The B&B Causelist #1: July 1, 2015 (Evening updates)

Bar & Bench’s Causelist brings you a glimpse of cases that we will track for you over the day from different courts across the country. Watch this space for updates at 5:30 pm on what happened in the following cases..Supreme Court.Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. v. Sanjay Dalia &Anr..[Judgment – Item 1A in Court 1 – Civil Appeal 10643 – 10644/2010].The case pertains to territorial jurisdiction in copyright cases and involves interpretation of Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957 and Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is an appeal from the Delhi High Court which had held that if the cause of action has arisen at a place where the Plaintiff actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain, that is the only place where a suit can be instituted..Today in court: The Court dismissed the appeal thereby upholding the High Court ruling..Vibhor Anand v. Registrar General of High Court of Delhi and Anr..[Item 26 in Court 1 – Writ Petition (Civil) 282/2015].The case is a Public Interest Litigation filed by law student Vibhor Anand seeking investigation into misuse of funds, allocated for purchase of laptops by Delhi judges. Will the Supreme Court interfere given that the High Court has already constituted a 3-judge panel to investigate..Today in court: The Court dismissed the case on the ground that the High Court has already constituted a panel to look into the matter. Advocate VK Anand appeared for the petitioner..Chief Justice Dattu chose not to entertain the matter saying that,.“You know what the learned Chief Justice (of Delhi High Court) has done in the matter. When this petition was filed, I called up the Chief Justice to know what she has done. She said that she has already constituted a panel of three senior judges to look into the matter.”.K Shravan Kumar v. Bar Council of India.[Item 72 in Court 1 – Writ Petition (Civil) 124/2014].The petitioner has challenged the Explanation to Rule 5 of the Legal Education Rules, 2008 framed by the Bar Council of India alleging violation of Fundamental Rights. The impugned provision states that those who have obtained 10+2 or graduation/ post-graduation through open Universities system directly without having any basic qualification for prosecuting such studies will not be eligible for admission to law courses. Notice was issued in the case on February 24, 2014. When the matter was listed on April 24, 2015, the Court noted that the “petition stands complete” and directed the Registry to list the matter as per Rules..Today in court: The matter was adjourned for two weeks..JB Ravi, Advocate & Anr. v. Supreme Court of India & Anr..[Item 21 in Court 3 –Writ Petition (Civil) 292/2015].A fresh Public Interest Litigation..Today in court: This fresh PIL is a challenge to Section 52 (b) of the Advocates Act, 1961 and Rules 1, 5, 7(a)(i), 7(b)(i) and 7(c) of Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 which deal with the Advocate-on-Record System followed by the Supreme Court. The Court issued notice in the matter. Senior Advocate Ram Jethmalani appeared for the petitioner in the case..You can read more about this case here..Viacom 18 Media Pvt Limited v. Union of India & Anr..[Item 66 in Court 5 – SLP (Civil) 32182/2014].The case pertains to a ban imposed on television channel Comedy Central by the Delhi High Court for broadcasting offensive content. Viacom 18 had then moved the Supreme Court with Senior Advocates Harish Salve, Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Indu Malhotra appearing for it. They had secured an interim stay. When the matter was last listed on March 30, 2015, court had granted time to file counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit. The case assumes significance in that the Constitutionality of Section 20(2) of the Cable Television Network Regulation Act, 1995 might be tested against freedom of speech and expression..Today in court: The Court directed the petitioner to file rejoinder affidavit and complete the pleadings before August 11, 2015 which has been fixed as the next date of hearing..Bombay High Court.Shubham Dutt v The Convenor, CLAT 2015 (UG) Exam & Ors.[Writ Petition (L) No 1784 of 2015].After hearing arguments for close to ninety minutes on June 25, a Division Bench of Justices Anoop V Mohta and VL Achliya had posted the matter for June 30 (yesterday). The Bench had also directed the filing of an affidavit explaining the findings of the expert committee. Yesterday, the Bench was not available, and hence the matter is to be mentioned today to be either heard today at 3 pm or tomorrow..Today in court: The Bench was not sitting today, hence the matter may be taken up tomorrow. Meanwhile, the 3rd list of CLAT allotments has been released..[Updated at 17:33].Delhi High Court .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 5- WP (C) 3362/2015 CM Appl. 6020/2015 CM Appl. 9243/2015].The matter pertains to March 25 notification imposing a blanket ban on the manufacture and sale of chewing tobacco for one year in Delhi. This notification led to banning of all forms of chewable tobacco, including gutka, khaini and zarda in the national capital. 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..Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi had appeared for SK Tobacco Industries.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: On account of Ms. Jaising’s absence, lawyers appearing for GNCT mentioned it and the Bench adjourned it for August 5th..Vishwas Kumar Sharma Vs. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors..[Item 6- WP (C) 4812/2015 CM Appl. 8703/2015].The issue here pertains to issuing of summons by Delhi Commission for Women (DCW) against AAP politico Kumar Vishwas. Vishwas had challenged the summons before the Delhi High Court..Delhi’s former Law Minister Somnath Bharti had appeared for Vishwas in the earlier two hearings before Justice Rajiv Shakhder. The Bench directed for impleadment of the complainant as also deletion of GNCT as a party to the proceeding. It had also come down hard on Bharti for attempting to give the issue a political twist and berated him for bringing politics inside a court of law..Today in court: Adjourned for two weeks in order to enable DCW to file a detailed reply and clarify if the said complaint was dropped. Justice VP Vaish was categorical when he addressed Bharti stating that the matter shall solely be heard on merits on the next date of hearing i.e. 7th August.