Supreme Court of India.1. Satish Kumar and Anr v. Union of India and Ors..[Item 66 in court 1 – Writ Petition (Civil) 649/2015].Bench: Chief Justice HL Dattu, Amitava Roy J. .A fresh public interest litigation petition..Today in court: The Court refused to entertain this petition and directed the petitioner to approach the High Court..2. SEBI v. Sahara India Real Estate Corpn. Ltd.&Ors..[Item 301 in court 2 – Conmt. Pet. (Civil) 412/2012 in CA 9813/2011 and Conmt. Pet. (Civil) 413/2012 in CA 9833/2011 and Conmt. Pet. (Civil) 260/2013 in CA 8643/2012].Bench: TS Thakur J., Anil R Dave J., AK Sikri J. .The SEBI Sahara dispute. When the matter was last heard, the Court had asked Sahara to submit details of its agreement with Reuben Brothers who had taken over Sahara’s loan from the Bank of China. This came after concerns were raised that Indian courts might lose jurisdiction over the luxury hotels owned by Sahara, if Sahara defaults in payment to Reuben brothers..Further, two firms, Kane Capital and Madison Capital submitted their bids for Sahara’s luxury hotels to the Supreme Court. Kane is eyeing the Grosvenor House in London while Madison has bid for the New York Hotels..SEBI has, however, filed an application seeking appointment of receiver to auction Sahara’s assets and recover the money..Today in court: This matter was deleted from the list..3. JCE Consultancy v. Lee Kun Hee & Ors..[Item 6 in court 4 – Conmt.Pet.(Civil) 381/2015 in Crl.A. 304/2012].Bench: JS Khehar J., R Banumathi J. .This is a matter in which Samsung Chairman Lee Kun Hee was ordered by the Supreme Court to appear before a Ghaziabad court in connection with a dispute over non-payment of $1.4 million by the South Korean firm to an Indian vendor. The Indian vendor, JCE consultancy, had filed a criminal complaint against Samsung, Dubai and its Chairman Lee for failing to “honour” a commitment under a bill of exchange. The trial court had issued a summons to Lee. Lee had then moved the Supreme Court seeking quashing of the same which was disallowed..The trial court had then issued an arrest warrant against him for not appearing before it in the case. Subsequently, the Supreme Court had directed that the arrest warrant should not be executed for six weeks and had asked Lee to appear before the Court and seek bail or exemption from appearance. .Today in court: This case was adjourned for 4 weeks..4. Shailesh Narain Pathak v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh and Ors..[Item 37in court 4 – SLP(C) NO. 26293/2015].Bench: JS Khehar J., R Banumathi J. .A fresh petition. Check evening updates to know more about this case..Today in court: This petition was dismissed..Delhi High Court.1. Bar Council of India Vs Mahendar Kumar Mehta.[Item 34, Court 9- WP (C) 8871/2015].Bench: RS Endlaw J..The issue that arose in the petition was regarding an RTI filed by Mehta to access specific case records available with the Bar Council..Today in Court: The Counsel appearing for Bar Council of India submitted before the Bench that the said records were open to the general public for inspection but due to paucity of financial resources, the same could not be published on the website..He also submitted that they were willing to supply the information in the said format and sought permission to withdraw the petition. The Bench noted the submission and ordered for the petition to be dismissed, as withdrawn..2. Shriti Verma Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr. .[Item 7, Court 1- WP (C) 8915/2015].Bench: Chief Justice, Jayant Nath J. .The petition was filed seeking directions from the Court to order suspension of licenses of Uber Cabs and other similar web-based taxi operators in India, pending their compliance to the safety norms prescribed under the Radio Taxi (Amended) Scheme 2006 and also the City Taxi Scheme of 2015..Today in Court: Noticing that a similar matter (Sandeep Dahiya Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.) was pending before the Court, the Bench questioned the Counsel appearing for the Delhi Govt as to what steps had they taken to ensure compliance. The matter was adjourned for two weeks to enable the Delhi Govt to file their reply and explain their stance. It will now be heard in October.
Supreme Court of India.1. Satish Kumar and Anr v. Union of India and Ors..[Item 66 in court 1 – Writ Petition (Civil) 649/2015].Bench: Chief Justice HL Dattu, Amitava Roy J. .A fresh public interest litigation petition..Today in court: The Court refused to entertain this petition and directed the petitioner to approach the High Court..2. SEBI v. Sahara India Real Estate Corpn. Ltd.&Ors..[Item 301 in court 2 – Conmt. Pet. (Civil) 412/2012 in CA 9813/2011 and Conmt. Pet. (Civil) 413/2012 in CA 9833/2011 and Conmt. Pet. (Civil) 260/2013 in CA 8643/2012].Bench: TS Thakur J., Anil R Dave J., AK Sikri J. .The SEBI Sahara dispute. When the matter was last heard, the Court had asked Sahara to submit details of its agreement with Reuben Brothers who had taken over Sahara’s loan from the Bank of China. This came after concerns were raised that Indian courts might lose jurisdiction over the luxury hotels owned by Sahara, if Sahara defaults in payment to Reuben brothers..Further, two firms, Kane Capital and Madison Capital submitted their bids for Sahara’s luxury hotels to the Supreme Court. Kane is eyeing the Grosvenor House in London while Madison has bid for the New York Hotels..SEBI has, however, filed an application seeking appointment of receiver to auction Sahara’s assets and recover the money..Today in court: This matter was deleted from the list..3. JCE Consultancy v. Lee Kun Hee & Ors..[Item 6 in court 4 – Conmt.Pet.(Civil) 381/2015 in Crl.A. 304/2012].Bench: JS Khehar J., R Banumathi J. .This is a matter in which Samsung Chairman Lee Kun Hee was ordered by the Supreme Court to appear before a Ghaziabad court in connection with a dispute over non-payment of $1.4 million by the South Korean firm to an Indian vendor. The Indian vendor, JCE consultancy, had filed a criminal complaint against Samsung, Dubai and its Chairman Lee for failing to “honour” a commitment under a bill of exchange. The trial court had issued a summons to Lee. Lee had then moved the Supreme Court seeking quashing of the same which was disallowed..The trial court had then issued an arrest warrant against him for not appearing before it in the case. Subsequently, the Supreme Court had directed that the arrest warrant should not be executed for six weeks and had asked Lee to appear before the Court and seek bail or exemption from appearance. .Today in court: This case was adjourned for 4 weeks..4. Shailesh Narain Pathak v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh and Ors..[Item 37in court 4 – SLP(C) NO. 26293/2015].Bench: JS Khehar J., R Banumathi J. .A fresh petition. Check evening updates to know more about this case..Today in court: This petition was dismissed..Delhi High Court.1. Bar Council of India Vs Mahendar Kumar Mehta.[Item 34, Court 9- WP (C) 8871/2015].Bench: RS Endlaw J..The issue that arose in the petition was regarding an RTI filed by Mehta to access specific case records available with the Bar Council..Today in Court: The Counsel appearing for Bar Council of India submitted before the Bench that the said records were open to the general public for inspection but due to paucity of financial resources, the same could not be published on the website..He also submitted that they were willing to supply the information in the said format and sought permission to withdraw the petition. The Bench noted the submission and ordered for the petition to be dismissed, as withdrawn..2. Shriti Verma Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr. .[Item 7, Court 1- WP (C) 8915/2015].Bench: Chief Justice, Jayant Nath J. .The petition was filed seeking directions from the Court to order suspension of licenses of Uber Cabs and other similar web-based taxi operators in India, pending their compliance to the safety norms prescribed under the Radio Taxi (Amended) Scheme 2006 and also the City Taxi Scheme of 2015..Today in Court: Noticing that a similar matter (Sandeep Dahiya Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.) was pending before the Court, the Bench questioned the Counsel appearing for the Delhi Govt as to what steps had they taken to ensure compliance. The matter was adjourned for two weeks to enable the Delhi Govt to file their reply and explain their stance. It will now be heard in October.
