Latest news with #Justice
New Indian Express
2 hours ago
- Politics
- New Indian Express
Calcutta HC stays Mamata govt's financial relief scheme for non-teaching staff who lost jobs after SC order
KOLKATA: The Calcutta High Court on Friday ordered an interim stay till September 26 on the West Bengal government's financial scheme to provide interim relief for Group C & D non-teaching employees in state-aided schools, who had recently lost their jobs following the Supreme Court order on April 3. Justice Amrita Sinha in the interim order prohibited the state from implementing the scheme till September 26 or until further orders. Earlier, West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee had announced a monthly honorarium of Rs 25,000 and Rs 20,000 for some 5,000-odd Group C and D non-teaching employees in state-aided schools who had lost their jobs after the apex court's ruling. The Calcutta High Court's order is related to the West Bengal government's notification providing monthly interim relief of Rs 25,000 and Rs 20,000 respectively to them. Justice Sinha on Friday directed the petitioners to file affidavits within four weeks. The West Bengal government will file an affidavit in reply within a fortnight thereafter before the petition comes up for the next hearing. The waitlisted candidates had filed the petition in the High Court urging for a stay on the state government's relief scheme arguing that the scheme 'frustrated' the Supreme Court order. Reacting to the High Court order, the Trinamool Congress attacked the opposition parties and labelled them as 'real enemies of people of Bengal'. The party spokesperson Kunal Ghosh said, 'After the Supreme Court's order, Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee extended an interim financial allowance to the affected Group-C and Group-D workers. But the Bangla-Birodhi brigade (anti-Bengal brigade) ran to the Calcutta High Court and got it struck down.' He further added, 'They won't help the people, and they won't let anyone else help either. They are enemies of Bengal. Enemies of our people. Plain and simple.'
New Indian Express
3 hours ago
- General
- New Indian Express
Not necessary for woman to get husband's signature for applying passport: Madras HC
CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has held that it is not necessary for a woman to get the permission of her husband and take his signature before applying for a passport before the authority. Justice N Anand Venkatesh gave the ruling in a recent order while disposing of a petition filed by Revathy. She sought a direction to the authorities to issue a fresh passport without insisting signature from her husband in a time bound manner. The case of the petitioner was that she got married in the year 2023 and that there was a matrimonial dispute between the parties which resulted in her husband filing a petition before a local court, seeking for the dissolution of the marriage. This petition was pending. The petitioner, applied for a passport in April this year before the Regional Passport Office (RPO) in the city. It was not processed and when enquired, the petitioner was informed that she must obtain the signature of her husband in Form-J and only thereafter, the application will be processed by RPO. The RPO also took into consideration the pending dispute between the petitioner and her husband before the Court. It was under these circumstances, she filed the present petition.
Hindustan Times
3 hours ago
- General
- Hindustan Times
Not necessary for woman to get husband's signature for applying passport: HC
Chennai, The Madras High Court has held that it is not necessary for a woman to get the permission of her husband and take his signature before applying for a passport before the authority. Justice N Anand Venkatesh gave the ruling in a recent order while disposing of a petition filed by Revathy. She sought a direction to the authorities to issue a fresh passport without insisting signature from her husband in a time bound manner. The case of the petitioner was that she got married in the year 2023 and that there was a matrimonial dispute between the parties which resulted in her husband filing a petition before a local court, seeking for the dissolution of the marriage. This petition was pending. The petitioner, applied for a passport in April this year before the Regional Passport Office in the city. It was not processed and when enquired, the petitioner was informed that she must obtain the signature of her husband in Form-J and only thereafter, the application will be processed by RPO. The RPO also took into consideration the pending dispute between the petitioner and her husband before the Court. It was under these circumstances, she filed the present petition. In his order, the judge said that in the considered view of this court, the application submitted by the petitioner seeking a passport has to be processed independently. "It is not necessary for a wife to get the permission of her husband and take his signature before applying for a passport before the authority", the judge added. He said this insistence made by the RPO shows the mindset of the society in treating women who were married as if they were chattel belonging to the husband. It was quite shocking that the passport office was insisting for the permission of the husband and his signature in a particular form in order to process the application submitted by the petitioner for the passport. Already the relationship between the petitioner and her husband was in doldrums and the RPO was expecting the petitioner to get the signature of the husband. Virtually, the RPO was insisting the petitioner to fulfill an impossibility, the judge added. The judge said the petitioner after marriage does not lose her individuality and a wife can always apply for a passport without the permission or signature of the husband in any form. "The practice of insisting for permission from the husband to apply for a passport, does not augur well for a society which is moving towards woman emancipation. This practice is nothing short of male supremacism", the judge added.. The judge directed the RPO to process the application submitted by the petitioner and issue a passport in her name on her satisfying the other requirements. This process shall be completed within four weeks, the judge added.
India Gazette
4 hours ago
- Business
- India Gazette
Delhi HC rejects anticipatory bail plea of goldsmith accused of misappropriating gold
New Delhi [India], June 20 (ANI): The Delhi High Court on Thursday rejected the anticipatory bail of a goldsmith in a case of alleged misappropriation of part of the gold delivered to him for making jewellery. Economic Offence Wing (EOW) lodged an FIR in 2022. A non-bailable warrant was issued against the accused, who had not joined the investigation. He was declared a proclaimed offender (PO). Justice Ravinder Dudeja rejected the anticipatory bail of Jagdish Das and said that in the light of the cumulative circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to seek the benefit of pre-arrest/ anticipatory bail. While rejecting the plea, the High Court observed, 'Keeping in view the law and judicial precedents, anticipatory bail shall not be granted to a person who is a proclaimed person under Section 82 CrPC except in exceptional circumstances.' 'The present case does not form an exceptional or extraordinary case where this discretionary power of the Court be used,' Justice Dudeja held in the judgement passed on June 19. The High Court also considered the status report filed by the police, which revealed that despite the orders of the trial Court, he failed to join the investigation and appear before it even after the issuance of NBWs and process under Section 82 CrPC. As per the allegations, the complainant-firm, Taj Exports, purchased 26 Kgs of gold of 24 karats from Yes Bank after paying a total amount of Rs 9,66,80,104. Bank delivered the purchased questioned gold bars through its hired companies to the authorized persons cum employees of alleged company M/s Jewels Creation Private Limited. It is further alleged that the gold bars were handed over to Jagadish Das, the Director of M/s Jewels Creation Private Limited, for making jewellery. It is also alleged that the accused Jagadish Das made jewellery of some gold, but he neither made jewellery of the balance of gold nor returned the same to the complainant, M/s Taj Exports. During the arguements on plea, senior advocate Amit Chaddha appeared for Jagdish Das. He submitted that persons alleged to have received the gold were not the employees of the company of the petitioner. It was submitted that 26 Kg of gold was never delivered to the petitioner. The same was delivered to some other persons, namely Arup Bhuiya and Ranjan Mitra, who are unrelated to the petitioner. Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) referred to the status report and submitted that petitioner is the Director of M/s JD Jewels Creation Pvt Ltd and Arup Bhuiya and Ranjan Mitra are his associates/employees who were appointed by the petitioner to collect bullion on his behalf from the logistic services as apparent from the transactions of gold delivery details in the status report. (ANI)
The Hindu
4 hours ago
- The Hindu
Bombay High Court raises alarm over commuter deaths on Mumbai local network, calls for preventive steps
The Bombay High Court on Friday (June 20, 2025) expressed concern over deaths of commuters on Mumbai local trains, describing the situation as 'alarming', an observation coming days after five people lost their lives post-falling off a packed suburban service. The Court suggested installing automatic door-closing mechanisms in Mumbai local trains to prevent commuters from falling off but insisted this was advice purely from a 'layman' perspective and railway expert views were needed on the issue. Also read: Railways mulls non-AC trains with automated door closure facility A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne urged authorities to take measures to ensure tragic incidents don't occur on the Mumbai suburban network in the future. Citing an affidavit filed by the Railways, the Court noted that in 2024 alone over 3,588 fatalities happened on local trains (due to various accidents on the suburban network), which means on an average ten Mumbaikars die everyday. 'This is an alarming situation. Though you have projected that there was a reduction (in casualties) of 49% (compared to previous years),' the Court added. The division bench made the observations while hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) related to deaths of commuters in accidents on Mumbai's suburban network, considered the city's lifeline. Taking note of the June 9 incident where five passengers died and eight others sustained injuries after falling off a crowded local train near Mumbra station in adjoining Thane district, the Court observed measures taken by authorities to stop such untoward incidents were not sufficient. Editorial | Maximum Mumbai: On the city, its transportation needs The Court suggested they (trains) should be equipped with automatic doors (currently they have open doors). The Bench, however, was quick to add that it was a 'layman' suggestion and they were not an expert on railway safety. The Railways informed the Bench that they have set up a multi-disciplinary committee to examine the cause of the Mumbra incident and are waiting for its report. The panel will give recommendations and suggestions for avoiding such untoward incidents in the future. The Court directed the Railways to place on record suggestions made by the committee, along with a timeline for their implementation. The committee should be open to including the suggestions made by the petitioner (a commuter) for avoiding the recurrence of such incidents. Besides the disciplinary panel, a high-level monitoring committee has been set up separately and it is working towards a 'zero death mission'. Based on its suggestions, a number of steps has already been taken, the Railways told the Court. One of the steps included building walls and fences between Rail tracks to stop commuters from crossing over. Also, stalls have been shifted from some platforms on suburban stations to avoid overcrowding, it said. The matter will be next heard on July 14, 2025.
