A summary of cases from the causelists of the Supreme Court of India, the Bombay High Court and the Karnataka High Court..TABLE OF CASES.Supreme Court of India.Extra Judl. Exec. Victim Families Assn. & Anr v. Union Of India & Anr.Shamnad Basheer v. Union of India and Ors.Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Union of IndiaAnindita Pujari v. Supreme Court of India thr. the Secretary General and Anr.Paardarshita Public Welfare Foundation (Ngo) v. Ministry of Home Affairs & Ors.Bombay Environment Action Group and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.Wasim Ahmed Saeed v. Union of India & Ors..Bombay High Court.Madhav Sakharam Rane & 2 Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & 7 Ors.Mahanagar Gas Limited v. Bombay Gas Company Limited And AnrPriscilla Samuel v. Union of India and 10 Ors.Homeless Collective v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors.Help Mumbai Foundation & ANr v. Secretary, Ministry of Consumer Affairs.Karnataka High Court.Uber Technologies Private Limited v. State of Karnataka & Ors..SUMMARY OF CASES.Supreme Court of India.For judgment.Extra Judl.Exec.Victim Families Assn & Anr v. Union Of India & Anr..[Item 1A in court 7 – WP(Crl.) 129/2012].Bench: Madan B Lokur, UU Lalit JJ..Judgment in the case about extra judicial killings in Manipur. Read more about the case here..Today in court: The Court today held that use of excessive force even in AFSPA areas is not permissible. It also held that members of Armed forces can be tried in regular criminal courts. Read more here..1. Shamnad Basheer v. Union of India and Ors..[Item 2 in court 1 – Writ Petition (Civil) 600/2015].Bench: Chief Justice TS Thakur, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud JJ..A petition filed by Intellectual Property Law expert Shamnad Basheer, praying for constitution of a permanent body for conducting CLAT. In the petition, in which all the 18 National Law Universities (NLUs) have been arraigned as Respondents, Basheer has also prayed for the constitution of an expert committee to review the working of the CLAT and suggest institutional reforms. Read more here..Today in court: The Central government was not represented by any lawyer. The Court, therefore, allowed the petitioner the liberty to serve on any of the Centre’s law officers. It also granted BCI three weeks to file its response. The matter will now be heard after 4 weeks. Read more here..2. Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India.[Item 64 in court 4 – SLP(C) 16107-16108/2016].Bench: Dipak Misra, UU Lalit JJ..The case between Delhi government and the Lieutenant Governor regarding powers of the LG. Two judges had recused from the case – Justice JS Khehar and Justice L Nageswara Rao. Read more here..Today in court: The court refused to entertain the petition and allowed the High Court to deliver its verdict. Read more here..3. Anindita Pujari v. Supreme Court of India thr. the Secretary General and Anr..[Item 4 in court 6 – Writ Petition (Civil) 509/2015].Bench: Ranjan Gogoi, PC Pant JJ. .This case pertains to creche facilities in the Supreme Court. The Court had issued notice in the case on October 12, 2015..Today in court: This case has been adjourned to July 29..4. Paardarshita Public Welfare Foundation (Ngo) v. Ministry of Home Affairs & Ors..[Item 19 in court 1 – SLP(C) 8872/2016].Bench: Chief Justice TS Thakur, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud JJ..Check evening updates to know more about the case..Today in court: This case could not be tracked. Any update/ information would be appreciated..5. Bombay Environment Action Group and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors..[Item 21 in court 1 – SLP(C) …./2016].Bench: Chief Justice TS Thakur, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud JJ..Check evening updates to know more about the case..Today in court: This case could not be tracked. Any update/ information would be appreciated..Bombay High Court.1. Madhav Sakharam Rane & 2 Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & 7 Ors..[Item 905 Court 13- PIL(OS)/74/2007].Bench: AS Oka, AA Sayed JJ..A PIL seeking implementation of noise pollution rules in the city. A total of 1843 noise decibel meters were to be procured to be used across the state. Previously, AGP AB Vagyani had informed the court that 50 per cent procurement of these equipments has been done..Several PILs have been tagged along with this matter, all have raised issues regarding noise pollution. For more details read our previous report..Today in court: Senior counsel Darius Khambatta argued at length in the post lunch session. With regard to Rule 5 & 6 of the Noise pollution Rules 2000 he submitted that there is inherent inconsistency between the two provisions..He said that to read both these rules harmoniously, one has to carve some areas from Rule 6. The senior counsel argued that it would be impractical to expect all buildings in the “silence zone” to be completely silent. The State has now been asked to clarify the extent of Rule 6 next week and an order will be passed after this..2. Mahanagar Gas Ltd v. Bombay Gas Company Ltd. & Anr.[Item 6 Court 13- APPST(OS)/872/2015].Bench: AS Oka, AA Sayed JJ.Check evening updates..Today in court: This matter could not be tracked..3. Priscilla Samuel v. Union of India & 10 Ors..[Item 11 Court 13- PIL(OS)/52/2013].Bench: AS Oka, AA Sayed JJ..A petition seeking the effective implementation and greater awareness of the Dowry Prohibition Act of 1961. Mahrukh Adenwala has appeared for the Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) which is assisting the court in this case. For more details read our previous report..A detailed order will be passed today..Today in court: Acting AG Rohit Deo was not present today hence the matter was adjourned..4. Homeless Collective v Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai.[Item 12 Court 13- PIL(OS)/54/2013].Bench: AS Oka & AA Sayed JJ.A petition seeking the construction of night shelters for the homeless in the city. With senior counsel Gayatri Singh appearing for the petitioners, the court had directed the municipal corporation to identify the lands on which these shelters could be set up. For more details read previous report..Today in court: After the BMC submitted that 20,000 sq ft plot in Kandivli has been finalised to be allotted exclusively for night shelter while the other one will have to be shared with a shelter for destitute women. Senior counsel Gayatri Singh referred to the guidelines laid out for allotment of such plots, wherein it is clearly stated that such plots must be allotted exclusively..State has now been asked to finalise all such allotments that are to be made, a detailed order will be passed next week..5. Help Mumbai Foundation & Anr v Secretary, Ministry of Consumer Affairs.[Item 13 Court 13- PIL(OS)/59/2013].Bench: AS Oka & AA Sayed JJ.The PIL on lack of adequate facilities in the State Consumer Commission located in the city. The High Court had directed that the premises allocated to the Co-operative Court would be allocated to the consumer forum..Today in court: Oka J said that since the state government never disowned the resolution that reallocated the space meant for the Co-operative Appellate Tribunal to the State Consumer Commission, it is now bound by the resolution..The judge also noted that contempt notices are yet to be issued against the minister, consumer protection department, who was a party to this resolution in view of a letter dated 20 June 2016 which states that state will reconsider it’s decision. The matter has now been adjourned to August 5..Karnataka High Court.1. Uber Technologies Private Limited v. State of Karnataka & Ors..[Item 18, List 1, Court Hall 19 – WP 31673-31674/2016 c/w WP 30917/2016 & WP 30191/2016].Bench: Aravind Kumar J..A batch of petitions challenging the Karnataka On-demand Transportation Technology Rules, 2016. The court is likely to decide when the matter will be taken up for daily hearing today..Today in Court: The hearing commenced today, with Senior Advocate Sajan Poovayya appearing for Uber. Quoting the relevant provisions of law, Poovayya argued that the state government’s Rules were beyond the scope of the Motor Vehicles Act. He will continue his arguments on the next date of hearing on Monday, July 11.
A summary of cases from the causelists of the Supreme Court of India, the Bombay High Court and the Karnataka High Court..TABLE OF CASES.Supreme Court of India.Extra Judl. Exec. Victim Families Assn. & Anr v. Union Of India & Anr.Shamnad Basheer v. Union of India and Ors.Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Union of IndiaAnindita Pujari v. Supreme Court of India thr. the Secretary General and Anr.Paardarshita Public Welfare Foundation (Ngo) v. Ministry of Home Affairs & Ors.Bombay Environment Action Group and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.Wasim Ahmed Saeed v. Union of India & Ors..Bombay High Court.Madhav Sakharam Rane & 2 Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & 7 Ors.Mahanagar Gas Limited v. Bombay Gas Company Limited And AnrPriscilla Samuel v. Union of India and 10 Ors.Homeless Collective v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors.Help Mumbai Foundation & ANr v. Secretary, Ministry of Consumer Affairs.Karnataka High Court.Uber Technologies Private Limited v. State of Karnataka & Ors..SUMMARY OF CASES.Supreme Court of India.For judgment.Extra Judl.Exec.Victim Families Assn & Anr v. Union Of India & Anr..[Item 1A in court 7 – WP(Crl.) 129/2012].Bench: Madan B Lokur, UU Lalit JJ..Judgment in the case about extra judicial killings in Manipur. Read more about the case here..Today in court: The Court today held that use of excessive force even in AFSPA areas is not permissible. It also held that members of Armed forces can be tried in regular criminal courts. Read more here..1. Shamnad Basheer v. Union of India and Ors..[Item 2 in court 1 – Writ Petition (Civil) 600/2015].Bench: Chief Justice TS Thakur, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud JJ..A petition filed by Intellectual Property Law expert Shamnad Basheer, praying for constitution of a permanent body for conducting CLAT. In the petition, in which all the 18 National Law Universities (NLUs) have been arraigned as Respondents, Basheer has also prayed for the constitution of an expert committee to review the working of the CLAT and suggest institutional reforms. Read more here..Today in court: The Central government was not represented by any lawyer. The Court, therefore, allowed the petitioner the liberty to serve on any of the Centre’s law officers. It also granted BCI three weeks to file its response. The matter will now be heard after 4 weeks. Read more here..2. Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India.[Item 64 in court 4 – SLP(C) 16107-16108/2016].Bench: Dipak Misra, UU Lalit JJ..The case between Delhi government and the Lieutenant Governor regarding powers of the LG. Two judges had recused from the case – Justice JS Khehar and Justice L Nageswara Rao. Read more here..Today in court: The court refused to entertain the petition and allowed the High Court to deliver its verdict. Read more here..3. Anindita Pujari v. Supreme Court of India thr. the Secretary General and Anr..[Item 4 in court 6 – Writ Petition (Civil) 509/2015].Bench: Ranjan Gogoi, PC Pant JJ. .This case pertains to creche facilities in the Supreme Court. The Court had issued notice in the case on October 12, 2015..Today in court: This case has been adjourned to July 29..4. Paardarshita Public Welfare Foundation (Ngo) v. Ministry of Home Affairs & Ors..[Item 19 in court 1 – SLP(C) 8872/2016].Bench: Chief Justice TS Thakur, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud JJ..Check evening updates to know more about the case..Today in court: This case could not be tracked. Any update/ information would be appreciated..5. Bombay Environment Action Group and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors..[Item 21 in court 1 – SLP(C) …./2016].Bench: Chief Justice TS Thakur, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud JJ..Check evening updates to know more about the case..Today in court: This case could not be tracked. Any update/ information would be appreciated..Bombay High Court.1. Madhav Sakharam Rane & 2 Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & 7 Ors..[Item 905 Court 13- PIL(OS)/74/2007].Bench: AS Oka, AA Sayed JJ..A PIL seeking implementation of noise pollution rules in the city. A total of 1843 noise decibel meters were to be procured to be used across the state. Previously, AGP AB Vagyani had informed the court that 50 per cent procurement of these equipments has been done..Several PILs have been tagged along with this matter, all have raised issues regarding noise pollution. For more details read our previous report..Today in court: Senior counsel Darius Khambatta argued at length in the post lunch session. With regard to Rule 5 & 6 of the Noise pollution Rules 2000 he submitted that there is inherent inconsistency between the two provisions..He said that to read both these rules harmoniously, one has to carve some areas from Rule 6. The senior counsel argued that it would be impractical to expect all buildings in the “silence zone” to be completely silent. The State has now been asked to clarify the extent of Rule 6 next week and an order will be passed after this..2. Mahanagar Gas Ltd v. Bombay Gas Company Ltd. & Anr.[Item 6 Court 13- APPST(OS)/872/2015].Bench: AS Oka, AA Sayed JJ.Check evening updates..Today in court: This matter could not be tracked..3. Priscilla Samuel v. Union of India & 10 Ors..[Item 11 Court 13- PIL(OS)/52/2013].Bench: AS Oka, AA Sayed JJ..A petition seeking the effective implementation and greater awareness of the Dowry Prohibition Act of 1961. Mahrukh Adenwala has appeared for the Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) which is assisting the court in this case. For more details read our previous report..A detailed order will be passed today..Today in court: Acting AG Rohit Deo was not present today hence the matter was adjourned..4. Homeless Collective v Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai.[Item 12 Court 13- PIL(OS)/54/2013].Bench: AS Oka & AA Sayed JJ.A petition seeking the construction of night shelters for the homeless in the city. With senior counsel Gayatri Singh appearing for the petitioners, the court had directed the municipal corporation to identify the lands on which these shelters could be set up. For more details read previous report..Today in court: After the BMC submitted that 20,000 sq ft plot in Kandivli has been finalised to be allotted exclusively for night shelter while the other one will have to be shared with a shelter for destitute women. Senior counsel Gayatri Singh referred to the guidelines laid out for allotment of such plots, wherein it is clearly stated that such plots must be allotted exclusively..State has now been asked to finalise all such allotments that are to be made, a detailed order will be passed next week..5. Help Mumbai Foundation & Anr v Secretary, Ministry of Consumer Affairs.[Item 13 Court 13- PIL(OS)/59/2013].Bench: AS Oka & AA Sayed JJ.The PIL on lack of adequate facilities in the State Consumer Commission located in the city. The High Court had directed that the premises allocated to the Co-operative Court would be allocated to the consumer forum..Today in court: Oka J said that since the state government never disowned the resolution that reallocated the space meant for the Co-operative Appellate Tribunal to the State Consumer Commission, it is now bound by the resolution..The judge also noted that contempt notices are yet to be issued against the minister, consumer protection department, who was a party to this resolution in view of a letter dated 20 June 2016 which states that state will reconsider it’s decision. The matter has now been adjourned to August 5..Karnataka High Court.1. Uber Technologies Private Limited v. State of Karnataka & Ors..[Item 18, List 1, Court Hall 19 – WP 31673-31674/2016 c/w WP 30917/2016 & WP 30191/2016].Bench: Aravind Kumar J..A batch of petitions challenging the Karnataka On-demand Transportation Technology Rules, 2016. The court is likely to decide when the matter will be taken up for daily hearing today..Today in Court: The hearing commenced today, with Senior Advocate Sajan Poovayya appearing for Uber. Quoting the relevant provisions of law, Poovayya argued that the state government’s Rules were beyond the scope of the Motor Vehicles Act. He will continue his arguments on the next date of hearing on Monday, July 11.