A summary of important cases from the causelists of the Supreme Court of India and the Bombay High Court..LIST OF CASES.Supreme Court of India.Bombay Bar Association v. Union Of India & Ors.Ajayinder Sangwan v. Bar Council of Delhi & Ors.Mahendra Singh Dhoni v. Jayakumar HiremathBoard of Control For Cricket v. Cricket Association Of Bihar & Ors.National Legal Service Authority v. Union of India & Ors..Bombay High Court.Rajesh Punraj Khobragade & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.Ahmad Abdi v. State of Maharashtra & 8 Ors.Ketan Tirodkar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.Adarsh CO-OP HSG Society Ltd. v. Union of India & Anr.Federation of Indian Airlines & 6 Ors. v. Airports Authority of India & 2 Ors.Retired Judicial Officers Association v. State of Maharashtra.SUMMARY OF CASES.Supreme Court of India.1. Bombay Bar Association v. Union Of India & Ors..[Item 2 in court 1 – SLP(C) 23450/2015].Bench: Chief Justice TS Thakur, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud JJ..The case concerning levy of service tax on lawyers. It has its genesis in sub-clause (zzzzm) of clause (105) to Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994 which was inserted by the Finance Act, 2011. The said section seeks to levy service tax on fees paid by clients to lawyers. The provision was challenged by various Bar Associations and lawyers in different High Courts across the country. High Courts including the Delhi High Court stayed the operation of the impugned Section while keeping the matter pending..However, the Bombay High Court had dismissed the challenge. This was appealed against in the Supreme Court, which had stayed the order of the Bombay High Court. Read more here..2. Ajayinder Sangwan v. Bar Council of Delhi & Ors..[Item 8 in court 10 – IA 2 in TC(C) 126/2015].Bench: PC Ghose, Amitava Roy JJ..The case pertaining to the challenge to the Bar Council of India Certificate and Place of Practice (Verification) Rules, 2015. When the matter was last heard, the Court had directed all state Bar Councils to complete the verification process of advocates and to submit their report to the BCI by June 30..Today in court: The Court extended the time granted to State Bar Councils to complete the verification of lawyers by three months. Read the full story here..3. Mahendra Singh Dhoni v. Jayakumar Hiremath.[Item 53 in court 7 – SLP (Crl) 7403/2015].Bench: Ranjan Gogoi, PC Pant JJ..The petition filed by cricketer MS Dhoni assailing the Karnataka High Court order, whereby the High Court had refused to quash criminal proceedings pending against him before a court in Bengaluru. You can read more about the case here..Today in court: This matter was adjourned after a letter was circulated by one of the parties..4. Board of Control For Cricket v. Cricket Association Of Bihar & Ors..[Item 301 in court 1 – C.A. NO. 4235/2014].Bench: Chief Justice TS Thakur, FML Kalifulla J..A case pertaining to BCCI and the implementation of the Justice Lodha Committee report..Today in court: The court reserved its verdict in the matter..5. National Legal Service Authority v. Union of India & Ors..[Item 4 in court 12 – IA 4/2014 in Writ Petition (Civil) 400/2012].Bench: AK Sikri, NV Ramana JJ..This is an application filed by the Central government in the Transgenders cases. In the application, the Centre has inter alia, raised the following:.Clarification whether transgenders include gay and bisexual people.Transgenders cannot be considered as backward class until the same is decided by the backward class commission.The term “eunuch” is derogatory and should not be used..Today in court: The Court disposed of this case after clarifying that the 2014 judgment is already clear on the fact that transgenders does not include homosexual and bisexual people. Read the full story here..Bombay High Court.1. Rajesh Punraj Khobragade & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.[Item 4 Court 31- CRPIL/31/2014].Bench: AS Oka, AA Sayed JJ.Check evening updates..Today in court: This matter could not be tracked..2. Ahmad Abdi v. State of Maharashtra & 8 Ors..[Item 8 Court 13- PIL(OS)/57/2012].Bench: AS Oka, AA Sayed JJ.A PIL relating to the shifting of the Bombay High Court to a new complex. The state government has agreed to allot the requisite land in Government Colony, near Bandra Kurla Complex. Expectedly, the matter has seen representations from different bar associations, as well as the State government..Rajan Jayakar, a curator responsible for renovation and restoration work in the HC courtrooms and the HC museum has filed an intervention application opposing the move. Previously, Oka J had urged him to think about the “future generations” and the litigants. Senior Counsel Janak Dwarkadas is appearing for the intervenor..The Bombay Bar Association had called an EGM on 28 June, passing a resolution that they were not opposed (in principle) to the move..Today in court: Janak Dwarkadas submitted that the intervenor wishes to withdraw his application so that he can file a separate petition..When Dwarkadas acknowledged the difficulties being faced by the court staff in stacking documents etc Oka J said.“Difficulty of court staff is not the only issue, what about litigants. If someone wants to say we are prejudiced in favour of litigants, we have no issues.”.Meanwhile another PIL filed by a member of the bar seeking acquisition of buildings adjacent to the High Court which are currently occupied by private banks, was dismissed..The resolution passed by the BBA was placed on record today..Also, when it was pointed out how the new court premises may be incovenient for judges to travel to Oka J said.“This exercise is not for the benefit of the judges, convenience of the judges is the last priority.”.3. Ketan Tirodkar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors..[Item 30 Court 13- CRPIL/28/2014].Bench: AS Oka, AA Sayed JJ.Check evening updates..Today in court: This matter could not be taken up due to paucity of time..4. Adarsh CO-OP HSG Society Ltd. v. Union of India & Anr..[Item 34 Court 13- APP(OS)/310/2014].Bench: AS Oka, AA Sayed JJ.Check evening updates..Today in court: This matter could not be taken up due to paucity of time..5. Federation of Indian Airlines & 6 Ors. v. Airports Authority of India & 2 Ors..[Item 911 Court 31- WWPST(OS)/1466/2016].Bench: SC Dharmadhikari, Shalini Phansalkar Joshi JJ.The petitioners oppose a service charge being levied on food items by airlines. Senior counsel Iqbal Chagla is appearing for the petitioners and Rajendra Tulzapurkar is appearing for respondent number 2..Today in court: Most of the post-lunch session was taken up with arguments from senior counsel Janak Dwarkadas..6. Retired Judicial Officers Association v. State of Maharashtra.[Item 915 Court 31- WP(C)/11479/2013].Bench: SC Dharmadhikari, Shalini Phansalkar Joshi JJ.The petitioners seek directions to the state government to implement a revised scheme for medical facilities for retired Judicial Officers. Although a meeting of the state cabinet has already taken place, a final decision is yet to be taken..Today in court: This matter could not be taken up due to lack of time.
A summary of important cases from the causelists of the Supreme Court of India and the Bombay High Court..LIST OF CASES.Supreme Court of India.Bombay Bar Association v. Union Of India & Ors.Ajayinder Sangwan v. Bar Council of Delhi & Ors.Mahendra Singh Dhoni v. Jayakumar HiremathBoard of Control For Cricket v. Cricket Association Of Bihar & Ors.National Legal Service Authority v. Union of India & Ors..Bombay High Court.Rajesh Punraj Khobragade & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.Ahmad Abdi v. State of Maharashtra & 8 Ors.Ketan Tirodkar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.Adarsh CO-OP HSG Society Ltd. v. Union of India & Anr.Federation of Indian Airlines & 6 Ors. v. Airports Authority of India & 2 Ors.Retired Judicial Officers Association v. State of Maharashtra.SUMMARY OF CASES.Supreme Court of India.1. Bombay Bar Association v. Union Of India & Ors..[Item 2 in court 1 – SLP(C) 23450/2015].Bench: Chief Justice TS Thakur, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud JJ..The case concerning levy of service tax on lawyers. It has its genesis in sub-clause (zzzzm) of clause (105) to Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994 which was inserted by the Finance Act, 2011. The said section seeks to levy service tax on fees paid by clients to lawyers. The provision was challenged by various Bar Associations and lawyers in different High Courts across the country. High Courts including the Delhi High Court stayed the operation of the impugned Section while keeping the matter pending..However, the Bombay High Court had dismissed the challenge. This was appealed against in the Supreme Court, which had stayed the order of the Bombay High Court. Read more here..2. Ajayinder Sangwan v. Bar Council of Delhi & Ors..[Item 8 in court 10 – IA 2 in TC(C) 126/2015].Bench: PC Ghose, Amitava Roy JJ..The case pertaining to the challenge to the Bar Council of India Certificate and Place of Practice (Verification) Rules, 2015. When the matter was last heard, the Court had directed all state Bar Councils to complete the verification process of advocates and to submit their report to the BCI by June 30..Today in court: The Court extended the time granted to State Bar Councils to complete the verification of lawyers by three months. Read the full story here..3. Mahendra Singh Dhoni v. Jayakumar Hiremath.[Item 53 in court 7 – SLP (Crl) 7403/2015].Bench: Ranjan Gogoi, PC Pant JJ..The petition filed by cricketer MS Dhoni assailing the Karnataka High Court order, whereby the High Court had refused to quash criminal proceedings pending against him before a court in Bengaluru. You can read more about the case here..Today in court: This matter was adjourned after a letter was circulated by one of the parties..4. Board of Control For Cricket v. Cricket Association Of Bihar & Ors..[Item 301 in court 1 – C.A. NO. 4235/2014].Bench: Chief Justice TS Thakur, FML Kalifulla J..A case pertaining to BCCI and the implementation of the Justice Lodha Committee report..Today in court: The court reserved its verdict in the matter..5. National Legal Service Authority v. Union of India & Ors..[Item 4 in court 12 – IA 4/2014 in Writ Petition (Civil) 400/2012].Bench: AK Sikri, NV Ramana JJ..This is an application filed by the Central government in the Transgenders cases. In the application, the Centre has inter alia, raised the following:.Clarification whether transgenders include gay and bisexual people.Transgenders cannot be considered as backward class until the same is decided by the backward class commission.The term “eunuch” is derogatory and should not be used..Today in court: The Court disposed of this case after clarifying that the 2014 judgment is already clear on the fact that transgenders does not include homosexual and bisexual people. Read the full story here..Bombay High Court.1. Rajesh Punraj Khobragade & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.[Item 4 Court 31- CRPIL/31/2014].Bench: AS Oka, AA Sayed JJ.Check evening updates..Today in court: This matter could not be tracked..2. Ahmad Abdi v. State of Maharashtra & 8 Ors..[Item 8 Court 13- PIL(OS)/57/2012].Bench: AS Oka, AA Sayed JJ.A PIL relating to the shifting of the Bombay High Court to a new complex. The state government has agreed to allot the requisite land in Government Colony, near Bandra Kurla Complex. Expectedly, the matter has seen representations from different bar associations, as well as the State government..Rajan Jayakar, a curator responsible for renovation and restoration work in the HC courtrooms and the HC museum has filed an intervention application opposing the move. Previously, Oka J had urged him to think about the “future generations” and the litigants. Senior Counsel Janak Dwarkadas is appearing for the intervenor..The Bombay Bar Association had called an EGM on 28 June, passing a resolution that they were not opposed (in principle) to the move..Today in court: Janak Dwarkadas submitted that the intervenor wishes to withdraw his application so that he can file a separate petition..When Dwarkadas acknowledged the difficulties being faced by the court staff in stacking documents etc Oka J said.“Difficulty of court staff is not the only issue, what about litigants. If someone wants to say we are prejudiced in favour of litigants, we have no issues.”.Meanwhile another PIL filed by a member of the bar seeking acquisition of buildings adjacent to the High Court which are currently occupied by private banks, was dismissed..The resolution passed by the BBA was placed on record today..Also, when it was pointed out how the new court premises may be incovenient for judges to travel to Oka J said.“This exercise is not for the benefit of the judges, convenience of the judges is the last priority.”.3. Ketan Tirodkar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors..[Item 30 Court 13- CRPIL/28/2014].Bench: AS Oka, AA Sayed JJ.Check evening updates..Today in court: This matter could not be taken up due to paucity of time..4. Adarsh CO-OP HSG Society Ltd. v. Union of India & Anr..[Item 34 Court 13- APP(OS)/310/2014].Bench: AS Oka, AA Sayed JJ.Check evening updates..Today in court: This matter could not be taken up due to paucity of time..5. Federation of Indian Airlines & 6 Ors. v. Airports Authority of India & 2 Ors..[Item 911 Court 31- WWPST(OS)/1466/2016].Bench: SC Dharmadhikari, Shalini Phansalkar Joshi JJ.The petitioners oppose a service charge being levied on food items by airlines. Senior counsel Iqbal Chagla is appearing for the petitioners and Rajendra Tulzapurkar is appearing for respondent number 2..Today in court: Most of the post-lunch session was taken up with arguments from senior counsel Janak Dwarkadas..6. Retired Judicial Officers Association v. State of Maharashtra.[Item 915 Court 31- WP(C)/11479/2013].Bench: SC Dharmadhikari, Shalini Phansalkar Joshi JJ.The petitioners seek directions to the state government to implement a revised scheme for medical facilities for retired Judicial Officers. Although a meeting of the state cabinet has already taken place, a final decision is yet to be taken..Today in court: This matter could not be taken up due to lack of time.
