Karnataka HC issues notice to state govt on RCB plea challenging CAT order
In its July 1, order, the CAT had observed that prima facie, RCB was responsible for the massive and unregulated crowd outside M Chinnaswamy Stadium, which led to a stampede on June 4, resulting in the deaths of 11 people.
A division bench of Justice S G Pandit and Justice T M Nadaf issued the notice after hearing the petition, in which RCB contended that the tribunal had wrongly placed the entire responsibility for the incident on the franchise. RCB further argued that the CAT acted beyond the scope of its jurisdiction and in a colourable exercise of its powers.
The tribunal, RCSPL said, should have limited itself to examining the validity of the suspension of Vikash Kumar Vikash, ACP (West), who had challenged the disciplinary action taken against him.
Despite this, the CAT not only returned adverse findings against RCB, without it being a party to the case, but also did so without proper appreciation of the available evidence, the petition stated.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
2 hours ago
- The Hindu
Wife living separately from husband without valid reason not entitled to maintenance: Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court has observed that a wife living separately from her husband without a valid reason is not entitled to maintenance and set aside a family court order granting maintenance to a married woman. Allowing a revision petition filed by the woman's husband, Vipul Agrawal, Justice Subhas Chandra Sharma set aside the February 17 order of maintenance passed by the additional principal judge of the family court in Meerut. 'The trial court has recorded the finding that the wife failed to prove that she is living separately from the husband with sufficient reasons and the husband is neglecting to maintain her, even though the amount of maintenance has been fixed in favour of the wife at ₹5,000 per month.' "As per the provision contained under section 125(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), if the wife is living separately from the husband without sufficient reasons, she is not entitled to maintenance," the High Court said. During the course of the hearing, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial court has recorded the finding that the wife is living separately from her husband without sufficient reasons. Despite this, the family court has fixed the amount of maintenance at ₹5,000 per month. He also submitted that the trial court has not considered the earning capacity of the petitioner but fixed the amount of maintenance in favour of the wife and a minor child at ₹5,000 and ₹3,000, totalling ₹8,000 per month. However, the lawyer representing the woman and the State counsel submitted that she is living separately from her husband due to his neglect and that is why the trial court has allowed the application and fixed the amount of maintenance. Allowing the revision petition of the husband, the court said, "In view of the aforesaid finding as recorded by the trial court in relation to the second issue and the order fixing the amount at ₹5,000 per month in favour of the wife, both are contradictory and in violation of the provision as contained in section 125(4), CrPC. Therefore, the order dated February 17, 2025 being erroneous requires interference by this court." The court, in its judgment dated July 8, sent the matter back to the family court to decide it afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to both parties. However, the court made it clear that the petitioner will continue to pay an amount of ₹3,000 per month for the wife and ₹2,000 per month for the child as interim maintenance during the pendency of the application.
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
Foul language doesn't mean stalking, rules Karnataka high court
Bengaluru: Using swear words at each other in private messaging between two individuals could be indecent, but it does not necessarily mean 'stalking', Karnataka high court has ruled, striking down charges of stalking against an Allahabad man who faced allegations of voyeurism and criminal intimidation. Justice M Nagaprasanna, who delivered the ruling, emphasised that for a charge of stalking to be legally valid, it must meet specific criteria laid out in Section 354D of IPC. The section defines 'stalking' as a man following or contacting a woman repeatedly to foster personal interaction, despite clear disinterest from the woman; or monitoring her use of electronic communication. You Can Also Check: Bengaluru AQI | Weather in Bengaluru | Bank Holidays in Bengaluru | Public Holidays in Bengaluru "In the present case, the allegation is loosely laid," the judge noted, adding: "The exchange of messages, even those containing profanity, does not by itself constitute stalking." Background The case involves a Bengaluru-based woman and the accused, who had met in 2022 while preparing for their UPSC exams in Delhi. Their interaction, which was initially based on sharing study materials, gradually blossomed into an intimate relationship. The woman used to stay at a rented accommodation in Delhi, arranged by the accused. However, following a breakup, the woman filed a police complaint in Bengaluru in October 2023, alleging that the man had secretly recorded private footage of her and threatened to circulate it on social media. The case invoked multiple charges under the IPC and Information Technology Act, with additional sections added under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, as the complainant belongs to a Scheduled Tribe community. The complainant even filed a rape case against the accused in Prayagraj on November 2, 2023. The accused man, though, insisted they were in a consensual relationship. Despite the allegations and counter-allegations, the couple's marriage was registered on November 10, reportedly facilitated by their families. However, the complainant later alleged that her consent was obtained under duress and she filed another complaint on December 14, 2023, in Prayagraj. Courtroom drama Partially allowing the petition, the court upheld multiple charges against the accused, including voyeurism and offences under the Atrocities Act, given the accused's awareness of the complainant's ST status. The disputed facts, though, required trial resolution. "The complaint details several serious allegations against the accused, reportedly committed under the promise of marriage. The consensual sexual relationship between both the parties is documented. Regarding the stalking charges, the complainant's allegations primarily concern sexual acts under marriage promises," the judge noted in his order while pointing that the offence of stalking was loosely laid against the petitioner.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
9 hours ago
- Business Standard
Wife living apart without valid reason not entitled to maintenance: HC
The Allahabad High Court has observed that a wife living separately from her husband without a valid reason is not entitled to maintenance and set aside a family court order granting maintenance to a married woman. Allowing a revision petition filed by the woman's husband, Vipul Agrawal, Justice Subhas Chandra Sharma set aside the February 17 order of maintenance passed by the additional principal judge of the family court in Meerut. "The trial court has recorded the finding that the wife failed to prove that she is living separately from the husband with sufficient reasons and the husband is neglecting to maintain her, even though the amount of maintenance has been fixed in favour of the wife at Rs 5,000 per month. "As per the provision contained under section 125(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), if the wife is living separately from the husband without sufficient reasons, she is not entitled to maintenance," the high court said. During the course of the hearing, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial court has recorded the finding that the wife is living separately from her husband without sufficient reasons. Despite this, the family court has fixed the amount of maintenance at Rs 5,000 per month. He also submitted that the trial court has not considered the earning capacity of the petitioner but fixed the amount of maintenance in favour of the wife and a minor child at Rs 5,000 and Rs 3,000, totalling Rs 8,000 per month. However, the lawyer representing the woman and the state counsel submitted that she is living separately from her husband due to his neglect and that is why the trial court has allowed the application and fixed the amount of maintenance. Allowing the revision petition of the husband, the court said, "In view of the aforesaid finding as recorded by the trial court in relation to the second issue and the order fixing the amount at Rs 5,000 per month in favour of the wife, both are contradictory and in violation of the provision as contained in section 125(4), CrPC. Therefore, the order dated February 17, 2025 being erroneous requires interference by this court." The court, in its judgment dated July 8, sent the matter back to the family court to decide it afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to both parties. However, the court made it clear that the petitioner will continue to pay an amount of Rs 3,000 per month for the wife and Rs 2,000 per month for the child as interim maintenance during the pendency of the application.
