The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that reservation for Persons with Disabilities (PwD) mandated by Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, is applicable to promotions as well (the State of Kerala vs. Leesamma Joseph).
Additional Sessions Judge AH Laddhad held that "no doubt the act of defendants feeding birds and other creature of nature is compassionate deed, which is highly appreciable and respectable but at the same time, the care needs to be taken that such act should not cause a nuisance to the human beings, more particular the neighbours".
A Division Bench of Justices Hemant Guptaand V Ramasubramanian observed that even during the pandemic, when all courts are making attempts to hear and decide all matter, non-listing of such an application for bail defeats the administration of justice.
"Normally, we do not interfere with an interim order passed by the High Court but we are constrained to pass the present order as we are shocked to see that the bail application under Section 439 CrPC is not being listed for hearing for more than one year," the Court said.
It, therefore, asked the Registrar General of the High Court bring the order of top court to the notice of the competent authority so as to take remedial measures.
"Under the prevailing pandemic, at least half of the judges should sit on alternative days so that hearing is accorded to the person in distress. Non-listing of application for regular bail, irrespective of seriousness or lack thereof, of the offences attributed to the accused, impinges upon the liberty of the person in custody," the Court underscored.
The Court was hearing an appeal against an April 29 order of the High Court which had rejected an application for hearing the bail plea filed on January 28, 2020.
The Court expressed its concern that it has been more than one year since the bail application was last listed.
"The accused has a right to hearing of his application for bail. In fact, the denial of hearing is an infringement of right and liberty assured to an accused," the order said.
The Supreme Court, therefore, asked the High Court to take up the application at an early date, so that the right of hearing of the accused is not taken away.
"We hope that the High Court will be able to take up the application for bail at an early date so that the right of the accused of hearing of application for bail is not taken away by not entertaining such application on the mentioning memo," the Court said.
While disposing of the petition, the Court directed the Registrar General of the High Court to bring the observations and order to the notice of the competent authority to take remedial steps at the earliest.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday 15/06/21 expressed shock at the Punjab & Haryana not having listed a bail application for more than a year, stating that such delay amounts to infringement of liberty of the accused person (Chunni Lal Gaba v. Assistant Directer, Directorate of Enforcement).
A Division Bench of Justices Hemant Guptaand V Ramasubramanian observed that even during the pandemic, when all courts are making attempts to hear and decide all matter, non-listing of such an application for bail defeats the administration of justice.
"Normally, we do not interfere with an interim order passed by the High Court but we are constrained to pass the present order as we are shocked to see that the bail application under Section 439 CrPC is not being listed for hearing for more than one year," the Court said.
It, therefore, asked the Registrar General of the High Court bring the order of top court to the notice of the competent authority so as to take remedial measures.
"Under the prevailing pandemic, at least half of the judges should sit on alternative days so that hearing is accorded to the person in distress. Non-listing of application for regular bail, irrespective of seriousness or lack thereof, of the offences attributed to the accused, impinges upon the liberty of the person in custody," the Court underscored.
The Court was hearing an appeal against an April 29 order of the High Court which had rejected an application for hearing the bail plea filed on January 28, 2020.
The Court expressed its concern that it has been more than one year since the bail application was last listed.
"The accused has a right to hearing of his application for bail. In fact, the denial of hearing is an infringement of right and liberty assured to an accused," the order said.
The Supreme Court, therefore, asked the High Court to take up the application at an early date, so that the right of hearing of the accused is not taken away.
"We hope that the High Court will be able to take up the application for bail at an early date so that the right of the accused of hearing of application for bail is not taken away by not entertaining such application on the mentioning memo," the Court said.
While disposing of the petition, the Court directed the Registrar General of the High Court to bring the observations and order to the notice of the competent authority to take remedial steps at the earliest.
The petitioners, including Member of Legislative Assembly Atul Dattatray Bhatkhalkar and Mumbai lawyer Siddharth Sharma, submitted that the fees charged by the schools for the year 2020-21 remained as was normally charged did not change despite the changing factors like the COVID pandemic.
While acknowledging that schools may have incurred costs for developing the online class process, the petitioners maintained that such expenses would still be less than the expenditure incurred by parents to ensure their children had electronic devices, internet connectivity, etc to attend such online classes.
A Bench of Justices SP Deshmukh and GS Kulkarni were informed by the Government Pleader Geeta Shastri that a Divisional Fee Regulatory Committee was constituted by the State through a notification on June 7, 2021.
Accepting the compensation of Rupees 10 crores deposited by the Republic of Italy, the Supreme Court on Tuesday quashed the criminal proceedings pending in India against against two Italian Marines -Massimilano Latorre and Salvatore Girone - with respect to the 2012 sea-firing incident near Kerala coast which killed two Indian fishermen.
The Supreme court requested the Chief Justice of Kerala High Court to nominate a Judge to pass appropriate order of disbursement to protect interest of heirs & ensure it's recieved by them.
The Bench that noted Owner of damaged Boat, Union of India, State of Kerala and heirs of deceased have agreed to accept the award.
"We are satisfied that the amount of 10 crores over and above ex gratia already submitted can be said to be a reasonable amount of compensation and in interest of heirs. We are of the view that this is a fit case to close all proceedings in India including criminal proceedings, in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution. FIR 2/2012 quashed and set aside, and all proceedings therefrom are quashed", the bench said.
The Supreme Court also observed that Republic of Italy should resume its criminal proceedings against the Marines in Italy in terms of the international award, and Government of Republic of Italy, UOI and Kerala government to coordinate with each other in respect to disbursement of compensation.
A vacation bench comprising Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice MR Shah passed the order in an application filed by the Central Government to quash the criminal proceedings pending in India against the marines.
Relying on the Supreme Court's 2015 ruling in Khenyei v. New India Assurance Company Ltd, Others, Justice K Murali Shankar noted that in cases of composite negligence, the claimant is entitled to sue both or any one of the joint tortfeasors to recover the entire compensation for the accident. This is because the liability of joint tortfeasors is joint and several.
"No doubt, if all the parties, the owner and insurer of both the vehicles involved in the accident are parties to the claim petition, then it will be convenient for all and also for the Tribunal to decide the liability. But, the claimant, being the dominus litis cannot be compelled to add other parties, who are not impleaded earlier and it is for the claimants to decide and in case, if the case put forth by the claimants as against the impleaded parties is not true, then they have to suffer the dismissal of the petition," the judgment explained.
The judge also found that a 2018 Division Bench decision of the Madras High Court in The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Kumbakonam v. Thirugnanasambandam was passed without considering the Supreme Court's ruling in Khenyei's case. Therefore, the 2018 High Court ruling was held to be per incuriam and not having binding effect.
The May 8 ruling was passed while allowing two revision petitions against the MACT's return of motor accident claims citing the failure to implead the owner and insurer of two-wheelers involved in motor accidents.
In one case, a lorry was alleged to have caused the accident by hitting the two-wheeler from behind. In the another case, a car was alleged to have caused an accident through a similar collision with a two-wheeler. In both cases, the owner and insurer of the two-wheelers were not impleaded, whereas the owner and insurer of the allegedly offending vehicles were impleaded.
The MACT cited the Madras High Court's 2018 ruling to return the claim petitions while directing the claimants to first implead the owner and insurer of the two-wheelers.
In the 2018 ruling, the High Court had directed tribunals in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry not to number any claim petitions without impleading the other vehicle which was also involved in the accident, although the direction was not applicable to hit-and-run cases where the tortfeasor could not be identified.
Justice Murali Shankar in the present case concluded that this 2018 ruling was rendered without taking into consideration the Supreme Court's binding judgment in Khenyei's case.
It was also noted that the Khenyei judgment was subsequently followed by another Division Bench of the High Court in United India Insurance Company Limited v. D.Hemavathi and others (2017).
Further, in Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited v. Kaveri and others (2020), a High Court Division Bench had observed that not impleading the owner or insurer of the other vehicle will not dis-entitle the claimants from getting compensation from the insurance company. The insurance company can recover the compensation paid to the claimants by initiating separate legal proceedings against the negligent driver, the High Court had added, relying on the Supreme Court's Khenyei ruling.
In this backdrop, the High Court clarified:
"In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Tribunal has no power or authority, directing the claimants to implead the owner and insurer of the other vehicle. Hence, the order returning the claim petitions is not proper and is very much against the legal dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and hence, the same are set aside and the Tribunal is directed to take the claim petitions on file, if they are otherwise in order."
The criminal revision petitions before the Court were allowed and the MACT was directed to take on file the claim petitions earlier returned, if they are otherwise in order.
Justice Shankar also directed that the May 8 ruling be placed before the High Court Chief Justice so that it may be circulated to tribunals in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry.
"It is brought to my notice that Motor Accidents Claims Petitions are being returned by several Courts in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry citing the (2018) decision of the Division Bench. In order to clarify the position of law, thereby refrain the claimants from filing revisions and thereby save the time of the High Court, as well be of reprieve to all concerned, this order may be circulated to all the Tribunals. Hence, the Registry is hereby directed to place the same before The Hon'ble Chief Justice for appropriate orders, for circulation to all the Tribunals in the State of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry," the Court said.
You may soon get a driving licence without any test at RTO
The road transport ministry has notified a new rule that will allow you to get a driving licence
after successfully undergoing training at any accredited driver training centre, you won’t need to undertake a driving test at any RTO.
The catch is that you have to complete the training and pass the test, which needs to be recorded electronically for audit.
“This entire process will be tech-driven and without any human interference. The accreditation will be given to centres that meet the criteria of space, driving track, IT and biometric system and carry out the training as per the prescribed syllabus. Once the centre issues a certificate, it will reach the motor vehicle licence officer concerned,” said an officer.
The rules will come into force from July, which means people and institutions interested in running such facilities for driver training can start applying to state governments
The Supreme Court on Friday rejected a prayer made in a petition filed by a group of Post Graduate medical students seeking the waiver of final exams in view of the COVID-19 pandemic situation.
A vacation bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and MR Shah observed that the Court cannot pass orders for waiver of exams as it was an educational policy matter.
"They will be treating patients. How can they be in hands of people who haven't cleared exams?", the bench asked during the hearing.
The bench has however issued notice to the Union Government and National Medical Commission on the other prayers made in the writ petition(Shashidhar A and others v Union of India and others)
The court was hearing a plea by a couple who sought the protection of life and liberty.
A single-Judge bench of Justice Pankaj Bhandari noted that Petitioner no. 2 (Hemant Singh Rathore) is already married and such protection cannot be granted to the couple when one of them is married.
"From a perusal of the record, it is revealed that Petitioner No.2 is already married. A live-in-relationship between a married and unmarried person is not permissible," the court observed
The petition was dismissed by the court which observed that the pre-requites for a live-in-relationship as held by the Supreme Court in D Velusamy v. D Patchaiammal is that "the couple must hold themselves out to society as being akin to spouses and must be of legal age to marry or qualified to enter into a legal marriage, including being unmarried."
On June 7, the Rajasthan High Court in another case had directed police protection to be provided to a couple in a live-in relationship.
Justice Satish Kumar Sharma directed the police to ensure petitioners’ safety and reiterated their duty towards the protection of rights enshrined under the Constitution.
"It is well settled legal position as expounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in...that personal life and liberty has to be protected, except according to procedure established by law as mandated under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, irrespective of the fact that the relation between two major individuals may be termed as immoral and unsocial. Further, as per Section 29 of the Rajasthan Police Act, 2007 every police officer is duty-bound to protect the life and liberty of the citizens," the Court had stated in its order.
On a similar footing, the Allahabad High Court had also granted interim protection to a couple in a live relationship observing that no one should interfere with the "peaceful living" of the couple.
As per Section 166 of the Act, a person claims compensation if : he has sustained an injury. he is the owner of the property. he is the legal representative of the person who died in the motor accident.
A claim for compensation may be made to a claim adjudicating body having authority over the area in which the accident took place or to the MACT within whose administration the Claimant lives, at the option of the claimant. An application for insurance must be made within ideally 6 months of the date of the incident.
https://youtu.be/Y1YD_MA8di0
Hit and run
163A claim application
Interim compensation sec.140
advocateswami@ gmail.com
