Skip to main content

Posts

Showing posts with the label vakalat

NATIONAL REGISTER OF CITIZENS (NRC)

The  National Register of Citizens (NRC)  is a register maintained by the Government of India containing names & certain relevant information for identification of Indian citizens of Assam state. The register was initially, specifically made for Assam state. However, on 20th November 2019, Home Minister Amit Shah declared during a Parliamentary Session that the register would be extended to the entire country. The register was first prepared after the 1951 Census of India and since then it has not been updated until recently. Assam has become the first state in India where the updating of the NRC is being taken up to include the names of those persons whose names appeared in the NRC of 1951 and is still alive; and/or of their presently living descendants who have permanent residence within the state. The updated final NRC was released on August 31, 2019 with over 1.9 million applicants failing to make it to the list. PURPOSE OF NRC The purpose of NRC update i...

HOTEL LIABLE FOR VEHICLE THEFT FROM PARKING : SUPREME COURT

In  Taj Mahal Hotel vs United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. , Supreme Court held that when it comes to valet parking, hotel owners can’t not simply use a paper tag stating “parking at owners’ risk” as a way to escape liability. The Supreme Court upheld an order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (‘National Commission’) to pay compensation of Rs 2.8 lakh to an individual whose Maruti Zen car was stolen in 1998 from its parking area holding that there was deficiency in services rendered by the hotel management. The hotel had argued that the valet parking ticket clearly states that the vehicle will be parked at the guest’s own risk and responsibility and that the management will not be responsible for any loss, theft or damage.  Bench of Justice Mohan Shantanagoudar and Justice Ajay Rastogi held that the    hotel-owner cannot contract out of liability for its negligence or that of its servants in respect of a vehicle of...

DISQUALIFIED MLAs CAN’T BE BARRED FROM CONTESTING FUTURE ELECTIONS

In Shrimanth Balasaheb Patil vs Hon’ble Speaker, Karnataka , Supreme Court    upheld    the disqualification of 17 Congress - JD(S) MLAs in Karnataka by the then Assembly Speaker K.R. Ramesh Kumar but allowed their plea to contest the by-election to be held on December 5 for the seats that fell vacant in July. A three-judge bench of justices NV Ramana, Sanjiv Khanna and Krishna Murari held that the Speaker does not have the power to indicate the duration for which a member may not contest elections after being disqualified or after resigning. FACTS OF THE CASE In July this year, Writ Petitions were filed by 17 ex-MLAs of Karnataka challenging their disqualification by the previous Speaker of the Assembly. The resignation of the 17 MLAs from the Congress and JD(S) parties eventually brought down the HD Kumaraswamy-led regime in Karnataka in July this year.  Speaker rejected the resignation of the members asserting that they were not voluntary or gen...

PRESIDENT’S RULE

PRESIDENT’S RULE  In layman’s term  President's Rule  is the suspension of state government and imposition of direct central government rule in a state. Article 356 of Indian Constitution deals with imposition of President’s Rule over a State of India. If a State Government is unable to function according to constitutional provisions, the Central government can take direct control of the state machinery. Executive authority is exercised through the centrally appointed governor, who has the authority to appoint other administrators to assist them.  During president's rule, the Council of Ministers is dissolved, vacating the office of Chief Minister. Furthermore, the Vidhan Sabha is either prorogued or dissolved, necessitating a new election.  The Governor is an appointee of the President and thus, effectively, a functionary of the Union Government.  S. R. Bommai v. Union of India   was a landmark judgment of the Supreme Court wher...

SUMMARY OF THE AYODHYA VERDICT

SUMMARY OF THE AYODHYA VERDICT The five-judge bench of the Supreme Court unanimously pronounced it's verdict on 9 November 2019.The judgement can be summarised as follows: The Court ordered the Government of India    to create a trust to build a temple and a Board of Trustees within three months. The disputed land will be owned by the Government of India and subsequently transferred to the Trust after it's formation. The Court ordered the entire disputed land area of 2.77 acres to be allocated for the construction of a temple while an alternative piece of land area of 5 acres be allocated to the Sunni Waqf Board for the construction of a mosque within Ayodhya. The Court ruled that the 2010 Allahabad High Court’s division of the disputed land was incorrect. The Court ruled that the Demolition of the Babri Majid and the 1949 desecration of the Babri Masjid was in violation of law. The Court observed that archaeological evidence from the Archaeological Survey ...

THE AYODHYA CASE : A TIMELINE

From the idol of Ram Lalla being found inside the mosque in December 1949 followed by the filing of the first couple of pleas in the matter to the eventual demolition of Babri Masjid on December 6, 1992, the Ayodhya dispute has long been a part of political discourse in the country, especially over the last three decades. TIMELINE OF EVENTS   1528-29 Babri Majid Constructed in Ayodhya by Mughal Emperor Babur’s commander Mir Baqi. 1885 Mahant Raghubir Das files a plea in the Faizabad district court, seeking to build a temple on land next to the mosque. Court rejects plea. December, 1949 Idol of Ram Lalla found inside the mosque. Hindus call it divine appearance; start offering prayers. Others say that it was smuggled in there. 1950 Suits filed in Faizabad Court by Gopal Singh Visharad and Paramahansa Ramachandra Das,seeking permission to worship the idols of Ram Lalla. 1959 Nirmohi Akhara files plea seeking possession of the disputed lan...

MEASURES FOR PREVENTION OF FATAL ACCIDENTS OF SMALL CHILDREN DUE TO THEIR FALLING INTO ABANDONED BORE WELLS AND TUBE WELLS

MEASURES FOR PREVENTION OF FATAL ACCIDENTS OF SMALL CHILDREN DUE TO THEIR FALLING INTO ABANDONED BORE WELLS AND TUBE WELLS In 2010, Supreme Court of India had issued the following directions when it came to the construction of bore wells and tube-wells :- (i) The owner of the land/premises, before taking any steps for constructing bore well/ tube well must inform in writing at least 15 days in advance to the concerned authorities in the area, i.e., District Collector/ District Magistrate/Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat/any other Statutory Authority/concerned officers of the Department of Ground Water/Public Health/ Municipal Corporation, as the case may be, about the construction of bore well/tube well. (ii) Registration of all the drilling agencies, namely, Government/Semi Government/Private etc. should be mandatory with the district administration/Statutory Authority wherever applicable.    (iii) Erection of signboard at the time of construction ne...

Father Can't Avoid Maintaining Children Just Because Mother Is Earning: Delhi High Court

FATHER CAN’T AVOID MAINTAINING CHILDREN JUST BECAUSE MOTHER IS EARNING  The Delhi High Court recently ruled that man cannot avoid the responsibility of maintaining his children on the ground that his estranged wife is earning because a lot of time and effort also go into the upbringing. In  Farooq Ahmed Shala v. Marie Chanel Gillier CRL.REV.P. 855/2018,  Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva said it would be incorrect to hold both parents equally responsible for the expenses of a child. In the case, the Petitioner has challenged the order of interim maintenance @ Rs.60,000/- per month. The Petitioner challenged the order on the ground that he is a pauper and does not have any source of income and that the respondent wife herself is running a business. The  High Court of Delhi  dismissed the appeal and made the following observations in the case: Para 18.  Mere fact that the respondent wife is earning does not absolve the petitioner of his responsi...