The Law Office

31/12/2024

Read “From Hooked to Healed: Analysing Social Media Addiction and the Case for Detox“ by TLO, The Law Office on Medium: https://medium.com//from-hooked-to-healed-analysing-social-media-addiction-and-the-case-for-detox-cdba3c3b4877

14/09/2017

The Supreme Court has held that once a person took part in the process of selection and was not found fit for appointment, the said person was estopped from challenging the process of selection. This was in a contest between two Music Teachers claiming appointment in a school under the management of Church of South India. There were two schools under the management- Samuel LMS High School, and Light of the Blind School, which was meant for visually challenged students.

One Helen Thilakom was working as a part-time music teacher in the Light of the Blind School. Selection process for direct recruitment for full-time music teacher in Samuel School was notified. Helen participated in the selection process. But she was rejected, and one Sarojakumari got selected. Thereupon, Helen challenged the selection process contending that the vacancy in Samuel School could not have been filled up by direct recruitment. She contended that she was entitled for promotion to the post, reckoning her service in Light of Blind School.

The Departmental Authorities did not accept the challenge of Helen, on ground that both the schools could not be treated as falling under one unit, as Light of Blind School was a special school catering to the needs of visually challenged. So, it was pointed out that there could not be any common seniority list for both schools, though they were under same management.

However, the High Court accepted the challenge of Helen, and held that she was entitled to promotion, treating both schools as falling under same unit. Sarojakumari had resisted the challenge stating that Helen was estopped from contending that no direct recruitment could be held, after having taken part in the selection process. But the said contention was rejected, and Sarojakumari was shown the door by HC.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of Sarojakumar, accepting her contention based on estoppels. Drawing support from D.G. Sarna v. University of Lucknow (1976) 3 SCC 585, Madan Lal v. State of J&K (1995) 3 SCC 486 and Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar (2010) 12 SCC 576, it was held that an unsuccessful participate cannot turn around and challenge the selection process, after participating in it without any challenge

12/09/2017

Good news for petitioners who are waiting such a long g time for Divorce

07/09/2017

Does reTweet of defematory tweet amount to defemation ?? Thepreme Court has agreed to examine on Monday a petition filed by Aam Aadmi party (AAP) spokesperson Raghav Chadha, as to whether re-tweeting somebody's allegedly defamatory tweet amounts to defamation.

He also sought a direction to the Delhi High Court for expeditious hearing of the defamation case filed by Union Finance Minister Arun Jaitley.

Appearing for Chadha, senior advocate Anand Grover mentioned before the three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Misra for listening of his petition.

Grover sought quashing of the defamation petition against him and Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal for allegedly using defamatory words in the post.

Chadha said retweeting of the CM's tweet could not amount to defamation.

The CJI's bench decided to hear the matter on Monday.

In the defamation case, besides Kejriwal and Chadha, four other accused are AAP leaders Kumar Vishwas, Ashutosh, Sanjay Singh and Deepak Bajpai.

They had accused Arun Jaitley of corruption as the president of the Delhi and District Cricket Association (DDCA), a post he held from 2000 to 2013.

06/09/2017

The WhatsApp Case,. being heard by the five-Judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court, took an interesting turn today, with the Court and the counsel examining the impact of the recent landmark privacy judgment of the Court on the proceedings.

At the outset, Madhavi Divan, counsel for the appellant, referred to the paragraphs in the privacy judgment, which have relevance in the case. Thereafter, Additional Solicitor General, Tushar Mehta, informed the bench about the constitution of the committee of experts, headed by former Judge of the Supreme Court, Justice B.N.Srikrishna, to deliberate on the data protection framework for India. Mehta submitted that after the committee submits its report, a law would be enacted regulating the data protection.

Senior counsel, K.V.Vishwanathan, appearing for the impleaded party, referred to the paragraphs dealing with informational privacy in the privacy judgment which expressly noticed the concerns raised by the petitioner in this case. Specifically, he referred to paragraph 174 of the privacy judgment, which dealt with metadata, and the protection against non-State actors. He emphasised the need to lay down guidelines, using the Visakha precedent, till Parliament enacted a law for data protection.

Justice A.K.Sikri intervened to say that it should be left to experts to deal with it, rather than the Court taking up the task of laying down the guidelines for data protection.

When the question of WhatsApp passing on its data to Facebook came up, senior counsel for WhasApp, Kapil Sibal asked the petitioners to specify what is being passed on.

Madhavi Divan, while explaining what is being passed on, asked the bench to keep the matter pending, as WhatsApp’s policy is unconscionable, as it tells its users, “Take it, or leave it”.

When Kapil Sibal justified sharing of data by WhatsApp, pointing to similar sharing by Google, the bench took objection to it, saying he could not justify a wrong, merely because others are guilty of the same thing.

Facebook’s counsel, Arvind Datar referred to Paragraph 136 in the Privacy judgment, to suggest that legislative intervention in data protection is required, in terms of the privacy judgment, as the issue is highly complex.

Both Vishwanathan and Madhavi Divan emphasised the need for ad interim injunction restraining the respondents from sharing the data with the third parties.

As both Kapil Sibal and Arvind Datar offered to file affidavits to allay the concerns of the petitioners, the bench gave them four weeks for the purpose, and assured them that if the affidavits do not require any kind of intervention by the Court, it may not pass any interim order.

The Constitution bench is headed by the Chief Justice of India, Dipak Misra, includes Justices A.K.Sikri, Amitava Roy, A.M.Khanwilkar and Mohan M.Shantanagoudar.

The case will be listed for hearing at 3 p.m. on November 20.

06/09/2017

The appointments of some law officers of Maharashtra Government were cancelled by the Government on 28.08.2015
The cancellation was done under the powers of Rule 30(5) of the Maharashtra Law Officers (Appointments, Conditions of Service and Remuneration) Rules 1984. The said Rule enabled the Government to terminate the appointment of a law officer if he is guilty of any act or conduct which, in the opinion of Government, is incompatible with his duties as such Law Officer.

The Bombay High Court quashed the orders of cancellation. Therefore, the State of Maharshtra came in appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court passed an interim order on 29.01.2016 staying the operation of the High Court judgment, thereby reviving the cancellation.

During the pendency of appeal, the term of appointment of the law officers got expired. Therefore, the Supreme Court was presented with a situation of fait accompli. The Court was more concerned about the nature of reliefs which could be granted at such a situation, than the legality or otherwise of the cancellation order. Since the term got expired, there was no point in interfering with the cancellation order anymore.

In such circumstances, the Court modified the cancellation orders, and converted them into orders passed under Rule 30(6). Rule 30(6) provided the Government the power to remove a law officer at pleasure, provided that one month’s notice, or one month’s retainer fee in lieu of notice, was given. The orders passed under Rule 30(5) causes a stigma to the law officers, and conversion of the same into an order passed under Rule 30(6) removes such stigma. The Court also directed the Government to pay the law officers one month’s retainer fee in lieu of the notice period

05/09/2017

The Supreme Court on Monday directed the Bombay High Court to expeditiously decide all pleas and petitions challenging the validity of the new Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act.

The bench of Justice Arun Mishra and Justice MM Shantanagoudar directed other high courts where similar pleas against the legislation have been filed to wait for the Bombay High Court’s decision in the matter.

The bench was hearing the Centre’s application seeking transfer of all RERA-related matters from different high courts either to the apex court or to one high court.

Attorney General KK Venugopal submitted that 21 petitions filed in high courts of Karnataka, Bombay and Madhya Pradesh challenge the new real estate legislation. To avoid multiple litigations on the same issue, the Centre sought transfer.

Earlier, a bench headed by Justice Anoop Mohta had asked the Centre to file an affidavit in reply on the challenge to provisions of the RERA by developer’s DB Realty and Neelkamnal Realtors before the Bombay High Court.

After ASG Anil Singh informed the bench of the Centre’s plan to move the Supreme Court seeking transfer of all RERA-related cases, the court adjourned the matter.

With this, the Bombay High Court is set to decide the validity of this real estate legislation.

05/09/2017

सुप्रीम कोर्ट द्वारा ये 5 प्रकार की याचिकायें जारी की जाती हैं

1. बंदी प्रत्यक्षीकरण यह किसी व्यक्ति को अवैध रूप से बंदी बनाये जाने पर उसे स्वतंत्रता प्रदान करने के लिये जारी किया जाता है, इस लेख के द्वारा सर्वोच्च न्यायालय बंदीकरण करने वाले, व्यक्ति को यह आदेश देता है कि वह बंदी किये गये व्यक्ति को सशरीर नियत स्थान तथा नियत समय पर उपस्थित करे इस आदेश का तुरंत पालन किया जाता है तथा गैर कानूनी ढंग से बंदी बनाये गये व्यक्ति को तुरंत रिहा किया जाता है

2. परमादेश इस रिट के द्वारा सर्वोच्च न्यायालय किसी ऐसे पदाधिकारी अथवा सार्वजनिक संस्थान को यह आदेश देता है कि वह सार्वजनिक उत्तरदायित्व का निर्वहन ठीक प्रकार से करे

3. प्रतिषेध लेख यानि प्रोहिबिशन यह आज्ञा पत्र सर्वोच्च न्यायालय या उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा निम्न न्यायालयों को दिया जाता है इसके अंतर्गत उन न्यायालयों को यह आदेश दिया जाता है कि वह किसी मामले में अपनी कार्यवाही रोक दें क्योंकि यह मामला उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र के बाहर है

4. उत्प्रेषण यह आज्ञापत्र किसी विवाद को निम्न न्यायालय से उच्च न्यायालय में भेजने के लिये जारी किया जाता है

5. अधिकार पृच्छा जब कोई व्यक्ति किसी पद पर कार्य करने के लिये अधिकृत नहीं होता लेकिन फिर भी वह उस पद पर कार्य करने लगता है तो न्यायालय उस व्यक्ति के विरुद्ध यह आज्ञापत्र जारी करता है और उस व्यक्ति से पूछता है कि वह किस आधार पर इस पद पर कार्य कर रहा है

01/09/2017

http://www.livelaw.in/due-date-filing-t-returns-extended-oct-31/

The Central Board of Direct Taxes, in the exercise of its powers under Section 119 of the Income Tax Act, has extended the deadline for filing returns and reports of audit required under the Act from September 30 to October 31. The same has been done pursuant to various requests by stakeholders to f...

28/03/2017

We Wish you Happy Navratri