A summary of cases from the causelists of the Supreme Court of India, the Bombay High Court and the Delhi High Court..TABLE OF CASES.Supreme Court of India.Jindal Stainless Steel v. State of HaryanaRe: RE: Exploi. of Children in Orph in State of Tamil Nadu v. Union of IndiaIndian National Congress v. Union of IndiaPrasar Bharti v. Board of Control For Cricket In India & Ors.Nandini Sundar v. State of ChattisgarhRe-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons.Bombay High Court.Madhav Balwant Karmarkar v. Ministry of Law and Justice & Ors.India Centre for Human Rights and Law and 2 Ors. v. Union of India and 3 Ors.Nazir Noor Ali Jariya v. All India Muslim Personal Law Board & 15 Ors..Delhi High Court.Reckitt Benckiser (India) Pvt Ltd v. Gillette India Ltd.Court on its own motion (Air pollution in Delhi) v. Union of India and Ors..SUMMARY OF CASES .Supreme Court of India.1. Jindal Stainless Steel v. State of Haryana.[Item 901 in court 1 – CA 3453/2002].Bench: Chief Justice TS Thakur, AK Sikri, SA Bobde, Shiva Kirti Singh, NV Ramana, R Banumathi, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan JJ..Case relating to the imposition of entry tax. The Bench is currently listening to the states’ arguments..Today in Court: Senior Advocates Rakesh Dwivedi and Dushyant Dave made further submissions for the States today..2. RE: Exploitation of Children in orphanages in State of Tamil Nadu v. Union of India.[Item 13 Court 2- WP(Crl) 102/2016].Bench: Anil R Dave, L Nageshwar Rao JJ..Case relating to the exploitation of children living in Tamil Nadu orphanages, on the pretext of caring for them and their education..Today in Court: An adjournment was requested for filing an affidavit requested by the Court. The matter will now be heard on September 14..3. Indian National Congress v. Union of India.Item 17 in court 3 – SLP (Civil) 18190/2014.Bench: JS Khehar, Arun Mishra JJ..An appeal against the judgment of the Delhi High Court directing investigation into funds received by Indian National Congress Party and the Bharatiya Janata Party from foreign companies..The Court had issued notice in the case in 2014..Today in Court: The Bench did get a little antagonised at the petitioners’ requests for multiple adjournments and declared that the matter would be heard on the 14th of September. No further adjournments would be granted..4. Prasar Bharti v. Board of Control For Cricket In India & Ors..[Item 10 in court 5 – SLP(C) 4572-4573/2015].Bench: Ranjan Gogoi, Prafulla C Pant JJ..An appeal against the Delhi High Court judgment barring Doordarshan from sharing a live feed of World Cup Cricket matches with private cable operators. Read more about the case here..Today in Court: This case did not come up..5. Nandini Sundar v. State of Chattisgarh.[Item 3 in court 6 – IA 10/2016 IN WP(C) 250/2007 ].Bench: Madan B Lokur, RK Agarwal..Appeal against the judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in which it had struck down as ‘unconstitutional’ the practice of arming local tribal youth as special police officers (SPOs) in order to fight the Maoists..During the last hearing, a status report submitted by the CBI was considered by the Court. For a more detailed report, read this article..Today in Court: This case did not come up..6. Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons.[Item 15 in court 6 – Writ Petition (Civil) 406/2013].Bench: Madan B Lokur, RK Agrawal JJ..Case pertaining to inhuman treatment of prisoners and under-trials in jails..Today in Court: This case did not come up..Bombay High Court.1. Madhav Balwant Karmarkar v. Ministry of Law and Justice & Ors..[Item 901 Court 13- PIL(C)/31/2014].Bench: AS Oka, AA Sayed JJ.This PIL seeks appropriate infrastructure for Judicial Officers in the state. It also seeks making budgetary allocation to the Judicial Department. Another important issue raised is increasing the strength of the judges; the petitioner has sought to increase the number of judges (per 10 lakh) to 68 from the current 10.5..Today in court: This case was adjourned by one week..2. India Centre for Human Rights and Law and 2 Ors. v. Union of India and 3 Ors..[Item 4 Court 13- PIL(OS)/27/2007].Bench: AS Oka, AA Sayed JJ.A PIL raising several issues to ensure that all railway platforms in the city are disabled friendly. The issue of raising the height of the platforms, installing ramps and railings at the entrances, lowering the height of the booking window etc. are all part of the PIL. Senior counsel Mihir Desai appears for the petitioners and Suresh Kumar appears for the Railways..Today, the Railways will file a reply stating why a decision to not build ramps on 17 platforms was taken..Today in court: Senior counsel Gayatri Singh informed the bench about a particular agency that has a panel of experts for building such ramps at railway stations. This agency has done similar work in Karnataka..The railways insisted that the decision to not build these ramps was taken by the committee appointed by the High Court and all aspects were considered. Oka J then enquired from the railways counsel.Then you should not shy away from an audit by the centre, in order to ascertain whether you have done your job or not..The petitioners have now been directed to produce a letter by the said agency of experts with an estimate of the entire cost. The matter was adjourned for a week..3. Nazir Noor Ali Jariya v. All India Muslim Personal Law Board & Ors..[Item 14 Court 13- PIL(OS)/56/2014].Bench: VM Kanade, Swapna Joshi JJ.The petitioners claim that matters relating to matrimonial disputes or other matters are only within the jurisdiction of civil courts or Family Courts. Relying upon the observations made by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Mohd. Zahir Khan Koti v. Masajid Committee, the petitioner says that the functioning of the Darul-Quza does not have any statutory support..Read this previous report to know more about the case..Today in court: As the respondents have filed a reply and a rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner, the bench has now asked All India Muslim Personal Law Board to file a compilation of judgements to support their case. The case was adjourned..Delhi High Court.1. Reckitt Benckiser (India) Pvt Ltd v. Gillette India Ltd..[FAO (OS) 185/2016; Court No. 3 Item No. 1].Bench: Badar Durrez Ahmed, Ashutosh Kumar JJ..Gillette India Ltd. manufactures razors for hair removal. These razors have a typical light blue colour. Reckitt Benckiser (India) Pvt. Ltd, manufactures and sells hair removal creams under the trademark “Veet”. In the impugned video advertisement, “Veet” hair removal cream is stated to cause smoothening of skin upto twice as long as shaving, while showing a blue razor in the background in a comparing manner..The suit is brought for injunction and damages against an allegedly disparaging video advertisement. Gillette also filed an application for grant of ad interim injunction against Reckitt Benckiser to prevent it from issuing, broadcasting, printing or publishing the impugned advertisement, or in any way disparaging the goodwill and reputation of their products..Today in Court: The appeal was disposed off. The bench directed the respondents to increase the size of the disclaimer in their advertisement..2. Court on its own motion (Air pollution in Delhi) v. Union of India and Ors..[W.P. (C) 1346/2015; Court No. 3 Item No. 14].Bench: Badar Durrez Ahmed, Ashutosh Kumar JJ..Today in Court: In the last hearing, the bench had asked Rahul Mehra and Vivek Goyal to file affidavits regarding the measures taken and to be taken of the earliest relocation of the Sanjay Nagar encroachment in the Bhatti Wildlife Sanctuary Area..The bench today further granted time to the respondents till Monday to file the said affidavits. The matter will be heard on September 14, 2016.
A summary of cases from the causelists of the Supreme Court of India, the Bombay High Court and the Delhi High Court..TABLE OF CASES.Supreme Court of India.Jindal Stainless Steel v. State of HaryanaRe: RE: Exploi. of Children in Orph in State of Tamil Nadu v. Union of IndiaIndian National Congress v. Union of IndiaPrasar Bharti v. Board of Control For Cricket In India & Ors.Nandini Sundar v. State of ChattisgarhRe-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons.Bombay High Court.Madhav Balwant Karmarkar v. Ministry of Law and Justice & Ors.India Centre for Human Rights and Law and 2 Ors. v. Union of India and 3 Ors.Nazir Noor Ali Jariya v. All India Muslim Personal Law Board & 15 Ors..Delhi High Court.Reckitt Benckiser (India) Pvt Ltd v. Gillette India Ltd.Court on its own motion (Air pollution in Delhi) v. Union of India and Ors..SUMMARY OF CASES .Supreme Court of India.1. Jindal Stainless Steel v. State of Haryana.[Item 901 in court 1 – CA 3453/2002].Bench: Chief Justice TS Thakur, AK Sikri, SA Bobde, Shiva Kirti Singh, NV Ramana, R Banumathi, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan JJ..Case relating to the imposition of entry tax. The Bench is currently listening to the states’ arguments..Today in Court: Senior Advocates Rakesh Dwivedi and Dushyant Dave made further submissions for the States today..2. RE: Exploitation of Children in orphanages in State of Tamil Nadu v. Union of India.[Item 13 Court 2- WP(Crl) 102/2016].Bench: Anil R Dave, L Nageshwar Rao JJ..Case relating to the exploitation of children living in Tamil Nadu orphanages, on the pretext of caring for them and their education..Today in Court: An adjournment was requested for filing an affidavit requested by the Court. The matter will now be heard on September 14..3. Indian National Congress v. Union of India.Item 17 in court 3 – SLP (Civil) 18190/2014.Bench: JS Khehar, Arun Mishra JJ..An appeal against the judgment of the Delhi High Court directing investigation into funds received by Indian National Congress Party and the Bharatiya Janata Party from foreign companies..The Court had issued notice in the case in 2014..Today in Court: The Bench did get a little antagonised at the petitioners’ requests for multiple adjournments and declared that the matter would be heard on the 14th of September. No further adjournments would be granted..4. Prasar Bharti v. Board of Control For Cricket In India & Ors..[Item 10 in court 5 – SLP(C) 4572-4573/2015].Bench: Ranjan Gogoi, Prafulla C Pant JJ..An appeal against the Delhi High Court judgment barring Doordarshan from sharing a live feed of World Cup Cricket matches with private cable operators. Read more about the case here..Today in Court: This case did not come up..5. Nandini Sundar v. State of Chattisgarh.[Item 3 in court 6 – IA 10/2016 IN WP(C) 250/2007 ].Bench: Madan B Lokur, RK Agarwal..Appeal against the judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in which it had struck down as ‘unconstitutional’ the practice of arming local tribal youth as special police officers (SPOs) in order to fight the Maoists..During the last hearing, a status report submitted by the CBI was considered by the Court. For a more detailed report, read this article..Today in Court: This case did not come up..6. Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons.[Item 15 in court 6 – Writ Petition (Civil) 406/2013].Bench: Madan B Lokur, RK Agrawal JJ..Case pertaining to inhuman treatment of prisoners and under-trials in jails..Today in Court: This case did not come up..Bombay High Court.1. Madhav Balwant Karmarkar v. Ministry of Law and Justice & Ors..[Item 901 Court 13- PIL(C)/31/2014].Bench: AS Oka, AA Sayed JJ.This PIL seeks appropriate infrastructure for Judicial Officers in the state. It also seeks making budgetary allocation to the Judicial Department. Another important issue raised is increasing the strength of the judges; the petitioner has sought to increase the number of judges (per 10 lakh) to 68 from the current 10.5..Today in court: This case was adjourned by one week..2. India Centre for Human Rights and Law and 2 Ors. v. Union of India and 3 Ors..[Item 4 Court 13- PIL(OS)/27/2007].Bench: AS Oka, AA Sayed JJ.A PIL raising several issues to ensure that all railway platforms in the city are disabled friendly. The issue of raising the height of the platforms, installing ramps and railings at the entrances, lowering the height of the booking window etc. are all part of the PIL. Senior counsel Mihir Desai appears for the petitioners and Suresh Kumar appears for the Railways..Today, the Railways will file a reply stating why a decision to not build ramps on 17 platforms was taken..Today in court: Senior counsel Gayatri Singh informed the bench about a particular agency that has a panel of experts for building such ramps at railway stations. This agency has done similar work in Karnataka..The railways insisted that the decision to not build these ramps was taken by the committee appointed by the High Court and all aspects were considered. Oka J then enquired from the railways counsel.Then you should not shy away from an audit by the centre, in order to ascertain whether you have done your job or not..The petitioners have now been directed to produce a letter by the said agency of experts with an estimate of the entire cost. The matter was adjourned for a week..3. Nazir Noor Ali Jariya v. All India Muslim Personal Law Board & Ors..[Item 14 Court 13- PIL(OS)/56/2014].Bench: VM Kanade, Swapna Joshi JJ.The petitioners claim that matters relating to matrimonial disputes or other matters are only within the jurisdiction of civil courts or Family Courts. Relying upon the observations made by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Mohd. Zahir Khan Koti v. Masajid Committee, the petitioner says that the functioning of the Darul-Quza does not have any statutory support..Read this previous report to know more about the case..Today in court: As the respondents have filed a reply and a rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner, the bench has now asked All India Muslim Personal Law Board to file a compilation of judgements to support their case. The case was adjourned..Delhi High Court.1. Reckitt Benckiser (India) Pvt Ltd v. Gillette India Ltd..[FAO (OS) 185/2016; Court No. 3 Item No. 1].Bench: Badar Durrez Ahmed, Ashutosh Kumar JJ..Gillette India Ltd. manufactures razors for hair removal. These razors have a typical light blue colour. Reckitt Benckiser (India) Pvt. Ltd, manufactures and sells hair removal creams under the trademark “Veet”. In the impugned video advertisement, “Veet” hair removal cream is stated to cause smoothening of skin upto twice as long as shaving, while showing a blue razor in the background in a comparing manner..The suit is brought for injunction and damages against an allegedly disparaging video advertisement. Gillette also filed an application for grant of ad interim injunction against Reckitt Benckiser to prevent it from issuing, broadcasting, printing or publishing the impugned advertisement, or in any way disparaging the goodwill and reputation of their products..Today in Court: The appeal was disposed off. The bench directed the respondents to increase the size of the disclaimer in their advertisement..2. Court on its own motion (Air pollution in Delhi) v. Union of India and Ors..[W.P. (C) 1346/2015; Court No. 3 Item No. 14].Bench: Badar Durrez Ahmed, Ashutosh Kumar JJ..Today in Court: In the last hearing, the bench had asked Rahul Mehra and Vivek Goyal to file affidavits regarding the measures taken and to be taken of the earliest relocation of the Sanjay Nagar encroachment in the Bhatti Wildlife Sanctuary Area..The bench today further granted time to the respondents till Monday to file the said affidavits. The matter will be heard on September 14, 2016.