text:
Review: Karnataka High Court Rules That Any Marriage Entered into When First Marriage Subsists is Legally Invalid for Hindus
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
November 29, 2023
In this edition of Court judgements review, we look at the Supreme Court’s judgement which observed that the role of the accused must be considered for applying principle of parity for bail application, that if a person has an intention to murder any person but kills another he never intended to, he would still be guilty of murder, Karnataka HC’s ruling that any marriage entered into when the first marriage subsists is legally invalid for Hindus, among others.
SC: The role of the accused must be considered for applying the principle of parity for bail application
In Tarun Kumar vs. Enforcement Directorate, the accused applicant was arrested in 2022 in connection with a money laundering case. He had filed a bail application which was rejected by the Delhi High Court. Aggrieved by this, the appellant approached the Supreme Court. His argument was that the other co-accused in similar circumstances was granted bail. Likewise, the appellant argued that he was also entitled to bail on grounds of parity.
The Supreme Court bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela Trivedi rejected his argument stating that parity was not the law. The Bench also added that for the application of the principle of parity, the Court would also look at the role of the accused whose application is under consideration. His co-accused who was granted bail was an internal auditor while the applicant was the Vice President, responsible for the day-to-day operations of the company.
The Court also noticed that the appellant was involved in redirecting loan funds from the company to other related businesses where the appellant had a stake as either a shareholder or director. Further, the bench also added that the principle of parity is rooted in Article 14 of the Constitution. If a court provides a benefit or advantage to someone without a legal foundation, others can’t claim the same benefit because of the wrong decision. Also highlighting the seriousness of the offence of money laundering, the Bench stated that economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail.
SC: If a person has an intention to murder any person but kills another he never intended to, he would still be guilty of murder
In 2007, Mahendra was injured, and Saddam Hussain was killed in an incident involving three individuals. Nanhe, the accused, was charged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for murder and under Section 25 of the Arms Act for certain offences. Mohammed Ali, the father of the deceased, witnessed Nanhe and Mahendra quarreling while present at the scene. Nanhe initially left but then turned back and fired a shot with a country-made pistol. The bullet struck Saddam’s neck and hit Mahendra’s head. Nanhe was apprehended at the scene, and Saddam was taken to the district hospital where he succumbed to his injuries. The weapon and cartridges were recovered from Nanhe. Both the Trial Court and the High Court determined Nanhe’s guilt under Section 302 IPC for the offense.
In Nanhe vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, the appellant challenged the judgements of the courts stating that he had no intention to kill Saddam and that his death was accidental. But he had intended to kill Mahendra. The Supreme Court bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal invoked Section 301 IPC, which deals with the ‘Doctrine of Transfer of Malice or Transmigration of Motive’. It is a legal principle that holds a person responsible for their intent to commit harm or unlawful acts, even if the consequences affect someone other than the intended target.
In this case, the Supreme Court also referred to past cases and held that the appellant was culpable for committing an offense of culpable homicide amounting to murder under Section 302 IPC. According to the principle, the specific intention to kill a different person is not crucial. What matters is that the appellant had the intention to commit the offense, and even if accidentally, they ended up killing someone else. Considering the above, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to convict him under section 302 IPC for murder.
SC: Any witness claiming they saw the attesting witness sign the Will is not adequate to prove the Will as per Section 69
In Moturu Nalini Kanth vs. Gainedi Kaliprasad, the Supreme Court was hearing a property dispute in a civil appeal challenging the judgment passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court. A woman estimated to be in her 70s had adopted a child under one year and passed away two months later in 1985. The adopted child, who was then a minor, claimed that the woman had left all her assets to him through a registered ‘Will’ from 1982. He also added that she had revoked her prior ‘Will’ from 1981, which had favoured Kaliprasad, her grandson. Kaliprasad challenged Nalini Kanth’s claim to the property questioning the genuineness of the adoption and the legal validity of the ‘Will’.
At first, the trial court favoured Kanth. But upon appeal, the High Court overturned this decision, raising concerns about the validity of the adoption papers and contradicting the trial court’s initial ruling in Kanth’s favour. Kanth then sought a reversal of the High Court’s decision by appealing to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court bench of Justice CT Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Kumar scrutinized the evidence and identified certain inconsistencies in the adoption deed and ceremony. The contents of the adoption deed appeared to be influenced by someone and unconvincing. Section 69 of the Evidence Act was utilized to verify the authenticity of the ‘Will’. Section 69 is executed in cases when no attesting witnesses are found. However, the evidence provided by the Sub-Registrar under Section 69 was deemed unconvincing by the Court. Further, the Bench observed that it is not enough to have just any witness claim they saw the attesting witness sign the ‘Will’. The law requires the testimony of at least one attesting witness directly involved in signing the ‘Will’.
The court also found gaps in the adoption process as required by the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, especially the absence of mandatory giving and taking rituals. Expressing doubts about the credibility of the adoption, the court highlighted impracticalities in the situation, such as the likelihood of an elderly woman willingly taking on the responsibility of caring for an infant at such an advanced age. Ultimately, the Supreme Court rejected Kanth’s claim, emphasizing the necessity of strictly following legal provisions, stating that ‘Will’ registration alone doesn’t guarantee validity.
Karnataka HC: Temples are inclusive places of worship, and any form of discrimination is unacceptable
The case, Panduranga Bhat vs. the State By Malebennur Police & Another involves a petition filed to quash criminal proceedings against eight persons charged under provisions of Sections 3(1)(10) and (11) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and Sections 506, 341, 504, 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 324 and 354(B) of the IPC.
In 2016, the complainant had been to the Gadi Chowdeshwari temple along with her family members. The complainant, her husband, and their child along with other villagers were stopped at the stairs and not let enter the temple by the petitioner as the complainant and others in the group belonged to Scheduled Caste. The petitioners had even assaulted the complainant and others in the group and verbally abused the complainant’s family and their caste, describing how their visit to the temple would make the temple “unholy.”
The petitioners had approached the High Court following the dismissal of their petition by the Trial Court. Justice M Nagaprasanna of the Karnataka High Court rejected the petition stating that the fact that such discrimination is still prevailing shocked the conscience of the Court. It was clearly established that they had committed the said offences. Adding that the attitude of the petitioners was regressive, the Bench stated that worshipping of the deity, by entering into the temple, is to be given to one and all and any kind of bigotry or discrimination is unacceptable. Observing that the complaint dates to 2016, the Court instructed the concerned court to conclude the proceedings within six months.
Karnataka HC: Any marriage entered into when the first marriage subsists is legally invalid for Hindus
The case, Mahalakshmamma vs. The Secretary, Department of Rural Development and Panchayatraj, was an appeal filed by a woman who sought the family pension of a deceased government employee. She claimed to be the second wife of the deceased when his first marriage was subsisting. The Karnataka High Court’s division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit dismissed the appeal stating that monogamy was a legal mandate for Hindus and any marriage entered into while the first wife remains alive, and the marriage is not dissolved is deemed legally invalid.
Legally, the family pension will be sanctioned only to the ‘wife’ as per Rule 294 of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules and not to someone whose marriage is not legally valid. There is also a restricted recognition of the legitimacy of children born from these marriages, as per Section 16 of the Hindu Marriages Act, 1955. The Bench also added that recognizing such second marriages while the first marriage still exists was against the public interest as it could encourage employees to engage in second marriages, which is not allowed by law. Moreover, Bigamy is a punishable offense under Section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act, of 1955.

created: November 29, 2023


text:
Kerala HC directs the government to set up a mental health establishment in at least one prison
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
September 1, 2021
In this roundup of court judgements, we look at Constitutional Courts’ remarks & directions on criterion for creamy layer, Gujarat’s Freedom of Religion Act, mental healthcare for prisons, regulation of ethical concerns of media and speedy trial of cases against MPs/MLAs.
Supreme Court: Economic criterion cannot be the sole basis for identifying ‘creamy layer’.
In the case Pichra Warg Kalyan Mahasabha Haryana Vs. State of Haryana, the Supreme Court struck down a notification issued by the State of Haryana and observed that economic criterion cannot be the sole basis for identifying ‘creamy layer’.
The apex court was hearing a plea filed by an organization called ‘Pichra Warg Kalyan Mahasabha Haryana’ challenging a notification (dated 17 August 2016) by the State of Haryana, which specified the criteria for exclusion of ‘creamy layer’ within the backward classes. As per the said notification, children of persons having gross annual income up to Rs. 3 lakhs shall first get the benefit of reservation in services and admission in educational institutions. The left-out quota shall go to that class of backward classes of citizens who earn more than Rs. 3 lakhs but up to Rs. 6 lakh per annum. As per the notification, the sections of backward classes earning above Rs. 6 lakh per annum shall be considered as ‘creamy layer’ under Section 5 of the Haryana Backward Classes (Reservation in Services and Admission in Educational Institutions) Act.
The apex court noted that despite Section 5(2) of the 2016 Act making it mandatory for identification and exclusion of ‘creamy layer’ to be on the basis of social, economic, and other relevant factors, the State of Haryana has sought to determine ‘creamy layer’ from backward classes solely on the basis of economic criterion.
The apex court also observed that a clear preference has been given within the non-creamy layer to persons of a category having annual income up to Rs. 3 lakhs, in the matter of admission in the educational institutions, etc.
In 2018, in an earlier order, the Punjab & Haryana high court held the state government notification making a sub-classification within the non-creamy layer segment as annual income below Rs. 3 lakhs and annual income within Rs. 3 -6 lakhs as unconstitutional. The High Court also highlighted that there was no data to justify the sub-classification within the non-creamy layer.
In conclusion, the apex court quashed the said notification (dated 17 August 2016), giving liberty to the State Government to issue a fresh notification within a period of 3 months after taking into account the principles laid down in Indra Sawhney-I judgement and the criteria mentioned in Section 5(2) of the 2016 Act for determining ‘creamy layer’.
Gujarat HC: Permission of District Magistrate not needed for conversion by an inter-faith couple; high court stays Section 5 of Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act (Amendment) Bill 2021
The Gujarat high court refused to stay its earlier order staying Section 5 of Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act (Amendment) Bill 2021, noting that the certain provisions of the law “interferes with the intricacies of marriage including the right to the choice of an individual, thereby infringing Article 21 of the Constitution Of India”.
In a writ petition filed by Jamiat Ulama-E-Hind and Muhahid Nafees challenging the provisions of the Gujarat Freedom of Religion (Amendment) Act 2021, the bench Chief Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Biren Vaishnav noted that certain provisions treat every conversion by marriage as unlawful and put parties who have validly entered into inter-faith marriage “in great jeopardy”.
Section 5 of the Act directs that all marriages that involve conversion from one religion to another must acquire permission from the District Magistrate (DM). In other words, the person facilitating the conversion must take prior permission from the DM by applying with a prescribed form and the person converted has to inform the DM within a stipulated time period.
The bench also highlighted that Section 6A of the Act deals with the ‘Burden of Proof’ on the persons who caused the inter-faith marriages because “marriage itself and a consequential conversion is deemed as an unlawful conversion attracting penal provisions”.
The high court observed that a common man might perceive every conversion due to inter-faith marriage as prohibited by the Act. In conclusion, the high court stayed Section 5 of the Amendment Bill 2021. Other details were covered in our previous story.
Kerala HC: Directed the State to set up a mental health establishment in at least one prison for their well-being as per Section 103(6) of the Mental Healthcare Act.
In a suo moto proceeding, the Kerala high court directed the State to set up a mental health establishment in at least one prison for their well-being as per Section 103(6) of the Mental Healthcare Act.
The high court took cognizance of a news report regarding mentally ill prisoners remanded to custody for many years without any mental health support. The State, Kerala State Legal Services Authority (KELSA), and High Court Registry submitted information about mentally ill remand prisoners in the State along with suggestions to address the issue.
Considering a report submitted by the Secretary of the KELSA, the bench of Justice VG Arun asserted that the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) were yet to be amended in tune with the provisions of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017. For instance, in most of Chapter XXV of the CrPC, mentally ill accused were still termed as ‘lunatic’ and mental health establishments as lunatic asylums.
The State accordingly framed a scheme for the rehabilitation of mentally ill prisoners continuing in Mental Health Centres after acquittal. This scheme provided for shifting such prisoners to Psycho-Social Rehabilitation Centres and sanctioned an amount of Rs. 39,660/- per year to such centres.
In the lieu of this, the high court issued the following interim directions:
Madras HC: Directed formation of a Press Council of Tamil Nadu (PCTN) as a state-level media regulatory body.
In the case S Sekaran Vs State of Tamil Nadu and Ors, the Madras high court directed the Tamil Nadu government to create a Press Council of Tamil Nadu (PCTN) within 3 three weeks which would act as a State-level media regulatory body to clamp down on illegal and unethical practices in journalism.
The PCTN is to be headed by a retired judge of either the Supreme Court or the High Court and comprised of reputed journalists, retired civil servants and Indian Police Service (IPS) officers as members.
The Bench of Justices N Kirubakaran and P Velmurugan observed that fake journalists and the phenomenon of paid news have grown so exponentially. The following directions were issued:
In conclusion, the Government of Tamil Nadu has been instructed to comply with the above directions and file a compliance report within a period of four weeks, failing which the Director, Information and Public Relations Department shall appear before the court.
Supreme Court: For the speedy trial of cases against MPs/MLAs, special/CBI courts need to be set up in different parts of the state where more than 100 cases are pending.
In the case Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors., the Supreme Court has called for the establishment of more Special/CBI Courts to deal with the long pendency of criminal cases against sitting and former MPs/MLAs.
The bench of Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Surya Kant re-emphasized the urgent need of rationalizing the establishment of Special/CBI Courts.
The court took cognizance of a Status Report by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which revealed that there are 121 cases pending trial before different CBI Courts involving sitting MPs and Ex-MPs and 112 cases involving sitting MLAs and Ex-MLAs. As per the report, 37 cases are still at the investigation stage, the oldest being registered on 24th October 2013. There are several cases in which the charge sheet was filed as far back as the year 2000, but cases are still pending either for the appearance of the accused, framing of charges or prosecution evidence.
The bench noted that it may not be humanly possible for one/two courts in a state to expedite all the trials or take up the same on a day-to-day basis in terms of Section 309, Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The court has reiterated that all the High Courts have a responsibility to set up adequate Courts and ensure meticulous compliance of the directions issued by the top Court from time to time.
Featured Image: Important Court Judgements

source: news-factly

created: September 1, 2021

license: Creative Commons - Attribution - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

author: Sai Krishna Muthyanolla


text:
Kerala HC directs the Police Department to display details of Officers found guilty of corruption or human rights violations on website
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
April 7, 2021
In this roundup of the important court judgments, we look at directions about transparency and corruption charges, misuse of laws, free and fair elections, and selection of candidates with criminal antecedents.
Kerala HC: Publish details of police officers who have been found guilty of corruption or human rights violations on the official website
In the case State Public Information Officer & others vs. State Information Commission & Radhakrishnan R., the Kerala high court directed the Kerala Police to publish on its official website, the details of police officers who have been found guilty of corruption or human rights violations.
The court was hearing a petition filed by the ‘State Public Information Officer of the Crime Records Bureau’. The Information Officer moved the High Court challenging an order of the State Information Commission (SIC) which required police to publish details of corrupt officers found guilty in a court of law or dismissed from service on charges of corruption and human rights violations.
In 2010, the State Information Commission passed an order in an application filed by Radhakrishnan R., wherein he had sought the following information:
The State Information Commission reminded the State Police of its obligation as a public authority to maintain its records duly catalogued and indexed in order to facilitate information under Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI). The state police were also to ensure that all records that are computerised within a period of 30 days from the date of order in January 2012 and connected through a network so that access to such records is facilitated.
Radhakrishnan R. was informed by the State Public Information Officer that the name and other details of the police officers facing corruption charges or human rights violations cannot be disclosed as the said information is exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(j) and 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. In the said circumstances, he approached the State Information Commission and filed an appeal. The State Information Commissioner came to the conclusion that the information sought by the party respondent under cannot be denied relying on Section 24(4) of the RTI Act. The Commission, after perusal of the records, held that the information sought for by the applicant should be disclosed. Directions were issued to segregate the cases accordingly and to publish the information on the website of the Kerala Police as provided under Section 4 of the RTI Act in order to enable every citizen to have access to the said information from the website. This order was challenged in the present petition filed by the State Public Information Officer of the Crime Records Bureau.
The Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan held that the information authority cannot shield the name of those officers who have been found guilty or were dismissed from service on charges of corruption or human rights violations. However, the information authority under the Police department will not be obliged to publish the names of such officers against whom the offenses have been established on the investigation, but a conclusive finding has not been arrived at by a court of law.
The judgement emphasized that the information authority has to bear in mind that while dealing with information not falling within Section 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Act, the authorities cannot read the exemptions in a restrictive manner. Rather, the section was to be read in a practical manner so as to preserve public interest, the Court stated.
Gujarat HC: Rampant misuse of PASA Act has to be stopped
In the case Rohitbhai Laxmibhai Luni vs. Commissioner of Police, Surat, the Gujarat high court held that rampant misuse of PASA Act has been noted and strongly held that such tactics need to be nipped in the bud.
The court was hearing an application filed by the Petitioner apprehending his detention under Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities (PASA) Act in connection to the offence of kidnapping/ extortion.
Upon examining the details of the case, the high court observed that the present case is certainly not where the petitioner could be termed as a dangerous person within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the PASA. Section 2(c) of the PASA defines a dangerous person as anyone, who either by himself or as a member of a gang, habitually commits punishable offences. It was, in fact, a private dispute between few individuals with respect to personal financial transactions. The readiness of the police to detain the petitioner under the PASA Act in connection to the offence is an arm- twisting attempt by the complainant with the aid of local police authorities, as per the court.
The bench of Justice Paresh Upadhyay opined that rampant misuse of PASA has been noted and strongly held that such tactics need to be nipped in the bud. This case was one of such examples, where the police authorities took up the responsibility to settle the financial transaction/disputes between the parties with the threat of PASA.
In conclusion, the judgement granted interim protection to the petitioner from any coercive action by holding that in case a detention order under the PASA Act is passed against him, then it shall not be executed for a period of one month from the date of service of such an order.
Kerala HC: Voters should be able to see, with sufficient clarity, the name, photograph and symbol of candidates for free and fair elections.
In the case Twenty 20 Party vs. Election Commission of India & Ors., the Kerala high court held that voters should be able to see, with sufficient clarity, the name, photograph and symbol of candidates for free and fair elections.
The petitioner i.e., Twenty 20 Party is a registered unrecognised political party under Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The party claimed that the name, photograph and symbol of their candidates not clear and visible on the electronic voting machine in Kothamangalam, Thrikkakkara and Vypin Assembly Constituencies. The petitioner contended that the respondents have not treated all candidates with equal importance.
In response, the Standing Counsel for the Election Commission submitted a photograph of the EVMs in use and argued that the party’s symbol was clear and visible on the EVM. It was also submitted that any direction from the court would interfere with the free flow of the election.
Upon examining all submissions, the bench of Justice N. Nagaresh reasoned that since the election is scheduled for 06 April 2021, any direction that may be given to the respondents at this stage is likely to slow down the election process.
Under such circumstances, Court stated that it was disposing of the petition directing the Commission to ensure that the name, photograph and symbol of the candidates belonging to the petitioner-Party are sufficiently clear so that voters can make an easy and informed choice.
Allahabad HC: Laid down procedure to be adopted by competent authority for inquiring into the criminal antecedents of a candidate for selection.
In the case Sanny Kumar vs. State of UP, the Allahabad high court laid down the procedure to be adopted by the competent authority for inquiring into the criminal antecedents of a candidate for the purpose of selection.
The high court was hearing a writ petition filed by Sanny Kumar, who was aggrieved by an order passed by the Superintendent of Police (SP), Jalaun, cancelling his selection as Constable in the UP Police, in the backdrop of several criminal cases pending against him.
The petitioner contended that he had truthfully declared details of all the criminal cases pending against him in the affidavit of verification. The petitioner has not been charged in either of the two cases and one of the cases is an offshoot of a matrimonial dispute of his brother. The petitioner claimed that the order passed by the SP has overlooked the acquittal of the petitioner by the court in one criminal case. It was also contended that the authority has not adopted any standard of evidence while considering the material against the petitioner.
In response, the Standing Counsel for the State of U.P. submitted that the petitioner was not acquitted honourably by the trial court in the first case. The petitioner was named in the first information reports lodged in the other cases including one for an act of moral turpitude. The counsel argued that although the Investigation Officer (IO) did not file a charge sheet against the petitioner, it does not exonerate the petitioner, particularly, when trials are on foot. Hence, persons with such criminal profiles are not fit for appointment in the police force.
Upon examining all submissions, the bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot observed that criminal antecedents are accepted in law as reliable guides for an employer to assess character traits and evaluate the suitability of a candidate for appointment.  The police are a disciplined force that is charged with the duty to uphold the law and order in the State. Personnel in uniform belonging to disciplined forces, are expected to bear impeccable character and possess unimpeachable integrity.
In terms of examination of suitability of candidates for appointment, the judgement laid down the following broad principles.
The bench noted that the material available before an authority to determine the suitability of a candidate may be either reliable and conclusive, or credible but probative. However, both kinds of material are liable to be considered. The full inventory of material before the authority includes the F.I.R., the evidence collected during the criminal investigation, charge sheet submitted in court, evidence emerging during the trial, the judgment rendered by a court of law. On the foot of such material, the competent authority can make its decision on the fitness of the candidate for appointment.
The judgement describes that the determination of the suitability of a candidate for an appointment is an administrative decision that is part of the recruitment process. The process of evaluating suitability for an appointment is not an adjudication of guilt or innocence as in a criminal case.
The judgement holds that the competent authority is not always bound by the findings of the court, nor is it invariably constrained by the opinion of the investigation officer. The reasons are not far to seek. The authority while determining the suitability of a candidate for public employment is not required to reach the level of evidentiary standards demanded of the prosecution in a criminal trial or asked of a party in a civil trial or required of a department in a disciplinary enquiry.
The judgement opines that the conclusion of the competent authority is an estimation at best. The decision made by inferences drawn from the material in the records, by its very nature can never be proved by mathematical accuracy. However, to obviate possibilities of a miscarriage of justice, judicial safeguards have to be built into the decision-making process. Therefore, the authority has to adopt a procedure that is consistent with principles of natural justice.
Keeping these principals in light, the bench observed that the SP’s order need not be interfered with for the following reasons:
Important Court Decisions


text:
Review: Kerala HC Rules That Any Criticism or Loss of Reputation of Any Product Cannot be Treated as Defamatory
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
October 26, 2023
In this week’s review of Court Judgments, we look Supreme Court’s observation that it is difficult for doctors to foresee potential cardiac problem if patient had no history of diabetes or hypertension, Kerala HC’s ruling that any criticism or loss of reputation of any product cannot be treated as defamatory, Kerala HC’s comments that fathers also look forward to support from children and may be treated as dependent, among others.
SC: It is difficult for doctors to foresee potential cardiac problem if patient had no history of diabetes or hypertension
In Kalyani Rajan vs. Indraprastha Apollo Hospital & Others, the complainant-appellant is the wife of the deceased patient who died in the hospital while undergoing follow-up care and treatment after a major neurosurgery. The deceased was suffering from Chiari Malformations (Type II) with Hydrocephalus, a neurological disease. They sought guidance from the Senior Consultant in the Department of Neurosurgery. Following their recommendation, the deceased was admitted, underwent pre-operative medical evaluations, and subsequently underwent surgery conducted by the aforementioned doctor. The deceased was then moved to a private room. He experienced neck pain that appeared to have shifted to a lower region compared to where it was experienced before the operation. The concern raised by the appellant was that, following the shift to a private room, the deceased did not receive any attention or care from a doctor belonging to the neurosurgery team that had previously conducted the operation on the deceased.
The issue before the apex court was whether the respondents committed negligence in not providing proper post-operative medical care to the patient. A bench of Justices A S Bopanna and Prashant Kumar Mishra observed that as per the standard practice, all patients who show no signs of complications in the recovery room and have no post or preoperative complications are sent to their rooms. Further, they observed that the heart attack suffered by the patient did not have any connection neither with the operation in question nor due to any negligent post-operative care. Moreover, the patient did not have any history of diabetes, hypertension, or any cardiac problem as a result of which it was difficult for the doctors to foresee heart attack, it added. The Court dismissed the appeal.
Kerala HC: Any criticism or loss of reputation of any product cannot be treated as defamatory
Ayub H H vs. State of Kerala is an appeal filed by the complainant in the Kerala High Court dissatisfied with the Magistrate’s decision. In the original case, the claim is that the respondent posted a defamatory comment about the complainant on a Facebook page. It is asserted that this Facebook post was created to tarnish the reputation of the complainant’s motor company. The alleged offenses were under Sections 500 (defamation), 501 (publishing defamatory material), and 502 (selling defamatory material) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in Ernakulam decided that there weren’t enough reasons to continue with the complaint and dismissed it.
The court reviewed Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which defines defamation as any statement or publication that harms an individual’s reputation through spoken or written words, signs, or visible representations. Referring to past judgement, the Court held that Section 499 IPC is regarding the harm to the reputation of any person. Any criticism or loss of reputation of any product cannot be treated as defamatory though it may not be of the liking of the manufacturers/producers. The Court dismissed the petition and refused to interfere with the order dismissing the complaint passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate.
SC: Woman allowed to undergo surrogacy by staying amendment
In the case,  Arun Muthuvel vs. Union of India, the petitioners had challenged the amendment dated 14 March 2023 made to Form 2 under Rule 7 of the Surrogacy Rules, which is the form for Consent of the Surrogate Mother and Agreement for Surrogacy. The amendment states that donor eggs cannot be used for gestational surrogacy of an intending couple. She and her husband stated that they had completed the formalities for the procedure much before the Surrogacy Rules were amended to prohibit the use of donor eggs. There was no such bar when the couple had commenced with the procedure, the woman told the court.
The Court sought appropriate medical opinion and directed the concerned District Medical Board to certify whether the petitioners were in a position to produce oocytes (eggs) or not, due to Mayer-Rokitansky-Kuster-Hauser or MRKH syndrome. The condition causes absolute uterine factor infertility and the only way for a person suffering from such a condition to attain biological motherhood is through gestational surrogacy as they cannot produce their egg. The medical certificate noted the same.
A bench of Justice B V Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan allowed the woman to undergo surrogacy using a donor egg. However, it emphasized that the amendment has been stayed only in this case and that the Court is still considering the larger issue.
Kerala HC: Fathers also look forward to support from children and may be treated as dependent
In the case, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shymi & others, the Kerala High Court was considering an appeal against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kollam, granting compensation amounting to Rs. 36 lakhs to the dependent wife, daughter, and parents of the deceased who lost his life in a motor accident. The Tribunal had fixed the deceased’s monthly income as Rs. 16,220. While the claimants sought enhancement of the compensation, the appellant filed the petition aggrieved by the quantum of compensation.
While calculating the compensation, the tribunal deducted a quarter of the monthly income, taking into account the number of dependents as four. According to the counsel for the appellant Insurance Company, the father of the deceased could not be included, as he could not have been treated as a dependent. Hence, according to the appellant, the proper deduction should have been one-third. Justice Ziyad Rahman A A observed that unless there is evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income, and he will not be considered as a dependent. The mother alone would be treated as the dependent.
He added that, there is nothing wrong in treating the father of the deceased as one of the dependents, at least for the purpose of determining the personal expenses of the deceased. Under normal circumstances, after the son’s marriage, he would spend more on his wife and children, and the father’s dependency on him would be limited. However, that alone would not make the father disentitled to be treated as one of the dependents. Further, noting that men also do crumble down and look forward to the support from their children for various reasons such as financial exigencies, physical and mental ailments, loss of earning capacity, etc., the compensation was reworked before disposing the case.
Kerala Consumer Court: Day Care Procedure was done as 24 hours Hospitalisation was avoided due to technological advancement & so the reimbursement cannot be denied
The case Johny Milton vs. Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Ltd dealt with the disbursal of medical insurance. The complainant’s mother was diagnosed with an eye problem for which she had to undergo treatment. They spent nearly Rs. 28,000 which was on ‘inpatient for a daycare treatment’. The insurance company argued that the treatment for the condition involved an Accentrix eye injection, which is an “outpatient procedure”.
The Consumer Commission in Kerala observed that under guidelines issued by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI), “Intravitreal injections” were included in health insurance policies and that the company was denying the insurance on false grounds. Further, it noted that the patient was discharged on the same day due to advanced technology and infrastructure, which otherwise would have otherwise required hospitalization for more than 24 hours. The court also observed that the insurance company had cleared a similar claim despite being aware of the policyholder’s complaint. The commission asked the company to reimburse the expenses of the complainant and also pay Rs. 20,000 as compensation for the deficiency of service & mental agony.

created: October 26, 2023


text:
Review: Kerala HC Rules that Cumulative Value of Illegal Imports Carried by All Individuals with a Common Intention Must be Considered in Smuggling Cases
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
July 5, 2023
In this edition of the court judgements review, we look into the Madras HC’s judgment that said any person belonging to any caste or creed can be appointed as an Archaka provided he is well-versed and properly trained to perform the rituals, Karnataka HC’s assertion that both giver and taker of corruption are susceptible to prosecution, Punjab HC’s comments that merely because a woman committed suicide in matrimonial home, doesn’t imply that the husband and in-laws harassed her, among others.
Madras HC: Any person belonging to any caste or creed can be appointed as an Archaka provided he is well-versed and properly trained to perform the rituals
The complainant in the case Muthu Subramania Gurukkal vs. the Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Department, and others had filed a petition before the Court in 2018 against the advertisement for the appointment to the position of Archakas/Sthanikam (or someone who performs rituals). He contended that the advertisement infringed upon his hereditary right to the position as it was his family belonging to a certain caste who occupied the position since time immemorial. He also contended that the Executive Officer could not appoint the priest referring to an order of the Madras High Court which held that a committee was to be appointed for identifying temples belonging to Agama and until then, the appointment cannot be made. As per the order, in Agamic temples, appointment to the position was to be done as per custom.  Further, he also questioned the certificate courses recognised by the Department and submitted that the Agamas and Vedas cannot be learnt by undergoing a certificate course.
Justice Anand Venkatesh of the Madras High Court observed that in temples governed by the Agama, the Trustees/Fit Person only must ensure that the Archaka/Sthanikam to be appointed is well-versed and properly trained to perform the pooja as per the Agama. He highlighted that the pedigree based on caste would have no role to play in the appointment if the person so selected otherwise satisfies the requirements. It was also noted that the division bench had not observed in the order that the Trustees or the Fit persons cannot make appointments till the committee finalizes the report. It also allowed the recruitment process to continue and stated that the petitioner can also apply for the same.
Consumer Commission directs Bank to pay compensation for deficiency in service
In Abha Dobriyal & Another vs. Bank of Baroda & HUDCO, the complainants were a couple who had taken a housing loan of Rs. 50 lakhs from the Bank of Baroda in October 2018. They did so to avail benefits of subsidy under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (PMAY) scheme and submitted the necessary documents to the bank. Later, in August 2020, they received a message that an Application ID had been generated for PMAY (U). However, they did not get a response of any benefit from the bank despite sending multiple emails and reminders to the bank. The couple filed a case before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the bank because of which they had to face financial loss, harassment, and mental agony.
In its reply, the bank acknowledged the disbursal of the loan. But it submitted that the complainants had not approached the bank for the scheme. It added that the couple may have applied for the scheme online because of which the application number was generated. The bank also stated that they had no clue about the application made by the complainants under the scheme and so, there was no point in considering the mails.
Housing and Urban Development Corporation Limited (HUDCO) stated that the bank had uploaded the complainant’s subsidy claim in July 2020. But the claim was rejected by the corporation’s portal due to the wrong instalment number and a mismatch of the cumulative loan disbursement with the loan disbursement submitted up to the previous instalment. Further, it was stated that the bank did not upload the revised forms.
The Consumer Commission presided over by members, Surjeet Sharma and B M Sharma observed that HUDCO’s statement completely contradicted the bank’s contention that it was completely unaware of the application. It concluded that the bank’s service was deficient and directed the Bank of Baroda to pay Rs 1 lakh for the same along with the litigation cost. The Commission dismissed the complaint against HUDCO regarding the credit benefit or subsidy claim.
Karnataka HC: Both giver and taker of corruption are susceptible to prosecution
In Kailash S Raj & others vs. State of Karnataka, the Karnataka High Court dealt with two petitions filed by the three owners of Karnataka Aromas Company, and its two employees, Albert Nicolas and Gangadhar, who were charged under sections 7(b), 7A, 8, 9 & 10 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Following a complaint lodged against Maadal Virupakshappa and his son for demanding illegal gratification for processing a tender in Karnataka Soaps & Detergents Limited, the Lokayukta police conducted a raid in the accused’s office where they found the two employees of Karnataka Aromas Company carrying cash.
The petitioners who were booked for offering bribes argued that at best they could be charged under Sections 8, 9 and 10 of the Act as they were not public servants. They contended that the new provision of the Prevention of Corruption Act states that if the bribe-giver is compelled to give a bribe in a circumstance beyond his control, he should report it to the investigation agency within one week. They claimed that the FIR was registered against them within that week and so the petitioners could not be charged with the crime.
The Single Judge Bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed the petitions. If the petitioners were not booked, it would make the very object behind the amendment to the Act redundant. The amendment makes both the giver and taker equally responsible for corruption. Based on the proofs submitted and the narrations of the petitioners, he stated that “it is high time the menace of corruption is plugged and nipped in the bud by making the bribe giver susceptible to such prosecution, like the bribe taker.”
Punjab HC: Merely because a woman committed suicide in matrimonial home, doesn’t imply that the husband and in-laws harassed her
According to the facts of the case, in the State of Haryana vs. Darshan Lal and another, the respondent’s wife had committed suicide. Her father alleged that the respondent and his family tortured her for dowry. Despite giving them dowry beyond his capacity, he alleged that respondents and family would ask his daughter for more, maltreated her, and even threatened to kill her if the amount demanded was not paid. The father of the deceased alleges that his daughter committed suicide because of this torture.
The Trial Court observed the facts of the case and acquitted the husband of the charges. It was argued before the Punjab and Haryana High Court that the respondents (in this case) were wrongly acquitted. The Single Judge Bench of Justice Shekhawat observed that the father of the deceased had admitted that during the 18 years of subsistence of her marriage, no complaint or application alleging maltreatment or misbehaviour by her husband was made by the deceased. Further, the Court observed that the father could not give the exact details of the date or day for any of the accusations. He pointed out that the allegations were vague and general. Simply because a woman committed suicide in the matrimonial home does not mean that the husband and in-laws harassed her or abetted the suicide. The acquittal was upheld by the Court.
Kerala HC: Cumulative value of illegal imports carried by all individuals with a common intention must be considered to calculate value of goods
In Pulikkippoyil Sharafudheen and Another vs. Superintendent of Customs, the Kerala High Court was considering bail applications filed by a couple who were caught smuggling gold worth Rs. 1.2 crores in the domestic market. The petitioners were the second and third accused while the first accused was one Amjad Mihran who used carriers, including family members, to smuggle gold into the country. Citing that the family had four children and that the offence was generally bailable, the couple filed the bail application.
The Single Judge Bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that as per statutory provisions, if the goods, which have been mis declared or its duty evaded or imported illegally, have a market price of more than Rs. 1 crore, the offence becomes non-bailable. He held that, if the quantity of gold illegally imported was split into different parts and carried by different persons with a common intention, then the collective value of the illegal imports by all the individuals should be considered for calculating the value of the goods. He ascertained that such an approach was necessary, especially when a common thread, such as that of a family, runs through the body of these persons, apart from the common intention that binds them together.
The first petitioner was thus denied bail by the Court as he was involved in several smuggling activities. The bail plea by the second petitioner was accepted subject to the condition of her executing a bond for Rs.1 lakh with two solvent sureties.


text:
Review: Kerala HC Rules That Employers Must be Considerate When Transferring Working Women - FACTLY
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
January 17, 2024
In this edition of the Court judgements review, we look at the Supreme Court’s order that the victims in ‘hit and run’ cases should be informed about the compensation scheme, Allahabad HC’s order that anyone possessing knowledge about the commission of a cognizable offence has the authority to file an FIR, Kerala HC’s ruling that employers must be considerate when transferring working women, among others.
SC: The victims in ‘hit and run’ cases should be informed about the compensation scheme
In the case, S Rajaseekaran vs. Union of India and others, the Supreme Court heard the issue of effective implementation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 dealing with the grant of compensation in hit-and-run accident cases. The Supreme Court Bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal observed that the number of people who avail compensation under the scheme is very low. As per the annual report on Road Accidents in India, the Court noted that there were 67,387 hit-and-run accidents in 2022 alone. However, during the last five years, there were 660 deaths in hit-and-run cases, and 113 injury cases for which compensation of 184.60 Lakhs was disbursed, indicating how only a small proportion of the victims utilized the scheme.
While passing the order, the Bench issued the following directions:
Further, the Supreme Court Bench also proposed revising the compensation amounts from Rs. 2 lakh for death and Rs. 50,000 for grievous injuries in hit-and-run cases. The matter has been posted for 22 April 2024 for further consideration.
Allahabad HC: Anyone possessing knowledge about the commission of a cognizable offence has the authority to file an FIR
During an inspection by the Additional District Co-operative Officer, the petitioner in the case, Ajay Rai vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh was allegedly involved in illegalities that led to his suspension. A subsequent inquiry, prompted under the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1965, revealed a misappropriation of more than Rs.16 Lakhs following which an FIR was filed against the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the FIR in the High Court, arguing that it violated a Government Order from 2000 that stated that the Regional Deputy Commissioner, Co-operative, Varanasi, should register such FIRs. Additionally, it was contended that the necessary approval from the Registrar, Co-operative, was not obtained as mandated by Sections 103 and 105 of the 1965 Act.
Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Justice Vinod Diwakar of the Allahabad High Court observed that in this case, the Assistant Commissioner-cum-Assistant Registrar, Co-operative had authorized the Additional District Co-operative Officer to file the FIR and so, the petitioner’s contention lacked legal merit. Emphasizing the importance of an FIR, the Bench added that anyone aware of a cognizable offence, including victims, witnesses, or even police officers, has the authority to file an FIR. The universal authority to file an FIR is a foundational principle that ensures that anyone with information about potential criminal acts can access the criminal justice system, it stated while dismissing the petition.
Bombay HC: Man accused of raping a 13-year-old girl granted bail as the relationship was out of love and not lust
Nitin Damodar Dhaberao vs. State of Maharashtra is a bail application by the applicant who was booked for rape and related offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The victim in the case was 13 years old. Her father had reported that she went missing after leaving her home to retrieve a book in August 2020. When found, she revealed that she was in a romantic relationship with her neighbour, who promised marriage. Later, in August 2020, she disclosed being in Bangalore with him during a call with her grandmother. The case was registered, and the neighbour was arrested.
The applicant contended that the victim had voluntarily left her parents’ house due to a love affair with the accused and there was no intention to breach any promise. Further, she also admitted a love relationship with the applicant. The Bombay High Court Bench of Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke observed that the victim’s consent was irrelevant due to her age. Nonetheless, the statements recorded by the investigating officer indicated that the girl had voluntarily left her home. The court concluded that the alleged incident seemed to stem from a consensual relationship between two young individuals rather than being a case of forceful assault. The bail application was allowed on certain conditions.
Calcutta HC: The right of a person to live a life of dignity cannot be deprived merely because he is a convict
In Mahuya Chakraborty vs. the State of West Bengal and others, the petitioner’s husband was serving a life sentence and was in custody for more than 2 decades. She had filed a plea before the State Sentence Review Board, West Bengal (SSRB) for early release of her husband. However, the Board denied the plea. She approached the High Court contending that the SSRB wasn’t properly formed and the reasons for rejection didn’t align with the stance taken by the Supreme Court and other High Courts on remission.
The bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharya acknowledged that the grounds for rejection did not seem comprehensive. It emphasized the established principle that the goal of punishment in modern criminal jurisprudence is reformative, not retributive. It pointed out that the Apex Court had outlined various considerations beyond the nature of the crime and the likelihood of recurrence, none of which the SSRB had considered in this case. Despite opposition from the victim’s family regarding the plea for early release, the court emphasized that there must be substantial reasons to justify such opposition.
Asking SSRB to reconsider the petitioner’s application by forming a proper Board, the Court added that the right of the petitioner under Article 21 to live a life of dignity cannot be deprived merely because the petitioner’s husband was convicted. It also added that the convict had already served a significant time behind bars and subjecting them to further denial of an opportunity to reintegrate into mainstream society would amount to a form of double punishment, even if they meet the eligibility criteria.
Kerala HC: Employers must be considerate when transferring working women
In the case, Kala vs. the Employees State Insurance Corporation, two working women were moved from Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) Hospital in Ernakulam to the hospital in Kollam. The employees challenged these transfer orders at the Central Administrative Tribunal in Ernakulam which decided not to intervene. Unhappy with the Tribunal’s decision, the petitioners brought the matter to the Kerala High Court. The petitioners argued that they had to take care of their children and aged parents and the said transfer order would cause inexplicable difficulties.
The Bench comprising Justice A Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen acknowledged the petitioners’ caregiving duties for their ailing parents, the difficulty of relocating with working husbands, and the potential disruption to their children’s education if moved during the academic year. It observed that working women play a major role in taking care of their children and aged parents and may find it difficult to maintain a work-life balance in an unfamiliar environment. The Bench asked employers to be open-minded and show empathy when issuing transfer orders in such situations.
The court also noted that the matter was under consideration by the Central Administrative Tribunal. Until the Tribunal reached a decision, the court directed that the status quo should be maintained.
Delhi HC: The authority to grant admission to EWS/DG/CWSN category is conferred on DoE and the school cannot refuse admission
The case, Ojas Satyawali through his mother Bhawna Pathak vs. Directorate of Education dealt with a plea filed by a 7-year-old boy belonging to the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) who was denied preferential admission in a school under EWS/DG category.
When the matter was first raised in court, the respondent school contended that there was a discrepancy in the residential address entered in the registration form and that in the Aadhar card. It was also contended that a spot-verification was carried out by the school, revealing that they did not reside at the said address. However, the Court passed an order in 2023 directing the school to grant admission to the minor in Class 1 in the EWS/DG category for the 2023-2024 academic session.
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice C Hari Shankar added that the authority to grant admission to the EWS/DG/CWSN category was with the Department of Education (DoE). The Bench emphasized that the DoE was responsible for verifying and ensuring that the child in question is eligible for preferential admission in this category. If the DoE confirms eligibility, the school in question cannot reject admission to the child. Allowing the petition, the bench stated that it is crucial to prioritize the welfare of the child, and the law does not permit a situation where, despite the DoE’s approval, the school denies admission to the child.

created: January 17, 2024


text:
Review: Kerala HC Rules That Legal Heirship Certificate Cannot be Issued in Absence of Valid Adoption and Supporting Evidence
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
August 23, 2023
In this week’s review of Court Judgments, we look at the Supreme Court’s judgment regarding the extension of maternity benefits beyond the period of the contract, Karnataka High Court’s observation that the wife can represent on behalf of the plaintiff despite the absence of the power of attorney, Kerala High Court’s judgment regarding recognising legal heir, Delhi High Court’s order relating to copyright infringement case and the statement of MP High Court with respect to granting bail based only on the merit of the application.
Karnataka HC: Wife competent to depose on behalf of plaintiff even in absence of power of attorney
In the case Shashikala & Others vs. Laxman Yadu Kadam & Others, the single judge of Karnataka High Court said that the wife of a plaintiff is competent enough to depose on behalf of the original plaintiff in a civil suit, despite the absence of power of attorney issued to her.
An appeal was filed by Shashikala and others challenging an order passed by the First appellate court which reversed the trial court order dismissing the suit filed by Laxman Yadu Kadam, seeking a declaration of right over the disputed property and restraining the defendants from disturbing the actual possession.
The trial court dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff did not step into the witness box and in his place, his wife was examined based on the power of attorney executed by her husband.
The appeal relied on the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Janki Vashdeo Bhojwanu and another vs. Indusind Bank Ltd. and others. wherein it was held that Order III Rules 1 and 2 CPC empower the holder of power of attorney to ‘act’ on behalf of the principal.
The High Court observed that as per Section 120 of the Indian Evidence Act, the wife of the plaintiff was competent enough to depose on behalf of the original plaintiff, even in the absence of power of attorney.
A single-judge bench of Justice V Srishananda dismissed an appeal filed by Shashikala.
Kerala HC: Legal heirship certificate cannot be issued in absence of valid adoption and supporting evidence
A Division Bench of Kerala High Court consisting of Justice Alexander Thomas and Justice C. Jayachandran upheld a Single Judge’s finding that a Legal Heirship Certificate cannot be issued in favour of a person in the absence of a valid legal adoption and documents that provide evidence for the adoption, to enable them to claim compassionate appointment upon the death of the alleged adoptive parent.
As per the details in the case, Prameela L vs. State of Kerala & Ors, the appellant claimed to be the adopted daughter of one Gopalan, who was a part-time sweeper in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, GST.  He passed away while in service, and the appellant filed a plea before the Single Judge seeking the issuance of directions to the District Collector, Sub Collector, Tahsildar and Village officer for the Legal Heirship Certificate to be issued to her so that she can claim compassionate appointment.
The Single judge dismissed the plea since there was no adoption certificate or a declaration from a competent court.
This was contended by the counsel representing the appellant and noted that she has been residing with Gopalan, after the death of both her parents since the age of four years. The deceased has also conducted her marriage after she has attained 18 years. The counsel also submitted that the deceased has nominated the appellant to receive the death cum retirement gratuity, acknowledging her as his stepdaughter. He had also issued a consent letter to the Manager of Indian Bank, stating the appellant to be his adopted daughter, and making her the nominee in respect of his bank account. A registered will was also executed by the deceased recognising her as his adopted daughter and bequeathing her the right to realize all service benefits, pursuant to his death.
The counsel further highlighted that none of these documents submitted were considered by the Single Judge. It also added that the deceased could not adopt her because she is a Christian and he is a Hindu. There is no law that enables the adoption of a Christian adoptive daughter by a Hindu adoptive parent.
However, the senior Government pleader argued that in the absence of a valid and legal document that proves the adoption, the appointing authority cannot be faulted for not processing the request for a compassionate appointment.
The Bench perused the documents and determined that there was nothing to indicate that the appellant had been adopted by the deceased and was being treated in all respects as an adopted daughter, with all incidents of a biological daughter.
The Court noted that the deceased had nominated the appellant as a ‘stepdaughter’ in order to receive the death cum retirement gratuity and that in the consent letter issued by him to the Bank, the appellant had been referred to as ‘foster daughter’.
“These averments are far below the legal requirement, even to suggest remotely a valid adoption of the petitioner by the said Gopalan,” the Court observed.
The Court thus could not find any fault with the respondent authorities for not issuing a Legal Heirship Certificate in favour of the petitioner.
Delhi HC: Restrains Dabur from selling its product in a packing similar to Emami’s Navratna Ayurvedic Oil
In the case , Emami Ltd vs Dabur India Ltd, Delhi High Court has passed an interim order restraining Dabur from selling its “Cool King Thanda Tel” in packing which is deceptively similar to Emami’s Navaratna Ayurvedic Oil.
As per the details of this case, Emami Ltd, the Plaintiff, filed a suit against Dabur India Ltd, the Defendant, for passing off and infringement of Emami’s trademark, design, and copyright with respect to its “Navaratna Ayurvedic Oil”.
Reviewing the details of the case, the single bench comprising of Justice C. Hari Shankar, observed that Emami’s Navratna oil has been in the market since 1989, whereas Dabur’s ‘Cool King Thanda Oil’ entered the market only in May 2023. The two products when compared, both in bottle and sachet forms, are starkly similar. Any difference in shape is imperceptible and would miss the notice of an average customer. The judge also noted that the red colour of the oil in Dabur is also lifted from the one used by Emami.
The court concluded that there was a clear attempt by Dabur to make its product appear as similar to Emami’s Navaratna Ayurvedic Oil, as possible, so as to capture the market that was developed by the latter since 1989.
A changed packing placed before the court by Dabur was also rejected by the court as even it also infringing in nature. Considering the goodwill amassed by Emami over the years with respect to the Navaratna oil brand and its observation that there was a clear attempt by Dabur to make the product appeal similar, it restrained Dabur to sell its product.
Supreme Court: Maternity benefits must be granted even if period of benefit overshoots term of contractual employment.
As per the details of the case Kavita Yadav vs. Secy. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, (Case Civil Appeal 5010/2023) the appellant i.e., Kavitha Yadav had joined as a pathology doctor on a contractual basis at Janakpuri Hospital run by NCT, Delhi. Her contract was subject to renewal every year for up to a maximum of 3 years.
She applied for a maternity leave on 24 May, for a period starting from 01 June 2017 in terms under Section 5 of Act, 1961. However, the employer provided benefits only up to 11 June, on the basis that she would become disentitled to any benefit after the end of the 3-year contract.
She unsuccessfully challenged this action before CAT and the Delhi High Court, wherein the Delhi High Court ruling restricted maternity benefits to a mere 11-day period, citing the expiration of the contractual agreement.
A 3-judge bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose, Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice SVN Bhatti considered the appeal filed in the Supreme Court against the ruling of the Delhi High Court.
On behalf of the appellant, it was argued that once the appellant fulfills the prerequisite under Section 5(2) of the Maternity Benefits Act, a contractual employee would be entitled to full benefits. It was also submitted that the appellant also fulfills the requirement of having worked more than 180 days during the preceding 1 year.
Section 5(3) was also invoked in the argument, which prescribes a maximum period of 26 weeks for maternity leave. Emphasizing the broad scope of the Act, she argued that it extends its protection even to newborn children, underscoring the legislative intent to provide support even beyond the employment period. The appellant also referred to MCD Delhi vs. Female Workers case, which extended maternity benefits to daily wage laborers.
The court observed Section 12(2(a)) of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 contemplates entitlement even for an employee who is dismissed/discharged during her pregnancy and that provision for extending benefits for a period beyond the term of employment is built in the statutes.
It held that maternity benefits must be granted even if the period of benefit overshoots the term of contractual employment. Maternity benefits can travel beyond the term of contractual employment. The court directed the employer to pay maternity benefits as would have been available in terms of Sections 5 and 8 of the Maternity Benefits Act, 1961 and payment to be made within 3 months.
Madhya Pradesh HC: Person willing to serve social cause can’t be given bail without considering merits
The single Judge bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court comprising of Justice Anand Pathak emphasised that bail application should be heard on merit before bail is granted and a person cannot be given bail with the sole reason that he intends to serve social cause after his release.
The court made this observation in the case, Anoop Tyagi vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh. The appellant, Anoop Tyagi was accused of committing offences punishable under 341, 323, 294, 506, 34, 325, 307, 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He is under confinement since 29 April 2022. It was his third application for bail in this case.
It was submitted that he does not have any criminal antecedent to his name and that the applicant undertook to cooperate in the trial and assured the Court to stay away from the vicinity of the complainant party. He further voluntarily undertook to serve the environment/national/social cause voluntarily by planting saplings, to purge his misdeeds, if any.
Considering the contentions of the parties, the Court deems it proper to enlarge the applicant on bail imposing several conditions, including a direction that he shall plant saplings after his release.
However, it noted that the bail was provided based on merit and is not granted only because the applicant proposed to serve the environment/society voluntarily.


text:
Review: Kerala HC Rules That Legal Presumption/Assessment of Death Must for Issue of Legal Heirship Certificate to Kin of Missing - FACTLY
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
September 27, 2023
In this week’s review of Court Judgments, we look at Supreme Court’s observation highlighting the importance of eyewitness account, Delhi High Court declining UPSC aspirant’s plea to appear in exam, Allahabad High Court’s observation that an earning spouse is responsible to protect life, liberty & dignity of other as long as marriage survives, Chhattisgarh High Court’s judgment regarding a divorce case and Kerala High Court’s judgment in respect to an appeal regarding granting legal heirship in case of missing person.
Supreme Court: Eyewitness account can’t be discarded merely because of inconsistencies with medical evidence.
The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Aniruddha Bose and Justice Bela M Trivedi was hearing an appeal in the case Rameshji Amarsingh Thakor vs. State of Gujarat. The appeal was against a Gujarat High Court judgment that had overturned the acquittal by the trial court.
The appellant in this case was convicted under Section 302 of IPC for the murder of one Jayanthibhai on 10 July 1995. In the brutal killing of Jayanthi bhai, he succumbed to knife injuries during the incident. An FIR was lodged by the brother of the deceased alleging that the appellant committed the murder along with his father and brother.
The prosecution based its case on the eyewitness of the prosecution witness and the dying declaration of other witnesses. However, the trial court acquitted all the 3 accused based on medical evidence.
However, the High Court reversed the acquittal and held the appellant liable. Hence the appellants approached the Supreme Court. The defence on behalf of the appellants referred to the trial court’s observation which noted discrepancies in the manner in which the knife blows were allegedly inflicted, and the identification of the weapon used. The contention was that as per the medical evidence presented during the trial, the knife seized as evidence could not have caused the fatal injury sustained by the deceased.
However, the Court pointed out that the trial court had placed undue emphasis on relatively minor contradictions in witness statements, ignoring the overall testimony of the prosecution witness. It noted that the statement of the witness should not be entirely negated merely because as per the opinion of the autopsy surgeon, the fatal injuries could not be caused by the recovered knife.
The Court referred to the judgment in State of H. P. vs. Lekh Raj (2000) which emphasized that it was common for different witnesses to provide slightly varying accounts of details. The Court noted that unless these contradictions were of substantial significance, they should not be used to reject the entire body of evidence.
The Court relied on Darbara Singh vs. State of Punjab (2012) and Anvaruddin vs. Shakoor 1990 to emphasize the importance of ocular evidence over the opinion of medical experts.
On the aspect of discrepancies, the Court stated that there are bound to be some discrepancies between the narrations of different witnesses when they speak on details, and unless the contradictions are of a material dimension, the same should not be used to jettison the evidence in its entirety. It emphasized that the evidence provided by eyewitnesses and post-occurrence witnesses was consistent and sufficiently corroborated the prosecution’s account of events.
Hence, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction and dismissed the appeal. The Court highlighted the need to avoid undue reliance on fanciful doubts when considering the rule of the benefit of the doubt.
Allahabad HC: Earning spouse has a duty to protect life, liberty & dignity of other as long as marriage survives
In the case Santosh Kumar vs. Gayatri Devi, the Allahabad High Court observed that as long as the marriage survives, it remains the duty of the earning spouse to protect the life, liberty, and dignity of the other.
The bench comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Rajendra Kumar was hearing an appeal filed by one Santosh Kumar, challenging an order passed by the Family court under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, to provide Rs. 7 thousand per month as interim maintenance to his wife.
The contention of the appellant was that his salary was Rs. 16,500 currently, and earlier it was about Rs. 15,470. Therefore, it was unreasonable of the court to award the maintenance amount of Rs. 7,000 per month.
The court considered the same, and also in view of the fact that there were no children born from the marriage, it felt that the family court had erred by awarding nearly 50% of the total monthly income of the appellant, towards interim maintenance.
However, the court also added that certain minimum amounts have to be provided to ensure the protection of life, liberty, and dignity of the spouse of the appellant involved in an estranged marriage situation. The Court was of the view that the amount of Rs. 5,000 per month towards interim maintenance to the wife from the date of her filing of application would be sufficient to protect the interest of justice.
Delhi HC: Declines UPSC aspirant’s plea to appear in exam after she uploaded incorrect photo, signature in application form.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the plea of a UPSC aspirant to appear in the forthcoming Civil Services (Main) Examination after her candidature was cancelled for uploading an incorrect photograph and signature in the application form.
As per the details of the case Dikshika Meena vs. Union Public Service Commission & ors, the petitioner who has cleared the Preliminary Examination, claimed she had inadvertently uploaded her brother’s photo and signature in her application form. She challenged the cancellation of her candidature before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). She sought an interim relief to be permitted to appear in the Main Examination, which was rejected by the tribunal.
Delhi High Court upheld the order of the tribunal and observed that the candidates have a window of seven days from the closure of the application window, to correct any error which had crept in the application form. However, the petitioner had not availed the said opportunity. The court further noted that the petitioner had approached the tribunal after almost a period of 15 days from the date of rejection of her candidature.
The court was informed that the petitioner has already been selected to the Indian Revenue Services, and thus has unlimited chances to appear in the Civil Services Examination. It was also informed that even if she did not appear for the upcoming Main examination, she is not prevented from appearing in the Civil Services Examination next year.
UPSC submitted that the candidates are required to preview the application form before they uploaded it, and it was only after confirmation that they were required to upload it. Furthermore, the petitioner also had the opportunity to correct the application within a period of seven days.  Since the petitioner failed on these, there was no equitable relief that needed to be granted in her favour.
UPSC claimed that from around six lakh candidates that had appeared in the preliminary examination, around ten applications had been rejected on the grounds of mismatch of photographs and signatures. Therefore, it submitted that any order in favour of the petitioner would be in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as the petitioner cannot be given a benefit that was denied to other candidates.
The commission also submitted that the centre allowing the petitioner to sit in the preliminary examination on the undertaking given by her was totally unauthorised.
The Court accordingly dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order of the Tribunal.
Kerala HC: Legal presumption/assessment of death is must for issue of legal heirship certificate to the Kin of man missing
As per the details of the case Suseela & Ors vs. State of Kerala & Ors, a person by the name Rajendran went missing on 20 June 2022. The petition was filed by his wife and daughters, who stated that although FIR was registered by their relatives, there has been no headway in finding the missing person. Therefore, they have submitted their cases that the appropriate authorities were obligated to grant them the Certificate of Legal Heirship without insisting on a ‘Man Missing Certificate’.
However, the Government defending the case argued that as long as there was nothing concrete that Rajendran was missing and that he was perhaps not alive, the Legal Heirship Certificate sought by the petitioners cannot be granted.  They also informed the court that, no FIR has been submitted, as claimed by the petitioners.
Justice Devan Ramachandran hearing the case observed that a Legal Heirship Certificate could only be granted if there is a legally sanctioned presumption possible, or if it is factually assessed that the missing person is no more. Based on the presented facts of the case, the court said that there is the possibility of the missing person being alive somewhere without the capacity to contact the petitioners.
The petitioners were thus directed to register an FIR with the jurisdictional Police Station regarding the missing of Rajendran within a period of ten days. The police were directed to complete the investigation in this regard within a period of one month.
The Court further ordered that on completion of the Police enquiry and on the basis of the report by the Police, the petitioners can approach the Tahsildar for issuance of a Legal Heirship Certificate, which shall be considered and issued to them if they are found to be entitled, within a period of one month from the date on which such request is made.
Chhattisgarh HC: Mental cruelty to wife if husband instead of discharging family obligations indulges in excessive drinking habit.
The two-judge bench of Chhattisgarh High Court consisting of Justice Goutam Bhaduri and Justice Sanjay S. Agarwal, observed that if a husband indulges in excessive drinking habit and does not discharge his family obligations, as a result of which the family condition deteriorates, then it can be construed as mental cruelty to the wife and the entire family.
An appeal was filed by the wife, challenging the Family Court’s order rejecting her application seeking divorce on the grounds of cruelty.
As per the details of the case, the couple got married in February 2006, and have one son and daughter, out of their wedlock. When the son was of the age 10 years old and the daughter 13 years old, the wife filed a petition before the family court seeking divorce on the grounds of excessive drinking habits of the husband.
She submitted that her husband used to beat her and sell the household goods due to his habit of excessive drinking. This has resulted in the deterioration of family conditions. In May 2016, she was assaulted and abused in an intoxicated state by her husband and therefore was forced to live along with her two children at her parental home.
There was also an earlier application filed by her seeking divorce on similar grounds. However, during the proceedings, the husband promised that he would leave the drinking habit and mend his behaviour prompting her to withdraw her petition. However, there was no change in the attitude of the husband.
The husband did not appear in front of the Family Court and not for the proceedings in the High Court. However, a written statement was sent denying the allegations. In the statement, he further contended that he is staying apart because of the behaviour of his wife and that she used to extend threats and mental cruelty to him.
The court considered the statements provided by the wife and noted that many allegations of cruelty arose because of the excessive drinking habits of the husband. Since there was no cross-examination done in regard to the facts, the court would accept the statements made by the wife and deemed to be accepted by the husband.
The Court held that the husband had caused mental cruelty to the wife and as such, she was entitled to a decree of divorce. Therefore, the HC dissolved the marriage by granting a decree of divorce in favour of the wife. In regards to alimony, the court noted that if the husband has sufficient means, he is obligated to maintain his wife and children, held that the wife would be entitled to get Rs.15,000/- per month from the appellant/husband towards maintenance, which would be deducted at source from the salary of the appellant, if any received by the husband, or otherwise the amount would be treated to be a charge over the property held by the husband.

created: September 27, 2023


text:
Review: Kerala HC rules that low credit score of Co-Borrowers not a ground to deny Education Loans
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
May 18, 2022
In this week’s review of Court Judgments, we look at Kerala High Court’s judgment regarding denial of education loan in view of parents’ credit score, Karnataka High Court’s order in a case relating to the process of adoption of a child, Delhi High Court’s observation about eligibility to receive maintenance from in-laws and its order in a trademark infringement suit.
Kerala HC:  Low CIBIL score of Co-Borrowers is not a ground to deny Education Loans
In the case of Kiran David vs. Assistant General Manager, SBI, Justice N. Nagaresh of Kerala  High Court stated that CIBIL scores of Co-borrowers should not be criteria to deny education loans, as such conditions would defeat the very purpose of granting such loans. As per the case details, the petitioner Kiran David moved the Kerala High Court regarding the denial of an education loan by the Manager of State Bank of India citing that the co-applicants i.e., the parents did not have the requisite CIBIL scores.
Advocates representing the petitioner argued that as per RBI, an education loan is a futuristic loan and is aimed to provide financial support to deserving or meritorious students for pursuing higher education.  They referred to an earlier case, Pranav S.R vs. The Branch Manager, SBI & Anr, in which it was observed that unsatisfactory credit scores of the applicant’s parents cannot be a criterion for rejection of loan since the repayment capacity of the applicant after the education ought to be the deciding factor.
However, the respondents i.e., SBI opposed this petition. They submitted that as per SBI educational loan policy, the loan would be sanctioned jointly in the name of students and their parents/guardians, who are considered co-borrowers of the loan. Hence the credit discipline of the parents also becomes a criterion. Various RBI circulars and SBI guidelines require the borrower/co-borrower not to have an adverse credit history.
However, the Court was of the opinion that these circulars & guidelines are not relevant to the provision of Educational Loans. The court further highlighted that Education is a priority sector as per Reserve Bank of India (Priority Sector Lending Targets and Classification) Directions, 2020.
Hence, the court allowed the petition and directed the Bank to reconsider the loan application and sanction the loan if eligible, by disregarding the low credit score of the co-borrowers.
Delhi HC: Daughter-in-law can claim maintenance from her Father-in-law provided she inherited estate from her husband
Delhi High Court observed that the daughter-in-law can claim maintenance from her father-in-law in case she has inherited some estate from her husband. This court made this observation in the case Laxmi & Anr vs. Shyam Pratap & Anr.
The bench comprising of Justice Mukta Gupta & Justice Neena Bansal Krishna dismissed the plea filed by the appellant i.e., the widowed daughter-in-law & granddaughter since they did not disclose any information regarding any estate that they have inherited from the deceased husband i.e., son of the respondent.
The first appellant got married to the son of the respondents in December 2011 and a daughter was born in October 2012. The husband passed away in December 2013, post which the appellant and her daughter shifted to the parental house.  After 4 years, she filed a petition for maintenance, claiming that she does not have any source of income to maintain her daughter while her father-in-law is employed and has the means to provide for maintenance.
The respondents i.e., the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the appellant contended that she did not return all these years after she left for her paternal home and also, she is not entitled to any maintenance under Section 19 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 as the deceased has not left any estate.
The family court dismissed the application as the husband did not leave any estate behind from which maintenance can be claimed. This was challenged in the High Court. The claim in the High court from the petitioner was that they are entitled to claim maintenance from their father-in-law and were wrongly denied maintenance by the Family Court. The Court observed that Section 22 of the aforementioned Act provided for the maintenance of dependents of the deceased by the heirs of the deceased. However, it was subject to inheriting an estate from the deceased by the dependents.
In this case, the first respondent i.e., the father-in-law has expired and heirs i.e., the mother-in-law and Sister-in-law of the appellant have not received any estate from her husband from which the maintenance can be claimed.
Karnataka HC: Adopting a child directly from biological parents is not an offence
A single-judge bench of Justice Hemant Chadangoudar stated that it is not an offence if the child is directly adopted from the biological parents and is not punishable under the provisions under Section 80 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015 (JJ Act).
In the case, Banu Begum W/O Khajasab alias Mehaboobsab & others vs. the State of Karnataka, the prosecution alleged that the third accused has adopted the daughter born to accused 1 & 2 without following the provisions or procedure prescribed under JJ Act and thus is punishable under Section 80 of the said Act.
Section 80 D provides punishment for adopting any orphan, abandoned or surrendered child without following the provisions mentioned in the JJ Act. The Magistrate took cognizance of the accusation and summoned the petitioners who approached the High Court.
The petitioner stated that the child is alleged to have been adopted by the accused and is not an orphaned, abandoned, or surrendered child and hence falls under the punishable offences of Section 80 of the JJ Act. Therefore, the charge sheet filed against the petitioners does not have a substance. The High court agreed with the petitioners and said that in the absence of a declaration that the child is deserted by the biological parents, filing a charge sheet is not substantial. The Judge allowed the petition filed by the two couples i.e. the biological and adoptive parents and quashed the proceedings initiated against them.
Delhi HC: Awards 2 lakhs in damages to Star Bucks in a Trademark Infringement Suit
Delhi High Court has awarded Rs. 2 lakhs in damages and Rs. 9.6 lakhs in favour of Starbucks Corporation in a trademark infringement suit. Starbucks filed a trademark infringement suit over the usage of its registered trademark “Frappuccino” against ‘TeaQuilla, A Fashion Café’ i.e., the defendant. Through the suit, it sought a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing on its trademark “Frappuccino” as a stand-alone word or in conjunction with others as a prefix or suffix.
Starbucks i.e., the plaintiff was using the trademark ‘Frappuccino’ for its popular cold beverages across the world in various flavours and the trademark is registered in over 185 countries. In view of the quality of the goods under the trademark and its international marketing activity, they have earned goodwill and reputation. The defendant in the case was operating a café under the name “Café TeaQuilla – A Fashion Café” and was selling beverages under the names “Butter Scotch Frappuccino” & “Hazelnut Frappuccino” without the permission, authorization, or license of Starbucks. These products were visually similar to the various flavours and products of Starbucks using “Frappuccino”.
Through an earlier order in September 2019, the court has granted an interim injunction against the Defendants. The court observed that the defendant is found guilty of infringement and that it can grant notional damages accordingly. The Delhi High court awarded damages to the tune of Rs. 2 lakhs in the favour of Starbucks. It made a note of the Advocates fee certificate consisting of details of the cost incurred by Star backs towards lawyers & court fees which amounted to Rs. 9,60,100 and awarded this amount in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
Featured Image: Review of Court Judgments