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.Jindal Stainless Steel v. State of HaryanaVijaykant and Anr. Vs. City Public Prosecutor.Bombay High Court.Retired Judicial Officers Association v. The State of MaharashtraAmit Maru v. State of MaharashtraJaswantbhai Chaturbhai Nai and Ors v. State of Gujarat & Ors..Delhi High Court.Santosh Kumar Sharma v. Bar Council of India and Ors.Cairn India Ltd. and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr..SUMMARY OF CASES.Supreme Court of India.1. Jindal Stainless Steel Vs. State of Haryana.[Item 301 in court 1 – SLP (CRL) NO. 3119-3120/2014].Bench: Chief Justice TS Thakur, A.K. Sikri, S.A. Bobde, Shiva Kirti Singh, N.V. Ramana, R. Banumathi, A.M. Khanwilkar, D.Y. Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan JJ..Case relating to the imposition of entry tax..Today in court: Senior counsel Arvind Datar and TN Andhyarujina made their submissions..2. Vijaykant and Anr. Vs. City Public Prosecutor.[Item 4 in Court 4- W.P.(CRL.) NO. 43/2016].Bench: Dipak Mishra, Rohinton Nariman, JJ..Defamation case against actor/politician Vijayakanth for some remarks he allegedly made against Jayalalithaa..Today in court: The Bench has directed the Tamil Nadu government to furnish details of all defamation cases either filed through the office of public prosecutor on behalf of Tamil Nadu CM, Jayalalithaa..Bombay High Court.1. Retired Judicial Officers Association v. The State of Maharashtra.[Item 907 Court 31- WP(C)/11479/2013].Bench: SC Dharmadhikari, Dr. Shalini Phansalkar Joshi JJ.This petition is regarding medical benefits given to retired judicial officers, it seeks that the benefits be at par with serving judicial officers. Earlier, GP AB Vagyani had informed the bench that a cabinet note has been sent to the Finance Department for approval..Today in court: The cabinet did not approve the note, although the finance department has decided to extend the benefit of the medical insurance scheme. This the petitioners argued, was in violation of a Supreme Court order that had directed all state governments to implement all suggestions by the Padmanabhan Committee..Petitioners were granted leave to amend the petition, the matter will now be listed in due course..2. Amit Maru v. State of Maharashtra.[Item 9 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 matter was adjourned as no one appeared for the state. The petitioner will be filing a rejoinder..3. Jaswantbhai Chaturbhai Nai and Ors v. State of Gujarat & Ors..[Item 201 Court 49- APEAL(Cri)/1020/2009].Bench: VK Tahilramani, Mridula Bhatkar JJ.The appeal of eleven convicts in the Bilkis Bano case is being heard along with the CBI’s petition seeking death penalty for three of these convicts. They were sentenced to life by a special court in January 2008 for gang-raping a five month pregnant Bilkis Bano and murdering seven of her family members in the post-Godhra riots of 2002..Harshad Ponda is appearing for the appellants and Hiten Venegaokar is appearing for the CBI. Read our previous report for more details..Today in court: The defence read out the statements of other witnesses in the case. The matter was adjourned as the bench did not sit in the post-lunch session..Delhi High Court.1. Santosh Kumar Sharma v. Bar Council of India and Ors..[C.M. APPL. 4304/2015, 16572/2015 and 25387/2016 in W.P. (C) 1056/2015 – Court No. 14; Item No. 33].Bench: Indermeet Kaur, J..A fake degree case against former Delhi law minister Jitender Singh Tomar. A writ petition was filed in February last year alleging that he had given false information in his affidavit while filing his nomination prior to his election as an MLA..The petitioner, Santosh Kumar Sharma has claimed that Tomar had submitted a “fake and bogus” undergraduate degree in science from Avadh University to get enrolled in the Bishwanath Singh Institute of Legal Studies College (BSILS), Munger, Bihar where he had purportedly studied LLB..Tomar has sought the dismissal of the petition on the ground that he was already facing prosecution in a criminal case on the same issue. On the last date of hearing, Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva had recused himself from the matter..Today in Court: It was argued that the complainant in the FIR lodged was the Bar Council of Delhi and not the Bar Council of India. The Court held that in accordance with S.36B of the Advocates Act, the disciplinary proceedings before the Bar Council of Delhi have to be completed within a period of 6 months to 1 year, which was not done and therefore the proceedings, in accordance with S.36B(2) get transferred to the Bar Council of India. The matter will therefore come up before a disciplinary committee constituted by the BCI and the writ petition was disposed off accordingly..2. Cairn India Ltd. and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors..[W.P. (C) 11599/2015 – Court No. 15; Item No. 40].Bench: Sanjeev Sachdeva, J..A petition filed by Cairn India seeking an extension of its contract for the Barmer oil and gas block in Rajasthan and also a better price for crude oil produced from the block..Today in Court: The bench has granted a period of 5 weeks to seek approval from the central government with respect to the ONGC contract. The matter will come up before the court on September 9, 2016..3. Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr..[W.P. (C) 4081/2016 – Court No. 7; Item No. 12].Bench: S. Muralidhar, Najmi Waziri, JJ..The petition by Vodafone challenged an order of the Taxation Department directing a special audit of its accounts for assessment year 2012-13. On the last date of hearing, the bench issued notice to the IT Department and directed them to file their reply by the next date of hearing..Today in Court: This matter did not come up before the court.
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.Jindal Stainless Steel v. State of HaryanaVijaykant and Anr. Vs. City Public Prosecutor.Bombay High Court.Retired Judicial Officers Association v. The State of MaharashtraAmit Maru v. State of MaharashtraJaswantbhai Chaturbhai Nai and Ors v. State of Gujarat & Ors..Delhi High Court.Santosh Kumar Sharma v. Bar Council of India and Ors.Cairn India Ltd. and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr..SUMMARY OF CASES.Supreme Court of India.1. Jindal Stainless Steel Vs. State of Haryana.[Item 301 in court 1 – SLP (CRL) NO. 3119-3120/2014].Bench: Chief Justice TS Thakur, A.K. Sikri, S.A. Bobde, Shiva Kirti Singh, N.V. Ramana, R. Banumathi, A.M. Khanwilkar, D.Y. Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan JJ..Case relating to the imposition of entry tax..Today in court: Senior counsel Arvind Datar and TN Andhyarujina made their submissions..2. Vijaykant and Anr. Vs. City Public Prosecutor.[Item 4 in Court 4- W.P.(CRL.) NO. 43/2016].Bench: Dipak Mishra, Rohinton Nariman, JJ..Defamation case against actor/politician Vijayakanth for some remarks he allegedly made against Jayalalithaa..Today in court: The Bench has directed the Tamil Nadu government to furnish details of all defamation cases either filed through the office of public prosecutor on behalf of Tamil Nadu CM, Jayalalithaa..Bombay High Court.1. Retired Judicial Officers Association v. The State of Maharashtra.[Item 907 Court 31- WP(C)/11479/2013].Bench: SC Dharmadhikari, Dr. Shalini Phansalkar Joshi JJ.This petition is regarding medical benefits given to retired judicial officers, it seeks that the benefits be at par with serving judicial officers. Earlier, GP AB Vagyani had informed the bench that a cabinet note has been sent to the Finance Department for approval..Today in court: The cabinet did not approve the note, although the finance department has decided to extend the benefit of the medical insurance scheme. This the petitioners argued, was in violation of a Supreme Court order that had directed all state governments to implement all suggestions by the Padmanabhan Committee..Petitioners were granted leave to amend the petition, the matter will now be listed in due course..2. Amit Maru v. State of Maharashtra.[Item 9 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 matter was adjourned as no one appeared for the state. The petitioner will be filing a rejoinder..3. Jaswantbhai Chaturbhai Nai and Ors v. State of Gujarat & Ors..[Item 201 Court 49- APEAL(Cri)/1020/2009].Bench: VK Tahilramani, Mridula Bhatkar JJ.The appeal of eleven convicts in the Bilkis Bano case is being heard along with the CBI’s petition seeking death penalty for three of these convicts. They were sentenced to life by a special court in January 2008 for gang-raping a five month pregnant Bilkis Bano and murdering seven of her family members in the post-Godhra riots of 2002..Harshad Ponda is appearing for the appellants and Hiten Venegaokar is appearing for the CBI. Read our previous report for more details..Today in court: The defence read out the statements of other witnesses in the case. The matter was adjourned as the bench did not sit in the post-lunch session..Delhi High Court.1. Santosh Kumar Sharma v. Bar Council of India and Ors..[C.M. APPL. 4304/2015, 16572/2015 and 25387/2016 in W.P. (C) 1056/2015 – Court No. 14; Item No. 33].Bench: Indermeet Kaur, J..A fake degree case against former Delhi law minister Jitender Singh Tomar. A writ petition was filed in February last year alleging that he had given false information in his affidavit while filing his nomination prior to his election as an MLA..The petitioner, Santosh Kumar Sharma has claimed that Tomar had submitted a “fake and bogus” undergraduate degree in science from Avadh University to get enrolled in the Bishwanath Singh Institute of Legal Studies College (BSILS), Munger, Bihar where he had purportedly studied LLB..Tomar has sought the dismissal of the petition on the ground that he was already facing prosecution in a criminal case on the same issue. On the last date of hearing, Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva had recused himself from the matter..Today in Court: It was argued that the complainant in the FIR lodged was the Bar Council of Delhi and not the Bar Council of India. The Court held that in accordance with S.36B of the Advocates Act, the disciplinary proceedings before the Bar Council of Delhi have to be completed within a period of 6 months to 1 year, which was not done and therefore the proceedings, in accordance with S.36B(2) get transferred to the Bar Council of India. The matter will therefore come up before a disciplinary committee constituted by the BCI and the writ petition was disposed off accordingly..2. Cairn India Ltd. and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors..[W.P. (C) 11599/2015 – Court No. 15; Item No. 40].Bench: Sanjeev Sachdeva, J..A petition filed by Cairn India seeking an extension of its contract for the Barmer oil and gas block in Rajasthan and also a better price for crude oil produced from the block..Today in Court: The bench has granted a period of 5 weeks to seek approval from the central government with respect to the ONGC contract. The matter will come up before the court on September 9, 2016..3. Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr..[W.P. (C) 4081/2016 – Court No. 7; Item No. 12].Bench: S. Muralidhar, Najmi Waziri, JJ..The petition by Vodafone challenged an order of the Taxation Department directing a special audit of its accounts for assessment year 2012-13. On the last date of hearing, the bench issued notice to the IT Department and directed them to file their reply by the next date of hearing..Today in Court: This matter did not come up before the court.