions, lay plausible claim of legal scholarship”.

Click here to read the Judgment

1 2 3 95
Open chat