Stay up-to-date via RSS!

Grapevine has it that names following  judges have been cleared by the SC Collegium for the Supreme Court of India:

1. Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Justice Tirath Singh Thakur
2. Chief Justice of the Madhya Pradesh High Court Justice Ananga Kumar Patnaik
3. Chief Justice of the Andhra Pradesh High Court Justice Anil Ramesh Dave
4. Chief Justice of the Gujarat High Court Justice K S Radhakrishnan
5. Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court Justice Dinakaran

Source: http://www.whispersinthecorridors.in/print_yesterday.html

Lawcafe has decided to provide information on placements for legal jobs. Lawcafe shall act as a platform for meeting of job applicants and the job legal providers in north India particularly Chandiagrh, Shimla, Jammu and Delhi. Many law firms and Senior Advocates are in our touch who need fresh law graduates and young lawyers with excellent academic records in their offices. We invite legal professionals/ offices who can pay remuneration of Rs. 10,000 and above p.m. to deserving candidates to send their requirements to us. Fresh law graduates and young lawyers may send their resume with expected salary to us for forwarding the same to the law firms and legal professionals to us who need their services. Send your requirements /C.V.  to Nikki at admin@lawcafe.in

Bangalore, Aug 4 (IANS) On India’s Independence Day Aug 15, a group of men will meet in Shimla and chalk out a plan for ‘equal rights’ and ‘freedom’ — from ‘harassment’ by their wives.

‘On Independence Day we will raise the issue of freedom and dignity of harassed husbands. More than 100 men, representatives of 30,000 other harassed husbands from across the country, will converge at a day-long meeting to come up with strategies to take on their wives,’ Anil Kumar, president of the Save Indian Family Foundation (SIFF), told IANS.

(more…)

CHANDIGARH: With formidable backlog figures that refuse to scale down despite best efforts by judges, alternate dispute resolution (ADR) in its various avatars is fast emerging as the new buzzword in the region. Taking the cue, the International Centre for Alternate Dispute Resolution (ICADR) is organizing an important seminar in the city on February 14 that will be attended by CJI KG Balakrishnan, law minister HR Bhardwaj and various apex and high court judges.

(more…)

Dignitaries representing the British and Indian legal professions gathered in New Delhi this weekend to mark the latest step in the opening of the prized Indian legal services market to foreign law firms.

Lord Goldsmith, QC, the former UK Attorney-General, and Sir Richard Stagg, KCMG, the British High Commissioner to India, were among the guests at a ceremony to celebrate the opening of a satellite branch of the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA).

(more…)

In a pathbreaking judgement, the Delhi High Court on Thursday legalised gay sex among consenting adults holding that the law making it a criminal offence violates fundamental rights.However, Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code which criminalises homosexuality, will continue for non-consensual and non-vaginal sex.

“We declare section 377 of IPC in so far as it criminalises consensual sexual acts of adults in private is violative of Articles 14, 21 and 15 of the Constitution,” a Bench comprising Chief Justice A P Shah and Justice S Murlidhar said.
The High Court said “the provision of section 377 IPC will continue to govern non-consensual penile non-vaginal sex and penile non vaginal sex involving minors”.The court clarified that “by adults we mean everyone who is 18 years of age or above”.It further said that this judgement will hold till Parliament chooses to amend the law.”In our view Indian Constitutional Law does not permit the statutory criminal law to be held captive by the popular misconception of who the LGBTs (lesbian gay bisexual transgender) are.”

(more…)

Matters pertaining to tenancy (House Rent Control) are considered to be painful. It is strange that a person who has constructed a house and given it on rent in full faith has to battle it out in the courts of law for an eviction. However, the situation is not all that bad when compared to what it used to be. The problem however lies with the various laws laid down by several courts in this regard. One such case in the Karnataka High Court dealt with the procedure to be followed following an eviction notice being served.

Justice V Gopal Gowda, in his judgment said that after a notice has been issued, the tenants are required to vacate the premises.
A landlord terminated the tenancy of the tenant by issuing notice and calling upon him to vacate and deliver possession of the house (suit scheduled premises). However the tenant ignored the same and refused to comply with the notice. The landlord moved the trial court seeking evacuation of the tenant. The trial court in its order granted the tenant 60 days time to vacate the premises following which an appeal was filed before the Karnataka High Court.
Justice Gowda observed that the conduct of the tenant indicates that he is out to harass the landlord in one or the other. The court also took note of the fact that the tenant had not paid the rent for close to one year but had continued to enjoy the property. “Since the tenant had refused to comply with the notice served on him by the landlord asking him to vacate the premises, the trial court was right in decreeing the suit against the tenant and directing him to vacate the premises”.

Sexual harassment at workplaces is a much-debated subject. The Supreme Court in the State of Rajasthan V Vishakha Case had laid down certain guidelines to keep a check on sexual harassment. Among the many recommendations/guidelines, the Supreme Court had also suggested setting up of a committee to hear such cases in work places. However, an interesting question that arose in a case was, whether persons who had taken offence against the accused can form part of the committee? The Karnataka High Court has held that there is no bar on those members forming part of the committee.

Justice D V Shylendra, who was hearing one such case, held that no grounds of bias could be inferred merely because the members of the committee were persons who had earlier made complaints against the accused.

(more…)