IMPORTANT JUDGEMENTS HIGH COURT

  Kangana Ranaut Vs.  Municipal Corporation Of Greater And Ors , (2020) 11 BOM CK 0045 HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY while granting relief to the Actress Ms. Kangana Ranaut held that the impugned notice dated 7 th   September, 2020 and the impugned speaking Order of demolition dated 9 th   September, 2020 issued / passed by Shri Late MCGM deserves to be quashed and set aside and the Hon’ble High Court passed the following Order : - (i) The impugned notice dated 7 th September, 2020 alongwith the speaking Order of demolition dated 9 th September, 2020 are quashed and set aside . (ii) The Petitioner is allowed to take such steps as are required to make the said bungalow habitable so that the Petitioner can immediately start occupying and using the same. However, to the extent any demolished portion requires a planning permission and such permission in not in place reconstruction of such portion can only be made either in compliance with the sanc...

Khalid Vs. State (GOVT. Of NCT Of Delhi), (2020) 09 DEL CK 0033 A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court held that the decision to extend the judicial custody of an accused seriously affects the accused and the principles of natural justice clearly require that such an accused be granted the right to oppose the passing of any such order. Clearly for the right to be more meaningful, it would also be apposite to disclose the detailed reasons for seeking such an order which extends the time for completion of investigation accruing out of the proviso to Section 167 of the Cr.P.C. as modified by Section 43(D)(2) of the Unlawful Activities(Prevention) Act, 1967 for investigations under UAPA. However, the rights ofthe accused in this regard have to be necessarily curtailed by the necessity to conceal such reasons from the accused and not make it public. This is because,at this stage, the investigation is incomplete and disclosing the manner in which investigation has proceeded and ...

Rakesh Malhotra Vs. Government Of National Capital Territory Of Delhi & Ors, (2020) 09 DEL CK 0038 ( Delhi High Court decided that keeping in mind the spike in the number of COVID-19 cases in Delhi, this court is of the opinion that the situation does not brook any further delay. Therefore, while providing a buffer of additional 2,000 RT-PCR tests besides 10,000 tests to the Delhi Government from out of a total testing capacity of 14,000 through RT-PCR (private sector and public sector combined), it is directed that henceforth, any resident of Delhi who wished to get tested at his/her own expense through RT-PCR for COVID-19 infection, need not produce a prescription from a doctor. The person concerned would only be required to fill up the form prescribed by the ICMR and produce the Aadhaar Card to establish that he/she is a resident of Delhi. )

Dheeraj Singh Vs. State, (2005) 07 DEL CK 0027 ( TO GRANT BAIL UNDER SECTION 364A IPC DELHI HIGH COURT HELD THAT BY EXAMINING THE CHARACTER OF THE OFFENCE AS WELL AS THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH ARE PECULIAR TO THE ACCUSED, AT THIS PRIMA FACIE STAGE, ONE CANNOT WITH ANY DEGREE OF CERTAINTY SAY THAT AN OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 364A IPC HAS DEFINITELY BEEN COMMITTED.THEREFORE, WHEN REASONABLE DOUBTS, PRIMA FACIE APPEAR IN THE MATTER, THE BAIL APPLICATION HAS TO BE CONSIDERED FROM THE STAND POINT OF NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES SUCH AS A REASONABLE POSSIBILITY OF THE PRESENCE OF THE ACCUSED NOT BEING SECURED AT THE TRIAL, REASONABLE APPREHENSION OF WITNESSES BEING TAMPERED WITH AND LARGER INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC OR THE STATE. )

Kangana Ranaut Vs. Municipal Corporation Of Gr. Mumbai And Ors, (2020) 09 BOM CK 0009 BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN A 10 PAGE ORDER RESTRAINED MCGM FROM CARRYING OUT ANY FURTHER DEMOLITION QUA THE PREMISES OF FLIM ACTRESS KANGNA RANAUT AT BUNGALOW NO.5, CHETAK ROW HOUSE, 41, NARGIS DUTT ROAD, PALIHILL, BANDRA (W), MUMBAI – 400 050

All India Union Bank Officer Vs. Brajeshwar Sharma, (2020) 09 MAD CK 0001 ( Madras High Court has Ruled & Declared that the doctrine of merger does not make a distinction between an order of reversal, modification or an order of confirmation and once the Writ Appeal is partly allowed and an order has been passed modifying the order of the Single Judge, the latter merges with the order passed in the Writ Appeal. The Court expressed the view that once the order of the Single Judge has merged with the order passed by the Division Bench in the Writ Appeal, if it is felt that the order has been violated or disobeyed, a Contempt Petition can be maintained only before the Division Bench and not before the Single Judge. )

Mrs. Laxmi Mukul Gupta Vs. The State Of Maharashtra & Ors., (2018) 01 BOM CK 0111 (BOMBAY HIGH COURT FOLLOWING THE PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN BY THE SEVEN JUDGES BENCH OF THE APEX COURT IN HARI VISHNU KAMATH VS. AHMAD ISHAQUE AND ORS. - (1954) 12 SC CK 0004 WHICH HAVE BEEN SUMMARISED BY THE CONSTITUTION BENCH IN THE CUSTODIAN OF EVACUEE PROPERTY BANGALORE VS. KHAN SAHEB ABDUL SHUKOOR ETC. - (1961) 02 SC CK 0026, QUASHED THE ORDER OF THE MAGISTRATE PERMITTING THE ACCUSED TO INTERVENE IN AN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 156(3) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (FOR SHORT ''CR.P.C.''. THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HELD THAT LEARNED JUDGE HAS EXCEEDED HIS JURISDICTION IN ALLOWING THE APPLICATION FOR INTERVENTION IN TOTAL DISREGARD TO THE SETTLED PRINCIPLES OF LAW. THE ERROR IS PATENTLY APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD AND HENCE CAN BE CORRECTED BY A WRIT OF CERTIORARI.)

  Mahasweta Biswal Vs. State Of Odisha And Another, (2020) 08 OHC CK 0013 ORISA HIGH COURT SUGGESTED THAT THE STATE GOVERNMENTWILL DO WELL TO GIVE WIDE PUBLICITY TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE SAID RERA ACT,2016 IN ORDER TO INJUNCT ANY UNNECESSARY LITIGATIONS ARISING OUT OFBUILDER-BUYER RELATIONS. THE STATE WILL DO WELL TO ENSURE THAT THE REGULATORYAUTHORITY FUNCTIONING UNDER SUCH AN ACT MUST BE AIDED BY ALL MEANS POSSIBLE.THE STATE WILL ALSO GIVE WIDE PUBLICITY TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT TO ENABLETHE LAY AND LAITY TO SEEK REFUGE UNDER THE APPROPRIATE LAW. THE SAME WILL GO ALONG WAY IN PREVENTING THE PROPERTY RELATED DISPUTE