LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Karnataka HC: Guidelines for Ascertaining Identity of parents surrendering child and Inquiry into the Reasons

The Letzkit Foundation filed the petition bringing the attention of the Court to an article on a young couple in a live-in relationship handing over a child to the CWC. The State Governments were directed to use rulemaking authority under Section 110(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, to establish the method for investigation and counselling that Child Welfare Committees must follow in circumstances when a child is surrendered to the Committee by parents or guardians. The satisfaction should not be based on inquiry only rather the parents surrendering the child should be subjected to counselling only after the period of 2 months given to them for reconsidering the decision.

Do you think it would be an effective measure for the abandoned children?

Allahabad HC: Article 25 may not Protect Member of Disciplined Force Maintaining Beard

A circular had been issued by the Director-General of Police, U.P. with guidelines on wearing proper uniform and proper appearance for member of a disciplined force. A constable was suspended as he did not shave the beard despite the directions. He challenged the suspension order and the order which had rejected his application asking permission for maintaining his beard according to Muslim religion.

The Court did not find any illegality in the circular and therefore the order rejecting his application also did not contain any illegality. The behaviour of the petitioner is misdemeanour, misdeed and delinquency as he did not follow the directions given by senior officials.

Would maintaining a bear fall under Article 25 according to you?

Plea of ITBP Female Constables Seeking Redeployment in Afghanistan Dismissed by Delhi High Court

The petitioners were deployed at Kabul embassy for a period of 2 years and they were called back in 10 months so they claimed they were entitled to stay. The Court relied on a previous judgment and observed that the deployment and re-deployment in foreign missions is purely administrative in nature where 30 ITBP personnel were seeking redeployment in Afghanistan as well and stated that they can be posted anywhere where there is a requirement. Therefore the deployment and re-deployment in foreign missions is purely administrative in nature.

What do you think should be the next action for the petitioners?

Leave under Order XI Rule 5 may be Granted for Filing New Documents not Filed with Plaint

The Court of Appeal granted a petition challenging a Trial Court ruling dismissing attempts to add additional documents to the record that were not initially supplied when the plaint was filed. The petitioner company has filed an action against Sprint Cars Pvt. Ltd. for the recovery of Rs.31,65,271/- with interest, along with certain documents and a statement of finances. The Trial Court had rejected the documents that were presented later, thus, a plea was filed before the Court. Order VI Rule 17 CPC allows the court to authorise pleading revisions for the purpose of determining the "real question in contention" between the parties, according to the Court.

Do you think furnishing new documents should be allowed?

Bombay High Court Approached for Quashing Defamation Case: Scam 1992 Series

The Court has been approached seeking to quash the defamation case by bank and stay the investigation. The web series 'Scam 1992: The Harshad Mehta Story,' which broadcast on SonyLIV App, has been accused of defaming a bank. The bank claimed in their FIR against Sony that a logo in the background of the third episode of the web series resembled its trademark, inflicting substantial damage to its financial, commercial, and social reputation. The Bombay High Court verbally requested that the Pune Police refrain from taking coercive action against Sony Pictures Network India Pvt Ltd.

Do you think there is defamation involved here?

If Lower Court is Bound by SC decision when another SC bench refers the case to a larger bench is Debatable

When a Supreme Court bench questions the correctness of an earlier bench of equal strength and refers the case to a larger bench, the lower courts may not be obligated to follow the earlier decision when hearing a petition for the appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. As a result, the respondent consented to submit the matter to arbitration, and the parties were directed to the Delhi International Arbitration Centre, which would choose an appropriate arbitrator to hear the case.

What do you think of this decision?

Ex-Parte Ad-Interim Injunction Granted in Trademark Infringement Suit by Amul

In a trademark infringement suit, the Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd, or 'Amul,' in which it was claimed that a company was using a misleading mark, namely 'Amul Cookware,' for selling kitchenware and utensils. Amul has requested ad-interim ex-parte orders prohibiting Defendant, their senior officials, and anyone acting for or on their behalf from advertising, promoting, or dealing with the infringing mark in any way. The Defendant has been served with a notice, and the matter has been scheduled for October 25 before the Joint Registrar.

Do you think there was a trademark infringement?

Plea of Married Woman in Live-in Relation seeking Protection Dismissed by P&H High Court

The petitioner had married the respondent in 2018 against her free will. She gave birth to a child from the marriage and later she left her matrimonial home due to the alleged mental and physical harassment cause by her husband. She was staying in a live-in relationship with another man, which was not accepted by the family and the couple were threatened of elimination by the family. A representation before the police was also futile so the plea was filed. The P&H High Court dismissed the petition stating that the mode and manner of threat was not submitted by the petitioner submissions.

Do you think the couple was or was not entitled to protection?

"Loved reading this piece by SUSHREE SAHU?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"




Tags :

  Views  259  Report



Comments
img