A summary of cases from the causelists of the Supreme Court of India, the Bombay High Court and the Delhi High Court..TABLE OF CASES.Supreme Court of India.Jindal Stainless Steel v. State of HaryanaMahadevappa v. Karnataka LokayuktaBoard Of Control For Cricket In India v. Kochi Cricket Pvt Ltd And Etc.Bombay High Court.Mahatma Gandhi Vidyamandir through Joint Secretary v. State of Maharashtra through Dept of MedicalJanhit Manch & Anr v. Union of India & 4 Ors.Commissioner of Income Tax X-7 v. Vodafone India LimitedHigh Courts On Its Own Motion v. State of Maharashtra.Delhi High Court.Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.Virbhadra Singh and Anr. v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors.Reckitt Benckiser (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Procter and Gamble Hygiene and Healthcare Limited and Anr.Arvind Kejriwal v. State and Ors..SUMMARY OF CASES.1. Jindal Stainless Steel v. State of Haryana.[Item 901 in court 1 – CA 3453/2002].Bench: Chief Justice TS Thakur, AK Sikri, SA Bobde, Shiva Kirti Singh, NV Ramana, R Banumathi, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan JJ..The case relating to the imposition of entry tax. The Bench is currently listening to the states’ arguments. When the matter was last heard, Senior Advocate AK Ganguli continued with his rejoinder submissions in the first half of the day. However, the Bench checked him for bringing in a new line of argument during his rejoinder submissions..Today in Court: Senior Advocate Arvind Datar continued his submissions today..2. Mahadevappa v. State of Karnataka.[Item 101 in court 7 – WP (Crl A) 1354/2010].Bench: Madan B Lokur, UU Lalit JJ..Check evening updates for more..Today in Court: This case did not come up..3. Board Of Control For Cricket In India v. Kochi Cricket Pvt Ltd And Etc.[Item 9 in court 4 – SLP(C) 19545-19546/2016].Bench: Dipak Misra, C Nagappan JJ..Case regarding applicability of the amended Section 36 of the Arbitration Act. Read more about the case here..Today in Court: This matter was adjourned for a later date, based on the Court’s observation that the matter required a detailed hearing..Bombay High Court.1. Mahatma Gandhi Vidyamandi through Joint Secretary v. State of Maharashtra through Dept of Medical.[Item 901 Court 52- WP(OS)/10158/2016].Bench: CJ Manjula Chellur, MS Sonak J.This is a challenge to the state government’s rule making it mandatory for students with state domicile to get admissions in unaided private medical colleges. For more read our detailed report..Today in court: VM Thorat argued that the right of private colleges under Art 19 (1)(g) is being infringed; forcing private colleges to follow the domicile rule is against their fundamental right..He cited the apex court’s judgement in the case of TMA Pai Foundation & Ors. v. State of karnataka & Ors as well as PA Inamdar & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors to support his arguments. The hearing will now continue on Wednesday..2. Janhit Manch & Anr v Union of India & 4 Ors..[Item 901 Court 13- PIL(OS)/89/2010].Bench: AS Oka, AA Sayed JJ.The PIL seeks proper implementation of safety and security measures at all beaches in the state. A government resolution passed in 2006 is yet to be effectively implemented. Previously, the state government sought to change parts of the GR but the bench has now asked the state for an explanation for these changes. In addition, the measures taken regarding lifeguards at beaches in Mumbai will be submitted today..Today in court: According to the state’s affidavit. as of today ten lifeguards are deployed in beaches of Mumbai. However the state has given an undertaking that around 350 lifeguards will be deployed at beaches across the city during the Ganpati visarjan..3. Commissioner of Income Tax X-7 v. Vodafone India Limited .[Item 8 Court 52- APPST(OS)/426/2013].Bench: CJ Manjula Chellur, MS Sonak J.Check evening updates..Today in court: This case could not be tracked..4. High Courts On Its Own Motion v. State of Maharashtra.[Item 901 Court 49- SMPIL(C)/1/2016].Bench: VK Tahilramani, Mridula Bhatkar JJ.This is a PIL on health facilities for women prisoners in the state. Advocate Manjiri Shah, appointed amicus, brought to the notice of the bench an undertrial in Thane who is 15 weeks pregnant. The undertrial wishes to terminate her pregnancy however the the permissible limit for undergoing an abortion as per the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act is 12 weeks. The bench had directed the prison authorities to seek a medical opinion from the civil hospital, observing that forced pregnancy causes mental trauma..Today in court: The bench reserved orders in the matter, accepting that the preliminary guidelines regarding medical termination of pregnancy (MTP) laid down by the state. Regarding the undertrial in Thane prison, the Chief Medical Officer of Thane prison submitted his report..Delhi High Court.1. Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors..[W.P. (C) 7840/2013; Court No. 1 Item No. 2].Bench: G. Rohini, CJ, Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, J..Petition arising out of allotment of railway land to Reliance and the installation of optic fiber cables in the land by the company..Today in court: The matter was adjourned to November 16..2. Virbhadra Singh and Anr. v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors..[W.P. (Crl) 2757/2015; Court 34 Item 13].Bench: Vipin Sanghi, J..The disproportionate assets case filed against Himachal Pradesh Chief Minister Virbhadra Singh. In the last hearing, CBI had informed the bench that the investigation in the matter was complete and that they were ready to file a chargesheet against Singh and the others. According to an interim order of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, the CBI is restrained from arresting, interrogating or filing a charge sheet against Singh without permission from the court..Today in Court: The matter was adjourned to September 15..3. Reckitt Benckiser (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Procter and Gamble Hygiene and Healthcare Limited and Anr..[CS (Comm) 246/2016; Court No. 24 Item No. 4].Bench: S. Muralidhar, J..Petition by Reckitt against a disparaging advertisement by Gillette..Today in court: The respondent contended that Gillette and P&G were two separate legal entities and that P&G was not involved in the manufacture or advertising of the product and therefore should be removed as a party to the suit.
A summary of cases from the causelists of the Supreme Court of India, the Bombay High Court and the Delhi High Court..TABLE OF CASES.Supreme Court of India.Jindal Stainless Steel v. State of HaryanaMahadevappa v. Karnataka LokayuktaBoard Of Control For Cricket In India v. Kochi Cricket Pvt Ltd And Etc.Bombay High Court.Mahatma Gandhi Vidyamandir through Joint Secretary v. State of Maharashtra through Dept of MedicalJanhit Manch & Anr v. Union of India & 4 Ors.Commissioner of Income Tax X-7 v. Vodafone India LimitedHigh Courts On Its Own Motion v. State of Maharashtra.Delhi High Court.Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.Virbhadra Singh and Anr. v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors.Reckitt Benckiser (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Procter and Gamble Hygiene and Healthcare Limited and Anr.Arvind Kejriwal v. State and Ors..SUMMARY OF CASES.1. Jindal Stainless Steel v. State of Haryana.[Item 901 in court 1 – CA 3453/2002].Bench: Chief Justice TS Thakur, AK Sikri, SA Bobde, Shiva Kirti Singh, NV Ramana, R Banumathi, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan JJ..The case relating to the imposition of entry tax. The Bench is currently listening to the states’ arguments. When the matter was last heard, Senior Advocate AK Ganguli continued with his rejoinder submissions in the first half of the day. However, the Bench checked him for bringing in a new line of argument during his rejoinder submissions..Today in Court: Senior Advocate Arvind Datar continued his submissions today..2. Mahadevappa v. State of Karnataka.[Item 101 in court 7 – WP (Crl A) 1354/2010].Bench: Madan B Lokur, UU Lalit JJ..Check evening updates for more..Today in Court: This case did not come up..3. Board Of Control For Cricket In India v. Kochi Cricket Pvt Ltd And Etc.[Item 9 in court 4 – SLP(C) 19545-19546/2016].Bench: Dipak Misra, C Nagappan JJ..Case regarding applicability of the amended Section 36 of the Arbitration Act. Read more about the case here..Today in Court: This matter was adjourned for a later date, based on the Court’s observation that the matter required a detailed hearing..Bombay High Court.1. Mahatma Gandhi Vidyamandi through Joint Secretary v. State of Maharashtra through Dept of Medical.[Item 901 Court 52- WP(OS)/10158/2016].Bench: CJ Manjula Chellur, MS Sonak J.This is a challenge to the state government’s rule making it mandatory for students with state domicile to get admissions in unaided private medical colleges. For more read our detailed report..Today in court: VM Thorat argued that the right of private colleges under Art 19 (1)(g) is being infringed; forcing private colleges to follow the domicile rule is against their fundamental right..He cited the apex court’s judgement in the case of TMA Pai Foundation & Ors. v. State of karnataka & Ors as well as PA Inamdar & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors to support his arguments. The hearing will now continue on Wednesday..2. Janhit Manch & Anr v Union of India & 4 Ors..[Item 901 Court 13- PIL(OS)/89/2010].Bench: AS Oka, AA Sayed JJ.The PIL seeks proper implementation of safety and security measures at all beaches in the state. A government resolution passed in 2006 is yet to be effectively implemented. Previously, the state government sought to change parts of the GR but the bench has now asked the state for an explanation for these changes. In addition, the measures taken regarding lifeguards at beaches in Mumbai will be submitted today..Today in court: According to the state’s affidavit. as of today ten lifeguards are deployed in beaches of Mumbai. However the state has given an undertaking that around 350 lifeguards will be deployed at beaches across the city during the Ganpati visarjan..3. Commissioner of Income Tax X-7 v. Vodafone India Limited .[Item 8 Court 52- APPST(OS)/426/2013].Bench: CJ Manjula Chellur, MS Sonak J.Check evening updates..Today in court: This case could not be tracked..4. High Courts On Its Own Motion v. State of Maharashtra.[Item 901 Court 49- SMPIL(C)/1/2016].Bench: VK Tahilramani, Mridula Bhatkar JJ.This is a PIL on health facilities for women prisoners in the state. Advocate Manjiri Shah, appointed amicus, brought to the notice of the bench an undertrial in Thane who is 15 weeks pregnant. The undertrial wishes to terminate her pregnancy however the the permissible limit for undergoing an abortion as per the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act is 12 weeks. The bench had directed the prison authorities to seek a medical opinion from the civil hospital, observing that forced pregnancy causes mental trauma..Today in court: The bench reserved orders in the matter, accepting that the preliminary guidelines regarding medical termination of pregnancy (MTP) laid down by the state. Regarding the undertrial in Thane prison, the Chief Medical Officer of Thane prison submitted his report..Delhi High Court.1. Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors..[W.P. (C) 7840/2013; Court No. 1 Item No. 2].Bench: G. Rohini, CJ, Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, J..Petition arising out of allotment of railway land to Reliance and the installation of optic fiber cables in the land by the company..Today in court: The matter was adjourned to November 16..2. Virbhadra Singh and Anr. v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors..[W.P. (Crl) 2757/2015; Court 34 Item 13].Bench: Vipin Sanghi, J..The disproportionate assets case filed against Himachal Pradesh Chief Minister Virbhadra Singh. In the last hearing, CBI had informed the bench that the investigation in the matter was complete and that they were ready to file a chargesheet against Singh and the others. According to an interim order of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, the CBI is restrained from arresting, interrogating or filing a charge sheet against Singh without permission from the court..Today in Court: The matter was adjourned to September 15..3. Reckitt Benckiser (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Procter and Gamble Hygiene and Healthcare Limited and Anr..[CS (Comm) 246/2016; Court No. 24 Item No. 4].Bench: S. Muralidhar, J..Petition by Reckitt against a disparaging advertisement by Gillette..Today in court: The respondent contended that Gillette and P&G were two separate legal entities and that P&G was not involved in the manufacture or advertising of the product and therefore should be removed as a party to the suit.