WRIT PETITION NO: 359/2020 Laxmibai Chandaragi B V State of KarnatakaFacts and judgments: The father of the petitioner filed a police complaint alleging that his daughter ismissing. During the investigation, it was found that the daughter of the complainant hadmarried petitioner no.2 out of her own will, and her marriage certificate was shared bypetitioner to her family member’s Whatsapp group. They being aware of the wedlock of the petitioner, the investigating officer in hiscase, instead of taking the statement of the petitioner no.1 in her place of residence,instead on recording her statement in the police station. The Supreme Court, in this case on the side of investigating officer and other policeauthorities, which were not only responsible for insisting a woman record thestatements in the police station and also threatening her about the false statement. Herparents may register to the police, which will register to the police, which will resultin the arrest of her husband. Further, the court held that there is no need for the consent of the clan, family, or thecommunity. In this case, the two adults have voluntarily decided to enter into awedlock.
News
Mere A Regulatory Body Is Not A State Under Article 12: A Supreme Court bench comprising of justice Sanjeev Khanna and Bella M Trivedi while determining the question upon an agency observed that a mere presence of some public duty or function does not make itself a “state” within the meaning of article 12 of the Indian Constitution. Bombay High Court while entertaining a writ the question arises that whether Automotive ResearchAssociation is a state or not under section 12 of the Indian constitution. The Bombay High courtrefused to entertain the writ petition on the ground that an agency could not become a “State”. The Supreme Court observed that the set principles are not rigid but it must be seen that whetherthe body is financially, functionally, and administratively dominated by or under the direct control ofGovernment. If it is merely a regulatory body then it will not be a state under the ambit of article 12(Kishore Madhukar Pinglikar Vs Automotive Research Association of India) Popular News:
A Deity And A Minor Should Be Treated Alike: The Kerala High Court has taken up a Suo moto concern. This is on the basis of a news article that was published by a Malayalam daily newspaper, Mathrubhumi. It was published that TDB (Travancore Devaswom Board) has leased out the area for “Ramkatha” to Shri Nand Kishore Bajoria for 9 days long program. A deity is treated in the same way as a minor child treated in that scenario the state should act asParens Patria for deity. If a person is entrusted with the duty to manage and provide safeguards to theproperty of temple instead of that if he is doing the adverse and misappropriate the properties.Making wrongful claims of adverse possession of tenancy or ownership will be illegal. Thefences themselves eat the crops, the concerned authorities are directly or indirectly involved in thematter. This kind of work should be discouraged strictly. As per the prevalent principle under which deity and minors are treated alike, the court has appliedthe doctrine of parens Patriae and had the pleasure to Act as the Guardian of Deity.
RERA prevails over the SARFAESI: Supreme Court recently upheld that the RERA prevails against the SARFAESI Act. Regarding SLP filing of Union Bank of India, It was dismissed by the Supreme Court and held that RERA has the jurisdiction to entertain complaints filed by the Home Buyers against the bank which took possession of the project as a secured creditor. An innocent home buyer can move to the RERA against the bank acquisition. Supreme Court referred to the case of Bikram Chatterji Vs Union of India where the apex court notedthat in collision of RERA and SARFAESI Act, the provision of RERA would prevail. RERA would not apply in the case where the mortgage has been made prior to the introduction of the Act itself except there is no fraudulent or collusive transaction made. RERA has the authority to entertain a complaint against the bank as a secured creditor if the banktakes the recourse of any provision contained under section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. Popular News:
Games that involve skills are not wagering and betting: The Karnataka High Court while observing a writ petition filed against some provisions of the Karnataka Police (Amendment) Act, 2021. Upon the ground that the provisions of the said Act criminalizes betting on and playing games of skill, including one line games It has been observed that the said Act was contrary to the precedent laid down by the SupremeCourt. It was further argued that the state lacked legislative authority to pass the Act and for allabove the purpose honourable court struck down the provision which was an ultra virus to theconstitution. The Constitutional courts held it time to time that a game that involves skills are not includedunder wagering agreement or betting therefore these are protected under article 19 of the IndianConstitution. Popular Questions:
