High Courts Weekly Legal Update (12 November to 16 November)

High Courts Weekly Legal Update (12 November to 16 November) 


Allahabad High Court



Section 24 of the CrPC cannot be invoked to seek transfer of claim petition pending before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT). 


Referring to the relevant provisions, the court said that the words “subordinate to it” occurring in Section 24 (1) (b) of the Code were crucial. “Since a Claims Tribunal is created by a notification of the State Government under the provisions of the 

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Motor Vehicles Act, it cannot be said that such Tribunal is a Court subordinate to the High Court within the meaning of the term occurring in Section 24 CPC, despite the fact that an award of the Claims Tribunal is appealable to the High Court under section 173,” 

 Bombay High Court 


The Bombay High Court has dismissed a couple of PILs based on an article that appeared in The Times of India on June 21, 2018, with the headline: “LED lamps cost Rs 3,400 in market, NMC pays Rs 9,900”.


Calcutta High Court 


High Court give direction to appointment of counsellours educational institutions in West Bengal to protect students from sexual abuse.


Delhi High Court


Delhi High court held that courts cannot consider the question of viability of a claim as under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, while hearing a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.


The Delhi High Court dismissed religious leader Daati Maharaj’s review petition challenging the order transferring the inquiry into the rape case against him to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).


The  Court ruled that the rejection or acceptance of anticipatory bail of an accused by the High Court is not relevant for consideration of the regular bail of the accused. 



Jammu & Kashmir High Court


The Court registered a suo motu PIL taking note of extreme lack of sporting facilities in the entire state. The bench comprising Chief Justice Gita Mittal and Justice Alok Aradhe issued a notice to the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports of GOI, and States other institutes. 


Karnataka High Court


Court slammed a woman for filing a false dowry case against her mother-in-law. Justice KS Mudagal opined that the proceedings against the petitioner (mother-in-law) were an “abuse of the process of the Court” and that their continuation would amount to “failure of ends of justice”.


Kerala High Court


Court ruled that with 2:1 majority that  quarrying sites will not come within the definition of ‘commercial site’ within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 so as to qualify for exemption from ceiling limit under 81(1)(q) of the Act.


In Sabarimala The High Court on Thursday dismissed the anticipatory bail plea of activist Rehana Fathima. 


 Madras High Court



(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});