LATEST LEGAL NEWS AND UPDATES.
By Kritika Vij (ALSN, BBA LL.B.(H), 5th year)
- Court orders ITC to pay Rs 1 lakh for a missing biscuit.
In his complaint, he pointed out how the FMCG major cheated the public over Rs.29 lakh every day by providing one biscuit less than mentioned in the biscuit packaging.
P. Dillibabu mentioned that the cost of each biscuit is Rs.0.75. Manufacturers produce around Rs.50 lakh packets a day. On this basis, back-of-the-envelope calculations would suggest that the firm cheated the public of over Rs.29 lakh every day, reported TOl citing the complaint filed by P. Dillibabu.
- Parul versus NCT Of Delhi.
The Delhi High Court recently observed that a husband’s extramarital affair or betting habits cannot be grounds to implicate him under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which punishes dowry deaths of wife.
The Court made the observation while granting bail to a man whose wife had died by suicide in August 2022 within two years of their marriage.
"Insofar as the extra marital affair of the petitioner or the petitioner being into betting, is concerned, that cannot be a ground for implicating the petitioner under Section 304B IPC," the Court said.
Justice Vikas Mahajan also noted that for invoking Section 304B of IPC, not only should there be harassment soon before the woman's death, but such harassment of the woman must be related to a demand for dowry.
- Mr. Akash Madan versus Ms. Anurag Vashisht
The Delhi High Court recently held that the term mental cruelty is wide enough to take within its ambit the financial instability of a spouse and granted divorce to woman
A division bench of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna said that financial instability on account of a husband not being settled in any business or profession, which ultimately leads to him indulging in other vices, is bound to result in anxiety and can be termed as a constant source of mental cruelty for a wife.
- Miss Madhu vs State of Rajasthan
n a significant ruling, the Rajasthan High Court recently quashed a condition in a government circular issued in November 2016 and an advertisement published in June 2019, both mandating a woman to be 'married' to get appointed as anganwadi karyakarta, mini karyakarta or a helper.
Single-judge Justice Dinesh Mehta held that such a condition denying government employment to an unmarried woman violates her right to equality and right to equal opportunity in public employment.
{ "In the opinion of this Court, depriving a women of public employment on the ground of her being unmarried, apart from being violative of fundamental rights guaranteed to a woman under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India impinges upon a woman’s dignity," the Court held.}