Allahabad HC Denies Bail To Man Accused Of Converting Woman To Islam Unlawfully
The Allahabad High Court has stated that there is no place for religious fanaticism in the country. The Court denied bail to a man accused of unlawfully converting to Islam by saying that if a person from the majority community converts their religion after getting insulted, then the country becomes weak. The decision was given by Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav. The accused, named Javed, has been booked under Sections 366, 368, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. It was held that the accused was not entitled to bail and hence his bail application was dismissed.
What do you think about this case?
Delhi HC: Defendant Present Before Issuing Summons or Without Filing Caveat Can Be Heard On Rejection of Plaint
The Delhi High Court has held that there is no bar in hearing a defendant, who is neither served summons nor appearing on caveat, at the pre-summons stage in a suit on the points for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It can hear a defendant who is physically present in the court even though no summons has been served on him or he has not filed a caveat under Section 148A CPC. The case was of Tajunissa & Anr. V. Mr. Vishal Sharma & Ors. The decision was given by Justice C Hari Shankar.
What do you think about this case?
Centre Tells Supreme Court that Primary Responsibility To Implement Shreya Singhal Judgement Rests with States
Regarding Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, the Centre has told the Supreme Court that the primary responsibility of implementing the judgement in the landmark Shreya Singhal V. Union of India case. The submission has been made in the counter affidavit filed by the Union of India in an application filed by the PUCL seeking various directions and guidelines against the FIRs filed under the provision of Section 66A which has been struck down. The Centre has informed the Supreme Court that it has directed the Chief Secretaries and Administrators of all States and UTs to direct all police stations not to register cases under Section 66A.
What do you think about this case?
SC Reiterates that Writ Jurisdiction Not For Deciding Hotly Disputed Questions of Facts
The decision was given by a Bench comprising Justice Indira Bannerjee and Justice V Ramasubramaniam. The case was of Subhas Jain V. Rajeshwari Shivam. In this case, the Supreme Court reiterated that a High Court cannot invoke its writ jurisdiction to adjudicate 'hotly disputed questions of facts'. It is not for the High Court to make a comparative assessment of conflicting technical reports and decide which one is acceptable. The writ petition was filed challenging the notice issued by the Municipal Corporation under Section 354 of the Municipal Corporation Act. The appeal was allowed by the Bench.
What do you think about this case?
Supreme Court To Consider If Commercial Court Can Entertain Suit For Recovery Of Possession After Termination Of Tenancy
The Supreme Court granted leave in a special leave petition which raised the issue whether a Commercial Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit for recovery of possession filed after termination of tenancy. In this case, the plaintiff-landlord filed a suit for recovery of possession from the defendants-tenant before a Commercial Court. Against the order rejecting the plaint, the landlord approached the Calcutta High Court by filing a revision petition. The issue considered before the High Court was whether a suit, primarily for recovery of possession of immovable property under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, pertains to a "commercial dispute" under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
What do you think about this case?
Plea Filed In Bombay HC To Declare Journalists as Frontline Workers
A plea filed by the journalists’ union, Mumbai Marathi Patrakar Sangh, has pointed out that twelve states have declared journalists and media personnel as frontline workers. The case is of Mumbai Marathi Patrakar Sangh v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. The plea requests that the Bombay High Court to classify journalists as frontline workers. The plea said that after the government imposed Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure throughout the State, journalists suffered severe hardships and hindrances in performing their duties as they had not been categorised within the essential workers category.
What do you think about this case?
No Grounds To Suspect Accuracy of CBI Investigation In Unnao Case: Delhi Court
The Delhi High Court has stated that there were no grounds to suspect the accuracy and sincerity of the CBI investigation in the Unnao case. The Court, therefore, dismissed the allegations by the survivor's uncle and framed charges against the truck driver for causing death by negligence besides framing charges of criminal intimidation against the MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar, who was given life imprisonment for raping a minor.
What do you think about this case?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
