Legal Update as on 19.11.2022

legal-updates
  1. KERALA HC: The lowest bidder does not have an unassailable right to receive the contract – While noting that there is no unassailable legal right for the lowest bidder to be awarded a contract, the Kerala High Court has ruled that even if the tender process had been properly launched, the Municipality is vested with the jurisdiction to discontinue it for legitimate grounds and invite new bids.
    OMASSERY LABOUR CONTRACT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY & ORS V. MUKKAM MUNICIPALITY & ORS.
  1. MP HC: IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL TO REQUIRE INTER-FAITH COUPLES TO DECLARE CONVERSION BEFORE DM – According to the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Section 10 of the MP Freedom of Faith Act, 2021 is presumptively unconstitutional since it requires anyone wishing to change their religion to submit a declaration to the District Magistrate (DM).
    REV. SURESH CARLETON & ORS V STATE OF MP & ORS AND CONNECTED PLEAS
  1. SC – Considering the application for bail, the need for a criminal trial is not a relevant factor U/s 439 – The Supreme Court decided that the “need of custodial trial” is not a relevant factor for evaluating a bail application under Section 439 CrPC while setting aside bail granted to a rape accused.
    X VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA
  1. SC – UNDER SECTION 142 OF the NI Act, ADDITIONAL ACCUSED CANNOT BE IMPLEADED AFTER THE LIMITATION PERIOD HAS EXPIRED – The Supreme Court has ruled that once the time limit for taking cognizance of the offence under Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act has passed, adding further accused after filing a complaint about a bounced check is not permitted.
    PAWAN KUMAR GOEL VS STATE OF U P
  1. KER HC – STRICT ACTION MUST BE TAKEN TO PREVENT UNAUTHORIZED USE OF NATIONAL AND STATE EMBLEM ON VEHICLES – The Kerala High Court has ordered the police and the motor vehicle department’s Enforcement Wing to take severe action against the unauthorised use of national, state, and government emblems on cars.
    SUO MOTU V. STATE OF KERALA
  1. J&K HC: EMPLOYEES OF J&K ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR PENSIONS – The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that J&K State Road Transport Corporation personnel recruited by the Corporation did not have the same rights as government employees and hence rejected pensionary benefits to retired employees of the Corporation.
    UT OF J&K & ORS V/S ALL J&K WORKERS UNION SRTC AND ANOTHER J&K ROAD TRANSPORT EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION & ANR.

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