10 Important Indian High Courts Judgments Pronounced Today [2 April 2018]

1. Indra Sen Singh Vs. State of U.P. [Allahabad High Court]

Criminal Trial - Production of Investigating Officer by itself will not be detrimental for the prosecution even though it is a lapse.

2. Dr. Sudhir Kumar Vs. State of Bihar [Patna High Court]

This writ application involves, inter alia, a question of seminal significance pertaining to computation of backlog vacancies meant for reserved category candidates, in the matter of appointments to the posts of Assistant Professors in various departments of medical colleges and hospitals under the Health Department, State Government of Bihar.

3. President D.A.V College Managing Committee Vs. Poonam Mahajan [Jammu & Kashmir High Court]

Grant of temporary injunction is governed by three cardinal principles i.e prima-facie case; balance of convenience; and irreparable injury. The existence of prima- facie case is a sine qua non but the consideration of other two principles is equally important and at least one of the aforesaid two principles should also exist before the Court grants the discretionary relief of interim injunction.

4. Dr. Sahdev Prasad Gupta Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [Madhya Pradesh High Court]

Madhya Pradesh Bhoj Open University Adhiniyam, 1991 - Section 25 - The petitioners have filed this writ petition praying for direction to the State Government to issue an order of appointment in their favour for the post of Professor / Associate Professor / Assistant Professor in the Education Department - Held, M.P. Bhoj Open University is an autonomous institution and the State Government has no role to play, therefore, the order passed by the  State Government thereby restraining the university from issuance of appointment orders in favour of the petitioners cannot be said to be bona fide.

5. Jodhpur Swaroop Singh Vs. Subhash Singh [Rajasthan High Court]

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - S. 55 - Registration Act, 1908 - S. 49 - Documents of which registration is compulsory - Rights and liabilities of buyer and seller - The act of conveying an immoveable property by any mode sale, gift or relinquishment, can be done only by way of a registered document. The absence of registration hits at the very root of the document and the same can neither be led in evidence, nor any rights flowing therefrom can be claimed or asserted.

6. K. Sheshadrivashu Vs. State [Madhya Pradesh High Court] 

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - S. 482 - Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 - S. 138 - Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 120-B, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 500 r/w 34 - Quashment of the criminal complaint - Petitioners are the employees / representatives of the M/s. BVSR Construction Company - a sub contract with regard to construction of road was given to the Complainant Company - cheque book was given after signature with a specific direction to use with regard to payment if required for implementation of contract relating to construction of road but the cheque was used for other purposes than that and efforts were made to encash it and after getting the cheque dishonored, the petitioners' company filed complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act against the respondent no. 2 /complainant - the complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act has been filed by M/s. BVSR Construction Company, therefore, the beneficiary under the alleged act is the company and the petitioners have merely worked on behalf of the company - Held, when the act is done on behalf of the company and the company has not been arrayed as an accused, no criminal proceedings can be initiated against the representatives / employees of the company unless they are personally responsible for the act - Apart from it, prima-facie it appears that it is a dispute with regard to account having nature of civil dispute and the complainant /respondent no 2 without taking recourse to resolve the matter in civil side simultaneously has made efforts to implicate them by setting criminal case into motion - the proceedings against the petitioners on the complaint filed by the respondent no 2 / complainant deserves to be set aside.

7. Bansh Lal Vs. State of U.P. [Allahabad High Court]

Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 147, 148, 149 & 302 - The presence of the accused to the extent that the story can be believed can be culled out, and if there is any doubt about any of the other accused being present then the Court would be justified in acquitting those who have not been found to be involved in the incident and convicting those about whom evidence is brought on record.

8. H.K. Shrivastava Vs. State [Madhya Pradesh High Court]

Service Law - Departmental Enquiry after a period of six years - Delay - Can initiate the departmental enquiry against an employee after considerable time? - Held, in case where there is no satisfactory explanation for inordinate delay in initiating and complete departmental enquiry, then certainly this Court can entertain the writ petition and quashed the departmental enquiry on the ground of delay.

9. Domesh Rajpoot Vs. State of U.P. [Allahabad High Court]

Appointment - Last Date - Application form sent by the petitioner before the last date for submission of form by post is to be treated to be a valid submission of application form within time or not? Held, application form, which was allegedly sent by the petitioner by registered post on 30.11.2007 much before the last date i.e. 5.12.2007 was not received in the office within the time frame - the same cannot be directed to be considered by the authorities - When the application form of the petitioner was not received in the office of the authorities within time, it cannot be said that the petitioner has been discriminated in any manner.

10. Anjeli Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma [Madhya Pradesh High Court]

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 6 Rule 17 - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 -  S. 9 - Restitution of Conjugal Rights - Delay is no ground to refuse the prayer for amendment - Amendments may be necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties and courts should be liberal in granting the prayer for amendment of pleadings unless serious injustice or irreparable loss is caused to the other side or on the ground that the prayer for amendment was not a bona fide one - two limbs of causing serious injustice or irreparable loss to the husband and application for amendment being a not a bona fide one, were available, and therefore, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application - the impugned order does not call for any interference - petition fails and is dismissed.