A summary of cases from the causelists of the Supreme Court of India, the Bombay High Court and the Delhi High Court..LIST OF CASES.Supreme Court of India.Dr. Anand Rai v. Union of IndiaAzad Hawkers Union v. Shri Vile Parle Kelvani Mandal and Ors..Bombay High Court.Priscilla Samuel v. Union of India and 10 Ors.Shri KK Ghuge v. State of MaharashtraMohammad Kasim Abdul Gafoor Khan Vs. Union of India and ors.Amit Maru v. State of MaharashtraMetropolitan Stock Exchange of India Ltd. v. Multi Commodity Exchange of India Ltd..Delhi High Court.Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India and Ors.Tata Steel Ltd. v. National Mineral Development Corporation and Ors.Simplex Infrastructures Ltd. v. Union of India and Anr..SUMMARY OF CASES.Supreme Court of India.1. Dr. Anand Rai v. Union of India.[Item 301 in court 2 – WP(C) 382/2016].Bench: Anil R. Dave, Shiva Kirti Singh, Adarsh Kumar Goel JJ..The petition challenging the ordinance passed on NEET. You can read more about NEET here..Today in Court: The Supreme Court today refused to stay the ordinance on National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET), though it did mention that the constitutional validity of the ordinance was open to doubt..Read a complete timeline here..2. Azad Hawkers Union v. Shri Vile Parle Kelvani Mandal and Ors..[Item 4 in court 9 – SLP(Civil) 3039/2016].Bench: V Gopala Gowda, AK Goel JJ..A challenge to the Bombay High Court’s decision that those who prepare and sell food on streets will not fall under the ambit of the Street Vendors Act. Prashant Bhushan had appeared for the petitioners, submitting that they are also engaged in vending of food items on the street; the only difference being that they make the food there. This is not reason enough to exclude them from the purview of the Act, he had argued..Today in Court: The Supreme Court will be hearing the appeal by the Azad Hawkers’ Union after a period of four weeks..Bombay High Court.1. Priscilla Samuel v. Union of India & 10 Ors..[Item 7 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 made his submissions on the issue of matrimonial websites posting ads that are in contravention of the Dowry Prohibition Act. He stated that Section 4A of the act talks about banning such advertisements but since they are online, the servers may be located outside the state, hence the IT Act would apply which is a central act, hence the centre must now intervene in the matter..Oka J has now directed the ASG Anil Singh to appear on the next date of August 4..2. Shri KK Ghuge v. State of Maharashtra.[Item 8 Court 13- PIL(C)/137/2013].Bench: AS Oka, AA Sayed JJ.A PIL by the Nashik Bar Association seeking allotment of a minimum of five acres of land for the district court premises in Nashik. The court complex comprises ten court rooms that are very congested, and lack basic facilities for litigants and lawyers..Previously, Acting AG Rohit Deo had submitted that the Law Secretary, and the PWD Department had worked out a proposal to give additional allotment around the present premises so that relocation is not required. He said that the adjoining land that currently belongs to the home department can be allotted. The Bar association had been given a week’s time to give it’s view on the proposal..Today in court: The Bar Association sought more time to provide it’s view in the matter, the case was adjourned for two weeks..3. Mohammad Kasim Abdul Gafoor Khan Vs. Union of India and ors..[Item 22 Court 13- PIL(OS)/40/2013].Bench: AS Oka, AA Sayed JJ..The petitioner had conducted a sting operation in which several police officers were caught red handed indulging in corruption. He subsequently approached the court for police protection. In the meantime the petitioner died and his sons were allowed to be added as petitioners in the case..The High Court had directed a central police agency was directed to provide protection; after the CBI said it would be unable to provide protection, the CRPF was directed to file a reply, even they refused..Today in court: The state refused to provide any protection to the petitioner’s children saying they do not have adequate manpower. Oka J said that once the prayers in the petition regarding providing of security to whistleblowers in the future are taken care of, this PIL will not survive..4. Amit Maru v. State of Maharashtra.[Item 30 Court 13- CRPIL/9/2015].Bench: AS Oka, AA Sayed JJ.This PIL challenges Para 11(iii) of Chapter IV of the Anti Corruption Bureau manual which essentially states that an enquiry on a Class I officer can be constituted only when it is sanctioned by the state government..State government filed an affidavit stating that the concerned statute does not violate Article 14. Oka J said.“Simply stating that the statute does not violate Article 14 is not enough, you will have to satisfy the court as to why it doesn’t.”.Today in court: This case was adjourned for two weeks as the state argued that several issues need to be looked into, and that a number of PILs have been tagged with this matter. Oka J said the state must make submissions specific to the prayers in the main PIL on the next date, it will now be listed for directions in two weeks..5. Metropolitan Stock Exchange of India Ltd. v. Multi Commodity Exchange of India Ltd..[Item 49 Court 13- APPST(OS)/927/2015].Bench: AS Oka, AA Sayed JJ.Check evening updates..Today in court: This could not be taken up due to paucity of time..Delhi High Court.1. Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India and Ors..[Court No. 1; Item No. 3 – W.P. (C) 3320/2011].Bench: G Rohini CJ, Sangita D Sehgal J..A petition challenging orders of the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions..Today in Court: The Court did not hear this matter today..2. Tata Steel Ltd. v. National Mineral Development Corporation and Ors..[Court No. 1; Item No. 10 – LPA 135/2008].Bench: G Rohini CJ, Sangita D Sehgal J. .Check evening updates..Today in Court: The Court did not hear this matter today..3. Simplex Infrastructures Ltd. v. Union of India and Anr..[Court No. 7; Item No. 19 – W.P. (C) 4017/2016].Bench: S. Muralidhar, Najmi Waziri JJ..A petition challenging an order passed by the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India authorizing the Member (Judicial), Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) to prepare rosters for re-assigning the bench matters..Today in Court: Since the judge was on leave, the matter will come up on September 26.
A summary of cases from the causelists of the Supreme Court of India, the Bombay High Court and the Delhi High Court..LIST OF CASES.Supreme Court of India.Dr. Anand Rai v. Union of IndiaAzad Hawkers Union v. Shri Vile Parle Kelvani Mandal and Ors..Bombay High Court.Priscilla Samuel v. Union of India and 10 Ors.Shri KK Ghuge v. State of MaharashtraMohammad Kasim Abdul Gafoor Khan Vs. Union of India and ors.Amit Maru v. State of MaharashtraMetropolitan Stock Exchange of India Ltd. v. Multi Commodity Exchange of India Ltd..Delhi High Court.Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India and Ors.Tata Steel Ltd. v. National Mineral Development Corporation and Ors.Simplex Infrastructures Ltd. v. Union of India and Anr..SUMMARY OF CASES.Supreme Court of India.1. Dr. Anand Rai v. Union of India.[Item 301 in court 2 – WP(C) 382/2016].Bench: Anil R. Dave, Shiva Kirti Singh, Adarsh Kumar Goel JJ..The petition challenging the ordinance passed on NEET. You can read more about NEET here..Today in Court: The Supreme Court today refused to stay the ordinance on National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET), though it did mention that the constitutional validity of the ordinance was open to doubt..Read a complete timeline here..2. Azad Hawkers Union v. Shri Vile Parle Kelvani Mandal and Ors..[Item 4 in court 9 – SLP(Civil) 3039/2016].Bench: V Gopala Gowda, AK Goel JJ..A challenge to the Bombay High Court’s decision that those who prepare and sell food on streets will not fall under the ambit of the Street Vendors Act. Prashant Bhushan had appeared for the petitioners, submitting that they are also engaged in vending of food items on the street; the only difference being that they make the food there. This is not reason enough to exclude them from the purview of the Act, he had argued..Today in Court: The Supreme Court will be hearing the appeal by the Azad Hawkers’ Union after a period of four weeks..Bombay High Court.1. Priscilla Samuel v. Union of India & 10 Ors..[Item 7 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 made his submissions on the issue of matrimonial websites posting ads that are in contravention of the Dowry Prohibition Act. He stated that Section 4A of the act talks about banning such advertisements but since they are online, the servers may be located outside the state, hence the IT Act would apply which is a central act, hence the centre must now intervene in the matter..Oka J has now directed the ASG Anil Singh to appear on the next date of August 4..2. Shri KK Ghuge v. State of Maharashtra.[Item 8 Court 13- PIL(C)/137/2013].Bench: AS Oka, AA Sayed JJ.A PIL by the Nashik Bar Association seeking allotment of a minimum of five acres of land for the district court premises in Nashik. The court complex comprises ten court rooms that are very congested, and lack basic facilities for litigants and lawyers..Previously, Acting AG Rohit Deo had submitted that the Law Secretary, and the PWD Department had worked out a proposal to give additional allotment around the present premises so that relocation is not required. He said that the adjoining land that currently belongs to the home department can be allotted. The Bar association had been given a week’s time to give it’s view on the proposal..Today in court: The Bar Association sought more time to provide it’s view in the matter, the case was adjourned for two weeks..3. Mohammad Kasim Abdul Gafoor Khan Vs. Union of India and ors..[Item 22 Court 13- PIL(OS)/40/2013].Bench: AS Oka, AA Sayed JJ..The petitioner had conducted a sting operation in which several police officers were caught red handed indulging in corruption. He subsequently approached the court for police protection. In the meantime the petitioner died and his sons were allowed to be added as petitioners in the case..The High Court had directed a central police agency was directed to provide protection; after the CBI said it would be unable to provide protection, the CRPF was directed to file a reply, even they refused..Today in court: The state refused to provide any protection to the petitioner’s children saying they do not have adequate manpower. Oka J said that once the prayers in the petition regarding providing of security to whistleblowers in the future are taken care of, this PIL will not survive..4. Amit Maru v. State of Maharashtra.[Item 30 Court 13- CRPIL/9/2015].Bench: AS Oka, AA Sayed JJ.This PIL challenges Para 11(iii) of Chapter IV of the Anti Corruption Bureau manual which essentially states that an enquiry on a Class I officer can be constituted only when it is sanctioned by the state government..State government filed an affidavit stating that the concerned statute does not violate Article 14. Oka J said.“Simply stating that the statute does not violate Article 14 is not enough, you will have to satisfy the court as to why it doesn’t.”.Today in court: This case was adjourned for two weeks as the state argued that several issues need to be looked into, and that a number of PILs have been tagged with this matter. Oka J said the state must make submissions specific to the prayers in the main PIL on the next date, it will now be listed for directions in two weeks..5. Metropolitan Stock Exchange of India Ltd. v. Multi Commodity Exchange of India Ltd..[Item 49 Court 13- APPST(OS)/927/2015].Bench: AS Oka, AA Sayed JJ.Check evening updates..Today in court: This could not be taken up due to paucity of time..Delhi High Court.1. Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India and Ors..[Court No. 1; Item No. 3 – W.P. (C) 3320/2011].Bench: G Rohini CJ, Sangita D Sehgal J..A petition challenging orders of the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions..Today in Court: The Court did not hear this matter today..2. Tata Steel Ltd. v. National Mineral Development Corporation and Ors..[Court No. 1; Item No. 10 – LPA 135/2008].Bench: G Rohini CJ, Sangita D Sehgal J. .Check evening updates..Today in Court: The Court did not hear this matter today..3. Simplex Infrastructures Ltd. v. Union of India and Anr..[Court No. 7; Item No. 19 – W.P. (C) 4017/2016].Bench: S. Muralidhar, Najmi Waziri JJ..A petition challenging an order passed by the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India authorizing the Member (Judicial), Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) to prepare rosters for re-assigning the bench matters..Today in Court: Since the judge was on leave, the matter will come up on September 26.