TLS

Supreme Court: While rejecting an appeal to quash proceedings under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, 1881 at pre-trial stage, the Division Bench comprising of K.M. Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy*, JJ., held that when there is legal presumption, it would not be judicious for the quashing Court to carry out a detailed enquiry on the facts alleged, without first permitting the trial Court to evaluate the evidence of the parties.

The Bench upheld the impugned judgment of Delhi High Court wherein the High Court had – while acting as a quashing court under Section 482 of CrPC – refused to quash proceedings at pre-trial stage. The Bench observed,

“The quashing Court should not take upon itself, the burden of separating the wheat from the chaff where facts are contested.”

Divorce| Rajasthan HC Sets Aside Family Court's Order Refusing To Waive 6 Months Cooling-Off Period In Absence Of Documentary Evidence

The Rajasthan High Court observed that a family court had committed illegality in rejecting the divorce application of the parties for waiving cooling

https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/rajasthan-hc-family-court-divorce-documentary-evidence-199081 #

https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/rajasthan-hc-family-court-divorce-documentary-evidence-199081 #

Divorce| Rajasthan HC Sets Aside Family Court's Order Refusing To Waive 6 Months Cooling-Off Period In Absence Of Documentary Evidence The Court noted that the parties had submitted on oath that they have been living separately since July 2018.

The Delhi High Court on Friday directed search engine Google and social media platforms Facebook, Twitter and Instagram to remove defamatory and offending video uploaded by the admin of a vegan group called 'Activism for Animals', which alleged that diary brand Amul was indulging in cruelty to cows [Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation vs Rishabh Kaushal & Ors.].

The Supreme Court on Friday ordered that all incumbent judicial and administrative members of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) who are due to retire from their posts, should continue holding office till July 26.

The order was passed by a Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant after taking note of the fact that currently, there are only 29 members in CAT. The Tribunal was functioning with 34 vacancies, and more retirements could lead to its collapse, the Court said.

"How will the tribunal work if appointments are not made? The advertisement (for appointments) was in April 2022. So selection process will obviously take some time. Meanwhile, if the remaining 29 members who are working retire, then the tribunal will collapse. It has already collapsed," the Bench observed.

If the remaining 29 members who are working retire, then the tribunal will collapse. It has already collapsed.
Supreme Court on CAT

Nomination does not make the nominee owner of property May 10, 2017

Delhi High Court: While relying upon the Supreme Court decision in Sarbati Devi v. Usha Devi, (1984) 1 SCC 424, the Single Bench of Valmiki J. Mehta, J. has held that since nomination is not a will in law, it does not make the nominee as the owner of the property.
In the instant case, the daughter and husband of late Smt. Kamla Devi were granted the succession certificate on account of they being the legal heirs of Smt. Kamla Devi under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Appellant applied for revocation of the succession certificate on the ground that Smt. Kamla Devi did not reside with her husband and daughter for around 35 years and that there was nomination in favour of the appellant in the government records.
The Court agreed with the conclusion of the trial court that nomination is not a will and in the absence of any will of Smt. Kamla Devi in favour of the appellant, only those persons who are legal heirs under the Hindu Succession Act can inherit the properties. The appeal was accordingly dismissed. [Rampali v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi, First Appeal against Order No. 184 of 2017, decided on April 24, 2017]

A Mumbai District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission recently imposed over ₹35,000 costs on a store of ESBEDA, a premium leather accessories selling company, for charging ₹20 for a carry bag over and above the price paid by a customer for an item purchased from the store. [Rima Chawla v. Manager, ESBEDA showroom, Phoenix marketcity]

Passing a decree of divorce by mutual consent, the Delhi High Court has waived off the six months cooling off period as stipulated under Hindu Marriage Act after observing that keeping the couple tied to a legal bond would only mean snatching away from them the opportunity to lead a fulfilling life.A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Dinesh Kumar...

Suspension of work till 30/09/2020

Work suspended till 31/07/20