A list of important cases from the causelists of the Supreme Court of India and the Delhi High Court..TABLE OF CASES.Supreme Court.U/A 143(1) of the Constitution of India (Reg: The Punjab Termination of Agreement Act, 2004) VS. [for judgment]Krishna Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar (Sanskrit Schools case)MC Mehta v. Union of India & Ors..Delhi High Court.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ) v. Competition Commission of India and Anr.Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (India) Pvt Ltd and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.Loreena McKinnitt and Ors. v. Deepak Dev and Ors..SUMMARY OF CASES.1. U/A 143(1) of the Constitution of India (Reg: The Punjab Termination of Agreement Act, 2004) VS. [for judgment].[Item 1A in court 2 – SPL REF 2/2004].Bench: Anil R Dave, Pinaki Chandra Ghose, Shiva Kirti Singh, Adarsh Kumar Goel, Amitava JJ..The verdict on the presidential reference of 2004 on the controversy relating to the Sutlej-Yamuna Link (SYL) canal. The reference pertains to the Punjab Termination of Agreements Act of 2004 passed by Punjab terminating all the water sharing agreements with neighbouring States. This legislation had jeopardised the construction of the canal..The court had reserved its judgment in the case on May 12..Today in Court: The Bench ruled in favour of Haryana, stating that Punjab could not terminate the agreement unilaterally..Read full story here..2. Krishna Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar.[Item 701 in court 1 – CA 5875/1994].Bench: Chief Justice TS Thakur, Madan B Lokur, SA Bobde, AK Goel, UU Lalit, DY Chandrachud, L Nageswara Rao JJ..Case concerning the constitutional validity of an ordinance after it lapses. Senior Advocates Salman Khurshid, V Giri and Amarendra Sharan made their submissions yesterday..Today in Court: Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi made his submissions today..3. MC Mehta v. Union of India & Ors..[Item 301 in court 1 at 3 pm – IA 345 in WP(C) 13029/1985].Bench: Chief Justice TS Thakur, AK Sikri, SA Bobde JJ..Petition concerning pollution in Delhi. When the matter was last heard, the Bench had sought a response from the Centre..Today in Court: The Bench sought a detailed action plan from the Centre regarding their response for various levels of pollution, and also chided them on their failure to set up adequate monitoring stations..Delhi High Court.1. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ) v. Competition Commission of India and Anr. .[LPA 246/2016; Court No. 1 Item No. 11].Bench: G. Rohini, CJ, Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, J..Appeal by Ericsson in relation to the case filed by the Competition Commission in the Delhi High Court challenging a single judge verdict setting aside its order to investigate alleged contravention of provisions of the Competition Act by the Swedish firm..Today in Court: The matter was adjourned to January 9..2. Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (India) Pvt Ltd and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors..[W.P. (C) 12069/2015; Court No. 16 Item No. 32].Bench: Sanjeev Sachdeva, J..Check evening updates..Today in Court: The bench did not sit today. The matter is listed for January 9..3. Loreena McKinnitt and Ors. v. Deepak Dev and Ors..[CS (OS) 2349/2011; Court No. 20 Item No. 6].Bench: Vibhu Bakhru, J..McKinnitt had filed a suit against Dev in 2011, after the release of the Malayalam movie Urumi and its music, accusing him of using her melody in his song Aaro ne aaro which was part of the movie. She had claimed that Dev’s song has melodies from her songs The Mummers Dance and Caravanserai..In the last hearing, the bench heard arguments in the matter and stated that whether or not the respondents are in contempt can be determined only be deciding whether the Tamil and Telugu versions of the song are “adaptations” of the Malayalam version..Today in Court: The bench granted 3 weeks time to the parties to settle the matter after determining that the Tamil version of the song was an adaptation of the Malayalam version and therefore the defendant was in contempt of the previous order.
A list of important cases from the causelists of the Supreme Court of India and the Delhi High Court..TABLE OF CASES.Supreme Court.U/A 143(1) of the Constitution of India (Reg: The Punjab Termination of Agreement Act, 2004) VS. [for judgment]Krishna Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar (Sanskrit Schools case)MC Mehta v. Union of India & Ors..Delhi High Court.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ) v. Competition Commission of India and Anr.Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (India) Pvt Ltd and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.Loreena McKinnitt and Ors. v. Deepak Dev and Ors..SUMMARY OF CASES.1. U/A 143(1) of the Constitution of India (Reg: The Punjab Termination of Agreement Act, 2004) VS. [for judgment].[Item 1A in court 2 – SPL REF 2/2004].Bench: Anil R Dave, Pinaki Chandra Ghose, Shiva Kirti Singh, Adarsh Kumar Goel, Amitava JJ..The verdict on the presidential reference of 2004 on the controversy relating to the Sutlej-Yamuna Link (SYL) canal. The reference pertains to the Punjab Termination of Agreements Act of 2004 passed by Punjab terminating all the water sharing agreements with neighbouring States. This legislation had jeopardised the construction of the canal..The court had reserved its judgment in the case on May 12..Today in Court: The Bench ruled in favour of Haryana, stating that Punjab could not terminate the agreement unilaterally..Read full story here..2. Krishna Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar.[Item 701 in court 1 – CA 5875/1994].Bench: Chief Justice TS Thakur, Madan B Lokur, SA Bobde, AK Goel, UU Lalit, DY Chandrachud, L Nageswara Rao JJ..Case concerning the constitutional validity of an ordinance after it lapses. Senior Advocates Salman Khurshid, V Giri and Amarendra Sharan made their submissions yesterday..Today in Court: Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi made his submissions today..3. MC Mehta v. Union of India & Ors..[Item 301 in court 1 at 3 pm – IA 345 in WP(C) 13029/1985].Bench: Chief Justice TS Thakur, AK Sikri, SA Bobde JJ..Petition concerning pollution in Delhi. When the matter was last heard, the Bench had sought a response from the Centre..Today in Court: The Bench sought a detailed action plan from the Centre regarding their response for various levels of pollution, and also chided them on their failure to set up adequate monitoring stations..Delhi High Court.1. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ) v. Competition Commission of India and Anr. .[LPA 246/2016; Court No. 1 Item No. 11].Bench: G. Rohini, CJ, Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, J..Appeal by Ericsson in relation to the case filed by the Competition Commission in the Delhi High Court challenging a single judge verdict setting aside its order to investigate alleged contravention of provisions of the Competition Act by the Swedish firm..Today in Court: The matter was adjourned to January 9..2. Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (India) Pvt Ltd and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors..[W.P. (C) 12069/2015; Court No. 16 Item No. 32].Bench: Sanjeev Sachdeva, J..Check evening updates..Today in Court: The bench did not sit today. The matter is listed for January 9..3. Loreena McKinnitt and Ors. v. Deepak Dev and Ors..[CS (OS) 2349/2011; Court No. 20 Item No. 6].Bench: Vibhu Bakhru, J..McKinnitt had filed a suit against Dev in 2011, after the release of the Malayalam movie Urumi and its music, accusing him of using her melody in his song Aaro ne aaro which was part of the movie. She had claimed that Dev’s song has melodies from her songs The Mummers Dance and Caravanserai..In the last hearing, the bench heard arguments in the matter and stated that whether or not the respondents are in contempt can be determined only be deciding whether the Tamil and Telugu versions of the song are “adaptations” of the Malayalam version..Today in Court: The bench granted 3 weeks time to the parties to settle the matter after determining that the Tamil version of the song was an adaptation of the Malayalam version and therefore the defendant was in contempt of the previous order.