News Of the day

NEWS OF THE DAY

Supreme Court refuses to entertain plea seeking declaration that there is no freedom of speech with respect to subjudice matters

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a PIL, seeking a declaration that there shall be no freedom of speech and expression with respect to sub judice matters and final orders and judgments passed by the courts, except to the extent of fair and true reporting. A Bench headed by Chief Justice of India SA Bobde while refusing to entertain the plea, asked the petitioner, Dr Subhash Vijayan, to withdraw the plea as the court cannot pass such orders. Vijayan withdrew the plea thereafter. The petitioner told the Bench that Judges cannot defend themselves against attacks. "Judges are not politicians," he said."Doing otherwise, directly or indirectly, would bring disrepute to the judiciary, and shake people's confidence in the system. If anyone has any grievance, he has the right to move the courts through appropriate proceedings. Ranting out in the media and imputing motives/bias on the judges is neither good for the system nor is the solution to the grievances of the aggrieved," he said in the plea. The petitioner said that a trend is growing where a set of lawyers criticize the judges and the judiciary while directly or indirectly imputing motives on the judges for passing a verdict in a specific way. It said these acts prima facie constitute a contempt of court. The Petitioner adds in the plea said while criticizing the judgments on points of law is fair and healthy criticism and also a sign of a mature democracy, it is unhealthy to impute motives to the judges."Till what time is this court going to tolerate this unhealthy practice of maligning the courts and its Judges by the disgruntled and those with ulterior motives?"

  • By INTO LEGAL WORLD
  • Posted On Sat, 19 Sep 2020 03:41 PM

Supreme Court stays the proposed demolition of Patna Collectorate building, the 18th century structure

The Supreme Court ordered status quo in the case related to the demolition of the centuries-old Patna Collectorate complex, part of which was built during the Dutch-Era, two days after Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar laid the foundation stone for the new structure. A bench of Chief Justice S A Bobde and Justices A S Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian sought a response from the Bihar Government within two weeks on the plea filed by Indian National Trust For Art and Cultural Heritage (INTACH), Patna Chapter, challenging the High Court order. Ahead of the Assembly elections in Bihar in October-November, the Chief Minister had on Wednesday inaugurated and laid the foundation stone of 29 buildings worth Rs 622.22 crore, including the construction of a new structure for Patna Collectorate. The Apex Court was informed that this complex, which also includes Dutch-era and British-era buildings, has a historical significance and should be preserved as a Signpost of History. The Supreme Court issued a notice to the Bihar government on a plea challenging the Patna High Court's order that gave a nod to the Municipal Corporation to proceed with the demolition of the iconic Collectorate Building in Patna City. The Patna High Court verdict came as a big jolt to historians, conservation architects, and many other heritage lovers and experts who have been pleading the Bihar government to not demolish the historic Collectorate. The Patna Collectorate complex, parts of which are over 250 years old, is situated on the banks of the Ganga and is endowed with high ceilings, huge doors, and hanging skylights. The collectorate is one of the last surviving signatures of Dutch architecture in the Bihar capital, especially the Record Room and the old District Engineer's Office.

  • By INTO LEGAL WORLD
  • Posted On Sat, 19 Sep 2020 03:36 PM

Supreme Court asks all High Courts Chief Justices to prepare Action Plan for expeditious disposal of pending cases against legislators

The Supreme Court has asked the Chief Justices of all High Courts to immediately list all pending criminal cases involving sitting/former legislators (MPs/MLAs), particularly those where a stay has been granted, and all the matters should be heard by a bench comprising the Chief Justices. A bench headed by Justice NV Ramana and comprising Justices Surya Kant and Hrishikesh Roy said: "Upon being listed, the court must first decide whether the stay granted, if any, should continue, keeping in view the principles regarding the grant of stay enshrined in the judgment of this court."The action plan should touch upon the following aspects The top court also charted out a nine-point action plan for the Chief Justice of each High Court to formulate and submit an action plan for rationalization of the number of Special Courts necessary, with respect to the following aspects: a. Total number of pending cases in each district | b. Required number of proportionate Special Courts | c. Number of Courts that are currently available | d. Number of Judges and the subject categories of the cases | e. Tenure of the Judges to be designated | f. Number of cases to be assigned to each Judge | g. Expected time for disposal of the cases | h. Distance of the Courts to be designated | i. Adequacy of infrastructure.

  • By INTO LEGAL WORLD
  • Posted On Fri, 18 Sep 2020 03:36 PM

Pinjra Tod member Natasha Narwal gets bail; remains in jail in another case

A Delhi court granted bail to Pinjra Tod member Natasha Narwal in a case related to the 24 February northeast Delhi riots. She, however, will not be released as she has also been booked under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in another case related to the riots. The Delhi Police has accused Narwal of instigating the riots. Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat, while granting the bail, noted that the video shown by the prosecution showed Narwal participating in the "unlawful assembly", but it did not show anything to suggest that she indulged in or incited violence. The bail was granted on a personal bond of Rs 30,000 with one surety to the like amount. The Pinjra Tod member, however, would not be released from prison as there is another FIR registered against her under the UAPA in which the court took cognizance of the charge sheet on Thursday.

  • By INTO LEGAL WORLD
  • Posted On Fri, 18 Sep 2020 03:35 PM

Supreme Court rejects SBI plea in Anil Ambani bankruptcy case

The Supreme Court dismissed a plea by State Bank of India seeking resumption of insolvency proceedings against the then chairman of Reliance Communications (RCom), Anil Ambani, to recover Rs 1,200 crore loan granted to his two firms. A bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta & S. Ravindra Bhat asked the petitioner bank (State Bank of India) to complete proceedings before the High Court and seek a modification as prayed for, adding that the case will be taken up before the Delhi High Court on October 6. The Supreme Court refused to vacate the stay granted by the Delhi High Court by its interim order on the personal insolvency proceedings against Ambani. Ambani had given personal guarantees for the SBI loans of Rs 565 crore and Rs 635 crore to RCom and Reliance Infratel Ltd (RITL) in August 2016. The court also observed that IBC proceedings against the corporate debtors shall continue. The order has come in a plea moved by Anil Ambani against the appointment of a Resolution Professional (RP) on the personal guarantee given by him against a loan taken by Reliance Communications Ltd (RCom) and Reliance Infratel Ltd (RITL) from State Bank of India (SBI).

  • By INTO LEGAL WORLD
  • Posted On Fri, 18 Sep 2020 03:33 PM

Previous 1 2 3 4 5  ... Next