News Updates

High Courts Weekly Round-Up

Ashok KM
18 Dec 2016 3:21 PM GMT
High Courts Weekly Round-Up
Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court, in Thakur Ramnath Singh Prathamik Pathshala And Another Vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others, directed the state government of UP to frame a policy in relation to grant-in-aid to unaided institutions in the light of the Constitutional mandate and Article 21-A.

The High Court recently held that the very object of conducting the test would stand defeated, in case a wrong answer key is held to be sacrosanct and beyond judicial review. 

Bombay High Court

Bombay High Court directed IDBI Bank to allow its own employees to protest peacefully within the premises of the bank at the World Trade Centre in Cuffe Parade. The bank had filed a suit seeking interim reliefs against the protesting bank employees who are seeking a revision in salary. They contend that their salaries have not been revised for the past four years.

A division bench of the High Court rejected former Deputy Chief Minister of Maharashtra Chaggan Bhujbal’s petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus against his arrest. Bhujbal was arrested on March 14 this year by the Enforcement Directorate after he was booked under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.

The High Court on Friday refused to restrain the promoters of Tata Chemicals, Tata Motors and Tata Steel from voting on the resolution that sought removal of Nusli Wadia as the independent director of these three companies. Although the single bench of Justice SJ Kathawalla did restrain these companies from appointing any new directors on their board.

A division bench of the court asked Maharashtra Police whether a circular that was issued two years ago in 2014 to ensure implementation of certain rules during the procession can be implemented in the entire state.

Justice GS Patel of the High Court urged Bar members to be mindful of their duty as officials of the court as “judges need the Bar and look to it for a dispassionate guidance through the law’s thickets.

Nagpur bench of the High Court held that minority institutions cannot be directed by the state government to absorb surplus employees from other institutions. Concurrence is mandatory for such an absorption to take place.

Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court, while dismissing a civil suit for defamation against an administrator of a social media group, observed that he cannot be made liable for defamatory statements made by any other member of the group.

The High Court recently directed judicial officers not to accept the fine amount in old currency notes of Rs.500/1,000 post demonetisation.

The Court slammed the government for not paying salary to assistant public prosecutors. A division bench of Justice Gita Mittal and Justice PS Teji was hearing a petition relating to the welfare of families of prisoners.

Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court, in V Dhamodaran and others vs. Bruhat Bangalore Mahangar Palike and others, dismissed writ petitions filed by V Dhamodaran, K Srinivasa Reddy and SM Shivkumara against the alleged illegal construction of builders, including public bodies such as Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BMMP), Assistant Director of Town Planning, Deputy Commissioner of BMMP, etc.

Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court on Friday observed that State intervention, by way of legislation, to regulate triple is required in India. Justice A Muhammed Mustaq, while disposing a batch a petitions relating to Muslim divorce law, suggested a number of reforms to be introduced in Muslim personal law.

Madras High Court

The Madras High Court, in P Pugalenthi vs The State of Tamil Nadu and another, quashed a PIL filed by Pugalenthi, an advocate by profession, against a scheme “Own Your Housing Scheme” floated by the Tamil Nadu Government, vide which a special benefit was made available to Grade-I IAS officers of owning a house at an affordable cost.

The Madras High Court (Madurai Bench), in Muthulakshmi Vs. The District Collector, Ramnad District and others, directed an acid attack victim to claim compensation from the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) under the Victim Compensation Scheme (VCS).

Uttarakhand High Court

In a landmark judgment, Uttarakhand High Court directed the government to grant maternity leave to all the female employees with full pay for 180 days, even working on contractual basis, ad hoc/tenure or temporary basis.

This article has been made possible because of financial support from Independent and Public-Spirited Media Foundation.

Next Story