Legal Update as on 11.04.2023

Legal Update
  1. HC: Dharna Cannot Park on Municipality-Owned Spaces Without Official Permission – While noting that although every person has the right to enter shops in buildings controlled by the municipality, open space is only meant for customer parking, the Kerala High Court concluded that no one can assert the right to organise a dharna in such locations without the Municipality’s permission.
    Priyesh B Kartha V. The Deputy Superintendent Of Police.
  1. KAR HC – Consider a request to release a murder conviction on parole for marriage, KAR. HC to Prison Authority – The Karnataka High Court has ordered the jail staff to take into account a woman’s request for the parolee’s release from the morning of April 5, 2023, through the evening of April 20, 2023, in order to allow for their wedding.
    Rathnamma & ANR And State of Karnataka & Others
  1. HC: CCI’s investigation order has no bearing on a party’s rights or liability. – When dismissing a plea by J.K. Paper Ltd. challenging a Competition Commission of India (CCI) investigation order, the Gujarat High Court noted that the order merely directed an investigation to explore charges and had no bearing on the rights or obligations of the petitioner.
    J.K. Paper Ltd. Through Santosh Wakhloo, Authorized Signatory Herein v. Competition Commissioner of India
  1. KERALA HC: THE PUBLIC IS INTERESTED IN TRAI’S NEW TARIFF ORDER – While dismissing a petition against TRAI’s new Tariff Order, which increased channel costs for cable TV operators to be included in bouquets, the Kerala High Court noted that the new Tariff Order is in the public interest and does not demonstrate any illegality, arbitraryness, mala fides, or other legal flaws.
    All India Digital Cable Federation & Anr. v. Telecom Regulatory Authority of India & Anr.
  1. JKL HC: EQUITABLE AND PREROGATIVE JURISDICTION HAS NO PLACE FOR JUGGLERY OR MANIPULATION – The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court noted that juggling, manipulating, manoeuvring, or misrepresentation prevent a party from using equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 while upholding a single judge’s order imposing a one lakh penalty on the petitioner for withholding facts and misleading the court.
    Fayaz Ahmad Rather Vs UT of J&K
  1. HC: PROSECUTOR’S OPINION MUST BE BASED ON MATERIALS COLLECTED BY THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER The Calcutta High Court expressed its displeasure with the public prosecutor’s (PP) actions by not objecting to the bail application, but it also noted that as the state’s representative, the PP may have an opinion, but that opinion must be supported by the evidence gathered by the investigating officer.
    X v. The State of West Bengal & Anr.
  1. BOM HC: CAN’T PROSECUTE MAN FOR RAPE MERELY BECAUSE RELATIONSHIP DIDN’T CULMINATE IN MARRIAGE – After releasing a man accused of raping his girlfriend, the Bombay High Court made the observation that when two people come together and invest in a relationship, one cannot be penalised just because the other complained of the act when the relationship didn’t work out and didn’t lead to marriage.
    Sameer Amrut Kondekar Vs State of Maharashtra [Revision Application No.408 Of 2019]
  1. SC: TO APPLY FOR RES JUDICATA, PREVIOUS SUIT MUST HAVE BEEN DECIDED ON MERIT – When explaining the Res Judicata concept, the Supreme Court noted that the subject directly and substantially at issue in a future lawsuit must be the same subject as in the prior lawsuit for Res Judicata to apply. Additionally, the case ought to have been determined on the merits, and the ruling ought to have been final.
    Prem Kishore vs brahm prakash
  1. Celebrities sneak out surrogacy laws while those who are eligible are denied treatment procedures, according to MAD. HC. – In ordering the State to establish District Medical Boards pursuant to the Surrogacy Act 2021, the Madras High Court noted that while celebrity couples are able to get around the surrogacy laws and its onerous procedures, those who are qualified are unable to receive the necessary medical care.
    Priya Dharshini and another v. State of Tamil Nadu and others
  1. SC: THE PRESS HAS A DUTY TO PRESENT CURRENT CITIZENS WITH HARD FACTS AND THE TRUTH. – Supreme Court noted that press has a duty to speak truth and present citizens with hard facts and enable them to make decisions that lead democracy in the correct path while deciding against telecast ban imposed by Centre on news channel Media One using the argument of National Security.
    Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd vs Union of India and others
  1. PATNA HC ORDERED A NEW TRIAL IN THE POCSO CASE, WHICH HAD A SINGLE-DAY TRIAL CONCLUDED – The Patna High Court ordered a new trial in the POCSO case after dismissing the previous one because there had been a flagrant disrespect for the mandatory statutory requirements of the CrPC and a clear violation of the principles of natural justice.
    Raj Kumar Yadav vs. The State of Bihar Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 196 of 2022
  1. JKL HC: RAPE LEAVES A PERMANENT SCAR ON THE WOMAN’S MOST PRIDEFUL POSSESSION – When denying bail to an accused in a POCSO case, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court noted that no self-respecting woman would typically fabricate rape allegations because rape leaves a permanent scar on the most prized possession of a woman and has a serious psychological impact on the victim and her family.
    Sunil Kumar Vs UT of J&K
  1. As per the rules in effect at the time of the conviction, RAJ HC CONSIDER PAROLE OF DACOITY-MURDER CONVICT – On the grounds that the prisoner was convicted before the implementation of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 2021, the Rajasthan High Court has requested that the State consider the parole application of a Dacoity-Murder convict under the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 (Old Rules).
    Vijay Kumar @ Khusi Lal v. State Rajasthan & Ors.
  1. SC: THE 2015 AMENDMENT TO S. 153C OF THE IT ACT WILL BE REVERBAL. – The Supreme Court has ruled that the Finance Act 2015’s change to Section 153C of the Income Tax (IT) Act 1961 shall apply retroactively to searches made under Section 132 of the IT Act before the amendment’s effective date, which is 01.06.2015.
    Income Tax Officer Vs Vikram Sujitkumar Bhatia

Legal Disclaimer: The information contained in this blog post is for general information and educational purposes only. Nothing contained in this blog post should be construed as legal advice from The Aran Law Firm or the individual author, nor is it intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter.

Tags :

Share This:

Legal Updates