Top News Headlines 19th April 2021:Delhi Court Grants Bail to Deep Sidhu in Red Fort Violence Case

Delhi Court: Grants Bail to Deep Sidhu in Red Fort Violence Case

This week, a lower Court in Delhi has granted bail to Deep Sidhu, accused in the Red Fort Violence case in connection with the violence that broke out during the farmer's tractor rally on Republic Day. Sidhu was granted bail subject to his furnishing personal bond with two local sureties in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- each to the satisfaction of the Court.

Court set following conditions on granting bail, that he shall deposit his passport with the IO, mention the mobile phone number to be used by him, said number is kept on switched on mode throughout with location activated and shared with the IO at all times, he has to telephonically confirm his location with the IO on the first and fifteenth of each calender month and he shall not influence threaten intimidate witnesses nor tamper with evidence in any manner whatsoever. These were some of the conditions laid down by the Court.

Supreme Court held that: When Parties Change 'Venue of Arbitration' By Mutual Agreement, Changed Venue Becomes 'Seat of Arbitration' 

Earlier this week, the Supreme Court held that when parties change the 'venue/place of arbitration' by mutual agreement, the new venue/place will become the 'seat of arbitration.’ This means that, the Courts at the changed venue or the place of arbitration will be having jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings

This significant ruling was given by Justices Rohinton Fali Nariman and Hrishikesh Roy in the case of M/s Inox Renewables Ltd v Jayesh Electricals Ltd. On the matter at hand, the Court decided that "Once the seat of arbitration is replaced by mutual agreement to be at Ahmedabad, the Courts at Rajasthan are no longer vested with jurisdiction as exclusive jurisdiction is now vested in the Courts at Ahmedabad, given the change in the seat of arbitration."

Kerala High Court: Accident Compensation Can't Be Reduced Saying Pillion Rider Didn't Wear Helmet

This week, Kerala HC dealt with an interesting case on the issue as to whether the Tribunal could reduce the compensation payable on a motorcycle accident if the deceased pillion rider rode without a helmet. In the case before the Tribunal, when allowing a family of a person in a motor cycle accident to claim compensation, reduced the quantum of compensation citing that the deceased (who was riding pillion) was not wearing a helmet. Applying the principle of contributory negligence, leading to the modified of the compensation payable.

Aggrieved by this, family of the deceased moved the High Court and the Court was required to decide whether the principle of contributory negligence could be applied in this case. The Court held that, “to attribute contributory negligence, some other additional evidence is necessary and not wearing a helmet is not enough.” On such basis, the modification made by the Tribunal was altered. 

Justice Chandrachud praises Lawyer Who Sought Listing of Case after Ramadan

Recently, Justices Chandrachud and M. R. Shah was hearing an SLP arising out of a November 29, 2019 judgment of the Allahabad High Court confirming the conviction of the petitioner for murder and the sentence of life imprisonment.

The counsel sought time to file some documents and prayed that the matter be listed after the holy month of Ramadan- "Ramzan is going on. The COVID crisis is also going on. Could Your Lordships please list this matter after Ramzan? It becomes problematic... I have been waiting entire day” on this Justice Chandrachud said, "I am sorry. You should have mentioned this in the morning and we could have adjourned the matter. Please go and relax. I admire the ability to fast for whole days without even a drop of water." The bench allowed the request of the petitioner's counsel to inspect and take copy of the juvenility report and also permitted him to file an affidavit it in response to the report. The bench directed that this exercise be carried out within three weeks and listed the SLP on 10 May 2021"

Chattisgarh HC: Dispute Between Husband and Wife Not a Prerequisite for Grant of Divorce by Mutual Consent under Hindu Marriage Act

Recently, Chattisgarh High Court ordered that a serious dispute between a husband and wife is not a prerequisite for grant of divorce by mutual consent under Section. 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Court opined that a judicial separation, instead of divorce by mutual consent cannot be granted in a mechanical manner.

The HC opined that, “there need not be a serious dispute between a married couples for seeking a divorce by mutual consent. It may happen in a given case that there is no quarrel or dispute between the couple but yet their actions and behaviour are not compatible with each other for living a happy and peaceful married life, therefore, they may seek divorce by mutual consent." What do you think about the High Court’s decision? Let us know in the comments below!