Physical hearings to resume in the courts of Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh from 11.01.2021

Physical hearings to resume in the courts of Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh from 11.01.2021

Punjab and Haryana High Court issues notice to District and Sessions courts in Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh to resume physical hearings w.e.f 11.01.2021

Ordinary filing to start in District Courts of Punjab Haryana and Chandigarh.

Punjab and Haryana High Court has ordered that non-urgent filing shall start in the subordinate Courts of Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh.

E-FILING AND DIGITAL APPEARANCE PROCEDURE for all the Courts in India including COVID-19 COURT ORDERS.

COVID-19 COURT ORDERS, E-FILING AND DIGITAL APPEARANCE PROCEDURE

E-Filing Procedure for Supreme Court of India.

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal

National Company Law Tribunal

National Green Tribunal Principal and Zonal Benches.

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Delhi High Court

Punjab and Haryana High Court

Karnataka High Court

Rajasthan High Court

Gujrat High Court

The Bombay High Court

Allahabad High Court

Calcutta High Court

Andhra Pradesh High Court

Telangana High Court

Madras High Court

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Guwahati High Court

Jammu and Kashmir High Court

Patna High Court

Orrisa High Court

Kerala High Court

Uttarakhand High Court

Jharkhand High Court

Chhattisgarh High Court

Tripura High Court

Manipur High Court

Meghalaya High Court

Sikkim High Court

Consolidated guide for COVID-19 orders by all the Courts in India. Procedure for e-filing of cases and Video-conferencing guidelines issued by various Courts.

 

Coronavirus crisis: Govt brings in ordinance; up to 7-year jail for attacking health workers, fine upto Rs 5 Lakhs. (DOWNLOAD HERE)

Ordinance to amend the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 in the light of the pandemic situation of COVID-19 (DOWNLOAD BELOW)

During the current COVID-19 pandemic, there have been instances of the most critical service providers i.e. members of healthcare services being targeted and attacked by miscreants, thereby obstructing them from doing their duties. Members of the Medical community, even as they continue to perform relentlessly round the clock and save human lives, have unfortunately become the most vulnerable victims as they have been perceived by some as carriers of the virus.This has led to cases of their stigmatization and ostracization and sometimes worse, acts of unwarranted violence and harassment.  Such a situation tends to hamper the medical community from performing their duties to their optimum best and maintaining their morale, which is a critical need in this hour of national health crisis. While healthcare service personnel are duty bound to serve without discrimination, the cooperation and support from society is a fundamental need for them to perform their duties with confidence. 

Several States have enacted special laws to offer protection to doctors and other medical personnel in the past. However, Covid-19 outbreak has posed a unique situation where harassment of the healthcare workforce and others working to contain the spread of the disease has been taking place at all fronts, in various places including even cremation grounds. The existing state laws do not have such a wide sweep and ambit. They generally do not cover harassment at home and workplace and are focused more on physical violence only. The penal provisions contained in these laws are not stringent enough to deter mischief mongering.

In this context, the Union Cabinet in its meeting held on 22nd April 2020 has approved promulgation of an Ordinance to amend the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 to protect healthcare service personnel and property including their living/working premises against violence during epidemics. The President has given his assent for promulgation of the Ordinance. The Ordinance provides for making such acts of violence cognizable and non-bailable offences and for compensation for injury to healthcare service personnel or for causing damage or loss to the property in which healthcare service personnel may have a direct interest in relation to the epidemic.

The current Ordinance is intended to ensure that during any situation akin to the current pandemic, there is zero tolerance to any form of violence against healthcare service personnel and damage to property. The general public fully cooperates with healthcare personnel and have expressed their gratitude in a very organized manner several times during the past month. Nevertheless, some incidents of violence have taken place which has demoralized the medical fraternity. It is felt that separate and most stringent provisions for emergent times are needed toact as effective deterrents to any such incidents of violence.

 

Violence as defined in the Ordinance will include harassment and physical injury and damage to property. Healthcare service personnel include public and clinical healthcare service providers such as doctors, nurses, paramedical workers and community health workers; any other persons empowered under the Act to take measures to prevent the outbreak of the disease or spread thereof; and any persons declared as such by the State Government, by notification in the Official Gazette. 

The penal provisions can be invoked in instances of damage to property including a clinical establishment, any facility identified for quarantine and isolation of patients, mobile medical units and any other property in which the healthcare service personnel have direct interest in relation to the epidemic.

The amendment makes acts of violence cognizable and non-bailable offences. Commission or abetment of such acts of violence shall be punished with imprisonment for a term of three months to five years, and with fine of Rs.50,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/-.  In case of causing grievous hurt, imprisonment shall be for a term six months to seven years and with fine of Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.5,00,000/-.   In addition, the offender shall also be liable to pay compensation to the victim and twice the fair market value for damage of property.

Offences shall be investigated by an officer of the rank of Inspector within a period of 30 days, and trial has to be completed in one year, unless extended by the court for reasons to be recorded in writing.

Looking at the interventions required during the current Covid-19 outbreak, the Central Government has been given a concurrent role with the State Governments to take any measures that may be needed to prevent the outbreak of an epidemic or the spread thereof. In addition, the scope of inspection of vessels arriving or leaving the country has been enlarged to include road, rail, sea and air vessels.

The health workforce are our frontline soldiers in battling the spread of Covid-19. They put their own lives at risk in order to ensure safety of others. They deserve our highest respect and encouragement at this moment rather than being harassed or being subjected to violence. It is hoped that this Ordinance will have the impact of infusing confidence in the community of healthcare service personnel so that they can continue to contribute to serving mankind through their noble professions in the extremely difficult circumstances being witnessed during the current Covid-19 outbreak.

View complete Ordinance below :-

E-Resolution passed by HCBA dated 22.04.2020

The Executive Committee of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association  in its meeting held on 22.04.2020 under the Chairmanship of Dr. Dayal Partap Singh Randhawa, Worthy President has passed E-Resolution with the following suggestions for the functioning of Punjab and Haryana High Court :-

1. Firstly, cases of not only extreme urgency but of regular urgency be also taken up.

2. Mentioning be allowed to be made to the Hon’ble Judges, who may then see as to whether a particular matter is required to be taken up or not. 

3. A larger number of Benches be requested to hold Courts by Video Conferencing so that more number of cases can be taken up on a daily basis. 

4. Even old ordinary and regular cases, with the consent of all parties, be allowed to be taken up where some urgency can be shown by the Counsel and written 

synopsis also be permitted to be filed. 

5. For those who are electronically / technologically handicapped i.e. not very familiar with the system of Video conferencing etc. One or two regular courts can be held where only counsel in batches of 5 or 10 are allowed to attend the court and plead before such Hon’ble Bench as the Court may deep appropriate.

6. All the cases pertaining to Anticipatory bails, Regular bail, Habeas Corpus and 

protection matters be taken up through automatic route through online / video 

conferencing mode, without any need of mentioning the same. 

7. The e- filing process and online hearing process be made more user friendly so 

that lawyers who are not very much conversant with the computers /online / 

Technical procedures are able to easily file their cases and argue the same through video conferencing.

Read the E-Resolution below :-

SC: GUIDELINES FOR COURT FUNCTIONING THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING DURING COVID-19 PANDEMIC

The Supreme Court of India in a case taken up Suo motu  to ensure the continued dispensation of justice in the recent outbreak of Coronavirus COVID-19 has issued GUIDELINES FOR COURT FUNCTIONING THROUGH VIDEO

CONFERENCING DURING COVID-19 PANDEMIC.

The Supreme Court of India in exercise of the powers conferred by Article 142 of the Constitution of India has directed that:

1. All measures that have been and shall be taken by this Court and by the High Courts, to reduce the need for the physical presence of all stakeholders within court premises and to secure the functioning of courts in consonance with social distancing guidelines and best public health practices shall be deemed to be lawful;
2. The Supreme Court of India and all High Courts are authorized to adopt measures required to ensure the robust functioning of the judicial system through the use of video conferencing technologies; and
3. Consistent with the peculiarities of the judicial system in every state and the dynamically developing public health situation, every High Court is authorised to determine the modalities which are suitable to the temporary transition to the use of video conferencing technologies;
4. The concerned courts shall maintain a helpline to ensure that any complaint in regard to the quality or audibility of feed shall be communicated during the proceeding or immediately after its conclusion failing which no grievance in regard to it shall be entertained thereafter.
5. The District Courts in each State shall adopt the mode of Video Conferencing prescribed by the concerned High Court.
6. The Court shall duly notify and make available the facilities for video conferencing for such litigants who do not have the means or access to video conferencing facilities. If necessary, in appropriate cases courts may appoint an amicus-curiae and make video conferencing facilities available to such an advocate.
7. Until appropriate rules are framed by the High Courts, video conferencing shall be mainly employed for hearing arguments whether at the trial stage or at the appellate stage. In no case shall evidence be recorded without the mutual consent of both the parties by video conferencing. If it is necessary to record evidence in a Court room the presiding officer shall ensure that appropriate distance is maintained between any two individuals in the Court.
8. The presiding officer shall have the power to restrict entry of persons into the court room or the points from which the arguments are addressed by the advocates. No presiding officer shall prevent the entry of a party to the case unless such party is suffering from any infectious illness. However, where the number of litigants are many the presiding officer shall have the power to restrict the numbers. The presiding officer shall in his discretion adjourn the proceedings where it is not possible to restrict the number.

READ FULL ORDER BELOW:-

The Supreme Court modifies the order directing free testing for COVID-19 in government and private laboratories.

Supreme Court on Monday modified the April 8 order which directed that the testing for COVID-19 should be done free of cost both in government and private laboratories.

The Court said that free testing will be available to to persons eligible under Ayushman Bharat Pradhan Mantri Jan Aarogya Yojana as already implemented by the Government of India, and any other category of economically weaker sections of the society as notified by the Government for free testing for COVID-19.

The Court also passed the following directions :

The private Labs can continue to charge the payment for testing of COVID-19 from persons who are able to make payment of testing fee as fixed by ICMR.

The Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare may issue necessary guidelines for reimbursement of cost of free testing of COVID-19 undertaken by private Labs and necessary mechanism to defray expenses and reimbursement to the private Labs.

The Court left it to the Centre to decide ob whether any other categories of the weaker sections of the society should also be given the benefit of free testing.

A bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan and S Ravindra Bhat passed the modified order in an application filed by Dr. Kaushal Kant, who said that direction for free testing will affect the functioning of private labs.

The Court passed the modification based on the fact that free testing with regard to one category of people i.e. those covered under Ayushman Bharat Pradhan Mantri Jan Aarogya Yojana was already in place when the first order was passed on April 8. 

The Centre also supported the modification of the order. 

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that there are 157 government labs where people can get free testing, irrespective of economic status.

The Solicitor General pointed out to the "limited resources" of the state and highlighted that the fight against COVID-19 may go on for months.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for several laboratories, submitted that the ICMR has fixed Rs.4,500/- on a moderate side to cover the expenses of Labs for conducting the COVID-19 test. He submitted that under the Ayushman Bharat Yojana, about 10.7 crore poor and vulnerable families, which means approximately 50 crores beneficiaries, are covered and they can avail the benefit of free of cost COVID-19 test even in the private labs.

In the affidavit filed by ICMR dated 12.04.2020 it was stated that according to directive issued by the National Health Authority under the Ayushman Bharat Pradhan Mantri Jan Aarogya Yojana, the testing fee for COVID-19 will be free of cost in all private labs.

In the light of these submissions, the bench observed :

"We make it clear that the benefit of free testing by a person can be availed only when he or she is covered under any scheme like Ayushman Bharat Pradhan Mantri Jan Aarogya Yojana.

We are also of the view that looking to the plight of persons belonging to economically weaker sections of the society, the Government may consider as to whether any other categories of persons belonging to economically weaker sections of the society can be extended benefit of free testing of COVID-19. We are conscious that framing of the scheme and its implementation are in the Government domain, who are the best experts in such matters".

The order for free testing was passed on April 8 in a Public Interest Litigation filed by Shashank Deo Sudhi, who challenged the Government decision to fix the cost of the COVID-19 testing in private labs as Rs 4500.

On that occasion, the Court had observed that the entitlement of private laboratories to get reimbursement for the costs incurred by them could be considered later.

The bench had said that it found "prima facie substance" in the submission of petitioner that permitting private Labs to charge Rs.4500 for screening and confirmation test of COVID-19 at this time of national calamity may not be within means of a large part of population of this country

The bench also had observed that no person should be deprived to undergo the COVID-19 test due to non-payment of capped amount of Rs.4500.

 "The private Hospitals including Laboratories have an important role to play in containing the scale of pandemic by extending philanthropic services in the hour of national crisis. We thus are satisfied that the petitioner has made out a case for issuing a direction to the respondents to issue necessary direction to accredited private Labs to conduct free of cost COVID-19 test", stated the order passed on April 8.

Read Full order below:-

COVID-19 tests in all laboratories including Private ones to be FREE OF COST: Supreme Court

COVID-19 tests whether in Private Lab or Govt Lab to be free of cost:  Supreme Court

The number of patients suffering from COVID-19 is rapidly increasing Worldwide with death toll rising rapidly. In our country, in spite of various measures taken by the Government of India and different State Government/Union Territory the number of patients and death caused by it is increasing day by day. Our country has a very large population.

While hearing a Public Interest Litigation under Article 32 against the advisory dated 17.03.2020 issued by Indian Council of Medical Research Department of Health Research, as it fixed Rs.4500 for screening and confirming COVID-19. 

The Supreme Court of India Today issued interim directions to Government of India to immediately issue necessary directions that tests relating to COVID-19 in all approved laboratories including private laboratories shall be free of cost.

The court observed that :-

At this time of national calamity permitting private Labs to charge Rs.4500 for screening and confirmation test of COVID-19 may not be within means of a large part of population of this country and no person be deprived to undergo the COVID-19 test due to non- payment of capped amount of Rs.4500.

The question as to whether the private Laboratories carrying free of cost COVID-19 tests are entitled for any reimbursement of expenses incurred shall be considered later on. 

The court while passing the order also said that :-

The private Hospitals including Laboratories have an important role to play in containing the scale of pandemic by extending philanthropic services in the hour of national crisis.

Tests relating to COVID-19 must be carried out in NABL accredited Labs or any agencies approved by WHO or ICMR.

Link to the complete order of Supreme court below :-

Effect of Coronavirus (COVID 19) on judicial systems !

It is often said that in court cases in India, the process itself is a punishment. However, how torturous and long drawn this process can be, varies dramatically across the country. In India, the Supreme Court is the end arbiter to all the disputes and carries huge expectations when it comes to high stakes matters- from Ram Mandir to Triple Talaq, Political indifferences to defamation, mining to movies and from right to privacy to unnatural offences.

“Justice delayed is Justice Denied”, the oft quoted words of William Goldstone, used by every layman to describe our Indian Judiciary. 

Amidst of justice and delays, COVID-19 outbreak has placed additional strain on judicial system already in crisis. The World Health Orgainisation (WHO) declared COVID-19 as a “pandemic” on 11th March, 2020.

The Supreme Court of India (SC) vide Circular No. F. No. 212/MISC/PF/2020/SCA(G) dated 14.03.2020, had announced that from 16th March, 2020, the SC will be hearing only urgent matters. The SC has also directed that only the lawyers acting on the matter, i.e., either for arguments or making oral arguments or to assist, along with one litigant only, will be permitted in the court room. The SC has also reserved the right to require thermal-screening at all entrants, and to deny entry to persons found to have high body temperature. Not only this, the Supreme Court vide Suo Moto Writ Petition no. 1 of 2020, has also raised the issue of contagion of Covid-19 virus in prisons. 

The hearing of urgent matters is done through video conferencing by installing an app called “Vidyo” (notified by Supreme Court vide circulars dated 23.03.2020 & 26.03.2020).  

Moreover, Supreme Court vide Suo Moto Writ Petition no. 3 of 2020 extended the Limitation period for all the cases w.e.f. 15th March, 2020 till further orders of the Supreme Court. 

All efforts are been taken to administer justice in the country.

Similar restrictions have been announced by various courts, including the Bombay High Court, Delhi High Court, Karnataka High Court, NCLT, district courts and other tribunals. The restrictions include hearing of only urgent matters, requiring parties to show urgency on matters, which may thereafter be heard only upon the court’s satisfaction of the urgency, limiting the presence of litigants in matters to only those cases where it is mandatory/ unavoidable (such as in cases of anticipatory bail), closure of cafeterias, and potential thermal-screening of visitors to the courts.

While the courts are trying to cope up with the situation, the problem of pendency of cases is growing rapidly. 

The question that arises in everybody’s mind is, “Will people suffer for justice?”, “Will Justice be delayed again?”. 

Securing justice- Social, Economic and Political to all citizens is one of the key mandates of the Indian Constitution. This has been explicitly made so in the Article 39-A of the Constitution that directs the State to secure equal justice and free legal aid to the citizens. 

To overcome with the crisis of COVID-19 and to achieve the ends of justice, the Indian Judiciary should go away with both the vacations and reduce pendency of cases. Even in ancient times, one of the primary duties of rulers was to guarantee justice to their subjects and now the burden is shifted on the shoulders of INDIAN JUDICIARY.

The similar trend is being followed by the courts all over the world. The Supreme Court of UK is testing video conferencing technology and allows the Courts to operate key functions virtually. Once the testing is complete, the UK Supreme Court (UKSC) and Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JPCP) will continue to stream all hearings and judgments live on the official website.

The Supreme Court of USA out of concern for the health and safety of the public and Supreme Court employees, closed the building from 4:30 p.m. on March 12, 2020, until further notice. 

Moreover, Supreme Court vide Order No. 589 dated 19 March, 2020, extended the deadline to file any petition for a writ of certiorari due on or after the date of this order to 150 days from the date of the lower court judgment, order denying discretionary review, or order denying a timely petition for rehearing. It is further ordered that motions for extensions of time pursuant to Rule 30.4 of US Supreme Court will ordinarily be granted by the Clerk as a matter of course if the grounds for the application are difficulties relating to COVID-19 and if the length of the extension requested is reasonable under the circumstances. Such motions should indicate whether the opposing party has an objection or not.

The Supreme Court of Canada, vide news release dated 25 March 2020 closed the building due to COVID-19 till further orders and continued to work with various stakeholders in the justice system to address the issues arising out of this exceptional situation. The cases previously scheduled for hearing in March, April and May are adjourned, tentatively, to the month of June 2020. The Court will continue to issue judgments on applications for leave and on appeal for the time being. Until further notice, all media briefings on judgments on appeal will only be provided by teleconference. Physical access to the Supreme Court of Canada Building remains restricted to those persons who are necessary to the proceedings before the Court. Court documents must be filed by e-mail.

Even, Sheffield Crown Court reduces number of hearings in the wake of virus outbreak. The Lord Chief Justice suspended new jury trials at crown courts on 23rd March, 2020 as a safety precaution alongside measures including arrangements to use telephone, video and other technology at as many hearings as possible.

The Court of Justice of the European Union vide notification dated 19th March, 2020 directed that the judicial activity shall continue, but priority will be given to those cases that are particularly urgent (urgent proceedings, expedited proceedings and interim proceedings).Procedural time limits for instituting proceedings and lodging appeals continue to run and parties are required to comply with those time limits, without prejudice to the possible application of the second paragraph of Article 45 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union. By contrast, the time limits prescribed in on-going proceedings with the exception of the abovementioned proceedings that are particularly urgent are extended by one month with effect from today. Those time limits shall expire at the end of the day which, in the following month, is numbered the same as the day on which the time-limit should have expired or, if that day does not exist in the following month, at the end of the day of the last day of that month. Until further notice, the time limits that are to be fixed by the registry, with effect from today, shall also be increased by one month. Hearings that are listed between 19th March 2020 and 3rd April 2020 are adjourned until a later date.

The Supreme Court of New Mexico vide Order No. 20-8500-006 dated 23rd March, 2020 directed all the judges to use telephonic or audio-visual attendance for court appearances by attorneys, litigants, witnesses, and the press, unless there is an emergency need for an in-person appearance. Any criminal procedure rules requiring the presence of the defendant may continue to be accomplished through remote, audio-visual appearance, provided that confidential communication between the defendant and defense counsel is made available. Moreover, all gatherings of individuals in a single, connected location within a courthouse or other building are now further limited to not more than fifteen people, which includes judges, court personnel, jurors, attorneys, litigants, the general public, and the press to facilitate appropriate social distancing as recommended by public health authorities. Further, The Court issued an order on 26th March 2020 that temporarily postpones the carrying out of eviction orders against New Mexicans who provide a judge with evidence that they are unable to pay their rent on a mobile home lot. This action offers the same protections against the loss of housing during the public health emergency that the Court provided to tenants of apartments and certain other places of residence in an order issued 24th March 2020.

The growing COVID-19 crisis is a threat for the whole world and in the wake of it, Judiciaries all over the world are going Hi-Tech and are taking out a way to ensure justice in all possible ways. In particular, the untiring efforts put by fear and flavorless Indian Judiciary is doing commendable job of imparting justice, inspite of so many difficulties, which creates faith of public in the rule. But at the same time, to clear the extra burden on the system, it is important to go away with the vacations and achieve the goal of SPEEDY TRIAL.

Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) : 7 Latest Indian Courts Cases

Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) : 7 Latest Indian Courts Cases

 Mustafa Mh v. Union of India [Supreme Court]

About 500 Indian citizens from Ladakh, who had gone to Qom, Iran on a pilgrimage, are presently stranded there. About 250 persons who had also proceeded on a pilgrimage to Qom have been brought back to India. Several of the existing batch of 500 persons may have tested positive for Covid-19. 

Many of them have no funds available for their maintenance. Hence, urgent humanitarian assistance is required to be provided to these persons by the Government of India.

 Adityajit Singh Chadha v. Union of India [Punjab & Haryana High Court]

Maintaining social distance is a sine qua non to control the disease. The Administration may also solicit opinion of the specialists of infectious/communicable diseases, while taking a decision. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with an observation that the Administration may lay down the parameters of social distancing at the time of distribution of essential items and also to monitor and regulate the same by taking stringent actions against the violators.

 Suo Motu v. State [Gujarat High Court]

In case any arrest is made during this period and the accused is lodged in a particular jail without ascertaining whether such accused being taken into custody is clean or is a suspect or infected with the Corona Virus, lodging him into jail where already hundreds and thousands of under trial or convicts are lodged, it would be an imminent peril to all the inmates of the particular jail where any new entry suspected or infected of the Corona Virus is introduced. It may result into disastrous situation where large number of inmates inside the jail may be infected thus defeating the social distancing and the extraordinary measures being taken for control and check of the Corona Virus. Therefore, it would be appropriate to direct the Department of Home, Government of Gujarat to consider this aspect and issue necessary circular / instructions to all the Superintendents of Police / Commissioners of Police throughout the State to ensure that before any accused is arrested and sent to jail, it is confirmed that he is not a suspect or infected with Corona Virus. It is only after such confirmation that an accused be lodged in a particular jail, otherwise the same be avoided for the period of crisis.

 Bablu Kumar Meena v. State [Rajasthan High Court]

Due to outbreak of Coronavirus (COVID-19), the lawyers are not appearing in the courts. Considering the material on record and taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the case registered against the petitioner is under the Rajasthan Excise Act and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this petition is allowed. Petitioner be admitted to bail subject to satisfaction of the trial Court. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned trial Court through e-mail/fax, for necessary compliance.

 Sanicchar Oraon v. State [Jharkhand High Court]

The RIMS, Ranchi shall provide N-95 masks to all the doctors and para-medical staff across the departments forthwith and to make appropriate arrangement including fully equipped separate (isolation) ward for treatment of the patients being admitted there with suspected case of Coronavirus. All preventive measures must be taken by the RIMS Administration so that if at all any patient is found positive of Coronavirus infection, the same should not spread to any other person.

 Nokia Technologies Oy v. Lenovo Group Ltd. [Delhi High Court]

It is stated that defendant No.1 is based in Hongkong and in view of the Coronavirus epidemic that is prevalent there at the moment, he has been unavailable to have the aforesaid pleadings and affidavits apostilled. Courier services between Hong Kong and India have also been impacted as a result of the medical emergency. The limitation for filing of the written statement on behalf of defendant No.1 is however expiring today. In view of the averments made in the application, and with the consent of learned counsel for the plaintiff, the application is allowed and defendant No.1 is permitted to file scanned copies of the notarised documents mentioned above, subject to the undertaking that the duly apostilled original documents will be filed as soon as they are received by learned counsel for defendants, and not later than eight weeks from today. In the event that the defendants require a further extension of time, they may make an appropriate application which will be considered on its own merits. The application stands disposed of.

 Court On Its Own Motion v. Nemo [Jammu and Kashmir High Court]

Given the nature of the infection, it is essential to not only anticipate the need for identifying the persons with COVID 19 infections/persons who have been exposed to infection/persons who may be possible carriers of the virus but also to ensure appropriate and adequately equipped isolation and quarantine facilities, as well as make provisions for medication; equipment necessary for treatment; masks for the public and separation kits for medical experts and health workers.

Punjab and Haryana High Court: All the matters from 23.03.2020 - 31.03.2020 adjourned beyond 27.04.2020

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

In view of the prevailing situation arising due to outbreak of Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19). The Punjab and Haryana High Court in an emergency meeting of the Hon'ble Administrative Committee convened on 22.03.2020at 6:30 pm at the residence of Hon'ble the Chief Justice, has decided to adjourn all the matters from 23.03.2020 -31.03.2020 beyond 27.04.2020.