Supreme Court of India.1. Somnath Bharti v. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi).[Item 59 in court 1 – SLP(Crl) No. 8183/2015].Bench: Chief Justice HL Dattu, Amitava Roy J. .The anticipatory bail plea of AAP politician Somnath Bharti in relation to a complaint of domestic violence filed by his wife. His plea had been rejected by the Delhi High Court after which he had gone into hiding. His lawyer had then moved the Supreme Court and sought an early hearing, which was, surprisingly, granted..When the matter was taken up on September 28, the Court made it clear that it will hear the case only if Bharti surrenders. “First surrender and then come before us. We will see what can be done. We can send the matter to the Mediation Centre. If you surrender, we will hear you on Thursday”, said Justice Dattu. Senior Advocate Gopal Subramanium appearing for Bharti had agreed to the same..Today in court: The Court issued notice to Bharti’s wife and directed her to be present before the Court on Monday so that possibilities of mediation can be explored. Justice Amitava Roy said that the there is no assurance of any kind that Bharti “will be granted bail”; except that the Court will hear him out and then decide. The court refused any interim relief saying that it will wait for the outcome of the proceedings before the Magistrate before making any decision..2. Dayanidhi Maran v. The State by Deputy Superintendent of Police.[Item 8 in court 2 – SLP(Crl) 6582-6583/2015].Bench: TS Thakur J., Gopala Gowda J..The appeal filed by ex-Telecom Minister Dayanidhi Maran against a Madras High Court order rejecting anticipatory bail plea. When the matter was heard on August 12, the Supreme Court had stayed the High Court judgment cancelling Maran’s anticipatory bail and had issued notice to CBI. When the matter was last heard, the court had granted time to the parties to complete their pleadings and adjourned the matter..Today in court: The court granted the time to the CBI to respond to the latest documents filed by Maran and adjourned the matter for 2 weeks..3. K Saravanan Karuppasamy & Anr v. State of T.Nadu & Ors.[Item 1 in court 2 – IA 6/2015 in Writ Petition (Civil) 400/2010].Bench: TS Thakur J., V Gopala Gowda J. .This is an interim application filed in a case pertaining to the alleged caste violence that erupted in Dr. Amedkar Government Law College, Chennai in 2008. The Court vide its judgment in 2014 had directed the Metropolitan Magistrate to take the cases relating to the College on file and dispose of the cases within a year..Check evening updates to know more about the case..Today in court: More time was sought to complete the trial which was allowed by the Supreme Court. The Court has allowed another six weeks for the same..4. M Siva Sankara Prasad v. High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Registrar General & Ors..[Item 10 in court 1 – Writ Petition (Civil) 696/2015].Bench: Chief Justice HL Dattu, Amitava Roy J..Check evening updates to know more about the case..Today in court: This case could not be tracked..5. Suresh Ram v. Union of India & Anr..[Item 50 in court 1 – Writ Petition (Civil) 691/2015].Bench: Chief Justice HL Dattu, Amitava Roy J. .A fresh public interest litigation petition..Today in court: The court allowed the petitioner to withdraw the petition and granted him the liberty to approach the concerned High Court..6. M/s. Centre for Consumer Education (regd) through Managing Trustee, Dejo Kappen v. Union of India & Anr..[Item 52 in court 1 – Writ Petition (Civil) 703/2015].Bench: Chief Justice HL Dattu, Amitava Roy J. .A fresh public interest litigation petition..Today in court: This case raised the issue of whether the Attorney General for India can be permitted to appear for private parties. The Court dismissed the case with Chief Justice Dattu remarking that “as long as there is no conflict of interest, he can appear for private parties”..Delhi High Court.Association of Radio Taxis Vs Union of India & Ors. .[Item 10, Court 1- WP (C) 6000/2015].Bench: Chief Justice G Rohini, Jayant Nath J. .A plea filed by the association of radio taxi operators seeking to shut down the app-based cabs which were non licensed and take them off Delhi roads..Previously, Justice Mukta Gupta had refused to provide any interim relief to the Petitioner and had directed for the present petition to be tagged with other similar matters pending before the Division Bench..Today in Court- Senior Counsel Nidhesh Gupta appearing for the Association submitted before the Bench that the app-based companies were violating the ban orders of the Court as well as of the Government, with “impunity”. He also informed the Court that when they were questioned about this, the rationale given by the companies was that the Court’s order operated only qua OLA cabs and not on them..The Bench sought a response from the Delhi Government in this regard but since no counsel for the Government was present in Court, the Bench posted the matter for further hearing on October 5.
Supreme Court of India.1. Somnath Bharti v. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi).[Item 59 in court 1 – SLP(Crl) No. 8183/2015].Bench: Chief Justice HL Dattu, Amitava Roy J. .The anticipatory bail plea of AAP politician Somnath Bharti in relation to a complaint of domestic violence filed by his wife. His plea had been rejected by the Delhi High Court after which he had gone into hiding. His lawyer had then moved the Supreme Court and sought an early hearing, which was, surprisingly, granted..When the matter was taken up on September 28, the Court made it clear that it will hear the case only if Bharti surrenders. “First surrender and then come before us. We will see what can be done. We can send the matter to the Mediation Centre. If you surrender, we will hear you on Thursday”, said Justice Dattu. Senior Advocate Gopal Subramanium appearing for Bharti had agreed to the same..Today in court: The Court issued notice to Bharti’s wife and directed her to be present before the Court on Monday so that possibilities of mediation can be explored. Justice Amitava Roy said that the there is no assurance of any kind that Bharti “will be granted bail”; except that the Court will hear him out and then decide. The court refused any interim relief saying that it will wait for the outcome of the proceedings before the Magistrate before making any decision..2. Dayanidhi Maran v. The State by Deputy Superintendent of Police.[Item 8 in court 2 – SLP(Crl) 6582-6583/2015].Bench: TS Thakur J., Gopala Gowda J..The appeal filed by ex-Telecom Minister Dayanidhi Maran against a Madras High Court order rejecting anticipatory bail plea. When the matter was heard on August 12, the Supreme Court had stayed the High Court judgment cancelling Maran’s anticipatory bail and had issued notice to CBI. When the matter was last heard, the court had granted time to the parties to complete their pleadings and adjourned the matter..Today in court: The court granted the time to the CBI to respond to the latest documents filed by Maran and adjourned the matter for 2 weeks..3. K Saravanan Karuppasamy & Anr v. State of T.Nadu & Ors.[Item 1 in court 2 – IA 6/2015 in Writ Petition (Civil) 400/2010].Bench: TS Thakur J., V Gopala Gowda J. .This is an interim application filed in a case pertaining to the alleged caste violence that erupted in Dr. Amedkar Government Law College, Chennai in 2008. The Court vide its judgment in 2014 had directed the Metropolitan Magistrate to take the cases relating to the College on file and dispose of the cases within a year..Check evening updates to know more about the case..Today in court: More time was sought to complete the trial which was allowed by the Supreme Court. The Court has allowed another six weeks for the same..4. M Siva Sankara Prasad v. High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Registrar General & Ors..[Item 10 in court 1 – Writ Petition (Civil) 696/2015].Bench: Chief Justice HL Dattu, Amitava Roy J..Check evening updates to know more about the case..Today in court: This case could not be tracked..5. Suresh Ram v. Union of India & Anr..[Item 50 in court 1 – Writ Petition (Civil) 691/2015].Bench: Chief Justice HL Dattu, Amitava Roy J. .A fresh public interest litigation petition..Today in court: The court allowed the petitioner to withdraw the petition and granted him the liberty to approach the concerned High Court..6. M/s. Centre for Consumer Education (regd) through Managing Trustee, Dejo Kappen v. Union of India & Anr..[Item 52 in court 1 – Writ Petition (Civil) 703/2015].Bench: Chief Justice HL Dattu, Amitava Roy J. .A fresh public interest litigation petition..Today in court: This case raised the issue of whether the Attorney General for India can be permitted to appear for private parties. The Court dismissed the case with Chief Justice Dattu remarking that “as long as there is no conflict of interest, he can appear for private parties”..Delhi High Court.Association of Radio Taxis Vs Union of India & Ors. .[Item 10, Court 1- WP (C) 6000/2015].Bench: Chief Justice G Rohini, Jayant Nath J. .A plea filed by the association of radio taxi operators seeking to shut down the app-based cabs which were non licensed and take them off Delhi roads..Previously, Justice Mukta Gupta had refused to provide any interim relief to the Petitioner and had directed for the present petition to be tagged with other similar matters pending before the Division Bench..Today in Court- Senior Counsel Nidhesh Gupta appearing for the Association submitted before the Bench that the app-based companies were violating the ban orders of the Court as well as of the Government, with “impunity”. He also informed the Court that when they were questioned about this, the rationale given by the companies was that the Court’s order operated only qua OLA cabs and not on them..The Bench sought a response from the Delhi Government in this regard but since no counsel for the Government was present in Court, the Bench posted the matter for further hearing on October 5.
