Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
98 per cent compliant, but still under suspension. The Bombay High Court found no justification for keeping a Pune sweet shop closed only because an appeal against the suspension order was pending and ordered the Maharashtra FDA to pay ₹5 lakhs compensation to the shop for the loss suffered during the period of closure.
Holding that FDA’s recalled restrictions on ACILOC drug stocks stood neutralised, the Court directed fresh show-cause notices under Rule 85, Drugs Rules, 1945, before any further action.
Three government canteens, a uniform 98% score, and not a single insect in sight, until a surprise inspection found flies, cockroaches, and a refrigerator “in shambles.” Meanwhile, a private restaurant lost its licence over a banana with black dots.
When a taxpayer told the Bombay High Court he was staring down a fourth round of arguments after the matter was heard thrice without any pronouncement of judgment, the Court didn’t just fix his case, it ordered every ITAT in the country to start following the 90-day rule under Rule 34, Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963.
The Bombay High Court restored a food business licence suspended under the proviso to Section 32(3), Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, holding that once fresh inspections conducted pursuant to the Court’s orders demonstrated 95 per cent compliance and graded the establishment as “Compliance/Satisfactory”, continuance of the suspension no longer served the preventive object for which it had originally been imposed.
The Court held that a 21-year-old woman, being an adult, is legally competent to decide her residence, marriage, and education, and directed that she shall not be compelled to return to her parental home or treated as a missing person, as these matters of personal choice are protected under Article 21 of the Constitution.
“The prayer seeking a direction for placing the whole matter before the JJ Board under Sections 9 and 10 JJ Act could not have been rejected by the Special Judge (POCSO).”
“The sanctity of the competitive examination is to be maintained, and a writ cannot be issued to satisfy every doubt of the aggrieved candidate.”
“The Maharashtra Pollution Control Board has no jurisdiction to curtail the business activities of the company by restricting the area of its operation.”
The Supreme Court in its judgment on mandatory TET/ CTET qualification for the teachers, had given various guidelines regarding the fate of the candidates who did not qualify the said exam before the statutory cut-off date of 31-3-2019.
The welfare of the child is the paramount consideration in custody matters, therefore, the right of father and mother as natural guardian can only be curtailed when the custody might be detrimental to the welfare of the child.
The Court questioned whether these protesters would clean up the streets, vacate them, go back home and let peace and let the tranquility prevail in Mumbai, so that the common man can lead a normal life?
The police under oath stated that the petitioner was informed the reasons of arrest by giving it in writing on a sheet of paper, but the fact that no such sheet of paper was ever served to the petitioner, and a completely false statement was made by the authorities, shocked the conscience of the Court.