A bench consisting of Justices BV Nagarathna and N Kotiswar Singh was hearing the Congress’ appeal against the Delhi High Court’s March 13 order, which found no reason to interfere with the ITAT’s decision. However, the High Court permitted the Congress to file a new stay application before the ITAT, taking into account developments such […]
The Delhi High Court advised the petitioner to withdraw the election challenge against Chirag Paswan’s Lok Sabha win and approach the jurisdictional high court in Bihar. The court expressed doubts about the case’s maintainability in Delhi, given that the constituency is in Bihar. It scheduled a hearing for August 28. The petitioner alleged sexual assault and challenged Paswan’s nomination.
The Delhi High Court has re-designated Magisterial Courts in the National Capital Territory under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, effective from July 1, 2024. The re-designation reclassifies the courts and ensures continuity with the previous court structure, transferring all judicial powers and functions previously vested in Chief Metropolitan Magistrates to the newly re-designated courts.
![[Swiggy vs. CCI] Karnataka HC Uncertain on Swiggy's Plea Against CCI Order](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/MicrosoftTeams-image-122.png?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
The Karnataka High Court on 23rd May, expressed uncertainty about its jurisdiction over Swiggy’s plea against a Competition Commission of India (CCI) directive. The court questioned if any part of the case’s cause of action took place in Karnataka, requesting additional clarity from Swiggy. The dispute centers on sharing confidential information with the CCI during an anti-competitive practice probe.
The Supreme Court has stayed the NGT’s directive and challenged its authority in the Waris Chemicals case, raising questions about the intersection of environmental regulations and money laundering laws. Justices observed that the NGT lacks jurisdiction to invoke the PMLA in environmental cases, setting the stage for future legal interpretations and tribunal jurisdiction clarifications.
Today (8th May): The Supreme Court reserved judgment on West Bengal’s suit alleging misuse of the CBI by the Centre. The State contends that withdrawing consent for CBI investigations prevents probes in West Bengal. Arguments presented by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta focused on the suit’s maintainability, administrative control, and relief sought, with the Court reserving its verdict.
Today (6th May): The Supreme Court bench, led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Chandrachud, has halted land clearance for the proposed Silchar Greenfield Airport. The Court found that authorities violated the 2006 EIA notification by conducting extensive clearance without proper environmental clearance. The NGT was criticized for dismissing the plea without verification, and the Court directed no further action until an EIA report is available.
![[Breaking] CBI is Not the Control of Centre, in West Bengal Govt's Suit: SC](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/MicrosoftTeams-image-37.png?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
The Solicitor General clarified that the CBI operates independently and is not controlled by the Union government, countering West Bengal’s lawsuit. The Supreme Court plans to hear the case and emphasized the urgency of concluding arguments before the summer recess. The outcome will set a crucial precedent for the CBI’s authority in such matters.
NEW DELHI: Today (23rd April): The Delhi High Court has issued a restraining order against the Lokpal of India, halting any actions until May 10 regarding a CBI report investigating two properties allegedly linked to JMM party president Shibu Soren. The court’s order came in response to a petition filed by the JMM challenging the ombudsman’s decision.
NEW DELHI: Today (9th April): The Delhi High Court rejected Arvind Kejriwal’s plea challenging his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate in a liquor case, deeming it valid. The court found sufficient evidence of hawala transactions and statements, dismissing his claims of political motivation. The decision sets a precedent for accountability of public officials.