A bench of Justice SA Bobde and Justice L Nageswara has dismissed as withdrawn the petitions praying for age relaxation for appearing in the National Eligibility and Entrance Test (NEET) 2018 examination while challenging a notification introducing the upper age limit 25 years for unreserved candidates and 30 years for reserved category candidates. The Apex Court has allowed the petitioners to withdraw their petitions with the liberty to move the High Court.
The two Judge Bench of Justices AK Sikri and Ashok Bhushan has held that it is not obligatory for a Court to release an accused by accepting the bond under Section 88 Cr.P.C. on the ground that he surrendered before the Court voluntarily and he was not arrested during investigation. The bench was hearing an appeal against the judgment and order of Allahabad High Court dismissing a Writ Petition filed by an accused challenging the Trial Court’s order denying bail to him. The Bench further added that Section 88 of the Cr.P.C. does not confer any right on any person, who is present in a Court.
A Supreme Court bench comprising of Justice Rohinton Nariman and Justice Navin Sinha have set aside a judgment of Bombay High Court dated March 30, 2017, thereby holding that the offence of ‘interference with meters or works of licensee’ under section 138 of the Electricity Act, 2003 also relates to the theft of electricity and hence, is compoundable under section 152 of the Act.
Bombay High Court has held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother, will devolve upon the heirs of her father/mother, if she dies without any children of her own, and not upon her husband.
The Central Government has notified exemption to its share of profit petroleum paid to the Centre from the Goods and Services Tax.
As per the Notification, the Central Government has exempted the intra-State supply of services by way of grant of license or lease to explore or mine petroleum crude or natural gas or both.
A Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra restrained all the High Courts in the country from hearing any petition related to the alleged mysterious death of special CBI judge BH Loya. Since the matter is related to the death of a judge, the apex Court has transferred the Public Interest Litigations filed in the Mumbai High Court and its Nagpur bench to itself. The matter is next listed to be heard on February 2, 2018.
Supreme Court has stayed all further proceedings in petitions challenging the applicability of Goods and Service Tax (GST) on lawyers for their services individually or through law firms, pending before the Delhi High Court and Chattisgarh High Court.
In a petition filed by J.K. Mittal & Company, the Delhi High Court directed the Centre to abstain from taking any coercive action against lawyers and law firms for non-compliance with any legal requirement under the CGST Act, IGST Act or the DGST Act till further clarification is issued by the Centre and the State in this regard.
The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Bill, 2017 (Triple Talaq Bill) has been passed in the Loksabha.
The Bill has been drafted in the aftermath of the Supreme Court decision in the case of Shayara Bano v. Union of India & Ors., wherein the Court declared the practice of triple talaq as unconstitutional. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Bill notes that the judgment has not worked as a deterrent in bringing down the number of instances of triple talaq.
Section 3 of the Bill states that “talaq-e-biddat” shall be ‘void’ and ‘illegal’. This is followed by consequence of such void action in terms of Section 4 thereof, stating, whoever pronounces talaq-e-biddat shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years and fine.
The Supreme Court vacation bench of Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel and Justice UU Lalit observed that the fee regulating authority constituted under Section 11(3) of the Maharashtra Unaided Private Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions and Fees) Act of 2015 must devise a mechanism to afford an opportunity of being heard to affected students in its decisions to enhance the fee structure of institutions.
The bench was hearing the SLP arising out of judgment dated November 29 of the Bombay High Court in Sucheta Das & Ors v State of Maharashtra & Ors [W.P. (C) 10927/2017], wherein the High Court has upheld the order of the authority increasing the fee.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has directed the Chief Secretary of the State Government to issue directions to all concerned to ensure that women employees get child care leave. The Court took a tough view on a Petition filed by a woman employee seeking direction to the authorities to grant her child care leave. Issuing directives to the Chief Secretary of the State Government, the Court observed “filing of such Petitions may be stopped, and the concerned employee may be saved from incurring unnecessary expenses”.
The Centre has submitted a scheme for setting up of Special Courts for exclusively dealing with criminal cases involving Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assembly (MLAs) before the Supreme Court of India.
In an Additional Affidavit, the Centre has submitted that the scheme envisages setting up of 12 Special Courts at an expenditure of Rs. 7.80 crores. It further submitted that the Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance has given in-principle approval for the same on 8 December.
The Court observed that once the scheme is submitted before it, the Court will deal with the issue of appointing judicial officers, public prosecutors and court staff by interacting with the representatives of the States.
The Delhi High Court, on Thursday, held that arbitration and SARFAESI proceedings can be resorted to simultaneously for recovery of loan arrears.
According to Justice Navin Chawla, “As the SARFAESI Act and the Arbitration /Debt Recovery Act are held to be complementary in nature and the doctrine of election has been held to be not applicable, it cannot be said that if a party has invoked one remedy, it is debarred from invoking the other during the pendency of the first one. Under the SARFAESI Act, especially under Section 13 thereof, the secured creditor will proceed against the security given for the loan. The Arbitration Proceedings and SARFAESI Act proceedings can go hand in hand. It has held that the provisions of SARFAESI Act are a remedy in addition to the provisions of the Arbitration Act. The two Acts are cumulative remedies to the secured creditors. While SARFAESI Act proceedings are in nature of enforcement proceeding, the arbitration proceedings would be in form of an adjudicatory process. In the event that the secured assets are insufficient to satisfy the debt, the secured creditor can proceed against other assets in execution against the debtor, after determination of pending outstanding amount by a competent forum i.e. in this case the arbitration.”
The Gujarat High Court has quashed a case against the former wife of a man whose present wife had filed a criminal case under Section 498A IPC arraying her as well, as an accused. The complainant wife had alleged that her husband after getting married to her, went back to his divorced wife. She had arrayed the former wife also as accused in her complaint, along with her husband.
Justice JB Pardiwala observed that even if it is assumed that the husband went back to his first wife, the fact remains that as the marriage was dissolved, the former wife would not fall within the ambit of “the relative of the husband”.
A Section 498A IPC offence came up for consideration before Kerala High Court in M Abdul Sathar v Aneesa. In the said case, the court had held that if the former husband had subjected a divorced wife to cruelty in his status as her husband during subsistence of their marriage, he will be liable for offence under Section 498A of IPC. But, if the alleged act of cruelty is committed by a former husband on the divorced wife after divorce, no offence under Section 498A IPC will lie against him.
Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that if a vehicle registered and insured in India meets with an accident in another country, the insurance company would be liable to pay the claim.
The order pertained to compensation to the kin of 54 pilgrims from Kurukshetra who lost their lives in an accident in Nepal on June 18, 1995. The driver of the bus had lost control and the vehicle had fallen into Nepal’s Trishuli Nadi.
Court was of the view that the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act make it clear that the insurance policy is “attached to the vehicle in question and not to geographical expanse of the area of operation of the vehicle.”
The Delhi High Court requested the Law Commission of India to examine the possibility of legislation for providing relief and rehabilitation to victims of wrongful prosecution and incarceration in India.
The Bench comprising Justice S. Muralidhar and Justice I.S. Mehta highlighted the “urgent need” for a framework, observing, “There is an urgent need, therefore, for a legal (preferably legislative) framework for providing relief and rehabilitation to victims of wrongful prosecution and incarceration. Whether this should be an omnibus legislation or scheme that caters to both the needs of the victim of the crime, as well those wrongfully incarcerated, including the family and dependents of the prisoner, or these have to be dealt with in separate legislation or schemes is a matter for discussion, deliberation and consultation