Read Time: 01 hours
1. [Transgender woman's plea for re-newal of passport] The Delhi High Court has directed the respondent authorities to "expedite the process of police verification" in a transgender woman’s plea seeking direction to the authorities to re-issue her passport with her revised particulars, including her new name and gender, since her appearance changed after undergoing sex reassignment surgery. During the hearing, the counsel for the Centre informed that the police verification is pending in the present case. Court ordered, “The respondents are requested to expedite the process to ensure the petitioner is in a position to travel”. “I don’t intent to let go of this matter…I want the further instructions you have. I don’t want to let go of this matter till some streamlining is made for many others who probably can’t approach the courts if they need”, Justice Prasad remarked orally. The matter will be taken up for further consideration on September 18, 2023.
Bench: Justice Subramonium Prasad
Case Title: Anahita Chaudhary v. Union of India & Anr.
Click here to read more
2. [False allegations of dowry, rape amount to extreme cruelty] While upholding a family court’s order granting divorce to a man, the Delhi High Court recently observed that “false allegations” of dowry harassment and rape against the husband’s family is an “act of extreme cruelty” which cannot be condoned. A division bench dismissed a wife’s appeal against the family court order. The bench observed, “Making serious allegations of not only dowry harassment but of rape against the family members of the respondent (husband) which are found to be false, is an act of extreme cruelty for which there can be no condonation”. The bench said,“The learned Principal Judge (family court) has rightly referred to the respective testimony of the parties to conclude that there was no evidence to show that the marriage was not consummated but there was sufficient evidence to prove that there was reluctance on the part of the appellant who was never forthcoming for cohabitation”. Court noted that in this case, the parties had been residing separately since 2014 which proved that they are unable to sustain a matrimonial relationship thereby depriving each other of mutual companionship and conjugal relationship. “Such separation of almost nine years is an instance of ‘utmost mental cruelty’ asking for immediate severance of the matrimonial relationship on the ground of cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act”, the court added.
Bench: Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Krishna Bansal
Case Title: Anju v. Sandeep
3. [Cheating Case] The Delhi High Court has granted bail to Amrapali Group’s former Chief Managing Director Anil Kumar Sharma in a case related to alleged cheating with home buyers in his projects. Court said, “The allegations against the petitioner may be serious but they do not warrant the invocation of an exception carved in the first proviso to Section 436A CrPC, to continue the detention of the petitioner for a period longer than one-half of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for Section 420 IPC, when notably it is not a case of the prosecution that the petitioner has in any way been responsible for the delay of trial”. The matter pertains to an FIR that was registered on a complaint by one Anubhav Jain, who bought 26 flats in Tower G-1 of petitioner’s company's project “Amrapali Silicon City” proposed to be developed at Plot No. GH-1A, Sector-76, Noida.
Bench: Justice Vikas Mahajan
Case Title: Anil Kumar Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi)
4. [1997 Uphaar Cinema Fire] The Delhi High Court has allowed renewal of passport for 1 year of real estate tycoon Gopal Ansal convicted in an evidence tampering case related to the 1997 Uphaar cinema fire incident. Ansal had sought renewal of his passport for 10 years, contending it is the normal validity period of an ordinary passport. Senior Advocate Dayan Krishnan and Neelam Krishnamoorthy appearing for the Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy (AVUT) submitted that Gopal Ansal’s passport could be renewed in terms of office memorandum no. VI/401/1/5/209 dated October 10, 2009. “Let the passport of Gopal Ansal be renewed with the aforementioned office memorandum for a period of 1 year”, the bench ordered. Gopal Ansal, in his application, stated that he needed to travel abroad for business meetings for which he had to get his passport renewed urgently. Ansal’s passport expired on December 12, 2020. He stated that he would undertake that once his passport is renewed he would seek permission of the high court before leaving the country.
Bench: Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma
Case Title: Gopal Ansal v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
5. [Central Ridge forest] The Delhi High Court has directed that no construction activity, including building a boundary wall around Malcha Mahal, shall be carried out in the central ridge forest area in the national capital. Taking note of a news report about construction of a boundary wall around the Tughlaq-era monument besides toilets, the bench said that there cannot be concretisation of central ridge. The court sought a detailed affidavit on the issue from the Delhi government and ordered, "For the time being, it is directed that there shall be no construction at the central ridge including but not restricted to the boundary wall, grille work, and toilets." The court was hearing a contempt plea, on the basis of a news report published by the Times of India titled “Malcha Mahal in for royal makeover with boundary wall, iron grille and greening”. The report stated that: “As part of facelift and protection of Malcha Mahal, the Delhi government has decided to construct a 2-foot high boundary wall at the monument soon. It will be topped with a 5 ft high iron grille and will be built with stone masonry”.
Bench: Justice Jasmeet Singh
Case Title: Anjali College of Pharmacy and Science through its founder -cum-chairman Devendra Gupta v. Dr. Montu M Patel President, Pharmacy Council of India & Anr.
6. [Remarriage cannot oust natural guardianship over child from first marriage] The Delhi High Court recently dismissed an appeal by grandparents of a minor seeking custody and guardianship, inter-alia, on the ground that father of the child had remarried and this fact had “incapacitated” him to continue as guardian of the child begotten from his first marriage. Recognizing there is no substitute to love and affection of a natural parent, the Court allowed visitation rights to the father adding that not even disparity in financial status can oust the rights of a natural guardian. A Division Bench, while dismissing the appeal, held, “… mere second marriage of the father in the circumstances when he has lost his first wife, cannot be held per se a disqualification from his continuing to be a Natural Guardian... No doubt, the maternal grandparents may have immense love and affection towards the child, but it cannot substitute the love and affection of a natural parent. Even the disparity in the financial status cannot be a relevant factor for denying the custody of a child to the natural parent. However, in the matters of Guardianship and Custody, we are confronted with the dilemma where the logic may say that the child must be in the custody of his father, but the circumstances and the intelligent preference of the child points otherwise.”
Bench: Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
Case Title: Mohd. Irshad v. Nadeem
7. [Population of vultures] The Delhi High Court has asked the Centre as to why the drug ‘Nimesulide’ has not been banned and sought details of the deliberations undertaken in this regard, in a plea raising the issue of the decline in the population of vultures in India. A division bench noted that an affidavit had been filed by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, which was not on record. “Learned counsel for Union of India seeks and is granted two weeks’ time to place it on record. In view thereof, the Union of India is also directed to furnish the reasons as to why the drug ‘Nimesulide’ has not been banned, and deliberations undertaken in this regard. List on 20th September, 2023”, the court stated in its order dated September 1, 2023. Court was hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea filed by Advocate Gaurav Kumar Bansal raising concern over the issue of the decline in the number of vultures in India.
Bench: CJ Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula
Case Title: Gaurav Kumar Bansal Vs. Union of India & Ors.
8. [Courts not marriage facilitators] The Delhi High Court has observed that courts cannot be used as "marriage facilitators" between parties in sexual offence cases and to settle scores or pressure a party to act in a particular manner. The bench made the observations while dismissing a pre-arrest bail plea by a man accused in a case of alleged rape of a woman on false pretext of marriage. The accused, Ravi Bhushan Upadhyay had sought anticipatory bail on the ground that he was ready to marry the victim. In his plea, he stated that the woman's father, who was earlier not ready for the inter-caste marriage, was now prepared to accept the marriage. “The facts and documents on record, it is clear that the accused as well as the complainant have taken the judicial system and the investigating agencies for a ride and are trying to manipulate the judicial system to their advantage in different ways, one for seeking anticipatory bail though now, non-bailable warrants have already been issued against him since he was absconding and the complainant for getting married to him”, the judge opined. “In this Court’s opinion, the Courts of law cannot be used as a forum for the purpose of facilitating marriages and be used as marriage facilitators by first lodging an FIR alleging that the accused, after establishing physical relations, had refused to get married to the victim and later appear before the Court for either grant of bail which they have been opposing for many months”, she said.
Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharm
Case Title: Ravi Bhushan Upadhyay v. The State
9. [Excise policy case; Interim bail on medical grounds] The Delhi High Court has granted interim bail to businessman Amandeep Singh Dhall, lodged in jail in cases related to the Delhi excise policy scam on “medical grounds”. On perusal of the detailed medical report of Dhall, the bench noted that he is suffering from various medical issues and needs constant medical supervision and treatment. The judge said, “proper and effective medical treatment is a right of every individual” and it includes the petitioner as well who is facing cases being instituted by the CBI and ED. “No doubt, at the outset, the allegations levelled by the CBI and ED are quite serious in nature. However, such allegations are yet to pass the various tests including the present one wherein the petitioner has sought for statutory bail as well as these allegations are yet to be tested during the course of the trial. Thus, these allegations may be very serious in nature but while considering the medical condition of the petitioner, the Court is required to view the same with the compassion”, the court said. Court directed Dhall to be admitted to AIIMS within two days for appropriate medical tests and treatment. “Thus, I consider that without going into the merits of the case. Firstly, for the purpose of providing effective medical treatment, let the petitioner be admitted in AIIMS within two days for appropriate medical tests and treatment”, it said.
Case Title: Mr. Amandeep Singh Dhall v. Directorate of Enforcement & Amandeep Singh Dhall v. Central Bureau of Investigation
10. [PMLA Case] The Delhi High Court has extended Hyderabad-based Businessman Benoy Babu's interim bail by 10 days on humanitarian grounds, considering the "medical condition of his daughters". Babu is an accused in a case registered by the Enforcement Directorate in connection with the Delhi Excise Policy case. During the hearing, Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa, on behalf of Babu submitted, “He is on interim bail expiring on 9th September, no prejudice will be caused if atleast 2 or 3 weeks are given to him”. The bench noted, “The learned senior counsel for the petitioner are seeking an extension of interim bail on the medical condition of the daughters of petitioner. Mr. Zoheb Hossain has vehemently opposed the same and submitted that the medical condition of the children does not necessitate the extension of the interim bail”. On perusal of the report of the doctors, Justice Sharma noted that Babu's daughters are suffering from Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) (moderate) and have been referred to Ms. Tanvi Baluja for therapy. “Without going into the merits of the case, considering the plea merely on the medical condition of the children on humanitarian grounds the interim bail is extended till September 19 on the same terms and conditions”, the court ordered. “Since the interim bail has been extended for 10 days purely on humanitarian grounds, no further extension of interim bail on the issue of medical condition of daughters shall be sought”, the court said.
Case Title: Binoy Babu v. Directorate of Enforcement
11. [Staff contribution instead of Service Charges] The Delhi High Court has asked the members of a restaurant body, Federation of Hotels and Restaurant Associations of India (FHRAI) to use the term "staff contribution" for the amount they were claiming from their customers as "service charge". The bench was hearing the petitions against guidelines prohibiting hotels and restaurants from automatically levying service charges on food bills. The judge directed the Federation of Hotels and Restaurant Associations of India (FHRAI) to clearly specify the imposition in their menu cards and not charge more than 10 percent of the bill. "They will make it clear that it is not a levy by the government," the judge observed. The FHRAI submitted that its members are ready to change the terminology to “staff contribution”. However, the NRAI refused it, arguing that service charges had been imposed, considered and upheld in a number of decisions passed in the past, and thus the same required consideration. Justice Singh ordered, “The matter is now required to be heard further. In the meantime, it is directed that the members of FHRAI shall use the terminology ‘staff contribution’ for the amount of service charge that they are currently charging. The same shall not be more than 10% of the total bill amount, excluding GST. The menu card shall specify in bold that after the payment of staff contribution, no further tip is to be paid to the establishment. The above is merely an interim order which is subject to further orders in the writ petition”. The pleas are next listed for further hearing on October 3, 2023.
Bench: Justice Prathiba M. Singh
Case Title: National Restaurant Association v. Union of India & Anr.
12. [WB Mining Scam] The Delhi High Court has granted ten days' interim bail to Gurupada Maji, an accused in a money laundering case linked to an alleged coal mining scam in West Bengal. Maji had sought interim bail to perform the annual ‘Shraddha’ and rituals of his deceased mother. Senior Advocate N. Hariharan on behalf of Maji contended that the performance of these rites are necessary for religious purpose and are considered unavoidable in Bengali tradition. On the contrary, Special Public Prosecutor Anurag S. Sharma, on behalf of ED, submitted that in August 2022, Maji was released on custody parole from August 25, 2022, to September 3, 2022 and was directed to be accompanied by three police personnel in plain clothes. He contended that Maji may again go for the performance of all rituals in custody parole. Taking note of the fact that Maji has to visit his native village for the purpose of religious rites, the bench granted interim bail for 10 days to him from the day of his release on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two sureties of the like amount.
Case Title: Gurupada Maji v. Directorate of Enforcement
13. [Simultaneous Bar Association Election] A committee examining the feasibility of holding election to all Bar Associations in the national capital on a single day told the Delhi High Court that a meeting took place yesterday i.e. on September 5. The committee sought two to three weeks time for further deliberation. Court was hearing a plea filed by advocates pertaining to the issue of holding a “uniform election” in one day for all the Bar Associations in the national capital. “It has been brought to the notice of this court, that a meeting of the committee had taken place on September 5 and further deliberations are required. List after two weeks”, the division bench said.
Case Title: Lalit Sharma and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (another connected matter)
14. [Acid Attacks] The Delhi High Court recently while emphasizing the gravity of acid attack cases and their profound impact on victims, has underscored the pivotal role of the judiciary in deciding whether to grant or deny bail to the accused. In a recent ruling, the court acknowledged that acid attacks, known for their extreme brutality and life-altering consequences, send shockwaves through communities, leaving victims not only with physical scars but also enduring emotional trauma. "A heinous crime such as acid attack on a woman, disfiguring her for life, in broad daylight in a thickly populated area due to a love proposition repelled by the victim, can evoke strong emotions in the society in addition to inflicting grave psychological trauma to the victim. It is in such situations and cases that the Court's role as a guardian of justice needs to come to the fore,” the court declared. Justice Sharma's remarks came as he denied bail to an accused involved in a case where acid was thrown on a 30-year-old senior resident doctor. The attack was allegedly planned in conspiracy with a fellow doctor with whom the accused worked as a compounder.
Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
Case Title: Vaibhav Kumar Vs. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.
15. [Post operative care after surgery] The Delhi High Court has allowed excise policy case accused Amit Arora to be admitted to the hospital for post operative care after his surgery. A bench observed that the jail might not have the requisite infrastructure for the care required by Amit Arora. Amit Arora is one of the Directors of Buddy Retail Pvt. Ltd, who was arrested by the Directorate of Enforcement in connection with the alleged Delhi Excise Policy Scam case. Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa along with Advocates Prabhav Relli and Namisha Jain appearing for Arora submitted that Arora had been discharged from the Fortis Memorial Research Institute on August 31 wherein he had undergone Laproscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy. It was argued that considering the various medical conditions of Arora, he might be allowed interim bail for a period of three months. Whereas, Special Counsel of ED, Zohaib Hossain contended that Arora had remained out of the Jail for about 164 days which included the interim bail as well as the hospitalization. The present surgery was also an elective surgery.
Case Title: Amit Arora Vs. Directorate of Enforcement
16. [Contempt of court proceedings] In a recent order, the Delhi High Court has issued a criminal contempt of court notice to an individual who filed a petition demanding the death penalty for a High Court judge. The petitioner, Naresh Sharma, also sought charges of sedition against the judge while making inflammatory comparisons. The move comes after Sharma's plea, which sought a probe into corruption by the Indian government since independence, was dismissed by a single judge on July 27, 2023. Sharma's appeals against the initial judgment were reviewed by a Division Bench on August 31. The Bench examined the three appeals, which contained numerous unsubstantiated and fanciful allegations of criminal misconduct against the single judge and the Supreme Court of India. The court noted that Sharma had even requested the death penalty by a firing squad for government officers. The Division Bench deemed such allegations as 'unacceptable' and 'distasteful,' with the clear intent of undermining the authority of the Court. "In our opinion, the statements have been advanced with the malafide intention to interfere with the administration of justice. This Court cannot disregard vilification of this magnitude against a judge of this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court. There is a fine line of distinction that separates critique from allegations fueled by disdain and a hostile intent to scandalize the court. The pleadings in the present appeal amount to the latter category and must be taken cognizance of," the court stated in its order.
Bench: Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula
Case Title: Naresh Sharma v Union of India and Ors.
17. [Banks cannot use Look Out Circulars to recover money] The Delhi High Court ruled that banks cannot use Look Out Circulars to recover money and that LOCs cannot be established based only on the likelihood that a person could be named as an accused party in a criminal case since doing so would violate that person's constitutionally protected right to travel abroad. “Banks cannot use LOCs only as a measure of recovering money because the remedy as available under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is not sufficient and that opening of Look Out Circular will result in a faster remedy to recover money from the creditors”, the court observed. The bench said that LOC is a measure to make a person surrender before investigating authorities or a court of law and can be issued only when there are sufficient reasons for it. “The Look Out Circular can be issued only when there are sufficient reasons, and if there is a condition precedent for issuance of such Look Out Circular, it must be provided in the Look Out Circular. It is well settled that legality of a valid Look Out Circular has to be considered keeping in view the circumstances prevailing on the date on which the request for issuance of the Look Out Circular was made”, the court said.
Case Title: Nipun Singhal v. Union of India & Ors.
18. [Divorce case] The Delhi High Court in its recent judgment stated that financial instability can be considered a form of mental cruelty. The court made this observation while granting a woman's appeal for divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. The division bench, noted that the appellant (woman) was employed while the respondent (husband) was unemployed, leading to a substantial financial disparity between them. The court found that the husband's inability to establish stable employment created mental anxiety for the wife, which constituted a source of mental cruelty. The High Court allowed the woman's appeal, overturning the 2007 family court decision that had dismissed her divorce request on grounds of cruelty and desertion. The couple had married on April 9, 1989, but separated on November 27, 1996, after living together for nearly seven years and having no children.
Case Title: Poonam Wadhwa Vs. Rajiv Wadhwa
19. [Bill payment of Alzheimer's patient] The Delhi High Court last week sought the Delhi government’s reply in a plea by Moolchand Hospital for payment of bills of around Rs 52 lakh in treating an 84-year-old woman admitted to the hospital with advanced Alzheimer’s disease since 2017. The bench issued notice to the Delhi government and posted the matter for further hearing on November 6. The court was dealing with the hospital’s application filed in a pending 2019 plea pertaining to the appointment of a guardian for the woman. Dr Sundri G Bhagwanani, a gynaecologist from New York, was brought to the hospital in 2017 by her brother. But he died during the pendency of his plea seeking to be appointed as the guardian of his ailing sister to take care of her medical bills and overall health.
Bench: Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
Case Title: Mohan G Bhagwanani v. The Manager, State Bank of India & Ors.
20. [Sweden Professor Ashok Swain] Sweden-based Professor Ashok Swain has moved the Delhi High Court challenging a fresh order passed by the Central government dated July 30, 2023 cancelling his Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) Card. The matter is listed for hearing before the bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad on Monday i.e. September 11. Ashok Swain is a scholar and presently serving as Professor and Head of department at the Department of Peace and Conflict Research, Uppsala University, Sweden. He is also a UNESCO Chair on International Water Cooperation since 2007.
Case Title: Ashok Swain v. Union of India & Ors.
21. [Irretrievable breakdown of marriage ground for divorce] The Delhi High Court observed in a recent order that the lack of “Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage” as a ground for grant of divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) leads to parties suffering an acrimonious relation with no way to exit. A bench was hearing an appeal filed by the wife against a divorce petition by the husband, which was allowed on the ground of Cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the HMA. While refusing to set aside the divorce decree granted to the husband, the division bench has pointed out that despite the phenomenal change in social ethos after the enactment of the HMA, the grounds of divorce in the law only rests on “Fault Theory”. Court said that it is bound by limits as defined under HMA and unless the fault of the other spouse is shown, the warring parties continue to fight each other and suffer. “Unless the opposite party was shown to be at fault, whether it was for ‘Adultery’, ‘Cruelty’, ‘Desertion’ or other grounds as specified under Section 13 of the Act, 1955, no divorce can be granted. With the passage of time, experience has shown that many a times, the marriages do not work because of incompatibility and temperamental differences, for which neither party can be blamed,” the bench has said.
Bench: Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna
Case Title: Mamta Vs. Pradeep Kumar
Please Login or Register
