A summary of important cases from the causelists of the Supreme Court of India, the Delhi High Court, the Bombay High Court and the NCDRC..Supreme Court of India.1. Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Registrar General of The High Court of Delhi.[Item 5 in court 4 – Writ Petition (Civil) 514/2015].Bench: Dipak Misra, PC Pant JJ..A petition challenging the alleged arbitrary valuation, and selection of candidates in the Delhi Judicial Service Exam, 2014. The Court had issued notice on August 4 but refused to stay the selection process. When the matter was heard on November 2, the Court had decided that it will appoint a former judge of the Supreme Court to revalue the answer scripts..When the matter was last heard, the Court said that the fifteen candidates, who have been selected for the judicial service, should also be impleaded in the case. Notice was issued to them and the matter was posted for today..Today in court: Court today said that it will appoint a retired apex court judge to re-examine the answer sheets of 659 candidates who had qualified the preliminary exam of the Delhi Judicial Service. Read the full report here..2. Extra Judl. Exec.Victim Families Assn & Anr v. Union of India & Anr.[Item 1 in court 8 – Writ Petition (Crl.) 129/2012].Bench: Madan B Lokur, UU Lalit JJ..Case pertaining to extra judicial killing in Manipur. Read more about the hearing here..Today in court: Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi is making his submissions. The hearing will continue tomorrow. Meanwhile, the Court issued show cause notice to certain media organisations on why contempt action should not be initiated against them for misreporting court proceedings..3. JCE Consultancy v. Lee Kun Hee & Ors..[Item 2 in court 12 – Contempt Petition (Civil) 381/2015 in Criminal Appeal 304/2012].Bench: PC Ghose J., RK Agrawal J..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 to an Indian vendor. A trial court had issued a summons to Lee; with Lee unsuccessfully moving to the apex court to quash the summons..The trial court then issued an arrest warrant. 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..When the matter was last heard, the matter had been adjourned..Today in court: The case was posted for final hearing on January 20..Delhi High Court.1.Shweta Kapoor Vs GNCT of Delhi & Anr. and Sarvesh Singh Vs GNCT of Delhi & Anr. .[Item 22, Court 1- W.P.(C) 11398/2015].Bench: Chief Justice G Rohini, Jayant Nath J. .Petitions challenging the odd/even vehicle scheme proposed by the Delhi Govt..Today in Court- The Bench was critical of the Petitioners for filing the petitions at a ‘premature stage’ for the Govt hadn’t yet come out with any notification etc to signal that the scheme had fallen in place. The matter will now be taken up on December 23..2. Yu Televentures Pvt Ltd Vs TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM Ericcson (Publ) & Ors and Rahul Sharma & Ors Vs TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM Ericcson (Publ) & Ors..[Item 26-27, Court 1- LPA 888/2015, LPA 889/2015].Bench: Chief Justice G Rohini, Jayant Nath J. .Check evening updates to know more about this case..Today in Court- This was an appeal filed by Yu Televentures, a subsidiary company of Micromax and the founder of Micromax Rahul Sharma against the adverse orders passed against the company by a Single Bench, recently. Bailable warrants had been issued by the Single Bench against directors of Yu which included Rahul Sharma. The Bench adjourned this matter to be heard on December 11..3. Krittika Padode and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr. .[Item 8 in Court 1 – Writ Petition (Civil) 2399/2015].Bench: Chief Justice G Rohini, Jayant Nath J..A petition challenging the ban imposed on the documentary India’s Daughter. The Court has granted multiple adjournments in this matter, without issuing notice, stating that it wished to peruse the I&B Ministry’s advisory (banning the film) before passing any order in the petition..On the last date of hearing, the I&B Ministry had produced the said Advisory and a copy was also made available to the Petitioners..Today in Court- This matter will be heard on February 9 after one of the Petitioners sought time to produce certain documents..National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.Union of India v. Nestle India Ltd, Nestle House.For Order.Bench: Justice VK Jain J, Dr. BC Gupta.A class action suit before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission filed by the Government against Nestle, citing ‘serious violations under the Consumer Act’ in connection with the sale of Maggi..On the last date of hearing, the Bench reserved its order on the Govt’s application seeking further testing of 31 batches of Maggi..Today in Court- The Bench directed for further testing to be conducted on 16 samples out of the 31 batches of Maggi. The matter will now be heard on January 12..Bombay High Court.1. Akhil Maharashtra Machimar and 4 Ors. V. The State of Maharashtra .[Item 1 in Court 4 – WPST/3063/2015 ].Bench : S.C. Dharamadhikari and B.P. Colabawalla JJ..Check Evening Updates.Today in Court: This was a challenge by a group of fishermen against the government’s decision to prohibit any fishing activity within the Chowpatty area. It was argued that the decision to prohibit such activity was taken to appease certain vegetarian groups who were pressurizing the government.The Bench held that the action taken by the government was for greater public good and there was no basis to the allegation of the government being pressurised. The government’s decision was upheld but the state was asked to look after the interest of these fishermen as it was the duty of the state to protect and rehabilitate them. The State assured the bench that necessary steps will be taken to fully rehabilitate the fishermen in any of the three areas namely- Cuffe Parade, Sassoon Docks or Mahim.2. Salman Salim Khan Vs The State of Maharashtra.[Item 1 in court 14 – APEAL (criminal) /572/2015 ].Bench : A.R. Joshi J..The film star’s appeal against conviction. The judge has started dictating the order, detailing the submissions made by both sides. He shall resume dictating today.Today in Court: Joshi J. stated that witnesses can be classified into three categories -wholly reliable, partially reliable and wholly unreliable and after examining all the facts of the case he said that Ravindra Patil was a ‘wholly unreliable’ witness. “Even if his statement has to be considered as partially reliable, there has to be corroboration in evidence which is not existing in this case”The judge also dismissed the state’s argument that PW-1, Ashok Singh’s entire conduct during the trial rendered him to be a ‘wholly unreliable’ witness. The verdict is expected to be delivered tomorrow.3. The State of Maharashtra V. Mirza Himayat Inayat Baig.[Item 1 in Court 11 – CONF (criminal) /4/2013 ].Bench : Justice Naresh H. Patil and Justice S.B. Shukre.The Best Bakery case. Check evening updates.Today in Court: Arguing against capital punishment for convict Mirza Himayat Baig the defence had claimed that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the traces of RDX found at the blast site were in fact remnants of the RDX used to trigger the blast.An intervener in the case is Ashish Khetan, a former journalist and a member of the Aam Admi Party. His lawyer today submitted that during Khetan’s interviews with the witnesses, Khetan was told that all the witnesses were coerced into giving the wrong statement with the mala fide intention of securing Baig’s conviction.The hearing on the matter will continue tomorrow, when the prosecution is expected to make submissions.
A summary of important cases from the causelists of the Supreme Court of India, the Delhi High Court, the Bombay High Court and the NCDRC..Supreme Court of India.1. Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Registrar General of The High Court of Delhi.[Item 5 in court 4 – Writ Petition (Civil) 514/2015].Bench: Dipak Misra, PC Pant JJ..A petition challenging the alleged arbitrary valuation, and selection of candidates in the Delhi Judicial Service Exam, 2014. The Court had issued notice on August 4 but refused to stay the selection process. When the matter was heard on November 2, the Court had decided that it will appoint a former judge of the Supreme Court to revalue the answer scripts..When the matter was last heard, the Court said that the fifteen candidates, who have been selected for the judicial service, should also be impleaded in the case. Notice was issued to them and the matter was posted for today..Today in court: Court today said that it will appoint a retired apex court judge to re-examine the answer sheets of 659 candidates who had qualified the preliminary exam of the Delhi Judicial Service. Read the full report here..2. Extra Judl. Exec.Victim Families Assn & Anr v. Union of India & Anr.[Item 1 in court 8 – Writ Petition (Crl.) 129/2012].Bench: Madan B Lokur, UU Lalit JJ..Case pertaining to extra judicial killing in Manipur. Read more about the hearing here..Today in court: Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi is making his submissions. The hearing will continue tomorrow. Meanwhile, the Court issued show cause notice to certain media organisations on why contempt action should not be initiated against them for misreporting court proceedings..3. JCE Consultancy v. Lee Kun Hee & Ors..[Item 2 in court 12 – Contempt Petition (Civil) 381/2015 in Criminal Appeal 304/2012].Bench: PC Ghose J., RK Agrawal J..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 to an Indian vendor. A trial court had issued a summons to Lee; with Lee unsuccessfully moving to the apex court to quash the summons..The trial court then issued an arrest warrant. 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..When the matter was last heard, the matter had been adjourned..Today in court: The case was posted for final hearing on January 20..Delhi High Court.1.Shweta Kapoor Vs GNCT of Delhi & Anr. and Sarvesh Singh Vs GNCT of Delhi & Anr. .[Item 22, Court 1- W.P.(C) 11398/2015].Bench: Chief Justice G Rohini, Jayant Nath J. .Petitions challenging the odd/even vehicle scheme proposed by the Delhi Govt..Today in Court- The Bench was critical of the Petitioners for filing the petitions at a ‘premature stage’ for the Govt hadn’t yet come out with any notification etc to signal that the scheme had fallen in place. The matter will now be taken up on December 23..2. Yu Televentures Pvt Ltd Vs TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM Ericcson (Publ) & Ors and Rahul Sharma & Ors Vs TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM Ericcson (Publ) & Ors..[Item 26-27, Court 1- LPA 888/2015, LPA 889/2015].Bench: Chief Justice G Rohini, Jayant Nath J. .Check evening updates to know more about this case..Today in Court- This was an appeal filed by Yu Televentures, a subsidiary company of Micromax and the founder of Micromax Rahul Sharma against the adverse orders passed against the company by a Single Bench, recently. Bailable warrants had been issued by the Single Bench against directors of Yu which included Rahul Sharma. The Bench adjourned this matter to be heard on December 11..3. Krittika Padode and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr. .[Item 8 in Court 1 – Writ Petition (Civil) 2399/2015].Bench: Chief Justice G Rohini, Jayant Nath J..A petition challenging the ban imposed on the documentary India’s Daughter. The Court has granted multiple adjournments in this matter, without issuing notice, stating that it wished to peruse the I&B Ministry’s advisory (banning the film) before passing any order in the petition..On the last date of hearing, the I&B Ministry had produced the said Advisory and a copy was also made available to the Petitioners..Today in Court- This matter will be heard on February 9 after one of the Petitioners sought time to produce certain documents..National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.Union of India v. Nestle India Ltd, Nestle House.For Order.Bench: Justice VK Jain J, Dr. BC Gupta.A class action suit before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission filed by the Government against Nestle, citing ‘serious violations under the Consumer Act’ in connection with the sale of Maggi..On the last date of hearing, the Bench reserved its order on the Govt’s application seeking further testing of 31 batches of Maggi..Today in Court- The Bench directed for further testing to be conducted on 16 samples out of the 31 batches of Maggi. The matter will now be heard on January 12..Bombay High Court.1. Akhil Maharashtra Machimar and 4 Ors. V. The State of Maharashtra .[Item 1 in Court 4 – WPST/3063/2015 ].Bench : S.C. Dharamadhikari and B.P. Colabawalla JJ..Check Evening Updates.Today in Court: This was a challenge by a group of fishermen against the government’s decision to prohibit any fishing activity within the Chowpatty area. It was argued that the decision to prohibit such activity was taken to appease certain vegetarian groups who were pressurizing the government.The Bench held that the action taken by the government was for greater public good and there was no basis to the allegation of the government being pressurised. The government’s decision was upheld but the state was asked to look after the interest of these fishermen as it was the duty of the state to protect and rehabilitate them. The State assured the bench that necessary steps will be taken to fully rehabilitate the fishermen in any of the three areas namely- Cuffe Parade, Sassoon Docks or Mahim.2. Salman Salim Khan Vs The State of Maharashtra.[Item 1 in court 14 – APEAL (criminal) /572/2015 ].Bench : A.R. Joshi J..The film star’s appeal against conviction. The judge has started dictating the order, detailing the submissions made by both sides. He shall resume dictating today.Today in Court: Joshi J. stated that witnesses can be classified into three categories -wholly reliable, partially reliable and wholly unreliable and after examining all the facts of the case he said that Ravindra Patil was a ‘wholly unreliable’ witness. “Even if his statement has to be considered as partially reliable, there has to be corroboration in evidence which is not existing in this case”The judge also dismissed the state’s argument that PW-1, Ashok Singh’s entire conduct during the trial rendered him to be a ‘wholly unreliable’ witness. The verdict is expected to be delivered tomorrow.3. The State of Maharashtra V. Mirza Himayat Inayat Baig.[Item 1 in Court 11 – CONF (criminal) /4/2013 ].Bench : Justice Naresh H. Patil and Justice S.B. Shukre.The Best Bakery case. Check evening updates.Today in Court: Arguing against capital punishment for convict Mirza Himayat Baig the defence had claimed that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the traces of RDX found at the blast site were in fact remnants of the RDX used to trigger the blast.An intervener in the case is Ashish Khetan, a former journalist and a member of the Aam Admi Party. His lawyer today submitted that during Khetan’s interviews with the witnesses, Khetan was told that all the witnesses were coerced into giving the wrong statement with the mala fide intention of securing Baig’s conviction.The hearing on the matter will continue tomorrow, when the prosecution is expected to make submissions.
