Supreme Court of India.1. Indian Hotel & Restaurant Association & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr..[Item 11 in court 5 – Writ Petition (C) No. 793 of 2014].Bench: Dipak Misra J., Prafulla C Pant J..A petition challenging the Constitutional validity of certain provisions in Maharashtra Police (second amendment) Act which bans dance performances at bars and hotels in Maharashtra. The provisions were allegedly re-enacted after the Supreme Court had struck them down in an earlier judgment. The association has submitted that the Act violates the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14 and 19(1)(g)..When the matter was heard yesterday, Senior Advocate Jayant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the State’s action of re-enacting a provision, which the Supreme Court had struck down earlier, does not invalidate the judgment of the Supreme Court. The case was adjourned for today since the State government’s advocate and the Attorney General were held up in other courts..Today in court: The Court stayed the operation of the provision under challenge – Section 33A of the Maharashtra Police Act and listed the matter for final disposal on November 5..2. Rajbala & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors..[Item 1 in court 6 – Writ Petition (Civil) 671/2015].Bench: Jasti Chelameswar J., AM Sapre J. .A challenge to the validity of the Haryana Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Act, 2015 which, fixes minimum educational qualifications for candidates to contest Panchayat polls. The Supreme Court had stayed the operation of the Act whereupon the Panchayat polls had been deferred in Haryana. Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi is now arguing for the State of Haryana. The hearing will resume at 10.30 am today. Read more here..Today in court: This case could not be tracked. Any update would be appreciated..3. Justice KS Puttaswamy (Retd) & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors..[Item 501 in court 1 at 2 pm – Writ Petition (Civil) 494/2012].Chief Justice HL Dattu, MY Eqbal J., C Nagappan J., Arun Mishra J., Amitava Roy J..Challenge to the Aadhaar scheme. Read about yesterday’s hearing here..Today in court: The Court modified the interim order passed on August 11 and extended the permission given to the government to use Aadhaar for 4 more schemes – MNREGA, Pension, Provident Fund and Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojna. It also directed that a larger Bench be constituted for deciding the issue pertaining to Right to privacy..National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.Union of India v. Nestle India Ltd, Nestle House.[Item 16, Court 6 – CC/870/2015].Bench: VK Jain J, Dr. BC Gupta.A class action suit filed by the Government against Nestle, citing ‘serious violations under the Consumer Act’ in connection with the sale of Maggi. The Bench had issued notice to Nestle and sought its reply..On the last hearing, Senior Counsels Iqbal Chagla & Arvind Nigam had appeared for Nestle. Chagla had argued that the NCDRC lacked jurisdiction to hear the dispute and the Central Government was agitating the same issues raised in the class action suit, that had previously been “well settled” by the Bombay High Court. .Today in Court: You can read the detailed report here.
Supreme Court of India.1. Indian Hotel & Restaurant Association & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr..[Item 11 in court 5 – Writ Petition (C) No. 793 of 2014].Bench: Dipak Misra J., Prafulla C Pant J..A petition challenging the Constitutional validity of certain provisions in Maharashtra Police (second amendment) Act which bans dance performances at bars and hotels in Maharashtra. The provisions were allegedly re-enacted after the Supreme Court had struck them down in an earlier judgment. The association has submitted that the Act violates the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14 and 19(1)(g)..When the matter was heard yesterday, Senior Advocate Jayant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the State’s action of re-enacting a provision, which the Supreme Court had struck down earlier, does not invalidate the judgment of the Supreme Court. The case was adjourned for today since the State government’s advocate and the Attorney General were held up in other courts..Today in court: The Court stayed the operation of the provision under challenge – Section 33A of the Maharashtra Police Act and listed the matter for final disposal on November 5..2. Rajbala & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors..[Item 1 in court 6 – Writ Petition (Civil) 671/2015].Bench: Jasti Chelameswar J., AM Sapre J. .A challenge to the validity of the Haryana Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Act, 2015 which, fixes minimum educational qualifications for candidates to contest Panchayat polls. The Supreme Court had stayed the operation of the Act whereupon the Panchayat polls had been deferred in Haryana. Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi is now arguing for the State of Haryana. The hearing will resume at 10.30 am today. Read more here..Today in court: This case could not be tracked. Any update would be appreciated..3. Justice KS Puttaswamy (Retd) & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors..[Item 501 in court 1 at 2 pm – Writ Petition (Civil) 494/2012].Chief Justice HL Dattu, MY Eqbal J., C Nagappan J., Arun Mishra J., Amitava Roy J..Challenge to the Aadhaar scheme. Read about yesterday’s hearing here..Today in court: The Court modified the interim order passed on August 11 and extended the permission given to the government to use Aadhaar for 4 more schemes – MNREGA, Pension, Provident Fund and Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojna. It also directed that a larger Bench be constituted for deciding the issue pertaining to Right to privacy..National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.Union of India v. Nestle India Ltd, Nestle House.[Item 16, Court 6 – CC/870/2015].Bench: VK Jain J, Dr. BC Gupta.A class action suit filed by the Government against Nestle, citing ‘serious violations under the Consumer Act’ in connection with the sale of Maggi. The Bench had issued notice to Nestle and sought its reply..On the last hearing, Senior Counsels Iqbal Chagla & Arvind Nigam had appeared for Nestle. Chagla had argued that the NCDRC lacked jurisdiction to hear the dispute and the Central Government was agitating the same issues raised in the class action suit, that had previously been “well settled” by the Bombay High Court. .Today in Court: You can read the detailed report here.
