Legal Update as on 16.12.2022

legal-updates
  1. HC – UNDER UGC REGULATIONS, THE SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR UNIVERSITIES DOES NOT NEED THE CHANCELLOR’S NOMINEE. – The Kerala High Court ruled that the inclusion of the Chancellor’s representation in the search committee for the appointment of the VC of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University (KTU) should be suspended while upholding the single bench ruling.
    STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT V. THE CHANCELLOR
  1. DELHI HC: KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SCHOOLS SHOULD PROVIDE BASIC FACILITIES FOR CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES – According to the 2016 Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, children attending Kendriya Vidyalaya schools are entitled to basic services like uniforms, computer fees, and transportation costs.
    MANISH LENKA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
  1. DELHI HC – ITR FILING INSTEAD OF INCOME CERTIFICATE CANNOT DEPRIVE ELIGIBLE CANDIDATE OF SCHOLARSHIP – The Delhi High Court ruled that a candidate’s eligibility for a scholarship cannot be jeopardized by the simple error of filing an Income Tax Return (ITR) certificate rather than an Income Certificate, as both documents demonstrate the same parameters of income requirements.
    BAJRANG v. MINISTRY OF SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EMPOWERMENT & ANR.
  1. SC: CONVICTION UNDER POCA NOT REQUIRED WITH DIRECT EVIDENCE OF BRIBE DEMAND – The Prevention of Corruption Act (POCA) has been interpreted by the Supreme Court Constitution Bench to mean that direct evidence of a bribe demand is not required in order to convict a public employee; instead, circumstantial evidence can establish such a demand.
    NEERAJ DUTTA V. STATE (GNCTD)
  1. SC – CRPC SECTION 313 IS NOT EMPTY FORMALITY – The Supreme Court noted that if an accused person is not given an explanation of the circumstances that appear in the evidence against him when being questioned under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, he will not be able to explain the circumstances that have been brought to light against him.
    KALICHARAN VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
  1. SC: IF A REFUND IS NOT SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED IN A PARTICULAR PERFORMANCE SUIT, COURTS CANNOT GRANT ONE. – According to the Supreme Court, a plaintiff cannot receive such relief from the court unless he directly requests it at the time of filing his lawsuit or through an amendment in a particular performance lawsuit.
    DESH RAJ VS ROHTASH SINGH

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