Legal Update as on 08.12.2022

legal-updates
  1. HC: The magistrate denied remanding the accused after 30 days once UAPA offences were added to the complaint. – According to the Calcutta High Court, once UAPA offences are included to the FIR, the Magistrate loses the authority to remand an accused person for an extended period of time because they are not authorised to try matters involving UAPA nor to commit them.
    PRATIK BHOWMIK V. STATE OF WEST BENGAL
  1. SC – If the state intends to arrest the accused, the SC sets aside the HC directive to provide him 72 hours’ notice. – While overturning a Bombay High Court order requiring the State to provide an accused person 72 hours’ notice before arresting him, the Supreme Court ruled that the High Court had no authority to issue such a directive and that it was clearly unfounded in legal terms.
    VIJAYKUMAR GOPICHAND RAMCHANDANI VS AMAR SADHURAM MULCHANDANI
  1. SC: A transfer can only be disregarded if it was contingent on providing basic amenities. – The Supreme Court has ruled that Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act will only apply if a senior citizen’s property transfer was contingent upon meeting his or her fundamental bodily needs.
    SUDESH CHHIKARA VS RAMTI DEVI
  1. SC: DECEASED’S IT RETURNS CAN BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT WHEN DETERMINING ANNUAL INCOME IN CASES OF MOTOR ACCIDENT – The Supreme Court has ruled that in cases involving motor vehicle accident compensation claims, the deceased’s Income Tax (IT) Return may be taken into account while determining his yearly income.
    ANJALI VS LOKENDRA RATHOD
  1. J&K&L HC: IF THE WP DISMISSED BY DEFAULT IS RESTORED, THE ORDERS PASSED THEREIN ARE REVIVED – The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has ruled that all orders issued would be automatically revived and returned to their former status as a corollary to the reinstatement of a writ petition that was dismissed in default.
    MAFOOZA BANO VS STATE OF J&K & ORS.
  1. KAR HC – INSURANCE COMPANIES ARE NOT EXEMPT FROM THIRD-PARTY LIABILITY FOR POLICY BREACHES – According to the Karnataka High Court, the insurer is responsible for compensating the third party and recovering the cost from the insured even if the court determines that a policy condition recognised under Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act has been violated.
    BASAVARAJA BEERAPPA KAMBALI v. THE CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD & others
  1. CAL HC – THE CIVIL COURT IN CALCUTTA HAS THE AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE THE OWNERSHIP OF FRAUDULENTLY ISSUED SHARES. – According to the Calcutta High Court, Civil Courts have the authority to investigate claims of fraud involving the title of issued shares under the 2013 Companies Act.
    MUKESH JAISWAL V. PHOOL CHAND GUPTA & ORS
  1. BOM HC – BEFORE A DECISION ON SEBC RESERVATION IS MADE, BOM. HC RESTRAINS THE STATE FROM APPOINTING ENGINEERS UNDER THE EWS QUOTA – In accordance with an order from the Bombay High Court, Maharashtra Public Services Commission is prohibited from distributing appointment letters for engineers who fall under the reserved Economically Weaker Section (EWS) category until the diversion of SEBC applicants to EWS issue is resolved.
    AMARNATH MADHUKAR HAVSHETT VERSUS MAHARASHTRA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND 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