Month: July 2022

SATHYABAMA University is organizing 4 NATIONAL DEBATE COMPETITION.

ABOUT

Sathyabama is a prestigious institution which excels in the fields of Engineering, Science and Technology for more than three successful decades. It offers multidisciplinary academic programmes in various fields of Engineering, Science, Technology, law, Dental Science, Pharmacy, Nursing, Management, Arts and Science and Allied Health Sciences. It is established under Sec.3 of UGC Act, 1956 and is been Accredited with ‘A’ Grade by the National Accreditation and Assessment council. The Institution persistently seeks and adopts innovative methods to improve the quality of higher education and is responsive to the changes taking place in the field of education on a global scale.

OBJECTIVES OF DEBATE

1. To promote the art of debate and eloquence among students.
2. To provide a significant training ground for the development of students with regard to their communicative abilities.
3. To create learning situations in which students develop proficiencies based on sound educational and communicational theories.
4. To understand and communicate various forms of arguments effectively in a variety of context.

RULES AND REGULATIONS

1. Participants are required to submit their Covid Vaccination Certificate (two doses) on their arrival to the venue of competition.
2. Participants are strictly advised to wear mask and maintain social distancing among the fellow participants and the organizers.
3. Participants are requested to bring their college ID (Identity) Cards with them.
4. Last minute registration for participating in the 4th National Debate Competition will also be encouraged.
5. Once the registration is completed registration fee will not be refunded.
6. There is no restriction on number of participants from the same institution.
7. The awards, certificates of merit and certificates of participation shall be given during the valedictory ceremony. No certificate will be given to the team before or after the valedictory function.
8. All decisions by the organizers will be final and the organizers may make such as rules and regulation at any point as they deem fit.

Date And Venue

The 4th National Debate Competition shall be held on 08th of July at SATHYABAMA INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, CHENNAI.

TOPICS

PRELIMINARY ROUND: “Is India consistently fails the test of being a democracy”.

SEMI-FINAL: Whether New National Education Policy will bring revolutionary changes in the Education System?

FINALS: Is Agneepath Scheme a masked socio-political issue?

REGISTRATION DETAILS:

The registration fee for the 4th National Debate Competition is Rs. 200.

https://forms.gle/N6pUgB95FS8W5tjA7

Disclaimer: All information posted by us on Lexpeeps is true to our knowledge. But still, it is suggested that you check and confirm things on your level.

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/G4bxdgRGHY8GRzOPSHrVwL

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

https://www.linkedin.com/company/lexpeeps-in-lexpeeps-pvt-ltd

IILM Law School Gurugram is proud to announce that it is organizing One Week Multi-Disciplinary Faculty Development Program (FDP) on The Multi-Dimensions of Justice: Law & Beyond from 18th July -23rd July 2022 (Online).

ABOUT

IILM Law School is organizing an online One week Faculty Development Programme (FDP) which aims to provide the participants a platform where they can acquire knowledge about contemporary and interdisciplinarydevelopments that are taking place in various specialized fields of Law. The FDP focuses to strengthen our understanding on how law connects with different disciplines. The FDP will be an interactive and inclusiveprogramme and will shed light on existing and upcoming cross-curriculum areas. This Faculty Development Programme is being organized with a two-fold objective: to align law with other fields so as to enhance the areaand scope of knowledge and widen the areas of interdisciplinary research.

SUB-THEMES

1. Law and Psychology
2. Feminist Jurisprudence
3. Law and Economics
4. Law and Digital Technologies:
5. Piracy and Cyber Spaces
6. Law, Environment and Development
7. Aligning Corporate Laws with Sustainable Development Goals
8. Media and Human Rights
9. Hate Speech & The Constitutional Paradigm.
10. Women and Criminal Law
11. Rule of Law and Good governance
12. Impact of National Education Policy on Legal Education
13. Law and Literature
14. Sports Law

ELIGIBILITY

The FDP has been specifically designed for earlycareer professionals, academicians, research scholars, doctoral candidates and practitioners who may be teaching or conducting research in multi-disciplinary areas of Law.

REGISTRATION FEE

INR 500/-

LINK

https://forms.gle/xmRdADDYwxkCGLS49

Disclaimer: All information posted by us on Lexpeeps is true to our knowledge. But still, it is suggested that you check and confirm things on your level.

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/G4bxdgRGHY8GRzOPSHrVwL

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

https://www.linkedin.com/company/lexpeeps-in-lexpeeps-pvt-ltd

-Report by Ishika Sehgal

A trial court found Kiran Kumar guilty in May 2022 after finding that he had subjected Vismaya to harassment and abuse connected to the dowry during the duration of their marriage. On Wednesday, the Kerala High Court issued a notice to the State government, the respondents in the appeal filed by Kiran Kumar challenging his conviction.

Last year, a 22-year-old Ayurveda medical student named Vismaya was found dead in her marital house under unexplained circumstances, apparently by suicide, after she had complained of dowry harassment. Her death shocked the entire state. Her spouse was therefore detained a day after the incident was made public because the death occurred less than a year after their wedding. Only a few days before she passed away, Vismaya shared images of bruises and wounds to her family members via WhatsApp, claiming that her husband was harassing her for dowry. After she was discovered dead, her family published screenshots of the WhatsApp conversation and voice messages she had sent. She had allegedly been physically abused by Kumar and his family since they weren’t happy with the “gifts” that had been presented to them for their wedding. Although the initial reports suggested suicide, it was eventually looked into as a possible homicide.

A trial court found Kiran Kumar guilty on all charges in May 2022, stating in its 441-page decision that he had harassed and abused Vismaya throughout the duration of their marriage in relation to the dowry. Sujith KN, an Additional District and Sessions Judge in Kollam, applied the following charges 304B, 306, and 498A of the Indian Penal Code,1860. And sections 2 and 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,1961.

It was submitted that there is no proof that the appellant in any way demanded or accepted dowry. He claims that he received the car as a gift, not as a dowry. The conversations used by the prosecution to show that he claimed dowry are just “references to his ideas” of the presents. The appellant consequently claimed that the prosecution had not presented any proof of the illegal demand. He claimed that disputes of a different kind, regardless of how hasty or accidental they may be, are not covered by Section 498A. In order to establish a presumption under Section 113 of the Indian Evidence Act, the prosecution was required to demonstrate that the deceased had been exposed to cruelty or harassment for dowry not long before the incident which they have failed to do.  Inadmissible utterances were accepted as dying declarations, he continued, and the contents of recorded phone calls and chats were incorrectly considered acceptable and proof of facts. The appellant has claimed that, in addition to a biased inquiry, he was also the target of brutal vilification and a media trial that the investigation agency used against him in various ways. Additionally, it has been claimed that the punishment he received was harsh and that he was never given the benefit of the doubt or even the presumption of innocence.

Justice Kauser Edappagath admitted the appeal and issued notice via the public prosecutor. The subject will be discussed a month from now.

About the Firm

The company was initially a tax practise when it was established in 1985 by Mr. V. Lakshmikumaran and Mr. V. Sridharan, but it has since gradually diversified into other fields. The company now provides litigation, counselling, and advising services in Tax International Trade as a full service legal firm. With the assistance of its 700+ professionals, it supports corporate, commercial dispute resolution, intellectual property rights, and food safety law.

About the Responsibilities  

In order to fill a position on the Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan Supreme Court litigation team, the company is searching for an associate with POE 1-2 years in tax.

Location

The position is full-time based in Delhi

How to Apply?

Interested candidates may apply from here: – mounica.kasturi@lakshmisri.com

Disclaimer: All information posted by us on Lexpeeps is true to our knowledge. But still, it is suggested that you check and confirm things on your level.

For regular updates, we can catchup at-

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/G4bxdgRGHY8GRzOPSHrVwL

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

https://www.linkedin.com/company/lexpeeps-in-lexpeeps-pvt-ltd

About the Organization

The Ramesh Tripathi & Associates Practice is a full-service law firm with a heavy emphasis on advising clients (individuals or corporations) about their legal rights and obligations and to stand up for clients in court disputes, commercial deals, and other problems. Our wealth of expertise and practical knowledge enable us to offer our clients a full range of legal services. Ramesh Tripathi & Associates Firm was established with the utmost integrity, a people-first philosophy, and a commitment to giving back to society wherever practical. In order to continue offering dependable and extremely effective services, we continue to adhere to the “customer first” approach.

About the Responsibilities  

The Ramesh Tripathi & Associates law firm is seeking smart, sincere, and motivated final-year interns who are interested in learning more about a variety of legal topics and getting lots of experience. Internship opening for final-year students to work for our firm in Vashi, Navi Mumbai.

As an intern you are required to:-

• The main work needs would be research abilities, fundamental drafting, and in-person court appearances. Various criminal, consumer, labour, corporate, real estate, insolvency, and intellectual property laws would be covered in the work.

Eligibility

• Final Year law students would be preferred.

How to Apply?

Interested candidates may apply from here: – hrfairjustice@gmail.com

Disclaimer: All information posted by us on Lexpeeps is true to our knowledge. But still, it is suggested that you check and confirm things on your level.

For regular updates, we can catchup at-

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/G4bxdgRGHY8GRzOPSHrVwL

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

https://www.linkedin.com/company/lexpeeps-in-lexpeeps-pvt-ltd

About the Organization

Eminent lawyers from many professions founded Economic Laws Practice (ELP), a top-tier, full-service Indian legal practise, in 2001. ELP has a unique team of professionals, including lawyers, chartered accountants, cost accountants, economists, and company secretaries, which enables them to provide clients with services that seamlessly combine their various fields of competence. When compared to other law firms in India, ELP has the distinct benefit of providing substantial skill sets throughout the whole range of transactional, advising, litigation, regulatory, and tax matters. Their areas of expertise include  Banking & Finance; Competition Law & Policy; Corporate & Commercial; Data Protection; Defence & Aerospace; Hospitality; International Trade & Customs Policy; Litigation, Arbitration & Dispute Resolution; Policy & Regulation; Private Equity & Venture Capital; Projects, Infrastructure & Energy; Real Estate; Securities Law and Capital Markets; Tax; Technology, Media & Telecommunications; and Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code; Corporate Governance amongst others.

About the Responsibilities  

For our Delhi-based Competition Law & Policy team, we are currently looking for a lawyer with 1 to 4 years of professional experience.

As an associate you are required to:-

• Experience handling the full spectrum of competition law issues (cartels, abuse of dominance, mergers, and other competition law advisory)
• Strong communication and drafting skills in relation to matters concerning competition law
• Strong research skills
• Must be an enthusiast for competition law
• Must be able to work well with a close-knit team
• Must be self-driven and should take on responsibility for publications and other team / firm initiatives
• Association with projects like competition law journals, blogs, podcasts, etc. will be given the appropriate weight.

Location

Delhi

Eligibility

• LLB/LLM
• 1 to 4 years of work experience

How to Apply?

Interested candidates may apply from here: – careers@elp-in.com

Disclaimer: All information posted by us on Lexpeeps is true to our knowledge. But still, it is suggested that you check and confirm things on your level.

For regular updates, we can catchup at-

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/G4bxdgRGHY8GRzOPSHrVwL

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

https://www.linkedin.com/company/lexpeeps-in-lexpeeps-pvt-ltd

Coordinating a fair trial for those who are inculpated of criminal offences, is the backbone of democracy. A ‘fair trial’ is one of the most important humanitarian aspects of criminal justice and, in a way, an important component reflected in the rule of law. Acknowledgement of the fairest possibility to the accused in order to prove their integrity is the key component of every fair trial. Escorting a fair trial is fruitful both to the accused as well as to the civilisation. A conviction arising from an unfair trial is conflicting with our theory of justice.

INTRODUCTION

A fair trial clearly would mean a trial before an unbiased judge, an honest prosecutor and an environment of judicial tranquillity. A fair trial means a trial in which there’s no discrimination, it is not influenced or twisted for, or against the inculpated and the witnesses or the source which is being tried. If the witnesses get terrorized or are imposed to give forged evidence that also would not score in a fair trial. The failure to gather necessary witnesses is certainly denying a fair trial. The right to a fair trial in a criminal prosecution is enshrined in Article 21. Additionally, Section 142 of the Evidence Act does not give power to the prosecution to put leading questions on the material part of the evidence that a witness intends to give against the accused. To do so infringes the right of the accused to have a fair trial which is enshrined in Article 21, this is not curable in irregularity. The right to have a fair trial, rigorously in terms of the Juvenile Justice Act which would involve procedural protection, is a fundamental right of the juvenile too.

CONCEPT OF A FAIR TRIAL

The right to a fair trial is not just a right furnished in our country but it is also promised by numerous other statutes worldwide. Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights concerns the Right to a fair trial. The Article states that everyone is authorized to have a fair and general hearing within a rational time. The trial must be directed by the liberated and unprejudiced court of law. The African Charter of Human Rights shields the nobility of humans and prevents unfair treatment under Article 5. Article 6 of the same charter also assures separate liberty and safety to a person. The right to a fair trial is promised under Article 7 which embraces several rights like the Right to appeal to adequate jurisdiction, to defence, to be tried and to be assumed decent until proven guilty. Article 14 of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) furnishes the right to a fair trial and Article 16 gives a right to acknowledgement before the law. Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), promises the right to a fair trial. The precautions related to a fair trial in the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) are further intended and elaborated than the provisions in UDHR.

Principles of Fair Trial –

1. Presumption of integrity.
2. Unbiased, unprejudiced, equitable and competent judge.
3. Speedy and efficient trial.
4. The trial should be in an open court.
5. Proficiency of allegation on adequate occasions.
6. The trial is to be conducted in the presence of inculpated.
7. Evidence to be taken in presence of inculpated.
8. Cross-examination of prosecution witnesses.
9. Prohibition of vulnerability.
10. Legal help to be provided.

In Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar¹, the Supreme Court has laid great emphasis on speedy trial of criminal offences, and has emphasised: “It is implicit in the broad sweep and content of article 21.” A fair trial suggests a speedy trial. No strategy can be ‘judicious, fair or just’ unless that procedure establishes a speedy trial for the determination of the sin of such a person.

In Pratap Singh v. the State of Jharkhand², the Supreme Court held that the right to have a fair trial strictly in terms of the Juvenile Justice Act which would include procedural safeguards is a fundamental right of the juvenile.

The advent of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India³ strengthened the concept more. This is a landmark case of the post-emergency. It exhibits liberal propensities that have affected the Supreme Court in the matter of elucidating fundamental rights, particularly, Article 21. A great evolution has come about in the judicial perspective towards the guardianship of personal liberty after the agonizing experiences of the emergency from 1975 to 1977 when personal liberty had outstretched its nadir, as understandable by the Supreme Court. It performed as a catalytic agent for the evolution of the judicial opinion on Article 21 and has been enduring varied pay-off expansion of Constitutional Law in India.

Article 21 guarantees every person a right to life and personal liberty and uses four decisive expressions, viz., ‘life’, ‘personal liberty, ‘procedure’ and ‘law’.

1. Life: Bhagwati J., has perceived in Francis Coralie v. Delhi⁴, that the right to life comprises the right to live with human dignity and all that goes down with it, namely, the sustained demands of life such as sufficient nutrition, clothing and shelter above their head, reading, writing and expressing oneself in different forms, mobility and mixing and commingling with the contemporary environment.
2. Personal Liberty: M. C. Mehta v. Union of India^5, the Supreme Court commented that the term personal liberty is not cast-off in a myopic sense but has been used in Article 21 as a concise term to incorporate within it all those diversity of rights of a person which go to make up the personal liberty of a man. The liberty of a person has to be stabilized with his responsibilities and obligations towards his comrade citizens.
3. Law: Article 21 also takes in several species of law other than the laws enacted by the legislature. S. M. Sharma v. Shri Krishna Sinha⁶ said that the rules made by a House of the state legislature under Article 208 have been regulated as laying down procedures established by law for purposes of Article 21. Article 21 applies to the area of legislative privileges and, thus, a person cannot be imprisoned for breach of privilege of a legislature accepted following the procedure established by law. Proceedings held before the committee of privileges of a House of the legislature under the rules framed by it in pursuance of article 208 or article 118 are by procedures established by law.
4. Procedure: It is now established after Maneka Gandhi that procedure for reasons of Article 21 has to be reasonable, fair and just. The expression procedure acclaimed by law expands both to substantive as well as procedural law. A course of action not fulfilling the features is no course of action at all in the eyes of Article 21. In Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation⁷, the Supreme Court has again highlighted that the procedure directed by law for the seizure of the right vested by Article 21 must be fair, prejudiced and reasonable. The procedure directed by law for seizing a person of his right to life must abide by the norms of justice and fair play. The procedure which is unjust and biased in situations of a case, allures the voice of unreasonableness, thereby deteriorating the law which highlights that procedure and consequently, the measures taken under it.
5. The onus of proof: The presumption of innocence is a human right. Article 21 given its costly meaning not only protects life and liberty but also envisages a fair process. Similarly, under Article 21, the burden is never on the petitioner to prove that the procedure prescribed by law which deprives him of his life or personal liberty, is unjust, unreasonable or unfair. Bachan Singh is an authority to propose that in cases arising under Article 21 of the Constitution, if it appears that any person is being deprived of his life or his liberty, then the burden of proof establishes the State Constitutional validity of the applicable law.

CONCLUSION

Article 21 visualizes a fair trial, a fair procedure and a fair investigation. Such a right not only entitles the appellant to be informed of their fundamental right and statutory rights, but it is also mandatory on the part of the Special Public Prosecutor to record the necessary material before the judge to show the appeal. Fair investigation and fair trial are closely connected to the preservation of the fundamental rights of the accused under Article 21 of the constitution. Reasonableness would be determined by the facts and conditions of a case and the appraisal by the courts.

---

CITATIONS

¹ AIR 1979 SC 1360 : (1980) 1 SCC 81.

² AIR (2005) 3 SCC 551 : AIR 2005 SC 2731.

³ AIR 1975 SC 775 : (1975) 3 SCC 836.

⁴ AIR 1981 SC 746, 753 : (198) 1 SCC 608.

⁵ (2003) 5 SCC 376 : AIR 2003 SC 3496.

⁶ AIR 1959 SC 395, 410-11.

⁷ AIR 198 SC 180, AT 196-197 : (1985) 3 SCC 545.

This article is written by Ashmita Dhumas, who has completed her BA LLB from Agra College and is currently doing a diploma in Corporate Law from Enhelion.

-Report by Rhea Mistry

In a landmark case in the USA, Roe v. Wade, in 1969 Roe was an unmarried pregnant woman who wished to have an abortion that would be performed by a licensed physician with due diligence in Texas. But, as per the Texas statutes, it was not permitted for a woman to perform an abortion legally unless and until it was necessary for their health and approved by a competent physician. As the physician had said that there was no harm to her life with her pregnancy, so Roe could not legally abort her pregnancy. She couldn’t afford to go to another jurisdiction for a legal abortion. Roe argued that this statute of Texas infringed her Right to Privacy, which is protected by the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 14th amendments.

A competent physician, James Hubert Hallford, put forward that there are two cases where they were not able to recognize whether the pregnancy came under Article 1196 of its constitution that stated the exceptions to which a woman is allowed to legal abortion. The doctor was arrested for violating the Texas abortion law. He asked for injunctive and declaratory relief. He said that the statutes of Texas law were vague and uncertain which violated his rights as a medical practitioner and even his patient’s right to privacy in the 14th amendment.

At the same time, John and Marry Doe filed a complaint relying on Roe in the case Doe v. Bolton and stated that due to her medical condition, she was told to avoid pregnancy for some period, but if she does get pregnant then she will have to have to do an abortion even though the pregnancy was not life-threatening.

The court held the arguments made by Doe did not hold any merit and lacked jurisdiction. As for Jane Roe and Dr. Hallford, the court held that the statutes of Texas for criminal abortion laws were vague. The fundamental right of women, to decide whether to have children or not is the right that is protected by the 9th and 14th Amendments. The court stated that the Texas Law was infringing the rights of the 9th amendment.

The judges ruled that it is a constitutional right of the woman to opt for abortion and choose whether to proceed with the pregnancy even when the mother’s life is not threatened. The court had allowed abortion, however, imposed certain conditions.

Gestational Age Act

In the year 2018, Gestational Age Act was passed by Mississippi Legislature. The Gestational Age Act banned abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy making a few exceptions for example where it is threatening to the life of the mother or any severe fetal abnormality, or in the cases of rape or incest.

Just a day after this act was passed, Jackson Woman’s Health Organization – an only abortion clinic, sued the state healthcare officer, Thomas E Dobbs with a few other healthcare officials of the state challenging this act. The abortion clinic performed abortions up to 16 weeks of pregnancy and claimed that the viability of the fetus begins between 23-24 weeks of the pregnancy. So, the state has no legitimate interest before the viability of the fetus and argued against outlawing abortion. Dobbs argued to check if fetal pain would be possible after the first 15 weeks of pregnancy. The District Court determined that the evidence submitted by Dobbs was inadmissible and irrelevant.

The state appealed to the Fifth Circuit which confirmed the judgment of Jackson Woman’s Health Organization v. Dobbs, stating that if the abortion is before the fetus’s viability, there is no undue burden on a pregnant woman’s rights. The Fifth Circuit by per curiam in February 2020 sustained that there is a lack of fetus viability in the early stages and stuck to their judicial precedent in the case of Dobbs.

The Mississippi State filed an appeal petition to the Supreme Court in June 2020, stating that the fetus can detect pain from 10-12 weeks of pregnancy and requested the court to encore the viability of the fetus. The respondents asserted that the Mississippi Law was unconstitutional. The court stated that there is no concern raised allowing them to intervene in this case.

On December 1st, 2021, it was argued that the constitution does not guarantee any protection for the right to abortion. The petitioner asked to overturn the decision of Roe and Casey considering that the techniques have changed. They claimed that the viability of the fetus was not standard. The respondents argued against overruling the decision of Roe and Casey.

A US general solicitor stated that the court has never revoked a right that is so basic to so many Americans. Six consecutive members appeared to continue with the old Law of Roe and Casey while the other justices were ready to overturn Roe and Casey.

Decision

After this, a draft of the majority opinion was leaked on 2nd May 2022. The draft showed the majority opinion considered that the rules of Roe and Casey were not correct from the beginning and the constitution does not guarantee any protection for abortion rights. It allowed the states to frame their own rules regarding abortion laws.

The court on 24th June 2022, reversed the decision of the Fifth Circuit. Both Roe and Casey were overturned by the majority opinion.

The states independently decided on the law of abortion at that point, and some states are still doing so. A few states outlawed abortion through trigger laws, while a few others outlawed it outright. They assert that abortion is no longer a constitutional right and that the constitution makes no provision for the protection of the right to an abortion.

Dobbs v. JWHO is the new landmark case in the USA for banning abortion.

The bench of Justices Alok Aradhe and J M Khazi observed in LEENA MONTEIRO VERSUS ALWYN D’CRUZ, that despite the wife’s investment of over Rs. 60 lakhs in her husband’s failing business projects, she was mistreated by him, causing her mental and emotional anguish. In its decision, the court stated:

“…it is clear that the husband treated her as a cash cow and had a materialistic attitude toward her. He had no emotional attachment to her. His behavior has caused her mental anguish and emotional trauma, which is sufficient to establish a case of mental cruelty.”

The woman who was wronged filed an appeal against a June 2020 Family Court order that denied her divorce on the grounds of cruelty. She claimed that her husband was unable to support her and her child because his family was in debt. She decided to work and found a job in the United Arab Emirates in 2008. (UAE). She allegedly spent a significant amount of money bringing her husband to the gulf country on an investor’s visa in 2012, establishing a salon for him there. She testified about the same in court. He returned to India a year later. She also stated that she had paid off all of the family debts. And she soon realized that she was being used for her money and that she was being manipulated and as a result, she decided to get a divorce. In 2018, the Family Court issued an ex-parte order dismissing her divorce petition.

The High Court cited the decisions of Dastane v. Dastane and Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, stating that each marital conflict and cruelty claim must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. The husband was found to be cruel, and the appeal was granted. The bench also stated that the Family Court made a grave error by failing to value the wife’s version, especially since her testimony was not even subjected to cross-examination. “Therefore, there is no convincing reason not to accept the wife’s uncontroverted testimony,” the decision stated. Thus, the ground for dissolution of marriage based on cruelty is established under Section 10(X) of the Indian Divorce Act of 1869.”

-Report by Apurva Jain

Google is reportedly planning to pay $90 million this week to settle a long-running legal dispute with app creators. According to the court complaint, the issue is mainly concerned with Google’s revenue from the development of applications for Android cellphones and luring users to make in-app payments.

The app developers accused the Alphabet Inc. platform of using particular agreements with smartphone manufacturers; agreements related to revenue sharing, as well as technical impediments, in the case filed before a federal court in San Francisco. In actuality, this served to close the app ecosystem by diverting the majority of payments to the Google Play system with a default service fee of 30%.

The search engine giant announced in a blog post that it will retain $90 million in a specific fund as part of the suggested settlement. This was primarily done to benefit app developers who made $2 million or less in annual sales from 2016 through 2021. It explained how the vast majority of national developers who received income from Google Play will be able to withdraw money from this fund at their discretion.

Google also explained how it would begin charging developers a commission of 15% on their initial million. This would be from the money they make from the Google Play Store each year. Interestingly, Google implemented this rule last year. The San Francisco court is anticipated to accept the company’s settlement proposal.

There were probably over 48,000 app developers who met the requirements to qualify for this $90 million grant. Hagen Bermon Sobol Shapiro LLP, who is representing the claimants, says that at least $250 should be the minimum payout.

Following a class-action lawsuit, Apple agreed to ease limits on its App Store for small developers.