CIAL is public authority
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The Court concluded that all three limbs of Section 2(h)(d)(i) of the RTI Act — ownership, control, and substantial financing, stood satisfied in the case of CIAL. Hence, CIAL was held to be a “public authority” within the meaning of the Right to Information Act, 2005, and was amenable to the obligations of information disclosure under the provisions and rigours of the Act.

not lowering National Flag after sunset
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“To attract the offence under Section 2 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, a person should burn, mutilate, deface, defile, disfigure, destroy, trample upon or otherwise show disrespect to or bring into contempt, the Indian National Flag or the Constitution of India or any part thereof, in any public place or in any other place within public view.”

Daughter-in-law ‘children’ under Senior Citizens Act
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“A purposive interpretation should be given to the word ‘children’ defined under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007, especially when the definition of ‘children’ starts with the word ‘includes’ son, daughter, etc., and therefore, a petition under the provisions of the Act would lie against the daughter-in-law also.”

police protection NIT quarry survey
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“In our country governed by rule of law, every citizen has a right to do any business or pursue any avocation permissible under law, following the provisions of law. Whether such an avocation or business is to be permitted or not, is for the competent authorities under the State to decide.”

Violation of Hill Slope Excavation Limits
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The petition was filed alleging that soil extraction is being carried out in connection with the construction of the National Highway from Kasaragod to Thiruvananthapuram, where soil was extracted beyond the permissible limits altering the hill topography and causing severe environmental damage with the risk of landslides.

Tata Tea name change decree rights
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“When a change in the name of a company takes place and the same gets registered in the register of the companies, there is no substantial change in the constitution of the entity and it shall not affect any rights and obligations of the company or render defective any legal proceedings by or against it.”

Litigants cannot choose judge
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“The roster is prepared by the Chief Justice. The Judge, who is hearing the case, can decide to avoid the case if necessary. But a litigant cannot dictate to the Court to avoid his case by a Judge who is allotted the jurisdiction by the Chief Justice as per the roster. If such a practice is started, the litigants can pick and choose the judge who has to hear their case.”

inherent powers DV Act
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“As far as the present case is concerned, the interim order passed by the Magistrate cannot be said to be gross illegality or irregularity. The petitioner could very well approach the same court seeking order, modifying or vacating the aforesaid order if there are sufficient reasons. That apart, appeal is provided under Section 29 of the PWDV Act against the aforesaid order”