Author: kkslawoffices

The Delhi High Court (DHC), dismissing a writ petition, observed that details of hotel room bookings and call records can be sought to substantiate charges of adultery in a petition seeking divorce before the Courts. The DHC noted that, “The Hindu Marriage Act specifically recognises adultery as a ground for divorce and therefore, it would not at all be in public interest that the Court should on the ground of right to privacy, come to the aid of a married man who, during the subsistence of his marriage, is alleged to have indulged in sexual relationships outside his marriage.”

The Delhi High Court (DHC) allowed a writ petition seeking a declaration to the effect that “Section 19 read with Section 21 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO Act’) override the restrictions imposed under Section 198(1) read with Section 198(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’).” While the POSCO Act requires mandatory reporting by any person of any offence committed under the POCSO Act, Section 198 of the CrPC restricts the Court from taking cognizance of offences related to marriage unless the complaint is made by aggrieved person or a guardian of the minor or lunatic person only. Noting that marital status did not create distinct category within child victims of rape the DHC declared that the POCSO Act would override the general law; i.e. CrPC.

Brazil’s Administrative Council for Economic Defense (C.A.D.E.) has initiated an investigation on Google LLC & Meta Inc. for abuse of dominant position in the online news market. The investigation is pursuant to complaints pointing at the campaign against “Fake News Bill”, which has the effect of shifting burden on internet companies to report illegal content on their websites.

The Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in an Appeal under the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) held that the victim’s age cannot be determined by solely relying on dental examination results. The Special POCSO Court, convicting the accused had relied on dental examination report and dentist’s testimony concluding absence of wisdom tooth, means the victim is a minor. The Bombay HC while setting aside the order noted that, wisdom tooth erupts between 17-25 years, thus age can be above 17 years but non-eruption does not conclusively prove the age is below 18 years. Further, medical test leaves an error margin of 2 years and that benefit of doubt with the age goes in favour of the accused, thus the prosecution has failed to prove its case.

The Calcutta High Court (CHC) has held that mere allegations of dispute inter-se respondents will not make an arbitration agreement ex-facie invalidated by fraud and does not result in subject matter being non-arbitrable. The CHC in the absence of clear evidence purporting that the arbitration agreement was not entered into by the Respondents, and existence of criminal proceedings held that this does not make the dispute non-arbitrable.

The Supreme Court (SC) setting aside a Patna High Court (PHC) order, suspending sentence and grant of bail to convicts, held that the Appellate Court in exercise of powers under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) cannot go into re-appreciation of evidence and consider few lacunas or loopholes in the case of the prosecution.

The Bombay High Court, deciding writ petition seeking early disposal of matters under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (‘SARFAESI Act’), directed, inter alia, that applications filed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act should be disposed by within 30 days from the date of filing of the application. The Court observed, “It is needless to stress the importance of expeditious disposal of the applications under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, as the pendency of a large number of applications hinders the recovery of bad loans, which has a significant impact on the financial health of the country.”

The Supreme Court (‘SC’), while deciding appeals filed by accused charged with offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, held that an accused is not entitled to default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’), on the ground that the chargesheet, even though filed within the time limit as prescribed under Section 167(2) of CrPC, did not have a valid order of sanction by a competent authority. Dismissing the appeals, the SC reiterated that the grant of sanction is not contemplated under Section 167 of the CrPC.

The Supreme Court, while noting that the power under Article 142 of the Constitution can be used for “doing compete justice” in any manner, held that a divorce decree can be granted under Article 142 if there is irretrievable breakdown of marriage and the parties wish to dissolve the marriage without referral to family courts and the mandatory period of interregnum under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

In a writ petition filed before the Madras High Court (‘MHC’), for compensation for medical negligence, the MHC awarded compensation of Rs. 3 lakh to the petitioner who became pregnant and gave birth despite undergoing Purperal Sterilization by Tubuctomy. The MHC also directed the State Government to provide free education to the child and pay annual maintenance of Rs. 1.2 lakh until the child turns 21 years old while stating that “The Medical Officers entrusted with the implementation of the Family Planning Programme cannot, by their negligent acts in not performing the complete sterilization operation, sabotage the scheme of national importance.”