Legislative and Regulatory Update
You now have the option of customizing your manupatra round-up .This means that you get updates on the areas of interest that you select .You may change your preferences at any time you wish to. If you do not customize your round up you will continue to get the updates on all areas
To customize your round-up now click here.
_____________________________________________________________________
India Centric Online Legal & Business Database Bringing forth new efficiency and unparalleled results to research efforts.
In This Issue [No.120] April 30, 2005
Supreme Court High Courts RBI Ministry of Civil Aviation SEBI Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Ministry of Finance International
Site Links
To keep you informed about the latest Legislative and Regulatory information manupatra.com publishes this e-roundup highlighting the recent changes brought about by the Notifications/Acts/Bills /Ordinances etc.
About manupatra.com
../ provides comprehensive and easy to use legal and related information over the Internet .Our database covers Central Laws , Judgments of Supreme Court and High Court (full text of the judgments from 1950 onwards ), Orders of Tribunals , Bills , Notifications, Circulars and more
Key features of manupatra are
Content is derived from reliable primary and secondary sources Database is updated on a daily basis Electronic Ready Reckoner to view the judgments under a particular section of an Act / Subject Powerful search engine with user friendly interfaces Search in any one court/year or multiple courts/year Hyper-linking of documents Updated modules on WTO, Anti Dumping, Arbitration, Investment Destinations Abroad, Capital Markets, Taxation, Environment, Cyber & IT Laws, IPR, Corporate Laws, Industrial Policies, Foreign Trade, Forex & Banking and more
For subscription to manupatra.com or for more details please log onto ../ or call us at 0120 2531811 or send an email to : contact@manupatra.com
If at any stage you wish to stop receiving the e-roundup please click here to unsubscribe.
- Kasturi Vs. Iyyamperumal and Others
MANU/SC/0319/2005
Appellant herein had filed a suit for specific performance of contract, for enforcement of a contract for sale of the suit property, a few of the respondents herein, who were not party to the contract, claimed title and possession of the contracted property. An intervenor application was filed on their behalf. Trial Court allowed the application and the same was confirmed by the High Court.
An appeal was filed before the Apex Court, the question to be decided was “whether in a suit for specific performance of contract for sale of a property instituted by a purchaser against against the vendor, a stranger or a third party to the contract, claiming to have an independent title and possession of the contracted party is entitled to be impleaded as a party?”
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, it was observed that irrespective of the outcome of the suit, only the contracting parties were directly affected.
Saibanna Vs. State of Karnataka
MANU/SC/0306/2005
Appellant a life convict, was charged with the murder of his wife and daughter, both the trial court and the High Court found the accused guilty under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, even though he had initially been charged under section 303 of the Indian Penal Code, since this provision had been struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. The High Court agreed, with the Session Court, that the case fell within the category of “rarest of rare” and sentenced the appellant to death.
The matter reached the Apex Court where, the quantum of punishment was debated. The Supreme Court, refused to interfere with the sentence awarded, it was remarked that imposition of a second life sentence on the appellant would be a meaningless exercise.
Kerala
Joseph Vs . S.I. of Police, Munnar
The appellant herein along with a few others were charged under different sections of the Indian Penal Code, in case involving the rape of a minor girl. 35 persons were convicted. Appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment. An appeal was preferred before the High Court on the grounds that consent could discerned from the conduct of the prosecutrix and there was no evidence to corroborate her testimony in court.
The Kerala High Court, disposed of the appeal, reducing the life sentence to rigorous imprisonment for five years. At the same time the court expressed its concern at the way the print and electronic media had covered the case. The media was cautioned to be careful and show more restraint while covering proceedings, the complete truth must be ascertained even at the cost of delay
Jacob Joseph Vs. Devassy
The Appellant herein owned an elephant, in a road accident, the elephant was killed. The same insurance company insured both the offending vehicle and the pachyderm. The appellant subrogated the elephant and claimed insurance and then filed a claim against the owner of the offending vehicle, the tribunal no further compensation was awarded.
The Kerela High Court, dismissed the appeal arising out of the proceedings, it was observed that the policy having been subrogated to the insurance company, only the insurance company had a right to sue.
Delhi
Jackson and Company Vs. Union of India (UOI) and another.
MANU/DE/0506/2005
The petitioner, a company engaged in the manufacture of Diesel General Sets, filed a writ petition before the High Court, seeking quashing of a notification amending the Environment (Protection) Second Rules, 2002. By the said notification, the permissible noise limit fixed for Diesel Generator Sets was changed. According to the amendments, noise from diesel generator set must be controlled by providing an acoustic enclosure or by treating acoustically at the manufacturing stage.
The notification was assailed on the ground that, rules are violative of the provisions contained in Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India in so far as they fix standard noise limit of 75 dB(A) for all diesel generator sets up to 1000 KVA irrespective of location for use and capacity
The petition was dismissed with the observations that the state was authorized to make provisions for reducing the noise level at the manufacturing stage itself.
Skyline Engineering Contracts (I) (P) Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
The appellant herein is a company engaged in the business of civil engineering and construction work for industrial units. It claimed depreciation of Rs 34, 82, 091/- , the total cost of scaffolding materials. The Assessing officer disallowed claim to the extent that the scaffolding material did not seem to be utilized. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), confirmed the order.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi allowed the appeal, it was remarked that material dispatched to the site as well as material which had been lying in the main office and not dispatched to site, amounted to passive user of these materials, as long as material had been purchased before 31st March.
Annual Policy Statement for the Year 2005-06
Annual Policy Statement for 2005-06: The Reserve Bank of India released the Annual Monetary and Credit Policy for 2005-06. The policy statement is aimed to provide a framework for the monetary, structural and prudential measures that are taken from time to time against the background of an assessment of macroeconomic and monetary developments by the Reserve Bank. The Statement consists of two parts: Part I. Annual Statement on Monetary Policy for the Year 2005-06; and Part II. Annual Statement on Developmental and Regulatory Policies for the Year 2005-06. There will be a Mid-term Review of the annual policy Statement in October, as in the past, covering both Part I and Part II of the Statement. In addition, there will be a First Quarter Review of Part I of the Statement in July and a Third Quarter Review in January.
DBOD
Exclusion from the Second Schedule to the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 - Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation
Circular No. DBOD.Ret.BC.No.80/12.06.112/2004-05 Dated 20.04.2005: The Reserve Bank of India vide the above circular notifies that "Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation" has been excluded from the Second Schedule to the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934. This is effective from publication of the relative notification DBOD.No.IBS.1186/23.13.018/2004-05 in the Gazette of India ( i.e. March 19, 2005).
APDIR(Series)
Liberalised Remittance Scheme of USD 25,000 for Resident Individuals
Circular No. A.P.(DIR Series) Circular No.38 Dated 31.03.2005: The Reserve Bank of India vide the above circular states that vide its earlier circular, A.P.(DIR Series) Circular No.64 dated February 4, 2004 it had notified Authorised Dealer Banks that remittance under the captioned Scheme is not permitted, directly or indirectly to Cook Islands, Egypt, Guatemala, Indonesia, Myanmar, Nauru, Nigeria, Philippines and Ukraine. These countries have been identified by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) as "non co-operative countries and territories (NCCTs). Vide the present circular, RBI advises AD banks that they should keep record of the non co-operative countries and territories as provided by FATF and accordingly update the list for necessary action by their branches handling the transactions under the Liberalised Remittance Scheme.
Establishment of Liaison Offices in India by Foreign Insurance Companies
Circular No. A.P.(DIR Series) Circular No.39 Dated 25.04.2005: The RBI vide the above circular notifies that general permission is granted to Insurance Companies incorporated outside India to establish Liaison Offices in India provided they have obtained prior approval approval from the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA), to establish Liaison Offices in India. The granting of permission is subject to certain conditions specified by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA). Further, the General Permission is granted under the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 and is without prejudice to the permissions and approvals, if any, required to be taken by such insurance companies incorporated outside India under any other law in force.
Disclaimer
(1) While all reasonable care has been taken to ensure that the information provided in the "round up" and on the website is fair and accurate the company and its promoters and employees shall not in any way be responsible for the consequences of any action taken on the basis of reliance upon the contents of this "round up".
(2) This is not a Spam mail. You have received this mail because you have either requested for it or someone must have suggested your name under our various referral programs. Since India has no anti-spamming law, we refer to the US directive, which states that a mail cannot be considered Spam if it contains the sender's contact information, which this mail does. In case this mail doesn't concern you, please unsubscribe from mailing list.