Legal News : 4 March 2016

Time granted by a Court to file a written statement to Singer Mika Singh in Rs. 50 Lakh Defamation Suit

Singer Mika Singh, against whom a Rs 50 lakh defamation suit has been filed for allegedly slapping a doctor and tarnishing his image at a function here, was granted time by a court to file a written statement.

Additional district judge Raj Rani, while granting time to Mika, also directed the plaintiff to supply more documents, including a CD, to his counsel within two weeks and fixed the matter for hearing on May 17.

Amrik Singh alias Mika was earlier summoned in the defamation suit filed by Dr Srikanth, an ophthalmologist at Dr Baba Saheb Ambedkar Hospital, alleging that the singer had slapped him during a live concert in the capital.

Haryana waives house tax of Jat stir victims

Giving a major relief to those whose residential and commercial properties were damaged during the Jat quota agitation, the Haryana government decided to waive the house tax and water tariff on such properties for one year.

The announcement was made by Haryana's parliamentary affairs minister, Ram Bilas Sharma, after a meeting of the state cabinet presided over by chief minister Manohar Lal Khattar.

5 days after hate crime, Mumbai cops file FIR

An FIR has finally been registered five days after a 26-year-old Manipuri woman was assaulted and molested on the road near Palm Villa society in Vakola in Mumbai. Mumbai police has also detained the accused, Vijay Jadhav (aged between 22 and 25), in Bengaluru. He will be brought to Mumbai.

The police went to the victim's residence at Kalina's Kolivery village and recorded her statement about the incident that happened on February 27.A case under IPC sections 354 (outrage modesty), 323 (hurt) and 504 (intentional insult) has been registered against the accused.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear a plea of Cellular Operators' Association of India to exempt telecom firms from paying compensation to consumers for call drops but asked why the companies were not fixing the problem

The Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to hear a plea of Cellular Operators' Association of India to exempt telecom firms from paying compensation to consumers for call drops but asked why the companies were not fixing the problem.

The association approached the court challenging the Delhi high court order which had upheld Telecom Regulatory Authority of India's (Trai) decision of October last year that made cellphone service providers liable to compensate consumers for dropped calls.

TRAI had on October 16 2015 said that every originating service provider (providing cellular mobile telephone service) was liable to credit the calling consumer (a consumer who initiates a voice call) by one rupee for each call drop within its network for a maximum of three call drops per day . The telcom companies claimed that the additional compensation would cost the companies Rs 54,000 crore a year.

Jodhpur court summons Salman in Arms Act case

Film star Salman Khan will have to appear before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate (Jodhpur district) on March 10 for getting his statements recorded in an Arms Act case, the trial of which was completed.

Magistrate Dalpat Singh Rajpurohit gave directions to summon Khan after turning down his application that sought to re-examine a prosecution witness for the second time. Khan would be appearing to get his statements recorded in the case in the same court for the second time since April 29 last year. Appearing before the court, he had then pleaded innocence and the court gave him a chance to prove his innocence on May 4, 2015. Finally the application was allowed by the Rajasthan high court in August last year after rejections at the trial court and the district and session court. As the five witnesses were recalled in September, the trial progressed.The examination of witnesses was completed on Wednesday .

Delhi High Court  refuses to hear Mallya's plea against SBI’s decision  on wilful defaulter tag

The Delhi high court on refused to hear Vijay Mallya's plea against SBI's decision to name him a “wilful defaulter“ and said he can approach an appropriate forum.

Sensing the mood of the court, Mallya's counsel requested Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw to allow them to withdraw their petition including one filed by United Breweries Holdings (UBHL), which is also owned by the businessman.

The court allowed Mallya's request, made through senior advocate Rajiv Nayar, while giving them the liberty to approach an appropriate court for any remedial measures, if available under the law. Mallya had moved the high court on the ground that it has jurisdiction to hear his plea, as he is a resident of Delhi and also a Rajya Sabha member and has received all the correspondence here. His plea has alleged that the October 31, 2015 decision of SBI's grievance redressal committee denying legal representation at a hearing held by the bank on October 29, 2015 while declaring him and UBHL as wilful defaulters is purported ly illegal. The petition challenged the decision of SBI identifying them as a wilful defaulters and intimating the RBI and the Credit Information Companies for inclusion of names of the petitioners in the list of wilful defaulters.

Supreme Court allows Hindu father to keep adopted Muslim boy

The Supreme Court retained custody of a 16-year-old boy with a Hindu man after the teenager’s biological mother moved the court seeking his custody.

The child, belonging to a Muslim family, was taken in by Aiku Lal in Lucknow after he was found abandoned. Having been taken in, cared for and educated by Lal, the boy will remain with his adoptive father until he turns 18, upon which he can decide where he wishes to live, the court ruled.

A bench headed by Justice JS Kehar disposed of the custody petition filed by the boy’s mother, but said the teenager could spend the summer vacations with his biological family.

Shahnaz Begum had moved the apex court after the Allahabad high court declined to give her the child’s custody. Begum said her son Akbar had gone missing in 2004. Three years later, she and her late husband found out he was living with Lal in Lucknow.

The Allahabad court had also rejected the petition on the same grounds as the Supreme Court, that Aiku Lal had taken care of Akbar ever since he found him. Lal apparently remained unmarried due to his commitment to boy.

During a hearing in the apex court, Akbar said he wished his mother and Aiku Lal resided together so he could live in their joint custody. However, the court rejected his suggestion, which was also turned down by his mother.

State Administrative Council confirms appointment of Advocate General, law officers in Jammu and Kashmir

The State Administrative Council confirmed the appointment of senior advocate D C Raina as the Advocate General of the state.

The council, which met here under the chairmanship of Jammu and Kashmir Governor N N Vohra, also confirmed the appointment of various law officers for Srinagar wing of the High Court, an official spokesman said. Raina was last week appointed as the Advocate General of the state.