Lexis®India Newsletter

Landmark Judgements

1. Narendra Versus K. Meena. [LNIND 2016 SC 417; (2016) 7 MLJ 726 (SC)]. The Supreme Court has held that the unsubstantiated allegations levelled by the wife and the threats and attempt to commit suicide by her amounted to mental cruelty and therefore, the marriage deserves to be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground stated in Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
2. Satbir Singh Bakshi Versus Saroja and Others [(2016) 7 MLJ 886]. The Madras High Court has held that there is no limitation for filing the petition under Order 9 Rule 7 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, but the limitation applies only for the setting aside the exparte decree under Order 9, Rule 13 of Code Civil Procedure, 1908. The question of condoning delay of Section 5 of Limitation Act, there is no necessary condition for present case since the suit is pending and no exparte decree passed against this Petitioner/3rd Defendant. Therefore, the very filing of the application under Order 9, Rule 7 of Code Civil Procedure, 1908 is maintainable. Even the 3rd Defendant has not given any valid reason, the Court can give an opportunity and it is open to the Court to condone the delay of set aside application and permit him to take part in the proceedings at any stage of the proceedings.
3. Shongtong Karcham Hydel Project Worker’s Union Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Others [LNIND 2016 HP 1955; 2016-IV-LLJ-402 (HP)]. The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that only because of misdemeanor on part of some of the members/representatives of the Union, the same cannot be used as a hand twisting tactics by the Managements for denying the benefits of various labour laws legislations enacted for their benefits. The entire body of the workmen cannot be driven against the wall and compelled to enter into litigation, which obviously to the knowledge of the Managements is a highly time consuming process. The Managements in this way cannot surmount illegal pressure upon the workmen to accept their dictates and terms by creating compelling circumstances.
4. Vijay Kumar Paswan and Another Versus State of Bihar through its Commissioner-Cum-Secretary of Transport Department, Bihar, Patna and Others [LNIND 2016 PAT 3635; 2016-IV-LLJ-300 (Pat)]. The Patna High Court has held that the order of the penalty of removal from service passed by the Administrator impugned at Annexure-7 together with its confirmation vide order impugned at Annexure-13 are resting on no evidence and is an opinion reflecting perversity.


Legal News

(a) The Supreme Court has refused to interfere with the Central Government’s decision to demonetize Rs 1,000 and Rs 500 currency notes, but sought an affidavit regarding urgent extra measures to be taken to put an end to the severe inconvenience people faced. The Supreme Court has asked the Attorney General who appeared for Centre if steps like enhancing the withdrawal cap, asking more authorities to accept old currency till an extended date, more speedy replenishment of ATMs could be taken.
(b) The Chief Justice has called off Supreme Court judge Justice Madan B Lokur from the post of Chairman of the Apex Court’s e-committee and replaced him with retired Rajasthan High Court Chief Justice Sunil Ambwani.
(c) The Supreme Court has reiterated that when the Plaintiff wants to implead certain persons as Defendants in a suit for specific performance on the ground that they may be adversely affected by the outcome of the suit, then interest of justice also requires allowing such a prayer for impleadment so that the persons likely to be affected are aware of the proceedings and may take appropriate defence as suited to their vendors.
(d) The Madras High Court has held that making any permanent mark on the body of a blood donor by force to prevent possible drug addicts from selling blood to buy more drugs cannot be allowed.

Legislation Updates

Central Acts:-

  • Government Of Union Territories Act, 1963

State Acts:- 

  • Delhi Maternity Benefit Rules, 1971
  • Maharashtra Drug (Control) Rules, 1963
  • Maharashtra Maternity Benefit Rules, 1965
  • Punjab Chemical Works Rules, 1933
  • Punjab Excise Bonded Warehouse Rules, 1956
  • Karnataka Factories Rules, 1969
  • Maharashtra Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Rules, 1985
  • Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) (Karnataka) Rules, 1974





Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s