RANJIT GIRI

The Centre plans to merge the process with Crime and Criminal Tracking Network and Systems Project (CCTNS), a project first conceptualised by the UPA government in 2009; this will eliminate the need of doing the physical police verification for getting a new passport. With the implementation of CCTNS, the manual process of police verification could be simplified with just a few clicks. Also, the old process which resulted in bribing the local police officers when they come to verify the address and identity will come at a halt. As per the Union Home Secretary Rajiv Mehrishi said the CCTNS, an exhaustive national database of crimes and criminals was expected to be linked with the passport service of the External Affairs Ministry. CCTNS will check the past history and background of the applicants with a single click. National database Mr. Mehrishi told reports “For passport credentials, police is already using CCTNS in some states. Police will be given handh

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court today ruled that the proceedings in any pending trial relating to graft or criminal cases should not be stayed from now on by an appellate court for more than six months, without a speaking order. Observing that the "cancer of corruption" has eaten into the vitals of the State and needed to be nipped in the bud, it had a word of caution for the higher appellate courts, saying the power to stay the trial proceedings has to be exercised with "restraint" especially in corruption cases. A bench of Justices Adarsh Kumar Goel, Navin Sinha and R F Nariman laid down the time limit for the stay of proceedings, saying the legislative mandate of expeditious disposal of a trial should be respected. It ruled that a stay of proceedings by an appellate court in any pending trial related to either corruption or civil or criminal cases, shall not operate for more than six months from today itself, unless the restraint is extended by a speaking

HC Denies Relief to Dera Chief Supporters. March 26, 2018 This case relates to the violence and clamor caused on account of detention of self-proclaimed Godman, Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh last year which eventually led to the lodging of FIR against the Petitioners in the instant case. The petitioners in the case have prayed for bail and contended that they have been in custody sin ce long and the report under Section 173 of the Code has already been submitted and even the charges have also been framed and nothing has been recovered from them. The State in the case contended that the Petitioners in the case have threatened the very existence of the Court of Law by their action as is clear from the FIR that in case the Dera Chief is convicted, they shall burn the public property and actually, two cars were put on fire by the petitioners and they also entered in the office of Income Tax thereby throwing the petrol bottles, match boxes and baseball bats and created an absolute terror i

March 23, 2018 Case name: Union of India vs. R. Sethumadhavan & Anr. Date of Judgement: March 22, 2018 In the case, Two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court took a serious note of delay caused in disposal of pension related cases. In this case, a railway employee retired in 1991 and his pension related proceedings were decided after 27 years. While taking note of the sad state of affairs, the Court remarked that more than 140 years ago, it was said by the Privy Council: “These proceedings certainly illustrate what was said by Mr. Doyne, and what has been often stated before, that the difficulties of a litigant in India begin when he has obtained a Decree”. “A somewhat similar fate seems to await government servants – on getting retired, they have to struggle for the due pension. This is a classic case of a railway employee who retired as a Train Examiner on 31st March, 1991 1 General Manager of the Raj Durbhunga, under the Court of Wards v. Maharajah Coomar Ramaput Si

March 23, 2018 In this interesting case, the Supreme Court was confronted with the issue of principles of equality for pension amongst Judges of the High Court. In the case now the Two-Judge Bench of Supreme Court considering the gravity and importance of the matter has referred the same to be decided by a Larger Bench of the Supreme Court. The aforesaid response of the Apex Court came in a case, wherein the Petitioner namely, Justice M. Vijayarahgavan, a former madras High Court Judge had urged the Apex Court for implementation of ‘One Rank One Pension’ (OROP) Policy last October. The Petitioner in the case has complained of disparity between the pension paid to Judges who retire from the Bar and who retire from the subordinate Judiciary. The Petitioner has also contended that the formula of calculating pension as enumerated under the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 is discriminatory and unreasonable.

March 24, 2018 It has been reported that Karkardooma Court at Delhi recently in a case taken up by it has allowed the Petitioner to serve summons on the Respondent no. 1 through WhatsApp, Text messages and through e-mail. The Court in the case while allowing Petitioner’s plea stated that as the Petitioner was residing in Australia and ordinary service shall take time, the Petitioner is allowed to serve summons upon the Respondent no. 1 through WhatsApp, text messages and e-mail. Petitioner is directed to file an affidavit with regard to the submission/ fact that e-mail ID, mobile number etc. belongs to Respondent no. 1 and the service has been effected upon him only. As per reports, the case pertained to domestic violence. This is not the first instance that a Court has allowed service of summons through technological means. In May last year, the Delhi High Court in the case Tata Sons Limited & ors. v. John Doe(s) & ors. had permitted the Plaint

March 20, 2018 The Specific Relief (Amendment) Bill, 2018 amending the Specific Relief Act, 1963 was passed by the Lok Sabha on March 15, 2018. The proposed amendment to the Specific Relief Act has been formulated with the intention to further ease the process of doing business in India. Salient Features of the Bill are enumerated below: The proposed Bill substitutes Section 14 to include contracts not specifically enforceable i.e. where a party to the contract has obtained substituted performance of contract in accordance with the provisions of section 20, a contract, the performance of which involves the performance of a continuous duty which the court cannot supervise, a contract which is so dependent on the personal qualifications of the parties that the court cannot enforce specific performance of its material terms and a contract which is in its nature determinable. The Bill proposes incorporation of Section 14A to provide for engagement of experts to assist it

March 20, 2018 Case name: Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. The State of Maharastra Date of Judgement: March 20, 2018 In this recent case taken up by Two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court today, the Court was mainly concerned with the issue of offences punishable under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Atrocities Act). In the case, the Appellant was registered for offences punishable under the Atrocities Act. The legal concern that was raised in the case was that under the scheme of the Atrocities Act, several offences solely depend upon the version of the complainant which may not be found to be true. It was urged by the amicus in the case that before liberty of a person is taken away, there has to be fair, reasonable and just procedure. The Supreme Court in the case made some key observations pertaining to offences punishable under the Atrocities Act, which are enumerated below: Potential impact of working of Atrocities Act

March 17, 2018 In the case of  State Bank of India   v. Mula Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana (2006),  the Supreme Court was of the view that whether a contract is one of guarantee or of indemnity is a question of construction in each case. The difference between the two types of contract are enumerated below: Contract of Indemnity Contract of Guarantee It refers to a Contract by which one party promises to save the other from loss caused by conduct of the promisor or another person. It refers to a Contract to perform the promise or discharge the liability of a third person in case of his default. In contract of indemnity, the liability of the promisor is primary. In contract of guarantee, the primary liability is of principal debtor and the liability of surety is secondary. Contract between the indemnifier and the indemnity holder is express and specific. Contract between surety and principal debtor is implied and between creditor and principal debtor is express. In contract

March 17, 2018 Case name: Bimal Gurung v. Union of India Date of Judgement: March 16, 2018 In this recent case, the Supreme Court has elucidated on the question as to what is the nature and extent of public demonstration that is protected by the Constitution and constitutes freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The present case pertained to Gorkhaland agitation since 2007 and the petitioner i.e. President of Gorkha Janmukti Morcha (GJM) was aggrieved by lodging of FIRs against him and other members of GJM for offences under the Indian Penal Code, Prevention of Destruction of Public Property Act, Arms Act etc. by the State of West Bengal against them. The Petitioner in the case primarily prayed to transfer investigation of the criminal case to a Central Investigation Agency. In view of the aforesaid, the Supreme first delved into the issue of power of the Court to transfer investigation to an investigating agency. Accordingly, re

March 13, 2018 In a subsequent development to a petition instituted with the Supreme Court seeking ban on legislators from practicing law in India, the Supreme Court has now issued notice to the Bar Council of India (BCI) in the case. The Petitioner, namely Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay has filed petition with the Court, whereby he has prayed that the Legislators (MP’s and MLAs) shall be debarred from practicing law in India. The Petitioner in the case has also prayed that in the alternative, Rule 49 of the Bar Council of India Rules shall be declared ultra vires so as to permit Public Servants from practicing law. Rule 49 of Bar Council of India Rules states that an advocate shall not be a full-time salaried employee of any person, government or firm so long as he continues to practice law. Earlier in January this year, the BCI had issued notice to reportedly 500 legislators practicing law in India and sought their response on aforesaid prayer of the Petitioner. The issue enc

बोकारो: इंडियन एसोसिएसन आॅफ लाॅयर्स एवं महिला एडभोकेट कल्ब कि ओर से कोर्ट परिसर में अन्र्तराष्ट्रीय महिला दिवस के अवसर पर समारोक का आयोजन किया गया। इंडियन एसोसिएसन आॅफ लाॅयर्स के नेशनल काउसिंल मेंबर अधिवक्ता रणजीत गिरि ने महिला अधिवक्ताओं को संबोधित करते हुए कहा कि बिना समाज के आधी आबादी के सुरक्षा के कुछ भी संभव नही है। आधी दुनिया के ताकत से ही पुरी दुनिया गुलजार है। गिरि ने कहा कि महिलाओं को पुरूषों कि तरह समान अधिकार मिलना चाहिए, तब ही समाज का पूर्ण विकास हो सकता है। अधिवक्ता रिंकु दास ने कहा कि समाज का नजरीया महिलाओं के प्रति बदलना होगा तभी सपूर्ण रूप से विकास कि कल्पना कि जा सकती है। अधिवक्ता आषा ममता खलको ने कहा कि महिलाए पुरूषों से कम नही है। महिलाए पुरूषों से आगे है व उनकी क्षमता का सही उपयोग करने कि जरूरत है। कार्यक्रम कि अध्यक्षता पुष्पांजली जायसवाल ने किया वहीं धन्यवाद ज्ञापन सुकमती हेस्सा ने किया। इस मौके पर अधिवक्ता गीतांजली सोरेन, सोनी श्रीवास्तव, मनोरमा सिंह, बबिता कुमारी, रीता, रूबी सिंह, रेणु कुमारी, प्रीति श्रीवास्तव समेत सैकडो अधिवक्तागण शामिल थी. मिल थी।