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.All India Medicine Graduates Association (Regd.) v. Delhi Medical AssociationJammu and Kashmir National Panthers Party v. Governor of J&KMC Mehta v. Union of IndiaSampurna Behrua v. Union of IndiaCommon Cause, A Regd. Society v. Union of IndiaMC Mehta v. Union of India [Air Pollution].Bombay High Court.63 Moons Technologies Limited v. Union of India & 10 Ors.Janseva Mandal v. State of Maharashtra & 4 Ors.Akhil Anil Chitre v. Mumbai International Airport Pvt Ltd & 5 Ors.Public Concern for Governance Trust v. Union of India & 4 Ors..Delhi High Court.Delhi Police Ex Servicemen Association v. Union of India and Ors.Delhi and District Cricket Association through its Honorary General Secretary v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.Phuntsok Wangyal v. Ministry of External Affairs and Ors. c/w Lobsang Wangyal v. Union of India and Ors.Deepak Khosla v. Honble Company Law Board and Ors.Telefonktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ) v. Lava International Ltd.Loreena Mckinnitt and Ors. v. Deepak Dev and Ors.Walmart India Pvt. Ltd. v. Central Vigilance Commission.SUMMARY OF CASES .Supreme Court of India.1. All India Medicine Graduates Association (Regd.) v. Delhi Medical Association.[Item 25 in court 1 – SLP(C) 20144-20145/2016].Bench: Chief Justice TS Thakur, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud JJ..The case relating to Ayurvedic doctors prescribing allopathic medicines and conducting surgeries. The appellants, All India Medicine Graduates Association, have a challenged a judgment of the Delhi High Court which held that no practitioner of Indian systems of medicine would be entitled to practice modern scientific medicine, even if he holds a qualification as listed in the schedule to the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970..On the last date of hearing, the court was provided with a list of surgeries that Ayurvedic doctors can undertake..Today in Court: This matter was passed over, but ultimately not taken up..2. Jammu and Kashmir National Panthers Party v. Governor of J&K.[Item 15 Court 1- WP(Crl) 102/2016].Bench: Chief Justice TS Thakur, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud JJ..J&K National Panthers Party had filed a petition for imposing governor’s rule in Jammu and Kashmir, owing to the law and order situation prevailing there. At the last hearing, the Supreme Court has requested a status report from Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar on the situation in Jammu and Kashmir..Today in Court: A long discussion over the JKNPP’s dissatisfaction at not being invited to the Round of Conciliations held with the PM over the situation in Kashmir took place..Upon the respondent counsel Bhim Singh’s insistence, the matter has been listed for Friday and petitioners have been asked to file the appropriate affidavits..3. MC Mehta v. Union of India.[Item 301 in Court 1 – IA 460, 517-518, 532 & 563 IN IA 460, 531, 555-557, 562, 564, 565 IN IA 527, 567-568 IN WP(C) 13381/1984].Bench: Chief Justice TS Thakur, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud JJ..Case relating to felling of trees..Today in Court: The case consisted of multiple batch matters filed relating to the cutting of tress for various purposes. In some of the petitions, a report from the EEC was requested, while certain pleas to cut the trees were allowed..4. Sampurna Behrua v. Union of India.[Item 50 in Court 7 – WP(C) 473/2005].Bench: Madan B Lokur, RK Agarwal JJ..Petition to implement the provisions of the JJ Act, 2000..Today in Court: This case could not be tracked..5. Common Cause, A Regd. Society v. Union of India.[Item 52 in Court 7 – WP(C) 330/2001].Bench: Madan B Lokur, RK Agarwal JJ..This case pertains to the modernisation and upkeep of slaughterhouses..Today in Court: This case could not be tracked..6. MC Mehta v. Union of India.[Item 304 in Court 1 at 1.30 pm – IA 463-464, 466 in IA 365 in IA 345 and IA 365 in IA 345 IN WP (C) 13029/1985].Bench: Chief Justice TS Thakur, AK Sikri, R Banumathi JJ..Case on air pollution in Delhi..Today in Court: The Court has allowed the introduction of Radio Frequency Identification Devices (RFID) to monitor commercial vehicles and the pollution caused by their emissions. The cost of Rs 50 crore for the same will initially be born by the collections of the Environment Compensation Charge (EEC)..Bombay High Court.1. 63 Moons Technologies Limited v. Union of India & 10 Ors..[Item 1 Court 52- WP(OS)/2743/2014].Bench: CJ Manjula Chellur, MS Sonak J.This is Financial Technologies India Limited’s (FTIL) challenge to the constitutional validity of Sec 396 of the Companies Act 1956. The centre had ordered a merger of FTIL and NSEL. Several other petitions have been tagged along with this matter..Today in court: This case was adjourned till August 26..2. Janseva Mandal v. State of Maharashtra & 4 Ors..[Item 3 Court 52- PIL(OS)/7/2016].Bench: CJ Manjula Chellur, MS Sonak J.This PIL alleges that the ‘Shiv Vada Pav’ stalls and carts are illegal as they do not have the requisite permission from BMC. The petitioner’s lawyer Umesh Mohite argued that while 250 of such stalls exist, cooking in such stalls and carts was banned by the High Court for violation of Food Safety Rules..The petition also states that a Shiv Vada Pav scheme was floated in 2000 but it was not approved. The constitution of an SIT to probe the said scheme and the money collected thereof is one of the prayers in this petition. There is also a judgement of the apex court that allows sale of cooked food but prohibits cooking in such stalls..Today in court: BMC counsel placed an order of the division bench headed by Justice AS Oka in a matter regarding hawkers in the city. CJ Chellur said that since these stalls are not owned by one particular owner, specific directions cannot be given for their removal. Furthermore, since the order by the division bench is binding on the BMC, requisite steps must be taken and compliance can be reported after 12 weeks. The PIL was disposed off..3. Akhil Anil Chitre v. Mumbai International Airport Pvt Ltd & 5 Ors..[Item 10 Court 52- PIL(OS)/61/2016].Bench: CJ Manjula Chellur, MS Sonak JJ.A PIL regarding excessive parking charges at the Mumbai Airport. The AAI, DGCA, Union of India and the state government are respondents. Notice has been issued to all respondents..Today in court: This case was adjourned as the respondents failed to file a reply..4. Public Concern for Governance Trust v. Union of India & 4 Ors..[Item 33 Court 52- PILST(OS)/154/2015].Bench: CJ Manjula Chellur, MS Sonak JJ..A PIL seeking a stay on Mumbai Metro One fare hike. The Mumbai Metro One Private Ltd.(MMOPL) had moved the apex court challenging the interim stay in the fare hike ordered by the High Court. The apex court refused to intervene, and the interim relief has continued till now..Senior counsel Aspi Chinoy appears for MMRDA and Senior counsel Prasad Dhakephalkar appears for MMOPL..Today in court: This PIL was adjourned, a day to day hearing will take place from September 21. The interim stay on the hike will continue..Delhi High Court.1. Delhi Police Ex Servicemen Association v. Union of India and Ors. .[W.P. (C)11485/2015; Court No. 1 Item No. 10].Bench: G. Rohini, CJ, Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, J..Petition challenging the working and living conditions of the Delhi Police officials and seeking to grant the policemen who have lost their lives performing official duty, the title of “Martyr” or “Shaheed”..Today in Court: The petitioners sought creation of a grievance redressal mechanism for the welfare of the officials and ex-officials of the Delhi Police and their families. The petition was disposed off by the bench..2. Delhi and District Cricket Association through its Honorary General Secretary v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors..[W.P. (C) 7215/2011; Court No. 5 Item No. 6].Bench: S. Ravindra Bhat, Deepa Sharma JJ..Check evening updates..Today in Court: This case could not be tracked. Any details will be appreciated..3. Phuntsok Wangyal v. Ministry of External Affairs and Ors..[W.P. (C) 3539/2016; Court No. 16 Item No. 26].c/w Lobsang Wangyal v. Union of India and Ors..[W.P. (C) 4275/2016; Court No. 16 Item No. 28].Bench: Sanjeev Sachdeva, J..A petition filed by a 46-year old Tibetan 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..Today in Court: The matter was adjourned to September 22..4. Deepak Khosla v. Honble Company Law Board and Ors..[W.P. (C) 6110/2014; Court No. 16 Item No. 2].Bench: Sanjeev Sachdeva, J..Check evening updates..Today in Court: This case could not be tracked. Any details will be appreciated..5. Telefonktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ) v. Lava International Ltd..[CS (OS) 764/2015; Court No. 24 Item No. 14].Bench: S. Murlidhar, J.. Check evening updates..Today in Court: Patent infringement suit filed by Ericsson against Lava International Ltd. claiming royalty and damages. The matter is now listed for final arguments..6. Loreena Mckinnitt and Ors. v. Deepak Dev and Ors. .[CS (OS) 2349/2011; Court No. 20 Item No. 8].Bench: Vibhu Bakhru, J.. Check evening updates..Today in Court: Copyright infringement suit filed against the respondent for a song in a Malayalam movie “Urumi”. In 2011, Justice Manmohan Singh had granted an injunction restricting the respondents from including the said song in the Tamil and Telugu versions of the movie. .7. Walmart India Pvt. Ltd. v. Central Vigilance Commission .[W.P. (C) 3044/2016; Court No. 8 Item No. 38].Bench: Siddharth Mridul, J..Check evening updates..Today in Court: This case could not be tracked. Any details will be appreciated.
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.All India Medicine Graduates Association (Regd.) v. Delhi Medical AssociationJammu and Kashmir National Panthers Party v. Governor of J&KMC Mehta v. Union of IndiaSampurna Behrua v. Union of IndiaCommon Cause, A Regd. Society v. Union of IndiaMC Mehta v. Union of India [Air Pollution].Bombay High Court.63 Moons Technologies Limited v. Union of India & 10 Ors.Janseva Mandal v. State of Maharashtra & 4 Ors.Akhil Anil Chitre v. Mumbai International Airport Pvt Ltd & 5 Ors.Public Concern for Governance Trust v. Union of India & 4 Ors..Delhi High Court.Delhi Police Ex Servicemen Association v. Union of India and Ors.Delhi and District Cricket Association through its Honorary General Secretary v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.Phuntsok Wangyal v. Ministry of External Affairs and Ors. c/w Lobsang Wangyal v. Union of India and Ors.Deepak Khosla v. Honble Company Law Board and Ors.Telefonktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ) v. Lava International Ltd.Loreena Mckinnitt and Ors. v. Deepak Dev and Ors.Walmart India Pvt. Ltd. v. Central Vigilance Commission.SUMMARY OF CASES .Supreme Court of India.1. All India Medicine Graduates Association (Regd.) v. Delhi Medical Association.[Item 25 in court 1 – SLP(C) 20144-20145/2016].Bench: Chief Justice TS Thakur, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud JJ..The case relating to Ayurvedic doctors prescribing allopathic medicines and conducting surgeries. The appellants, All India Medicine Graduates Association, have a challenged a judgment of the Delhi High Court which held that no practitioner of Indian systems of medicine would be entitled to practice modern scientific medicine, even if he holds a qualification as listed in the schedule to the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970..On the last date of hearing, the court was provided with a list of surgeries that Ayurvedic doctors can undertake..Today in Court: This matter was passed over, but ultimately not taken up..2. Jammu and Kashmir National Panthers Party v. Governor of J&K.[Item 15 Court 1- WP(Crl) 102/2016].Bench: Chief Justice TS Thakur, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud JJ..J&K National Panthers Party had filed a petition for imposing governor’s rule in Jammu and Kashmir, owing to the law and order situation prevailing there. At the last hearing, the Supreme Court has requested a status report from Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar on the situation in Jammu and Kashmir..Today in Court: A long discussion over the JKNPP’s dissatisfaction at not being invited to the Round of Conciliations held with the PM over the situation in Kashmir took place..Upon the respondent counsel Bhim Singh’s insistence, the matter has been listed for Friday and petitioners have been asked to file the appropriate affidavits..3. MC Mehta v. Union of India.[Item 301 in Court 1 – IA 460, 517-518, 532 & 563 IN IA 460, 531, 555-557, 562, 564, 565 IN IA 527, 567-568 IN WP(C) 13381/1984].Bench: Chief Justice TS Thakur, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud JJ..Case relating to felling of trees..Today in Court: The case consisted of multiple batch matters filed relating to the cutting of tress for various purposes. In some of the petitions, a report from the EEC was requested, while certain pleas to cut the trees were allowed..4. Sampurna Behrua v. Union of India.[Item 50 in Court 7 – WP(C) 473/2005].Bench: Madan B Lokur, RK Agarwal JJ..Petition to implement the provisions of the JJ Act, 2000..Today in Court: This case could not be tracked..5. Common Cause, A Regd. Society v. Union of India.[Item 52 in Court 7 – WP(C) 330/2001].Bench: Madan B Lokur, RK Agarwal JJ..This case pertains to the modernisation and upkeep of slaughterhouses..Today in Court: This case could not be tracked..6. MC Mehta v. Union of India.[Item 304 in Court 1 at 1.30 pm – IA 463-464, 466 in IA 365 in IA 345 and IA 365 in IA 345 IN WP (C) 13029/1985].Bench: Chief Justice TS Thakur, AK Sikri, R Banumathi JJ..Case on air pollution in Delhi..Today in Court: The Court has allowed the introduction of Radio Frequency Identification Devices (RFID) to monitor commercial vehicles and the pollution caused by their emissions. The cost of Rs 50 crore for the same will initially be born by the collections of the Environment Compensation Charge (EEC)..Bombay High Court.1. 63 Moons Technologies Limited v. Union of India & 10 Ors..[Item 1 Court 52- WP(OS)/2743/2014].Bench: CJ Manjula Chellur, MS Sonak J.This is Financial Technologies India Limited’s (FTIL) challenge to the constitutional validity of Sec 396 of the Companies Act 1956. The centre had ordered a merger of FTIL and NSEL. Several other petitions have been tagged along with this matter..Today in court: This case was adjourned till August 26..2. Janseva Mandal v. State of Maharashtra & 4 Ors..[Item 3 Court 52- PIL(OS)/7/2016].Bench: CJ Manjula Chellur, MS Sonak J.This PIL alleges that the ‘Shiv Vada Pav’ stalls and carts are illegal as they do not have the requisite permission from BMC. The petitioner’s lawyer Umesh Mohite argued that while 250 of such stalls exist, cooking in such stalls and carts was banned by the High Court for violation of Food Safety Rules..The petition also states that a Shiv Vada Pav scheme was floated in 2000 but it was not approved. The constitution of an SIT to probe the said scheme and the money collected thereof is one of the prayers in this petition. There is also a judgement of the apex court that allows sale of cooked food but prohibits cooking in such stalls..Today in court: BMC counsel placed an order of the division bench headed by Justice AS Oka in a matter regarding hawkers in the city. CJ Chellur said that since these stalls are not owned by one particular owner, specific directions cannot be given for their removal. Furthermore, since the order by the division bench is binding on the BMC, requisite steps must be taken and compliance can be reported after 12 weeks. The PIL was disposed off..3. Akhil Anil Chitre v. Mumbai International Airport Pvt Ltd & 5 Ors..[Item 10 Court 52- PIL(OS)/61/2016].Bench: CJ Manjula Chellur, MS Sonak JJ.A PIL regarding excessive parking charges at the Mumbai Airport. The AAI, DGCA, Union of India and the state government are respondents. Notice has been issued to all respondents..Today in court: This case was adjourned as the respondents failed to file a reply..4. Public Concern for Governance Trust v. Union of India & 4 Ors..[Item 33 Court 52- PILST(OS)/154/2015].Bench: CJ Manjula Chellur, MS Sonak JJ..A PIL seeking a stay on Mumbai Metro One fare hike. The Mumbai Metro One Private Ltd.(MMOPL) had moved the apex court challenging the interim stay in the fare hike ordered by the High Court. The apex court refused to intervene, and the interim relief has continued till now..Senior counsel Aspi Chinoy appears for MMRDA and Senior counsel Prasad Dhakephalkar appears for MMOPL..Today in court: This PIL was adjourned, a day to day hearing will take place from September 21. The interim stay on the hike will continue..Delhi High Court.1. Delhi Police Ex Servicemen Association v. Union of India and Ors. .[W.P. (C)11485/2015; Court No. 1 Item No. 10].Bench: G. Rohini, CJ, Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, J..Petition challenging the working and living conditions of the Delhi Police officials and seeking to grant the policemen who have lost their lives performing official duty, the title of “Martyr” or “Shaheed”..Today in Court: The petitioners sought creation of a grievance redressal mechanism for the welfare of the officials and ex-officials of the Delhi Police and their families. The petition was disposed off by the bench..2. Delhi and District Cricket Association through its Honorary General Secretary v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors..[W.P. (C) 7215/2011; Court No. 5 Item No. 6].Bench: S. Ravindra Bhat, Deepa Sharma JJ..Check evening updates..Today in Court: This case could not be tracked. Any details will be appreciated..3. Phuntsok Wangyal v. Ministry of External Affairs and Ors..[W.P. (C) 3539/2016; Court No. 16 Item No. 26].c/w Lobsang Wangyal v. Union of India and Ors..[W.P. (C) 4275/2016; Court No. 16 Item No. 28].Bench: Sanjeev Sachdeva, J..A petition filed by a 46-year old Tibetan 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..Today in Court: The matter was adjourned to September 22..4. Deepak Khosla v. Honble Company Law Board and Ors..[W.P. (C) 6110/2014; Court No. 16 Item No. 2].Bench: Sanjeev Sachdeva, J..Check evening updates..Today in Court: This case could not be tracked. Any details will be appreciated..5. Telefonktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ) v. Lava International Ltd..[CS (OS) 764/2015; Court No. 24 Item No. 14].Bench: S. Murlidhar, J.. Check evening updates..Today in Court: Patent infringement suit filed by Ericsson against Lava International Ltd. claiming royalty and damages. The matter is now listed for final arguments..6. Loreena Mckinnitt and Ors. v. Deepak Dev and Ors. .[CS (OS) 2349/2011; Court No. 20 Item No. 8].Bench: Vibhu Bakhru, J.. Check evening updates..Today in Court: Copyright infringement suit filed against the respondent for a song in a Malayalam movie “Urumi”. In 2011, Justice Manmohan Singh had granted an injunction restricting the respondents from including the said song in the Tamil and Telugu versions of the movie. .7. Walmart India Pvt. Ltd. v. Central Vigilance Commission .[W.P. (C) 3044/2016; Court No. 8 Item No. 38].Bench: Siddharth Mridul, J..Check evening updates..Today in Court: This case could not be tracked. Any details will be appreciated.