Brief 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 MoreD.K.Basu vs. State of West Bengal Real name of the case- [Shri D.K.Basu, Ashok K.Johri vs. State of W.B., State of U.P] Bench- Js. Kuldip Singh, Js. (Dr.) A.S. Anand. Date of Judgment- December 18th, 1996. Precedent considered- {Nilabati Behera vs. State of Orissa} [1993] Notable Fact- there were as many as approximately 51 number of Advocates involved in the present case with one “amicus curiae” (friend of court) Dr. A.M.Singhvi. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE- On 26thAugust, 1986 one Basu D....
Read MoreState of Bombay vs. Kathi Kalu Oghad & Others. Bench: Total no.- 11 Majority: B.P. Sinha (CJI), J.R.Mudholkar, K.SubbaRao, K.N.Wanchoo, N.R.Ayyangar, RaghubarDayal, P.B.Gajendragadkar, Syed Jaffer Imam. Minority: A K Sarkar, K C Dasgupta, S K Das. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE- The precedent considered in this case was [M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra/(A.I.R. 1954/SC 300)] where it has been held by the court that the term, “to be a witness”mentioned in Art..20(3) of the Indian Constitution was equivalent to ‘furnish evidence’ and therefore....
Read MoreShamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan (2015) Bench- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prafulla C. Pant Introduction- What is disturbing is that though the application for grant of maintenance was filed in the year 1998, it was not decided till 17.2.2012. It is also shocking to note that there was no order for grant of interim maintenance. It needs no special emphasis to state that when an application for grant of maintenance is filed by....
Read MoreRoxann Sharma v. Arun Sharma (2015) Facts- Roxann Sharma and Arun Sharma married in U.S.A and had a child named Thalbir Sharma. After sometime they returned India and started residing in Mumbai. It was stated the husband and wife had differences with one another and an application for dissolution of marriage was filed and afterwards a petition was filed under Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 for guardianship and custody of Thalbir sharma. During the pendency of case the child....
Read MoreDanamma @ Suman Surpur v. Amar (2018) Backdrop of the Case- The present case is an appeal from the judgment of the High Court who while upholding the decision of the Trial Court, refused to hold the appellants as Coparceners due to being born before the date of the enactment of the Act. The appellants being the two daughters of Mr. Gurulingappa Savadi. The other parties are two sons and wife, namely Arun, Vijay and Sumitra respectively. The suit of....
Read MoreJoseph Shine v. Union of India (2018) Introduction- In india, Adultery law is defined in section 497 of Indian Penal Code. Section 497 comes under the purview of the courts several times in the past but everytime Supreme Court held section 497 as valid. But the Supreme Court on 27th September 2018 in the case of Joseph Shine v. Union of India has brought down the 158 years old Victorian Morality law on adultery. The petition was filed by a....
Read More
