1. Pramod Kumar versus Union of India and others
Madras High Court apologizes to supreme Court for delay in deciding a case said, “could not keep up the hope and trust”.
Recently Madras High Court apologizes supreme court and append a note for not keeping up the hope and trust of the honorable supreme Court. The HC while deciding a matter relating to a writ plea filed by Indian Police Service (IPS) officer; who has been accused of extorting 3 crore rupees from a woman who was alleged to be involved in economic offence.
The court comprising of Bench of Justice C.V. Karthikeyan, while failing to expeditiously decide the matter shows apology as in the case the investigation has been transferred to CBI and subsequent investigation by CBI delayed the ususal procedure.
The present case was remanded back by Supreme Court in 2015 to High Court for a fresh hearing with a trust and hope that High Court would dispose the whole controversy at earliest.
2. Gurpreet Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab
Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed a anticipatory bail application under charges 323, 341, 506, 295-A, 148 & 149 IPC and sections 66-E of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
The bench of Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal gave his assertion on section 295-A specifically that uploading a 65 year old injured and turbanless man’s video over social media like Facebook while showing him without turban is hurting the religious sentiments. Thus a prima facie case of 295-A is made out without commenting on case facts, the court dismissed the anticipatory bail application.
3. Section 202 M.V. Act – Telangana High Court
Bench comprising Justice K Lakshman while deciding a number of pleas regarding police officers powers of vehicle seizure from owner & driver of vehicle who was in intoxicated state; comment negatively and issues guidelines that what should be the opted procedure in the given condition when the no other person except the intoxicated owner or driver is present in the car.
The Police officers shall take the intoxicated person to nearest police station and inform his near & dear and if no one comes to take back the custody then the police officers can retain the vehicle for temporarily but can’t sieze or detain the vehicle merely becuase of intoxication of rider. They shall release the vehicle to owner or any authorized person on production of RC.
Though Court also reminded the citizens thier fundamental duty to drive safely and to take all precautions to maintain road safety.
4. Neeta Bhardwaj & Ors. V. Kamlesh Sharma
Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Pratibha M Singh on removal of encroachments and management of devotees at Kalkaji Temple Complex strictly issued directions for earlier dispute resolution and to remove all encroachments in temple premises & near vicinity as proper system for making donations by devotees is needed. Court also suggested for opening a additional Bank Account to facilitate administration.
Court appointed a LC on last date of hearing too, to check the donations made and to make a report of working condition of CCTV Cameras installed in temple premises.
Court had also appointed a LC for paying suprise visits to temple to check whether the Pooja Sewa money be deposited properly in donation box or not. The Local Commissioner is requested to report on other issues like cleanliness, hygiene and other facilities available to the devotees.
5. K.S. Suresh vs State of Karnataka
A public interest litigation was filed by K.S. Suresh. Petitioner had sought direction to be issued to state government to issue necessary directions to all Municipal and Police authorities in the state in regard of removal of unauthorized statues and flag post in cities and towns
Respondent’s counsel inform Court that no specific allegation have been made regarding any particular statue which is causing any hindrance or problem for public or pedestrians and further they argued that some statues have been there for a quite long time, for more than 20 to 25 years old.
Court said “In view of the above we dispose of this writ petition with observations that the petitioner may make a complain to the Chief Commissioner, BBMP giving specific instances where the sad statues or flag posts are causing any inconvenience to the public for creating any traffic hazard. The said instances would be inquired into by authorities concerned and appropriate remedial measures shall be taken. The petitioner shall file his complaint within 10 days from today”.
6. Swapna Prabha Suresh vs union of India
The Kerala High Court ruled that gold smuggling could threaten a country’s economic security but same is not covered under the provisions of U.A.PA.
In this case accused smuggled gold through the diplomatic channel and their bail was rejected by Special Court for offences and was moved to High-count
Kerala High Court bench relied on decision of Mohammad Shafi p v. Nia Kochi. In this case it was held that smuggling of gold is covered under the provisions of Customs act and not fall within the definition of a ‘terrorist act’ which is defined under section 15 of UAPA.
Court also held that unless the evidence shows that gold smuggling was done with the intention to threaten the economic stability or monetary stability of India by attempting to Indulge in any manner in the counterfeiting of high quality notes or coins then and then alone, section 15 would be attracted. On these grounds nBail application was allowed.
People for animals versus state of Kerala and others
In this case it was alleged by taking shelter under a clause in the bye-laws of the association that prohibits residents from keeping pets of their choice in the individual apartments, the office bearers of the association have issued notices to him asking him to remove his pets from the premises.
Court allowed this petition by stating:
Well this writ petition by declaring that clauses in any below or agreement that have the effect of absolutely prohibiting a person from keeping a pet of his/her choice in a residential unit occupied by that person should be treated as void and unforeseeable in law. Consequently, resident owners association and resident welfare associations shall desist from putting up notice boards or sign boards prohibiting the keeping or entry of pets in their respective premises.
Court also made it clear that residents association may stipulate reasonable condition that must be adhered to the owners residence of individual apartments while keeping pets there in.
8. Bombay High Court on Aadhar Food Linkage
Bombay High Court decided that lack of Aadhaar linkage is no reason to deny benefits under national food security act 2013 (NFS) to the tribal.
Court also observe that Aadhar card can not only be the criteria for identify the beneficiary not the sole criteria:
” There is another document on which the beneficiary can rely upon to receive the benefits of the scheme; that is Ration Card issued by the state of Union Territory administration food department. In this case, court relied on Supreme Court of the nation in KS puttaswamy versus Union of India 2019.This case is also popularly known as Aadhar Card judgement. Court held that beneficial schemes are not charity or doles and the technology shall not be a raider to implement beneficial schemes.
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.