LIST OF CASES.Supreme Court of India.All India Drug Action Network v. State of HaryanaVolunteers for Social Justice v. High Court of Punjab and HaryanaMrs X v.Union of IndiaMukesh v. State for NCT of Delhi.Bombay High Court.The High Court of Bombay v. Chief Secretary and Ors.Ahmad M Abdi v. State of Maharashtra & 9 Ors.Levis Strauss India Pvt Ltd v. Federal Brands Pvt LtdFinancial Technologies(India) Ltd & 3 Ors. v. Union of India & 10 Ors..Delhi High Court.National Platform for the Rights of the Disabled (NPRD) v. Department of Empowerment of Persons with DisabilitiesMosanto Technology LLC and Ors. v. M/s Axis Seed and Crop Technology and Ors.(India TV) Independent News Service Pvt Ltd. v. India Broadcast Live, LLC and Ors.Haji Mohammed Majid Qureshi and Anr. v. Union of India.SUMMARY OF CASES.Supreme Court of India.1. All India Drug Action Network v. State of Haryana.[Item 5 in court 1 – WP(C) 423/2003].Bench: Chief Justice TS Thakur, Khanwilkar, Chandrachud JJ..Check evening updates to know more..Today in court: This case was adjourned..2. Volunteers for Social Justice v. High Court of Punjab and Haryana.[Item 26 in court 1 – SLP(C)… /2016].Bench: Chief Justice TS Thakur, Khanwilkar, Chandrachud JJ..Volunteers for Social Justice, had challenged the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court to keep 45 percent as the qualification marks for SC candidates as well as backward caste candidates as well..Today in Court: The counsel for the petitioner, Raghav Awasthi, contended that the bar has been set so high that the test “appeared to be loaded against candidates from the scheduled caste category”..The Court, however, dismissed the petition by saying that if any of the aggrieved persons are affected, they can approach the Court rather than an NGO filing such a petition..3. Ms X v.Union of India.[Item 51 in court 3 – WP(C) 593/2016].Bench: Justice Khehar, Arun Mishra JJ..A petition challenging the 20-week limit on abortions under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971. The Court had issued notice to Central and Maharashtra governments. A medical examination of the petitioner took place on Saturday as per the order of the court. The report regarding the same will be submitted to court today..Today in Court: The report, in its prognosis in paragraph 4, mentioned that the foetus was not compatible with extra-uterine life, and the continuation of the pregnancy would pose a grave threat to the mental health and physical well being of the expectant mother..The Bench accepted the contention that while Section 3 does not permit the termination of a pregnancy that exceeds twenty weeks of uterine life, Section 5 lays down exceptions in the interest of the life of the mother. Consequently, it held that the mother, in this particular case, was permitted to abort..Read more here..4. Mukesh v. State for NCT of Delhi.[Item 301 in court 4 – SLP (CRL) 3119-3120/2014].Bench: Dipak Mishra, Banumathi, Ashok Bhushan JJ..The appeal of those convicted in the Nirbhaya rape. The last hearing, held on July 22, saw arguments made by ML Sharma, the lawyer representing the appellants..Today in Court: ML Sharma continued his arguments today. He contended that that the medical reports, as well as the dying declaration of the victim were manipulated. He asserted that the victim was on a heavy dosage of painkillers, namely morphine, from December 19, 2012, and was therefore in no state to give a correct view of the facts. He further argued that there was inconsistency in the way his client’s name was spelled by the victim, which meant that she was not referring to him in the first place..He further pointed out that the issue of an iron rod being used to assault the victim was a figment of the prosecution’s imagination..The hearing took a rather emotional turn with the victim’s kin breaking down as her dying declaration was being read..5. State Bank of India And Ors. v. Kingfisher Airlines Ltd. And Ors..[Item 8 in court 10 – SLP(C) 6828-6831/2016].Bench: Kurian Joseph, Rohinton Nariman JJ..Appeals filed by a consortium of banks against an order of the Karnataka High Court which had turned down a plea to restrain Vijay Mallya from leaving the country. The Consortium had rejected a proposal by Mallya for repayment of the loans..Today in Court: The Supreme Court issued a notice to Vijay Mallya for not complying with SC order to disclose assets..Bombay High Court.1. The High Court of Bombay v. The Chief Secretary & Ors..[Item 10 Court 13- PIL(C)/7/2011].Bench: AS Oka, AA Sayed JJ.A suo-motu PIL dealing with basic court infrastructure in the state. Senior counsel AA Kumbhakoni is the amicus in the matter, SR Nargolkar appears for the petitioner and AB Vagyani appears for the state. For more read our detailed report..Today in court: This matter was adjourned as State sought more time to submit a report of the enquiry conducted on the construction work in progress at Panvel court..2. Ahmad Abdi v. State of Maharashtra & 8 Ors..[Item 11 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. Read our previous report for more details..Today in court: The intervention application of the Bombay Incorporated Law Society (BILS) has now been allowed. This matter was adjourned for two weeks..3. Levis Strauss India Pvt Ltd v. Federal Brands Pvt Ltd.[Item 3 Court 52- NMAST(OS)/1057/2016].Bench: VM Kanade, MS Sonak JJ.FBL, the owner of Live In jeans filed a suit against Levi’s India for infringement of copyright seeking Rs. 75 crores following an ad campaign by Levi’s called ” Live in Levis”. They (FBL) contended that this effected their sales as the ad created confusion in the market. The court then consequently passed an order restricting LSIPL from using the words LIVE IN or live in. This is an appeal by FBL against the earlier order..Today in court: This matter could not be tracked..4. Financial Technologies(India) Ltd & 3 Ors. v. Union of India & 10 Ors..[Item 9 Court 52- WP(OS)/2743/2014].Bench: VM Kanade, MS Sonak JJ.The petitioners are challenging Section 396 of the Companies Act 1956 on various grounds..Today in court: Interim orders will continue, the matter was adjourned for four weeks..Delhi High Court.1. National Platform for the Rights of the Disabled (NPRD) v. Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities.[W.P. (C) 9751/2015 – Court No. 1; Item No. 7].Bench: G. Rohini, CJ, Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, J..PIL filed under A. 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of mandamus with regard to fair selection guidelines for selecting candidates to participate in the Global IT Challenge for Youth with Disabilities and other national and international events..Today in Court: The petitioner was represented by advocate Subhash Chandran. The petition was disposed off..2. Mosanto Technology LLC and Ors. v. M/s Axis Seed and Crop Technology and Ors..[CS (OS) 1784/2014 – Court No. 24; Item No. 16].Bench: Hima Kohli, J.. Today in Court: The matter got adjourned to August 23, 2016..3. (India TV) Independent News Service Pvt Ltd. v. India Broadcast Live, LLC and Ors..[CS (OS) 102/2007 – Court No. 24; Item No. 5].Bench: Hima Kohli, J..Suit filed by the plaintiff company – Independent News Services Pvt. Ltd – claiming exclusive rights to use the trademark INDIA TV along with its variations and which is used with respect to a TV channel by the plaintiff..Today in Court: The matter did not come up for hearing..4. Haji Mohammed Majid Qureshi and Anr. v. Union of India.[W.P. (C) 12179/2015 – Court No. 1; Item No. 9].Bench: G. Rohini, CJ, Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, J..Today in Court: The Court reserved orders in the case.
LIST OF CASES.Supreme Court of India.All India Drug Action Network v. State of HaryanaVolunteers for Social Justice v. High Court of Punjab and HaryanaMrs X v.Union of IndiaMukesh v. State for NCT of Delhi.Bombay High Court.The High Court of Bombay v. Chief Secretary and Ors.Ahmad M Abdi v. State of Maharashtra & 9 Ors.Levis Strauss India Pvt Ltd v. Federal Brands Pvt LtdFinancial Technologies(India) Ltd & 3 Ors. v. Union of India & 10 Ors..Delhi High Court.National Platform for the Rights of the Disabled (NPRD) v. Department of Empowerment of Persons with DisabilitiesMosanto Technology LLC and Ors. v. M/s Axis Seed and Crop Technology and Ors.(India TV) Independent News Service Pvt Ltd. v. India Broadcast Live, LLC and Ors.Haji Mohammed Majid Qureshi and Anr. v. Union of India.SUMMARY OF CASES.Supreme Court of India.1. All India Drug Action Network v. State of Haryana.[Item 5 in court 1 – WP(C) 423/2003].Bench: Chief Justice TS Thakur, Khanwilkar, Chandrachud JJ..Check evening updates to know more..Today in court: This case was adjourned..2. Volunteers for Social Justice v. High Court of Punjab and Haryana.[Item 26 in court 1 – SLP(C)… /2016].Bench: Chief Justice TS Thakur, Khanwilkar, Chandrachud JJ..Volunteers for Social Justice, had challenged the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court to keep 45 percent as the qualification marks for SC candidates as well as backward caste candidates as well..Today in Court: The counsel for the petitioner, Raghav Awasthi, contended that the bar has been set so high that the test “appeared to be loaded against candidates from the scheduled caste category”..The Court, however, dismissed the petition by saying that if any of the aggrieved persons are affected, they can approach the Court rather than an NGO filing such a petition..3. Ms X v.Union of India.[Item 51 in court 3 – WP(C) 593/2016].Bench: Justice Khehar, Arun Mishra JJ..A petition challenging the 20-week limit on abortions under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971. The Court had issued notice to Central and Maharashtra governments. A medical examination of the petitioner took place on Saturday as per the order of the court. The report regarding the same will be submitted to court today..Today in Court: The report, in its prognosis in paragraph 4, mentioned that the foetus was not compatible with extra-uterine life, and the continuation of the pregnancy would pose a grave threat to the mental health and physical well being of the expectant mother..The Bench accepted the contention that while Section 3 does not permit the termination of a pregnancy that exceeds twenty weeks of uterine life, Section 5 lays down exceptions in the interest of the life of the mother. Consequently, it held that the mother, in this particular case, was permitted to abort..Read more here..4. Mukesh v. State for NCT of Delhi.[Item 301 in court 4 – SLP (CRL) 3119-3120/2014].Bench: Dipak Mishra, Banumathi, Ashok Bhushan JJ..The appeal of those convicted in the Nirbhaya rape. The last hearing, held on July 22, saw arguments made by ML Sharma, the lawyer representing the appellants..Today in Court: ML Sharma continued his arguments today. He contended that that the medical reports, as well as the dying declaration of the victim were manipulated. He asserted that the victim was on a heavy dosage of painkillers, namely morphine, from December 19, 2012, and was therefore in no state to give a correct view of the facts. He further argued that there was inconsistency in the way his client’s name was spelled by the victim, which meant that she was not referring to him in the first place..He further pointed out that the issue of an iron rod being used to assault the victim was a figment of the prosecution’s imagination..The hearing took a rather emotional turn with the victim’s kin breaking down as her dying declaration was being read..5. State Bank of India And Ors. v. Kingfisher Airlines Ltd. And Ors..[Item 8 in court 10 – SLP(C) 6828-6831/2016].Bench: Kurian Joseph, Rohinton Nariman JJ..Appeals filed by a consortium of banks against an order of the Karnataka High Court which had turned down a plea to restrain Vijay Mallya from leaving the country. The Consortium had rejected a proposal by Mallya for repayment of the loans..Today in Court: The Supreme Court issued a notice to Vijay Mallya for not complying with SC order to disclose assets..Bombay High Court.1. The High Court of Bombay v. The Chief Secretary & Ors..[Item 10 Court 13- PIL(C)/7/2011].Bench: AS Oka, AA Sayed JJ.A suo-motu PIL dealing with basic court infrastructure in the state. Senior counsel AA Kumbhakoni is the amicus in the matter, SR Nargolkar appears for the petitioner and AB Vagyani appears for the state. For more read our detailed report..Today in court: This matter was adjourned as State sought more time to submit a report of the enquiry conducted on the construction work in progress at Panvel court..2. Ahmad Abdi v. State of Maharashtra & 8 Ors..[Item 11 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. Read our previous report for more details..Today in court: The intervention application of the Bombay Incorporated Law Society (BILS) has now been allowed. This matter was adjourned for two weeks..3. Levis Strauss India Pvt Ltd v. Federal Brands Pvt Ltd.[Item 3 Court 52- NMAST(OS)/1057/2016].Bench: VM Kanade, MS Sonak JJ.FBL, the owner of Live In jeans filed a suit against Levi’s India for infringement of copyright seeking Rs. 75 crores following an ad campaign by Levi’s called ” Live in Levis”. They (FBL) contended that this effected their sales as the ad created confusion in the market. The court then consequently passed an order restricting LSIPL from using the words LIVE IN or live in. This is an appeal by FBL against the earlier order..Today in court: This matter could not be tracked..4. Financial Technologies(India) Ltd & 3 Ors. v. Union of India & 10 Ors..[Item 9 Court 52- WP(OS)/2743/2014].Bench: VM Kanade, MS Sonak JJ.The petitioners are challenging Section 396 of the Companies Act 1956 on various grounds..Today in court: Interim orders will continue, the matter was adjourned for four weeks..Delhi High Court.1. National Platform for the Rights of the Disabled (NPRD) v. Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities.[W.P. (C) 9751/2015 – Court No. 1; Item No. 7].Bench: G. Rohini, CJ, Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, J..PIL filed under A. 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of mandamus with regard to fair selection guidelines for selecting candidates to participate in the Global IT Challenge for Youth with Disabilities and other national and international events..Today in Court: The petitioner was represented by advocate Subhash Chandran. The petition was disposed off..2. Mosanto Technology LLC and Ors. v. M/s Axis Seed and Crop Technology and Ors..[CS (OS) 1784/2014 – Court No. 24; Item No. 16].Bench: Hima Kohli, J.. Today in Court: The matter got adjourned to August 23, 2016..3. (India TV) Independent News Service Pvt Ltd. v. India Broadcast Live, LLC and Ors..[CS (OS) 102/2007 – Court No. 24; Item No. 5].Bench: Hima Kohli, J..Suit filed by the plaintiff company – Independent News Services Pvt. Ltd – claiming exclusive rights to use the trademark INDIA TV along with its variations and which is used with respect to a TV channel by the plaintiff..Today in Court: The matter did not come up for hearing..4. Haji Mohammed Majid Qureshi and Anr. v. Union of India.[W.P. (C) 12179/2015 – Court No. 1; Item No. 9].Bench: G. Rohini, CJ, Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, J..Today in Court: The Court reserved orders in the case.
