RANJIT GIRI

April 25, 2018 Case name: Mangammal @ Thulasi and Anr. v. T.B. Raju & Ors. Date of Judgment: April 19, 2018 In the case, the appellants were daughters of Late Shri T.G. Basuvan who died in 1979 and Respondent No. 1 was the brother of the appellants herein. Late T.G. Basuvan had left three properties consisting of agriculture land and dwelling house. On account of some dispute, the appellants in the case instituted a partition suit and for separate possession of the suit properties. However, the Lower Courts in the case rejected the plea of the appellants and aggrieved by the same, the appellants approached the Supreme Court. Also read Daughter’s Right in Property-SC says Daughters have Same Right as Sons What is ancestral property? To decide the issue at hand, the Two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court delved into the concept of ancestral property. The Court stated that any property inherited upto four generations of male lineage from the father, father’s father or

April 26, 2018 Case name: M.C. Mehta v. Union of India Date of Order: April 24, 2018 In the case, the main grievance of the Petitioner was that construction was being carried out in unauthorized colonies of Delhi. The Petitioner also argued that as the building and other bye-laws do not apply to these unauthorized colonies, such colonies were placed in a better position than authorized colonies. The Petitioner in this context also made reference to Supreme Court’s order passed in 2007 wherein it was held that  unauthorized colonies cannot be placed in a better position than authorized colonies. Taking note of the Supreme Court’s order of 2007, the Two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court has now directed that  there should not be any further construction in unauthorized colonies including on public land beyond the existing building and other bye-laws.   Consequently, all building and construction activity in the unauthorized colonies including on public land is stopped wi

April 26, 2018 While the Aadhaar case was being heard by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, the Court questioned the Centre on the source of mandatory requirement to link Aadhaar number with mobile number. During the hearing reference was made to DoT’s (Department of Telecom) Circular of 2017 which directed telecom operators to conduct an Aadhaar-based re-verification of all mobile connections in view of Supreme Court’s order in the case of  Lokniti Foundation v. Union of India. While hearing the petition yesterday, Justice Chandrachud stated that the Supreme Court in the Lokniti case had not ordered Aadhaar-based e-KYC process. The Centre responded by stating that it is empowered to issue such circular by virtue of Section 4(1) of the Telegraph Act which states that the Central Government shall have the exclusive privilege of establishing, maintaining and working telegraphs and that the Central Government may grant a license, on such conditions and in conside

April 26, 2018 Case name: Delhi Administration v. Vidya Gupta Date of Judgment: April 24, 2018 The statutory provision to which the instant case relates is  Section 7 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 . Also read  Protection of Consumers from adulteration of food . Brief facts of the case  were that the accused, a vendor of a Sweet shop in New Delhi was in charge of the day to day business of the shop. One of the Food Inspector purchased a sample of Ghee, for analysis from the shop where the said food article was stored for sale. On analysis of the Ghee, report was prepared which opined that the sample did not conform to the standards of Ghee as per the Food Adulteration Act and charges were framed. Thus, the accused was held guilty of the violation of the several provisions of the Act alongwith with Section 7 of the Act. Section 7 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954  prohibits a manufacturer or seller from sale of adulterated food. The explanati

April 24, 2018 Case name: Amardeep Singh Johar v. State of NCT of Delhi In the case, the seminal issue pertained to Section 41A of Code of Criminal Procedure Code. The Petitioner’s grievance in the case inspite of several documents tendered by him during proceedings before the Crime against Women Cell, no receipt had been given to the petitioner and these documents having a critical bearing on the case were not made part of the record by the police. Thus, the Petitioner alleged that he had no material or evidence to support his contention that he had regularly joined investigation and also that he had tendered several documents which manifested that he was innocent in the case. Hence, the intrinsic issue being that statutory requirement as enumerated under Section 41A of Code of Criminal Procedure was not duly followed by the Police Officers in the case. Section 41A of the CrPC provides for  notice of appearance before Police Officer . It states that the police officer sh

April 23, 2018 The President on April 21, 2018 promulgated the Fugitive Economic Offenders Ordinance, 2018. The Union Cabinet in March this year had approved the proposal of the Ministry of Finance to introduce the  Fugitive Economic Offenders Bill, 2018  in Parliament.  One of the major provision in the Bill is that for offences worth Rs. 100 crore or more, the Property of Fugitive Economic Offenders would be attached. The Bill primarily aims at laying down measures to deter economic offenders from evading the process of Indian law by remaining outside the jurisdiction of Indian courts. Who is a Fugitive Economic Offender? A Fugitive Economic Offender is a person against whom an arrest warrant has been issued in respect of a scheduled offence and who has left India so as to avoid criminal prosecution, or being abroad, refuses to return to India to face criminal prosecution. Read more  here . Key Highlights of the Ordinance The Ordinance lays down measures to empow

April 20, 2018 Case name: Dr. Sangamitra Acharya & Anr. v. State of NCT of Delhi Date of Judgment: April 18, 2018 In this first of its kind case, the Delhi High Court has directed the parents of a 23-year old daughter to compensate the daughter for violating her fundamental right to livelihood and liberty guaranteed under the Constitution. In the case at hand, the protagonist was forcibly taken away from the residence of her music teacher in Khirki Extension, Delhi with whom she had been residing since she turned 18. She was taken away to a privately run mental hospital and kept there without her consent. One of the primary issues confronted by the Delhi High Court in the case was the Constitutional dimensions of the right of choice in the context of the rights of an adult female to exercise her full right to life and liberty under the Constitution of India. The Court noted that the case involved interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Mental Health Act, 1

April 22, 2018 It has been reported that the Union Cabinet has approved the promulgation of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 2018 which enumerates death penalty for child rape convicts i.e. of children below 12 years of age. The ordinance seeks to brings amendment to the Indian Penal Code, the Evidence Act, the Code of Criminal procedure and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POSCO) Act. In the wake of recent horrifying incidents of Kathua and Unnao rape case wherein the victims were minor girls, the Union Minister of Women and Child Development, Maneka Gandhi had urged the Centre to amend law to provide for death penalty of girl child below 12 years of age.

April 20, 2018 In this technologically advanced world, the Indian Courts are not leaving any stone unturned to utilize cyber age facilities towards simplification of otherwise complicated and lengthy court proceedings. Bombay High Court’s recent order in the case of Harshada Bharat Deshmukh v. Bharat Appasaheb Deshmukh is a testimony to same. In this case, the Bombay High Court has directed the Family Court to arrange for the consent terms of Divorce to be recorded either through Skype or by adopting any other technology. The petitioner had filed a petition seeking dissolution of marriage by mutual consent and the said petition was presented before the Family Court was filed by husband of the Petitioner and the Petitioner jointly. In the case, the Petition was signed by the husband and on behalf of the wife it was signed by her father and Power of Attorney holder as the wife was employed in the US. However, the Family Court in the case did not register the Petitioner seeking

April 17, 2018 In an official statement issued by the Ministry of Women and Child Development it has been apprised that in view of augmented incidents of NRI matrimonial disputes, the Government would issue Five Look-out Circulars (LoCs). In a meeting convened under the chairpersonship of Secretary, Ministry of Women and Child Development (MWCD) it has been decided that 5 cases pertaining to the NRI Matrimonial Dispute have been found fit for issuance of Look-out-Circular (LOC) & MWCD will issue those 5 LoCs. LOC for evading arrest-  In criminal matter involving NRI’s, LOC could be issued by the investigating agency in cognizable offences, when the overseas husband is deliberately evading arrest or not appearing in the trial court despite Non Bailable Warrants and other coercive measures or there is a likelihood that he will leave the country to evade trial or arrest. The aforesaid action has been taken in view of numerous complaints of frauds, abandonment, domesti

Kerala HC: Compensation paid to Donor not Commercial Dealings in Human Organs April 17, 2018 Case name: Mohamed Abdul Nassar & Anr. v. State of Kerala & ors. The present case was filed challenging the guidelines for organ transplantation issued by the Health & Family Welfare Department of the State of Kerala. The Petitioner in the case primarily challenged the provision relating to the compensation for altruistic donor, which reads as under: All medical expenses incurred for donor evaluation and donor surgery must be borne by the recipients. The donor also should be compensated for loss of income which will be limited to Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) per month for three months. The donor will be provided with free health insurance during his/her entire life time under any of the Health Insurance Scheme of Government. (2) The recipient who receive organ from an altruistic donor or a swap donor must pay organ utilization fee to KNOS @ Rs.2,00,000/- (Ru

April 17, 2018 Case name: Sucha Singh Sodhi (D) Thr. LRs. v. Baldev Raj Walia & Anr. Date of Judgement: April 13, 2018 Issue- Whether the Plaintiff could claim the relief of specific performance of agreement against the respondents/defendants in addition to his claim of permanent injunction in the previously instituted suit? In the case, the Two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court categorically stated that the plaintiff could not claim the relief of specific performance of agreement against the defendants along with the relief of permanent injunction in the previous suit and the reasons assigned by the Apex Court for the same are as under: That the cause of action to claim a relief of permanent injunction and the cause of action to claim a relief of specific performance of agreement are independent and one cannot include the other and vice versa. Thus, a plaintiff cannot claim a relief of specific performance of agreement against the defendant on a cause of action on whic

April 13, 2018 Case name: Harita Sunil Parab v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Date of Judgment: March 28, 2018 In the present case, the applicant sought transfer of two F.I.R. registered in Delhi and Ghaziabad respectively to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Mumbai, Maharashtra. The petitioner in the case alleged that she is a permanent resident of Mumbai and was finding it difficult to pursue matters in Delhi as her professional engagements in Mumbai were also suffering because of the same. On the other hand, the respondent husband opposed the transfer petition contending that the accused and the prosecution witnesses were situated in Delhi and if the petition is allowed then his professional engagements would be hindered. Bench’s verdict While deciding the aforesaid transfer petition, the Three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court made reference to Supreme Court’s verdict in the case of  Gurcharan Das Chadha vs. State of Rajasthan [1] , wherein dealing with th