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.Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, Min. Of Law & Ors. [For judgment]Swaraj Abhiyan v. Union of India and Ors. [For judgment]Indian Hotel & Restaurant Association & Anr. v. State Of Maharashtra & Anr.Union of India v. Sh. Harish Chandra Singh Rawat And AnrState of Maharashtra v. Salman Salim Khan.Delhi High Court.RP Luthra v Union of India & OrsMathews J Nedumpara v The Supreme Court of India & Ors.Sanjay Kapoor v Micromax Informatics Ltd.Ryan International School v Directorate of Education & Anr and Somerville School v Directorate of Education & Anr.RC Rungta v Central Bureau of InvestigationKanhaiya Kumar v Jawaharlal University & Anr..Supreme Court of India.For judgment.1. Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, Min. Of Law & Ors..[Item 1A in court 4 – Writ Petition (Crl.)184/2014].Bench: Dipak Misra, PC Pant JJ..Judgment in a batch of petitions including those filed by Subramanian Swamy, Rahul Gandhi and Arvind Kejriwal challenging criminal defamation provisions. Read more about Swamy’s petition here..2. Swaraj Abhiyan v. Union of India and Ors..[Item 1A in court 8 – Writ Petition (Civil) 857/2015].Bench: Madan B Lokur, NV Ramana JJ..Judgment in the petition filed by Swaraj Abhiyan seeking directions for implementation of various welfare measures prescribed by different statutes in drought-affected states. The judgment is being delivered in 3 parts. The first part was pronounced on May 11. You can read more about it here..1. Indian Hotel & Restaurant Association & Anr. v. State Of Maharashtra & Anr..[Item 67 in court 4 – Writ Petition (Civil) 793/2014].Bench: Dipak Misra, Shiva Kirti Singh JJ..Petition concerning grant of licenses to dance bars in Maharashtra. The Supreme Court had directed the State governments to grant licenses to dance bars subject to fulfilment of license conditions. When the matter was last heard, the court was apprised of the fact that employees of certain dance bars have criminal antecedents and those bars have been denied license. The Court proceeded to pass an order that licenses shall be granted to such bars subject to the applicant giving an undertaking that employees with criminal antecedents shall not be engaged for work or allowed to enter bar or dance area..The Maharashtra government was directed to issue licenses to the remaining applicants by yesterday and submit a compliance report to the Supreme Court..2. Union of India v. Sh. Harish Chandra Singh Rawat And Anr.[Item 71 in court 4 – SLP (C) 11567/2016 at 10:30 am].Bench: Dipak Misra, Shiva Kirti Singh JJ..The case pertaining to President’s rule in Uttarakhand. The Centre had withdrawn the rule after Harish Rawan won the floor test. This had led to Rawat assuming charge as Chief Minister again. The case, however, is pending as the academic issue regarding justifiability of imposition of Article 356 rule remains. The court will fix a date today for hearing the said issue..3. State of Maharashtra v. Salman Salim Khan.[Item 5 in Court 3 – SLP (Civil) 704/2016].Bench: Jagdish Singh Khehar, C Nagappan JJ..An appeal by the State of Maharashtra against the High Court’s acquittal of actor Salman Khan in the hit and run case..Delhi High Court.1. RP Luthra v Union of India & Ors..[Item 27, Court 10- W.P.(C) 4229/2016].Bench- Manmohan J..Petition challenging a recent collegium’s recommendation for elevating three judges and a senior lawyer to the Apex Court..Today in Court- Taken up with item 32, both these petitions were dismissed by the Court..2. Mathews J Nedumpara v The Supreme Court of India & Ors..[Item 32, Court 10- W.P.(C) 4309/2016].Bench- Manmohan J..Petition challenging a recent collegium’s recommendation for elevating three judges and a senior lawyer to the Apex Court..3. Sanjay Kapoor v Micromax Informatics Ltd..[Item 7, Court 23- ARB.P. 532/2015].Bench- Manmohan Singh J..Petition of ex-Micromax CEO Sanjay Kapoor challenging denial of stock options to him upon termination from the company..Earlier, the Delhi High Court had directed both parties to settle the dispute through the process of mediation..Today in Court- This case could not be tracked. Any leads/inputs would be appreciated..4. Ryan International School v Directorate of Education & Anr and Somerville School v Directorate of Education & Anr. .[Item 2-3, Court 10].Bench- Manmohan J..Petitions by private unaided minority schools challenging a circular of the Delhi Government that mandates all private schools which have received land from the Delhi Development Authority, to obtain the permission of the State Government before hiking their fees..Today in Court- The Bench granted time to the Govt to file its counter-affidavit and for the Petitioners to file their rejoinder thereafter. The case will now be heard on July 28. Senior Advocate Guru Krishna Kumar appeared for the Delhi Government..5. RC Rungta v Central Bureau of Investigation.[Item 45-46, Court 36].Bench- Siddharth Mridul J..Appeals filed by Directors of Jharkhand Ispat Pvt Ltd (JIPL), R S Rungta and R C Rungta, challenging their conviction and the four-year sentence awarded to them in a coal scam case. Previously, the Bench had issued notice to the CBI and sought its response. When the case was last heard on May 11, the agency had not filed its reply yet..Today in Court- The Court granted interim bail to the Rungta brothers. Case will now be heard on July 29..6. Kanhaiya Kumar v Jawaharlal University & Anr. .[Item 36, Court 10- W.P.(C) 4380/2016].Bench- Manmohan J..A fresh petition. Check evening updates..Today in Court- This case was filed by JNUSU President Kanhaiya Kumar and 9 other students challenging the rustication order and penalties imposed on them by the University. While the Bench directed them to approach the appellate authority (in this case, the Vice Chancellor) for making their representations, it also stayed the rustication orders and other penalties. However it was made clear that the said protection of stay would only operate so long as the students agree to withdraw the strikes & agitations in the University and let the administration function properly.
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.Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, Min. Of Law & Ors. [For judgment]Swaraj Abhiyan v. Union of India and Ors. [For judgment]Indian Hotel & Restaurant Association & Anr. v. State Of Maharashtra & Anr.Union of India v. Sh. Harish Chandra Singh Rawat And AnrState of Maharashtra v. Salman Salim Khan.Delhi High Court.RP Luthra v Union of India & OrsMathews J Nedumpara v The Supreme Court of India & Ors.Sanjay Kapoor v Micromax Informatics Ltd.Ryan International School v Directorate of Education & Anr and Somerville School v Directorate of Education & Anr.RC Rungta v Central Bureau of InvestigationKanhaiya Kumar v Jawaharlal University & Anr..Supreme Court of India.For judgment.1. Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, Min. Of Law & Ors..[Item 1A in court 4 – Writ Petition (Crl.)184/2014].Bench: Dipak Misra, PC Pant JJ..Judgment in a batch of petitions including those filed by Subramanian Swamy, Rahul Gandhi and Arvind Kejriwal challenging criminal defamation provisions. Read more about Swamy’s petition here..2. Swaraj Abhiyan v. Union of India and Ors..[Item 1A in court 8 – Writ Petition (Civil) 857/2015].Bench: Madan B Lokur, NV Ramana JJ..Judgment in the petition filed by Swaraj Abhiyan seeking directions for implementation of various welfare measures prescribed by different statutes in drought-affected states. The judgment is being delivered in 3 parts. The first part was pronounced on May 11. You can read more about it here..1. Indian Hotel & Restaurant Association & Anr. v. State Of Maharashtra & Anr..[Item 67 in court 4 – Writ Petition (Civil) 793/2014].Bench: Dipak Misra, Shiva Kirti Singh JJ..Petition concerning grant of licenses to dance bars in Maharashtra. The Supreme Court had directed the State governments to grant licenses to dance bars subject to fulfilment of license conditions. When the matter was last heard, the court was apprised of the fact that employees of certain dance bars have criminal antecedents and those bars have been denied license. The Court proceeded to pass an order that licenses shall be granted to such bars subject to the applicant giving an undertaking that employees with criminal antecedents shall not be engaged for work or allowed to enter bar or dance area..The Maharashtra government was directed to issue licenses to the remaining applicants by yesterday and submit a compliance report to the Supreme Court..2. Union of India v. Sh. Harish Chandra Singh Rawat And Anr.[Item 71 in court 4 – SLP (C) 11567/2016 at 10:30 am].Bench: Dipak Misra, Shiva Kirti Singh JJ..The case pertaining to President’s rule in Uttarakhand. The Centre had withdrawn the rule after Harish Rawan won the floor test. This had led to Rawat assuming charge as Chief Minister again. The case, however, is pending as the academic issue regarding justifiability of imposition of Article 356 rule remains. The court will fix a date today for hearing the said issue..3. State of Maharashtra v. Salman Salim Khan.[Item 5 in Court 3 – SLP (Civil) 704/2016].Bench: Jagdish Singh Khehar, C Nagappan JJ..An appeal by the State of Maharashtra against the High Court’s acquittal of actor Salman Khan in the hit and run case..Delhi High Court.1. RP Luthra v Union of India & Ors..[Item 27, Court 10- W.P.(C) 4229/2016].Bench- Manmohan J..Petition challenging a recent collegium’s recommendation for elevating three judges and a senior lawyer to the Apex Court..Today in Court- Taken up with item 32, both these petitions were dismissed by the Court..2. Mathews J Nedumpara v The Supreme Court of India & Ors..[Item 32, Court 10- W.P.(C) 4309/2016].Bench- Manmohan J..Petition challenging a recent collegium’s recommendation for elevating three judges and a senior lawyer to the Apex Court..3. Sanjay Kapoor v Micromax Informatics Ltd..[Item 7, Court 23- ARB.P. 532/2015].Bench- Manmohan Singh J..Petition of ex-Micromax CEO Sanjay Kapoor challenging denial of stock options to him upon termination from the company..Earlier, the Delhi High Court had directed both parties to settle the dispute through the process of mediation..Today in Court- This case could not be tracked. Any leads/inputs would be appreciated..4. Ryan International School v Directorate of Education & Anr and Somerville School v Directorate of Education & Anr. .[Item 2-3, Court 10].Bench- Manmohan J..Petitions by private unaided minority schools challenging a circular of the Delhi Government that mandates all private schools which have received land from the Delhi Development Authority, to obtain the permission of the State Government before hiking their fees..Today in Court- The Bench granted time to the Govt to file its counter-affidavit and for the Petitioners to file their rejoinder thereafter. The case will now be heard on July 28. Senior Advocate Guru Krishna Kumar appeared for the Delhi Government..5. RC Rungta v Central Bureau of Investigation.[Item 45-46, Court 36].Bench- Siddharth Mridul J..Appeals filed by Directors of Jharkhand Ispat Pvt Ltd (JIPL), R S Rungta and R C Rungta, challenging their conviction and the four-year sentence awarded to them in a coal scam case. Previously, the Bench had issued notice to the CBI and sought its response. When the case was last heard on May 11, the agency had not filed its reply yet..Today in Court- The Court granted interim bail to the Rungta brothers. Case will now be heard on July 29..6. Kanhaiya Kumar v Jawaharlal University & Anr. .[Item 36, Court 10- W.P.(C) 4380/2016].Bench- Manmohan J..A fresh petition. Check evening updates..Today in Court- This case was filed by JNUSU President Kanhaiya Kumar and 9 other students challenging the rustication order and penalties imposed on them by the University. While the Bench directed them to approach the appellate authority (in this case, the Vice Chancellor) for making their representations, it also stayed the rustication orders and other penalties. However it was made clear that the said protection of stay would only operate so long as the students agree to withdraw the strikes & agitations in the University and let the administration function properly.
