Supreme Court.1. Justice (Retd.) Markandey Katju v. The Lok Sabha & Anr..Item 9 in court 2 – Writ Petition (Civil) 504/2015 .Bench: TS Thakur J., V Gopala Gowda J., R Banumathi J..A petition filed by ex-SC judge Justice Markandey Katju seeking quashing of resolutions passed by Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha condemning him for his remarks about Mahatma Gandhi and Subhas Chandra Bose. Justice Katju has claimed violation of rights under Articles 14, 19(1) (a) and 21. Senior Advocate Gopal Subramanium may appear for Katju. You can read more about the petition here..Today in court: Read the full report here..2. Arun Kumar & Anr. v. Supreme Court of India.Item 31 in court 3 – Writ Petition (Civil) 371/2015.Bench: Anil R Dave J., Kurian Joseph J..A batch of petitions filed by advocates challenging the Advocate on Record system as violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The Court had issued notice in the case on July 1. Read more about the case here..Today in court: Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra appeared on behalf of Supreme Court and sought time to file reply which was granted. An application to implead the Union government was also allowed..3. SEBI v. Sahara India Real Estate Corpn. Ltd..Item 301 in court 2 – IA 68-70, 71-73 & 74-76 in Conmt. Pet. (C) NO. 412/2012.Bench: TS Thakur J., Anil R Dave J., AK Sikri J..Various interim applications including the one pertaining to sale of Gorakhpur property belonging to Sahara. When the matter was last heard, the court turned into an auction hall with competing bids being placed by two companies – Samriddhi Developers and Gorakhpur Real Estate Developers – both vying for the Gorakhpur property. The Court then decided to set a base price of Rs. 150 crore for the property. The two companies were then directed to deposit Rs. 37.5 crore before July 31 in the SEBI-Sahara refund account to prove their bonafides in buying the property..Today in court: The Gorakhpur Real Estate Developers bagged the right to buy Gorakhpur property. Their bid price of Rs. 152 crore was 2 crore more than the bid placed by Samriddhi Developers..4. KD Khera v. Union of India & Ors. .Item 69 in court 1 – Writ Petition (Civil) 225/2015.Bench: Chief Justice HL Dattu, Arun Mishra J., Amitava Roy J..This petition challenges the eligibility criteria for the appointments of MD and CEO of five public sector banks—Bank of Baroda, Bank of India, Canara Bank, IDBI Bank Ltd and Punjab National Bank. The petitioner has prayed that the posts should be filled up from the executive cadre of these public sector banks and not from the private sector..The Court had issued notice in this case on May 5. When the matter was last heard on July 13, the Centre was granted a further time of two weeks to file its response..Today in court: Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi told the court that they have amended the notification pertaining to the eligibility criteria and more than 70 per cent of the applicants after that are PSU employees..The court issued notice in a new petition filed by All India Bank Owners Officers Federation..5. Assn. Retd. Juges, S. Court & H. Court v. Union of India & Anr. .Item 62 in court 8 – IA Nos. 3 & 4/2015 in Writ Petition (Civil) 523/2002.Bench: Ranjan Gogoi J., NV Ramana J..Check evening updates to know more about this case..Today in court: These are interim applications filed subsequent to a judgment of the Supreme Court which laid down that experience at the Bar should be taken into account for computing pension of retired High Court judges. Though more than a year passed since the judgment was delivered, the government had not brought in the requisite amendments in the statute to implement the directions in the judgment prompting the application..Senior Advocate PP Rao, appearing for the petitioner today, contended that the direction of this court is a self-operating direction and no legislative amendment is required and sought for directions to implement the revised pension. Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar, representing the Central government, submitted that the government would expedite the process for brining in the amendment. The Court held that the relief granted in the judgment is subject to the legislative amendment. It, therefore, recorded the submissions made by the SG and disposed of the application..6. Cricket Association of Bihar Patna & Anr. v. Board of Control for Cricket in India.Item 7 in court 1 – Interim Application 6/ 2015 in Civil Appeal 6745/2011.Bench: Chief Justice HL Dattu, Arun Mishra J., Amitava Roy J..Check evening updates to know more about this case..Today in court: This case could not be tracked. Any lead/ information would be appreciated..7. Satish Kumar Aggarwal v. Punjab and Haryana High Court.Item 38 in court 1 – SLP (Civil)…./2015 .Bench: Chief Justice HL Dattu, Arun Mishra J., Amitava Roy J..A fresh appeal..Today in court: This case could not be tracked. Any lead/ information would be appreciated..8. Acharya Pramod Krishnam v. Union of India & Anr..Item 65 in court 1 – Writ Petition (Crl) 131/2015.Bench: Chief Justice HL Dattu, Arun Mishra J., Amitava Roy J..A fresh public interest litigation petition..Today in court: This petition was withdrawn with liberty to approach the appropriate forum..9. Common Cause & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors..Item 66 in court 1 – Writ Petition (Civil) 505/2015.Bench: Chief Justice HL Dattu, Arun Mishra J., Amitava Roy J..A fresh public interest litigation petition..10. Reepak Kansal v. Union of India .Item 70 in court 1 – Writ Petition (Civil) 297/2015.Bench: Chief Justice HL Dattu, Arun Mishra J., Amitava Roy J..A fresh public interest litigation petition..Today in court: This case could not be tracked. Any lead/ information would be appreciated..Delhi High Court.1. Nyayaa Path (NGO) Vs LT. Governor of NCT of Delhi And Ors.[Item 17, Court 13- WP (C) 6681/2015].Bench- VP Vaish J..Writ petition filed by an NGO Nyayaa Path challenging ads published by the Kejriwal government..The Bench had sought a reply from the Centre within a week, regarding the steps taken by them to implement the Supreme Court Guidelines..Today in Court- After the Standing Counsel for Delhi Govt sought time to file their reply, the matter will now be taken up on August 6. As for the Centre’s reply, counsel appearing for the Union Anil Soni informed the Court that the Department of Legal Affairs had given the go-ahead for formation of the said Committee but it may take time to fructify, due to the number of clearances and approvals required for such an assignment..2. Sugandhi Snuff King Pvt Ltd & Anr Vs. Commissioner (Food Safety) Govt of NCT of Delhi (Lead matter in a batch of 4 connected matters) .[Item 15, Court 13- WP (C) 3362/2015].Bench- VP Vaish J..The matter pertains to a blanket ban on the manufacture and sale of all forms of chewable tobacco, including gutka, khaini and zarda, for one year in Delhi. A Single Bench of the Delhi High Court had stayed the notification in April and further directed the Delhi Government to not take ‘coercive action’ till the next date of hearing..On May 20th, the Delhi Govt approached the HC for vacation of stay with Senior Advocate Indira Jaising arguing that, ‘the ban had been imposed for reasons of public health and interest.’ However, no interim relief was granted..Today in Court- Senior Advocates CS Vaidyanathan and Indira Jaising appeared for the petitioners and respondents respectively, and informed the Court that they were ready for final arguments as the pleadings were complete in the issue..However, despite the insistence of both Counsels to finish arguments today, Justice Vaish adjourned the matter to September 1..3. Ajay Maken v Union of India & Anr.[Item 32, Court 1- WP (C) 6702/2015].Bench: Chief Justice G Rohini, Jayant Nath J..A petition filed by Congress leader Ajay Maken against Aam Aadmi Party’s ad campaigns..During the last hearing, the Bench had sought a “detailed report” from the Delhi Govt over the expenditure incurred in publishing these advertisements..Today in Court- The Bench posted the matter for further hearing on August 5.
Supreme Court.1. Justice (Retd.) Markandey Katju v. The Lok Sabha & Anr..Item 9 in court 2 – Writ Petition (Civil) 504/2015 .Bench: TS Thakur J., V Gopala Gowda J., R Banumathi J..A petition filed by ex-SC judge Justice Markandey Katju seeking quashing of resolutions passed by Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha condemning him for his remarks about Mahatma Gandhi and Subhas Chandra Bose. Justice Katju has claimed violation of rights under Articles 14, 19(1) (a) and 21. Senior Advocate Gopal Subramanium may appear for Katju. You can read more about the petition here..Today in court: Read the full report here..2. Arun Kumar & Anr. v. Supreme Court of India.Item 31 in court 3 – Writ Petition (Civil) 371/2015.Bench: Anil R Dave J., Kurian Joseph J..A batch of petitions filed by advocates challenging the Advocate on Record system as violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The Court had issued notice in the case on July 1. Read more about the case here..Today in court: Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra appeared on behalf of Supreme Court and sought time to file reply which was granted. An application to implead the Union government was also allowed..3. SEBI v. Sahara India Real Estate Corpn. Ltd..Item 301 in court 2 – IA 68-70, 71-73 & 74-76 in Conmt. Pet. (C) NO. 412/2012.Bench: TS Thakur J., Anil R Dave J., AK Sikri J..Various interim applications including the one pertaining to sale of Gorakhpur property belonging to Sahara. When the matter was last heard, the court turned into an auction hall with competing bids being placed by two companies – Samriddhi Developers and Gorakhpur Real Estate Developers – both vying for the Gorakhpur property. The Court then decided to set a base price of Rs. 150 crore for the property. The two companies were then directed to deposit Rs. 37.5 crore before July 31 in the SEBI-Sahara refund account to prove their bonafides in buying the property..Today in court: The Gorakhpur Real Estate Developers bagged the right to buy Gorakhpur property. Their bid price of Rs. 152 crore was 2 crore more than the bid placed by Samriddhi Developers..4. KD Khera v. Union of India & Ors. .Item 69 in court 1 – Writ Petition (Civil) 225/2015.Bench: Chief Justice HL Dattu, Arun Mishra J., Amitava Roy J..This petition challenges the eligibility criteria for the appointments of MD and CEO of five public sector banks—Bank of Baroda, Bank of India, Canara Bank, IDBI Bank Ltd and Punjab National Bank. The petitioner has prayed that the posts should be filled up from the executive cadre of these public sector banks and not from the private sector..The Court had issued notice in this case on May 5. When the matter was last heard on July 13, the Centre was granted a further time of two weeks to file its response..Today in court: Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi told the court that they have amended the notification pertaining to the eligibility criteria and more than 70 per cent of the applicants after that are PSU employees..The court issued notice in a new petition filed by All India Bank Owners Officers Federation..5. Assn. Retd. Juges, S. Court & H. Court v. Union of India & Anr. .Item 62 in court 8 – IA Nos. 3 & 4/2015 in Writ Petition (Civil) 523/2002.Bench: Ranjan Gogoi J., NV Ramana J..Check evening updates to know more about this case..Today in court: These are interim applications filed subsequent to a judgment of the Supreme Court which laid down that experience at the Bar should be taken into account for computing pension of retired High Court judges. Though more than a year passed since the judgment was delivered, the government had not brought in the requisite amendments in the statute to implement the directions in the judgment prompting the application..Senior Advocate PP Rao, appearing for the petitioner today, contended that the direction of this court is a self-operating direction and no legislative amendment is required and sought for directions to implement the revised pension. Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar, representing the Central government, submitted that the government would expedite the process for brining in the amendment. The Court held that the relief granted in the judgment is subject to the legislative amendment. It, therefore, recorded the submissions made by the SG and disposed of the application..6. Cricket Association of Bihar Patna & Anr. v. Board of Control for Cricket in India.Item 7 in court 1 – Interim Application 6/ 2015 in Civil Appeal 6745/2011.Bench: Chief Justice HL Dattu, Arun Mishra J., Amitava Roy J..Check evening updates to know more about this case..Today in court: This case could not be tracked. Any lead/ information would be appreciated..7. Satish Kumar Aggarwal v. Punjab and Haryana High Court.Item 38 in court 1 – SLP (Civil)…./2015 .Bench: Chief Justice HL Dattu, Arun Mishra J., Amitava Roy J..A fresh appeal..Today in court: This case could not be tracked. Any lead/ information would be appreciated..8. Acharya Pramod Krishnam v. Union of India & Anr..Item 65 in court 1 – Writ Petition (Crl) 131/2015.Bench: Chief Justice HL Dattu, Arun Mishra J., Amitava Roy J..A fresh public interest litigation petition..Today in court: This petition was withdrawn with liberty to approach the appropriate forum..9. Common Cause & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors..Item 66 in court 1 – Writ Petition (Civil) 505/2015.Bench: Chief Justice HL Dattu, Arun Mishra J., Amitava Roy J..A fresh public interest litigation petition..10. Reepak Kansal v. Union of India .Item 70 in court 1 – Writ Petition (Civil) 297/2015.Bench: Chief Justice HL Dattu, Arun Mishra J., Amitava Roy J..A fresh public interest litigation petition..Today in court: This case could not be tracked. Any lead/ information would be appreciated..Delhi High Court.1. Nyayaa Path (NGO) Vs LT. Governor of NCT of Delhi And Ors.[Item 17, Court 13- WP (C) 6681/2015].Bench- VP Vaish J..Writ petition filed by an NGO Nyayaa Path challenging ads published by the Kejriwal government..The Bench had sought a reply from the Centre within a week, regarding the steps taken by them to implement the Supreme Court Guidelines..Today in Court- After the Standing Counsel for Delhi Govt sought time to file their reply, the matter will now be taken up on August 6. As for the Centre’s reply, counsel appearing for the Union Anil Soni informed the Court that the Department of Legal Affairs had given the go-ahead for formation of the said Committee but it may take time to fructify, due to the number of clearances and approvals required for such an assignment..2. Sugandhi Snuff King Pvt Ltd & Anr Vs. Commissioner (Food Safety) Govt of NCT of Delhi (Lead matter in a batch of 4 connected matters) .[Item 15, Court 13- WP (C) 3362/2015].Bench- VP Vaish J..The matter pertains to a blanket ban on the manufacture and sale of all forms of chewable tobacco, including gutka, khaini and zarda, for one year in Delhi. A Single Bench of the Delhi High Court had stayed the notification in April and further directed the Delhi Government to not take ‘coercive action’ till the next date of hearing..On May 20th, the Delhi Govt approached the HC for vacation of stay with Senior Advocate Indira Jaising arguing that, ‘the ban had been imposed for reasons of public health and interest.’ However, no interim relief was granted..Today in Court- Senior Advocates CS Vaidyanathan and Indira Jaising appeared for the petitioners and respondents respectively, and informed the Court that they were ready for final arguments as the pleadings were complete in the issue..However, despite the insistence of both Counsels to finish arguments today, Justice Vaish adjourned the matter to September 1..3. Ajay Maken v Union of India & Anr.[Item 32, Court 1- WP (C) 6702/2015].Bench: Chief Justice G Rohini, Jayant Nath J..A petition filed by Congress leader Ajay Maken against Aam Aadmi Party’s ad campaigns..During the last hearing, the Bench had sought a “detailed report” from the Delhi Govt over the expenditure incurred in publishing these advertisements..Today in Court- The Bench posted the matter for further hearing on August 5.
