KHURSHEED AHMAD KHAN v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
"...what was protected under Article 25 was the religious faith and not a practice which may run counter to public order, health or morality. Polygamy was not integral part of religion and monogamy was a reform within the power of the State under Article 25. This Court upheld the views of the Bombay, Gujarat and Allahabad High Courts to this effect. This Court also upheld the view of the Allahabad High Court upholding such a conduct rule. It was observed that a practice did not acquire sanction of religion simply because it was permitted. Such a practice could be regulated by law without violating Article 25..."...
'Self-employed' plumber had rights as 'worker', but not employee, appeal court rules
Plumber entitled to basic rights even though technically self-employed
A purportedly self-employed plumber engaged through a London-based firm was a 'worker', entitled to paid holiday rights and the right to bring a claim for disability discrimination, the Court of Appeal has ruled.The court upheld an employment tribunal claim brought by Gary Smith, who had been dismissed by Pimlico Plumbers following a heart attack in January 2011. The tribunal had rejected an unfair dismissal claim brought by Smith, as he did not have the status of 'employee'.
Insurance coverage: is there a double duty on insureds in notifying claims to insurers?
Insurer could not rely on notification condition precedent to avoid liability
One of the early issues insurers address when they are notified of a claim is the extent to which there are grounds for avoidance arising from failure by insureds to comply with notification provisions in the policy. In Maccaferri Limited v Zurich Insurance Plc  EWCA 1302 the Court of Appeal undertook a useful analysis of notification conditions common to professional indemnity policies. The decision serves as a reminder that there is a body of case law centred on the nuance of phrases applied in such policies which can have a fundamental impact on obligations the courts will impose on insureds.