#delhihighcourt Archives - Page 26 of 30

21 Jun

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the legal system cannot be used to track down a judgement debtor.

Prime Legal

Blog #delhihighcourt

Case Title: SPP Food Products Pvt Ltd vs India Overseas Co

Judgment delivered on: 29.05.2023

Case No.- + CM(M) 918/2023

CORAM- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

Introduction

The High Court of Delhi has held that the court’s process cannot be used to investigate the judgement debtor’s location or get any other information about the debtor. The court has ruled that it is the decree holder’s primary responsibility to gather such data from all available sources. Following the rejection of an application by decree holder SPP Food Products Pvt Ltd in execution proceedings initiated against judgement debtor India Overseas Co., the bench of Justice Tushar Rao Gedela made the above observations before dismissing the petition challenging the order of the trial court.

Facts of the Case

The applicant for the decree had requested that the bank holding the judgement debtor’s funds furnish the KYC and other required documentation in order to locate the judgement debtor and learn his or her current whereabouts.

The party holding the 2015 trial court decree claimed that it had been trying to serve it onto the judgement debtor for the last seven years without success because it could not determine where the debtor lived. The court reasoned that the lower court’s decision to reject the application runs counter to the principle that a decree must be carried out in all cases.

Courts Analysis and Decision

However, the court ruled that the lower court had not acted perversely, illegally, or improperly in issuing the ruling. Information on the respondent/judgment debtor’s whereabouts or other information cannot be obtained through the Court’s process. The petitioner/decree holder “has the primary responsibility for independently obtaining such information from all available sources.”

The court denied the petition and clarified that the decree-holder is free to take any further measures necessary to carry out the judgment considering the court’s remarks.

Judgment- click here to review the judgment

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Anushka Satwani

21 Jun

A petition asking the Delhi High Court to have “objectable scenes” cut from the film ADIPURUSH was denied an expedited hearing.

Prime Legal

Blog #Adipurush, #delhihighcourt

Introduction

On Wednesday, the Delhi High Court declined to fast-track a plea asking that offensive sequences from the film Adipursh be cut. The date of June 30 has been set as a possible hearing date for the petition against the film. The petitioner’s attorney argued during the mention that the film is in opposition to the June 30 listing of the “controversial” Adipursh film.

Courts Analysis and Decision

The attorney told the court that the film is now available for public viewing, and asked for a swift hearing on the motion to prevent its showing.

What are you restricting then, sir, since it is already out, asked the three-judge panel presided over by Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju. The council claimed that are several “controversial parts” in the film. According to Justice Ganju, the release dates are scheduled months in advance. The judge asked, “Why didn’t you come before?” since “it’s not as if it’s announced today.”

Counsel said that Director and Producer “promised” to cut the scenes before releasing the trailer and teaser, but they were still included. He went on to say that Nepal’s decision to prohibit the film was having a negative impact on international ties.

The court, according to Justice Ganju, was not persuaded of the urgency, thus they did not move the hearing forward. “30 June? The court asked the attorney to return on that certain date. The petition claims that any alteration or tampering with the sacred images of Lord Ram, Sita, or Hanuman by the film’s producers, directors, or performers would be a breach of the Hindu community’s religious freedom.

It claims that the scenes are a “absolute insult” to Hindu civilisation and holy icons since they depict them in a demeaning light.

In his petition, Hindu Sena National President Vishnu Gupta claims that the film Adipurush violated both freedom of conscience and practise and freedom to manage religious affairs under Article 26.

Written by- Anushka Satwani

20 Jun

Burning A Copy of The Constitution: The Court Condemns the Delhi Police for Being Unsuccessful to Complete an Investigation into the 2018 SC/ST Act Case and Issues a Summons to the ACP

Prime Legal

Blog #Constitution, #delhihighcourt

Title: State Vs Deepak Gaur

IN THE COURT OF SH. DEVENDER KUMAR JANGALA ADDITIONAL SESSIONS SC No. 360/2018, FIR No. 75/2018 153A/505/120B/34 IPC

Order Dated- 27.05.2023

Introduction

On Saturday, the Delhi Court reprimanded the Delhi Police for failing to conclude an investigation into the alleged burning of a copy of the constitution and the chanting of anti-SC/ST slogans during a protest on Parliament Street in 2018.

Contrary to the provisions of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, this court has repeatedly urged the investigating officer and senior officers to conclude the investigation that has been lingering since 2018, despite having 60 days to do so. “It is extremely disheartening to note that despite this court’s specific observation regarding the delay in conducting an investigation, the investigating officer has failed to comply,” the court stated.

A copy of the previous order was also sent to the Additional Commissioner/Joint Commissioner and Special Commissioner of Police, according to Additional Sessions Judge Devender Kumar Jangala, with the hope that bringing the matter to the attention of senior police officers will yield some results. The court added that it appears that senior police officers are also napping on the case.

Facts of the Case

According to a report by The Hindu, the FIR was filed “in connection with Youth for Equality protesters burning a copy of the Constitution and shouting slogans against B.R. Ambedkar and the SC/ST community.” Saturday, the police informed the court that the investigation had been assigned to Additional DCP-I/South West District but could not be completed due to a lack of time.

In an order dated 27 May, the court stated that on the last date of the hearing, the Additional Commission/Joint Commissioner of Police was informed that according to the provisions of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the investigation must be concluded within 60 days and the supplementary charge sheet must be filed without delay. “However, despite this court’s specific observation and reminder to the Additional Commissioner/Joint Commissioner of Police, even the investigation’s status report has not been filed with this court,” the court said.

Courts Analysis and decision

The court described it as a “classic example” where the Supreme Court’s observation in National Campaign on Dalit Human Rights v. Union of India is directly applicable. “The Honourable Supreme Court in Case (supra) stated, ‘We have closely examined the evidence on file, and we are of the opinion that the authorities in question have failed to comply with the provisions of the Act and the Rules. The laudable purpose for which the Act was enacted is undermined by the indifference of the authorities,’ the court stated. Instructing IO ACP Ajay Gupta to appear in court on the next date of hearing along with the investigation’s status, the court ordered the Special Commissioner of Police (concerning Range) to expedite the investigation of the case in accordance with the provisions of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

“The Special Commissioner of Police (involved Range) is ordered to file a status report by the next date, i.e., June 8, 2023, regarding the measures taken to assure a swift investigation in this case. The Special Commissioner of Police (involved Range) is also directed to file the report under his own signature in accordance with the above order.” The court also ordered that a duplicate of its current order as well as the previous order be sent to the Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police, in order to bring to his attention, the conduct of the police officials, namely the Investigating Officer, Deputy Commissioner of Police, and Additional/Joint Commissioner of Police, New Delhi.

Judgment- click here to review the judgment

Written by- Anushka Satwani

20 Jun

The Delhi High Court declines the bail request of an educator alleged of raping the student he was teaching.

Prime Legal

Blog #delhihighcourt, #IPC, #rape, #section375

Case Title: Babu Lal Bhawariya v. State of NCT Delhi

Date of decision: 19th June 2023

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI

+ BAIL APPLN. 3093/2022 and CRL.M.A. No. 3550/2023

Introduction

The High Court of Delhi has denied bail to an instructor suspected of continually assaulting a minor learner and attempting to make a viral video of the incident. The defendant has been charged under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and section 6 of the legislation known as the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act of 2012.

“The court is unable to disregard the evidence showing that the petitioner and prosecutrix had contact as a teacher and student,” Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani stated in the order. The court stated that there appears to be significant forensic evidence against the petitioner, such as the forensic report stating that the petitioner’s DNA matches the DNA discovered on certain exhibits pertaining to the prosecutrix that were collected during the investigation.

Facts of the Case

“Taking into account that the meeting between the complainant and the prosecutrix was only meant to have been between an instructor and a student, it is unclear why the DNA matches,” the court said.

According to the prosecution, on April 20, 2021, the accused teacher requested the prosecutrix to come to see him at the Rithala Metro Station under the pretence of providing her with exam notes. Upon meeting the prosecutor, he allegedly told her he needed to give her additional documents that were at his residence.

It is alleged that at his residence, the teacher offered the prosecutor water and refreshments, after which she collapsed and he engaged in sexual contact against her against her will. When the prosecutor regained consciousness, she allegedly presented her with an objectionable video recording of the incident and threatened to make the video viral if she told anyone about it. According to the prosecution, while threatening to make the objectionable video go viral, the teacher engaged in sexual activity with the prosecutor approximately four times at his residence and seven times in hotels.

According to the prosecutrix’s Class-II School Leaving Certificate and Class-X Mark Sheet, which were lodged alongside the chargesheet, the prosecutrix was “minor” at the time of the commission of some of the alleged sexual assaults. It was asserted that the prosecutrix reached the age of majority in January 2022, and that the petitioner continued to engage in sexual acts with her afterward. After the alleged last incident in June 2022, a complaint was submitted with the police and a FIR was registered.

Courts analysis and Decision

The court stated that the prosecutor’s statement recorded pursuant to section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code supports the prosecution’s case, and the court has no reason to disbelieve the statement. Justice Bhambhani added, “It is also part of the record, but has not yet been proven by evidence, that the petitioner paid for the hotel room and checked into the hotel with the prosecutrix using a false ID.

“In light of the facts of the case, particularly the petitioner’s relative social standing vis-à-vis the prosecutor and the societal milieu, this court cannot be certain that the petitioner would not influence witnesses, flee justice, or otherwise attempt to prejudice the trial of the case if he is released on bail,” the court stated.

Judgment- click here to review the judgment

Written by- Anushka Satwani

19 Jun

The Delhi High Court has ordered the DSLSA to investigate the grant of compensation to a 13-year-old rape victim and has authorized the teen to have a medical termination of her pregnancy.

Prime Legal

Blog #delhihighcourt, #minor, #rape

Title: MINOR VICTIM-V v. THE STATE & ANR + W.P.(CRL) 1753/2023, CRL. M.A. 16385/2023

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH

O R D E R DATED: 12.06.2023

Introduction

On Monday, the Delhi High Court upheld the right of a 13-year-old rape victim to have a medical abortion even though her unborn child was between 24 and 26 weeks along. The compensation to be awarded to the youngster was also investigated by the Delhi State Legal Services Authority at the direction of a vacation bench presided over by Justice Jasmeet Singh.

Facts of the Case

The minor’s petition for a medical termination of her pregnancy was reviewed by a medical board consisting of at least two doctors from Guru Tegh Bahadur Hospital on June 9.

Since the medical advisory board has determined that the mother and the unborn child are at greater risk if the pregnancy continues, the doctors at Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital have been instructed to perform an abortion as soon as possible. A minor’s petition to the court for permission to have a medical abortion filed by her father was granted. The 13-year-old girl went to her grandmother’s house, when a renter from the same neighbourhood assaulted her, according to a status report filed with the Delhi Police.

The teen travelled back to her home in Bhopal, where she became ill and was then taken to the hospital by her parents, where she gave birth to a baby boy. A zero-digit FIR was filed, and on May 30, the girl was evaluated by doctors at a government hospital and confirmed to be between 24 and 28 weeks pregnant. The minor’s statement was recorded per section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the court was made aware of this.

Courts Analysis and Decision

The petition is approved and disposed with, and the court has directed that the DSLSA investigate the victim’s compensation. Furthermore, the court ordered the medical staff to provide the pregnant child victim with the highest standard of treatment, which includes post-operative care, to guarantee a full recovery before she is released from the hospital.

Additionally, the court ordered that the medical staff and the hospital make sure that the patient and the mother receive constant counselling and are informed of the hazards. From the time of the victim’s hospital admittance till the time of her release, Justice Singh ordered a female police officer to remain in the hospital room with her and her daughter.

Given the foetus’s advanced age, GTB Hospital’s Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) would be well equipped to care for a live birth. If such a facility is unavailable, the hospital is responsible for arranging the transfer of the foetus to another facility, which includes arranging for transportation. This is the responsibility of the Medical Superintendent of the relevant hospital.

It went on to say, “In any other circumstance, it is directed that the medical facility must safeguard the terminal foetus for the sole purpose of DNA testing which would be required in reference to the criminal case who has been lodged.” Following any instructions issued by the applicable criminal court, the terminal foetus and any DNA samples taken from it must be preserved in conformity with the law.

Judgment- click here to review the judgment

Written by- Anushka Satwani

1 … 24 25 26 27 28 … 30