Legal Update as on 06.12.2022

legal-updates
  1. KERALA HC – SEIZURE & CONFISCATION PROCEEDINGS CANNOT BE AFFECTED BY THE NON-CONSTITUTION OF SPECIAL COURTS – The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957’s Section 30B Special Courts are not constitutional, according to the Kerala High Court, however, this does not affect seizure and confiscation procedures under the Act.
    RAHUL P.U. V. THE GEOLOGIST AND OTHER CONNECTED CASES
  1. MADRAS HC – REJECTS BACKWARD QUOTA CLAIM OF MAN WHO TRANSFERRED FROM HINDUISM TO ISLAM – The Madras High Court rejected the backward quota claim of a man who converted from Hinduism to Islam, stating that a person who has changed to another religion is not entitled to the advantages of his community prior to conversion unless the State expressly grants it.
    U AKBAR ALI V THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANOTHER
  1. CAL HC – SECTION 9 OF THE A&C ACT APPLIES TO FOREIGN SEATED ARBITRATION – According to the Calcutta High Court, Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is a provision that supports arbitration proceedings as opposed to other Part-I provisions that relate to how arbitration proceedings should be conducted and have been ordered to apply to foreign-seated arbitrations as well.
    CHEMEX OIL PRIVATE LIMITED V. SEASTARR INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.
  1. SC – IF A LAWSUIT IS BARRED BY RES JUDICATA, AN APPLICATION TO SUE AS AN INDIVIDUAL MAY BE REJECTED. – The Supreme Court has ruled that if it is determined that the lawsuit is preempted by Res Judicata, an application to sue as an indigent under Order XXXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure may be denied.
    SOLOMON SELVARAJ VS INDRANI BHAGAWAN SINGH
  1. SC – IF CANDIDATE WAS AVAILABLE IN THE CASE TRIALLED FOR OFFENSE UNDER 498A, CAN’T DENY APPOINTMENT IPC – A candidate whose application was turned down because he was charged with a crime under Section 498A of the IPC has been appointed by the Supreme Court.
    PRAMOD SINGH KIRAR VS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
  1. ORISSA HC: PERSON IN CHARGE OF TRUST CAN’T BE ARRAIGNED WITHOUT IMPLEADING TRUST ITSELF – Orissa High Court has held that a person in charge of a Trust can’t be impleaded as an accused for dishonour of cheque, under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act if the ‘Trust’ itself is not arraigned as a party as per mandate of Section 141 of the Act.
    BIJAYA MANJARI SATPATHY V. STATE OF ORISSA & ORS.
  1. J&K&L HC: A PROSECUTION’S PROCEEDINGS ARE DETERMINED BY THE QUALITY OF THE INVESTIGATION, NOT THE DURATION OF CUSTODY – A successful prosecution of a criminal case in a court of law is dependent on the quality of the police investigation, not on how long a suspect or accused person was held throughout the course of the investigation, according to a decision by the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court.
    ROHIT SHARMA VS STATE OF J&K
  1. KAR HC – UPHOLDS 30% Trade Margin Cap for 42 Anti-Cancer Drugs Adopted by Karnataka High Court – While upholding a 2019 order from the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers that imposed a cap of 30% on the trade margin of 42 anti-Cancer Drugs, the Karnataka High Court noted that if such a policy is not promulgated, poor or middle class can be seen as succumbing to the disease due to high prices.
    HEALTHCARE GLOBAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA & Others
  1. CAL HC – LAW RELATED TO USE OF DISCRETION FOR GRANT OF INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION IS SUMMARIZED BY CALCATTA HC – The Calcutta High Court has provided a summary of the criteria and guiding principles that must be met in order for interlocutory injunctions to be granted under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC read with Section 151 CPC thereof while suit proceedings are ongoing.
    SOURAV SARKAR V. HIRAK RANJAN SARKAR & ANR.
  1. HC: WRIT JURISDICTION MAY BE INVOKED FOR COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS INCLUDING ELEMENTS OF PUBLIC LAW – In cases involving routine business dealings between private parties and governmental entities, the Calcutta High Court has ruled that the High Courts’ writ jurisdiction is unassailable as long as some aspects of public law are involved.
    BMW INDUSTRIES LTD. V. UCO BANK & ORS.

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