News Of the day

NEWS OF THE DAY

London Court Issues Provisional Warrant, Nirav Modi Likely To Be Arrested Soon

Westminster Court, London has issued a provisional arrest warrant against fugitive dimanitaire Nirav Modi and speculations are now rife that the diamond trader who is allegedly responsible for the Rs.13,000 crore Punjab National Bank scam will be arrested soon. Earlier, ED had registered a case against Modi and others under the Provisions of Money Laundering Act after CBI registered an FIR against him under Sections 120-B r/w 420 of IPC read with Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. UK daily The Telegraph had recently tracked Modi in the streets of London and reported that Modi was still living in luxury and that he was involved in a new diamond business. Modi's assets worth Rs 1,873.08 crore have been attached by the ED under PMLA, and has also seized assets owned by him and his family worth Rs.489.75 crore.

Anil Ambani Avoids Prison by paying debt a day before deadline date

With Reliance Communications paying Rs.462 crores to Ericsson before the deadline fixed by the Supreme Court, its Chairman Anil Ambani has avoided imprisonment, reports the Economic Times. As per the ET report, Ericsson's lawyer confirmed receipt of the payment. On February 20, the Supreme Court had held Ambani and three Reliance companies guilty of contempt of court for not complying with the undertaking to settle the Rs.550 crores dues of Ericsson. Anil Ambani thanked his brother to help him.

RGNLU Student protests against the college administration entered day three.

Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law (RGNUL), Patiala students took to the University gates this morning, as their protests against the college administration entered day three. The protests had begun on Friday against the "arbitrary and wrongful"suspension of six hostel inmates allegedly after the boys raised their voice against the quality of food being served in their hostel. The suspension order was passed by Administrative Officer SP Singh. Students have, however, since claimed this order to be invalid, as it was issued without a proper hearing and in the absence of Vice-Chancellor Dr Paramjit Jaswal.

SC increased compensation in Acid Attack Case. A crime of this nature does not deserve any kind of clemency, said the Supreme Court.

Ishita was going to college when two boys came on a scooter and threw some acid over her from a jug and run away from the spot. A resident of the locality saw her crying with burn injuries and later jumping into the water tank nearby. She took her to hospital and subsequently case was registered against the accused. Trial Court convicted them for offence under Section 307/34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 10 years with a fine of Rs. 5,000 each. Partly allowing the appeal, the High Court held that the offence under Section 307/34 IPC was not made out and converted the offence from Section 307/34 IPC to Section 326 IPC and sentenced them for a period of 5 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 25,000 each. The State appealed against the High Court order. Though the Apex court did not interfere with sentence and conviction recorded by the High Court, it said: "Indeed, it cannot be ruled out that in the present case the victim had suffered an uncivilized and heartless crime committed by the respondents and there is no room for leniency which can be conceived. A crime of this nature does not deserve any kind of clemency. This Court cannot be oblivious of the situation that the victim must have suffered an emotional distress which cannot be compensated either by sentencing the accused or by grant of any compensation." . "Taking note of the precedents of which reference has been made, we consider it appropriate to observe that both the accused shall pay the additional compensation of Rs. 1,50,000 (Rupees One Lakh and Fifty Thousand) each and the State of Himachal Pradesh shall pay the compensation as admissible under the Victim Compensation Scheme as in vogue to the acid victim. If the accused does not pay the additional compensation amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Fifty Thousand) each within six months, the defaulting accused shall suffer rigorous imprisonment of six months. The State shall deposit the compensation before the trial Court within three months from today and the learned trial Court, after proper identification of the victim, disburse at the earliest." SC observed

Parents are not only caretakers, but they are instrumental in the development of their child's social, emotional, cognitive and physical well-being

The Supreme Court, while delivering a judgment in yet another custody battle between parents, expressed concern about children, the ultimate sufferer in such cases. Divorce and custody battles can become quagmire and it is heart wrenching to see that the innocent child is the ultimate sufferer who gets caught up in the legal and psychological battle between the parents, said the bench comprisingJustice AM Khanwilkar and Justice Ajay Rastogi. However, the court observed that a child's future relationship with each of his parents may be better maintained and his existing relationship is less damaged by a negotiated settlement than by one imposed by a court after adversarial proceedings. The court said: "The judicial resolution of a custody dispute may permanently affect or even end the parties' legal relationship but the social and psychological relationship will usually continue and it seems appropriate that a negotiated resolution between the parents is preferable from the child's perspective for several reasons. A child's future relationship with each of his parents may be better maintained and his existing relationship is less damaged by a negotiated settlement than by one imposed by a court after adversarial proceedings." "Spouses must come over the temperamental disharmony which usually exists in every marriage, rather than magnifying it with impulsive desires and passions. Parents are not only caretakers, but they are instrumental in the development of their child's social, emotional, cognitive and physical well-being and work harmoniously to give their children a happy home to which they are justly entitled to. " LAHARI SAKHAMURI v. SOBHAN KODALI

Views in Lead Judgment Are Binding Precedents If Concurring Judgments Did Not Express Any Contrary Opinion

Is a view on a legal issue expressed in a lead judgment delivered by one of the judges of a Supreme Court bench is a binding precedent if the other judges of the bench in their concurring opinions did not express any opinion on it? Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre and Justice Dinesh Maheshwari answered this interesting question in a judgement . "We are of the considered view that law laid down in the lead judgment in Express Newspaper (supra) is the law by three Hon'ble Judges who constituted the Bench and thus binds all the Courts in the country under Article 141 of the Constitution. It satisfies the test laid down by Lord Esher M.R. in the case of The Guardian (supra)."

Kerala HC strikes down discriminatory girl’s hostel rules, Girls have equal freedom as boys do.

High Court of Kerala while striking down a stipulation in Hostel Rules which barred girl boarders from going for the first and second show movies said ‘A girl is having equal freedom similar to a boy’. Justice A Muhamed Mustaque, striking down the said stipulation in Rules of Girls' hostel attached to Sree Kerala Varma College noted that there is no such restriction in the boy's hostel. "It appears that moral choice of the management is attempted to be imposed upon the Boarders. The moral paternalism is something to be frowned upon. A girl is having equal freedom similar to a boy. There are no similar restrictions in the boy's hostel. It is for the students to decide whether they should go for first or second show movies or not. This is an activity outside the hostel activity” court observed.

Two advocates moved the SC seeking a court-monitored probe into the Pollachi serial sexual assault case

Two advocates moved the Supreme Court seeking a court-monitored probe into the Pollachi serial sexual assault case and direction to the State and its police to provide necessary safeguard to the victim and their families and to ensure that the videos of the victims shot by the accused are not made public. A Rajarajan and Y William Vinoth Kumar, who are practicing in Delhi, moved the court saying, "the investigation be monitored by this Hon'ble Court as the entire scandal seems to have been done with political nexus and the victims have already suffered a barbaric sexual assault…". In light of the fact that the family of one of the victims, a 19-year-old collegegoer, was also assaulted by the gang involved in serial sexual assault of hundreds of women and her identity was revealed, the petitioners prayed that investigation be monitored by the apex court so as to "create a conducive atmosphere for the suspected victims to come out and give their complaint; To keep the identity of the suspected victims under secrecy and to restrain media trails and to restrain online publishing of victims videos, if any, possessed by any individual".

SC asks WB Govt. for smooth and uninterrupted screening of movie “Bhobishyoter Bhoot"

"Repeatedly, in decisions of this court, it has been held that once a film has been duly certified by CBFC, it is not open to any authority either of the State Government or otherwise to issue formal or informal directions preventing the producer from having the film screened. Such actions of the State directly impinge upon the fundamental right to the freedom of speech and expression" bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud and Hemant Gupta observed while issuing notice to WB Government on a petition by the producers of the film complaining that the film was taken off from the theatres following an 'unofficial ban' by the Government.

Employer is not expected to tell Employee about the Service Rules, its Employee’s duty to know it.

Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice MR Shah was considering an appeal by an employee against Madras High court order dismissing his challenge against Central Administrative Tribunal that department to place an in the seniority list above him. "The learned Tribunal as well as the High Court are not justified in directing to put respondent No. 4 in the seniority list above the appellant who, in fact, was appointed in the LDCE quota and the respondent No. 4 never accepted his promotion in the LDCE quota. It was for the employee to know the rule. The department was not expected to advise and/or tell the employee about how the seniority will be fixed and/or about the rota¬quota rule." SC observed.