In Malliga (Died) and Others v. S Shanmugam (Died) and Others, the Madras High Court pointed out that there is nothing in the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 shutting out the widow from a share of her deceased husband’s estate on the ground that she has remarried.
Parenthetically it may be pointed out that while there is still a social stigma and legal bar on bigamy or polygamy, there is no legal bar though there may still be a social stigma on remarriage by a widow. Having lost the spouse or disowned him or her through divorce, the fetter on second or subsequent marriage is lifted. To be in a state of matrimony with more than one spouse is what is barred legally.
Case 2: Don’t file writ petitions unless you have exhausted statutory remedies
In Venus Worldwide Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. versus the State of Maharashtra and others matter, the Bombay High Court recently imposed a stiff and deterrent ₹1 lakh penalty for blithely filing a writ petition despite having a remedy of appeal under Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002.
The Court took exception to the rising practice of filing a writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution whereas it is meant to rein in executive highhandedness or inertia. Every statute invariably provides for hierarchy of appeals, and the one aggrieved has to resort to it first. Advocates are also to blame for this trend as they encourage their clients into believing writs are more effective and quicker remedy.
Case 3: High Court can’t ask for explanation for judgment given by the lower court
In a recent Ayub Khan versus the State of Rajasthan case, the Supreme Court pulled up the Rajasthan High Court for seeking explanation from the district court for not adhering to the format of judgment prescribed by it.
There is a difference between criticising erroneous orders and criticising a Judicial Officer, and the first part is permissible. The second category of criticism should best be avoided.
Indeed, an appeal is provided for in statutes only to correct the improper law laid down by the lower courts. If a lower court is embarrassed by the higher courts for inadequate understanding of the law, it would severely affect the morale of the judicial officers. However, should there have been indiscipline on the part of judges of courts, it is for the administrative side to take action. It cannot be dovetailed with the judicial process.
Case 4: College principal not vicariously liable for a dishonoured cheque
In a matter involving one K. Sundari versus C. A. R. P. Mari, the Madras High Court bailed out a principal of a college from being hauled up for dishonour of a cheque issued by the college for insufficiency of funds.
A principal may sign the cheque but unlike a CEO of a company who has been fastened with vicarious liability by section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, principals of colleges have not been so burdened. Thus, it is the trustee responsible for the day-today running of the college who is responsible for dishonour of cheques for insufficiency of funds under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Case 5: Mandatory recruitment of locals in Jharkhand quashed
The Jharkhand High Court on December 11, 2024, quashed the government order that mandated private sector companies operating in the state of Jharkhand to fill 75% of the labor force from the local population. The Court cited that it curbs the freedom of the employer to recruit as per his wish so as to attract best talent from across the country.
Many states have such laws to pander to local sentiments. The arguments advanced range from protecting the local population from the influx of people from other states to prevention of compelling locals to migrate to other states from the comfort of their homes. Such laws are antediluvian in the present day and age when people migrate to other countries such as the US, Canada, Australia and Germany in search of greener pastures.
—The author, S Murlidharan, is a Chartered Accountant and legal expert, who comments and interprets important court rulings and judgements. The views expressed are his own and personal.
Read the previous Legal Digest columns here
