Important Indian High Courts Cases Pronounced Today [Wednesday, September 20, 2018]

1. M v. State [Delhi High Court]

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Writ of Habeas Corpus - This writ petition seeking issuance of a writ of habeas corpus is by a German national who states that his wife, an Indian national, brought away their minor daughter to India from Dubai where they were residing without his knowledge and on an emergency travel document issued in favour of the child by the Consulate General of India (CGI) in Dubai. He prays for a direction to the Respondents to produce the child before the Court and hand her custody over to him. It is further prayed that Respondent No.2 and the child be allowed to return to Dubai, United Arab Emirates (UAE).

2. Court On Its Own Motion v. State [Himachal Pradesh High Court]

Judicial System - The foundation of judicial system lies on unearthing the truth and dispensing justice. What is the meaning of words "justice" and "truth" and what is the purpose and object of the Courts - Discussed.

3. Brij Lal v. State [Himachal Pradesh High Court]

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 179 - Interpretation of - Offence triable where act is done or consequence ensues - What is the meaning of the words "an act is a reason of anything done" and "consequence" "which has ensued" - If an act which is offence by reason of anything done in a place 'A' and the "consequence" which has ensued at a place 'B', then whether place 'B' would have jurisdiction to conduct the trial or not - Discussed.

4. Jindal Poly Film Ltd v. Designated Authority [Delhi High Court]

Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - Section 9A, 9C - Customs Tariff (Anti Dumping) Rules, 1995 - Rules 3, 4, 14, 17, 18 and 23 - Appointment of designated authority - Duties of the designated authority - Termination of investigation - Final findings - Levy of duty - Review - Interpretation of the Statutory provisions.

5. Sukumar Bhattacharya v. Bank of India [Calcutta High Court]

Service Law - Dismissal from Service - Bank of India Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulation, 1978 - Regulation 4 (j) - The penalty in this case was dismissal which affected the Right to Life and Livelihood of the appellant. Admittedly, neither the Bank nor the customer had suffered any pecuniary loss on account of the negligence, carelessness and indiscipline of the appellant. Moreover, the stand of the Bank in the civil suit and also the subsequent withdrawal of the civil suit by Poly Cab Industries indicate that the misconduct of the appellant could at best be negligence and violation of the Rules of the Bank but dishonest intention to cause pecuniary loss to the Bank or to defraud the Bank or its customer had not been proved and as such, the order of punishment was shockingly disproportionate, being violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India inasmuch, dismissal from service takes away the right to livelihood of the appellant for the present and also in the future.