Today’s Legal Updates

Thursday, 14th April 2022




Miscellaneous Financial Provisions

Article – 290  Adjustment in respect of certain expenses and pensions

Where under the provisions of this Constitution the expenses of any court or Commission, or the pension
payable to or in respect of a person who has served before the commencement of this Constitution under the Crown in India or after such commencement in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State, are charged on the Consolidated Fund of India or the Consolidated Fund of a State, then, if—
(a) in the case of a charge on the Consolidated Fund of India, the court or Commission serves any of the separate needs of a State, or the person has served wholly or in part in connection with the affairs of a State; or
(b) in the case of a charge on the Consolidated Fund of a State, the court or Commission serves any of the separate needs of the Union or another State, or the person has served wholly or in part in connection with the affairs of the Union or another State, there shall be charged on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund of the State or, as the case may be, the Consolidated Fund of India or the Consolidated Fund of the other State, such contribution in respect of the expenses or pension as may be agreed, or as may in default of agreement be determined by an arbitrator to be appointed by the Chief Justice of India.

Today’s Legal Updates :-

  1. President Ram Nath Kovind Greets Citizens On The Eve Of Dr BR Ambedkar’s Birth Anniversary. Today Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar Jayanti 2022
  2. Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar (1891-1956 C.E.) popularly known as Babasaheb, was an Indian lawyer, politician and academic. As independent India’s first law minister, he was the principal architect of the Constitution of India. 💐🙏
  3. Last Week the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad ordered a local Zilla Parishad to consider the application filed by a widow seeking compassionate appointment after she gave an undertaking by way of an affidavit that she will take proper care of her aged mother-in-law.  (Usha Giri vs State of Maharashtra)
    • the bench said, The affidavit-cum-undertaking filed by the petitioner (Usha) is sufficient to indicate that she would take care of the mother-in-law.
    • Naturally, after getting the compassionate appointment, if the petitioner ill-treats the mother-in-law or deserts her, there is a provision in the Government Resolution that such compassionate appointment can be taken away.
  4. On Wednesday A Delhi court acquitted former Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) councillor Tahir Hussain of all charges in a 2015 case related to the defacement of public property, after he had allegedly put up a board wishing people a Happy New Year.
    • the Court said, In fact, the IO has failed to point out in the chargesheet as to how he had pinned down at the name of the accused as the installer of the Board Ex. P3, in as much as, he has neither recorded the statement of residents of the locality where the board in question was found affixed by the police, nor has he recorded the statement of the printer.
    • Thus, in the absence of any proof as to the installation of the alleged board by or at the behest of the accused, much less, the proof beyond reasonable doubts qua the said fact, there is no question of the accused being guilty for the offence of defacement of the property within the meaning of Section 3 of DPDP Act.
  5. Gujarat National Law University, Gandhinagar (GNLU) has been hit with a spurt of COVID-19 cases days after it resumed physical classes from 4th April 2022. More than 60 students tested positive for the virus, prompting the University to send its students back home and shut down.
  6. A person who had been charged for murder when he was 17 years old was granted bail by the Karnataka High Court on the ground that he had already been in custody for 2.5 years and the maximum punishment for a juvenile is imprisonment for 3 years.
    • the Court said, Admittedly, this petitioner is aged about 17 years as on the date of the incident. No doubt, there are several other accused persons, this Court has already granted bail in favour of accused No.1 and other accused persons are on bail. Apart from that, the maximum punishment in respect of the petitioner is concerned is 3 years and not more than that … When such being the case and the petitioner is in custody from the last 2½ years, I am of the opinion that, it is a fit case to exercise the discretion to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
    • It was argued by the petitioner that the only allegation against him was that he conspired with the other adult accused persons. He had been in custody since September 2019 and the object of Section 12 (bail for a juvenile) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act had not been considered by the board or court.
  7. On Wednesday the Delhi High Court held that when a judge recuses from hearing a case, no litigant or third party has any right to intervene, comment or enquire about the same because the discretion of the judge in hearing or not hearing a matter is absolute.  (Sherry George v Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
    • the single-judge said, It would be proper to hold that an investigation into the cause/reason for recusal by a judge, particularly, by a litigant, would itself be an interference with the course of justice. When a judge recuses, no litigant or third party has any right to intervene, comment or enquire. The recusal has to be respected, whether a reason has been spelt-out in detail or not. Had a judge refrained from giving a reason for recusal, no one can insist on the judge making such disclosures. The discretion of the concerned judge in the matter of disclosure is absolute.
    • the High Court said, It would be setting out on a precipice, if a Judge who recuses for disclosed or undisclosed reasons, was then sought to be examined on oath in a complaint case which a litigant before the court chooses to initiate, on the pretext of enquiring into a possible corruption case, and to be compelled to make disclosures under oath that in its considered view were not required while recusing.
  8. Last Week the Allahabad High Court rejected a request by a same sex couple seeking recognition of their marriage.
    • The decision was rendered by Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav while disposing of a Habeas Corpus petition filed by a mother seeking custody of her daughter who she alleged was forcibly and illegally detained by another woman.
    • They also produced before the Court a matrimonial consent letter which showed their ages as 23 and 22 years. The couple informed the Court that they were adults, in sound mind and were very much in love. They said that they had married by mutual consent and without any fear.
    • They claimed that their fundamental rights would be compromised if they did not get their right to same sex marriage while placing reliance on the fact that more than 25 countries in the world had recognised same sex marriage.
  9. On Wednesday the Rajasthan High Court said that a lawyer cannot insist on recusal of a judge or transfer of case to another bench. (Master Arjun Choudhary v Chairman)
    • This Court is of the opinion that no counsel can insist the Court not to hear the matter on the ground that this Court is not able to take up the matter despite diligent of the fact that more than 100 cases are listed today and several advocates got their matters marked as urgent.
  10. The Delhi Police has told the Supreme Court that there were no instances of hate speech at the Delhi Dharam Sansad since “no specific words against any particular community was used.”  (Quran Ali vs Union of India)
  11. On Wednesday the Supreme Court restrained the Andhra Pradesh government from diverting funds collected for ex-gratia compensation to families of COVID-19 victims, from the State Disaster Response Fund (SDRF) to a Personal Deposit Account.  (Palla Srinivasa Rao v. Union of India and ors.)
  12. Today the Delhi High Court awarded costs of ₹4 lakh in favour of US jeans brand Levi Strauss in a trademark infringement suit.  (Levi Strauss & Co vs. Imperial Online Services Private Ltd)
    • Considering the long period of 150 years, during which the ‘Arcuate Stitching Design’ mark has been used for Levi’s jeans, trousers, pants and other garments, and the factors outlined above, the said mark has achieved the status of a well-known mark. Accordingly, a decree of declaration declaring the said mark as a `well-known’ mark in terms of paragraph 76(h) of the plaint is also passed.
    • Accordingly, in recognition of the trademark rights and common law rights in the ‘Arcuate Stitching Design’ mark in favour of the Plaintiff, the suit is decreed in terms of paragraphs 76(a), 76(b), 76(c) & 76(d) of the plaint. The Defendants also stand restrained from seeking any statutory rights by applying for trademarks or copyrights in respect of the ‘Arcuate Stitching Design’ mark. If any applications have been filed by the Defendant, the same shall be withdrawn within 30 days.
    • All the e-commerce platforms are directed to ensure that the said images containing the ‘Arcuate Stitching Design’ mark of the Plaintiff are removed from their websites and that no further sale of any garments with the ‘Arcuate Stitching Design’ mark is permitted on their platforms by the Defendants.
    • The Defendants shall further pay a sum of Rs.4 lakhs within four weeks to the Plaintiff as nominal costs in view of the fact that the Defendants have completely failed to abide by their repeated undertakings, as also the fact that exhibition of images on e-commerce platforms constitutes violation of the ad interim injunction passed by this Court.
  13. On Wednesday the Delhi High Court said a foreigner cannot be denied the benefit of depositing cash instead of surety bond to secure bail merely because of an apprehension that they are likely to escape.  (Nastor Farirai Ziso v NCB)
    • the single-judge ruled, It may be observed that it would be a negation of the principle of rule of law and violative of constitutional mandate and principles of human rights in case benefit of Section 445 of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is denied to a foreign national merely on the ground that a foreign national is likely to escape, if released on bail.
    • the Court said, A mere apprehension expressed by the prosecution that the accused may flee the course of justice, cannot be the sole determinative factor for denying benefit of Section 445 Cr.P.C. without consideration of other circumstances and balancing factors in this regard. This apprehension may still theoretically persist even in a case where surety bond is furnished but the liability of surety is only to the extent of the amount mentioned in the surety bond.
    • The petitioner, who is a woman and a foreign national, cannot be forced to undergo incarceration till the conclusion of trial merely because she is unable to furnish a local surety bond… The ends of justice can be suitably achieved in the facts and circumstances of the case by accepting the deposit of cash under Section 445 of CrPC in lieu of surety bond.

Legal Prudent Fraternity