National Insurance Company Limited vs Ashwani Kumari and others Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE Reserved on: 26.08.2020 Pronounced on:01.09.2020 Brief Facts of the Case The National Insurance Company Limited an appeal against the judgment and award dated 28th April 2017, whereby the claim petition filed by respondent No.1 has been allowed and the appellant has been directed to pay a sum of R.88,045- along with pendent elite and future interest @ 7.5% per annum to the claimant. Therefore, the....
Read MoreDetails Case- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 840 of 2020 Name of the Case- Roshan Khan And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others With Case- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 841 of 2020 Name of the Case- Japhar Abbas vs Union Of India And 2 Others With Case- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 842 of 2020 Name of the Case- Syed Zeeshan Mehdi vs Principal Secretary And 2 Others With Case- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION....
Read MoreVinay Mittal vs Union of India & Ors. Case No.: W.P.(CRL) 562/2019 & CRL.M.A. 3920/2019 Date of Judgment: 18th August, 2020 Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU Brief Facts of the Case The petitioner claims that he was an employee of one Mr Bharat Rana Chaudhary, drawing a salary of ₹25,000 to 30,000/-, and has been falsely implicated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereafter ‘CBI’) in various cases alleging siphoning of funds of Punjab National Bank(PNB). However, the CBI....
Read MoreShailendra Kumar Singh vs Government of NCT of Delhi Case No: W.P.(C) 4621/2020 Date: 28.07.2020 Coram: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN Prayer of the Petitioner This petition, styled as a public interest litigation, has been preferred with the following prayers:- to issue an writ of mandamus to the respondent to remove all subsidies which are delivered at door step for people without any specific disability, liability, restriction, or condition, failing which such scheme will damage welfare....
Read MoreBrief Facts Perusal of the orders passed from time to time will show that Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) had assured the Court toremove the illegal structure of the temple on thefootpath. Perusal of the record will show that on11th December 2019, Sri P.T. Prasanna Kumar, Assistant Executive Engineer, Jayanagar Sub-Division of BBMP has filed on record the noticesissued by BBMP. He has stated that the structureof the temple is on a footpath. A status reportwas filed on 8th January....
Read MoreJohnny Paul Pierce vs Union of India Case No : WP(c) No. 13263/2020 Coram : Justice C S Dias Appearances: Advocate S Saju, A V Sajan & Neelanjana Nair for petitioner; ASG P Vijayakumar for the respondents. Brief Facts of the Case Mr. Johnny Paul Pierce – the petitioner, an American National, came to India, on a tourist visa, on26.2.2020. The visa is valid till 26.1.2025. All of a sudden, the Country went into a lockdown due to the COVID -....
Read MoreBikramjit Singh Bajwa v. Union of India and Others Quorum: Chief Justice Ravi Shanker Jha and Justice Arun Palli Appearance: Petitioner in person; Addl. Advocate General PS Bajwa (for State of Punjab); Addl. Advocate General Deepak Balyan (for State of Haryana); ASG Satya Pal Jain with Standing Counsel Dheeraj Jain (for Union of India) Brief Facts of the Case There is an organizationwhich is known as “Sikh for Justice”. The organization is already banned. But recently, the organization is taking active initiative....
Read MoreQueen Mary School Northend v. Director Of Education Quorum: Justice Jayant Nath Appearance: Advocates RomyChacko, Shakti Chand Jaidwl and VarunMudgal (for Petitioner); Standing Counsel Ramesh Singh with Advocates SantoshTripathi and BhawnaKataria (for Respondent) Prayer of the Petitioner This petitioner filed the petition seeking an appropriate writ toquash the Circular dated 18.04.2020. The petitioner prayed to allow the petitioner School tocharge the actual expenditure incurred by it during the lockdown period inthe form of fees from the students. Other connected reliefs are also....
Read MoreFederation of Obstetric and Gynecological Societies of India (FOGSI) v. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Supreme Court: Refusing to strike down Section 23 of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994, the bench of Arun Mishra and Vineet Saran, JJ held, “dilution of the provisions of the Act or the Rules would only defeat the purpose of the Act to prevent female foeticide and relegate the right to life of the girl child under....
Read MoreThe Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya & Ors. (2020) Introduction- In a resounding rebuff to the Army, the Bench of Supreme Court comprising of Justices DY Chandrachud and Ajay Rastogi not just trashed the Army’s weaker sex argument for denying them permanent commission as it had just no merit but also blasted the Army’s dogged resistance to provide permanent commission to women officers! The Bench also said that these were based on sex stereotypes premised on assumptions about....
Read More
