- HC – HUSBAND’S REMARRIAGE ISN’T A REASON TO DOUBT THE DIVORCE SETTLEMENT BECAUSE IT CAME EARLIER KAR. HC – The divorce agreement reached by the couple after their differences were resolved in court and a divorce judgement was given, according to the Karnataka High Court, is not subject to challenge because of the former husband’s subsequent marriage.
LATHA CHOODIAH V. SREE BALAJI H.
- KAR HC – CAN’T HOLD LICENSE HOLDER VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR EMPLOYEE’S ACTIONS – The Karnataka High Court noted that any offence committed by the servant cannot be said to constitute vicarious liability by the owners/employer in criminal law when quashing criminal proceedings against the proprietors of a business licensed for selling explosives to quarry contractors.
P SUNIL KUMAR & ANR V. STATE OF KARNATAKA
- MAD HC – THE MADRAS HC DIRECTS THE STATE TO CREATE A PRISONERS’ RIGHTS MANUAL. – The Madras High Court ordered the creation of an “Inmates’ Rights Handbook” outlining prisoners’ rights and grievance procedures in addition to directing State and Prison Department to improve prison conditions and culture.
PEOPLE’S WATCH V. THE HOME SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT (PRISON) AND ANOTHER
- BOM HC – REGAL FOOTWEAR IS PROHIBITED BY BOM. HC FROM USING THE “REGAL” TRADEMARK – In response to a trademark infringement lawsuit brought by the proprietors of Mumbai’s Regal Shoes, Pune’s Regal Footwear has been temporarily prohibited from using the mark “Regal” by the Bombay High Court.
ABDUL RASUL NURALLAH VIRJEE AND ANR. V. REGAL FOOTWEAR
- BOMBAY HIGH COURT – COMPENSATE MAN IDENTIFIED IN BASELESS REPORT – Since police are the guardians of the law, they must be more circumspect and cautious when filing FIRs, the Bombay High Court noted in its order for the State to compensate a man for filing a FIR even though no offence had been reported.
MANAS MANDAR GODBOLE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- HC – COURT CAN ALLOW PARTIES TO PARTICIPATE IN APPLN. SEEKING LEAVE TO SUE TRUST PRIOR TO LEAVE GRANT – The Delhi High Court has ruled that because the lawsuit has not yet been filed, courts may allow someone to join an application for permission to sue a Trust under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
RAM SARUP LUGANI & ANR. VERSUS NIRMAL LUGANI & ORS.
- SC – SARFAESI ACT PROCEEDINGS WILL NOT TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER MSMED ACT DUES- According to the Supreme Court, the SARFAESI Act would take precedence over the MSMED Act’s fees for the development of small and medium-sized businesses (MSMED Act, 2006).
KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED VS GIRNAR CORRUGATORS PVT. LTD
- SC: THE ONUS IS ON THE BORROWER TO SHOW THE SECURED PROPERTIES ARE AGRICULTURAL LANDS – According to the Supreme Court, the onus is on the borrower to demonstrate that the secured properties are truly being used as agricultural lands and/or agricultural operations in proceedings under the SARFAESI Act.
SREEDHAR VS RAUS CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LTD.
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.
