Prolawctor Daily Legal Update|3 August, 2020

Daily Legal Update|3 August, 2020

  1. “CHEQUE MUST SPECIFY A CERTAIN AMOUNT TO BR VALID- DELHI COURT”
    According to the recent judgement in the case of M/s Laxmi Dyechem v. State of Gujarat, it is held that there must be a certainty in the amount for the cheque and should be express through the form of writing to be considered as valid. If the cheque does not specify the certain amount of money, it will be held as invalid.

  2. The NLU, Delhi administration terminated Safai Karamcharis: lawyers, activists, alumni urge to reinstate
    Lawyers, activists and alumni from the National Law University of Delhi (NLU Delhi) and other law schools urged the university administration to function in compliance with the Delhi Labor Minister’s order to sustain the safai karamcharis (housekeeping staff) that the university had wrongly terminated in December last year.

    In this regard, a letter addressed to the NLU Delhi administration states that the struggles of the workers following their termination only intensified in the midst of the pandemic of COVID-19. It says, “The unprecedented crisis, compounded by the lockout, worsened the already deteriorating socio-economic situation of the workforce, exacerbated by five months of unemployment, leaving them unable to meet even their basic needs. However, the NLU Delhi administration has not yet implemented the order of the Labor Minister on the grounds that its Executive and Governing Councils must approve the matter.

    An attempt by the staff and a student to negotiate with the administration and follow up on the i.nstructions of the Labor Minister culminated in police driving them out of the premises on June 19. The. The. However, University denied being aware of the incident while reiterating its position that the June 17 order of the Labor Minister was unsustainable in law.

  3. Clarify if Aarogya Setu App is required for access to public services: Karnataka HC To Centre, State
    The High Court of Karnataka asked the central and state governments on Monday to make their position clear as to whether individuals who have not downloaded the Aarogya settu app. Access to services or facilities provided by the Government shall be permitted. Division of Chief Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ashok S Kinagi said: “The respondents must make a clear statement if any person who has not downloaded Aarogya Setu app will be denied access to any of the services or facilities.” Additional Solicitor General M B Nargund, appearing in court, filed a memo claiming that the use of the NIC contact tracing app is now voluntary.The bench also directed the state government and Bengaluru Metro Rail Corporation to clarify whether passengers traveling by Metro Rail will be required to download the application as a condition prior to entering the Metro Rail Station. The court has now listed the matter on 13th August 2020 for further hearing.

  4. Development in the Contempt Case: The Chief Justice cannot be assumed as the Supreme Court
    Following the plea filled by Advocate Mehak Maheshwari, the Apex court on July 22 nd issued a notice of suo motu contempt case to Prashant Bhushan. Advocate Prashant Bhushan in his reply before the Supreme Court regarding the case filed against him, stated that criticizing the Chief Justice does not contribute to or can be interpreted to lower the authority of the court. Leading to a prominent quote from the case “To assume CJI is SC and SC is CJI is to undermine the institution of Supreme Court”. The 142 paged affidavit expands upon the specific instances of how the Supreme Court in various situations has played a significant role in the destruction of the democracy. It further goes on to point out the role of the last four Chief Justices in the same. Further the affidavit also lay light on why the tweets, which has been relied upon to initiate the contempt proceedings cannot be justified as the contempt of court. The next hearing is scheduled to take place by the court on August 5th .

  5. Jurisdiction under question for enforcing Maintenance for Divorced Muslims.
    Rana Nahid alias Reshma alias Sana & Anr. v. Sahidul Haq Chisti. The division bench composed of R. Banumathi and Indira Banerjee JJ. In the 62 nd paragraph of the judgement, Banerjee has stated that personal laws are governed by Sharait law and hence are protected under religious freedom from any manner of challenge raised on the ground of unconstitutionality. However, in the latter part of the paragraph she also observes that procedural laws, including the Muslim Women Act, do not enjoy the similar immunity as the substantive personal laws would. She further notes that a rigid and constrained understanding of the two acts that constricts a divorced Muslim Woman from applying to family court is impermissible in law. She further expands on how the Article 14 is offended, by singling out Muslim woman and denying equal access to the family courts as a woman of any other religion would hold. Lastly, she has concluding in a firm nature by stating that family courts have exclusive jurisdiction to hear maintenance applications under the Muslim Women Act.

  6. Delhi High Court orders that constitution of the new lok adalats to redress the overhanging cases of public utility services should be in compliance with the Legal Services Authorities Act 1987.
    After extensively analyzing the facts laid down before the court under the case of TATA
    power Delhi distribution ltd vs Rampal case. The court emphasised upon its earlier judgments given by Abul Hassan, who underlined the “dire need for setting-up lok adalats” in order to “address the huge pendency of cases relating inter-alia to public utility services”, stating that these lok adalat’s should be constituted while complying to the Legal Services Authorities Act 1987. The court also took the discussion further to distinguish between the lok adalat which have been mentioned under section 19 from the permanent lok adalat which has been provided for under the section 22(b). The latter has the authority to alter itself into an “adjudicatory body” by applying the 22c, whenever a party fails to arrive at an agreement which is absent in the case of the lok adalat. The court maintained that the powers granted under the section 22(c) do not extend to the cases consisting of “a non-compoundable offence” or will lack jurisdiction upon any dispute which is over the amount of Rs. 10 lakhs.

  7. “RAKHI, A CONDITION FOR BAIL – MP HC grants bail to accused on condition to request neighbour molested by him to tie rakhi with a promise to protect her.”
    MP High Court Indore’s single judge bench of Justice Rohit Arya mentioned in order that the accused shall also tender Rs.11, 000 to the complainant as a customary ritual and also take blessings from her. Also Rs.5000 should be given to complainant’s son for purchase of sweets and clothes.

  8. The law offices are hereby considered for the assessment of property tax.
    Bar council of Delhi urges authorities to consider law offices as “residential and public purpose” and pointed out that advocates offices are not defined under specific category under the Delhi municipal corporation act, 1957.

One thought on “Prolawctor Daily Legal Update|3 August, 2020

Leave a Reply

error: Content is protected !!
%d bloggers like this: