The B&B Causelist #31:August 10, 2015 (Evening Updates)

Bar & Bench

Supreme Court of India 

1. Indian National Congress v. Union of India

Item 71 in court 1 – SLP (Civil) 18190/2014

Bench: Chief Justice HL Dattu, Arun Mishra J., Amitava Roy J.

An appeal against the judgment of the Delhi High Court directing investigation into the fund received by Indian National Congress Party and Bharatiya Janata Party from foreign companies.

The Court had issued notice in the case in 2014.

Today in court: Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for NGO, Association for Democratic Forum, alleged that the government has not taken any action as per the judgment of the Delhi High Court.

“Government has not taken any action despite more than 16 months of the High Court order; And they go about harassing people like Teesta Setalvad and Greenpeace activists. Union of India clearly has a conflict of interest in the matter.”

The Centre then sought three weeks’ time to file counter affidavit which was allowed and the matter was adjourned. The Court did not fix a date for the next hearing despite Bhushan’s insistence.

2. Kamlesh Vaswani v. Union of India & Anr.

Item 75 in court 1 – Writ Petition (Civil) 177/2013

Bench: Chief Justice HL Dattu, Arun Mishra J., Amitava Roy J.

The petition that seeks a ban on pornography assumes great significance after the Centre allegedly banned a slew of websites. Today’s hearing is important since the Centre might inform the Court about its stance on porn ban/ regulation today.

Today in court: Read the detailed report here.

3. Bombay Bar Association v. Union of India & Ors.

Item 37 in court 1 – SLP (Civil) …/2015

Bench: Chief Justice HL Dattu, Arun Mishra J., Amitava Roy J.

A fresh special leave petition. Check evening updates.

Today in court: Read the full report here.

4. Shashikala Jangde v. High Court of Chattisgarh & Ors.

Item 50 in court 1 – SLP (Civil) 21900/2015

Bench: Chief Justice HL Dattu, Arun Mishra J., Amitava Roy J.

A fresh special leave petition. Check evening updates.

Today in court: This petition pertaining to selection of judges to lower judiciary was dismissed.

5. Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India

Item 80 in court 1 – Writ Petition (Civil) 398/2015

Bench: Chief Justice HL Dattu, Arun Mishra J., Amitava Roy J.

A fresh public interest litigation petition.

Today in court: This petition challenged the tenure allowed for Additional judges of High Courts as violative of Article 224. The court refused to entertain the case but allowed the petitioner to withdraw the petition to approach the High Court.

6. North Goa District Advocates Association v. High Court of Bombay & Ors.

Item 47 in court 2 – Writ Petition (Civil) 529/ 2015

Bench: TS Thakur J., V Gopala Gowda J., R Banumathi J.

A fresh writ petition.

Today in court: The Supreme Court today refused to entertain a petition filed by North Goa District Advocates Association opposing the shifting of four civil and criminal courts to a new building. It, however, stayed the shifting of the courts for 10 days to enable the petitioners to move the High Court for appropriate relief.

Senior Advocates Dushyant Dave appeared for the petitioner while Advocate General Atmaram Nadkarni represented the State of Goa with Additional Solicitor General Maninder Singh representing the Bombay High Court.

Four civil and criminal courts are proposed to be shifted to a new building in Patto while the rest will continue functioning in the old complex which is near Panaji Residency. However, the Bar is opposed to this move on the ground that it would divide the court complex into two. Also the garbage and unhygienic surroundings near the new building is cited as another major problem.

The court after hearing the parties today said that it will not entertain the petition. However, it gave the petitioner the liberty to approach the High Court and stayed the order to shift the courts to the new building for 10 days.

7. Common Cause v. Union of India

Item 301 in court 9 – IA no. 13 in Writ Petition (Civil) 463/2012

Bench: Madan B Lokur J., Kurian Joseph J., AK Sikri J.

An interim application pertaining to investigation into ex-CBI Director Ranjit Sinha’s conduct. During the last hearing Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi had stated that former Special Director of CBI, ML Sharma had informed him that he was willing to head the investigation. Sharma had sought three weeks’ time to suggest names of persons to assist him in the matter.

Today in court: The Centre sought time to consult the CVC in the matter, especially with regard to the legal status of the investigating team that is proposed to be formed. The matter will now be heard on September 7.

Delhi High Court

1. Greenpeace India Society v. Union of India & Ors

[Item 37, Court 13- WP (C) 4887/2015]

Bench: VP Vaish, J.

A petition filed by Greenpeace, challenging the Govt’s decision to suspend its registration under the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act. Senior Advocate Gopal Subramanium, appearing for the organization had slammed the decision and submitted that ‘this was a clear case of witch hunting and nothing more.’

Today in Court: Greenpeace India moved an application and argued before the Court that directions maybe issued to IDBI Bank (one of the respondents in the said petition) for transferring of money received by the organization through foreign sources, in its foreign account or in a fixed deposit till the matter is decided.

Counsel appearing for Greenpeace submitted that this was a necessary prayer as the funds had been transferred by the donor, had been duly received by the bank but not been remitted (yet) to Greenpeace’s account. Since the Respondent-Bank had not been served with a copy of the application and to enable both parties to file a reply, the Bench adjourned the matter to September 4.

2. Dr. RK Pachauri Vs Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd & Ors

[Item 49, Court 2- FAO (OS) 255/2015]

Bench- BD Ahmed J., Sanjeev Sachdeva J.

A petition filed by former TERI Chief RK Pachauri seeking a restrain on the reports published by the media house. He was challenging an order of the Single Judge that allowed publication of news regarding Pachauri’s sexual harassment episode. The Division Bench had granted interim relief and restrained Benett & Coleman from publishing any reports.

The said reports had published details of the ongoing proceedings before TERI’s internal complaints committee. The Committee had initiated an inquiry against Pachauri under the Sexual Harassment at Workplace Act.

Today in Court: The matter that was listed for final arguments today, stood re-notified for August 24 due to the absence of Pachauri’s Counsel in Court.

Bar and Bench - Indian Legal news