|
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.121]
May 10,
2005 |
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
| |
|
Supreme
Court |
|
MANU/SC/0356/2005
The plaintiff filed
a suit for eviction of the respondent from the premises under his tenancy. No
rent agreement had been executed. It was alleged that the respondent had
acquired an alternate accommodation in the name of his wife, who had no
independent source of income. Despite service of summons, respondent did not appear
to defend his possession of the impugned property. Trial Court decreed the eviction petition.
Aggrieved, the
respondent approached the Rent Control Tribunal, which dismissed the appeal of
the respondent. Single Judge of the High Court set aside the order of the
Tribunal and remitted the case back to the Trial Court. Appeal was filed before
the Supreme Court.
The Apex Court
allowed the petition, it was observed that the extraordinary jurisdiction under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India ought not to be exercised for the benefit
of a person who himself had not pursued the remedy available before the trial
court
MANU/SC/0351/2005
The
appellant/workman had been transferred to different places, however he kept on
applying for leave, as a result he hardly had any accumulated leave. Even the
medical leave had been exhausted. Since appellant did not
report for duty after expiry of leave, action was taken against him as per a bi
partite agreement, arrived at between the management and the workers. He was dismissed from service. Labour Court
directed
reinstatement of the appellant but without backwages.
Workman and the
management filed separate writ petitions against the order, both single judge
and a division bench dismissed the petitions. Cross appeals were preferred
before the Apex Court.
The Apex Court
allowed the Managements appeal, it was observed that action had been taken
against the workman only after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard,
as such there was no infirmity in the order.
|
High Courts |
|
West Bengal
Two Judges of the
Calcutta High Court were transferred to other High Courts. A public interest
litigation was filed, thereby praying that under the Freedom of Information Act,
2002 the petitioners had a right to be informed about the reasons for transfer of the two judges. It was alleged that the judges were being
unfairly victimized as they had initiated contempt proceedings against a
politician and passed various adverse orders against the state government.
The Calcutta High
Court dismissed the writ petition, relying on a Supreme Court judgment. It was
stated that judges' transfer couldn’t be a subject matter of judicial review.
Jharkhand
The applicant had suffered grievous injuries during office hours, while at work.
Despite
repeated requests medical leave was not granted. A letter was sent to him
regarding his unauthorized absence from duty and was asked to report
immediately. The applicant submitted joining report along with medical fitness
certificate. However, he was not allowed to join, which resulted in the present
proceedings.
The Central
Administrative Tribunal, Ranchi Bench, disposed of the application with the
directions that the applicant shall appear before a Medical Board and the
respondents were directed to issue a letter to the civil surgeon in this regard.
Bombay
The promos of a film
depicted main protagonist essaying the role of a Catholic Priest. The Petitioner,
President of the Bombay Catholic Sabha,, a Public Charitable Trust filed a Writ
Petition challenging the exhibition of the film. It was claimed that the the
manner in which the promos of the film depicted the priest affected the
sentiments of the Christian Community and would lead to wrong opinion about
them. It was contended that the filmmaker had exceeded his right to freedom of
expression, the limits of such freedom ought to be examined as there is a vulgar
depiction of a Catholic Priest with a lady in the film.
The High Court at
Bombay, dismissed the petition. It was held that facts show that it is a serious
film and adult Indian citizens as a whole may be relied upon to comprehend
intelligently the message and to react to it, and not to the possible
titillation of some particular scenes. Story line doesn’t show the intention
of filmmaker in any way to bring down the institution of priesthood or that of
the church.
Appellants mother
had left behind a will in favour of a trust, however, it was claimed that a
subsequent will had been executed in favour of the appellant. A suit was filed
on behalf of the trust and against the appellant herein. The said suit was
stayed pending decision of a cross suit filed by the appellant herein, however
the court proceeded with the suit, the appellants counsel, filed a “no
instruction pursis” and was discharged from the proceedings. Due to non
appearance on behalf of the appellant herein the suit was decided against him.
An earlier suit filed by the appellant herein was also dismissed. Separate
appeal challenging the judgments were dismissed.
Aggrieved, two
second appeals were filed on the grounds that once a case was made out for stay
of the suit under section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 , the trial
court ought not to have proceeded during the pendency of the earlier suit. It
was also contended that advocate cannot seek discharge without informing the
client.
The High Court at
Bombay, dismissed the appeals, it was held that will executed by testator bequeathing
properties in favour of Public Trust will subsist unless revoked by the
subsequent Will allegedly executed by the testator, therefore Property must go
to the Trust as per the bequest made in the original Will. It was observed that
an advocate cannot seek discharge from a case without an advanced notice to the
client.
The petitioner
company was allotted a contract by a wholly owned Government of India
undertaking. In accordance with the terms of contract petitioner furnished
performance guarantee as well as two bank guarantees to the respondent towards
the advance for the contracted supplies to be made by it. The petitioner for
reasons beyond its control could not adhere to delivery schedule. As a result
the respondent terminated the contract. Petitioner sought an injunction against
the Respondent, in order to restrain it from invoking the bank guarantee.
The Delhi High Court
dismissed the petition with the remarks that a party seeking an interim order
against encashment must furnish clear evidence both as to fact of fraud having
vitiated contract between parties as also fact that bank had knowledge of such
fraud being committed.
|
| PIB
|
|
Dated 06.05.2005:
Out of 10,29,516 claims, which have been filed under various categories, all the
cases have been decided. So far, 5,73018 claims have been settled and claimants
have been awarded a total compensation of Rs. 1542,31 crore, whereas 4,56,498
cases have been rejected. As per orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated
19th July 2004, those claimants who have been awarded original compensation
(5,73018) have to be paid additional compensation on pro-rata basis. The
pro-rata disbursement process has to be completed by 30th April 2006, as per the
Orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. This process has been started and
1,57,752 claimants have already been paid pro-rata compensation by the Welfare
Commissioner amounting to Rs.458.88 crore till 21.4.2005.
|
| Ministry of
Environment and Forests |
|
Notification No.
GSR272(E) Dated 05.05.2005: The Central Government has made the Environment
(Protection) Amendment Rules, 2005 further to amend the Environment (Protection)
Rules, 1986. The amendments relate to the dates of application of noise limits
for vehicles at manufacturing stage for the given states.
|
| Ministry of Finance |
|
Excise Non
Tariff
Notification No.
20/2005-NT Dated 02.05.2005: The Central Government, vide this notification, has
made the CENVAT Credit (Fifth Amendment) Rules, 2005 further to amend the CENVAT
Credit Rules, 2004. The amendments relate to the obligation of manufacturer of
dutiable and exempted goods and provider of taxable and exempted services, as
regard to exemption for Liquefied Petroleum Gases (LPG).
CBEC Customs
Notification No.
38/2005 Dated 02.05.2005: Vide this notification, the Central Government, has
made the Computers Additional Duty (Amendment) Rules, 2005 to amend the
Computers (Additional Duty) Rules, 2004. These amendment rules have fixed the
additional customs duty rate to be 6% ad valorem for Central processing unit
(CPU), when imported separately, and 7% ad valorem in case of computers, when
they have been imported other than their CPU imported separately.
|
| SEBI |
|
Secondary
Market Division
Notification No.
SO599(E) Dated 29.04.2005: The Securities and Exchange Board of India, vide this
notification, has granted renewal of recognition to the Guwahati Stock Exchange
Limited under Section 4 of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 for a
period of one year commencing on the 1st day of May, 2005 and ending on the 30th
day of April, 2006 subect to the condition the said Exchange shall commence
trading only after obtaining final approval from SEBI for establishment of the
Settlement Guarantee Fund.
|
| Ministry of
Power |
|
Notification No.
GSR243(E) Dated 21.04.2005: In supersession of the Central Power Engineering
(Group A) Service Rules, 1990, the President, vide this notification, made the
Central Power Engineering (Group "A") Service Rules, 2005. The said
orders shall come into force on 21st day of April 2005. The order provided
for constitution of the Central Power Engineering (Group A) Service and stated
the grades and strength of the service.
|
| Ministry
of Shipping, Road Transport and
Highways |
|
Department of Shipping
Notification No.
GSR250(E) Dated 28.04.2005: The Central Government has approved the Madras Port
Trust (Recruitment of Heads of Departments) Regulations, 2005 made by the Board
of Trustees of Chennai Port Trust as set out in the Schedule annexed to this
Notification. The changes were made in the constitution of the Selection
Committee for making such recruitments.
|
| Ministry of
Law and Justice |
|
Department of Legislative
Notification No.
GSR254(E) Dated 30.04.2005: Vide this notification, the President has made the
State of Maharashtra (Special Responsibility of Governor for Vidarbha,
Marathwada and the Rest of Maharashtra) Amendment Order, 2005 and specified that
the said Order shall remain in force up to the 30th day of April, 2006.
|
| International Legal
News |
|
Cases
In a divorce
proceeding, plaintiff's waiver of any rights that he might have had to his
wife's family property does not preclude him from contesting that waiver as
having been fraudulently obtained.
Urfirer v. Cornfeld
In a class action
lawsuit against Avon, the trial court erred by dismissing plaintiff-sales
representatives' complaint where it properly stated a claim for violations of
the unfair business practices and fraudulent concealment.
Blakemore v. LA
Super. Ct.
Dismissal of
plaintiff's complaint, alleging that defendant-credit card company aided and
abetted in the operation of an illegal lottery, is reversed where plaintiff
sufficiently pleads a cause of action for aiding and abetting.
Schulz v. Neovi Data
Corp.
In a challenge to a
forfeiture order, defendant's son's claim, alleging that the forfeited property
belonged to him, is dismissed where he held only nominal title to the property
at the time his father committed the illegal acts that resulted in the
forfeiture.
US v.
Bryson
In a murder trial
for a dog mauling, an order granting defendant a new trial on her second degree
murder conviction is reversed where the lower court 1)used a legally incorrect
definition of implied malice, 2)improperly reassessed credibility on the issue
of subjective knowledge, and 3)incorrectly considered the relative culpability
of defendants.
People v. Knoller
In a breach of
contract action, summary judgment in favor of defendant, based on certain
inculpatory statements by the moving party's opponent in a deposition, is
reversed where the trial court erred by refusing to also consider other evidence
disclosing triable issues of material fact
Scalf v. D.B. Log
Homes
The National Labor
Relations Board's Application for Enforcement of its decision, which held that
unusual circumstances did not justify defendant's withdrawal from a collective
bargaining agreement, is denied where the decision was not rational or
consistent with the National Labor Relations Act.
NLRB v. D.A. Nolt
The district court
correctly decided that plaintiff is likely to prevail on the merits of its
breach-of-contract claim; however, the court erred when it concluded that
plaintiff would be irreparably harmed by the breach.
Mid-America Real
Estate Co. v. Iowa Realty Co.
In a class action
lawsuit against Avon, the trial court erred by dismissing plaintiff-sales
representatives' complaint where it properly stated a claim for violations of
the unfair business practices and fraudulent concealment.
Blakemore v. LA
Super. Ct.
General Municipal
Law section 50-e(3)(c), which saves claims from dismissal on account of defects
in the manner of service, does not excuse a plaintiff's failure to serve a
timely notice of claim on the correct public entity.
Scantlebury v. New
York City
News
The Monroe Country
Bar Association has announced the formation of a committee that will field
complaints of inappropriate advertising and advise lawyers whether their
advertising crosses the line into sensationalism and bad taste. The Bar also
intends to educate people in choosing a lawyer. However the Committee will have
no enforcement rights other than issuing a public statement if a lawyer refuses
to revise an ad that the committee finds to be inappropriate. As part of an
outreach effort, the bar association plans to add links on its Web site to
services that give information about lawyers and rate them.
Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty is presently under review in a month-long conference at
the UN. The Treaty was designed to spread the check of nuclear weapons. The 35
year old Treaty has been subscribed to by nearly 190 states.
One of the primary
reasons of its failure is the fact that the world has been divided into two
camps: those who have nuclear weapon capability (these nations are lawfully
allowed to posses nuclear weapons) and those who do not. The five declared
nuclear-weapon states promised to cease the nuclear arms race and head toward a
complete nuclear disarmament under strict and effective international control.
However they have failed to abide by their commitment.
Families of ten
soldiers who lost their lives in Iraq, have moved the international Criminal
Court against the British Government. They have disclosed that British troops
were unlawfully ordered to use cluster bombs near civilian areas and to destroy
essential power supplies which affected hospitals and water. Their complaint to
the ICC, in The Hague, also accuses the Government of illegally acting out of
all proportion to the official aim of the war: ridding Iraq of weapons of mass
destruction. The Attorney General and the head of Britain's armed forces fear
that there is a real risk that the ICC would investigate alleged war crimes in
Iraq. Tony Blair's government has been accused of committing war crimes in Iraq
in a complaint by the families of dead British soldiers to the International
Criminal Court.
The Federal
Communications Commission had framed rules requiring the use of technology in
consumer electronic devices sold after July 1, which would have the effect of
limiting how consumers could record and watch their favourite television
programmes. The technology, known as the broadcast flag, would permit
entertainment companies to designate, or flag, programs to prevent viewers from
copying shows or distributing them over the Internet. The controversial rules
were challenged by consumer groups, including library associations. Their
lawyers complained the FCC requirement would drive up prices of digital
television devices and prevent consumers from recording programs in ways
permitted under copyright laws. A three judge panel for a U.S. circuit court
ruled that the FCC had exceeded its authority in framing the rules.
|
|
|
|
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.
Feedback
| |
