Delhi HC Declares S.17 of Senior Citizens Act As Ultra Vires To S.30 of Advocates Act
Section 17 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 which bars lawyers from representing parties in matters before the Maintenance Tribunals has been declared as ultra vires to Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961 by the Delhi High Court. The decision was given by Justice Pratibha M Singh. Section 30 of the Advocates Act enables Advocates to practise before all Courts and Tribunals. The case was Tarun Saxena V. Union of India & Ors.
What do you think of this case?
Delhi Court Extends Interim Protection From Arrest To Gangster Turned Activist Lakha Sidhana
A Delhi Court has extended interim protection from arrest to Lakha Sidhana till July 29, 2021. Lakha Sidhana was wanted by the police for his alleged role in the violence that had taken place on Republic Day. Sidhana was represented by Advocate Dhillion. An FIR had been registered by the Crime Branch (Central Delhi) of the Delhi Police in connection with the violence that broke out at Red Fort on Republic Day. A reward of Rupees One Lakh had been announced by the Delhi Police for information about Sidhana’s whereabouts.
What do you think of this case?
Kerala HC: Technical Glitches At Transition Stage To GST Will Not Affect Statutory Right Of Dealers
The case was Union of India & Ors v. M/s Merchem India Pvt Ltd. The decision was given by Justice S.V. Bhatti and Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas. Advocate PR Sreejith appeared for the appellants, and Advocate A Kumar appeared on behalf of the respondent. The Kerala High Court recently upheld that technical glitches at the transition stage to GST should not affect the statutory right of dealers. Discrimination in terms of the time limit to allow the availing of Input Tax Credit (ITC) with respect to the purchase of goods and services made in the pre-GST and post GST regime is arbitrary and unreasonable.
What do you think of this case?
Vigilant Tweet On COVID Protocol Breach Is Not Violation Of Orders U/S 144 CrPC: Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court has stated that a vigilant tweet by the resident of a society about breach of the COVID-19 protocol can't constitute a violation of prohibitory orders passed under Section 144 of the CrPC. The decision was given by the Bench of Justice J J Munir. The proceedings had been initiated against a man who had tweeted that workers had been entering the residential society without proper sanitation amidst the pandemic. The Court also opined that the impugned charge sheet, that was vitiated on account of the entire investigation, is a sham to the face of the record.
What do you think of this case?
SC: India Cannot Have 2 Legal Systems, one for rich and another for poor
It was held by the Supreme Court that existence of a dual legal system will decrease the legitimacy of the law. The case was Somesh Chaurasia V. State of Madhya Pradesh. A Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Hrishikesh Roy gave the observations and dismissed an order passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court. It was further noted that the enquiry should be concluded expeditiously and preferably within a period of one month from the date of the receipt of copy of the judgment.
What do you think of this case?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
