Legal Update as on 25.04.2023

Legal Update
  1. SC: IF CABINET COMMITTEE ACTIONS ARE VALIDATED BY COM, RULES OF BUSINESS NOT VIOLATED BY STATE According to the Supreme Court, when the Cabinet Sub-Committee merely acts on behalf of the entire Council of Ministers (CoM), it cannot be argued that the State Government did not follow the Rules of Business.
    The Rajasthan Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Ltd. v M/s Arfat Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
  1. SC REJECTS THE PRACTISE OF FILING APPLICATIONS IN SLPS THAT ARE DISPOSED OF IN A SIDE-STEP ARBITRATION PROCESS – In expressing its displeasure of the practise of filing applications in adjudicated SLPs in order to avoid the arbitration process, the Supreme Court noted that courts should not interfere with arbitral processes, particularly while an award is pending.
    Narsi Creation Pvt Ltd and Anr. vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.
  1. MP HC: MOTHER MAKES FIRST CLAIM FOR DECEASED BACHELOR SON’S COMPENSATION – According to the Madhya Pradesh High Court, since the deceased was a bachelor under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, only the mother is a Class-I heir and has the first claim to the compensation granted under the Motor Vehicles Act.
    Manoj Kumar & Ors. v. H.D.F.C. Insurance & Ors.(M.A.-155/2019)
  1. HP HC: QUALIFYING SERVICE BEGINS ON THE DAY AN EMPLOYEE ASSUMES CONTROL OF THE FIRST POST – According to Rule 13 of the Civil Service and Pension Rules 1972, the period of qualifying service for ordinary government employees begins on the day they take over their first post, according to the Himachal Pradesh High Court.
    Dr Umesh Kumar Vs State of Himachal Pradesh.
  1. MAD HC: REHABILITATION CENTRE INSPECTION REQUIRED TO PROTECT PUBLIC INTEREST – While noting that rehabilitation and de-addiction facilities cannot be maintained by anyone without proper authorization and licencing from authorities, the Madras High Court has concluded that periodic inspection of such institutions is necessary in order to protect the public interest.
    M Syed Ali Fathima v. State and others
  1. AUTHORITIES ARE CHARGED BY CALCUTTA HIGH COURT FOR DEMOLISHING AN ENCROACHMENT WITHOUT FOLLOWING DUE PROCEDURE. – The Calcutta High Court ordered the State to pay Rs. 80K for removing an alleged encroachment while noting that officials’ failure to follow the West Bengal Public Land Act’s mandate amounted to a violation of a citizen’s legal rights.
    Arabinda Das & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Ors
  1. MERE ACQUITTAL DOESN’T PREVENT A WORRIED AUTHORITY FROM CONTINUING A DEPARTMENTAL INQUIRY, CAL HC SAYS – According to the Calcutta High Court, the responsible authority’s ability to carry out the departmental investigation is not diminished only because an accused person was found not guilty.
    Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Union of India & Ors.
  1. SC: If the verdict is overturned, the appellate court should hear the accused separately to determine the length of the sentence. – According to the Supreme Court, when an appellate court reverses an order of acquittal made by a trial court, the appellate court is legally required to hear each defendant separately to determine the appropriate penalty in line with Section 235(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code before passing judgement on them.
    Fedrick Cutinha v. State of Karnataka
  1. JKL HC: If a prima facie case is not established, the court is not required to consider the balance of the evidence. – According to the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, there was no need to take into account the existence of the other two trinity principles, namely the balance of convenience and irreparable damage, once the petitioners had no prima facie case in their favour.
    Surinder Partap Singh and another Vs Vijay Kumar and Anr.
  1. HC: GOA VAT (12TH AMENDMENT) ACT BREACHES SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE – While noting that the Goa Value Added Tax (12th Amendment) Act, 2020 violates the idea of the separation of powers, the Bombay High Court also declared that the State cannot unilaterally deny parties’ interests through compensation by delaying the issue of sanctions.
    Rohan Lobo Versus State of Goa
  1. SC: If the prosecution is recommending a death sentence, they must inform the trial court of the accused’s background. – According to a ruling by the Supreme Court, whenever the prosecution believes that a conviction for an offence warrants the death penalty, it must go through the process of presenting evidence to the trial court for consideration in accordance with Manoj v. State of MP (MANU/SC/0711/2022).
    Vikas Chaudhary vs The State of Delhi
  1. HC TO STATE: SUBMIT A FORMAL REPORT ON THE NUMBER OF SHELTER CAMPS IN ASSAM – The Gauhati High Court has ordered the state to submit the precise number of temporary shelter camps throughout the entire state where persons who have been displaced due to eviction drives are housed; the report must include a breakdown by gender as well as the number of children sheltered in each camp.
    In Re-Plight of Children in Temporary Shelter Homes v. The State of Assam

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