Delhi High Court: “Cannot provide Legal opinion in Application moved under Section 151 Of Civil Procedure Code”

The 2-Judge Bench consisting of Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw and Justice Asha Menon of Delhi High Court made a clarification that it doesn’t have the advisory jurisdiction to provide legal advice to the parties in applications moved under section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code. The Court advised the Petitioner that he’s free to seek the opinion of Justice Endlaw after he resigns office on August 13, 2021.

The order came after an application moved under section 151 of CPC requesting for the following clarification: “Whether the share in the property received by a son on partition of a Hindu Undivided Family is “HUF” or “individual” in his hands?”

The court while declining to provide legal opinion, called attention to the point that: “Neither Section 151 of the CPC nor any other provision of law vests in this Court, acting as the Company Appeal Court, advisory jurisdiction. It is surprising that advocates are moving applications, seeking legal opinion of the Court; not only so, there are several other advocates including an advocate as Court Commissioner, in the matter. The application is thoroughly misconceived.”

The court stated that: “However one of us (Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw) will be demitting office on 13th August, 2021 and the advocates are at liberty to approach him for advice at that time, by deferring the execution of the sale deed till then!”




Delhi High Court issues notice on the petition asking for immediate stay on the suspension of Prasanta Karmakar

The Delhi High Court on 30th September issued a notice on the petition filed by Arjuna Awardee and international paraswimmer Prasanta Karmakar, who was asking for immediate stay on his suspension.

A single-judge bench of Justice Jyoti Singh heard the case and issued notice to the respondents to file the responses within a week.

Prasanta Karmakar was suspended in 2018 and was banned after he was accused of filming female swimmers during the country’s national championships the previous year. The swimming coach had allegedly asked an associate to do the filming. It was claimed that he was taking photographs of female swimmers with a camera on a tripod. He was rumoured to even have had a quarrel with the officials of Paralympics Committee of India (PCI) and refused to delete the photographs.

The petition was filed by the advocates of the petitioner, Amit Kumar Sharma and Satyam Singh Rajput, asking for “the direction to the Paralympics Committee of India to accept the entry of Karmakar for the IWAS World Games, 2020 so that he may achieve Minimum Qualification Standards (MQS), a prerequisite for participation of a swimmer in the Tokyo Paralympic Games.”

The advocate for the petitioner, Advocate Ashok Arora, appearing before the court submitted that “PCI had been suspended and derecognized by the Ministry of Youth and Affairs in years 2011, 2015, and 2019 and was further suspended by the International Paralympic Committee three times for its irregularity. PCI had always indulged in illegal activities. Mr. Arora further added that that PCI has not only suspended the Arjuna Awardee Prasanta Karmakar but also suspended its own, President Inderjit Rao, who is a Cabinet Minister.”

Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma affirmed that the petitioners have correctly submitted that the PCI was indulged in illegal activities and that is why PCI is still under suspension by the government.

Prasanta Karmakar is an Arjuna Awardee and the only Commonwealth and Asian Games medallist swimmer and the fastest para-swimmer in India. He even represented India as a swimming team coach for the 2016 Rio Paralympic Games and has been the national champion in his specific category for 16 consecutive years.

October 8 is set as the date for hearing of case the bench.




Delhi HC directs Twitter to take down Rakesh Simha tweets criticizing Rajdeep Sardesai and India Today Group

The Delhi High Court, on 25th September, pronounced that the tweets by columnist Rakesh Simha against the India Today Group and its Consulting Editor, Rajdeep Sardesai, as prima facie defamatory. While giving summons to Simha in the petition filed by Living Media India Limited (India Today Group), the Court has asked Twitter to take the tweets being referred to, down.

The tweets, posted by the previous India Today Group representative, Rakesh Krishnan Simha, among other charges, are said to contain a cuss word while blaming Sardesai for having been paid for his interview with celebrity Rhea Chakraborty.

In proceedings under the Delhi High Court, the tweets were said to be abusive and evidently bogus. The order passed by a bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher states:

“Regardless, the use of cuss words against a representative of the plaintiffs, not just affects the reputation of the concerned individual and brings down his image in front of his friends, colleagues, peers and partners but also impinges upon the business interests of the plaintiffs .Since social media platforms are accessed by a large number of persons of various ages, it is expected of users to display sobriety and common courtesies to those towards whom the comments are directed.”

Aside from the tweets against Sardesai, Simha’s charges that the India Today Group killed a story on one Sumit Mukherjee; distorted insights identifying with the dissemination of its magazine; and made bogus claims about the publication of the book Weapons of Peace: Secret Story of India’s Quest to Be a Nuclear Power, composed by the Group’s Managing Editor, Raj Chengappa, raised doubts in the Delhi High Court.

Countering Simha’s claims, Advocate Hrishikesh Barua, submitted:

The story identifying with Mukherjee was distributed by the India Today magazine in 2003, a lot after Simha was given his calming request. The Group’s pronounced course figures were upheld by measurements.

Chengappa’s book was published by Harper Collins and not by the Group’s sister distribution ‘Books Today’, as asserted by Simha.

Observing these entries Justice Shakdher watched: “I am of the view that the plaintiffs have made out, at any rate at this stage, at prima facie case in support of themselves that the criticized tweets need justification.”

With these comments, the Court gave notice and posted the issue for November 19th.