- KERALA HC – IN FUTURE INVESTIGATIONS, POLICE CAN INCLUDE APPROPRIATE MATERIAL – According to the Kerala High Court, it is acceptable to include information in an additional charge sheet that was filed after the initial final report as long as the evidence gathered and subsequent events point to indicate to the commission of the crime for which the report has been filed.
KURIACHAN CHACKO & ORS V. STATE OF KERALA & ORS. AND JOY JOHN & ANR V. STATE OF KERALA & ORS.
- MADRAS HC – EVEN IF IT IS NOT DONE IN A PUBLIC SETTING, HARASSING WOMEN IS NEVERTHELESS ILLEGAL. – According to the Madras High Court, even though the alleged harassment of a woman must have taken place in a public setting in order for the accused to be punished under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, the alleged offence is still illegal and the accused may be held accountable under Section 354 IPC.
M.R.SIVARAMAKRISHNAN V STATE AND ANOTHER
- SC- SC EXPRESSES CONCERN ABOUT THE CONDITIONS OF HOSPITALS IN BIHAR – The Supreme Court has warned the state of Bihar to make sure that no hospital in the entire state distributes medications without the assistance of registered pharmacists after reprimanding the government for allowing individuals without the required training to perform pharmacy duties in state-run hospitals.
MUKESH KUMAR V. STATE OF BIHAR
- SC – A LITIGANT’S AFFORDABILITY IS NOT A REASON TO FILE MULTIPLE PETITIONS. – Sukesh Chandrashekhar, a alleged conman, was reprimanded by the Supreme Court for filing numerous petitions within a short period of time, stating that the affordability of the plaintiff was not a valid justification for filing numerous petitions.
SUKASH CHANDRA SHEKHAR @ SUKESH AND ANR. ASHUTOSH GARG VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ANR
- UPHOLDS KER. HC – The 31.6 LAKH COMPENSATION U/S 3 MUSLIM WOMEN (PROTECTION OF RIGHTS ON DIVORCE) ACT – The Kerala High Court upheld the Magistrate Court’s decision to award a divorced lady Rs. 31,68,000 in maintenance under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, on the basis that the parties come from well-off families and enjoy a very high standard of living.
SUHADATH K.K. V. SHIHAB K.B. & ANR.
- HC – IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL TO PREFER DOMICILED RESIDENTS FOR CADAVERIC ORGAN TRANSPLANT – The Gujarat High Court has ruled that the State government’s policy of providing priority to residents of Gujarat for the purpose of cadaveric organ transplant is unconstitutional, while also noting that it is unlawful to deny medical treatment to petitioners who are not residents of Gujarat.
VIDYA RAMESH CHAND SHAH V. STATE OF GUJARAT
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.
