Sunday, November 28, 2021
More
    BlogNews & JudgementSupreme Court & High Court - Weekly Judgements : 17-23 Oct, 2021...

    Supreme Court & High Court – Weekly Judgements : 17-23 Oct, 2021 : Read Now

    Read the latest Supreme Court & High Court Judgements of this week : 17-23 Oct, 2021

    STAR INDIA PVT. LTD. AND ANR. V. FILMYCLUB.WAPKIZ.COM AND ORS

    The case was initiated by Star India Pvt ltd in Delhi high court seeking  to permanently restrain the Defendants from infringing its exclusive rights and broadcasting reproduction rights, rendition of accounts, damages etc.

    Star India claims to have acquired exclusive global media rights for various ICC events from the International Cricket Council for duration of eight years i.e., from 2015–2023.

    The Delhi High Court has granted interim injunction to Star India Pvt. Ltd., restraining certain ‘rogue websites’ from streaming, broadcasting or sharing through the internet the ICC Men’s T20 World Cup 2021.

    The “Rogue websites” are as follows:

    • filmyclub.wapkiz.com
    • ipl.hitcric.tv
    • doratv-ipl.wapkiz.com
    • tamilblasters.win
    • thdtvworld.xyz
    • uptomovie.xyz
    • zolhdtv.com

    Safir v. Saji:

    The Kerala High Court once again clarify the difference between a bond and an agreement; that an obligation must have been created in the instrument itself to partake the character of a bond.

    The question which presented in the court that whether the parties entered into the agreement is bond as defined under Section 2(a) of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 or an agreement.

    Justice Viju Abraham while recalling abstracts from several landmark judgments to come to a decision:

    “The distinguishing feature of a bond is that the obligation must have been created in the instrument itself and that if the obligation was pre-existing one, it does not pertake the character of a bond… Where an obligation is a pre-existing one, the subsequent document giving the nature of the obligation or the terms and conditions of the contract shall be a mere agreement.”

    ABHISHEK v. STATE NCT OF DELHI:

    Delhi high court clarifies section 167(2) Cr.P.C that during the custody of an undertrial prisoner, the Magistrate/concerned Court shall not mechanically extend the period of custody for the maximum period of 15 days as prescribed under sec. 167(2) of Cr.P.C.

    “The custody shall be extended while keeping in mind the 60th, 90th or 180th day (depending on the nature of offence and applicability of any Special Act) of completing the investigation and submission of charge sheet. If such 60th, 90th or 180th day falls before the maximum extension period of 15 days, then the custody shall be extended only upto the 60th, 90th or 180th, as may be applicable.”

    It’s the duty or an obligation of Jail Authority to inform the undertrial of the date when the right to seek default bail accrues if the Challan under section 173(2) is not produced in the court within the Sec 167(2) Crpc.

    Hence in this case the Abhishek who is in undertrial was given  the compulsory/default bail under Sec167(2).

    Eternal Word Trust v. State of Tamil Nadu:

    Madras High Court gives direction to the concerned state authorities to conduct a regular inspection in the children homes to maintain them in proper living condition, facilities and administration of the homes.

    Justice SM Subramaniam further extanded that if any officer defaulted and didn’t follow the direction then there should be appropriate action to be taken by the Head of the Department and the concerned government authorities at their own liberty.

    “Protection of Children is of paramount importance and the duty of the State enshrined under the Constitution of India. The interest of minor children at no circumstances be compromised by the State and the Authorities Competent. Thus, the jurisdictional respective District Child Protection Officers and other Authorities are directed to conduct periodical inspection of such Homes, so as to ensure the living conditions, facilities provided and the administration of such Homes by the persons concerned and submit report to the Higher Officials for the purpose of pursuing any actions if required under law”, the Court stated.

    In the present case a child home was running by Eternal World Trust, a public charitable trust who challenged an order of closing of their child home. According to authorities the trust had custody of 49 children without permission in 2015

    Court order a fresh inspection and found no children was there at the custody of the trust, court confined its observing

    “..the petitioner cannot run any such Children Home without obtaining proper permission from the Competent Authorities in the manner known to law … the impugned order lost its relevance as no children are in the custody of the petitioner as of now as per the Status Report filed by the District Child Protection Officer, Thiruvallur and thus, no further consideration is required in the present writ petition.”

    Kangana Ranaut v. The State of Maharashtra:

    A Mumbai Court has rejected the plea of transferring the Defamation case against her filed by lyricist Javed Akhtar out of the 10th court Andheri.

    Defamation Case was filed by the lyricist Javed Akhtar for an interview given by Kangana Raut on Reoublic TV while commenting on Sushant Rajput Suicide.

    My Hindustan Paints v. S. Aanathakrishnan IPS:

    Kerala High Court on Thursday adjured ED and BEVCO to plan and provide walk-in facilities at liquor outlets, instead of letting people line up in the streets.

    Justice Devan Ramachandran while considering a contempt petition orally remarked: “Nobody wants a liquor store next to their residence. This is a fact; there is no point in lying about it. But if liquor stores were like all the other stores with a walk-in facility, it would solve half the problem. The issue is that since these outlets are small and dingy, people line up on the streets, making it impossible for women and children to safely walk through these areas. I don’t see why we are burying our heads in the sand; this is happening and we all know it.”

    “I’m happy to see that there is no poverty when people are lining up in front of liquor stores. It is perhaps the only place where there is an egalitarian attitude; nobody wants subsidies, nobody demands reservations. Everyone obediently lines up for liquor without complaining.”

    The case has been further adjourned for discussion on 9 November, 2021.

    Kavitha Lankesh vs State of Karnataka:

    Famous Gauri Lankesh, Jouralist murder case update:- Karnataka HC dropped KCOCA (Karnataka Control of Organised Crimes Act, 2000) charges against one of the accused, Mohan Nayak; and Apex Court found this erroneous as HC had not examined the scheme of Section 24 of the KCOCA; which states that no Special Court shall take cognizance of any offence under the Act without the previous sanction of a police officer not below the rank of Additional Director General of Police. The same was duly complied with in this case, it was pointed out by way of additional chargesheet, but HC didn’t consider the same.

    A Three judge bench consisting of Justice AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar granted permission on the petition filed by  Lankesh’s sister, Kavita Lankesh assailing the High Court verdict.

    Neil Aurelio Nunes and Ors v Union of India and Ors; Yash Tekwani and Ors v Medical Counselling Committee (MCC) and Ors; Christina Ann Thomas & Anr v  UOI:

    The present case before Hon’ble Supreme Court point outs a hard question on limit of Rs. 8 lakh criteria to determine the Economic Weaker Society(EWS) which is similar to the criteria made out for OBC category.

    “You just cannot pull out 8 lakh from thin air……you are making unequal’s equals by applying the Rs 8 lakh limit”, Justice Chandrachud questions Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj that how the same criteria is justified between two groups, as OBCs are socially & educationally backward but EWS are not.

    A three judge bench consisting of Justices DY Chandrachud, Justice Vikram Nath and Justice BV Nagarathna; expressed unhappiness on Center behaviour of not filling of affidavit on the issue.

    Rahul Gandhi v. State of Jharkhand and Anr

    Jharkhand High Court on Friday extended till December 7, 2021 in connection to its decision of no coercive action against Rahul Gandhi on a defamation case; filed against him on his alleged statement, “why all thieves share the Modi surname”. Single Judge Bench consisting of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi who extended the defamation case on February 27, 2020 on a defamation case filed in Ranchi Court. Rahul Gandhi stated in his argument that their Advocate is now a law officer so they need a time to rethink and appoint a advocate.

    A2Z Infraservices Ltd & Anr. v. NDMC

    DELHI HC gave a decision that World Bank or any other International Authority doesn’t cover under the ambit meaning of State in purview Article 12. Division Bench consisting of Justices Vipin Sanghi and Jasmeet Singh observed that a body to be Government Agency must be covered under “pervasive and actual control” of the Government of India. The Judges observed “We are of view that World Bank or any other international bodies cannot be considered as a Government agency. This is for the reason that none of these international bodies are bound by directions issued by the Government of India. The Government of India does not exercise control over, actual or pervasive; their affairs and that is why they have been held as not amenable to writ jurisdiction of the High Court, as they are not considered State or other authority within meaning of the said expressions under Articles 12, and 226, of the Constitution of India.” The decision come into light during a discussion on a writ petition filed against North Delhi Municipal Corporation; rejecting the Petitioner’s bid and disqualifying it from participating in any re-tendering process on the ground that the petitioner stands debarred by the World Bank.

    Anil Kumar v. State of Haryana & Ors

    While hearing a case Punjab and Haryana HC noted a fiduciary person who gets an order from the Punjab and Haryana HC in a case on similar grounds with same cause of action and relief. To be free from this HC orders that from now on, the residential proof of petitioners should get verified by the LD. Counsels of petitioners either through their authentic document like ADHAR CARD NUMBER or PASSPORT NUMBER; and the same need to be mentioned in the petition before filing in the court.

    Disclaimer: We try to ensure that the information we post on LegalThirst.com is accurate. However, despite our best efforts, some of the content may contain errors. You can trust us, but please conduct your own checks too.



    Legal Thirst has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, Events, and various opportunities.
    You can click on this link and join:

    Follow Legal Thirst on Instagram and Subscribe to our YouTube channel for more amazing legal content.

    Subscribe Today

    GET EXCLUSIVE FULL ACCESS TO PREMIUM CONTENT

    SUPPORT NONPROFIT JOURNALISM

    EXPERT ANALYSIS OF AND EMERGING TRENDS IN CHILD WELFARE AND JUVENILE JUSTICE

    TOPICAL VIDEO WEBINARS

    Get unlimited access to our EXCLUSIVE Content and our archive of subscriber stories.

    Exclusive content

    Latest article

    More article