Legal Update as on 03.01.2023

legal-updates
  1. J&K&L HC: IN AN INSURANCE CLAIM, CAUSE OF ACTION AROSE ON THE DATE THE CLAIM WAS REPUDIATED – The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has noted that in an insurance case, “cause of action” may also arise on the day the insured’s claim is rejected by the insurance company.
    UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY VS GHULAM NABI BHAT & ORS.
  1. J&K&L HC – REFUSAL TO PROVIDE A COPY OF THE DETENTION ORDER DOESN’T VIOLATE THE DECISION OF THE AUTHORITY – The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that the custody is not invalidated by the detaining authority’s inability to provide a translated copy of the detention order while rejecting a habeas corpus petition.
    Akash Karka Vs UT of J&K
  1. MAD HC – From January 1st, MADRAS HIGH COURT WILL USE NEUTRAL CITATION – Beginning on January 1, 2023, the Madras High Court will begin using a “neutral citation system” for all of its decisions that are posted on its official website.
  1. BOMBAY HC MAKES E-FILING REQUIRED FOR CASES INVOLVING CRIMINAL OFFENSES, ARBITRATION, AND CIVIL CONTEMPT – Beginning on January 9, 2023, the Bombay High Court will only accept electronic filings for new criminal cases, arbitration petitions, and civil contempt petitions. New cases in these classes would be electronically filed together with all petitions, rejoinders, responses, and replies.
  1. J&K&L HC – JUDICIAL REVIEW RESTRICTED TO PUBLIC FUNCTIONS IF PVT ENTITY AMENABLE TO WRIT JURISDICTION – According to the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, if a private entity is subject to writ jurisdiction, the scope of judicial review is limited to actions that include some aspect of a public responsibility.
    M/S AISHA CONSTRUCTION VS JKCA
  1. DECISION TO DEMONETIZE RS. 500 AND RS. 1000 CURRENCY NOTES IS UPHELD BY THE SC – By a vote of 4:3, the Supreme Court Constitution Bench supported the Central Government’s decision to demonetize the Rs. 500 and Rs. 1000 notes in 2016, ruling that the notification was legal and satisfied the proportionality test.
    VIVEK NARAYAN SHARMA VS UNION OF INDIA
  1. BOMBAY HC – SETTING OFF A BOMB BLAST IS NOT AN OFFICIAL DUTY – In rejecting an appeal submitted by Lieutenant Colonel Prasad Shrikant Purohit, who was seeking discharge in connection with the Malegaon blast of 2008, which left six people dead and over 100 injured, the Bombay High Court ruled that setting off bombs is not an official duty and does not call for Army approval.
    COL. PRASAD PUROHIT VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Legal Disclaimer: The information contained in this blog post is for general information and educational purposes only. Nothing contained in this blog post should be construed as legal advice from The Aran Law Firm or the individual author, nor is it intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter.

Tags :

Share This:

Legal Updates