A summary of cases from the causelists of the Supreme Court of India, the Bombay High Court and the Delhi High Court..LIST OF CASES.Supreme Court of India.Jindal Stainless Steel v. State of HaryanaMs. X v. Union Of India And Ors..Bombay High Court.Vihar Dhurve v. State of MaharashtraManav Vikas Prakalp & 2 Ors v. State of Maharashtra & 4 Ors.CDR Jaideep Chakrabarty v. The Central Information Commissioner & Ors.Jaswantbhai Chaturbhai Nai and Ors v. State of Gujarat & Ors.Delhi High Court.Arvind Kejriwal v. Arun Jaitley and Anr.Dharamshila Hospital and Research Center v. Government of NCT DelhiGandhi Tobacco Products v. Commissioner (Food Safety) Government of NCT DelhiMcDonald’s India Pvt. Ltd. v. Vikram Bakshi and Ors. .SUMMARY OF CASES .Supreme Court of India.1. Jindal Stainless Steel Vs. State of Haryana.[Item 901 in court 1 – SLP (CRL) NO. 3119-3120/2014] .Bench: Chief Justice TS Thakur, A.K. Sikri, S.A. Bobde, Shiva Kirti Singh, N.V. Ramana, R. Banumathi, A.M. Khanwilkar, D.Y. Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan JJ. .Hearing in the case on entry tax. Read more about the case here..Today in Court: Senior counsel Harish Salve reached the concluding stage of his arguments today. He has been arguing that states cannot levy unreasonably high taxes..2. Ms. X v. Union Of India And Ors..[Item 2 in court 3 – WP(C) 593/2016].Bench: JS Khehar, Kurian Joseph, Arun Mishra JJ. .A petition relating to a pregnancy following an alleged rape. The petitioner has now challenged Section 3 (2)(b) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 to the extent that it puts a ceiling of 20 weeks for an abortion as it is ultra vires to Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution..Today in Court: The Supreme Court today sought a response from the Centre and the Maharashtra government. The respondents are supposed to appear in court tomorrow itself..Bombay High Court.1. Vihar Dhurve v. State of Maharashtra.[Item 5 Court 13- PIL(C)/188/2015].Bench: AS Oka, AA Sayed JJ..The PIL involves two separate issues. One, the pensionary benefits that accrue to judicial officers, and whether these benefits will be the same as that drawn by other State officers. In this regard, the Shetty Commission had made a certain set of recommendations that were accepted by the Supreme Court. However, the State is yet to implement these recommendations..The second issue relates to the construction of a new Family Court building in Pune. The High Court had earlier asked that the proposal for release of funds be placed before the state legislature. For more details read our previous report..Today in court: The petitioner’s lawyer submitted that the apex court had time and again issued directions to all the states to comply with the recommendations of the Padmanabhan Committee which had already accepted all recommendations of the Shetty Commission. These recommendations essentially remove an upper limit on the pension, and also state that the pension itself would be fifty per cent of the last salary drawn..Oka J said that the contributory pension scheme that the state has now come up with would lead to atleast ten per cent reduction in the montly pension of these officers..“This scheme provides for compulsory deduction of ten per cent. This is in complete breach of the Supreme Court’s orders. It is highly objectionable.”.The state will now have to satisfy the court as to how the new scheme does not go against the Supreme Court’s orders on Monday..2. Manav Vikas Prakalp & 2 Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & 4 Ors..[Item 12 Court 13- PIL(OS)/22/2012].Bench: AS Oka, AA Sayed JJ..This PIL was filed after 27 padas in Aarey milk colony were issued eviction notices by the encroachment authority, Government of Maharashtra. The NGT had earlier declared Aarey milk colony an eco-sensitive zone..The Tribal Research Training Institute in Pune had been directed to submit a report ascertaining the current situation regarding these padas for cultivation and water supply. Previously, AGP Geeta Shastri informed the court that State Reserve Police (SRPF) and Film City have refused to give an NOC to the BMC for laying down pipelines for supplying water to tribal padas in the Aarey Milk Colony area. For more details read our report..Today in court: The matter was adjourned after the State failed to take a decision in the matter and sought more time..3. CDR Jaideep Chakrabarty v. The Central Information Commissioner & Ors..[Item 18 Court 31- WP(OS)/1671/2014].Bench: SC Dharmadhikari, Dr.Shalini Phansalkar Joshi JJ.Check evening updates..Today in court: This matter could not be taken up due to paucity of time..4. Jaswantbhai Chaturbhai Nai and Ors v. State of Gujarat & Ors..[Item 901 Court 49- APEAL(Cri)/1020/2009.Bench: VK Tahilramani, Mridula Bhatkar JJ.The appeal of eleven convicts in the Bilkis Bano case is being heard along with the CBI’s petition seeking death penalty for three of these convicts. They were sentenced to life by a special court in January 2008 for gang-raping a five month pregnant Bilkis Bano and murdering seven of her family members in the post-Godhra riots of 2002..Harshad Ponda is appearing for the appellants and Hiten Venegaokar is appearing for the CBI..Read yesterday’s report for more details..Today in court: The defence read out the statement of PW1 ie, Bilkis Bano. The statement detailed the events in the aftermath of the Godhra riots leading up to the crime..Bilkis pointed out various ommissions and additions to her original statement made to the Circle inspector of Limkheda police station. The bench made the enquiry whether Bilkis’s husband was examined to which the prosecution said no, although her father was examined..The defence’s submissions will continue to tomorrow at 11:30..Delhi High Court.1. Arvind Kejriwal v. Arun Jaitley and Ors..[Crl. M.C. 2417/2016 – Court No. 32; Item No. 22].Bench: P.S. Teji, J..Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s plea to stay the proceedings before the trial court in a criminal defamation case filed against him and five other AAP leaders for allegedly making defaming statements against Mr. Arun Jaitley and his family..In the last hearing, Justice P.S. Teji had issued a notice to the Union Minister. The matter is fixed for arguments today..Today in Court: Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra appeared for Jaitley and senior counsel Ram Jethmalani appeared for Kejriwal. The issue in question was whether or not civil and criminal proceedings between the same parties and arising out the same cause of action can continue in parallel..Luthra argued that civil and criminal proceedings, even if between the same parties and arising out of the same cause of action, can go on together depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. Additionally, he drew a distinction between defamation in civil law as against defamation in criminal law; the remedies in both cases are different..Civil defamation finds its remedy in common law due to absence of specific provisions of law dealing with defamation, whereas in case of criminal defamation, the remedy is found in statutory law. He further strengthened his arguments following the line of burden of proof and how it changes in both cases. The arguments will continue before the same bench on July 25 at 2.30 pm..2. Dharamshila Hospital and Research Centre v. Government of NCT of Delhi.[W.P. (C) 5967/2016 – Court No. 15; Item No. 61].Bench: Sanjeev Sachdeva, J..A special committee was appointed to look into the affairs of the hospitals around Delhi in accordance with a High Court order of 2007. A fine of Rs. 17.86 crores was imposed on Dharamshila Cancer Hospital for the alleged failure to treat poor patients for free as stipulated in the land allotment conditions. In the last hearing,.Justice Sachdeva refused to grant an interim stay and took a stand that if the hospital wanted the Court to hear its plea, some amount of the fine would first have to be deposited before the court. He asked the hospital’s lawyer to seek instructions regarding this and listed the matter for today..Today in Court: Advocate Piyush Kalra appeared for the government and advocate Navin Chawla appeared for Dharamshila Hospital. The issue in question was with regard to the documents submitted by the hospital and whether or not their records fell under the exception of partial compliance..Chawla stressed on the fact several times as to how after submission of their records, the committee took a decision regarding the amount to be paid by the hospital without any showcause notice or opportunity of hearing granted to the petitioner. The matter will come up before the bench on August 2, 2016..3. Gandhi Tobacco Products v. Commissioner (Food Safety) Government of NCT Delhi.[W.P. (C) 3415/2016 – Court No. 15; Item No. 44].Bench: Sanjeev Sachdeva, J..Challenge to the tobacco ban put in place by the Delhi government. Notice was issued in the last hearing. Check evening updates for more..Today in Court: This matter could not be tracked. Any updates will be appreciated..4. McDonald’s India Pvt. Ltd. v. Vikram Bakshi and Ors..[FAO (OS) 9/2015 – Court No. 2; Item No. 1].Bench: Badar Durrez Ahmed, Sanjeev Sachdeva, JJ..McDonald’s is involved in a legal battle for management control of the joint venture firm Connaught Plaza Restaurants which has been running fast food outlets in North and East India against its estranged partner in India, Vikram Bakshi..Today in Court: The bench set aside the stay on the arbitral proceedings.
A summary of cases from the causelists of the Supreme Court of India, the Bombay High Court and the Delhi High Court..LIST OF CASES.Supreme Court of India.Jindal Stainless Steel v. State of HaryanaMs. X v. Union Of India And Ors..Bombay High Court.Vihar Dhurve v. State of MaharashtraManav Vikas Prakalp & 2 Ors v. State of Maharashtra & 4 Ors.CDR Jaideep Chakrabarty v. The Central Information Commissioner & Ors.Jaswantbhai Chaturbhai Nai and Ors v. State of Gujarat & Ors.Delhi High Court.Arvind Kejriwal v. Arun Jaitley and Anr.Dharamshila Hospital and Research Center v. Government of NCT DelhiGandhi Tobacco Products v. Commissioner (Food Safety) Government of NCT DelhiMcDonald’s India Pvt. Ltd. v. Vikram Bakshi and Ors. .SUMMARY OF CASES .Supreme Court of India.1. Jindal Stainless Steel Vs. State of Haryana.[Item 901 in court 1 – SLP (CRL) NO. 3119-3120/2014] .Bench: Chief Justice TS Thakur, A.K. Sikri, S.A. Bobde, Shiva Kirti Singh, N.V. Ramana, R. Banumathi, A.M. Khanwilkar, D.Y. Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan JJ. .Hearing in the case on entry tax. Read more about the case here..Today in Court: Senior counsel Harish Salve reached the concluding stage of his arguments today. He has been arguing that states cannot levy unreasonably high taxes..2. Ms. X v. Union Of India And Ors..[Item 2 in court 3 – WP(C) 593/2016].Bench: JS Khehar, Kurian Joseph, Arun Mishra JJ. .A petition relating to a pregnancy following an alleged rape. The petitioner has now challenged Section 3 (2)(b) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 to the extent that it puts a ceiling of 20 weeks for an abortion as it is ultra vires to Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution..Today in Court: The Supreme Court today sought a response from the Centre and the Maharashtra government. The respondents are supposed to appear in court tomorrow itself..Bombay High Court.1. Vihar Dhurve v. State of Maharashtra.[Item 5 Court 13- PIL(C)/188/2015].Bench: AS Oka, AA Sayed JJ..The PIL involves two separate issues. One, the pensionary benefits that accrue to judicial officers, and whether these benefits will be the same as that drawn by other State officers. In this regard, the Shetty Commission had made a certain set of recommendations that were accepted by the Supreme Court. However, the State is yet to implement these recommendations..The second issue relates to the construction of a new Family Court building in Pune. The High Court had earlier asked that the proposal for release of funds be placed before the state legislature. For more details read our previous report..Today in court: The petitioner’s lawyer submitted that the apex court had time and again issued directions to all the states to comply with the recommendations of the Padmanabhan Committee which had already accepted all recommendations of the Shetty Commission. These recommendations essentially remove an upper limit on the pension, and also state that the pension itself would be fifty per cent of the last salary drawn..Oka J said that the contributory pension scheme that the state has now come up with would lead to atleast ten per cent reduction in the montly pension of these officers..“This scheme provides for compulsory deduction of ten per cent. This is in complete breach of the Supreme Court’s orders. It is highly objectionable.”.The state will now have to satisfy the court as to how the new scheme does not go against the Supreme Court’s orders on Monday..2. Manav Vikas Prakalp & 2 Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & 4 Ors..[Item 12 Court 13- PIL(OS)/22/2012].Bench: AS Oka, AA Sayed JJ..This PIL was filed after 27 padas in Aarey milk colony were issued eviction notices by the encroachment authority, Government of Maharashtra. The NGT had earlier declared Aarey milk colony an eco-sensitive zone..The Tribal Research Training Institute in Pune had been directed to submit a report ascertaining the current situation regarding these padas for cultivation and water supply. Previously, AGP Geeta Shastri informed the court that State Reserve Police (SRPF) and Film City have refused to give an NOC to the BMC for laying down pipelines for supplying water to tribal padas in the Aarey Milk Colony area. For more details read our report..Today in court: The matter was adjourned after the State failed to take a decision in the matter and sought more time..3. CDR Jaideep Chakrabarty v. The Central Information Commissioner & Ors..[Item 18 Court 31- WP(OS)/1671/2014].Bench: SC Dharmadhikari, Dr.Shalini Phansalkar Joshi JJ.Check evening updates..Today in court: This matter could not be taken up due to paucity of time..4. Jaswantbhai Chaturbhai Nai and Ors v. State of Gujarat & Ors..[Item 901 Court 49- APEAL(Cri)/1020/2009.Bench: VK Tahilramani, Mridula Bhatkar JJ.The appeal of eleven convicts in the Bilkis Bano case is being heard along with the CBI’s petition seeking death penalty for three of these convicts. They were sentenced to life by a special court in January 2008 for gang-raping a five month pregnant Bilkis Bano and murdering seven of her family members in the post-Godhra riots of 2002..Harshad Ponda is appearing for the appellants and Hiten Venegaokar is appearing for the CBI..Read yesterday’s report for more details..Today in court: The defence read out the statement of PW1 ie, Bilkis Bano. The statement detailed the events in the aftermath of the Godhra riots leading up to the crime..Bilkis pointed out various ommissions and additions to her original statement made to the Circle inspector of Limkheda police station. The bench made the enquiry whether Bilkis’s husband was examined to which the prosecution said no, although her father was examined..The defence’s submissions will continue to tomorrow at 11:30..Delhi High Court.1. Arvind Kejriwal v. Arun Jaitley and Ors..[Crl. M.C. 2417/2016 – Court No. 32; Item No. 22].Bench: P.S. Teji, J..Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s plea to stay the proceedings before the trial court in a criminal defamation case filed against him and five other AAP leaders for allegedly making defaming statements against Mr. Arun Jaitley and his family..In the last hearing, Justice P.S. Teji had issued a notice to the Union Minister. The matter is fixed for arguments today..Today in Court: Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra appeared for Jaitley and senior counsel Ram Jethmalani appeared for Kejriwal. The issue in question was whether or not civil and criminal proceedings between the same parties and arising out the same cause of action can continue in parallel..Luthra argued that civil and criminal proceedings, even if between the same parties and arising out of the same cause of action, can go on together depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. Additionally, he drew a distinction between defamation in civil law as against defamation in criminal law; the remedies in both cases are different..Civil defamation finds its remedy in common law due to absence of specific provisions of law dealing with defamation, whereas in case of criminal defamation, the remedy is found in statutory law. He further strengthened his arguments following the line of burden of proof and how it changes in both cases. The arguments will continue before the same bench on July 25 at 2.30 pm..2. Dharamshila Hospital and Research Centre v. Government of NCT of Delhi.[W.P. (C) 5967/2016 – Court No. 15; Item No. 61].Bench: Sanjeev Sachdeva, J..A special committee was appointed to look into the affairs of the hospitals around Delhi in accordance with a High Court order of 2007. A fine of Rs. 17.86 crores was imposed on Dharamshila Cancer Hospital for the alleged failure to treat poor patients for free as stipulated in the land allotment conditions. In the last hearing,.Justice Sachdeva refused to grant an interim stay and took a stand that if the hospital wanted the Court to hear its plea, some amount of the fine would first have to be deposited before the court. He asked the hospital’s lawyer to seek instructions regarding this and listed the matter for today..Today in Court: Advocate Piyush Kalra appeared for the government and advocate Navin Chawla appeared for Dharamshila Hospital. The issue in question was with regard to the documents submitted by the hospital and whether or not their records fell under the exception of partial compliance..Chawla stressed on the fact several times as to how after submission of their records, the committee took a decision regarding the amount to be paid by the hospital without any showcause notice or opportunity of hearing granted to the petitioner. The matter will come up before the bench on August 2, 2016..3. Gandhi Tobacco Products v. Commissioner (Food Safety) Government of NCT Delhi.[W.P. (C) 3415/2016 – Court No. 15; Item No. 44].Bench: Sanjeev Sachdeva, J..Challenge to the tobacco ban put in place by the Delhi government. Notice was issued in the last hearing. Check evening updates for more..Today in Court: This matter could not be tracked. Any updates will be appreciated..4. McDonald’s India Pvt. Ltd. v. Vikram Bakshi and Ors..[FAO (OS) 9/2015 – Court No. 2; Item No. 1].Bench: Badar Durrez Ahmed, Sanjeev Sachdeva, JJ..McDonald’s is involved in a legal battle for management control of the joint venture firm Connaught Plaza Restaurants which has been running fast food outlets in North and East India against its estranged partner in India, Vikram Bakshi..Today in Court: The bench set aside the stay on the arbitral proceedings.