A summary of important cases from the causelists of the Supreme Court of India, and the Delhi High Court..LIST OF CASES.Supreme Court of India.State of Madhya Pradesh v. Jainarayan ChoukseyFood Safety and Standards Authority of India v. M/S. Nestle India Ltd. and Ors..Delhi High Court.Spicejet Limited v. KAL Airways Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.Britannia Limited v. ITC LimitedPhuntsok Wangyal v. Ministry of External Affairs and Ors..SUMMARY OF CASES.Supreme Court of India.1. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Jainarayan Chouksey .[Item 501 in court 2 – CONMT PET (C) 584/2016 IN CA 4060/2009].Bench: Anil R Dave, A K Sikri, R K Aggarwal, Adarsh Kumar Goel, R Banumathi JJ..Appeal against the High Court order that had stayed the Government Resolution (GR) issued by the Maharashtra government and the circular issued by the Centre that asked for combined counselling of aspirants for medical and dental courses. Kapil Sibal began his arguments in the last hearing..Today in Court: The Bench set aside the Madhya Pradesh counselling and directed a centralised one..Read more here..2. Food Safety and Standards Authority of India v. M/S. Nestle India Ltd. and Ors..[Item 1 in court 4 – SLP(C) NO. 33251/2015].Bench: Dipak Misra, C Nagappan JJ..The appeal by Food Safety and Standards Authority of India against the decision of the Bombay High Court lifting the ban imposed on Maggi noodles..Today in Court: This matter will now be taken up on September 30..Delhi High Court.1. Spicejet Limited v. KAL Airways Pvt. Ltd. and Ors..[FAO (OS) (Comm) 62/2016; Court No. 2 Item No. 21].Bench: Indira Banerjee, V. Kameswar Rao, JJ..Share transfer dispute between Spicejet and KAL Airways. The matter arises out of non-issuance of warrants in favour of KAL’s non-executive chairperson Kalanithi Maran, after transfer of ownership to Ajay Singh, the current controlling shareholder of Spicejet..Today in Court: This matter could not be tracked. Any details/updates will be appreciated..2. Britannia Limited v. ITC Limited.[FAO (OS) (Comm) 77/2016; Court No. 3 Item No. 3].Bench: Badar Durrez Ahmed, Ashutosh Kumar, JJ..Appeal filed by Britannia against the single judge order granted in favour of ITC in the digestive biscuits dispute between Nutri Choice Digestive Zero and Sun Feast Farmlite. For more information, read our previous report..Today in Court: The bench heard arguments from both sides today and reserved the order..3. Phuntsok Wangyal v. Ministry of External Affairs and Ors..[W.P. (C) 3539/2016; Court No. 16 Item 26].Bench: Sanjeev Sachdeva, J..Petition filed by 46-year old Tibetan pushing for implementation of the Indian Citizenship Act to allow him to legally procure an Indian passport. His application for an Indian passport was rejected on the ground that, although he was born in India in 1970, he was of Tibetan descent..In the last hearing, the lawyer representing the Ministry of External Affairs argued that the Ministry was relying on directions from the Ministry of Home Affairs. Justice Sachdeva however held that the petitioners were Indian citizens by birth and not by application. The fact that they were born in India makes them natural born citizens of the country and therefore getting a passport is their fundamental right as citizens of the country..Today in Court: The High Court issued directions stating that Tibetans born in India between 1950 and 1987 are to be considered as citizens of the country. The bench granted a time of four weeks to issue the passports to the petitioner.
A summary of important cases from the causelists of the Supreme Court of India, and the Delhi High Court..LIST OF CASES.Supreme Court of India.State of Madhya Pradesh v. Jainarayan ChoukseyFood Safety and Standards Authority of India v. M/S. Nestle India Ltd. and Ors..Delhi High Court.Spicejet Limited v. KAL Airways Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.Britannia Limited v. ITC LimitedPhuntsok Wangyal v. Ministry of External Affairs and Ors..SUMMARY OF CASES.Supreme Court of India.1. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Jainarayan Chouksey .[Item 501 in court 2 – CONMT PET (C) 584/2016 IN CA 4060/2009].Bench: Anil R Dave, A K Sikri, R K Aggarwal, Adarsh Kumar Goel, R Banumathi JJ..Appeal against the High Court order that had stayed the Government Resolution (GR) issued by the Maharashtra government and the circular issued by the Centre that asked for combined counselling of aspirants for medical and dental courses. Kapil Sibal began his arguments in the last hearing..Today in Court: The Bench set aside the Madhya Pradesh counselling and directed a centralised one..Read more here..2. Food Safety and Standards Authority of India v. M/S. Nestle India Ltd. and Ors..[Item 1 in court 4 – SLP(C) NO. 33251/2015].Bench: Dipak Misra, C Nagappan JJ..The appeal by Food Safety and Standards Authority of India against the decision of the Bombay High Court lifting the ban imposed on Maggi noodles..Today in Court: This matter will now be taken up on September 30..Delhi High Court.1. Spicejet Limited v. KAL Airways Pvt. Ltd. and Ors..[FAO (OS) (Comm) 62/2016; Court No. 2 Item No. 21].Bench: Indira Banerjee, V. Kameswar Rao, JJ..Share transfer dispute between Spicejet and KAL Airways. The matter arises out of non-issuance of warrants in favour of KAL’s non-executive chairperson Kalanithi Maran, after transfer of ownership to Ajay Singh, the current controlling shareholder of Spicejet..Today in Court: This matter could not be tracked. Any details/updates will be appreciated..2. Britannia Limited v. ITC Limited.[FAO (OS) (Comm) 77/2016; Court No. 3 Item No. 3].Bench: Badar Durrez Ahmed, Ashutosh Kumar, JJ..Appeal filed by Britannia against the single judge order granted in favour of ITC in the digestive biscuits dispute between Nutri Choice Digestive Zero and Sun Feast Farmlite. For more information, read our previous report..Today in Court: The bench heard arguments from both sides today and reserved the order..3. Phuntsok Wangyal v. Ministry of External Affairs and Ors..[W.P. (C) 3539/2016; Court No. 16 Item 26].Bench: Sanjeev Sachdeva, J..Petition filed by 46-year old Tibetan pushing for implementation of the Indian Citizenship Act to allow him to legally procure an Indian passport. His application for an Indian passport was rejected on the ground that, although he was born in India in 1970, he was of Tibetan descent..In the last hearing, the lawyer representing the Ministry of External Affairs argued that the Ministry was relying on directions from the Ministry of Home Affairs. Justice Sachdeva however held that the petitioners were Indian citizens by birth and not by application. The fact that they were born in India makes them natural born citizens of the country and therefore getting a passport is their fundamental right as citizens of the country..Today in Court: The High Court issued directions stating that Tibetans born in India between 1950 and 1987 are to be considered as citizens of the country. The bench granted a time of four weeks to issue the passports to the petitioner.