Rajeev Kumar Kalra and Mayank Kalra Advocates

18/05/2021

https://www.linkedin.com/in/mayankkalra888

View MAYANK KALRA A.’s profile on LinkedIn, the world’s largest professional community. MAYANK KALRA has 1 job listed on their profile. See the complete profile on LinkedIn and discover MAYANK KALRA’S connections and jobs at similar companies.

18/05/2021

I'm on Instagram as .kalras. Install the app to follow my photos and videos.

Create an account or log in to Instagram - A simple, fun & creative way to capture, edit & share photos, videos & messages with friends & family.

06/04/2021

https://maps.app.goo.gl/VxvHtEMjJrsA3cCm6

Law firm

26/07/2020

Sri Suchitra Kumar Singha Roy v. Smt. Arpita Singha Roy, FA 135/2014

While allowing an appeal for divorce preferred by an aggrieved husband, Court observed,
"The respondent/wife, in our opinion, had no intention of living with the husband as would appear from the facts and circumstances of the case and respondent/wife deliberately made wild allegations against the husband and his relatives. Inference can be drawn that the wife had no intention to reside with the husband and her intention was to terminate the matrimonial relationship. Hence such acts of the respondent/wife, specially filing a criminal case and for which her husband and father-in-law languished in the custody amounts to cruelty so as to create an apprehension about life and, thus, it amounts to ground of divorce."

-19 .

28/06/2020

|| PRATHYASA MENTAL HEALTH COUNSELLING FORUM vs. STATE OF KERALA ||
WP(C).No.11686 OF 2020
The bench of the Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly dismissed a PIL filed by "Prathyasa Mental Health Counselling forum". The forum had challenged a notification issued by the Transport Department, Government of Kerala relaxing the lock-down restrictions and permitting to carry passengers in all the seats available in the stage carriages.

Responding to the query of the bench as to the maintainability of a public interest litigation by an unregistered body, the counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment in Swaraj Abhiyan - (I) v. Union of India.

However, the bench observed that there is no declaration of law under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, that any unregistered body can file a writ petition. The Court also examined some other judgments cited by the counsel in this regard.

The Petitioner also sought to place reliance on Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee & Anr. v. C.K.Rajan (2003) 7 SCC 546, to contend that writ petition under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution of India can be filed by any person interested in the welfare of people, who is in an disadvantaged position.

-19

27/06/2020

[Dharmesh Vasantrai Shah vs. Renuka Prakash Tiwari, WRIT PETITION NO. 2928 OF 2019]

The Bombay High Court held that in case of an illegitimate child, mother is the natural guardian and father's claim comes after her as per Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act.
Justice SC Gupte was hearing an interim application in a writ petition filed by 26-year-old Dharmesh Shah who challenged the order of a Family Court in Pune wherein his application for custody of his 7-year-old son Omiraj Shah was rejected. Court cleared the way for Omiraj and his mother to travel to their home country of New Zealand.

26/06/2020

|| State of Maharashtra Vs. Yalappa Basappa Khot || Criminal Appeal No. 1021 of 2001

Justice SS Jadhav had pronounced the judgment in June. Court heard the State's challenge to a judgment of the Judicial Magistrate First Class wherein he had decided to impose a fine of Rs.1200 only on accused Yalappa as he had pleaded guilty. This order was passed on October 15, 2001.

The Bombay High Court has held that even if the accused pleads guilty, Courts are not empowered to impose a sentence below the minimum sentence prescribed in the given act passed by the Legislature and allowed an appeal filed by the State government seeking enhancement of the fine amount of Rs.1200 imposed on one Yalappa Khot, for employing a 12 year old boy for weaving in his factory.

-19

25/06/2020

[M. Immanvuel Vs. The government of India and Ors., Writ Petition No. 8276 of 2020]

The Madras High Court on Wednesday dismissed, with exemplary costs, a PIL contending that there is no provision in The Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 or The Disaster Management Act, 2005 to impose a lockdown and therefore, the orders for the same, have been passed without any authority of law besides being arbitrary.
The petition argued that the lockdown, as imposed by the government of India on March 24 for the first time, and as lastly extended on May 31, which continues to be in force in the state of Tamil Nadu, is unconstitutional in view of the restriction of movement of persons, gatherings of religious, social and political in nature and night curfew. It is urged that the lockdown is in Violation of Article 19 (b) (d), 21, 25 and 14 of The Constitution of India and further excessive of the National Disaster Management Biological Disasters Guidelines, 2008 and National Disaster Management Plan, 2019.

24/06/2020

[ODISHA VIKASH PARISHAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS., Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s).571/2020]

Modifying the absolute stay on conduct of Jagannath Rath Yatra in Odisha, the Supreme Court on Monday allowed the Rath Yatra at Puri, observing the strict restrictions and regulations of the Centre and the State Government.
A bench headed by Chief Justice of India ordered that the Centre and State should "work in tandem".
The following are some of the conditions :
(1) All entry points into the City of Puri, i.e., airports, railway stations, bus stands, etc., shall be closed during the period of Rath Yatra festival.
(2) The State Government shall impose a curfew in the City of Puri on all the days and during all the time when Rath Yatra chariots are taken in procession. The State Government may also impose curfew in the city of Puri on such other days and during such time as deemed necessary. During the period of curfew no one would be allowed to come out of their houses or their places of residence, such as, hotels, lodging houses, etc. To start with, the curfew shall begin tonight at 8 P.M.
(3) Each Rath, i.e.., Chariot, shall be pulled by not more than 500 persons. Each of those 500 persons shall be tested for the Coronavirus. They shall be permitted to pull the chariot only if they have been found negative. The number 500 shall include officials and police personnel.
(4) There shall be an interval of one hour between two chariots.
(5) Each of those who is engaged in pulling the chariot shall maintain social distancing before, during and after the Rath Yatra.
(6) We are informed that certain rituals are associated with the Rath Yatra. We direct that only such persons shall be associated with the rituals who have been found to have tested negative and shall maintain social distancing.

23/06/2020

{SRI BHASKAR DAS VERSUS SMTI. RENU DAS} Case No. : Mat.App. 20/2019
In 2016, the Supreme Court also made similar observations while granting divorce to a husband who was forced to live separately from his parents. Normally, no husband would tolerate this and no son would like to be separated from his old parents and other family members, who are also dependent upon his income, the Court had said.
The Gauhati High Court has granted divorce to a man on the ground that his wife compelled him to stay away from his step-mother.

The bench comprising of the Chief Justice Ajai Lamba and Justice Soumitra Saikia noted that, under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, children (which includes the son) shall mandatorily be required to maintain parents (includes step-mother also) and senior citizens.

While considering a Matrimonial Appeal [filed by husband whose divorce petition was dismissed by the District Court], the High Court noted that it has come in evidence that the step-mother has no personal source of income, and that she is a senior citizen. The Court also perused an agreement which was compelled to be executed at the behest of the wife prior to seeking pre-arrest bail by the husband and his family members. The condition was to live separately away from the family members of the husband and that none of the family members including the step-mother of the husband will be permitted to visit them.

-19

19/06/2020

[UMEDSINH P CHAVDA Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS., Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s).346/2020]

The Supreme Court on Thursday came down heavily on a social worker who had filed a plea seeking ban & prohibition on the sale and use of Coca Cola, Thums up and other soft drinks citing health concerns on their consumption.
A bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, Hemant Gupta & Ajay Rastogi imposed a cost of Rs. 5 Lakh on the petitioner, observing that the petitioner, "lacked technical knowledge" on the subject and his assertions stood "unsubstantiated".
"The petitioner claims to be a "social worker". The affidavit in support of the petition states that the contents of the petition are true to the knowledge and belief of the petitioner. The petition has been filed without the petitioner having any technical knowledge on the subject. The source of his assertions has not been substantiated. No justification or explanation is forthcoming during the submissions of Mr S P Singh, learned Senior Counsel on why two specific brands in particular are chosen to be the target of the proceedings" - Supreme Court
Further to this, the bench stated that the plea had been filed for "extraneous" reasons, whereby, an invocation of the jurisdiction of Article 32 of the Constitution stood as an "abuse of the process".
The Court noted that the recourse of Article 32 taken in the instant plea did not stronghold with bona fides requisite in a Public Interest Litigation.
In light of this, the court justified that the imposition of exemplary costs became necessary, which were quantified at Rs. 5,00,000 on the petitioner.

19/06/2020

Stating that PM CARES FUNDS is not a 'public authority' under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, the Prime Minister's Office(PMO) has refused to divulge information sought in an application filed under the RTI Act.
The RTI application was made by one Harsha Kandukuri on April 1, seeking information regarding the constitution of the Prime Minister's Citizen Assistance and Relief in Emergency Situations Fund (PM CARES Fund).
Harsha, a student of LLM in Azim Premji University at Bengaluru, sought the copies of the trust deed of PM Cares Fund, and all Government Orders, Notifications and Circulars relating to its creation and operation.
Disposing of the application on May 29, the Public Information Officer of PMO said ;
"PM CARES Fund is not a public authority under the ambit of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, 2005. However, relevant information in respect of PM CARES Fund may be seen on the website pmcares.gov.in"
The copies of the trust deed, and the government orders/notifications relating to the PM CARES Fund are not seen uploaded in the official website of the fund.

-19