- HC – Only in exceptional circumstances may the right to cross-examine a witness be denied. – According to the Allahabad High Court, the right to cross-examine a witness is a privilege that should only be withheld under extraordinary circumstances or where it is clear from the order sheet that the opposing side/party often requests adjournments for various reasons.
Brijeash Saurabh Mishra @ Brijesh Mishra vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. S
- When a vehicle is driven with excess weight, the owners are also responsible under Section 113(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act (KER.HC). – According to a ruling by the Kerala High Court, owners of the cars may also face legal action under Section 113(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 if they allowed the vehicle to be driven while carrying too much weight.
Fasaludheen A. & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Anr. and other connected matters
- HC: The Hindu Marriage Act’s 90-day appeal deadline applies to matrimonial disputes. – According to the Gujarat High Court, there is a 90-day deadline for bringing an appeal against a Family Court decision or order resulting from a matrimonial dispute under the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955.
Chaudhary Chetnaben Dilipbhai v. Chaudhary Dilipbhai Lavjibhai
- BOMBAY HC: AFTER RECONSTRUCTION OF YES BANK, ADMINISTRATOR COULD NOT HAVE MADE A POLICY DECISION – The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) nominated Administrator could not have made such a policy choice after the bank had already been reconstructed, according to the Bombay High Court, which overturned Yes Bank’s decision to write Additional Tier 1 bonds for Rs. 8415 Crore.
Axis Trustee Services Limited v. Union of India and Ors
- DELHI HC: A COVID-19 vaccination cannot be required of a government school lecturer by an employer. – The Delhi High Court has given relief to a government school lecturer who was seeking permission to teach and carry out other duties without being required to receive the COVID-19 vaccine, while stating that the employer cannot insist that the employee receive the vaccine.
ISHA v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS.
- PATNA HIGH COURT: DEPARTMENTAL PROCEEDING AGAINST EMPLOYEE ENDS IN DEATH; NO SUBSTITUTION IN HIS PLACE – The Patna High Court has reiterated that when a delinquent employee dies, his departmental proceedings cease, and no one can be substituted in his place to represent him and present a defence.
Kaushlya Devi v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
- HC: PRE-INSTITUTION MEDIATION IS A PRE-SUIT LEGAL DRILL, NOT A POST-SUIT EXERCISE – The Madras High Court has emphasised that the “pre-institution mediation” mandated under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is a pre-suit legal drill and cannot be ordered as a post-suit exercise.
Mr. AD Padmasingh Issac and others v. Karaikudi Achi Mess and another
- HC: DO NOT RELEASE COLLECTOR SALARIES UNTIL COMPENSATION FOR LAND ACQUIRED IN 1961 IS RELEASED. – The Orissa High Court has ordered that the salaries of the Collector and two other senior officers of the Angul district administration not be released until compensation is paid to the people whose land was acquired in 1961.
Pramod kumar Pradhan vs principal secretary
- CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT – MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL CAN ORDER CHILDREN TO LEAVE PARENTS’ HOME – According to the Chhattisgarh High Court, the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (referred to as “the Act”) gives the Maintenance Tribunal the authority to order the eviction of children from their parents’ homes.Neeraj Baghel v. The Collector, Raipur & Ors.
- IN A CASE INVOLVING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS, BOMBAY HC GRANTS YOKOSIZLERS RELIEF. – The Bombay High Court granted Yoko Sizzlers interim relief in an IPR lawsuit it brought against Yokoso Sizzlers and barred the Pune restaurant from using the mark “Yokoso Sizzlers,” noting that it is first confusingly similar to the registered trademark “Yoko Sizzlers.”
Yoko sizzlers Vs yokoso Sizzlers
- DEL HC – Rules for live streaming and recording court proceedings are made public by the Del. HC. – The “Steaming and Recording of Court Proceedings Rules of the High Court of Delhi, 2022” have been notified by the Delhi High Court in order to “imbue greater transparency, inclusivity, and facilitate access to justice.” On January 13, notice of the Rules appeared in the official gazette.
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.
