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.154] April 10, 2006
Supreme Court High Courts Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport and Highways IRDA RBI SEBI International Cases & News
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
http://www.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 http://www.manupatra.com/ 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.
Nagarathinam and Ors. Vs. State rep. by Inspector of Police
The appellants were convicted Under Section 302 and 34 and 149 of IPC for the murder of two deceased persons by the Trial Court, which was later on confirmed by the High Court. The High Court and Trial Court rejected the appellant’s plea of private defence even though there were sufficient circumstances to sustain their plea. Hence, this present appeal was preferred against the conviction.
The Supreme Court examining the circumstances of the cases observed that the High Court went in error in rejecting the plea of self defence while there were serious injuries on the vital part of the person of the appellants and while bringing on record held that the same were not sustained by them while exercising their right of self-defence. It was held that in a case of this nature where a plea of right of exercise of self- defence was raised, several factors such as the apprehension of death or bodily injury in the mind of the accused persons would have to be determined having regard to the number of people assembled to take part in assaulting them, the manner in which they were assaulted, the arms used as also the seriousness of injury received by them. Hence, keeping in view of the circumstances of the case the possibility that the appellants have exercised their right of private defence could not be totally ruled out and was therefore acquitted.
Ranjit Singh Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.
A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the appellant for allegedly possessing assets disproportionate to his known source of income. The Enquiry Officer’s Report was in favour of the appellant but the Disciplinary Authority did not accept the same. The appellant was dismissed from service without giving him an opportunity of being heard. The appellate authority, the Tribunal and the High Court dismissed the appeals filed before them on the ground that the charges were established.
The Supreme Court while allowing the appeal held that the principles of natural justice were required to be complied with by the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority while dismissing the appellant from service ought to have considered the materials relied on by the Inquiry Officer either than to rely on the reasons disclosed by him in his show cause notice which, it will bear repetition to state, was only tentative in nature. Hence the Disciplinary Authority was directed to consider the matter afresh in the light of the show cause filed by the appellant and to provide the appellant with an opportunity of being heard.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Shimla Vs. Tilak Singh and Ors.
The appeal arises from the finding of the High Court that the insurance company was jointly and severally liable along with the appellant (before High Court) for the payment of the amount of compensation in favour of a third party who was not covered under insurance. The core issue involved in this appeal was whether a statutory insurance policy under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, intended to cover the risk to life or damage to properties of third parties, would cover the risk of death or injury to a gratuitous passenger earned in a private vehicle.
The Supreme Court extending the ratio of Asha Rani's case, which states that the statutory insurance policy would not be applicable to passengers in a goods vehicle, held that the same could be applicable with equal force to gratuitous passengers in any other vehicle also. Hence, the contention of the appellant-insurance company that it owed no liability towards the injuries suffered by the deceased Rajinder Singh who was a pillion rider, as the insurance policy was a statutory policy, and hence it did not cover the risk of death of or bodily injury to gratuitous passenger was upheld and accordingly allowed the appeal.
Bombay
Victor John Gomes (Deceased) & Ors. V. Thomas John Gomes & Anr
The appeal was filed against the order passed by the motion Judge appointing Court Receiver in respect of the estate of the deceased. The main issue involved was whether the petitioners were mismanaging the estate of the deceased.
Dismissing the appeal, the High Court held that there was no infirmity in the impugned judgment of the motion Judge as the petitioners had projected false facts before the court with a view to appropriate unto themselves as much out of the income of the estate of the deceased. The records also showed that during the mismanagement of the estate, the petitioners had changed certain tenancies and had not accounted the amounts received in connection with the changes of tenancies. The court therefore held that the petitioners were guilty of manipulating the accounts and could not be allowed to continue with the management of the estate.
Delhi
Kanwal Malhotra v. The State
The application under Order VII R.11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was filed on behalf of the objector on the ground that the application for the grant of probate in respect of the alleged last will that was left by the deceased was barred by law in terms of Order VII R.11 (d).
The main issue involved was whether the application that was filed after 3 years of the death of the testator was barred by law under Article 137 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963. The High Court held that the issue of limitation in this case was covered by the decision of the Division Bench in the case of S.S.Lal wherein it was held that the ratio in Hari Narian would not be applicable to a case where an application was moved for the grant of probate or letter of administration and the ratio in the said case was limited to an application which sought revocation of a probate that was granted earlier. An application for grant of probate and an application for the revocation of a probate granted earlier stood on different footings. Accordingly, the court held that Article 137 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 was not applicable to the present case. The application was therefore dismissed.
Orissa
Rajesh Kumar Sharma v. Director Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Services, Orissa, Cuttack
The writ petition was filed for quashing the order dated 9-12-2004 by which the Director, Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Services, Orissa, Cuttack blacklisted the petitioners firm and debarred it from participating in future tenders issued by the Directorate.
The main question involved was whether any illegality had been committed in blacklisting the petitioner’s company for not informing about the death of the ‘qualified person’ in charge of the drug lisence to the competent authority and for selling sub-standard quality of drugs. The High Court held that non-reporting of the death of such ‘qualified person’ whose name appears in form 21-C by which lisences are renewed, does not amount to any offence under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. With regard to the allegation of selling sub-standard quality of drugs, no prosecution was lodged against the petitioner’s firm and neither report of the analyst was given to the petitioner and nor any opportunity given to defend himself against the said allegation. Accordingly, the court held that it was not proper to blacklist the petitioner’s firm on the said ground.
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