Here is the Order of Supreme Court where in it has frame some guidelines for it to function through Video Conferencing during nCovid-19 pandemic and even after the lockdown which was supposed to end on 14 April 2020 but got extended upto 3 May 2020.
Here is the Record of Proceedings (ROP) for 06 April 2020
AP High Court has also taken up the issue of COVID-19 as a Writ Petition here.
Citations: [
Other Source links:
This Judgment by Justice Deepak Gupta from a 2-judge bench held in Para 18 that,
18. We also are of the view that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in matters like this. The High Court exercise its jurisdiction only over State(s) of which it is the High Court. It has no jurisdiction for the rest of the country. Matters like the present may be pending in various parts of the country. In the present case, matter had been decided by the Delhi High Court but some other High Court may or may not have taken different view. The High Court of Madras could not have passed such order. It has virtually usurped the jurisdiction of other High Courts in the country. It is true that sometimes this Court has ordered that all similarly situated employees may be granted similar relief but the High Court does not have the benefit of exercising the power under Article 142 of the Constitution. In any event, this Court exercises jurisdiction over the entire country whereas the jurisdiction of the High Court is limited to the territorial jurisdiction of the State(s) of which it is the High Court. The High Court may be justified in passing such an order when it only affects the employees of the State falling within its jurisdiction but, in our opinion, it could not have passed such an order in the case of employees where pan India repercussions would be involved.
This effectively means that, to challenge a Central Act such as Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 which has ramifications to entire country, one can not invoke the Writ jurisdiction of a High Court. This implies that, one has to go to Supreme Court only. This is quite contrary to the obiter dicta from Kusum Ingots judgement here given by a 3-judge bench.
Citations: [
Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/95720998/ or
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
3-Judge Full Bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud (as he was at Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court) declared the following reference in affirmative,
“Whether writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution can be filed by Power of Attorney holder?”
Safeguards
Having held so, we must, at the same time, emphasize the necessity of observing adequate safeguards where a writ petition is filed through the holder of a power of attorney. These safeguards should necessarily include the following:
(1) The power of attorney by which the donor authorises the donee, must be brought on the record and must be filed together with the petition/application;
(2) The affidavit which is executed by the holder of a power of attorney must contain a statement that the donor is alive and specify the reasons for the inability of the donor to remain present before the Court to swear the affidavit; and
(3) The donee must be confined to those acts which he is authorised by the power of attorney to discharge.
Earlier Reference Order
Citations: [2016 AWC 2 1525], [2016 LCD 34 373], [2016 AIR ALL 52]
Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/114640689/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5811a4a5e691cb26fc4d9447
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
Smt. S.D. Javalgekar, Judicial Magistrate First Class (Court No.5) Sangli delivered this judgment.
Para 23,
23. From the above discussion, it becomes clear that, the prosecution has failed to prove the allegations against the accused beyond reasonable doubts. Though in such offences special weightage should be given to the version of the complainant, it should also be corroborated by other supportive evidence. In absence of such evidence vague allegations of the complainant cannot be taken as true. There are many instances in society wherein females of mischievous nature spoil the family peace by making false allegations and by unnecessarily involving innocent persons in the offence. From the discussion above, I find no substance in the various allegations of the complainant. Hence, I hold that accused persons are innocent and not liable for the offences punishable under Section 498A, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
Citations:
Other Source links:
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
Smt Justice Sri Devi had passed a Quash order on the false and malicious proceedings which were initiated u/s 498 IPC and others under the ground that there are no specific details in the Charge Sheet to bring home the allegations also because Assistant Government Pleader did not obtain sanction from Central Government to ask the Magistrate to take cognizance of this case.
Citations:
Other Source links:
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
A relic from bygone British-era, this Law was frequently invoked in India to contain pandemic outbreaks in India or any territory within India.
The latest Ordinance is here.
Disclaimer:
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
I have no control to remove copies of this document(s) that may be available on websites of High Courts or Supreme Court of India or any of the many other sites, law journal or reporters which carry the same judgment in it’s entirety, not I can remove references/links to this document(s) from the results of Search Engines such as Google.com.
Supreme Court had that filing false complaints caused mental cruelty and thereby gives opportunity to seek divorce on the ground of Cruelty.
“11. Cruelty can never be defined with exactitude. What is cruelty will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In the present case, from the facts narrated above, it is apparent that the wife made reckless, defamatory and false accusations against her husband, his family members and
colleagues, which would definitely have the effect of lowering his reputation in the eyes of his peers. Mere filing of complaints is not cruelty, if there are justifiable reasons to file the complaints. Merely because no action is taken on the complaint or after trial the accused is acquitted may not be a ground to treat such accusations of the wife as cruelty within the meaning of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short “the Act”). However, if it is
found that the allegations are patently false, then there can be no manner of doubt that the said conduct of a spouse levelling false accusations against the other spouse would be an act of cruelty.”
Citations: [2017 SCC ONLINE SC 462], [MANU/SC/0493/2017], [2017 AIR SC 2138], [2017 ALR 123 835], [2017 ALD 4 189], [2017 CHN SC 3 77], [2017 CTC 4 208], [2017 CLT 124 401], [2017 DMCSC 2 317], [2017 JLJ 3 367], [2017 JLJR 2 470], [2017 MLJ 4 190], [2017 PLJR 2 475], [2017 RCR CIVIL 2 1044], [2017 SCALE 5 413], [2017 SCJ 5 418]
Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/139144445/ and https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/58fe28e753bee70a8573e00c
Knife filed false criminal cases and the husband and his father had to be in police custody for nine days. This is cruelty and hence divorce for husband.
Citations:
Other Source links:
For Internal Communications of Registry with Court
… and…
For all communications between Registry, Court, Advocates and litigants
Three law students write to CJI, want legal size paper ditched for A4.
Link here.
Supreme Court was not interested to direct other Constitutional Courts and Tribunals to shift to A4 paper usage.
Link here.
The following High Courts also followed the Supreme Court in this regard.
Allahabad HC
The news is here and Order passed in the Writ filed in this regard is below.
…
The Registry had taken a decision on this. The Rulebooks are to be revised basis this decision soon.
…
The Rules of the High Court are amended to incorporate the new paper size. The news is here.
Andhra Pradesh HC
The news is here and Notice is below
Bombay HC
The news is here and Notice is below (only applicable to all High Court benches; not to sub-ordinate courts in the State)
Calcutta HC
The news is here and Notice is below
Delhi HC
The PIL news is here. Actual news is here.
Here is the revised Practice direction…
Gauhati HC
The news is here and the Notification is below
Gujarat HC
The news is here
Himachal Pradesh HC
The direction is below
Jharkhand HC
The news is here
Karnataka HC
The news is here. Here is the Judgment from CJ Karnataka
Kerala HC
The news is here and Notification is below.
…and…
later news is here and the notification is below.
Madhya Pradesh HC
The news is here
Madras HC
The news is here.
Manipur HC
The Notification is below.
Orissa HC
The said Order is below.
The High Court Notification is below.
Next HC
The news is here
Rajasthan HC
The news is here. Notice got issued to Registrar, HC
Tripura HC
The news is here and Order is below.
Telangana HC
The news is here and Circular is below.
Uttarakhand HC
The news is here.
The Notification of HC Rules 2020 below.
MASTER SITEMAP here.
Bad Behavior has blocked 817 access attempts in the last 7 days.
