- Proceedings against Vijaya Mallya under
Fugitive Economic Offences Act—The Supreme
Court refused to stay the proceedings against Vijaya Mallya who was sought to
be declared a ‘fugitive economic offender’ by the Enforcement Directorate
(‘ED’), and also sought confisaction of his property, while seeking a response
from ED to Mallya’s petition. Mallya had appealed against the Bombay High Court
order, wherein the High Court had rejected his prayer to stay proceedings under
Section 4 of the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act till further orders of the
Appellate Tribunal under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act(PMLA) in the
Appeals filed by SBI and and 11 other banks. [Vijay Vittal Mallya vs. Enforcement Directorate, Special Leave
Petition (Crl.) No. of 2018, date of order: 07.12.2018]
- Curative petition against the erstwhile CBI
Special Director Rakesh Asthanato be heard by the Supreme Court–The
Supreme Court would hear the curative petition filed by Common Cause, NGO,
against the appointment of Rakesh Asthana as the Special Director of CBI. The
petition seeks to challenge the order of the Apex Court dismissing a PIL filed
by the NGO on the basis that the Court cannot question the ‘unanimous’ decision
taken by the selection committee, and that the said decision was not
illegal.The petition argued that his appointment was illegal as his name had
surfaced in a diary recovered during a raid conducted by the Income Tax
department at the offices and other premises of company Sterling Biotech Ltd
and Sadesaras Group of Companies. [Common Cause vs. Union of India, Curative
Petition (Crl.) No. 144 of 2018]
- High Courts have inherent powers to recall
their own orders: The Supreme Court
clarified that the High Court, being courts of record, has inherent
jurisdiction to recall their own orders. The issue came up in the context of an
arbitration agreement, wherein the single bench of Bombay High Court had
directed the appointment of an arbitrator, pursuant to an agreement, but later
realised that the agreement did not contain any arbitration clause. He then
recalled his own order, which was challenged before the Division Bench who held
that since the Arbitration and Conciliation Act did not contain any provision
of the courts reviewing their own orders, the Single Judge could not have
reviewed his own order. On appeal, the Supreme Cout set aside the Division
bench decision. [Municipal
Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Prathibha Industries, Civil Appeal No.
11822of 2018, date of judgment 04.12.2018]
- Another petition filed in Bombay High Court
seeking investigation in Judge Loya’s death:- A petition has been filed before the Bombay High Court seeking
constitution of a seven-judge bench to hear the case and appointment of a
Special Investigation Team of three IPS officers from non-BJP ruled states to
investigate the death of Judge BH Loya. The petition filed by Sanjay Bhalerao
has named 24 respondents, including the Supreme Court of India, Niranjan Takle
(the journalist who wrote Caravan’s report regarding mysterious circumstances
surrounding Judge BH Loya’s death) and Advocate Satish Uke.
- Public authorities empowered to get
information from third parties under the RTI Act: The Delhi High Court that a
public authority is entitled to access information from a private body under
any other law, it is “information” as defined in Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act
and the public authority is under an obligation to get that information from
the private body and furnish it to the RTI Applicant. It noted that ‘information’ includes in its ambit,
the information relating to any private body which can be assessed by public
authority under any law for the time being in force. [Telecom Regulatory Authority of India vs. Kabir Bose, Writ Petition
(Civil) No. 12388 of 2018, date of judgment: 20.11.2018].
- Challenge to the age upper limit in
the Adoption Regulations, 2017 dismissed: The Kerala High Court rejected the
challenge against eligibility criteria for prospective adoptive parents as
contained in Regulation 5 of the Adoption Regulations, 2017, with regard to the
maximum composite age of prospective adoptive parents for the purpose of
adoption of child up to four years of age. The Court categorically held that “once it is admitted that the child is either
a child in need of care and protection and that the adoption is liable to be
regulated in terms of the Act, 2015, then the petitioners’ right to adopt is
regulated by the Regulations framed under the said Act and the rights of the
prospective parents has to immediately give way to the best interest of the
child.” [Jeshy C.O. &Ors. vs. Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No.
31780 of 2016, date of judgment: 05.11.2018]
- Orissa Government decides to drop prosecution against
Abhijit Iyer-Mitra: The Odisha Government decided to
deny sanction to prosecute Abhijit-Iyer in the criminal cases registered
against him for hurting religious sentiments and promoting communal hatred on
the allegations that some of his tweets were derogatory to Konark temple and
Lord Jagannath. Iyer-Mitra, a defence analyst and journalist based in Delhi,
was first arrested on September 20 in relation to tweets made about Konark
temple. A court in Delhi had granted him conditional bail directing him to join
the investigation.
(IPA
Service)
Prepared by Amritananda Chakravorty (amritananda.c@gmail.com)
and Mihir Samson (mihirsamson@gmail.com),
Delhi based practicing Advocates.
The post Weekly Round-Up of Major Decisions of the Courts in India as also Legal Policy Developments appeared first on Newspack by India Press Agency.
