Supreme Court of India.1. State of Jammu And Kashmir and Ors. v. Parimoksh Seth and etc..[Item 1 in court 1 – IA 3/ 2015 in SLP (C) 28451-28452 of 2015].Bench: Chief Justice HL Dattu, Arun Mishr J..Interim application in the appeal against the judgment of the Jammu & Kashmir High Court banning beef. While the Jammu Bench of the High Court had directed the State to ensure that provisions in the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC) banning cow slaughter are strictly implemented, a Division Bench of the High Court at Srinagar had issued notice in another PIL challenging the very same provisions of the RPC..The Court had kept in abeyance the order of the Jammu Bench of the High Court directing the State to implement the provisions of RPC. Taking note of the conflict in opinions of the two Benches, the Court had directed the Chief Justice of the High Court to constitute a three-judge Bench to decide the case..Today in court: This application was filed by petitioners based in Jammu, praying that their writ petition should be heard by a Bench in Jammu. The Court refused to entertain the same and permitted the petitioners to withdraw this application..2. Vizhinjam International Seaport Limited v. Wilfred J and Ors. .[Item 88 in court 1] – Civil Appeal 7884-7885/2014.Bench: Chief Justice HL Dattu, Gopala Gowda J., Arun Mishra J..A challenge to the environmental clearances given to the proposed Vizhinjam Seaport project. The Southern Bench of the National Green Tribunal was hearing one appeal while the principal Bench in Delhi was hearing an Original application and an appeal. By an order of July 17, 2014, the principal Bench had transferred to itself the part heard appeal pending before the Southern Bench while also holding that it has the power of limited judicial review to examine the Constitutional vires of delegated legislation. This has been challenged in the Supreme Court by Vizhinjam International Seaport Limited (VSIL) and the Government of Kerala..The Court will be determining two important legal issues – whether the NGT can exercise limited judicial review of delegated legislation, and whether the principal Bench of the NGT can transfer a part heard matter from a Regional Bench to itself..Today in court: This case was not taken up today..3. Teesta Atul Setalvad and Anr. v. State of Gujarat.[Item 301 in court 3 – CRLMP 10424/2015 IN CRL.A. 338/2015].Bench: Anil R Dave J., FML Kalifulla J., V Gopala Gowda J. .The investigation of activist Teesta Setalvad for allegedly misappropriating funds collected for building a museum of resistance to mark the riots of 2002..The matter had come up before a two judge on October 12 this week. Since the case is to be heard by a 3-judge Bench, the Court had directed that the matter be listed before an appropriate Bench. It had also clarified that the interim relief granted by the Supreme court will only continue till October 15..Today in court: The Bench extended the interim protection from arrest granted to Teesta and her husband till December 8. The Court also issued notice to Teesta and her husband in another case pertaining to violation of Foreign Contribution Regulation Act and posted the case for hearing on December 1..4. Shobhha De v. Chairman, Maharashtra Legislature Secretariat and Ors..[Item 18 in court 5 – Writ Petition (Civil) 233/2015].Bench: Dipak Misra J., Prafulla C Pant J..A petition filed by Shobhha De challenging the notice of privilege motion moved against her by the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly for her tweets against a government order..The government order mandated that every multiplex should screen at least one Marathi film between 6 pm to 9 pm everyday. De had taken a dig at the order and tweeted:.“No more pop corn at multiplexes in Mumbai? Dahi misal and vada pav only. To go better with the Marathi movies at prime time.”.The Supreme Court had stayed the privilege motion against her in April and sought the response of Maharashtra Legislative Secretariat. When the matter was last heard, the Maharashtra government sought to implead itself in the case with Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi appearing for the Maharashtra government. The Court had allowed the same and had asked the Attorney General to apprise the Court about which is the competent authority to defend the case – the government or the Legislative Secretariat. Senior Advocate Aryama Sundaram is appearing for De. .Today in court: This case could not be tracked. Any lead/ information would be appreciated..5. Indian Hotel & Restaurant Association & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr..[Item 21 in court 5 – Writ Petition (C) No. 793 of 2014].Bench: Dipak Misra J., Prafulla C Pant J..A petition challenging the Constitutional validity of the Maharashtra Police (second amendment) Act which bans dance performances at bars and hotels in Maharashtra. The association has submitted that the Act violates the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g)..A Division Bench of Justices SJ Mukhopadhaya and PC Pant had issued notice to Maharashtra government on September 12, 2014..Today in court: Senior Advocate Jayant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the State’s action of re-enacting a provision, which the Supreme Court had struck down earlier, does not invalidate the judgment of the Supreme Court. The Court will hear the case tomorrow since the State government’s advocate and the Attorney General were held up in other courts..6. Rajbala & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors..[Item 5 in court 6 – Writ Petition (Civil) 671/2015].Bench: Jasti Chelameswar J., AM Sapre J. .A challenge to the validity of the Haryana Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Act, 2015 which, fixes minimum educational qualifications for candidates to contest Panchayat polls. The Supreme Court had stayed the operation of the Act whereupon the Panchayat polls had been deferred in Haryana..Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi is now arguing for the State of Haryana. The hearing will continue. Read about yesterday’s hearing here..Today in court: Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi is making his submissions. Hearing will resume at 10.30 am tomorrow..7. Justice KS Puttaswamy (Retd) & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors..[Item 501 in court 1 at 2 pm – Writ Petition (Civil) 494/2012].Chief Justice HL Dattu, MY Eqbal J., C Nagappan J., Arun Mishra J., Amitava Roy J..Challenge to the Aadhaar scheme. Read more here..Today in court: Read the full report here..Delhi High Court.1. All India Footwear Manufacturers & Retailers Association & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors. [Item 29, Court 9- WP (C) 7479/2015].Bench: RS Endlaw J. .Petition filed by the All India Footwear Manufacturers and Retailers Association alleging violation of the government’s FDI policy by e-commerce majors. The petition had sought directions from the High Court to initiate investigations into e-commerce websites selling footwear..On the last hearing, the Bench had sought a reply from the Government over the issue..Today in Court: Due to paucity of time, the Bench did not take up this matter today. It will now be heard on November 19..2. Association of Radio Taxis v. Bhavish Aggarwal, ANI Technologies Pvt Ltd. v. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors and Association of Radio Taxis Vs Union of India & Ors. [Item 45-47 in Court 8 – Cont. Cas (C) 643/2015, WP (C) 6668/2015].Bench: Manmohan J..A contempt petition filed by Association of Radio Taxis against OLA Cabs. The genus of the petition was that OLA Cabs were still plying in the city despite a Single Bench order of the Delhi HC and later, a Division Bench that had refused to lift the ban on the cab service imposed by the Delhi Govt..Yesterday, Senior Counsels P Chidambaram, Rajeev Nayyar, Nidhesh Gupta, and Dayan Krishnan appeared for OLA cabs, Uber India, Association of Radio Taxis and Uber BV (parent company of Uber based in Netherlands) respectively. The arguments ranged from OLA violating the Court’s orders to phasing out of diesel cabs gradually from the capital..The Bench is expected to pronounce an order on the issue today..Today in Court: Uber’s Counsel submitted before the Court that they would need a time of six months to completely switch to the CNG platform, for plying their cabs in Delhi from a point to point basis. Unhappy with the said request for time, the Bench granted the Company time till March 1 to make the switch and also held that its earlier order of July 29 shall be made applicable to other cab companies such as Meru Cabs, Mega Cabs etc..3. Ajay Maken v. Union of India & Anr (Lead matter in a batch of 3 connected matters).[Item 16-19 in Court 1 – Writ Petition (Civil) 6702/2015].Bench: Chief Justice G Rohini, Jayant Nath J..Congress leader Ajay Maken’s petition against AAP’s ad campaigns..Today in Court: The Bench directed for the matters to be posted on November 5 and granted time to all parties to complete pleadings and file their replies..4. Reliance Industries Ltd & Anr Vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. [Item 16, Court 9- WP (C) 2775/2014].Bench: RS Endlaw J. .Petition filed by Reliance Industries seeking quashing of FIRs filed by Kejriwal Government in 2014 against Reliance India Ltd, (then) Union Ministers Veerappa Moily and Murli Deora alleging corruption and collusion among these individuals, over price hike of natural gas from KG Basin..Today in Court: Due to paucity of time, the Bench did not take up this matter today. It will now be heard on November 18.
Supreme Court of India.1. State of Jammu And Kashmir and Ors. v. Parimoksh Seth and etc..[Item 1 in court 1 – IA 3/ 2015 in SLP (C) 28451-28452 of 2015].Bench: Chief Justice HL Dattu, Arun Mishr J..Interim application in the appeal against the judgment of the Jammu & Kashmir High Court banning beef. While the Jammu Bench of the High Court had directed the State to ensure that provisions in the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC) banning cow slaughter are strictly implemented, a Division Bench of the High Court at Srinagar had issued notice in another PIL challenging the very same provisions of the RPC..The Court had kept in abeyance the order of the Jammu Bench of the High Court directing the State to implement the provisions of RPC. Taking note of the conflict in opinions of the two Benches, the Court had directed the Chief Justice of the High Court to constitute a three-judge Bench to decide the case..Today in court: This application was filed by petitioners based in Jammu, praying that their writ petition should be heard by a Bench in Jammu. The Court refused to entertain the same and permitted the petitioners to withdraw this application..2. Vizhinjam International Seaport Limited v. Wilfred J and Ors. .[Item 88 in court 1] – Civil Appeal 7884-7885/2014.Bench: Chief Justice HL Dattu, Gopala Gowda J., Arun Mishra J..A challenge to the environmental clearances given to the proposed Vizhinjam Seaport project. The Southern Bench of the National Green Tribunal was hearing one appeal while the principal Bench in Delhi was hearing an Original application and an appeal. By an order of July 17, 2014, the principal Bench had transferred to itself the part heard appeal pending before the Southern Bench while also holding that it has the power of limited judicial review to examine the Constitutional vires of delegated legislation. This has been challenged in the Supreme Court by Vizhinjam International Seaport Limited (VSIL) and the Government of Kerala..The Court will be determining two important legal issues – whether the NGT can exercise limited judicial review of delegated legislation, and whether the principal Bench of the NGT can transfer a part heard matter from a Regional Bench to itself..Today in court: This case was not taken up today..3. Teesta Atul Setalvad and Anr. v. State of Gujarat.[Item 301 in court 3 – CRLMP 10424/2015 IN CRL.A. 338/2015].Bench: Anil R Dave J., FML Kalifulla J., V Gopala Gowda J. .The investigation of activist Teesta Setalvad for allegedly misappropriating funds collected for building a museum of resistance to mark the riots of 2002..The matter had come up before a two judge on October 12 this week. Since the case is to be heard by a 3-judge Bench, the Court had directed that the matter be listed before an appropriate Bench. It had also clarified that the interim relief granted by the Supreme court will only continue till October 15..Today in court: The Bench extended the interim protection from arrest granted to Teesta and her husband till December 8. The Court also issued notice to Teesta and her husband in another case pertaining to violation of Foreign Contribution Regulation Act and posted the case for hearing on December 1..4. Shobhha De v. Chairman, Maharashtra Legislature Secretariat and Ors..[Item 18 in court 5 – Writ Petition (Civil) 233/2015].Bench: Dipak Misra J., Prafulla C Pant J..A petition filed by Shobhha De challenging the notice of privilege motion moved against her by the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly for her tweets against a government order..The government order mandated that every multiplex should screen at least one Marathi film between 6 pm to 9 pm everyday. De had taken a dig at the order and tweeted:.“No more pop corn at multiplexes in Mumbai? Dahi misal and vada pav only. To go better with the Marathi movies at prime time.”.The Supreme Court had stayed the privilege motion against her in April and sought the response of Maharashtra Legislative Secretariat. When the matter was last heard, the Maharashtra government sought to implead itself in the case with Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi appearing for the Maharashtra government. The Court had allowed the same and had asked the Attorney General to apprise the Court about which is the competent authority to defend the case – the government or the Legislative Secretariat. Senior Advocate Aryama Sundaram is appearing for De. .Today in court: This case could not be tracked. Any lead/ information would be appreciated..5. Indian Hotel & Restaurant Association & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr..[Item 21 in court 5 – Writ Petition (C) No. 793 of 2014].Bench: Dipak Misra J., Prafulla C Pant J..A petition challenging the Constitutional validity of the Maharashtra Police (second amendment) Act which bans dance performances at bars and hotels in Maharashtra. The association has submitted that the Act violates the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g)..A Division Bench of Justices SJ Mukhopadhaya and PC Pant had issued notice to Maharashtra government on September 12, 2014..Today in court: Senior Advocate Jayant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the State’s action of re-enacting a provision, which the Supreme Court had struck down earlier, does not invalidate the judgment of the Supreme Court. The Court will hear the case tomorrow since the State government’s advocate and the Attorney General were held up in other courts..6. Rajbala & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors..[Item 5 in court 6 – Writ Petition (Civil) 671/2015].Bench: Jasti Chelameswar J., AM Sapre J. .A challenge to the validity of the Haryana Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Act, 2015 which, fixes minimum educational qualifications for candidates to contest Panchayat polls. The Supreme Court had stayed the operation of the Act whereupon the Panchayat polls had been deferred in Haryana..Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi is now arguing for the State of Haryana. The hearing will continue. Read about yesterday’s hearing here..Today in court: Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi is making his submissions. Hearing will resume at 10.30 am tomorrow..7. Justice KS Puttaswamy (Retd) & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors..[Item 501 in court 1 at 2 pm – Writ Petition (Civil) 494/2012].Chief Justice HL Dattu, MY Eqbal J., C Nagappan J., Arun Mishra J., Amitava Roy J..Challenge to the Aadhaar scheme. Read more here..Today in court: Read the full report here..Delhi High Court.1. All India Footwear Manufacturers & Retailers Association & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors. [Item 29, Court 9- WP (C) 7479/2015].Bench: RS Endlaw J. .Petition filed by the All India Footwear Manufacturers and Retailers Association alleging violation of the government’s FDI policy by e-commerce majors. The petition had sought directions from the High Court to initiate investigations into e-commerce websites selling footwear..On the last hearing, the Bench had sought a reply from the Government over the issue..Today in Court: Due to paucity of time, the Bench did not take up this matter today. It will now be heard on November 19..2. Association of Radio Taxis v. Bhavish Aggarwal, ANI Technologies Pvt Ltd. v. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors and Association of Radio Taxis Vs Union of India & Ors. [Item 45-47 in Court 8 – Cont. Cas (C) 643/2015, WP (C) 6668/2015].Bench: Manmohan J..A contempt petition filed by Association of Radio Taxis against OLA Cabs. The genus of the petition was that OLA Cabs were still plying in the city despite a Single Bench order of the Delhi HC and later, a Division Bench that had refused to lift the ban on the cab service imposed by the Delhi Govt..Yesterday, Senior Counsels P Chidambaram, Rajeev Nayyar, Nidhesh Gupta, and Dayan Krishnan appeared for OLA cabs, Uber India, Association of Radio Taxis and Uber BV (parent company of Uber based in Netherlands) respectively. The arguments ranged from OLA violating the Court’s orders to phasing out of diesel cabs gradually from the capital..The Bench is expected to pronounce an order on the issue today..Today in Court: Uber’s Counsel submitted before the Court that they would need a time of six months to completely switch to the CNG platform, for plying their cabs in Delhi from a point to point basis. Unhappy with the said request for time, the Bench granted the Company time till March 1 to make the switch and also held that its earlier order of July 29 shall be made applicable to other cab companies such as Meru Cabs, Mega Cabs etc..3. Ajay Maken v. Union of India & Anr (Lead matter in a batch of 3 connected matters).[Item 16-19 in Court 1 – Writ Petition (Civil) 6702/2015].Bench: Chief Justice G Rohini, Jayant Nath J..Congress leader Ajay Maken’s petition against AAP’s ad campaigns..Today in Court: The Bench directed for the matters to be posted on November 5 and granted time to all parties to complete pleadings and file their replies..4. Reliance Industries Ltd & Anr Vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. [Item 16, Court 9- WP (C) 2775/2014].Bench: RS Endlaw J. .Petition filed by Reliance Industries seeking quashing of FIRs filed by Kejriwal Government in 2014 against Reliance India Ltd, (then) Union Ministers Veerappa Moily and Murli Deora alleging corruption and collusion among these individuals, over price hike of natural gas from KG Basin..Today in Court: Due to paucity of time, the Bench did not take up this matter today. It will now be heard on November 18.
