1. Pratap Singh and Ors . vs . Gurbaksh Singh ( 29 . 01 .

1962 - SC )

Decision Date: 29.01.1962

Subject: Media and Communication

Subject: Contempt of Court

Act: Constitution Of India - Article 134(1)(c) Constitution Of India - Article 226

Case Note: The case debated on whether the appellant conduct in following the circular letter, amounted
to contempt of court -The circular letter had prohibited from seeking decision of Court without exhausting
the normal remedies available - It was held that conduct of the appellant was according to the circular
and therefore it did not amount to contempt of court

Disposition: Appeal Dismissed

2. Raman Namboodiri vs . Govindan Nair S / o Kottukunnathu Ittichiri Amma ( 05 . 07 .

1962 - KERHC )

MANU/KE/0132/1962

Decision Date: 05.07.1962

Subject: Criminal

Act: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 417 Indian Penal Code (45 Of 1860) (IPC) - Section 500

Case Note: Criminal - Acquittal - Offence committed punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (IPC) - Held, in instant case, if the words complained of contain no reflection on a particular
individual or individuals, but may equally apply to others belonging to the same class an action for
defamation will not lie - Defamatory matter to be actionable must be such that it contains an imputation
concerning some particular person or persons whose identity can be established - It was unnecessary that
person whose conduct was called in question should be described by name - It was sufficient if on the
evidence it can be shown that the imputation was directed towards a particular person or persons who
can be identified - Imputation complained of was directed against the Adhikari and it was impossible upon
the facts disclosed to ascertain with any degree of certitude who that Adhikari was whether it was the
Appellant or whether it was his son - Order of acquittal confirmed - Appeal dismissed.

Dalbir Singh and Ors . vs . The State of Punjab ( 06 . 02 . 1962 - SC )

MANU/SC/0169/1962

Decision Date: 06.02.1962

Subject: Media and Communication

Subject: Criminal

Act: Constitution Of India - Article 136 Constitution Of India - Article 19(1)(a) Constitution Of India -
Article 19(1)(b) Constitution Of India - Article 19(2) Constitution Of India - Article 33 Constitution Of India
- Article 356 Constitution Of India - Article 356(1)(b)

Case Note: Criminal - self discipline - Section 3 of Pepsu Police (Incitement to Disaffection) Act, 1953,
Section 3 of Patiala and East Punjab States Union Legislature (Delegation of Powers) Act, 1953 and Articles
19, 19 (1) (2) and 33 of Constitution of India - appeal filed against conviction of appellants under Section
3 of Pepsu Police (Incitement to Disaffection) Act - breach of discipline by appellants amounted to threat
to public order and tranquility - police force itself were indisciplined they could hardly serve as instrument
for maintenance of public order - held, appellants rightly convicted.
Disposition: Appeal Dismissed

996. Bhulli Ram Jalam Koli vs . Chhotelal and others ( 28 . 03 . 1962 - MPHC )

MANU/MP/0174/1962

Decision Date: 28.03.1962

Subject: Criminal

Act: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 417(3) Indian Penal Code (45 Of 1860) (IPC) - Section
499 Indian Penal Code (45 Of 1860) (IPC) - Section 500

Case Note: Criminal - Acquittal - Offence committed punishable under Section 500 of Indian Penal Code,
1860 (IPC) - Held, it was of essence that in order to constitute offence of defamation it must be
communicated to a third person because what was intended by imputation was to arouse hostility of others
- If a person merely writes defamatory words and kept writing with himself, offence was not made out -
Appeal dismissed.

Disposition: Appeal Dismissed

996. Bhulli Ram Jalam Koli vs . Chhotelal and others ( 28 . 03 . 1962 - MPHC )

MANU/MP/0174/1962

Decision Date: 28.03.1962

Subject: Criminal

Act: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 417(3) Indian Penal Code (45 Of 1860) (IPC) - Section
499 Indian Penal Code (45 Of 1860) (IPC) - Section 500

Case Note: Criminal - Acquittal - Offence committed punishable under Section 500 of Indian Penal Code,
1860 (IPC) - Held, it was of essence that in order to constitute offence of defamation it must be
communicated to a third person because what was intended by imputation was to arouse hostility of others
- If a person merely writes defamatory words and kept writing with himself, offence was not made out -
Appeal dismissed.

Disposition: Appeal Dismissed

Umesh Mehra vs . State of Punjab and Ors . ( 26 . 02 . 2016 - PHHC )

MANU/PH/0259/2016

Decision Date: 26.02.2016

Subject: Criminal

Act: Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (CrPC) - Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (CrPC) -
Section 397 Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (CrPC) - Section 401 Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC) - Section
408 Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC) - Section 420 Limitation Act 1963 - Section 5

Disposition: Petition Dismissed

Kaleesuwari Refinery Pvt . Ltd . vs . M . K . Agrotech Pvt . Ltd . ( 29 . 02 . 2016 - MADHC )

MANU/TN/0403/2016

Decision Date: 29.02.2016

Subject: Intellectual Property Rights

Act: Constitution Of India - Article 19(1) (a) Constitution Of India - Article 19(1)(a) Food Safety And
Standards Act 2006 - Section 24

Case Note: Trademark - Disparaging advertisement - Injunction - Whether Respondent erred in giving
disparaging advertisement and that whether Appellant was entitled to injunction? Held, in case attempt -
was made by Defendant to show that, products of Plaintiff were all of inferior quality, a cause of action
would arise to file a suit either for a restraint order or for damages. In case Defendant was in a position
to prove that there was nothing in advertisement which was untrue or misleading, and attempt was not
made to brand product of Plaintiff as inferior quality, no action for disparaging would lie. If an advertiser
made a consumer aware, of truth, there was nothing wrong in that. Reason was a party could not be held
responsible for libel when all that had been told was truth, which was a complete defence against any
assault or challenge, regardless of any damage sustained as a result of it. Applicant admitted that they
were using commercial processing method for refining sunflower oil and that Applicant was using anti
oxidants to prevent deterioration. There was nothing on record to show that, Respondent had resorted to
generic disparagement of sunflower oil manufactured by leading companies including Applicant. Further
Applicant miserably failed to prove primary condition that, Respondent had attempted to distinguish its
product from products marketed by Applicant and similar other players in market in a manner derogatory
to them. Respondent wanted to convey that, refined sunflower oil available in market was processed by
chemical processing. However, their product was not refined by using such harmful chemicals. Appellant
was using chemical addictive TBHQ for refining sunflower oil. Literature available on record showed that,
some of countries had already banned sunflower oil possessed by using TBHQ. Such being factual position,
it could not be said that, Respondent was guilty of disparagement. Truth was always a defense in an action
for libel. Such being, position, it would not be possible to injunct Respondent. Materials produced by
Respondent showed that, claim made in advertisement was supported by relevant materials. Therefore,
there was no reason to injunct Respondent, pending disposal of suit. Application dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: In case Defendant was in a position to prove that there was nothing in advertisement
which was untrue or misleading, and attempt was not made to brand the product of Plaintiff as inferior
quality, no action for disparaging would lie

Disposition: Application Dismissed

S . A . Sinha vs . Leo Rebello ( 29 . 02 . 2016 - BOMHC )

MANU/MH/0181/2016

Decision Date: 29.02.2016

Subject: Contempt of Court

Act: Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (CrPC) - Section 209 Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (CrPC) -
Section 258 Constitution Of India - Article 219 Contempt Of Courts Act 1971 - Section 15 Contempt Of
Courts Act 1971 - Section 15(2) Contempt Of Courts Act 1971 - Section 2(c) Contempt Of Courts Act 1971
- Section 2(c)(i) Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC) - Section 143 Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC) - Section 147
Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC) - Section 149 Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC) - Section 323 Indian Penal Code
1860 (IPC) - Section 337 Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC) - Section 343 Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC) -
Section 354 Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC) - Section 427 Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC) - Section 504
Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC) - Section 506 Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC) - Section 509

Case Note: Contempt of Court - Threat to Judicial Officer - Sections 323, 337, 354, 504 and 509 of Indian
Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 2(c)(i), 2(c)(ii), 2(c)(iii) and 15(2) of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 -
Respondent/Contemnor, Accused charged for offences punishable under Sections 354, 337, 509, 323 and
504 of Code, threatened Metropolitan Magistrate (MM) before whom his case was pending trial - MM made
reference under Section 15(2) of Act, 1971 - Whether Contemnor committed contempt in face of Court -
Held, well settled in law that ordinarily Court should not recuse itself merely because application for recusal
is filed by litigant - Clear case where Contemnor not only committed contempt in face of Court but also
written scandalizing letters personally to Judicial Officer and attempted to threaten her - Various instances,
narrated by MM, were per se contemptuous and fall within definition of Section 2(c)(i) to (iii) of Act, 1971
- Contemnor committed criminal contempt of subordinate court by scandalizing Court, lowering authority
of Court and interfering with due course of judicial proceedings and obstructing administration of justice -
Contemnor used every trick in book to intimidate, threaten and to dissuade MM in performing her duty of
trying two criminal cases which were pending in her Court - Purpose for introduction of Act, 1971 was for
securing feeling of confidence of people in general and for proper administration of justice in country -
Conduct of Contemnor did not amount to fair criticism of judicial act not did it amount to any statement
made by him in good faith - Contemnor had not shown any sign of remorse or repentance in his behaviour
in and outside Court - Fit case where Contemnor should be punished for having committed contempt of
subordinate Court - Reference disposed off. [9],[31],[34],[35],[36],[38],[44],[52] and[53]

Disposition: Disposed off

Vinay Kumar Pappu and Ors . vs . The Union of India and Ors . ( 02 . 03 . 2016 - PATNAHC )

MANU/BH/0105/2016

Decision Date: 02.03.2016

Subject: Constitution

Act: Cinematograph Act 1952 - Section 5-B(1)

Case Note: Criminal - Defamation - Writ Petition filed to restrain broadcasting of film ' Jai Gangajal ' -
Whether film ' Jai Gangajal ' depicts defamatory references to citizens - Held, materials before Court were
not sufficient to reach to any positive conclusion that apprehension of Petitioners were well founded or
they are over sensitive to innocuous portrayal with fleeting references having some connection with post
held by Petitioner No. 2, without any justifiable ground made out for interference - There being a clear cut
disclaimer as well as Respondent No. 6 in a public interview/press conference having clearly stated that
Petitioner No. 2 was never in mind when movie was conceived - There could not be any deliberate or
intentional reference with regard to any real person/situation relating to character portrayed in film -
Petitioner No. 2 having been elected much after completion of movie, could not complain of him being
targeted with object to identify him in real life - Once a statutory fact finding body has taken a conscious
decision and there being no material on record to indicate that same was perverse or apparently erroneous,
it did not warrant interference - Writ Petition dismissed. [16],[19] and[20]

Disposition: Petition Dismissed

Hari Mohan Das and Ors . vs . Shri Panchadeep Travels and Ors . ( 17 . 03 . 2016 - Tripura )

MANU/TR/0094/2016

Decision Date: 17.03.2016

Subject: Motor Vehicles

Act: Indian Succession Act 1925 - Section 306 Motor Vehicles Act 1988 - Section 166

Case Note: Motor Vehicles - Quantum of compensation - Present appeal filed against award whereby
awarding compensation in favour of Claimants on account of death of deceased in road accident - Whether
awarded compensation was just and reasonable - Held, death of deceased was directly relatable to injuries
sustained in accident - All demands and rights whatsoever existing in favour or against person at time of
his death survive to his executors, administrators and heirs - Claimants could only claim compensation
with regard to loss to estate - Tribunal only granted compensation to Claimant for attendant charges and
other incidental cost, which was very much on lower side - Widow was also entitled to compensation
towards loss of consortium and funeral expenses - Award of compensation was modified - Appeal allowed.
[5],[8],[12],[15] and[20]

Disposition: Disposed off

R . Sunder and Ors . vs . State NCT of Delhi and Ors . ( 09 . 03 . 2016 - DELHC )

MANU/DE/0545/2016

Decision Date: 09.03.2016

Subject: Criminal

Act: Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (CrPC) - Section 204(4) Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (CrPC) -
Section 251 Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (CrPC) - Section 401(2) Code of Criminal Procedure 1973
(CrPC) - Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (CrPC) - Section 483 Constitution Of India - Article
227 Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC) - Section 204(4) Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC) - Section 34 Indian
Penal Code 1860 (IPC) - Section 401(2) Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC) - Section 499 Indian Penal Code
1860 (IPC) - Section 500 Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC) - Section 501 Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC) -
Section 502 Press And Registration Of Books Act 1867 - Section 1 Press And Registration Of Books Act
1867 - Section 1(1) Press And Registration Of Books Act 1867 - Section 5 Press And Registration Of Books
Act 1867 - Section 5(1) Press And Registration Of Books Act 1867 - Section 7

Case Note: Criminal - Summoning order - Sections 34,499,500,501 and 502 of Indian Penal
Code,1860(IPC) - Petitions filed for quashing of summoning order issue for trial under Sections
34,499,500,501 and 502 of IPC - Whether summoning order issue for trial under Sections 34,499,500,501
and 502 of IPC could be quash - Held, summoning of an accused in a criminal case was a serious matter
- Criminal law could not be set into motion as a matter of course - Petitioners failed to produce any
document before Trial Court whereby Printer, Publisher and Editor have been declared in proper format -
As per allegations, Petitioners were doing business of accused No. 1 company and Respondent No. 2 was
giving lot of work for advertisement and when they stopped, accused persons got defamatory articles
published against Respondent No. 2 in their newspaper - Veracity of statements made by witnesses could
only be tested during trial through their cross- examination - Considering evidence led by Respondent No.
2, there was no justification to quash summoning order and proceedings arising therefrom against
Petitioners - Petitions disposed of. [32],[35],[36] and[39]

Disposition: Disposed off

Bhagirath vs . Vithal and Ors . ( 07 . 03 . 2016 - BOMHC )

MANU/MH/0296/2016

Decision Date: 07.03.2016

Subject: Criminal

Act: Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (CrPC) - Section 199 Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (CrPC) -
Section 199(1) Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (CrPC) - Section 256 Code of Criminal Procedure 1973
(CrPC) - Section 378 (4) Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (CrPC) - Section 411 (a) (2) Code of Criminal
Procedure 1973 (CrPC) - Section 417 Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (CrPC) - Section 482 Constitution
Of India - Article 227 Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC) - Section 34 Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC) - Section
417 Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC) - Section 493 Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC) - Section 496 Indian Penal
Code 1860 (IPC) - Section 499 Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC) - Section 500 Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC)
- Section 501

Disposition: Application Dismissed

Ram Rani Dhingra vs . Virender Bhatia and Ors . ( 19 . 04 . 2016 - DELHC )

MANU/DE/0912/2016

Decision Date: 19.04.2016

Subject: Civil

Act: Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (CPC) - Section 96 Limitation Act 1963 - Section 22
Case Note: Tort - Damages - Appeal filed against dismissal of suit for recovery of compensation for
damage caused to immovable property - Whether Appellant entitled for compensation - Held, relationship
between parties was not contractual - Claim of Appellant was based on breach of duty leading to damage
- This duty was towards persons generally and its breach was redressable by an action for damages -
There was nothing to show that cracks on walls visible in photographs were not old - No scientific test has
been conducted to determine age thereof - Expert of Appellant has not been able to prove that cause of
cracks was attributable to construction on adjoining property - Appellant failed to prove her case and no
error could be found with dismissal of suit - Appeal dismissed. [13],[25],[27] and[31]

Disposition: Appeal Dismissed

State Bank of India and Ors . vs . Ujjal Kumar Das and Ors . ( 05 . 05 . 2016 - CALHC )

MANU/WB/0333/2016

Decision Date: 05.05.2016

Subject: Banking

Act: Banking Regulation Act 1949 - Section 21 Banking Regulation Act 1949 - Section 21(3) Banking
Regulation Act 1949 - Section 35A Constitution Of India - Article 21 Constitution Of India - Article 21A
Credit Information Companies (regulation) Act 2005 - Section 5 Indian Contract Act 1872 - Section 15
Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act 2002 -
Section 13(12) Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest
Act 2002 - Section 13(4)

Case Note: Banking - Loan defaulter - Publishing of photographs - Securitization and Reconstruction of
Financial Asset and Enforcement of Security Interest Act of 2002 - Present appeal filed challenging action
of secured creditor of publishing photograph(s) of defaulting borrower(s)/guarantor(s) in
newspapers/magazines - Whether proposed act to publish photographs, names and addresses of
defaulting borrowers was coercive step - Held, it was clear that there was neither positive direction nor
negative indication so far as publication of photographs was concerned - Guidelines issued by RBI clearly
indicated how and under what circumstances borrower could be categorized as willful defaulter and how
information was to be disseminated to credit information companies - As matter of routine procedure, one
should not resort to publication of photographs of defaulters unless and until there were special
circumstances where borrower with mala fide intention was committing any of Acts - In those
circumstances authority could act for public good/public interest for good reasons by publication of
photographs, names and addresses of defaulting borrower(s)/guarantor(s) - There should not be
publication of photograph before proceeding with further course of action under Act only with view to
pressurize defaulter/guarantor to repay loan - Impugned order was modified - Appeal disposed off.[9]

Disposition: Disposed off

Renu Chadha vs . Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research and Ors . ( 04 .
05 . 2016 - CAT - Chandigarh )

MANU/CA/0387/2016

Decision Date: 04.05.2016

Subject: Service

Act: Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 - Section 19

Case Note: Service - Misconduct - Section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Application filed
under Section 19 of Act for quashing of memo of charges - Whether memo of charges leveled against
Applicant could be quash - Held, Respondent No. 2 rightly has not ordered fresh/de-novo inquiry and has
rather remitted enquiry report to Inquiring Authority for further inquiry - Detailed reasons have also been
recorded for same - There was no any infirmity or illegality in impugned orders - Since further inquiry into
charge-sheet against applicant was being upheld, issue of quashing impugned charge-sheet would not
arise - Application dismissed.[16] and[21]

Disposition: Application Dismissed

The Forward Foundation , A Charitable Trust and Ors . vs . State of Karnataka and Ors . ( 04 .
05 . 2016 - NGT )

MANU/GT/0075/2016

Decision Date: 04.05.2016

Subject: Environment

Act: Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (CPC) - Section 97 Constitution Of India - Article 32 Karnataka Industrial
Areas Development Act 1966 - Section 28 (4) Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act 1966 - Section
47 National Green Tribunal Act 2010 - Section 14 National Green Tribunal Act 2010 - Section 15 National
Green Tribunal Act 2010 - Section 20

Case Note: Environment - Clearance - Violation of - Compensation - Section 20 of the National Green
Tribunal Act - Present applications filed with a prayer to issue direction to Respondent No. 1, to take
cognizance of reports prepared by Respondent No. 2 and 6 respectively, to take coercive and punitive
action including restoration of ecological sensitive land and that valley land is to be maintained as a
sensitive area with no development of any sort to keep ecologically balance of area undisturbed, which
were earlier disposed with certain directions - Held, as per Section 20 of Act, it is mandates that while
passing any order or decision or award Tribunal, shall apply Principles of sustainable development,
precautionary principles and polluter pays principles - Therefore while applying above, Respondent No. 9
and 10 who caused environmental degradation are liable to pay environmental compensation - Considering
fact that compared to Respondent No. 9, Respondent No. 10 has not commenced actual construction
activity - But they have carried out various preparatory work including excavation and depositing huge
quantity of earth, creating a hillock at premises and thereby caused environmental degradation - In the
interest of justice Court reduce the compensation originally fixed in Main judgment and direct Respondent
No. 10 to pay an environmental compensation of 3% of cost of project instead of 5% imposed - Both
Respondents (Project Proponents) shall submit an appropriate plan in view of conditions imposed in
present judgment and amended Environmental Clearance that would be issued. [1],[47],[60],[61],[62]
and[63]

Disposition: Disposed off

Subhiksha Trading Services Ltd . and Ors . vs . Azim Premji ( 12 . 05 . 2016 - BOMHC )

MANU/MH/0708/2016

Decision Date: 12.05.2016

Subject: Company

Act: Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (CPC) - Order XIV Rule 2 Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (CPC) - Order
XIV Rule 2(2) Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (CPC) - Order XLVII Rule 1 Indian Contract Act 1872 - Section
28

Case Note: Civil - Authority to file suit - Determination thereof - Present suit filed against Defendant
alleging defamation by Defendant - Whether Plaintiff No. 2 had authority to file suit on behalf Plaintiff No.
1 - Held, no reference to Plaintiff No. 2 being authorised on behalf of Plaintiff No. 1 to file suit - As per
Article 17A resolution of Board of Directors or shareholders of Plaintiff No. 1 required to commence or
discontinue any litigation or arbitration proceeding - No such authority was given to any person including
Plaintiff No. 2 to institute present suit - Resolution relied upon by Plaintiff No. 2 was admittedly not
consented to in manner contemplated in Article 17A - Hence, Plaintiff No. 2 had no authority to file present
suit on behalf of Plaintiff No. 1 at date of filing - Plaintiff No. 2 had neither in his affidavit of evidence nor
in any pleading contended that any such consent existed - Suit filed in non-compliance of such precondition
was non-est and could not be legitimized merely because Official Liquidator was appointed - Hence,
present suit was not maintainable for want of authority to file suit on behalf of Plaintiff No. 1 - Suit
dismissed. [14],[17],[24] and[25]

Ashutosh vs . Arun Jaitley and Ors . ( 03 . 06 . 2016 - DELHC )

MANU/DE/1496/2016
Decision Date: 03.06.2016

Subject: Civil

Act: Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (CPC) - Order VI Rule 16

Case Note: Civil Procedure Code, 1908Order 6 Rule 16--Malicious prosecution--False information--
Disseminating of"--Replication--Struck off--A malicious propaganda of disseminating false information was
orchestrated--Defendant's made statements which are defamatory of the plaintiff and his family and false
to their knowledge--Actionable defamatory statements attributed to the appellant have been succinctly
pleaded in the plaint--Replication with reference to the documents filed along with the plaint and reference
made in the pleadings in the plaint--Single Judge held that no part of the replication needs to be struck
off--Held, the order is correct--Appeal is disposed of without any order. [17] and [18]

Disposition: Disposed off

VSM Diamonds Pvt . Ltd . and Ors . vs . Bharat Diamond Bourse ( 16 . 08 . 2016 - BOMHC )

MANU/MH/1594/2016

Decision Date: 16.08.2016

Subject: Civil

Citing Ref:

Discussed

Distinguished

Mentioned

Act: Constitution Of India - Article 14 Constitution Of India - Article 19 Constitution Of India - Article
19(1)(c) Constitution Of India - Article 19(1)(g) Customs Act 1962 - Section 45 Customs Act 1962 -
Section 8

Case Note: Civil - Cancellation of membership - Challenged thereto - Present notice of motion filed
challenging Defendant's notice communicating to its members its decision to suspend Plaintiffs from
entering Defendant's complex and barring them permanently from applying for or obtaining trade or
property membership of Defendant or its complex - Whether Defendant's notice of cancellation of
membership of Plaintiff was justified - Held, there must be convincing demonstration of such dominance
by regulatory body that ban or refusal of permission by it would have effect of impairing public policy
principle depriving Plaintiff of ability to work and of means of livelihood - Diminution of trade volumes or
income was not enough - Absent demonstration of mala fides, and absent public policy violation, Court
would not interfere with decision of professional or trade body refusing or declining membership -
Suspension that was circumscribed and limited to say, entry into premises or operating out of defined
area was not justiciable in Civil Court - There was no inherent legal, vested or constitutional right to
membership of any association, or to enter into and use private association's premises - Plaintiffs were
largely unaffected - Notice of motion dismissed. [64] and[65]

Kusumben Ambalal Shah and Ors . vs . State of Gujarat and Ors . ( 29 . 08 . 2016 - GUJHC )

MANU/GJ/1859/2016

Decision Date: 29.08.2016

Subject: Criminal

Case Note: Criminal - Discharge - Section 2 (f) and 2 (g) of the Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act, 2005 - Petition against refusal order to discharge petitioner - Whether petitioners could be
discharged summarily by dropping proceedings against them - Held, petition filed against order refusal to
discharge present petitioners from proceedings under Act - When proceedings in Act was though registered
as Criminal Case practically it was not for convicting respondent but for passing appropriate orders and
reliefs in favour of aggrieved person - When there was no scope of conviction if application was allowed
as prayed for - There was no reason or scope for discharge or even dropping of proceedings at initial or
interim stage - There was no substance in revision petition so as to interfere with in impugned order -
Revision dismissed. [(16) ]

Arvind Kejriwal vs . Arun Jaitley and Ors . ( 19 . 10 . 2016 - DELHC )

MANU/DE/2807/2016

Decision Date: 19.10.2016

Subject: Criminal

Act: Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (CPC) - Section 10 Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (CPC) - Section 122
Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (CPC) - Section 129 Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (CrPC) - Section 300
Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (CrPC) - Section 309 Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (CrPC) - Section
309(2) Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (CrPC) - Section 482 Constitution Of India - Article 21 Constitution
Of India - Article 227 Delhi High Court Act 1966 - Section 7 Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 40 Indian
Evidence Act 1872 - Section 41 Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 42 Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section
43 Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 41 Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 42 Indian Evidence Act 1872
- Section 43 Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC) - Section 34 Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC) - Section 35 Indian
Penal Code 1860 (IPC) - Section 405 Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC) - Section 406 Indian Penal Code 1860
(IPC) - Section 499 Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC) - Section 500 Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC) - Section
501 Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC) - Section 502

Case Note: Criminal - Proceedings - Setting aside thereof - Sections 34, 35, 499, 500, 501 and 502 of
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Present petition filed seeking quashing of criminal proceedings initiated under
Sections 499, 500, 501, 502 read with Section 34 and 35 of Code - Whether criminal proceedings could
continue or were required to be stayed during pendency of civil suit - Held, fact that decree for damages
had been passed against Petitioner by Civil Court, would not stand in way of him being prosecuted for
defamation - There was no reason to see as to how that itself operates as bar for Respondent's setting in
motion criminal law which was separate and independent remedy available to aggrieved person in such
situation - Both matters between parties i.e. civil suit as pending and complaint filed by Respondent were
separate and independent proceedings and they can go on side by side - There was no bar to Magistrate
taking cognizance of offence which he may be of opinion to have been committed by person whose matter
was still pending in Civil Court - There was no legal impediment to invoke civil proceedings for defamation
as well as initiating criminal proceedings for defamation simultaneously and continuation of same - Nothing
had been brought before present Court to effect that continuation of criminal proceedings was abuse of
process of law before Chief Metropolitan Magistrate - Order of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate continuing
with proceedings was free from perversity, impropriety, illegality - Petition dismissed. [30],[31] and[32]

Disposition: Disposed off

Arvind Kejriwal vs . Arun Jaitley and Ors . ( 19 . 10 . 2016 - DELHC )

MANU/DE/2807/2016
Decision Date: 19.10.2016

Subject: Criminal

Act: Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (CPC) - Section 10 Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (CPC) - Section 122
Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (CPC) - Section 129 Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (CrPC) - Section 300
Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (CrPC) - Section 309 Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (CrPC) - Section
309(2) Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (CrPC) - Section 482 Constitution Of India - Article 21 Constitution
Of India - Article 227 Delhi High Court Act 1966 - Section 7 Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 40 Indian
Evidence Act 1872 - Section 41 Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 42 Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section
43 Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 41 Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 42 Indian Evidence Act 1872
- Section 43 Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC) - Section 34 Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC) - Section 35 Indian
Penal Code 1860 (IPC) - Section 405 Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC) - Section 406 Indian Penal Code 1860
(IPC) - Section 499 Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC) - Section 500 Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC) - Section
501 Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC) - Section 502

Case Note: Criminal - Proceedings - Setting aside thereof - Sections 34, 35, 499, 500, 501 and 502 of
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Present petition filed seeking quashing of criminal proceedings initiated under
Sections 499, 500, 501, 502 read with Section 34 and 35 of Code - Whether criminal proceedings could
continue or were required to be stayed during pendency of civil suit - Held, fact that decree for damages
had been passed against Petitioner by Civil Court, would not stand in way of him being prosecuted for
defamation - There was no reason to see as to how that itself operates as bar for Respondent's setting in
motion criminal law which was separate and independent remedy available to aggrieved person in such
situation - Both matters between parties i.e. civil suit as pending and complaint filed by Respondent were
separate and independent proceedings and they can go on side by side - There was no bar to Magistrate
taking cognizance of offence which he may be of opinion to have been committed by person whose matter
was still pending in Civil Court - There was no legal impediment to invoke civil proceedings for defamation
as well as initiating criminal proceedings for defamation simultaneously and continuation of same - Nothing
had been brought before present Court to effect that continuation of criminal proceedings was abuse of
process of law before Chief Metropolitan Magistrate - Order of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate continuing
with proceedings was free from perversity, impropriety, illegality - Petition dismissed. [30],[31] and[32]

Disposition: Disposed off

Kusumben Ambalal Shah and Ors . vs . State of Gujarat and Ors . ( 29 . 08 . 2016 - GUJHC )

MANU/GJ/1859/2016

Decision Date: 29.08.2016

Subject: Criminal

Act: Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (CrPC) - Section 300 Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (CrPC) -
Section 482 Constitution Of India - Article 20(2) Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 - Section 3 Dowry Prohibition
Act 1961 - Section 7 General Clauses Act 1897 - Section 26 Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC) - Section 114
Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC) - Section 376 Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC) - Section 406 Indian Penal Code
1860 (IPC) - Section 420 Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC) - Section 498(A) Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC) -
Section 498-A Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC) - Section 498A Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC) - Section 71
Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 - Section 138 Protection Of Women From Domestic Violence Act 2005 -
Section 12 Protection Of Women From Domestic Violence Act 2005 - Section 18 Protection Of Women
From Domestic Violence Act 2005 - Section 18 Protection Of Women From Domestic Violence Act 2005 -
Section 19 Protection Of Women From Domestic Violence Act 2005 - Section 20 Protection Of Women
From Domestic Violence Act 2005 - Section 21 Protection Of Women From Domestic Violence Act 2005 -
Section 22 Protection Of Women From Domestic Violence Act 2005 - Section 19 Protection Of Women
From Domestic Violence Act 2005 - Section 2(f) Protection Of Women From Domestic Violence Act 2005 -
Section 2(g) Protection Of Women From Domestic Violence Act 2005 - Section 20 Protection Of Women
From Domestic Violence Act 2005 - Section 21 Protection Of Women From Domestic Violence Act 2005 -
Section 22 Protection Of Women From Domestic Violence Act 2005 - Section 3 Protection Of Women From
Domestic Violence Act 2005 - Section 31 Protection Of Women From Domestic Violence Act 2005 - Section
31(3)

Case Note: Criminal - Discharge - Section 2 (f) and 2 (g) of the Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act, 2005 - Petition against refusal order to discharge petitioner - Whether petitioners could be
discharged summarily by dropping proceedings against them - Held, petition filed against order refusal to
discharge present petitioners from proceedings under Act - When proceedings in Act was though registered
as Criminal Case practically it was not for convicting respondent but for passing appropriate orders and
reliefs in favour of aggrieved person - When there was no scope of conviction if application was allowed
as prayed for - There was no reason or scope for discharge or even dropping of proceedings at initial or
interim stage - There was no substance in revision petition so as to interfere with in impugned order -
Revision dismissed. [(16) ]