Monday, October 25, 2021

No further internship necessary for medical graduates who completed internship in foreign country of study: Kerala High Court

Read Judgment



The following questions arise for consideration:


 i) Whether a person who has not undertaken internship as part of the medical course undertaken by him/her abroad is eligible to appear in the Screening Test provided for under Section 13(4A) of the IMC Act?
 ii) Whether a person who obtains Eligibility Certificate in terms of Section 13(4B) of the IMC Act after taking admission in a medical institution abroad, be denied enrolment on a State Medical Register, if he/she satisfies all other eligibility criteria for the same? 

iii) Whether a person who obtains a medical qualification from a medical institution abroad and undertakes one year internship thereafter in the country of education and satisfies all other eligibility criteria for enrolment on a State Medical Register be insisted to undergo CRRI for the said purpose? iv) Whether the State Medical Council functioning under the TCMP Act is empowered to take decisions in the nature of Ext.P21? 

Thursday, October 21, 2021

Why did Mumbai Sessions Court refuse bail? Drug case against Aryan Khan



Read Order

The Court said that Khan knew all along that Merchant was carrying charas and that it was for the consumption of both of them.


"Perusal of papers show that though nothing has been found from possession of 1, six grams of charas was found with accused 2 which was concealed in his shoes. Admittedly, accused nos. 1 (Aryan Khan) and 2 (Arbaaz Merchant) are friends since long. They traveled together and they were apprehended together at the international cruise terminal. Further, in their voluntary statements, both of them disclosed that they were possessing the said substance for their consumption and for enjoyment. Thus, all these things go to show that accused 1 was having knowledge of contraband concealed by 2 in his shoes," the order said.

The Court adverted to the Nawaz Khan judgment of the Supreme Court in which the top court had cancelled bail granted to a companion in a vehicle driven by the co-accused from whom recovery was made.

"In the present case also though, no contraband is found from 1, six grams of charas was found from 2, of which 1 was having knowledge. Thus, it can be said that it was in conscious possession of both the accused. Hence all the submissions made on behalf of applicant/accused in this regard cannot be accepted," the Court said.

"There is also reference of bulk quantity and hard drugs in this chat. Prima facie material showing that accused no. 1 was in contact with persons dealing in prohibited narcotic substances as alleged by the prosecution." 

WhatsApp chats reflected that he was indulging in illicit drug activities.

"Respondents claimed that accused no. 1 is in touch with foreign national who appear to be part of international drug trafficking and investigation in this regard is going on and respondent is tracing out criminal antecedents of said person," the Court noted.

"Further during the interrogation they disclosed names of persons who supplied contraband to them. Thus, all these facts prima facie go to show that accused acted in conspiracy with each other. It transpires that all the accused are connected in the same thread," the order said.

Section 37 will apply

Since conspiracy under Section 29 is invoked, rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act which lays down stringent for grant of bail, would apply, the Court said.

This proved to be crucial in the Court ruling against Khan.

Section 37 provides that bail cannot be granted in certain categories of cases under the Act if the public prosecutor opposes the application, unless the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and that the accused is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

In the instant case, there was prima facie evidence that Khan was in touch drug suppliers and was involved in illicit drug trafficking and could commit such crimes in future.

"Whatsapp chats prima facie reveals that Khan is involved in illicit drug activities of narcotic substances on a regular basis. Therefore it cannot be said that Khan is not likely to commit a similar offence while on bail," the Court concluded.

Considering the evidence on record it cannot be said that there are reasonable grounds for believing that applicants accused no. 1, 2 and 3 are not guilty of such offence and they are not likely to commit such offence while on bail, the Court opined.

"As discussed above, material placed on record prima-facie shows that Section 29 of NDPS Act is applicable. Therefore rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act would apply. Therefore it is not possible to record a satisfaction at this stage that applicants have not committed any offence under the NDPS Act," the judge said while rejecting the bail plea.

Tuesday, October 19, 2021

Delhi High Court refuses anticipatory bail to man who posed as Army Major on matrimonial site



Deepak Kumar v. State of GNCTD.
The prosecutrix told the Court that she was duped into the relationship by the accused man after she had associated with him on Jeevansathi.com.
"Taking into account the totality of the circumstances of the instant case which bring forth also through the submissions made now on behalf of the applicant by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant was apparently not working as a Major with the Indian Army and that thus, it is prima facie apparent that the prosecutrix prima facie appears to have been duped for entering into relationship with the applicant and thus the application seeking grant of anticipatory bail is declined."-Justice Anu Malhotra

Saturday, October 16, 2021

All cases filed by government should be through e-filing from January 1, 2022: Supreme Court e-committee to High Courts



The Supreme Court e-committee has directed all High Courts to ensure that all petitions/ cases filed by the government before High Courts are done only by way of e-filing from January 1, 2022.

Physical filing of cases by the government will not be permitted after that date in any matter, a letter issued by Chairperson of e-committee, Justice DY Chandrachud to High Courts said.

Besides the above, e-filing will be compulsory for all parties in certain categories of matters like revenue, tax, arbitration, commercial disputes and any other category as deemed fit by the concerned High Court from January 1.

Petitions, appeals and revisions against judgments/ orders of subordinate courts should also be compulsorily through e-fling mode from January 1, 2022.

In case of e-filing of an appeal or revision, the required record of the trial court can be digitally linked with the appellate/ revisional court, the letter by the e-committee said.

Suits for money recovery, complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, applications for maintenance, petitions for divorce by mutual consent, bail applications etc can be considered for e-filing, the letter further stated

Wednesday, October 13, 2021

Uthra Murder by Snakebite: Kerala court sentences husband Sooraj to life imprisonment, ₹5 lakh fine



The Additional Sessions Court, Kollam, presided by Justice Manoj M pronounced the sentence in this unique case where the husband committed murder by throwing a starving cobra onto his sleeping wife to induce death by snakebite.

In March 2020, a then 27-year-old Sooraj had first attempted to murder his wife by setting a venomous starving viper on a sleeping Uthra but she had survived that attack.

However, Sooraj was successful in his second attempt in May 2020, when he used a deadlier Indian cobra and this time, Uthra, who was recovering from the first attempt on her life, succumbed to the lethal bite of the cobra.

While Sooraj's family initially attempted to dismiss the incident as a natural snakebite, Uthra's family filed a police complaint alleging foul play and dowry harassment.

Tuesday, October 12, 2021

Madhya Pradesh High Court waives cooling off period under Section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act in light of SC judgment




The cooling-off period of six months stipulated under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act for moving a motion for a decree of divorce on the basis of mutual consent, was recently waived off by the Madhya Pradesh High Court relying on a Supreme Court judgment.

Saturday, October 9, 2021

Cheque bounce cases- When can company Directors be summoned? Supreme Court explains





The Supreme Court explained the circumstances in which Directors of a company can be summoned or held vicariously liable for cases initiated under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act) i.e. cheque bounce cases. (Ashutosh Ashok Parasrampuriya and anr v. M/s Gharrkul Industries Pvt. Ltd. and ors).

The Court, in the present case, went on to explain that in order for the process to be initiated against a company director "it is necessary to aver in the complaint filed under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the NI Act that at the relevant time when the offence was committed, the Directors were in charge of and were responsible for the conduct of the business of the company."

The Court added that such an averment assumes importance because it is "the basic and essential averment which persuades the Magistrate to issue process against the Director."

Liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act), which fastens criminal liability in cheque bounce cases -Supreme Court



Read Judgment

Section 139 of the NI Act raises a presumption, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque receives the cheque of the nature referred to in Section 138 for the discharge of any debt or other liability, the Court held.

The question as to whether the liability exists or not is a matter of trial, a Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, Vikram Nath and BV Nagarathna added.

Section 139 raises the presumption ‘unless the contrary is proved’. Once the complainant discharges the burden of proving that the instrument was executed by the accused; the presumption under Section 139 shifts the burden on the accused. The expression “unless the contrary is proved” would demonstrate that it is only for the accused at the trial to adduce evidence of such facts or circumstances on the basis of which the burden would stand discharged,” the judgment said.

Thursday, October 7, 2021

Lok Adalat Has No Jurisdiction To Decide A Matter On Merits : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction at all to decide the matter on merits once it is found that compromise or settlement could not be arrived at between the parties.

The jurisdiction of the Lok Adalat would be to determine and to arrive at a compromise or a settlement between the parties to a dispute, the bench of Justices MR Shah and AS Bopanna said. The court added that once the settlement / compromise fails, the Lok Adalat has to return the case to the Court from which the reference was received.

In this case, a writ petition filed before Madhya Pradesh High Court was referred to of the Lok Adalat held by the High Court. The Adalat entered into the merits of the writ petition and dismissed the same. The High Court later dismissed the the restoration application to restore the main writ petition contending that the order passed in the Lok Adalat is beyond the jurisdiction of the Lok Adalat.

The issue raised before the Apex Court in appeal was whether in the Lok Adalat held by the High Court, was it open for the members of the Lok Adalat to enter into the merits of the writ petition and to dismiss the same on merits, in absence of any settlement arrived at between the parties?

To answer this, the bench referred to Section 19 and 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, and noted the following aspects:

  1. 1 As per sub-section (5) of Section 19, a Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or a settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of (i) any case pending 6 before; or (ii) any matter which is falling within the jurisdiction of, and is not brought before, any court for which the Lok Adalat is organised. As per sub-section (1) of Section 20 where in any case referred to in clause (i) of sub-section (5) of Section 19- (i) (a) the parties thereof agree; or (i) (b) one of the parties thereof makes an application to the court, for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such court is prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement or (ii) the court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, the court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. It further provides that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat under sub-clause (b) of clause (i) or clause (ii) by such court except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties.
  2. 2 As per sub-section (3) of Section 20 where any case is referred to a Lok Adalat under sub-section (1) or where a reference is made to it under sub-section (2), the Lok Adalat shall proceed to dispose of the case or matter and arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties. Sub-section (5) of Section 20 further provides that where no award is made by the Lok Adalat on the ground that no compromise or settlement could be arrived at between the parties, the record of the case shall be returned by it to the court, from which the reference has been received under sub-section (1) for disposal in accordance with law
  3. Taking note of the above and the judgment in  State of Punjab and Ors. Vs. Ganpat Raj (2006) 8 SCC 364, the court observed:

Taking note of the above and the judgment in  State of Punjab and Ors. Vs. Ganpat Raj (2006) 8 SCC 364, the court observed:

"7. Thus, a fair reading of the aforesaid provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 makes it clear that the jurisdiction of the Lok Adalat would be to determine and to arrive at a compromise or a settlement between the parties to a dispute and once the aforesaid settlement / compromise fails and no compromise or settlement could be arrived at between the parties, the Lok Adalat has to return the case to the Court from which the reference has been received for disposal in accordance with law and in any case, the Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction at all to decide the matter on meris once it is found that compromise or settlement could not be arrived at between the parties."

The court also rejected the contention that once the matter was placed before the Lok Adalat with consent, thereafter the entire matter is at large before the Lok Adalat and, therefore, the Lok Adalat is justified in disposing the matter on merits.

"9...The consent to place the matter before the Lok Adalat was to arrive at a settlement and or a compromise between the parties and not for placing the matter before the Lok Adalat for deciding the matter on merits. Once there is no compromise and/or a settlement between the parties before the Lok Adalat, as provided in sub-section (5) of Section 20, the matter has to be returned to the Court from where the matter was referred to Lok Adalat for deciding the matter on merits by the concerned court.", the court said while setting aside the order passed by Lok Adalat.

Tuesday, October 5, 2021

Contravening reproductive autonomy through abortion takes away consent for sexual act: Delhi Court

A woman exercising sexual autonomy through consent cannot be additionally presumed to have also consented for violation of her reproductive rights, a Delhi court held recently while denying bail to a man accused of raping a woman several times and forcing her to abort [State v. Shubham Singh].
Important points:
"While parties in a consensual relationship may be on an even keel when sexual relations are of a consistent and long duration, the act of contravening reproductive autonomy through multiple pregnancies and abortions takes away the element of consent which may have been given for the sexual act itself,"-Additional Sessions Judge Vishal Gogne.

This is a flawed construction of the concept of bodily/sexual autonomy of a person/female. The exercise of sexual choices by a woman does not vest any corresponding right in the partner to sexually exploit her. The woman does not forsake her other rights, including reproductive rights either when she enters into a sexual relationship with a partner."

“… 
the misconception of fact, allegedly suffered by the complainant, is not restricted to the faith of marriage but includes abuse of her reproductive choices. While parties in a consensual relationship may be on an even keel when sexual relations are of a consistent and long duration, the act of contravening reproductive autonomy through multiple pregnancies and abortions takes away the element of consent which may have been given for the sexual act itself.”

Cinema hall must provide free drinking water if it prohibits water from outside: Madras High Court


"A Cinema Hall, which seeks to prohibit carrying of drinking water inside the Cinema Hall for security reasons, must necessarily provide free potable and pure drinking water through water coolers installed inside the Cinema Halls, before such a prohibition can be enforced ... Mere availability of the drinking water would not be sufficient to enforce prohibition of carrying drinking water inside the Cinema Halls. Purified drinking water with prescribed standards must be provided, so as to satisfy the requirements ... it is to be ensured that drinking water facilities are provided all the times to the cinema goers in the Hall.'

Son-in-law does not have any legal right over father-in-law's property: Kerala High Court



The Kerala High Court on THE 6TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021, held that a son-in-law cannot claim any legal right over his father-in-law's property (Davis Raphel v. Hendry Thomas)

The High Court observed that the father-in-law is paying tax on the property and building and has been residing in the same. The Court also found it difficult to hold that the defendant is a member of the family.

"The defendant is the son-in-law of the plaintiff. It is rather shameful for him to plead that he had been adopted as a member of the family, subsequent to the marriage with the plaintiff's daughter."

"The rightful owner(father-in-law) filed a suit for injunction restraining him from entering into the property. The residence of the defendant(the appellant son-in-law), if any, in the plaint schedule building is only permissive in nature. The defendant cannot contend that he is in legal possession of the suit property or the building". 

Allahabad High Court orders removal of mosque, mazar in Chandrashekhar Azad Park

A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice Piyush Agarwal held that all illegal encroachments in the park that came up after 1975 should be demolished and a compliance report should be submitted by the authorities by October 8.

"We want the park free of all encroachments", the Court said.


"In fact, we find no assistance from any corner either for producing the document or otherwise rather as and when the question was asked ... prayer was made to grant time to produce the document," the Court had noted at the time.

The petition was moved by one Jitender Singh, who alleged that some members of the Muslim community were creating artificial graves to convert the parkland into a graveyard and that they are trying to convert a building within the area of the Chandrashekhar Azad Park into a mosque.