Video violation

A cinema hall owner sought cancellation of a video parlour owner’s trade licence. His contention was that the parlour was situated within 350 metres of the hall, which was in violation of the provisions of the UP Cinema (Regulation of Exhibition by means of Video) Rules. The high court ruled that the petitioner had no locus standi to seek such cancellation against a trade rival. The Supreme Court, however, held that the licence was granted in violation of the rules and the petitioner was justified in seeking cancellation of the same. The matter was remanded for re-hearing on merits (Sai Chalchitra vs Commissioner, Meerut Mandal & Ors).

Payback time

The husband filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights alleging that his wife refused to share a physical relationship with him during the two months that they had lived together. The wife asked for interim alimony during pendency of the petition. The district judge directed that the alimony petition be heard along with the main case. The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the district judge’s order defeated the very purpose of an interim alimony, which is aimed at granting relief during pendency of the main case. It directed disposal of the alimony petition (Giddi Gowthami & Jyoti vs Giddi Samuel).

Seven-year wait

The commissioner for workmen’s compensation refused to entertain a claim as it was presented much later than the stipulated period of two years from the death of a lorry driver. The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that as the driver was missing, the claimants had no option but to wait for seven years ? the stipulated period under the Evidence Act after which a person can be presumed dead. The commissioner was directed to entertain the claim as it had been presented soon after the expiry of seven years (Addala Prabhavati & Ors vs M.N.V.S. Murali Krishna & Anr).

SOLON