Legal Headlines - 27th March, 2021:Madras High Court: Evident that Voters' Personal Details May have been Obtained & put to use for Campaign Purposes

Madras High Court: Evident that Voters' Personal Details May have been Obtained & put to use for Campaign Purposes

On Friday, Madras High Court observed that personal details of voters and citizens may have been obtained by the Puducherry unit of BJP. The Madras High Court was hearing a Public Interest Litigation petition filed alleging that the Puducherry unit of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has misused Aadhaar details of voters for election campaigning purposes. Consequently, the Election Commission brought the matter to the notice of the seventh respondent (UIDAI), the Court directed UIDAI to immediately ascertain how such and put to use for campaign purposes?

Furthermore, Madras High Court on Friday (26th March) directed Election Commission to file a status indicating the steps taken by it in the matter (on 31st March, 21)

On Delhi Riots: Delhi Court Casts Serious Doubt on Credibility of Police Witnesses, Grants Bail To One On Ground Of Parity

On Tuesday, a Delhi Court granted bail to one Amit Goswami in relation to the north east Delhi riots on the ground of parity while casting "serious doubt" on the credibility of police witnesses in the case.

While the Delhi Court observed that the SPP fairly admitted that the applicant was "neither specifically named by complainant in FIR" nor there was any CCTV footage/video clip of the incident available in the matter, the judge went ahead to question the conduct of the two beat constables as to why they waited till 17th April 2020 i.e. date of recording of their statements under sec. 161 of Cr.P.C when they had categorically seen and identified the applicant.

Delhi Court: Hands of Investigators Cannot Be Tied; Rejects Plea by Mehmood Pracha against His Office Raids

In his above mentioned case, a Delhi Court on Friday disposed off Advocate Mehmood Pracha's application challenging Delhi Police Special Cell's second raid after observing that the objections raised by him are baseless.

Observing that the collection of evidence is intrinsic to the investigation and hands of the investigators cannot be tied to prevent them from Collecting Evidence, the Court held that: "The collection of data from its source is done to ensure its admissibility during trial and it is imperative for for IO to collect best form of evidence during investigation as per their own discretion."

Supreme Court: Insolvency Process Maintainable against Corporate Guarantor even if Principal Borrower is not a 'Corporate Person' 

In this case, the Supreme Court has held that the principal borrower need not be a "corporate person" for insolvency process to be initiated against a company which stood as its guarantor. It was observed that upon default committed by the principal borrower, the liability of the company (corporate person), being the guarantor, instantly triggers the right o of the financial creditor to proceed against the corporate person (being a corporate debtor), the bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar, BR Gavai and Krishna Murari observed.

Furthermore, the NCLT held that the Corporate Debtor, being co-extensively liable to repay the debt of the Principal Borrower and having failed to do so despite the recall notice, became Corporate Debtor and thus liable to be proceeded with under Section 7 of the Code.

Supreme Court: Allows Tata Sons Appeal Against NCLAT Order to Reinstate Cyrus Mistry as Chairman

Acknowledging the fact, the Top Court held that the actions of Tata Sons board against Mistry did not amount to oppression of minority shareholders or mismanagement. The Supreme Court bench also said that it was open for Tata’s and Mistry to work out their own separation terms.

During the course of court proceedings, Tata Sons group was represented by Harish Salve whereas Shyam Divan along with Senior Advocate CA Sundaram represented Cyrus Mistry.

International news

U.S. appeals court: Ohio professor who rejected transgender pronouns can sue university

On Friday, a Federal Appeals Court revived a philosophy professor’s lawsuit against a Public University in southern Ohio that reprimanded him for refusing to address a transgender student by her preferred pronouns. The Court of Appeals stated that Nicholas

Meriwether can try to prove Shawnee State University violated his First Amendment Free Speech and Religious rights by mandating pronouns that he said did not reflect “biological reality” and contradicted his devout Christian beliefs.

Consequently, John Bursch, a lawyer at the conservative non-profit Alliance Defending Freedom who represented Meriwether, praised the decision. “Nobody should be forced to contradict their core beliefs just to keep their job,” he said.