# Writ Petition Archives - Page 2 of 4

27 Oct

The Calcutta High Court has emphasized that maritime claims require supporting evidence and should not be characterized by harsh or oppressive measures.

Prime Legal

blog, Blog # Writ Petition, #dismissed, #primelegal, #writ, #writpetition

Title: Hindustan Aegis LPG Ltd. vs. Owners of Vessel MT TSM Pollux.

Decided on: 19th October, 2023.

Writ C No. – 9266889

CORAM: Hon’ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya.

INTRODUCTION

Alleged carelessness and damage to marine loading arms at Haldia Oil Jetty Port I give rise to an admiralty jurisdiction dispute in the case of Hindustan Aegis LPG Ltd. vs. Owners of Vessel MT TSM Pollux. The plaintiff requests compensation, but the court challenges the claim’s validity and emphasizes the need for supporting documentation and just compensation. The case brings to light the intricacies of admiralty law, and an order is made for a joint survey to evaluate the harm.

FACTS OF THE CASE

In this instance, an incident happened in September 2023 at Haldia Oil Jetty Port I, where the ship MT TSM Pollux harmed Hindustan Aegis LPG Ltd.’s marine loading and unloading arms.

The plaintiff filed a claim under Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, alleging the owners of the vessel were negligent. As long as the loss is predictable and a direct result of the breach, Section 73 provides compensation for losses resulting from contract violations.

The plaintiff’s claim was examined by the court, which emphasized the need for supporting documentation and just compensation.

To evaluate the damage, a cooperative survey was mandated. This case serves as a reminder of the intricacies involved in admiralty law and how Section 73 is applied to determine compensation.

COURTS ANALYSIS AND DECISIONThe court acknowledges the plaintiff’s claim for damages caused to marine equipment by the vessel MT TSM POLLUX. Due to the urgency of the matter, the court orders the arrest of the vessel to secure the plaintiff’s claims. The document specifies the conditions for the arrest order, including a deadline for the plaintiff to pay court fees and the possibility of the order being vacated if the defendant deposits a specified amount as security. Various authorities are instructed to assist in implementing the arrest order, and the document sets a returnable date for the application. It also warns that failure to pay the court fees will result in the dismissal of the suit.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer. “

Written by- Kusuma R

Calcutta Hc

26 Oct

Due to their “contemptuous” behaviour in the acting Chief Justice’s chamber, two people were placed under arrest. The Orissa High Court.

Prime Legal

Blog, blog # Supreme Court, # Writ Petition, #murder, Prime Legal

Title: Pravat Kumar Padhi & Ors. v. State of Odisha & Ors.

Decided on: October 19, 2023

Writ C No. – 21030 of 2023

CORAM: Acting Chief. Justice Dr. B.R. Saarangi Mr. Justice Murahari Sri Raman.

INTRODUCTION

In this case, the Orissa High Court is debating the validity of establishing a court in Konark. Numerous legal challenges, disputes over land allocation, and disrespectful conduct in the courtroom have all occurred there, resulting in the arrest of two people.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The conflict in this case relates to the construction of a court in Konark, Odisha. The petitioners have filed several legal challenges, there have been delays in the distribution of land, and two people have been arrested for acting disrespectfully in court. The petitioners and the court have taken numerous actions and issued numerous orders throughout the case’s complicated history.

COURTS ANALYSIS AND DECISION

The earlier court orders were ultimately upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court. The petitioners and another person also disrupted and behaved disrespectfully during the court proceedings, which resulted in their arrest for contempt of court. The writ petition was dismissed by the court after it determined there was nothing further to decide.

Written by- Kusuma R

Orissa Hc

26 Oct

The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that a prisoner’s potential to elude capture while on parole is insufficient grounds for denying them temporary release.

Prime Legal

Uncategorized # Writ Petition, #dismissed, #HighCourt, #primelegal, bail

Title: Kapil v. State of Haryana and others.

Decided on: October 17, 2023

Writ C No. – 7247-2023(O&M)

CORAM: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Lisa Gill and Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Ritu Tagore.

INTRODUCTION

In the Punjab & Haryana High Court case CRWP-7247-2023, Kapil, the petitioner, requested regular parole for a period of ten weeks. The Haryana Goods Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 2022 was cited by the Divisional Commissioner of Ambala as justification for rejecting the request. The petitioner won the case, with the court stating that there is insufficient reason to deny temporary release based only on the petitioner’s potential to abscond while out on parole.

FACTS OF THE CASE

In this case Kapil, a prisoner serving life in prison under Section 302/34, ten years in prison under Section 364/34 IPC, and six months in prison under Section 120-B/34 IPC, requested regular parole in the case number CRWP-7247-2023 in order to visit his family. Based on information from the District Magistrate and the Police Commissioner of Ghaziabad, the Divisional Commissioner of Ambala rejected his request, expressing worries that Kapil might change his place of residence and abscond. In the High Court, Kapil contested this ruling on the grounds that it was arbitrary and unwarranted. The main questions were whether the Divisional Commissioner’s rejection reasons were reasonable and if there was sufficient proof to back them up.

COURTS ANALYSIS AND DECISION

The court decided that these worries weren’t enough to keep someone from getting parole. It overturned the refusal and granted Kapil a four-week parole sentence with suitable restrictions to maintain a just equilibrium between the prisoner’s rights and public safety. The ruling highlights the requirement for legitimate, fact-based justifications when denying parole.

Written by- Kusuma R

Orissa Hc (1) PB and Hr Hc

26 Oct

The Kerala High Court stated that judicial separation cannot be given as an alternative when divorce grounds under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act are unproven.

Prime Legal

Uncategorized # Writ Petition, #dismissed, #divorce, #Jurisdiction, #keralahighcourt

Title: S v. D & connected matter

Decided on: 18, September 2023

Writ C No. – 148/2014

CORAM: The Honorable Mr. Justice Anil. K. Narendran and The Honorable Mrs. Justice Sophy Thomas.

INTRODUCTION

The Kerala High Court is hearing a case involving a marital dispute. According to Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the husband filed an Original Petition (OP) alleging matrimonial cruelties and an illicit relationship between his wife and her brother in order to obtain a divorce from her. The divorce petition was denied by the Family Court, but a judicial separation decree was approved. Furthermore, the husband was recognized by the Family Court as the child’s biological father and given compensation, all without the need for any special pleadings or prayers. Both parties then filed appeals in the case—the wife against the judgment of judicial separation and the husband against the dismissal of his divorce petition.

FACTS OF THE CASE

In this case, a husband requested a divorce, claiming that his wife had an extramarital affair with her brother and conceived despite the fact that their union had not yet been consummated. In order to establish that he wasn’t the child’s biological father, he also asked for a DNA test. The wife wished to keep the marriage intact and refuted these accusations. The husband was named the child’s father by the Family Court, which also granted judicial separation and awarded the child compensation, even though the divorce was denied. The ruling was appealed by both parties.

COURTS ANALYSIS AND DECISION

The Kerala High Court rejected a husband’s request because there was insufficient proof to back up the husband’s allegations of his wife’s supposed adultery, the Kerala High Court denied the husband’s request for a divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act. The court further decided that judicial separation was not an acceptable substitute remedy. It stressed that a long-term absence alone does not prove an irreversible marital breakdown and chastised the Family Court for overstepping its bounds of authority. The husband’s appeal for divorce was denied, the wife’s appeal was upheld, and the judicial separation decree was annulled. The wife’s costs were also mandated to be covered by the husband.

Written by- Kusuma R

Kerala Hc 1

26 Oct

The Paddy Land Act prohibits digging wells on paddy land for commercial purposes. The Kerala High Court.

Prime Legal

Blog, blog # Supreme Court, # Writ Petition, #keralahighcourt, #law, #writ

Title: Hema Anil v State of Kerala.

Decided on: 18th, October 2023

Writ C No. – 23660 Of 2023

CORAM: The Honorable Mr. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas.

INTRODUCTION

The Kerala High Court is considering a case concerning the commercial use of paddy land, specifically the drilling of wells for a packaged drinking water manufacturing facility. Hema Anil, the petitioner, requested authorization to drill a well for this business venture. The Panchayat and the Ground Water Department, however, expressed worries regarding the legality and ecological effects of such actions. This case emphasizes the value of protecting wetlands and paddy fields in Kerala, India, as well as the interpretation of pertinent laws and regulations.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Hema Anil requested permission to drill a well on paddy land in this case before the Kerala High Court in order to pursue a business venture that would involve the production of packaged drinking water. The property’s suitability for well construction was verified by the Ground Water Department. Nonetheless, the Panchayat and the authorities brought up legal and ecological issues. The main question in the case is whether drilling wells on paddy land for profit complies with Kerala’s applicable laws and regulations. In the end, the court denied the writ petition, highlighting the need to protect wetlands and paddy fields for their ecological value.

COURTS ANALYSIS AND DECISION

The Kerala High Court emphasized the ecological significance of protecting these areas by outlawing well-digging on paddy land for profit. It rejected the petition, highlighting the fact that commercial operations on such lands run counter to the goals of the law.

Written by- Kusuma R

Kerala Hc

1 2 3 4