14 Aug 2016 1:57 PM GMT
Allahabad High CourtThe Allahabad High Court in Rashmi Bhatiya vs. Geeta Sharma held that, Release application cannot be filed by Power of Attorney on the ground of his bonafide need, but there is no express prohibition under the Rent Act debarring the owner-landlord from applying for release through Power of Attorney holder. Difference between filing of a Release application by a “Power...
Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court in Rashmi Bhatiya vs. Geeta Sharma held that, Release application cannot be filed by Power of Attorney on the ground of his bonafide need, but there is no express prohibition under the Rent Act debarring the owner-landlord from applying for release through Power of Attorney holder. Difference between filing of a Release application by a “Power of Attorney of a Landlord” and that by a “Landlord through Power of Attorney” is explained in this Judgment rendered by Justice Pankaj Mithal for Allahabad High Court.
The High Court declared the election of Samajwadi Party MLA Ram Singh from Patti Assembly constituency in Pratapgarh in the 2012 UP Assembly Elections.
The Court struck down a stipulation in a provision for Appeal in Constable Recruitment Rules, which stated that no appeal with respect to the medical examination shall be entertained if the Candidate fails to appeal on the day of his medical examination and announcement of the result of the same.
Andhra High court
Andhra High Court held that Caste of a child born to inter-caste couple could depend upon the circumstances in which the child was brought up.
Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court, commuted death penalty awarded by Trial Court to a man who was convicted for murdering his wife and two daughters, to life imprisonment.
Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court while reversing conviction in a murder case ruled that it would not be proper to accept the prosecution case when the place of occurrence itself has not been established. The Bench comrising Justice Debasish Kar Gupta and Justice Md. Mumtaz Khan, acquitted the accused.
Delhi High Court
Delhi High Court dismissed Petitions seeking cancellation of bail granted to JNU students Leader Kanhaiya Kumar. The High Court has granted interim bail to Kanhaiya Kumar for a period of six months vide order dated 02.03.2016.
The Court, in its judgement delivered on Monday dismissed a writ petition filed against the 2009 amendment to the CISF Recruitment Rules 1969. The petition claimed that the 2009 amendment was violative of Fundamental Rights inscribed under Art 14 and Art 16 of the constitution of India.
The High Court recently held that the Presiding Officer is expected to remain sensitive when a child of tender age is under examination. The Court made the above observation while dismissing an Appeal filed by Accused Hazari Paswan against his conviction and sentence for offence punishable under Section 10 of POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo RI for five years with fine `5,000/-.
The High Court re-iterated the factors to be considered by the Court while deciding an application for interim Maintenance. The Division Bench observed that the object behind Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is to provide for maintenance, pendente-lite, to a spouse in matrimonial proceedings so that during the pendency of the proceedings the spouse can maintain herself/himself and also have sufficient funds to carry on the litigation so that the spouse does not unduly suffer in the conduct of the case for want of fund.
The Court upheld the Conviction of a man for repeatedly raping his step-daughter aged around 12 years. The High Court has dismissed the appeal filed by Accused-Yogesh challenging the legality and correctness of a judgment of Addl. Sessions Judge by which he was held guilty for committing offences punishable under Sections 376/377 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years with fine `2,000/- under Section 376 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine `1,000/- under Section 377 IPC.
On Tuesday, the Delhi High Court demanded the Centre’s response on a petition challenging a notification issued by the Central Government under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice G. Rohini and Justice Sangeeta Dhingra Sehgal issued the notice.
Delhi High Court directed the Delhi Government bodies to issue advisories within 3 days through various modes to make the public aware of the fatal effects of use of razor sharp thread/manja made of nylon/plastic/synthetic using glass/metal and/or other toxic materials.
The Court dismissed a Petition filed by cab service ‘magic sewa’- an app-based cab company praying for a direction to Delhi International Airport Ltd (DIAL) for quashing of entry fee charge of Rs.150 on commercial vehicles and also for a direction to respondent no.2-DIAL to allow petitioner to use the same lane as Licensed Taxi Operators for parking and picking customers.
The Court also dismissed an appeal filed by the victim’s mother u/s 372 CrPC challenging the acquittal of the accused in a rape case. The trial court had exonerated the accused on account of death of the victim prior to her examination and in absence of any crucial testimony.
On Thursday the High Court refused to interfere with the decision of the Sports Authority of India (SAI) regarding selection process adopted for a slot in the Rio 2016 Paralympics on the petition of Ms. Karamjyoti, a national para-athlete. Ms. Karamjyoti had argued that the qualification slot is allocated to the National Paralympic Committee (NPC) and not individual athletes.
A Division Bench of the Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 65 (105)(zzzzv) read with Section 66E (i), Section 65 (22) of the Finance Act 1994 as well as Rule 2C of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006; whereby the provision to any person by a restaurant, by having the facility of air-conditioning in any part of its establishment serving food or beverage, including alcoholic beverages or both, in its premises has been made amenable to service tax.
In Tata Sky Ltd. vs YouTube Llc the High Court held that in terms of Rule 3 (1) (e) of the of the Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules 2011, YouTube is obliged not to host content that violates any law for the time being in force. The Court has also directed YouTube to strengthen its complaint redressal mechanism.
Kerala High Court
The High Court of Kerala, in J Rajmohan Pillai v CBI, Kerala, Kochi ruled that parties to a litigation cannot claim any right to obtain certified copies of the legible copy of the depositions of the case.
Madras High Court
The Madras High Court upheld levy of One Time Spectrum Charges made by Department of Telecom on Aircel. The Court also held that the levy of OTSC by the Central Government, in exercise of powers conferred on it by Section 4 (1) of the Telegraph Act r/w Clause 13 (ii) of the Licence Agreement, is justified and enforceable.
The High Court awarded a compensation of Ten Lakhs to a person who suffered injuries during a Bandh which was called by DMK to protest arrest of the then Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu M. Karunanidhi.
The Court recently held that Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 does not contemplate obtaining of report of the Probation Officer before the grant of bail. Dr. Justice S. Vimala also held that if the Juvenile Justice Board is not granting bail, the alterative option open to the Juvenile Justice Board is to place the Juvenile under the supervision of a Probation Officer.
Orissa High Court
Orissa High Court recently held that a writ application for payment of compensation for the death of a person in electrocution is maintainable when the undisputed facts clearly reveal the same.
Punjab & Haryana High Court
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana recently quashed an order denying information about corruption cases against IAS, IPS, HCS and HPS Officers under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Rajasthan High Court
Rajasthan High Court on Wednesday affirmatively ruled in favour of avoiding duplicity of approvals in dealing with a minor and bonafide error and re-issuance of Passport thereby. While allowing the writ petition filed in M/S Shilpi vs. Union of India, the High Court directed the Passport Authorities to carry out the desired changes within the stipulated time without insisting the requirement of declaratory order of the First Class Judicial magistrate.