A summary of cases from the causelists of the Supreme Court of India, the Bombay High Court and the Delhi High Court..LIST OF CASES.Supreme Court of India.V Vasanthakumar v. HC Bhatia and Ors. [For judgment]Nabam Rebia And Bemang Felix v. Deputy Speaker And Ors. [For judgment]Extra Judl.Exec.Victim Families Assn.& Anr. v. Union of India & Anr.Parivartan & Ors. v. Union of India & OrsWildlife Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre and Others v. Union of India and others.Bombay High Court.Hamidia Mistry and Anr v. Municipal Corp of Greater MumbaiThe Comedy Store Ltd v. State of MaharashtraConsumer Welfare Association v Union of India & OrsAbhay Batwadekar v. State of Maharashtra and 5 ors..Delhi High Court.Gaurav Jain and Ors. v. Director, Deptt. Of Animal Husbandry, Govt. of Delhi and Ors.Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India and Ors.Federation of Indian Airlines and Ors. v. Director General of Civil Aviation and Anr.Arvind Kejriwal v. Ajay Kumar Taneja and Anr..SUMMARY OF CASES.Supreme Court of India.1. V Vasanthakumar v. HC Bhatia and Ors. [For judgment].[Item 1B in court 1 – Writ Petition (C) 36/2016].Bench: Chief Justice TS Thakur, R Banumathi, UU Lalit JJ..Judgment on whether the case on the establishment of National Courts of Appeal should be referred to a Constitution bench or not. The petitioner has prayed for the establishment of these courts at Kolkata, Chennai and Mumbai. The Court had issued notice in the case on February 26 and appointed Senior Advocates KK Venugopal and Salman Khurshid as amicus curiae..The Court had then expressed its inclination to refer the case to a Constitution Bench. When the matter was last heard, the Centre had made it clear that it is opposed to the idea of National Court of Appeal. On April 28, the court had reserved its verdict with respect to referring the case to Constitution Bench..Today in Court: The Court gave its assent to referring the matter to a constitution bench. Read more about the case here..2. Nabam Rebia And Bemang Felix v. Deputy Speaker And Ors. [For judgment].[Item 1A in court 3 – CA../2016 arising from SLP(C) 1259-1260/2016].Bench: JS Khehar, Dipak Misra, Madan B Lokur, PC Ghose, NV Ramana JJ..Judgment in the case which has its genesis in the political battle in Arunachal Pradesh where MLAs from Congress party had rebelled against former Chief Minister Nabam Tuki..There are two important issues which the Supreme Court is likely to pronounce upon today. The first is a challenge to the validity of the Governor summoning the assembly, without the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, to take up the motion of confidence against the Nabam government, ahead of its scheduled session..The second is the challenge to the validity of President’s rule. During the hearing, it was suggested by the Apex Court that if the challenge to the Governor’s discretion in summoning the assembly was upheld, then the justification for imposing President’s rule would lose its force, and the hearing of separate arguments on the validity of President’s rule would not be required..Today in Court: The Supreme Court today ordered the restoration of the Congress government, scrapping all decisions by the Governor that precipitated the fall of the previous administration. In doing so, it essentially quashed Governor Jyoti Prasad Rajkhowa’s decision issued on December 2015 to advance the state Assembly session by a month..Read a detailed account of the judgment here..3. Extra Judl. Exec. Victim Families Assn.& Anr. v. Union of India & Anr..[Item 301 in court 8 – WP(Crl.) 129/2012].Bench: Madan B Lokur, UU Lalit JJ..The petition relating to encounter killings in Manipur. The court had pronounced a significant judgment in the matter last week..Today in Court: This matter could not be tracked..4. Parivartan & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.[Item 101 in court 1 – WP(C) 93/2004] .Bench: Chief Justice TS Thakur, AM Khanwalikar, DY Chandrachud JJ..Case on whistleblower protection. Check evening updates..Today in Court: This matter did not come up today..5. Wildlife Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre and Others v. Union of India and others.[Item 3 in court 4 – WP (Civil) 743/2014].Bench: Dipak Misra, C Nagappan JJ..Petition concerning protection of wildlife and forests. The Court has been issuing a slew of directions in an application pertaining to treatment of captive elephants. During the last hearing, an interim application challenging a notification issued by the government of Kerala regularising ownership of 289 elephants was heard. The Court had then directed the Kerala government not to issue any ownership certificate to elephant owners. The Court also directed that no elephants covered by the said notification shall be “transferred” in “any possible manner”..Today in Court: This matter could not be tracked..Bombay High Court.For Pronouncement of Judgement.1. Hamidia Mistry and Anr v. Municipal Corp of Greater Mumbai.[Item 903 Court 13 – WP(O.S.)/2097/2011].Bench: AS Oka, CV Bhadang JJ..A PIL in connection with pay and park sites at 92 locations around the city. The petitioners wanted at least 50% reservation for general category whereas according to the petitioners, 50% reservation is made for Mahila Bachat Gat, 25% reservation is made for unemployed educated youth and further reservation is for heirs of martyrs of Sanyukta Maharashtra movement..Today in court: The order was passed in chambers. Expect an update once the order has been uploaded..2. The Comedy Store Ltd v. State of Maharashtra.[Item 901 Court 54- WP(Cri)/600/2016].Bench: Naresh H Patil, PD Naik JJ..Check evening updates to know about the case..Today in court: London-based Comedy Store, which entered into a joint venture with an Indian company to promote stand-up comedy in India seeks a probe into the allegation that their partner siphoned off funds to the tune of 13 crores. The petitioners seek directions to Economic Offences Wing (EOW) for registration of an FIR against Horshoe Entertainment and Hospitality Pvt Ltd and its directors..Today in Court: The bench said that even after summons by EOW, the petitioners refused to answer them. They have now been directed to co-operate with the investigating agency and adjourned the matter by two weeks..3. Consumer Welfare Association v Union of India & Ors.[Item 6 Court 13- PIL(OS)/40/2012].Bench: AS Oka, AA Sayed JJ..A petition seeking adequate infrastructure for the Mumbai suburban consumer forum. The state government had been directed to identify the premises for the forum and provide a detailed report on the same by June 20..Today in court: This matter could not be tracked..4. Abhay Batwadekar v. State of Maharashtra and 5 ors..[Item 27 Court 13 – PIL(OS)/7/2009]Bench: AS Oka, AA Sayed JJ.A PIL to save open space reserved for gardens. In the last order dated 26 October 2015 by Justices AS Oka & VL Achliya it was recorded that a letter signed by the petitioner stated that his health condition does not permit him to continue appearing in the PIL. It was decided to hear the PIL on merits.Today in court: This case could not be tracked..Delhi High Court.1. Gaurav Jain and Ors. v. Director, Deptt. Of Animal Husbandry, Govt. of Delhi and Ors..[Court No. 1; Item No. 2 – W.P. (C) 3868/2016].Bench: G. Rohini CJ, Sangita Dhingra Sehgal J. .Petition challenging the constitutionality of the provisions which make possession and personal consumption of beef illegal in Delhi..Today in Court: The matter came up before the Chief Justice. Notice was issued to the Delhi government, with the next date of hearing fixed as September 15 this year..2. Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India and Ors..[Court No.1; Item No. 3 – W.P. (C) 3320/2011].Bench: G. Rohini CJ, Sangita Dhingra Sehgal J.Petition challenging the order of the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions..Today in Court: This case could not be tracked. Any details will be appreciated..3. Federation of Indian Airlines and Ors. v. Director General of Civil Aviation and Anr..[Court No. 15; Item No. 28 – W.P. (C) 5756/2016].Bench: Sanjeev Sachdeva J. .A challenge to the DGCA’s circular fixing the charge of excess baggage between 15-20 kgs. As per the new regulation effective from July 1, airlines have been asked to charge Rs. 100 per extra kg till 20 kgs as against their current rates, ranging from Rs. 220 to Rs. 350..Today in Court: ASG Paramjit Singh Patwalia appeared on behalf of Ministry of Civil Aviation and Directorate General of Civil Aviation. He delved into detailed arguments for the DGCA’s circular regarding fixing the charge for excess baggage. The Court will now hear the remainder of Patwalia’s arguments on July 19 in the post lunch session..4. Arvind Kejriwal v. Ajay Kumar Taneja and Anr. .[Court No. 36; Item No. 44 – Crl. M.C. 2418/2016].Bench: Justice Mukta Gupta.A plea filed by the Delhi Chief Minister seeking a stay and setting aside of the trial court order summoning him as an accused in a criminal defamation case filed against him by a constable..Today in Court: Justice Mukta Gupta exempted Mr. Kejriwal from personal appearance before the trial court. However, the judge went on to say that the Court requires Mr. Kejriwal to explain the meaning of the word “thulla” which was used by him in the allegedly defamatory statement. The Delhi Chief Minister is required to make the said explanation on the date of the next hearing i.e. August 21 this year.
A summary of cases from the causelists of the Supreme Court of India, the Bombay High Court and the Delhi High Court..LIST OF CASES.Supreme Court of India.V Vasanthakumar v. HC Bhatia and Ors. [For judgment]Nabam Rebia And Bemang Felix v. Deputy Speaker And Ors. [For judgment]Extra Judl.Exec.Victim Families Assn.& Anr. v. Union of India & Anr.Parivartan & Ors. v. Union of India & OrsWildlife Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre and Others v. Union of India and others.Bombay High Court.Hamidia Mistry and Anr v. Municipal Corp of Greater MumbaiThe Comedy Store Ltd v. State of MaharashtraConsumer Welfare Association v Union of India & OrsAbhay Batwadekar v. State of Maharashtra and 5 ors..Delhi High Court.Gaurav Jain and Ors. v. Director, Deptt. Of Animal Husbandry, Govt. of Delhi and Ors.Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India and Ors.Federation of Indian Airlines and Ors. v. Director General of Civil Aviation and Anr.Arvind Kejriwal v. Ajay Kumar Taneja and Anr..SUMMARY OF CASES.Supreme Court of India.1. V Vasanthakumar v. HC Bhatia and Ors. [For judgment].[Item 1B in court 1 – Writ Petition (C) 36/2016].Bench: Chief Justice TS Thakur, R Banumathi, UU Lalit JJ..Judgment on whether the case on the establishment of National Courts of Appeal should be referred to a Constitution bench or not. The petitioner has prayed for the establishment of these courts at Kolkata, Chennai and Mumbai. The Court had issued notice in the case on February 26 and appointed Senior Advocates KK Venugopal and Salman Khurshid as amicus curiae..The Court had then expressed its inclination to refer the case to a Constitution Bench. When the matter was last heard, the Centre had made it clear that it is opposed to the idea of National Court of Appeal. On April 28, the court had reserved its verdict with respect to referring the case to Constitution Bench..Today in Court: The Court gave its assent to referring the matter to a constitution bench. Read more about the case here..2. Nabam Rebia And Bemang Felix v. Deputy Speaker And Ors. [For judgment].[Item 1A in court 3 – CA../2016 arising from SLP(C) 1259-1260/2016].Bench: JS Khehar, Dipak Misra, Madan B Lokur, PC Ghose, NV Ramana JJ..Judgment in the case which has its genesis in the political battle in Arunachal Pradesh where MLAs from Congress party had rebelled against former Chief Minister Nabam Tuki..There are two important issues which the Supreme Court is likely to pronounce upon today. The first is a challenge to the validity of the Governor summoning the assembly, without the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, to take up the motion of confidence against the Nabam government, ahead of its scheduled session..The second is the challenge to the validity of President’s rule. During the hearing, it was suggested by the Apex Court that if the challenge to the Governor’s discretion in summoning the assembly was upheld, then the justification for imposing President’s rule would lose its force, and the hearing of separate arguments on the validity of President’s rule would not be required..Today in Court: The Supreme Court today ordered the restoration of the Congress government, scrapping all decisions by the Governor that precipitated the fall of the previous administration. In doing so, it essentially quashed Governor Jyoti Prasad Rajkhowa’s decision issued on December 2015 to advance the state Assembly session by a month..Read a detailed account of the judgment here..3. Extra Judl. Exec. Victim Families Assn.& Anr. v. Union of India & Anr..[Item 301 in court 8 – WP(Crl.) 129/2012].Bench: Madan B Lokur, UU Lalit JJ..The petition relating to encounter killings in Manipur. The court had pronounced a significant judgment in the matter last week..Today in Court: This matter could not be tracked..4. Parivartan & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.[Item 101 in court 1 – WP(C) 93/2004] .Bench: Chief Justice TS Thakur, AM Khanwalikar, DY Chandrachud JJ..Case on whistleblower protection. Check evening updates..Today in Court: This matter did not come up today..5. Wildlife Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre and Others v. Union of India and others.[Item 3 in court 4 – WP (Civil) 743/2014].Bench: Dipak Misra, C Nagappan JJ..Petition concerning protection of wildlife and forests. The Court has been issuing a slew of directions in an application pertaining to treatment of captive elephants. During the last hearing, an interim application challenging a notification issued by the government of Kerala regularising ownership of 289 elephants was heard. The Court had then directed the Kerala government not to issue any ownership certificate to elephant owners. The Court also directed that no elephants covered by the said notification shall be “transferred” in “any possible manner”..Today in Court: This matter could not be tracked..Bombay High Court.For Pronouncement of Judgement.1. Hamidia Mistry and Anr v. Municipal Corp of Greater Mumbai.[Item 903 Court 13 – WP(O.S.)/2097/2011].Bench: AS Oka, CV Bhadang JJ..A PIL in connection with pay and park sites at 92 locations around the city. The petitioners wanted at least 50% reservation for general category whereas according to the petitioners, 50% reservation is made for Mahila Bachat Gat, 25% reservation is made for unemployed educated youth and further reservation is for heirs of martyrs of Sanyukta Maharashtra movement..Today in court: The order was passed in chambers. Expect an update once the order has been uploaded..2. The Comedy Store Ltd v. State of Maharashtra.[Item 901 Court 54- WP(Cri)/600/2016].Bench: Naresh H Patil, PD Naik JJ..Check evening updates to know about the case..Today in court: London-based Comedy Store, which entered into a joint venture with an Indian company to promote stand-up comedy in India seeks a probe into the allegation that their partner siphoned off funds to the tune of 13 crores. The petitioners seek directions to Economic Offences Wing (EOW) for registration of an FIR against Horshoe Entertainment and Hospitality Pvt Ltd and its directors..Today in Court: The bench said that even after summons by EOW, the petitioners refused to answer them. They have now been directed to co-operate with the investigating agency and adjourned the matter by two weeks..3. Consumer Welfare Association v Union of India & Ors.[Item 6 Court 13- PIL(OS)/40/2012].Bench: AS Oka, AA Sayed JJ..A petition seeking adequate infrastructure for the Mumbai suburban consumer forum. The state government had been directed to identify the premises for the forum and provide a detailed report on the same by June 20..Today in court: This matter could not be tracked..4. Abhay Batwadekar v. State of Maharashtra and 5 ors..[Item 27 Court 13 – PIL(OS)/7/2009]Bench: AS Oka, AA Sayed JJ.A PIL to save open space reserved for gardens. In the last order dated 26 October 2015 by Justices AS Oka & VL Achliya it was recorded that a letter signed by the petitioner stated that his health condition does not permit him to continue appearing in the PIL. It was decided to hear the PIL on merits.Today in court: This case could not be tracked..Delhi High Court.1. Gaurav Jain and Ors. v. Director, Deptt. Of Animal Husbandry, Govt. of Delhi and Ors..[Court No. 1; Item No. 2 – W.P. (C) 3868/2016].Bench: G. Rohini CJ, Sangita Dhingra Sehgal J. .Petition challenging the constitutionality of the provisions which make possession and personal consumption of beef illegal in Delhi..Today in Court: The matter came up before the Chief Justice. Notice was issued to the Delhi government, with the next date of hearing fixed as September 15 this year..2. Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India and Ors..[Court No.1; Item No. 3 – W.P. (C) 3320/2011].Bench: G. Rohini CJ, Sangita Dhingra Sehgal J.Petition challenging the order of the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions..Today in Court: This case could not be tracked. Any details will be appreciated..3. Federation of Indian Airlines and Ors. v. Director General of Civil Aviation and Anr..[Court No. 15; Item No. 28 – W.P. (C) 5756/2016].Bench: Sanjeev Sachdeva J. .A challenge to the DGCA’s circular fixing the charge of excess baggage between 15-20 kgs. As per the new regulation effective from July 1, airlines have been asked to charge Rs. 100 per extra kg till 20 kgs as against their current rates, ranging from Rs. 220 to Rs. 350..Today in Court: ASG Paramjit Singh Patwalia appeared on behalf of Ministry of Civil Aviation and Directorate General of Civil Aviation. He delved into detailed arguments for the DGCA’s circular regarding fixing the charge for excess baggage. The Court will now hear the remainder of Patwalia’s arguments on July 19 in the post lunch session..4. Arvind Kejriwal v. Ajay Kumar Taneja and Anr. .[Court No. 36; Item No. 44 – Crl. M.C. 2418/2016].Bench: Justice Mukta Gupta.A plea filed by the Delhi Chief Minister seeking a stay and setting aside of the trial court order summoning him as an accused in a criminal defamation case filed against him by a constable..Today in Court: Justice Mukta Gupta exempted Mr. Kejriwal from personal appearance before the trial court. However, the judge went on to say that the Court requires Mr. Kejriwal to explain the meaning of the word “thulla” which was used by him in the allegedly defamatory statement. The Delhi Chief Minister is required to make the said explanation on the date of the next hearing i.e. August 21 this year.
