Bar and Bench - Indian Legal news
www.barandbench.com
News

The B&B Causelist #59:September 17, 2015 (Evening Updates)

Bar & Bench

Supreme Court of India

1. Sanjiv Rajendra Bhatt v. Union of India & Ors.

[Item 2 in court 1 – Writ Petition (Crl.) 135/2011]

Bench: Chief Justice HL Dattu, Arun Mishra J.

The application filed by  IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt seeking impleadment of Amit Shah and S Gurumurthy in the 2011 case before the Supreme Court. In 2011, Bhatt had approached the Supreme Court alleging that the Gujarat government was trying to scuttle the investigation and blunt his efforts.

In his present application, Bhatt has also made allegations against current Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for his alleged role in trying to scuttle the investigation and has sought SIT probe into the same.

The court had barely begun hearing the matter yesterday at 3:55 pm when it rose for the day. The hearing will continue today. Senior Advocate Indira Jaising is advancing her arguments.

Today in court: Senior Advocate Indira Jaising is making submissions for Sanjiv Bhatt. The hearing will resume on September 22, i.e. Tuesday next week.

2. Rahul Kumar Sharma & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

[Item 2 in court 9 – Writ Petition (Civil) 270/2015]

Bench: Madan B Lokur J., SA Bobde J.

This is a petition filed by a candidates who gave the All India Pre-Medical Entrance Test praying that vacant under-graduate seats of 15 per cent under the All India Quota, which are specifically reserved for the candidates of All India Pre-Medical/Pre-Dental Entrance Test, should not be transferred to State quota.

Today in court: The Court tagged the matter with another petition wherein it had stayed the transfer of surplus seats to the State quota. There is no restriction on transfer of seats; instead the court has ordered that surplus seats shall not be filled until further order. There is no order as to the next date of listing.

3. Shree Tapagachiya Atma Kamal Labhdisuriswarji Gyanmandir Trust v. Bombay Mutton Dealer Association and Ors.

[Item 1 in court 2 – S.L.P.(C)… /2015]

Bench: TS Thakur J., Kurian Joseph J. 

This is an appeal filed by a Jain organization against a stay granted by the Bombay High Court against the meat ban in Maharashtra for two days. The ban on slaughter of animals was announced in deference to the ongoing Jain festival of Paryushan. The Bombay High Court had stayed the same and that order was challenged in Supreme Court.

Today in court: Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that non-violence and compassion for living creatures are principles enshrined in the Constitution and the circular banning sale of meat is only a step in that direction.

“We are not trying to control the dietary habits of people. No. We have only banned sale of meat for two days. It is not an unreasonable restriction”, said the petitioner’s lawyer. 

Justice Thakur, however, refused to allow the petition. He said that the petitioner is not even a party to the suit in the Bombay High Court and it is the State which has to appeal if it wishes to. He remarked that,

“Spirit of tolerance should be inculcated by other methods. It cannot be forced upon people.” 

The petitioner then asked for permission to withdraw the petition which was allowed. The court also granted petitioner the liberty to approach the High court and noted in its order that the High Court should try to dispose of the petition within six months.   

 Delhi High Court

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

[Item 16, Court 9- WP (Civil) 4887/2015]

Bench: RS Endlaw J.

A petition filed by Greenpeace, challenging the Govt’s decision to suspend its registration under the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act.

Previously, Greenpeace India had moved an application and argued that directions be 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.

Today in Court: This matter could not be tracked. Any inputs/leads would be appreciated.

2. Somnath Bharti Vs State

[Item 35, Court 29- Bail Appln 1952/2015]

Bench: Suresh Kait J.

An anticipatory bail application moved by AAP MLA Somnath Bharti against non-bailable warrants issued by a trial court in a domestic violence case filed by Bharti’s wife, Lipika Mitra.

Senior Counsel Dayan Krishnan had appeard for Bharti yesterday and secured protection from arrest for 2 days.

Justice Kait while granting interim protection to Bharti, had also asked the Delhi Police to not take any coercive steps, and furnish a status report on September 17.

Today in Court: The Bench reserved its judgment on the issue and directed the Delhi Police to not take any coercive steps against Bharti.

3. Manohar Lal Sharma Vs Union of India & Ors.

[Item 46, Court No. 2: WP (Crl) 2001/2015]

Bench: BD Ahmed J, Sanjeev Sachdeva J.

A petition moved by ML Sharma for curtailing the powers exercisable by Council of Ministers under Articles 74, 75 & 78 of the Constitution. He had also arraigned Union Finance Minister Arun Jaitley as a Respondent for failing to ‘take any action’ upon the SIT Report on black money.

Yesterday, based on Sharma’s submissions made in Court, the Bench sought certain clarifications from him regarding FIIs (Foreign Institutional Investor) and KYC norms to which he requested for an adjournment.

Today in Court: The Bench dismissed the matter.

4. Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Vs Union of India

[Item 21, Court 13- WP (C) 5888/2014]

Bench: VP Vaish J.

A petition filed by the Delhi Govt challenging the May 21 MHA notification that deprived the Anti-Corruption Bureau of its powers from taking cognizance of offences against officers, employees and functionaries of the Central Government.

During the last hearing, Justice Endlaw took note of the fact that the matter was part-heard by a different Bench and therefore posted it for further arguments before the same Bench of Justice VP Vaish on September 17.

Today in Court: In view of the Constitutional questions involved in the matter, the Bench adjourned the matter for September 21, to be heard by a Division Bench.