RANJIT GIRI

June 16, 2018 Case name: Sanjay Kumar Sinha vs Asha Kumari This appeal is filed by the husband against the final judgment whereby the High Court dismissed the application filed by the appellant husband In the case, the appellant husband had filed the divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the respondent wife. The respondent had filed application under Section 24 of the Act in the aforesaid Divorce petition and claimed from the appellant (husband) pendente lite monthly maintenance for herself and her daughter. In the case, the respondent (wife) had also filed one application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 seeking maintenance. Thus, two maintenance orders were passed in favour of the respondent and the same was contested by the appellant. In appeal, the Supreme Court made disposed of the appeal and held that the second consequent order upon passing of the maintenance order under Section 24 of the Act by the Family Court,

June 16, 2018 Case name: Senior Citizen Welfare Organization & another v. State of Uttarakhand & Anr. In a recent case, the High Court of Uttarakhand while recognizing the failure of State to maintain adequate old age homes for the senior citizens in the State has issued a slew of mandatory directions. In the case, the Petitioner is a registered Society who have instituted this petition with the object to protect the rights of the senior citizens as per the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of the Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (the Act). The Petitioner in the case alleged that as per Section 19 of the Act old age homes is to be established in each district of the State of Uttarakhand. Section 19 ordains the State Government to establish and maintain such number of old age homes at accessible places at least one in each district to accommodate minimum 150 senior citizens who are indigent. However, the Respondent State has established only two old age ho

June 16, 2018 It has been recently reported that the High Court of Bombay in a case has accepted service of notice through WhatsApp. While accepting the service of notice Justice GS Patel remarked that not only the WhatsApp message but also the attached document in PDF format was opened by the recipient, hence the same was deemed to be duly received. In the case, the High Court was taking up an execution application wherein the recipient Rohit Jadhav was evading the receipt of notice. 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 Plaintiff to serve summons upon the Defendant by text message or WhatsApp or e-mail and to file affidavit of service.

June 06, 2018 In this recent case, the High Court of Bombay has settled the legal proposition that the death of the main accused does not absolve charges or abates trial against other allied accused in the case. In the case at hand the main accused i.e. Accused No.1 was a Public Servant and was reported to be dead before framing of charge and hence criminal proceeding against him were abated. However, charges were framed against other accused (who were not Public servant) for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. It was contended by the prosecution in the case Special Judge also could not frame any charge against other accused in the case who were non­public servant. The High Court of Bombay after relying on precedents and facts of the case directed that the Special Judge shall proceed to frame charges against the accused in the case. While pronouncing its order, the High Court relied on Supreme Court’s recent judgement in the case of  State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Nir

June 06, 2018 It has been reported that a contempt petition has been instituted with the Supreme Court against CBSE (Central Board of Secondary Education) for allegedly violating its order in the case of CBSE & Anr. v. Aditya Bandhpadhyay and Ors.[1], whereby the Apex Court had upheld the right of an examinee to access his evaluated answer-books, by e ither inspecting them or take certified copies thereof and had observed that the examining bodies (Universities, Examination Boards, CBSC etc.) are neither security nor intelligence organisations and therefore the exemption under Section 24 of the RTI Act will not apply to them. The disclosure of information with reference to answer-books does not also involve infringement of any copyright and therefore Section 9 of the Act will not apply. Resultantly, unless the examining bodies are able to demonstrate that the evaluated answer-books fall under any of the categories of exempted `information’ enumerated in clauses (a) to (j) of su

June 06, 2018 In a case  (The State of Maharashtra v. Vijay Ghogre & ors.)  taken up by the Supreme Court yesterday, the Bench has directed that  the Union of India is not debarred from making promotions in accordance with law, subject to further orders, pending further consideration of the matter. The Supreme Court’s direction was made in a case challenging Delhi High Court’s judgment passed in August last year, whereby the Court had struck down  Circular issued by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) in 1997 . The Circular in question states that in furtherance of Constitution Bench judgment in the case of  Indra Sawhney v. Union of India  ( AIR 1993 SC 477 )  and in pursuance of insertion of Article 16(4A) it  has been  decided to continue the reservation in promotion, as at present, for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes in the services/posts under the Central Government beyond 15.11.1997 till such time as the representation of each of the above t

He had forwarded a Facebook post containing derogatory remarks about women journalists and media. The Supreme Court on Friday denied interim protection from arrest to actor-turned-politician S.Ve. Shekher for forwarding a Facebook post containing derogatory remarks about women journalists and media. On May 22, the court provided the BJP leader protection from arrest till June 1. But a Vacation Bench of Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Mohan M. Shantanagoudar on Friday asked Mr. Shekher to appear before the magistrate court and apply for regular bail. Charge sheet filed: T.N. govt. This was after advocate Yogesh Kanna, for Tamil Nadu government, submitted that the State had filed a charge sheet in the case. “If a charge sheet has been filed, it is a norm that the accused appear before the court. Go and appear before the court,” Justice Rao addressed advocate Balaji Srinivasan, appearing for Mr. Shekher. “You are a big man... an actor,” Justice Shantanagoudar remarked at one

June 01, 2018 Case name: Amrit Paul Singh & Anr. v. TATA AIG General Insurance & ors. In this recent case, the Supreme Court denied claim of insurance to the Appellant in Motor Vehicle Accident case on the ground that on the date of accident the driver of the vehicle in question was not holding the permit. Also read  Important Judgments on Compensation in Motor Vehicle Accident Cases In the case, the Appellants being legal representatives of deceased claim insurance from the respondent Insurance Company. Here it would be germane to mention that the deceased met with an accident while driving motor cycle which was hit by an offending truck. The Respondent Insurance Company opposed the claim on the ground that the vehicle in question was driven in violation of the terms of the insurance policy inasmuch as the vehicle on the date of accident did not have the permit. In appeal the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal (MACT) as well as the High Court held that as the driver

June 01, 2018 In a remarkable case (Jabbar v. State, decided on May 30, 2018) the Delhi High Court to combat recidivism by the Appellant who was guilty of committing sodomy on a 6 year old boy punished the accused appellant for a period of 15 years of rigorous imprisonment. In the case, the appellant appealed against Additional Session Judge’s order whereby the appellant was held liable for offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act i.e. sodomizing and, thereby, committing aggravated penetrative sexual assault on, a 6-year-old boy. The High Court after hearing the facts and circumstances in the case and in view of evidence on record dismissed the appeal and made the following key observation with reference to the POCSO Act in the case: That the POCSO Act applies to every person below 18 years of age. It also referred to Supreme Court’s recent observation in the case of Alakh Alok Srivsatava vs Union of India[1] to hold that the POCSO Act is a gender neutral legislation