Legal Update as on 17.01.2023

legal-updates
  1. The Supreme Court has stated that the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision in the case of Javed v. State of Haryana, which concluded that a Muslim girl can engage into a valid and lawful marriage at the age of 15 in accordance with personal law, should not be treated as a precedent.
    NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR PROTECTION OF CHILD RIGHTS (NCPCR) Versus JAVED AND ORS
  1. SC RULES THAT THE INCOME TAX ACT’S SECTION 10(26AAA) IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL – When declaring Section 10(26AAA) of the Income Tax Act unlawful for excluding Sikkimese women who marry non-Sikkimese after April 1, 2008, the Supreme Court held that a woman has her own identity and that being married does not alter her identity in any manner.
    ASSOCIATION OF OLD SETTLERS OF SIKKIM VS UNION OF INDIA
  1. SC UPHELDS SECTION 3A(3) HPMVT ACT’S CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY – The Himachal Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation (HPMVT) Act, 1972’s Section 3A(3), which allows for the imposition of an additional special road tax, has been maintained by the Supreme Court as constitutionally valid.
    STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS GOEL BUS SERVICE KULLU
  1. IS NON-PRODUCTION OF A POWER OF ATTORNEY FATAL TO A TITLE SUIT? SC DELIVERS SPLIT VERDICT – The Supreme Court Division Bench rendered a divided decision in a case involving the argument that if a sale deed is made based on a power of attorney, the plaintiff’s case will be lost if the power of attorney is not produced in court.
    MANIK MAJUMDER AND ORS. V. DIPAK KUMAR SAHA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND ORS
  1. SC – IF THE INSTRUCTIONS FOR PREMATURE RELEASE ARE BROKEN, THE SC NOTIFIES DG PRISONS OF CONTEMPT ACTION. – The Director General of Prisons in Uttar Pradesh has been given strict instructions by the Supreme Court to take all necessary measures to ensure that requests for early release or remission are properly considered. If these instructions are not followed, the authorities have been threatened with contempt proceedings.
    KARUNA SHANKAR V. STATE OF UP
  1. The Supreme Court division bench, which is made up of Justices M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, has reached a split decision on whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of specific relief in a civil appeal stemming from an action seeking specific performance of a sale agreement.
    HARIDASAN VERSUS ANAPPATH PARAKKATTU VASUDEVA KURUP & OTHERS
  1. SC – AFTER A CONTRACT IS SIGNED, A PARTY CANNOT OBJECT TO THE AMOUNT THAT WAS IMPOSED BY THE AGREEMENT. – The Supreme Court has ruled that entering into a contract and giving an undertaking in line with it will prevent the parties from disputing the amount of compensation that is stipulated in the contract’s provisions.
    THE CHIEF ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT & ORS. VERSUS RATTAN INDIA POWER LIMITED THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR & ORS.
  1. SC – JUDGE MUST PROVIDE SUFFICIENT REASONS WHILE GIVING OPINION UNDER SEC 432 (2) CRPC – According to a ruling made by the Supreme Court in the case of Laxman Naskar v. Union of India, the Presiding Judge must provide justification for his or her decision when granting remission under Section 432(2) CrPC.
    ASWANT SINGH & ORS. VERSUS THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ANR
  1. TO STATE – STRICTLY ENFORCING CONSTRUCTION BAN IN JOSHIMATH, UTTARAKHAND HC – The Joshimath town in the Chamoli district has been severely affected by subsidence. The Uttarakhand High Court has ordered the State to strictly enforce the construction ban there and asked officials to appoint an expert committee to look into the situation and submit a report to stop further damage within the next two months.
    P.C. TEWARI VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS
  1. AP HC STAYS STATE’S DECISION TO PROHIBIT CONFERENCES ON ROADS – The state government’s decision banning the holding of public meetings on public roadways has been halted by the Andhra Pradesh High Court, which further noted that the order is in violation of the procedure outlined in Section 30 of the Police Act of 1861.
    KAKA RAMAKRISHNA V. STATE OF AP, HOME DEPARTMENT
  1. MADRAS HC – ENSURE PRISONERS CAN ACCESS KIOSK IN THEIR OWN LANGUAGE – The Madras High Court has ordered the State to install kiosks inside prisons so that inmates can find out the status of their legal matters.
    RATHINAM V STATE
  1. MADRAS HC – YOU CAN’T JUST BASE YOUR DENIAL OF MATERNITY BENEFITS ON TECHNICALITIES – The Madras High Court has held that a woman is not a pendulam and cannot be forced to alternate between motherhood and employment because maternity benefits relate to a woman’s dignity, even though it was noted that welfare legislation like the Maternity Benefits Act cannot be denied merely on the basis of technicalities.
    TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION (COIMBATORE) LTD AND ANOTHER V. B RAJESWARI
  1. COMPENSATE MAN DETAINED FOR 8 MONTHS DESPITE ACQUITTAL, MADRAS HC TO STATE – The Madras High Court ordered the state to provide interim compensation to a man who was wrongfully imprisoned for more than eight months despite the fact that the court had cleared him of all murder-related charges.
    RATHINAM V STATE
  1. SC – DEFAULT BAIL CAN BE CANCELLED ON MERITS AFTER PRESENTATION OF CHARGESHEET – According to the Supreme Court, there is no absolute rule that a person’s default bail cannot be revoked once they have been released on it for good behaviour or other reasons, such as refusing to cooperate with the investigation.
    TATE THROUGH CBI V. T. GANGI REDDY @ YERRA GNAGI REDDY

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