IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS/ RECENT JUDGMENTS (MAY 2017)
|
Sr.
|
Case name
|
Court
|
Issue
|
Decision
|
|
1
|
Smt Archana pandey v The State of Madhya Pradesh
|
MP High Court
|
Whether a contractor worker is allowed the
benefits of the Maternity Benefit Act?
|
The High Court of MP answered the issue in
positive and reasoned that not granting maternity leave benefits to
contractual employees would run contrary to the legislative mandate.
|
|
2
|
|
Gujarat high Court
|
Whether medical termination of pregnancy can be
allowed to a pregnancy over 20 weeks to the minor patient?
|
The Gujarat High Court allowed a 16 year old rape
survivor to undergo abortion, even though she had pregnancy of above 20
weeks. Various other High Courts, and
The Supreme Court have allowed termination of pregnancy of above 20 weeks on
case to case basis citing `best interests` of the patient.
(Medical termination of Pregnancy Act prescribes
20 week limit for abortion. An amendment bill to enhance the same to 24 has
been pending since 2014.)
|
|
3
|
|
Gujarat High Court
|
Whether a divorced wife will come within the
ambit of Section 125(4) of CrPC and hence not entitled to claim maintenance
from husband?
|
The Gujarat high Court answering the issue in
negative held that Section 125(4) of CrPC by its language, while barring wife
from maintenance, pre supposes that there is a right and obligation to live
with the husband, and subsistence of relationship between them for
applicability of Section 125(4). Hence, once they are divorced Section 125(4)
becomes inapplicable, and the divorced wife becomes entitled to maintenance.
|
|
4
|
Sudhir Gopi v IGNOU
|
Delhi High Court
|
Whether the arbitrator has power to pierce the
corporate veil so as to include non-parties to arbitration?
|
The Delhi High Court has answered the issue in
negative. UEIT and IGNOU were party to an arbitration agreement. While
passing award in an arbitration proceeding, the arbitral tribunal had made
the shareholder of UEIT liable to make good the award, along with UEIT. The
award was assailed before Delhi High Court, which held that, by making the
shareholder of UEIT as party to arbitration agreement, the arbitrator had
pierced the veil. The High Court held the same to be void, and opined that
piercing the corporate veil cannot be done by arbitrator its jurisdiction is
confined by the arbitration agreement – which includes the parties to
arbitration – and it would not be permissible for the arbitral tribunal to
expand or extend the same to other persons.
|
|
5
|
Jaspal Singh v State of Rajasthan
|
Rajasthan High Court
|
Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act
|
The Rajasthan High Court declared certain sections of Rajasthan
Cooperative Societies Act as amended by 2015 and 2016 amendment
unconstitutional, in light of provisions for cooperative societies under Part
IXB, Article 43B, and Article 243.
|
|
6
|
Zuberi Engineering Company v MP tar Products and MSME, Raipur
|
High Court of Chhattisgarh
|
Whether Parties can resort to another forum for
dispute resolution having valid jurisdiction under law, even if the
arbitration agreement between them confers name a specific court as having
exclusive jurisdiction?
|
The High Court answered the issue in negative,
and held that irrespective of the clause barring or not barring jurisdiction
of any other court, if the parties have agreed to submit before a named court
for dispute resolution in the agreement between them, only that court shall
have jurisdiction between the parties with respect to that contract.
In this case the High Court disallowed the
Respondent to approach Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Facilitation
Council and directed it to proceed before the court mentioned in the
Contract.
|
|
7
|
Poonam Jain v Union of India
|
Delhi High Court
|
Right to the person being prosecuted to all the
documents on which prosecution has relied upon to prosecute him/her.
|
The High Court has emphasized upon the right of
the person being prosecuted, upon a copy of all documents on which the
prosecution shall rely upon. The High Court reached this decisions, while
citing Principles of Natural Justice.
|
|
8
|
V. Shantha v. State of Telangana
|
Supreme Court
|
Recourse to preventive detention.
|
The accused was ordered to be detained under
preventive detention, on the grounds that the illegal activities of accused
were a threat to farmers, and that recourse to normal legal procedure shall
be time consuming. The Apex Court held that repeated use of the words
`goonda` and `prejudicial to maintenance of public order` are not sufficient
for taking recourse to preventive detention.
|
|
9
|
Anil Kumar v Shashi Bal
|
High Court of Himachal Pradesh
|
No right of maintenance allowance under Section
12 of Domestic Violence Act, in case there is no proof of domestic violence.
|
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that, in
the absence of proof domestic violence, there is no right to claim
maintenance allowance. The High Court set aside the judgment by Fast Track
court which had allowed maintenance allowed to complainant wife in absence of
clear proof of domestic violence, on the mere basis that the complainant wife
was living separately.
|
|
11
|
Kesoram Industries v Allahabad Bank
|
Calcutta High Court
|
Whether State Consumer Forums and NCDRC are
courts so as to be covered within the ambit of Section11 of CPC making res
judicata applicable?
|
The Calcutta High Court answered the question in
positive and held that NCDRC and State Consumer Forums are courts for the
purpose of Section 11 of CPC. The High Court observed that these forums are
presided over by judges and they are authorized to take
evidence-on-affidavits, so, these bodies have trappings of courts and
are adjudicatory bodies. Hence, principle of res judicata shall be applicable
on the proceedings before NCDRC and State Consumer Forums.
|
|
12
|
Re Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons
|
Supreme Court
|
Establishment of a Manual for juvenile justice homes.
|
The Apex Court had earlier directed the Centre to
prepare manual similar to Model Prison Manual to address the living
conditions and other issues pertaining to juveniles who are living in various
homes in terms of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,
2015. The same has been published and contains a guideline as to model
behaviour of staffers, what they should do or should desist from.
|
|
13
|
Re: Exploitation of Children in Orphanages in the State of Tamil Nadu
v. Union of India
|
Supreme Court
|
Directions for registration and maintenance of the child care
institutions.
|
The Supreme Court held that “child in need of
care and protection” under Section 2(14) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2000 should not be interpreted as an exhaustive
definition, as even child accused of an offence and brought before the
Juvenile Justice Board or any other authority might also be a child in need
of care and protection. The bench also gave elaborate directions in order to
ensure the welfare of the children in need of care and protection. The Apex
Court further held that every child in need of care and protection must not
be placed in a child care institutions, the Court said that alternatives such
as adoption and foster care need to be seriously considered by the concerned
authorities.
|
|
13
|
State of UP v Sunil
|
Supreme Court
|
Impact of adverse inference caused due to
non-compliance to orders regarding giving finger prints and foot prints.
|
During trial the court might order accused to
give finger prints and foot prints, and the same shall not violate Article
20(3). The Apex Court held that non-compliance of such direction of the Court
may lead to adverse inference, nevertheless, the same cannot be entertained
as the sole basis of conviction.
|
|
14
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
NDPS being a presumptive legislation, needs
to be interpreted strictly.
|
|
15
|
Deepak Malhotra vs Deepti Malhotra and Ors.
|
Delhi High Court
|
Maintenance to wife cannot be mechanically
determined by a mathematical formula from husband`s income.
|
that while making an award for maintenance
under the aforementioned provision, not only should the income of the husband
be taken into consideration, but other factors like the status of the
parties, the liabilities of the husband and the number of persons dependent
on him should also be considered. There isn`t any mathematical formula for
determining the amount of compensation, the courts should be flexible in
their approach for the same.
|
|
16
|
Naveen Jindal v Zee Media Corporation
|
Delhi High Court
|
Whether a Party to a suit can be forced to
produce such documents which the other Party can rely on to use against him?
|
The defendant was in possession of certain
news clips which they had telecasted. The plaintiff sought the same so as to
bring it to notice of the court. However, the defendant argued that, it is
the obligation of the plaintiff, and it is onus upon the plaintiff to prove
defamation and by his own copy of telecast and that the defendants cannot be
called upon to produce evidence which may be used by the plaintiff against
them. The DHC observed that a plain meaning of Order XI Rule 14 is that a
party to a suit, who is in possession or power of a document, may be directed
during the pendency of the suit to produce the same, and ordered the
respondents accordingly.
|
IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS/ RECENT JUDGMENTS (MAY 2017)
Sources: www.livelaw.in, blog.scconline.com
All rights reserved with Lex Luminati (c) Copyright 2017
No comments:
Post a Comment