Latest news with #MiniPushkarna
Time of India
9 hours ago
- General
- Time of India
Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea Against Illegal Construction Due To Lack Of Direct Interest
New Delhi: Delhi High Court has deprecated the filing of frivolous petitions with no direct interest in the matter. It dismissed a plea, which alleged illegal construction at a property, with Rs 50,000 costs. A single judge bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna observed, "In the present case, it is evident that the petitioner does not have any connection with the property in question and is staying far away from it. Thus, there is no cause of action in favour of the petitioner to file the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as no right of the petitioner was violated, for enforcing which, a writ petition could have been filed. " The plea alleged that illegal and unauthorised construction was taking place at a property near a gurdwara in Mehrauli. The court said that the litigant had no connection with the property, was living 10 km away from it, and the only ground for filing the petition was that he took the same street while coming and going to the office. The bench, noting that no legal or fundamental right of the litigant was affected in any manner by any construction activity taking place in a property situated approximately 10 kilometres away from his residence, said that the petition was filed clearly for ulterior motives and not for the enforcement of any fundamental right of the litigant. "The present case is clearly an abuse and misuse of the process of law," the bench said. "The present petition is dismissed with a cost of Rs 50,000, payable by the petitioner to the Delhi High Court Advocates Welfare Trust within a period of four weeks from today," the court said.
Hindustan Times
7 days ago
- Hindustan Times
Delhi HC seeks govt plan to remove community dogs
Concerned over increasing instances of dog bites in the Capital, the Delhi high court has directed the city government to formulate a policy for the 'rehabilitation of community dogs at an institutional level' so that they can be gradually removed from the streets. The court's direction, issued through an order dated May 21 and made public on Monday, came during a hearing on a plea by Pratima Devi, an octogenarian who challenged the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) demolition of a makeshift shelter in Saket where she cared for over 200 dogs. 'This court notes that various instances of dog bites by stray dogs have come forth, reported regularly in newspapers, along with several petitions wherein such incidents have been brought to the court's notice,' said a bench of justice Mini Pushkarna. 'A policy decision must be taken by the stakeholders to ensure stray dogs are rehabilitated and phased out from public roads and streets.' Experts said the order could be in contradiction to the law. Agencies follow the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023, under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, which prohibit relocation of community dogs except temporarily for sterilisation and vaccination. Once treated, dogs must be returned to their original locality and a detailed register needs to be maintained for each dog. Forming a wider policy as suggested by the court may not only be 'legally untenable', but also 'impractical', experts said. 'It's neither feasible nor humane to confine such a vast population of dogs. This will only cause suffering and undermine decades of community-based dog population management,' said Gauri Maulekhi, trustee of People for Animals (PFA). 'It does nothing to address the root causes of the human-dog conflict.' In Delhi, the root cause for human-dog conflicts are the lack of designated feeding spots in the city, poor monitoring of the ABC programme, and lack of public awareness around treatment of community dogs. 'If the dog is relocated for sterilisation and not released at the correct spot, it adds to the conflict. Similarly, until feeding points are designated, there will be neighbourhood-level conflicts on where to feed them,' Maulekhi said. The HC order referred the matter to Delhi chief secretary, stating, 'Considering the sensitivity of the case and the magnitude of the problem… the matter is referred to the Chief Secretary, Government of NCT of Delhi.' Devi's petition argued that the MCD razed her shelter without prior notice. In response, the court had granted interim protection in January 2023, allowing her to cover the shelter with tarpaulin as a temporary measure. On March 25, the court ordered Delhi government officials, the AWBI and the petitioner to hold a joint meeting to resolve the issue, warning that leaving 200 dogs in the open 'may create a very serious situation.' During the May 21 hearing, officials said the dogs would be released back to the streets after sterilisation and vaccination. The court, however, rejected this approach due to the sheer number of animals. The matter is now scheduled for further hearing on August 6. Animal rights organisations argue that the focus should be on effective implementation of the ABC Rules, rather than removing dogs from the streets. 'It is simply not feasible. The cost for land, housing them, feeding them – it will all be rather steep. On top of it, they will have to be sterilised. Why can't agencies simply focus on effective implementation of ABC rules?' said Ambika Shukla, director of the Sanjay Gandhi Animal Care Centre and a PFA trustee. 'The Centre should support states with funds and manpower for sterilisation, rather than propose mass removals.' Sonya Ghosh, another Delhi-based animal activist who has filed multiple pleas on community dog welfare, said the court's latest order contradicts both the ABC Rules and Supreme Court judgments. 'There is no reasoning behind such an order. It contradicts the SC's directions that ABC Rules need to be followed when it comes to community dogs. The HC in 2021 had also clearly stated that stray dogs have the right to food and citizens have the right to feed them. The new directive contradicts this,' she said.
New Indian Express
14-05-2025
- Business
- New Indian Express
Delhi HC restrains use of ‘Max Mueller' by entity
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has granted an interim injunction in favour of the Goethe-Institut, a German cultural association operating six educational centres across India under the name 'Max Mueller Bhavan'. The order stops another entity from using the name 'Max Mueller Institute' to offer German language education. Justice Mini Pushkarna, while delivering the order on May 6, said, '...in the area of education, any chance of confusion should be completely avoided. The use of identical names for two institutions imparting education would result in enormous confusion, resulting in damaging effect.' The Court observed that Goethe-Institut has been using the name since 1957, while the opposing party adopted the mark only in 2018. Although the defendants claimed to hold a registered trademark, the Court reaffirmed that under Section 34 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, a prior user's rights take precedence over a registered trademark. 'The fact that the mark of a party is not registered is no bar to a case for passing off, if the ingredients of passing off are established,' the Court said while granting interim relief. The defendants argued that Goethe-Institut uses its German name officially and that 'Max Mueller Bhavan' refers only to a building, not a trademark. However, the plaintiff countered that the name is closely tied to their educational services in India and is widely recognised. Supporting this, the Court noted that documents like newspaper reports, MoUs and social media evidence all showed that 'Max Mueller Bhavan' has consistently been used as a brand name. It also remarked, 'The mark MAX MUELLER BHAVAN is prominently displayed outside the institutes of the plaintiff in India…Even the Government of India recognises the plaintiff's institutes in India, as MAX MUELLER BHAVAN…' The Court concluded that the defendant's name could mislead the public.
Hindustan Times
30-04-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Delhi HC seeks response of Centre, BFI on RO issue
New Delhi: The Delhi high court on Wednesday sought the response of the Centre and Boxing Federation of India (BFI) on a plea filed by Delhi Amateur Boxing Association (DABA) for appointment of an independent returning officer (RO) to oversee and conduct the elections of the Boxing Federation of India (BFI), facing controversy over management and transparency issues. The plea was necessitated after former Delhi high court judge, justice (retd) RK Gauba stepped down as the RO on April 14, attributing his decision to an unhealthy and uncalled for 'smear campaign' allegedly orchestrated by different factions within the federation. Gauba was appointed by BFI's former president Ajay Singh on March 7. In its application argued by senior advocate Abhijat Bal, along with advocates Vidushpat Singhania and Prateek Chadha, DABA argued that there was a need for appointment of an 'independent returning officer', since the erstwhile RO was appointed by Singh, who was himself contesting for the post of President in the forthcoming elections. Though the current term of the BFI's executive committee ended on February 2, no new elections for the office-bearers for the 2025-29 have been held so far. The elections were initially scheduled for March 28, but due to the failure to conduct elections, the federation is currently being managed by a six-member interim committee. This committee was formulated by World Boxing on April 7 and is chaired by Singh. A bench of justice Mini Pushkarna issued notice to BFI, and Union sports ministry and posted the matter for hearing on August 18. BFI was represented by senior advocate Rajshekhar Rao, while the union sports ministry was represented by standing counsel Premtosh Kumar Mishra. DABA suggested that the appointment of an independent RO was imperative to uphold the objectives of the Sports Code, ensure conducting and carry forwarding the elections in a free, fair and transparent manner. 'The current state of governance within the BFI, marked by non-compliance with the Sports Code and procedural lapses, underscores the pressing need for oversight to ensure transparency, accountability and uninterrupted progression of the sports,' the petition stated. The application was filed by DABA in its petition challenging BFI's March 7 circular allowing elected members of the state units to participate in the elections. On March 19, justice Mini Pushkarna had allowed DABA to participate in BFI's upcoming elections by staying BFI's March 7 circular till August 18. However, BFI had appealed against the order before the division bench, which is currently pending.
The Hindu
30-04-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Delhi High Court asks Centre reply after plea seeks official to conduct boxing federation poll
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday (April 30, 2025) sought responses from the Boxing Federation of India and the Centre after a plea sought the appointment of a returning officer to conduct its elections. Justice Mini Pushkarna issued notice to the federation and the Centre on the application filed by Delhi Amateur Boxing Association and posted the matter in August. The application forms part of Delhi Amateur Boxing Association's petition against the federation's decision mandating only elected members of its affiliated State units will be authorised to represent their respective states in the elections. In the application, the petitioner said former returning officer, retired Justice R.K. Gauba, had resigned from the post on April 14. The former president of Boxing Federation of India, who is a contesting candidate, was trying to delay the elections and attempting to appoint a "compliant returning officer", it alleged further. The plea said under the Sports Code, a returning officer was required to be independent and in spite of an order by the Himachal High Court and the observers appointed by the World Boxing Federation and the Centre, the BFI was failing to conduct the elections in an unbiased and a timely manner. On March 19, the court stayed the federation's March 7 decision to allow only elected members of its affiliated state units to represent their respective states in the upcoming elections in the sports body. Delhi Amateur Boxing Association had moved the high court after the final list of electoral college approved by the then returning officer omitted the two names sent by it — Rohit Jainendra Jain and Neeraj Kant Bhatt on the ground that they were "ineligible" on the basis of the March 7 circular. The BFI elections, initially slated for March 28, have been postponed.
