Media Scan

Legal Snippets

  • The Supreme Court set aside the nomination of a former judge by the Gauhati High Court to arbitrate between the Railway and Premco-DKPL. It said that the Railway had sent a panel of arbitrators within the time stipulated in the agreement and the High Court had misread the terms of the contract on the time limit for seeking appointment of the arbitrator.
  • When the tender conditions insist on payment of minimum wages to the staff, it cannot be altered by the labour department and then the threshold amount cannot be kept a secret. It would unfairly benefit a bidder, the Supreme Court observed in its judgment, in Bakshi Security and Personnel Services Ltd. v. Devkishan Computers Ltd.
  • The Delhi High Court asked the customs authorities to issue a detailed set of instructions, in consultation with the Central Board of Excise and Customs, to avoid indefinite detention of goods illegally, in the case Worldline Tradex Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Import).
  • The owner of a plot who signs a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with a builder for raising multi-storeyed apartments is a ‘consumer’ and, therefore, can sue the builder for the deficiency in service, the Supreme Court ruled in Bunga Babu v. Sri Vasudeva Constructions, overruling the National Consumer Commission and the Andhra Pradesh Consumer Commission.
  • The Supreme Court has declared in the case, State of Jharkhand v. CWE-Soma Consortium, that when there is only one valid offer in a tender, it could be cancelled and a fresh tender could be invited.
  • The government has decided to withdraw the Drugs and Cosmetics (Amendment) Bill, 2013, and replace it with a new one keeping in mind advancements in the therapeutic sphere and in stem cell research, clinical trials, regenerative medicines, and also in online sale of medicines and medical devices. The review of the existing law will be in line with the Make-in-India initiative to facilitate the ease of doing business and to enhance the quality and efficacy of pharmaceuticals.
  • The Delhi High Court has ruled that transfer of intangible assets like intellectual property whose owners were not based in India could not be taxed in the country. It interpreted section 9 of the Income Tax Act dealing with capital gains arising from indirect transfers to mean that only shared transactions between two overseas entities will come under the ambit of the Act and that the transfer of intangibles between two overseas entities will not be taxed in India.
  • The recent ruling of the Supreme Court that two or more consecutive life sentences cannot be awarded, gives a ray of hope for life convicts to be freed if they get remission from the state government concerned. Interpreting section 31 in the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) which gives power for award for consecutive sentences, the Supreme Court said any direction that requires the offender to undergo imprisonment for life twice over would be anomalous and irrational.
  • In the first judicially sanctioned abortion beyond the permissible 20-weeks, the Supreme Court permitted a Mumbai woman to abort her 24 – week pregnancy after experts said that continuing with a fetus having multiple severe abnormalities would be life-threatening for both the fetus and the mother.
  • The Supreme Court has directed the insurance company to pay compensation for a road accident causing three deaths, setting aside the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case, Rakesh Kumar v. United India Insurance.
  • Though arbitral proceedings have certain shades of civil suits, they are different in substance. Therefore, the bar on suits imposed in the Partnership Act in certain circumstances will not come in the way of taking disputes to arbitration, the Supreme Court has held in the judgment, Umesh Goel v. Himachal Coop Housing Society.
  • The Supreme Court has ruled against the capital markets regulator in a clutch of appeals in matters relating to collective investment schemes (CIS). In a judgment covering five similar cases that date back to the period between 1995 and 1999 when CIS regulations were in the process of being formulated, the Court dismissed three appeals by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) and allowed two by appellants against SEBI.

Leave a Comment