POCSO Act | Foundational Facts Establishing Offence Must Be Proved To Trigger Statutory Presumption Under Section 29: Calcutta High Court Expectation Of Higher Price In Future Auctions No Ground To Discard Highest Bid Above Reserve Price; Subsequent Sale Hit By Section 52 TP Act: Allahabad High Court AI May Well Serve As Training Wheels But Entrusting It With Pilot's Seat Would Be Both Imprudent And Dangerous: Bombay High Court Appeal Against Acquittal Under Section 138 NI Act Can Be Dismissed For Non-Prosecution If Complainant Fails To Serve Notice On Accused: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejection Of Section 348 BNSS Witness Recall Plea Is Interlocutory; Inherent Powers Cannot Provide Backdoor Entry Where Section 438(2) Revisional Bar Applies Absent Gross Injustice: Delhi High Court Limitation Period For Appeal Commences From Date Assessee Receives Copy Of ITAT Order, Not Date Of Pronouncement: Bombay High Court Under Section 254(3) Income Tax Act Section 82 CrPC | Failure To Attempt Service At Known Overseas Address Vitiates Proclamation; Setting Aside PO Declaration Does Not Invalidate Arrest Warrants Or Extradition: Delhi High Court Expenditure Incurred By Defaulting Party Cannot Be Equated With Benefit Received Under Section 64 Contract Act: Karnataka High Court Upholds Setting Aside Of Arbitral Award Under Section 34 A&C Act Vendor Executing Agreement To Sell Pendente Lite Precluded From Compromising Appeal Prejudicially; Intending Purchasers Entitled To Impleadment Under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC: Madhya Pradesh High Court Kerala Rent Act | Examination Of Co-Landlord Spouse Sufficient To Prove Bona Fide Need Even If Spouse Intending To Occupy Doesn't Testify: High Court Personal Accident Coverage Under Motor Insurance Policy Does Not Extend To Borrower; Exonerates Insurer From Liability: Madras High Court Limitation To Challenge Void Sale Deed Runs From Discovery Of Fraud, Unilateral Material Alteration Vitiates Title: Orissa High Court Interim Status Quo Order Automatically Lapses Upon Dismissal Of Suit, Pendency Of First Appeal Does Not Entitle Injunction Under Order 39 CPC: Punjab & Haryana High Court District Caste Verification Committee Has No Jurisdiction Under Section 4C Karnataka SC/ST Act To Cancel Caste Certificate On Private Third-Party Complaint Absent Validation Request: Karnataka High Court Joint Title Presumes Equal Share Unless Exclusive Consideration Proved By Documented Evidence: Kerala High Court POCSO Act | Delay In Cross-Examination Of Prosecution Witnesses Does Not Weaken Sterling Testimony Of Victim: Madras High Court Mandatory Affixation Of Welfare Fund Stamp On Vakalatnama Valid Under List III Entries 23 & 26, Not A Toll On Right To Practice: Telangana High Court Upholds Sections 12 & 12A Of Advocates Welfare Fund Act BSF Personnel Certified Medically Incapacitated Entitled To Disability Pension Despite 'Voluntary Retirement' Label Under Rule 48-A CCS Rules: Punjab & Haryana High Court SARFAESI Auction Purchaser Takes Title Free From Subsequent Attachments, Claim Enquiry Confined Only To Property Rights: Kerala High Court Commercial Use, Late-Night Events In Areas Adjacent To Reserved Forest Prohibited To Protect Wildlife Under Forest Conservation Norms: Rajasthan High Court In Composite Negligence, Claimants Free To Recover Entire Compensation From Any Joint Tortfeasor Without Impleading Other Vehicle: Orissa High Court Regular Magistrate Lacks Jurisdiction Under Section 190 CrPC To Take Cognizance Against Sitting Or Former Legislators; Special MP/MLA Court Alone Competent: Karnataka High Court Specific Performance Cannot Be Decreed On Fabricated Sale Agreement Bearing Sequential Stamp Papers From Decade-Old Mortgage; Section 340 CrPC Applicable: Andhra Pradesh High Court Sole Testimony Of Child Victim Stands On Same Footing As Injured Witness, Defective Investigation No Ground To Discard Credible Evidence: Delhi High Court Upholds Conviction U/S 6 POCSO Act, 376 IPC Once Trial Court Accepts Written Statement Without Objection, It Cannot Recall Order To Strike Off Defence Under Order 8 Rule 1: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Court Fee Refund Under Section 69 Or Section 69-A Of Tamil Nadu Court Fees Act If Out-Of-Court Settlement Is Reached After Trial Commences: Madras High Court

Nicaragua filed Application to institute proceedings against Colombia - ICJ

07 May 2024 2:49 AM

By: Admin


On 26 November 2013, Nicaragua filed an Application to institute proceedings against Colombia regarding a "dispute concerning zones declared by the Court's Judgment of 19 November 2012 [in the case concerning Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia)] and the threat of the use of force by Colombia to implement these violations."

In its Application, Nicaragua requested that the Court rule that Colombia had violated a number of its international obligations and that it was obligated to make full reparation for the harm caused by its international wrongdoing.

Nicaragua based the Court's jurisdiction on Article XXXI of the Bogotá Pact. It further argued, "[m]oreover and alternatively, [that] the jurisdiction of the Court [lay] in its inherent authority to determine the actions required by its Judgments."

On December 19, 2014, Colombia filed preliminary objections to the Court's jurisdiction. The Court rendered its decision on Colombia's preliminary objections on March 17, 2016. Based on Article XXXI of the Pact of Bogotá, the Court determined that it had the authority to adjudicate the dispute regarding the alleged violations by Colombia of Nicaragua's rights in the maritime zones that, according to Nicaragua, the Court declared in its 19 November 2012 ruling belong to Nicaragua.

Colombia submitted four counterclaims in its Counter-Memorial on November 17, 2016. The first was based on Nicaragua's alleged breach of its duty of due diligence to protect and preserve the marine environment of the southwestern Caribbean Sea; the second was based on Nicaragua's alleged breach of its duty of due diligence to protect the right of the inhabitants of the San Andrés Archipelago to enjoy a healthy, sound, and sustainable environment; and the third was based on Nicaragua's alleged violation of the artisanal fishing rights of the inhabitants.

In an Order on the aforementioned counterclaims issued on 15 November 2017, the Court determined that the first and second counterclaims submitted by Colombia were inadmissible as such and did not form part of the ongoing proceedings, while the third and fourth counterclaims submitted by Colombia were admissible as such and did form part of the ongoing proceedings.

Between 20 September and 1 October 2021, hybrid-style public hearings on the merits of the case were held.

The Court rendered its decision on the merits on 21 April 2022, finding that Colombia had violated Nicaragua's sovereign rights and jurisdiction in the latter's exclusive economic zone.

D.D :- 21 April 2022

Nicaragua V/S Colombia

Latest Legal News