![]() ![]() The bench also imposed a cost of ₹50,000 on the Respondents for giving arbitrary and unmerited reasons for not renewing the term of the Appellant. Motherhood Can't Be Equated With Loss Of Employment Maternity Leave Not A Reason To Deny Tenure Extension To Contract Staff: Delhi HCĪ Division Bench of Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Asha Menon quashed the termination letter of an ad-hoc Professor whose contract was not renewed by the College as she had taken a maternity leave, which was not approved by the said College. The court noted that the grant of injunction claimed by the Plaintiff on the premise of the actions of the Defendant comprising a tortious act of interference with contractual relations of the Plaintiff, would be in violation of the fundamental right of the Defendant, its promoters and directors to carry on trade and business, without any law having been enacted by the State in this respect in the interest of general public, within the meaning of Article 19 (5) of the Constitution of India.Ĥ. The order was passed in a case where INOX Ltd had asked the court to injunct PVR Cinemas from dealing with third parties with whom INOX was in a process of developing contractual relations. Single Bench of Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw held that providing injunction for alleged interference with contractual relations of two parties, in absence of any law, would violate the fundamental right of carrying out trade under Article 19(5) of the Constitution. Granting Injunction For Interference With Contractual Relations of Two Parties In Absence of Law Would Violate Art 19(5) of Constitution: Delhi HC The Court emphasized on the "rights of the dead" and sought response from the Government as to the staeps being taken by it to ensure proper disposal.ģ. Horrific Handling of Bodies of Those Who Died Of COVID19: Delhi HC Takes Suo Moto Cognizance of a Newspaper ReportĪ Division Bench of Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw and Justice Asha Menon took cognizance of the horrific handling of bodies of those who have died of COVID19. ![]() In a landmark judgment, the single judge bench of Justice Jayant Nath while hearing a DU student's plea, held that " to have a name and express the same" is protected under Articles 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution and allowed the student petitioner before it to change his name, stating that " normally a person would have a right to have his name changed subject to fulfilment of appropriate formalities/procedures to ensure that there is no misuse or confusion created on account of the change in name."Ģ. Delhi High Court Holds "To Have A Name And Express The Same" Is Protected Under Articles 19 & 21, Allows DU Student's Plea ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |