A summary of important cases from the causelists of the Supreme Court of India, the Bombay High Court, and the Delhi High Court. .Supreme Court of India.1. Indian Young Lawyers Association & Ors. v. State Of Kerala & Ors.[Item 301 in court 4 at 2 pm– IA 3 in Writ Petition (C) 373/2006].Bench: Dipak Misra, PC Ghose, NV Ramana JJ..Case pertaining to the entry of women in the Sabarimala temple. The State government has filed its response, changing its stand and saying that women cannot be permitted in the temple since the practice flows from the temple deity’s celibacy vows..The affidavit states that the practice is “an essential and integral part of the right of practice of religion of a devotee and comes under the protective guarantee of the Constitution under Articles 25 and 26 which have been held to contain guarantee for rituals, observances, ceremonies and modes of worship which are an integral part of religion.”.The case will be taken up today only if the Constitution Bench in court 3 does not sit..Today in court: This Bench did not sit today..2. Pankajakshi (Dead) Through L.Rs. & Ors. v. Chandrika & Ors..[Item 501 in court 2 at 2 pm – Civil Appeal 201/2005].Bench: Anil R Dave, Kurian Joseph, Shiva Kirti Singh, AK Goel, Rohinton Fali Nariman.Case pertaining to whether Civil Procedure Code will override a statute which was a precursor to the Act which governs the High Court. The Court is considering the issue of whether a case can be referred to a third judge when there is a conflict between two judges of the High Court on a question of fact, and not question of law as required by Section 98 of the CPC..Today in court: The hearing is in its final stage. The matter will be taken up at 3 pm tomorrow and will be heard for half an hour..3. Nabam Rebia v. Registrar General, Gauhati High Court and Ors..[Item 501 in court 3 at 2 pm – SLP (Civil) 876/2016].Bench: Jagdish Singh Khehar, Dipak Misra, Madan B Lokur, PC Ghose, NV Ramana JJ..This case pertains to the removal of Arunachal Pradesh Speaker Nabam Rebia and is an appeal against the decision of the Gauhati High Court. Recently, the Union Cabinet recommended imposition of President’s Rule in the State which has been challenged by the Congress party. The hearing in the case has been progressing before the Constitution Bench..Today in court: The Court today asked the Centre to provide a list of documents seized from the office of the former Chief Minister Nabam Tuki so that he can ascertain as to which of those documents he requires. “You can’t say that the documents seized by you are not related to them (Tuki and his cabinet minister). You give the full list and let them decide what they want and what they do not”, the Court said. The hearing will continue tomorrow..4. Pt. Nawin Sharma v. Union of India Thr. Secretary Ministry of Law and Justice and Anr..[Item 27 in court 1 – Writ Petition (Civil) 762/2015].Bench: Chief Justice TS Thakur, AK Sikri, R Banumathi JJ..Check evening updates..Today in court: This case was not taken up today..5. Wanglam Sawin, Mla And Anr. v. The Speaker, Arunachal Pradesh and Ors..[Item 22 in court 2 – SLP(C) NO. 2044/2016].Bench: Anil R Dave, Shiva Kirti Singh, AK Goel JJ. .Check evening updates..Today in court: This case was not taken up today..6. State Bar Council of MP & Ors. v. JP Sanghi & Ors..[Item 1 in court 3 – SLP(C) 5692/2007].Bench: JS Khehar, C Nagappan JJ..Check evening updates..Today in court: This case could not be tracked. Any update/ information would be appreciated..Delhi High Court.1. Directorate of Education Vs Action Committee Unaided Recognized Private Schools.[Item 35, Court 1- LPA 89/2016].Bench- Chief Justice G Rohini, Jayant Nath J..A fresh appeal. Check evening updates..Today in Court- Adjourned the matter to February 10..2. Mr. Arun Jaitley Vs Arvind Kejriwal & Ors..[Item 67, CS(OS) 3457/2015].Bench- Vipin Sanghi J..Check evening updates..Today in Court- An application was filed by Defendant No. 6 Deepak Bajpai, the AAP spokesperson seeking rejection of the defamation suit filed against him by Finance Minister Arun Jaitley. The suit was filed against Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and five other AAP leaders, including Bajpai, by Jaitley in the backdrop of attacks on him over alleged irregularities and financial bunglings in Delhi and District Cricket Association (DDCA) of which he was the President between 1999 and 2013..The Single Bench of Justice Sanghi today dismissed Bajpai’s application. Senior Advocates HS Phoolka and Rajeev Nayyar appeared for Bajpai and Jaitley respectively..3. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Erricson (Publ) Vs Mercury Electronics & Anr..[Item 28, Court 22- CS (OS) 442/2013].Bench: Valmiki Mehta J..The Micromax-Erricson dispute. Previously, the Bench held that Micromax had acted in contempt of the Court’s earlier orders when it set up a wholly owned subsidiary company to infringe upon patents owned by Erricson..Today in Court- The case was listed today due to applications moved by both sides. One application by Erricson sought impleadment of Yu Televentures as a party to the contempt proceedings filed by Erricson against Micromax. This application was dismissed..Another application was moved by Micromax seeking that the deposits to be made by them by way of the Court’s previous interim orders, may not be treated as payment of royalty as that would amount to a decision over infringement of patent. The Bench accordingly, directed that the specified amount of money be deposited in Court subject to determination of liability of infringement..4. Centre for Law & Good Governance Vs Ministry of Power & Ors..[Item 38, Court 1- W.P.(C) 1099/2016].Bench: Chief Justice G Rohini, Jayant Nath J..A fresh petition. Check evening updates..Today in Court- This matter could not be tracked. Any leads/inputs would be appreciated..5. Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Vs Union of India, Rajendra Prashad Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi, MA Usmani Vs Union of India & Ors, Naresh Kumar Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors..[Item 21-31, Court 1].Bench: Chief Justice G Rohini, Jayant Nath J..A batch of petitions questioning the apportionment of powers between the Chief Minister and Lt-Governor. On the last date of hearing, ASG Sanjay Jain had begun his submissions for the Union. He is expected to continue today..Today in Court- This case was not taken up today..Bombay High Court.1. S.A. Sinha v. Dr. Leo Rebello.[Item 11 Court 43 – REF(Cr)/4/2014].Bench: V.M. Kanade, Revati Mohite Dere JJ..An appeal against criminal contempt proceedings initaited against Dr.Leo Rebello The appellant contends this as a misuse of Contempt of Courts act, 1971..Metropolitan magistrate S.A. Sinha’s lawyer submitted that Rebello’s behaviour in court was uncalled for, he also cited various letters written by Rebello to the magistrate. These letters contain offensive language and are disrepectful in many ways. He pointed out how Rebello repeatedly shouted in court during the proceedings of an ongoing matter..Rebello accepted writing these letters and went on to claim that he was a very respected doctor who always worked for the poor. He said he had the liberty not to stand before a magistrate or a judge as it was not a part of the rules. He insisted that the magistrate was in contempt as she did not give him a fair hearing..Kanade J. reserved the order..2. Priscilla Samuel Union of India & 10 ors..[Item 14 Court 43 – PIL(O)/52/2013].Bench: V.M. Kanade, Revati Mohite Dere JJ..A petition seeking the effective implementation and greater awareness of the Dowry Prohibition Act of 1961..Today in court: Mahrukh Adenwala appeared for Tata Institute of Social Sciences(TISS). The institute was asked to assist the court in the previous hearing..Mahrukh submitted that Section 5(6) of the Act needs to be looked at from a technical standpoint. The petitioner informed the court that the state has failed to reply with regard to dowry proclamation officers in Maharashtra. The state was directed to file a reply..The matter was adjourned and will now come up on the supplementary board on Wednesday, February 10..3. Court on its own motion v. State of Maharashtra & Anr..[Item 14 Court 31 – WP(C)/466/2010].Bench: A.S. Oka, C.V. Bhadang JJ..A suo moto petition concerned with witness protection as well as protection for investigating officers. Senior Advocate D.D. Madon is amicus, and submitted a report at the last hearing in December last year..Today in court: N.P. Deshpande, AGP for the State submitted a draft copy of the Maharashtra Witness Protection and Security Bill of 2016. On November 16 last year, D.D. Madon had provided certain suggestions on the draft bill. .The bench had agreed with the Amicus on not restricting the protection for serious offences only. They also observed that protection must be extended to Investigating officers as well as other witnesses who are in police service.(Read the previous order).The fresh draft submitted by the state again seeks to apply protection under serious offences only. Thus, the matter was adjourned and the state was again asked to file its reply according to the suggestions made by the Amicus Curiae..In the interim, the order of March 10, 2015, which extends protection to RTI activists, petitioners etc shall continue.
A summary of important cases from the causelists of the Supreme Court of India, the Bombay High Court, and the Delhi High Court. .Supreme Court of India.1. Indian Young Lawyers Association & Ors. v. State Of Kerala & Ors.[Item 301 in court 4 at 2 pm– IA 3 in Writ Petition (C) 373/2006].Bench: Dipak Misra, PC Ghose, NV Ramana JJ..Case pertaining to the entry of women in the Sabarimala temple. The State government has filed its response, changing its stand and saying that women cannot be permitted in the temple since the practice flows from the temple deity’s celibacy vows..The affidavit states that the practice is “an essential and integral part of the right of practice of religion of a devotee and comes under the protective guarantee of the Constitution under Articles 25 and 26 which have been held to contain guarantee for rituals, observances, ceremonies and modes of worship which are an integral part of religion.”.The case will be taken up today only if the Constitution Bench in court 3 does not sit..Today in court: This Bench did not sit today..2. Pankajakshi (Dead) Through L.Rs. & Ors. v. Chandrika & Ors..[Item 501 in court 2 at 2 pm – Civil Appeal 201/2005].Bench: Anil R Dave, Kurian Joseph, Shiva Kirti Singh, AK Goel, Rohinton Fali Nariman.Case pertaining to whether Civil Procedure Code will override a statute which was a precursor to the Act which governs the High Court. The Court is considering the issue of whether a case can be referred to a third judge when there is a conflict between two judges of the High Court on a question of fact, and not question of law as required by Section 98 of the CPC..Today in court: The hearing is in its final stage. The matter will be taken up at 3 pm tomorrow and will be heard for half an hour..3. Nabam Rebia v. Registrar General, Gauhati High Court and Ors..[Item 501 in court 3 at 2 pm – SLP (Civil) 876/2016].Bench: Jagdish Singh Khehar, Dipak Misra, Madan B Lokur, PC Ghose, NV Ramana JJ..This case pertains to the removal of Arunachal Pradesh Speaker Nabam Rebia and is an appeal against the decision of the Gauhati High Court. Recently, the Union Cabinet recommended imposition of President’s Rule in the State which has been challenged by the Congress party. The hearing in the case has been progressing before the Constitution Bench..Today in court: The Court today asked the Centre to provide a list of documents seized from the office of the former Chief Minister Nabam Tuki so that he can ascertain as to which of those documents he requires. “You can’t say that the documents seized by you are not related to them (Tuki and his cabinet minister). You give the full list and let them decide what they want and what they do not”, the Court said. The hearing will continue tomorrow..4. Pt. Nawin Sharma v. Union of India Thr. Secretary Ministry of Law and Justice and Anr..[Item 27 in court 1 – Writ Petition (Civil) 762/2015].Bench: Chief Justice TS Thakur, AK Sikri, R Banumathi JJ..Check evening updates..Today in court: This case was not taken up today..5. Wanglam Sawin, Mla And Anr. v. The Speaker, Arunachal Pradesh and Ors..[Item 22 in court 2 – SLP(C) NO. 2044/2016].Bench: Anil R Dave, Shiva Kirti Singh, AK Goel JJ. .Check evening updates..Today in court: This case was not taken up today..6. State Bar Council of MP & Ors. v. JP Sanghi & Ors..[Item 1 in court 3 – SLP(C) 5692/2007].Bench: JS Khehar, C Nagappan JJ..Check evening updates..Today in court: This case could not be tracked. Any update/ information would be appreciated..Delhi High Court.1. Directorate of Education Vs Action Committee Unaided Recognized Private Schools.[Item 35, Court 1- LPA 89/2016].Bench- Chief Justice G Rohini, Jayant Nath J..A fresh appeal. Check evening updates..Today in Court- Adjourned the matter to February 10..2. Mr. Arun Jaitley Vs Arvind Kejriwal & Ors..[Item 67, CS(OS) 3457/2015].Bench- Vipin Sanghi J..Check evening updates..Today in Court- An application was filed by Defendant No. 6 Deepak Bajpai, the AAP spokesperson seeking rejection of the defamation suit filed against him by Finance Minister Arun Jaitley. The suit was filed against Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and five other AAP leaders, including Bajpai, by Jaitley in the backdrop of attacks on him over alleged irregularities and financial bunglings in Delhi and District Cricket Association (DDCA) of which he was the President between 1999 and 2013..The Single Bench of Justice Sanghi today dismissed Bajpai’s application. Senior Advocates HS Phoolka and Rajeev Nayyar appeared for Bajpai and Jaitley respectively..3. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Erricson (Publ) Vs Mercury Electronics & Anr..[Item 28, Court 22- CS (OS) 442/2013].Bench: Valmiki Mehta J..The Micromax-Erricson dispute. Previously, the Bench held that Micromax had acted in contempt of the Court’s earlier orders when it set up a wholly owned subsidiary company to infringe upon patents owned by Erricson..Today in Court- The case was listed today due to applications moved by both sides. One application by Erricson sought impleadment of Yu Televentures as a party to the contempt proceedings filed by Erricson against Micromax. This application was dismissed..Another application was moved by Micromax seeking that the deposits to be made by them by way of the Court’s previous interim orders, may not be treated as payment of royalty as that would amount to a decision over infringement of patent. The Bench accordingly, directed that the specified amount of money be deposited in Court subject to determination of liability of infringement..4. Centre for Law & Good Governance Vs Ministry of Power & Ors..[Item 38, Court 1- W.P.(C) 1099/2016].Bench: Chief Justice G Rohini, Jayant Nath J..A fresh petition. Check evening updates..Today in Court- This matter could not be tracked. Any leads/inputs would be appreciated..5. Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Vs Union of India, Rajendra Prashad Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi, MA Usmani Vs Union of India & Ors, Naresh Kumar Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors..[Item 21-31, Court 1].Bench: Chief Justice G Rohini, Jayant Nath J..A batch of petitions questioning the apportionment of powers between the Chief Minister and Lt-Governor. On the last date of hearing, ASG Sanjay Jain had begun his submissions for the Union. He is expected to continue today..Today in Court- This case was not taken up today..Bombay High Court.1. S.A. Sinha v. Dr. Leo Rebello.[Item 11 Court 43 – REF(Cr)/4/2014].Bench: V.M. Kanade, Revati Mohite Dere JJ..An appeal against criminal contempt proceedings initaited against Dr.Leo Rebello The appellant contends this as a misuse of Contempt of Courts act, 1971..Metropolitan magistrate S.A. Sinha’s lawyer submitted that Rebello’s behaviour in court was uncalled for, he also cited various letters written by Rebello to the magistrate. These letters contain offensive language and are disrepectful in many ways. He pointed out how Rebello repeatedly shouted in court during the proceedings of an ongoing matter..Rebello accepted writing these letters and went on to claim that he was a very respected doctor who always worked for the poor. He said he had the liberty not to stand before a magistrate or a judge as it was not a part of the rules. He insisted that the magistrate was in contempt as she did not give him a fair hearing..Kanade J. reserved the order..2. Priscilla Samuel Union of India & 10 ors..[Item 14 Court 43 – PIL(O)/52/2013].Bench: V.M. Kanade, Revati Mohite Dere JJ..A petition seeking the effective implementation and greater awareness of the Dowry Prohibition Act of 1961..Today in court: Mahrukh Adenwala appeared for Tata Institute of Social Sciences(TISS). The institute was asked to assist the court in the previous hearing..Mahrukh submitted that Section 5(6) of the Act needs to be looked at from a technical standpoint. The petitioner informed the court that the state has failed to reply with regard to dowry proclamation officers in Maharashtra. The state was directed to file a reply..The matter was adjourned and will now come up on the supplementary board on Wednesday, February 10..3. Court on its own motion v. State of Maharashtra & Anr..[Item 14 Court 31 – WP(C)/466/2010].Bench: A.S. Oka, C.V. Bhadang JJ..A suo moto petition concerned with witness protection as well as protection for investigating officers. Senior Advocate D.D. Madon is amicus, and submitted a report at the last hearing in December last year..Today in court: N.P. Deshpande, AGP for the State submitted a draft copy of the Maharashtra Witness Protection and Security Bill of 2016. On November 16 last year, D.D. Madon had provided certain suggestions on the draft bill. .The bench had agreed with the Amicus on not restricting the protection for serious offences only. They also observed that protection must be extended to Investigating officers as well as other witnesses who are in police service.(Read the previous order).The fresh draft submitted by the state again seeks to apply protection under serious offences only. Thus, the matter was adjourned and the state was again asked to file its reply according to the suggestions made by the Amicus Curiae..In the interim, the order of March 10, 2015, which extends protection to RTI activists, petitioners etc shall continue.
