#HighCourt Archives - Page 18 of 18

13 Jun

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the deposit of arrears cannot be made a condition for the granting of a stay on an interim maintenance order under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Prime Legal

Blog #delhihighcourt, #HighCourt, #Maintenance

Title: RS v. MB

CRL.M.C. 4349/2023 & CRL.M.A. 16345/2023
Decision delivered on:07.06.2023

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

Introduction

The Delhi High Court has noted that a revisional court cannot make a broad direction of paying the whole maintenance sum by ignoring the facts and circumstances of the case when deciding whether to issue a stay of an interim maintenance decision made under section 125 of CrPC. A vacation bench presided over by Justice Girish Kathpalia stated, “While exercising the revisional scrutiny of a temporary maintenance order slipped in legal proceedings under Section 125 CrPC, the revisional court for yet an additional purpose may not impose as a prerequisite to granting of stay on the implementation of the assailed interim repair order, such general rider of deposit of the full amount of granted maintenance ignoring the overall circumstances of the case.”

Facts of the Case

A husband’s motion to appeal the trial court’s denial of his request to stay the indefinite maintenance order was being heard. The lower court made its decision based primarily on the High Court’s directives in Rajeev Preenja v. Sarika.

In the case, the judge ruled that the Magistrate should not hear a husband’s appeal of an interim maintenance order in favour of his wife until the “entire amount of the interim maintenance due under the order of the learned MM up to the time of filing the revision petition is first deposited in the court of the learned ASJ.””

Justice Kathpalia pointed out that a subsequent case, Brijesh Kumar Gupta vs. Shikha Gupta, saw a single judge rule that the trial court’s order for maintenance payments must be paid in full before the statutory appeal could be heard.

Courts analysis and Judgement

The court emphasised that the Court of Sessions and the High Court have suo motu powers according to Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and that these powers come with a “attendant duty” to use them when necessary to achieve the goals of justice.

The court made clear, however, that it refrained from deciding whether an interim maintenance judgement was subject to a stay pending appeal. This matter must be reviewed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge considering the particular facts and circumstances of this case, as well as the existing body of law. The appeal was granted, and the case was sent back to the Additional Sessions Judge so that he or she may reconsider whether the magisterial court’s interim maintenance order should have been delayed until the outcome of the appeal.

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

10 Jun

The High court in Delhi has issued an order in response to Congress Young Leader Lokesh Chugh’s complaint about DU’s delay in admitting his Ph.D. thesis.

Prime Legal

Blog #congress, #delhihighcourt, #HighCourt

Title: LOKESH CHUGH v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS. on 13 April, 2023

W.P.(C) 4649/2023 & CM APPL 17922/2023
Introduction

Lokesh Chugh, Ph.D. Scholar and National Secretary of NSUI has moved the Delhi High Court against the Delhi University’s “inaction and delay” in recognizing his thesis, despite the university’s decision to bar him from taking an exam for an entire year due to his purported role in a showing of a documentary by the BBC on Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, who overturned the debarment judgment, issued a notice on Chugh’s petition, requesting a response from the Delhi University and other authorities, and scheduled a hearing for July 17.

Facts of the Case

Chugh, who is being represented by Advocates Naman Joshi and Ritika Vohra, has stated that he had been rushing from pillar to post to submit his Ph.D. thesis to the university but has received no answer from the authorities.

According to the petition, the Vice Chancellor of Delhi University stated publicly during a media engagement with the Times of India that the university intends to pursue an appeal against the verdict. Throughout today’s session, Chugh’s counsel argued that the varsity had not filed an appeal and that the judgement had not yet been stayed. Allowing Chugh to present the matter before the absence of the bench,

According to Chugh’s counsel, Justice Kaurav directed the varsity to comply with the decision if there is no stay. On April 27, Justice Kaurav overturned DU’s judgment citing a “violation of natural justice” and reinstated Chugh’s admission.

Courts Analysis and Decision

The judge rejected Chugh’s petition, which challenged a memorandum issued by the Registrar’s office on March 10 that barred him from sitting the exams for a year. He had also contested a probable cause order issued by the Proctor’s office on February 16 that stated he was involved in a disruption of law and order at the institution during the showing of the doc.

Click here to review the judgement

Written by- Anushka Satwani

10 Jun

CRIMINAL PETITION FILED IN KERALA HIGH COURT TO GRANT BAIL TO THE PETITIONER

Prime Legal

Blog #HighCourt, #keralacourt

DENNY JOHN VS STATE OF KERALA…. ON 7 JAN 2022

BENCH : HONOURABLE JUSTICE GOPINATH P

BAIL APPL.NO. 7 OF 2022

CRIME.NO.1156/2021

FACTS OF THE CASE –

This is a request for regular bail. The petitioner is accused of violating Sections 8(1) and 8(2) of the Abkari Act and was allegedly in possession of 3 1/2 liters of illicit arrack. The appearing counsel claims that only 500 milliliters of the alleged arrack was found in the possession of the petitioner and the remaining 3 liters were found in a property close to the petitioner’s residence. Public prosecutor also asserts that no serious criminal acts have been reported against the petitioner, who has spent 11 days in custody and has been falsely implicated in the case. The petitioner was in custody starting on December 26, 2021, and further detention is not required for the purpose of the investigation.

JUDGEMENT

Given the facts of the case, the claims made against the petitioner, and the possibility that imprisonment was not necessary for the purpose of the investigation, the petitioner was released on bail with tight conditions.

1. The petitioner must execute a bond for 50,000 rupees with two liable sureties.

2. Until further instructions, the petitioner must attend each Saturday at 11 a.m. before the koratty police station’s investigating officer.

3. The petitioner is not permitted to obstruct the investigation.

4. While on bail, the petitioner must refrain from committing any other crimes.

click here to view judgement

written by – Anvitha Rao

9 Jun

The Delhi High Court has ordered the Department to reconsider Travelport UK’s refund computation.

Prime Legal

Blog #delhihighcourt, #HighCourt

Case Title: Travelport International Operations Limited United Kingdom Versus Commissioner Of Income Tax International Taxation 3 N.Delhi & Ors.

Case No.: W.P.(C) 7140/2023 Date: 26.05.2023

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

Introduction

Based on the grounds of the writ petition, the Delhi High Court has instructed the government to examine Travelport UK’s refund adjustment.

The panel of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan overturned the department’s decision in adjusting an amount of Rs6,27,20,736 under Section 245 of the Income Tax Act and returned the case to the appropriate body to be decided anew within four weeks.

Facts of the Case

The applicant filed an appeal against the judgment by which the respondents adjusted an amount of Rs6,27,20,736 due to the petitioner against the claim for an earlier period (Assessment Year 2019-20). On November 3, 2012, a notice suggesting a modification under Section 245 of the Income Tax Act 1961 was sent, giving the petitioner thirty days to give an answer as to why a change like this should not be made.

The petitioner stated that the respondents were not permitted to make any adjustments for the Assessment Year 2019-20 dues since the demand for the assessment year had been delayed by a decision issued by the Tribunal for Income Tax Appeals on July 2, 2022.

The applicant adds that the respondent’s website on November 15 2022 also showed that the demand persisted. The petitioner was given thirty days to answer the notification, stating why a reduction of Rs 6,27,20,736 ought not to be granted against the outstanding demand for the Assessment Year 2019-20. On November 17 2021, the responders proceeded to alter the amount and give a refund for the remaining amount. The petitioner argued that under Section 245 of the Act, it was entitled to the complete reimbursement of Rs 31,21,36,560 with no adjustments.

Courts Analysis and Decision

The government maintained that the notification under Section 143(1) implies that the petitioner did not respond.

The petitioner argued the message was deceptive. A notification dated November 3 2022 gave the petitioner thirty days to offer an answer as to why a change should not be made. However, the change was made before the thirty-day period expired.

While remanding the case to the department, the court directed that the authority accept the terms of the petition as the petitioner’s answer in accordance with the intimation of November 3, 2012.

Judgment- Click here to review the judgement

Written by- Anushka Satwani

1 … 16 17 18