Latest news with #AllahabadHC
Hindustan Times
17 minutes ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Maintenance tribunals under senior citizens act have no power to adjudicate property ownership claims: Allahabad HC
Prayagraj, The Allahabad High Court has held that the maintenance tribunals under the senior citizens act have no power to adjudicate property ownership claims, especially in case of third party disputes and these must be adjudicated before civil courts. Maintenance tribunals under senior citizens act have no power to adjudicate property ownership claims: Allahabad HC Dismissing a writ petition filed by a man named Ishak, a division bench comprising Justices Arindam Sinha and YK Srivastava said, "The maintenance tribunals constituted under the Act have been empowered to entertain applications relating to claims for maintenance against children or in case of a childless senior citizen against his relative who would inherit the property." "There is no conferment of jurisdiction to adjudicate questions relating to property and ownership rights particularly where there is a dispute with third parties. The disputes in this regard are to be adjudicated before the civil courts of competent jurisdiction," the bench said. The petitioner had sought protection of his life and property under rule 21 of UP Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2014. He claimed that he was threatened by the private respondents because he wanted to construct a gate on his private property. It was argued that the Senior Citizens Act and rules protect them not only against their children but also against third parties. The court observed that the Act was enforced to protect the senior citizens who were neglected due to withering joint family structures in India. It observed that section 4 of the 2007 Act entitles a senior citizen who is unable to fend for himself to maintenance. The section 5 of the Act empowers such a senior citizen to make an application before the Maintenance Tribunal constituted under section 7 of the Act. The court held that obstruction by the petitioner's neighbour in constructing a gate over his property did not fall within the purview of the Senior Citizens Act and no legal right there under was infringed. In the hearing on July 16, the court thereby dismissed the petition. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Time of India
a day ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Supreme Court to hear Yashwant Varma's petition on Monday
NEW DELHI: A Supreme Court bench led by Justice Dipankar Datta will hear on Monday Justice Yashwant Varma's petition challenging the in-house inquiry report accusing him of being complicit in sacks of cash found at his official residence and then CJI Sanjiv Khanna's decision to send the report to the President and the PM with the recommendation for his removal. Justice Varma will be represented by a battery of senior advocates - Kapil Sibal , Mukul Rohatgi, Rakesh Dwivedi, Siddharth Luthra and Siddharth Aggarwal. Since most senior SC judges were part of the collegium and in some way or the other acquainted with the administrative proceedings relating to Justice Varma, who was repatriated to Allahabad HC from Delhi after the discovery of cash at his residence, CJI Gavai has assigned hearing of the petition to a bench led by Justice Datta. When then CJI Khanna was heading the collegium, Justices Gavai, Surya Kant and Vikram Nath were part of it. Justice Datta is 10th in seniority among Supreme Court judges. CJI Gavai had on Wednesday recused from hearing Justice Varma's petition on the ground that he was part of the administrative process relating to transfer of the judge from Delhi HC to his parent Allahabad HC. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal had requested a bench led by CJI Gavai on Wednesday for an urgent hearing on Justice Varma's petition even as the Lok Sabha speaker commenced proceedings relating to a notice for removal of the judge signed by more than 150 MPs. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like American Investor Warren Buffett Recommends: 5 Books For Turning Your Life Around Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List Undo Sibal had told the CJI that Justice Varma's petition raised some important constitutional questions relating to the in-house report and the recommendation for his removal. In his petition, Justice Varma has questioned why Delhi Police and Delhi Fire Service personnel, who discovered the cash, did not seize it or prepare a 'panchnama' (statement of witnesses in writing corroborating the discovery of cash), which alone could have been admissible evidence.
Time of India
3 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Was Varma notice in Rajya Sabha just submitted or was it admitted?
NEW DELHI: Was the notice for the motion of removal of Allahabad HC Justice Yashwant Varma only "submitted" or was it "admitted" as well. The seemingly technical issue goes to the heart of the fast-paced events that led to the resignation of Vice-President and Rajya Sabha Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar on Monday evening. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now It acquires significance because a determination would decide whether the RS Chairman would have a role in the choice of the three members of the investigation panel which, under the Constitution, would examine the veracity of the charges against Justice Varma. Dhankhar is learnt to have earned the annoyance of the govt and the governing coalition by acknowledging the notice given by 63 opposition MPs to seek the launch of proceedings for the HC judge's ouster. Sources termed it as a "breach-of-faith" issue by pointing out that the govt had already announced its decision that the process should start in Lok Sabha and had taken the first step by getting 145 MPs from all parties to sign the notice which was submitted to LS Speaker Om Birla on Monday morning. However, Dhankhar sidestepped this, and the RS notice had signatures of only opposition members. Although technically correct, the decision flew in the face of govt's desire to make the proceedings against Justice Varma an all-party concern. On Monday afternoon in RS, Dhankhar cited the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, to say that in a situation where such a notice is given in both Houses on the same day, "no committee shall be constituted unless the motion has been admitted in both Houses and where such motion has been admitted in both Houses, the committee shall be constituted jointly by the speaker and the chairman". The ex-chairman said that the motion signed by 63 members "meets the numerical requirement of setting in motion a process for the removal of an HC judge" - reference to the stipulation that the motion for removal, in case of RS, needed to be signed by at least 50 members. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now He stopped short of saying whether the motion has been admitted, but emphasised that the chairman or the speaker has no right to admit or reject if "a motion is presented on the same day in both the Houses". However, the 1968 Act doesn't mention such a provision. Dhankhar had directed the RS secretary general to take necessary steps. Sources, however, said the final call on the issue will now be that of the deputy chairperson, Harivansh, who started as the officiating chairman after President Droupadi Murmu accepted Dhankhar's resignation. "There is no certainty he would endorse what Dhankhar observed," said a source. "In any case, he has no special interest in matters concerning judiciary and is unlikely to diverge drastically from the speaker in the choice of the members of the inquiry panel," the source further said.
Time of India
3 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
2-month reprieve from arrest for hubby, kin in dowry case
Representational Image NEW DELHI: In an important decision, Supreme Court on Tuesday adopted Allahabad HC's two-year-old guidelines directing police not to arrest a husband or his relatives for two months from the date of his wife lodging a dowry harassment case under section 498A of the IPC while asking an IPS woman officer to apologise through newspaper publications the harassment she inflicted on her estranged husband and his relatives. A bench of CJI B R Gavai and Justice A G Masih gave this ruling while drawing up an amicable settlement between 2022-batch IPS officer Shivangi Bansal nee Goel and her husband in exercise of its exclusive powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to dissolve their marriage. While drawing up the settlement, SC said, "The guidelines framed by Allahabad HC in impugned judgment dated June 13, 2022, in Criminal Revision No. 1126 of 2022 vide paras 32 to 38, with regard to constitution of family welfare committees for safeguards regarding misuse of section 498A, IPC, shall remain in effect and be implemented by the appropriate authorities." SC said the apology was needed because of the cases filed by her "...the husband remained in jail for a period of 109 days and his father for 103 days, and the entire family suffered physical and mental trauma and harassment. What they have suffered cannot be resituated or compensated in any manner". However, "It shall not ever be used against Shivangi Bansal/Shivangi Goel before any court of law, administrative/regulatory/quasi-judicial body/tribunal against her interests now or in the future, " it added.
Hindustan Times
3 days ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
School merger order violates RTE Act: Petitioners' counsel
LUCKNOW The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court on Tuesday began hearing two special appeal petitions challenging the merger of primary schools. The division bench, headed by Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Jaspreet Singh, heard arguments from the petitioners' lawyers. The hearing will continue on Wednesday. The two petitions have been filed in high court challenging the July 7 order of the single bench which had dismissed the petitions challenging merger of primary schools. Allahabad HC bench headed by the chief justice to continue hearing special appeals against the merger. (For Representation) Two special appeals have been filed—one by 5 children and the other by 17 children from Sitapur district through their parents. Senior advocate LP Mishra and advocate Gaurav Mehrotra are representing petitioners in court. They have completed their arguments in court. Mishra argued that the state government's order to merge schools violates the Right to Free and Compulsory Education Act, for children aged 6-14. He also raised concerns that the merger would create problems for young children as they would have to travel long distances to attend school. Now, the state government's lawyers are presenting their counter-arguments. Both sides are supporting their claims with precedents. On the other hand, the state government, represented by additional advocate general (AAG) Anuj Kudesia and chief standing counsel Shailendra Kumar Singh, argued that the merger was in the best interest of children, aiming to optimise resource utilisation. The government cited 18 primary schools with zero students and stated that merging such schools with nearby ones would ensure better use of teachers and facilities, ultimately improving education quality.
