Welcome to Drishti Judiciary - Powered by Drishti IAS
         









Home / Important Personalities

Important Personalities

Justice Rajiv Shakdher

    «
 08-Nov-2024

Who is Justice Rajiv Shakdher? 

  • Justice Sanjiv Khanna was born on 19th October 1962.  
  • He studied at St. Columba's School in Delhi. 
  • He Graduated with a B.Com. (Hons.) degree from Delhi University in 1984. 
  • Justice Shakdher obtained an LL.B. degree from the Law Faculty at the University of Delhi in 1987. 
  • He got himself enrolled as an Advocate on November 19, 1987. 
  • Further, he completed his Chartered Accountancy from the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India in 1987. 
  • Later, he became an Associate Member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India on 29th November, 1988. 
  • He also Pursued an Advanced Course of Law at the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, University of London in 1994. 

How was the Career Journey of Justice Sanjiv Khanna? 

  • Justice Rajiv Shakdher enrolled with the Bar Council of Delhi in 1983. 
  • He was designated as a Senior Advocate on 8th December 2005. 
  • He was appointed as a Judge of Delhi High Court on 11th April 2008 and is one of the seniormost judges in the country. 
  • He is ranked at no 4 in the All India Seniority list of High Court judges. 
  • Justice Rajiv Shakdher took oath as the 29th Chief Justice of Himachal Pradesh High Court. 

What are the Notable Judgments of Justice Rajiv Shakdher? 

  • Designarch Consultants Pvt Ltd v. Jumeirah Beach Resort LLC (2024)  
    • Jumeirah Beach Resort LLC, the hotel chain that owns the famous Burj Al Arab hotel in Dubai, filed a lawsuit against a real estate developer called Designarch. 
    •  The issue was that Designarch was using the 'Burj' mark and logo in its real estate projects in cities like Bangalore, Mumbai, Delhi, Gurugram, and Gurgaon. 
    •  Initially, a single judge of the Delhi High Court had restrained Designarch from using the marks 'BURJBANGALORE', 'BURJMUMBAI', 'BURJDELHI', 'BURJGURUGRAM', and 'BURJGURGAON' while the case was ongoing. 
    • However, the single judge had allowed Designarch to continue using the mark 'BURJNOIDA' since the residential project under that name had been under construction for the last 10 years. 
    •  Now, the Delhi High Court has agreed to a settlement agreement between Jumeirah Beach Resort LLC and Designarch, presumably resolving the dispute over the use of the 'Burj' marks. 
  • Abhishek Yadav v. Delhi State Legal Services Authority and Another (2024)  
    • After the child victim submits relevant documents, the concerned DLSA (District Legal Services Authority) shall, with the assistance of the Investigating Officer (IO), complete verification of the documents within 2 weeks.  
    • The Deputy Police Commissioner will ensure the 2-week timeline is not crossed. 
    • The Commissioner of Police will issue standing instructions to all field formations to ensure strict adherence to the timelines. 
    • Upon verification, the DLSA will issue a certificate detailing the verified documents. This certificate will be valid proof for any further compensation. 
    • No re-verification will be required unless new documents are submitted. In such cases, verification of the new documents will be done within 2 weeks. 
    •  The DSLSA (Delhi State Legal Services Authority) and concerned DLSA shall ensure disbursement of interim or final compensation within 30 days of the DLSA's direction to grant compensation. 
  • Ruchi Wadhwan v. Amit Wali (2024)  
    • The Delhi High Court allowed the wife's plea for divorce on the ground of mental cruelty. 
    • The husband had argued that granting the divorce would bring "dishonour" and "stigma" upon him and his family. 
    •  The Court rejected the husband's contention, stating that it is difficult to accept this argument when both the spouses are educated. 
    •  The Court said it would be in the best interest of the couple to end the marriage, rather than suffer from persistent mental agony and trauma. 
    • The Court emphasized that it is not reasonable to consider divorce as a "stigma" or "dishonour" when both parties are educated individuals. 
    •  The Court's decision prioritized the mental well-being of the couple over societal perceptions or expectations regarding divorce. 
  • A v. B (2024) 
    •  The Delhi High Court has ruled that a child is entitled to maintenance under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 
    •  The child can receive maintenance until they complete their education and become financially independent, even if they have attained the age of majority. 
    • The court, comprising Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Amit Bansal, stated that a child pursuing their education would be entitled to maintenance under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 
    • The court emphasized that the child's right to maintenance continues until they finish their education and become financially self-sufficient, irrespective of whether they have reached the age of majority. 
    • The ruling aims to ensure that a child's educational pursuits are not disrupted due to a lack of financial support from their parents. 
    • The decision recognizes the importance of providing for a child's educational and developmental needs, even after they reach legal adulthood, as long as they are still dependent on their parents.