Re Legal

1

AR Rahman faces setback in copyright suit before Delhi High Court over 'Veera Raja Veera' song. Among other directions, the Court also ordered Rahman and Madras Talkies to deposit ₹2 crore with the Registry during the pendency of the copyright suit.
1

Supreme Court pulls up Rahul Gandhi for remarks against Savarkar but stays summons. The Court warned Gandhi that it will initiate suo motu action if he makes similar statements.
1

Savarkar defamation case: Pune court allows plea by Rahul Gandhi to bring historical evidence on record. Since Gandhi has claimed that his statements were based on historical facts, the trial would have to be held as a summons trial to allow detailed evidence and cross-examination of witnesses, the Court said.
1

Delhi court says Medha Patkar will not be jailed for defaming Delhi LG VK Saxena
Medha Patkar was sentenced to five months in jail by the trial court. However, the sessions court said the offence was not grave enough to warrant imprisonment.
1

A public interest litigation (PIL) petition has been filed before the Allahabad High Court to halt the administration of oath to Justice Yashwant Varma who was recently transferred from Delhi to Allahabad amidst an in-house probe against him over allegations of possessing illicit cash.

Today’s

Arrest under PMLA cannot Violate Fundamental Rights
The Supreme Court held that not presenting a person taken into custody by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for a crime under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, within 24 hours is illegal. Subash Sharma, the respondent in the case, was taken into custody by the ED at 11:00 am on 5 March. However, he was not presented before the Magistrate within 24 hours as stipulated by Article 22(2) of the Constitution and Section 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973. Taking this into consideration, the Chhattisgarh High Court granted Sharma bail. The ED moved the Supreme Court against the decision of the High Court. It submitted that Sharma was presented before a Magistrate within 24 hours of making the arrest memo on 6 March 2022. The Supreme Court rejected the ED’s argument and upheld the High Court’s decision. The judges held that once a court dealing with the accused has found a fundamental rights violation in the arrest, it is duty-bound to release the accused on bail. The Court clarified that in such cases, the attest is vitiated and bail must be granted even if all the conditions stipulated under the PMLA are not met. Key words/phrases: Arrest under Prevention of Money Laundering Act—Article 22 of the Constitution—present accused before Magistrate within 24 hours—fundamental right—grant of bail Directorate of Enforcement v Subhash Sharma 21 January 2025 Citations: 2025 INSC 141 | 2025 SCO.LR 1(3)[15] Bench: Justices A.S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan Read the Judgement here. Case comment It is the duty of every Court to uphold the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution. 9. Therefore, when arrest is illegal or is vitiated, bail cannot be denied on the grounds of non-fulfillment of twin tests under clause (ii) of sub-section 1 of Section 45 of PMLA. Subscribe to our updates now and be the first to know about the latest news and developments. Subscribe here: https://relegal.in/subscribe/ #legalcousel #legalawareness #legaladvice #PMLA #Article22 #Constitution #bail #arrest

Yesterday’s

Framing Substantial Question of Law Essential to Pass Interim Order -CPC
The Supreme Court held that High Courts lacked the jurisdiction to grant an interim order at that stage of the second appeal without framing the substantial question of law as required by Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The case originated from a suit filed by C. Yashoda, the respondent, before a Trial Court, seeking a permanent injunction over the disputed property. The Trial Judge passed an order in her favour. Subsequently, the First Appellate Court set aside the Trial Court’s judgement. Challenging this decision, the respondent filed a second appeal before the Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amravati, which passed an interim order without formulating any substantial question of law. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, clarifying that the existence of a substantial question of law is a sine qua non for the High Court’s jurisdiction in a second appeal. It relied on precedents such as Raghavendra Swamy Mutt v Uttaradi Mutt (2016), which upheld this view. Referring to Manohar Lal Chopra v Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal (1961), the Court reiterated that the inherent power under Section 151 of the CPC cannot override explicit mandates of the Code. Keywords/phrase: Inherent powers—Civil Procedure Code, 1908—interim order—substantial question of law—sine qua non—ad interim—Section 100 Read the Judgement here. Sudheera v C. Yashoda 17 January 2025 Citation: 2025 INSC 80 | 2025 SCO.LR 1(3)[14] Bench: Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan Case Comment Held: Interim order passed by the High Court set aside – High Court cannot grant an interim order, without framing substantial question of law as required to be framed u/s.100 – It acquires jurisdiction to deal with the second appeal on merits only when it frames a substantial question of law u/s.100 – If no substantial question of law arises, the second appeal cannot be entertained and ought to be dismissed, as the jurisdiction of the High Court itself is not yet invoked. [Paras 10.2, 10.4] Subscribe to our updates now and be the first to know about the latest news and developments. Subscribe here: https://relegal.in/subscribe/ #legalcousel #legalawareness #legaladvice #inherentpowers #sinequanon #substantialquestionoflaw #secondappeal #sec100 #CivilProcedureCode1908

Terms And condition