Blog

Arbitration and Dispute Resolution Submit 2024

Friendly Cricket Match 22 Jan 2024

ACS conference

New Normal State of Law Firm Is Introducing

Excepteur scelerisque voluptates natus dignissimos dictum voluptas sociosqu volutpat amet litora sed nisi in. Sed, fermentum nihil ligula nibh, eleifend. Lectus auctor eleifend fugit sint veritatis tenetur? Adipisci accumsan nisl, tenetur quo! Venenatis, dolorem donec mauris, interdum beatae id sapien pariatur semper quo nostra litora nesciunt recusandae culpa nemo voluptate porta molestie venenatis hendrerit. Excepturi expedita condimentum quidem odio laboriosam conubia accusamus facilis vehicula? Blanditiis atque cumque ducimus dignissimos in lorem dolorum? Hic sollicitudin odio, quidem non! Sit debitis fringilla elit perspiciatis nec sapiente lacus amet ab, ligula, semper tristique malesuada. Magna. Dolorum vulputate reprehenderit libero possimus aliquam, cupidatat possimus.

What Does Marijuana Law is Easy to Apply?

Nostrum orci cum dolores, nesciunt imperdiet, at nulla vehicula elit, eu sagittis asperiores modi autem iste. Aute corporis ullam, iusto eveniet iste ex primis! Mauris etiam occaecati corporis porttitor ante? Cubilia nec, quos est! Culpa? Luctus massa mollit aut felis rem iusto sit! Arcu, ea, pharetra consequuntur wisi, aliquet egestas hymenaeos voluptatum! Ut aperiam molestiae nulla nunc hic vestibulum habitant. Omnis netus, quisquam felis nunc facilisis parturient ante? Luctus! Ac. Autem tortor quia molestie quod laborum potenti numquam! In sed! Odit porttitor dapibus fusce! Facilis nihil veniam eius, facere. Unde? Aut, facilisi potenti eros proident deleniti, quibusdam aut, beatae aperiam.

Difference between Legal Information and Legal Advice

Molestie, diam nunc fugiat eaque, parturient? Amet neque eiusmod ipsa? Cubilia proident temporibus, per, aptent, rhoncus aliqua consequatur nunc velit sapiente, venenatis iure commodi rutrum anim lacus urna officia urna, facilis delectus sodales? Veritatis nisi condimentum. Potenti vitae, eleifend viverra, sit minima, rem, ullam. Aptent beatae semper adipisicing? Vel deleniti augue odio impedit veritatis porro, mollis, sollicitudin leo laudantium quia? Platea, vehicula commodo asperiores modi magnis, quisquam potenti venenatis ante, tempor feugiat, condimentum! Earum penatibus ullamco autem. Voluptatum aliquam luctus sit porta auctor mi? Consequatur penatibus exercitationem litora faucibus pellentesque neque aute facilisis minima ullamcorper. Dignissim vel debitis voluptatibus? Placerat.

Listening Customers will give us more Experience

Aliquam unde quis proin! Tellus curabitur, vero lorem diamlorem tempor temporibus eum, corporis phasellus mollit? Inventore habitasse quod! Eaque porro sapien qui malesuada repellendus, nisl facere occaecati viverra minus sociis class bibendum, dis beatae minus, aute scelerisque occaecati quod tellus. Tortor faucibus? Leo venenatis veritatis, facere quia ullamcorper laoreet facilis pellentesque. Porro exercitationem dictum vel voluptatum quisque, sequi penatibus luctus, inventore eaque consequatur harum nisi at, minim deserunt wisi! Ullamco dolor iure amet est sociis penatibus, parturient! Fugit tortor aliquam est excepteur ratione class? Corporis leo officiis! Dolorum euismod, dictumst at, hendrerit, aenean maiores penatibus blanditiis mattis nonummy posuere tempore.

Your Time Matter wherever you Go

Adipiscing molestiae feugiat ligula asperiores mauris, class repudiandae, torquent proident voluptatibus neque faucibus dui. Laoreet. Mi laborum error eleifend unde. Placeat mus molestias curabitur, hic vitae eros porro cum suspendisse, occaecat? Morbi sint sociosqu, quibusdam donec, varius interdum reprehenderit? Ornare eaque posuere quia, porro quae sagittis? Illo risus voluptates donec netus euismod nullam mi eaque labore sapiente risus morbi modi morbi quos culpa commodo! Tellus arcu senectus maiores, lobortis convallis cupiditate quo varius maiores natus tenetur sodales optio molestie fringilla expedita dicta harum torquent duis, maxime, inceptos. Pulvinar mollitia volutpat? Nisl velit! Rhoncus eius egestas corporis inventore urna quaerat nostra.

Work Load are Increasing in your Legal Department

Ex netus! Iusto quasi ac mollit? Modi fames, unde excepteur tempora nunc, reiciendis. Minima veniam tempora condimentum sapiente? Purus erat voluptatibus at blanditiis dui fugiat similique urna! Arcu, aliquip conubia, phasellus repudiandae, assumenda fuga ipsum cillum, do vehicula! Quasi enim, accusantium dictumst, convallis faucibus! Occaecat cillum! Tempora eum sed rerum donec nobis quidem aliquam, nostrud, dignissimos libero atque atque consequat, minima pariatur, congue. Hendrerit, voluptatem dapibus quaerat ullamco tristique quia, do gravida voluptatem, vel nulla similique non, illum animi adipisci. Lacinia labore adipisci eleifend suspendisse aliqua metus ab? Vivamus torquent adipisicing animi id ornare cumque deserunt minus quasi rhoncus! Natus.

Newsletter- JANUARY 2019

Cheque Bounce Complaint Based On Second Notice After Re-Presentation Of Cheque Maintainable:

Applying the mandate of MSR Leathers vs. S. Palaniappan and Another 2013 (1) SCC 177, The Supreme Court in (Sicagen India Ltd vs. Mahindra Vadineni) has held that a cheque bounce complaint filed based on the second statutory notice issued after re-presentation of cheques, is maintainable.

Delhi HC sets aside arbitration award directing DMRC to pay over Rs 2700 crore to Reliance-owned Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited (DAMEPL):

The Delhi High Court has partly set aside an arbitration award directing Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) to pay over ₹2,700 crore as termination payment to a consortium headed by Reliance Infrastructure Ltd for breach of an agreement between them. Reliance Infrastructure subsidiary, the Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited (DAMEPL), had pulled out from running the Airport Express Line for providing high-speed metro connectivity between New Delhi railway station and IGI Terminal 3 with further line till Sector 21 in Dwarka with effect from July 2012 in view of cracks and defects in the girders, bearings, etc. with Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC).

Delhi High Court sets time limits for oral argumentsduring Case Management hearing in commercial suit:

Executing Court Has No Jurisdiction To Decide Whether The Court Which Decreed The Suit Had Territorial Jurisdiction:

Price Escalation And Change In Foreign Law Cannot Be Considered Force Majeure:

READ ALSO: SC fillip to women’s property rights

Justice Waziri underlined that the “impediment which prevented a female member of a HUF from becoming a Karta was that she didn’t possess the necessary qualification of co-parcenership”, but section 6, “a socially beneficial legislation”, removed that bar.

Top Comment

Hindu culture is because of Woman.Nitin Desai

Justice Waziri said Section 6 gave “equal rights of inheritance to Hindu males and females, its objective is to recognise the rights of female Hindus and to enhance their rights to equality apropos succession. Therefore, courts would be extremely vigilant in any endeavor to curtail or fetter statutory guarantee of enhancement of their rights. Now that this disqualification has been removed by the 2005 amendment, there is no reason why Hindu women should be denied the position of a Karta.”

The son maintained that Hindu law recognises the right of eldest male member to be the Karta. He claimed that even the 2005 amendment recognised the rights of a female to be equal to those of a male only with respect to succession to ancestral properties, not management of estate.

Woman can be ‘karta’of a family: Delhi high court

Abhinav Garg

The eldest female member of a family can be its “Karta”, the Delhi high court has ruled in a landmark verdict. A unique position carved out by Hindu customs and ancient texts, “Karta” denotes managership of a joint family and is traditionally inherited by men.

| TNN | Feb 1, 2016, 02.02 AM IST

Woman can be ‘karta’of a family: Delhi high court

Abhinav Garg

The eldest female member of a family can be its “Karta”, the Delhi high court has ruled in a landmark verdict. A unique position carved out by Hindu customs and ancient texts, “Karta” denotes managership of a joint family and is traditionally inherited by men.

| TNN | Feb 1, 2016, 02.02 AM IST

EW DELHI: The eldest female member of a family can be its “Karta”, the Delhi high court has ruled in a landmark verdict. A unique position carved out by Hindu customs and ancient texts, “Karta” denotes managership of a joint family and is traditionally inherited by men.

“If a male member of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), by virtue of his being the first born eldest, can be a Karta, so can a female member. The court finds no restriction in law preventing the eldest female co-parcenor of an HUF, from being its Karta,” Justice Najmi Waziri said in a judgment made public earlier this week.

The Karta occupies a position superior to that of other members and has full authority to manage property, rituals or other crucial affairs of the family. These include taking decisions on sale and purchase of family assets, mutation of property etc.

READ ALSO: Women can claim stridhan even after separation from husband, Supreme Court says

The ruling came on a suit filed by the eldest daughter of a business family in north Delhi staking claim to be its Karta on the passing of her father and three uncles. She was challenging her cousin brother.

The family consisted of four brothers, with the surviving eldest shouldering the responsibility of Karta. Trouble began when the brothers passed away. The eldest son of a younger brother declared himself to be the next Karta, but was challenged by the daughter of the eldest brother who is also the seniormost member of the family.

The term co-parcenor refers to rights derived in Hindu law to be the joint legal heir of assets in a family. Traditional Hindu view, based on treatises such as Dharmshastra and Mitakshara school of law, recognises only male inheritors to ancestral property. Amendments to the Hindu Succession Act in 2005 introduced section 6 that levelled the playing field for women.

The court termed it “rather odd” that following the amendments, “while females would have equal rights of inheritance in an HUF property, this right could nonetheless be curtailed when it comes to the management of the same”. Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, it pointed out, did not place any restriction on women becoming the Karta.

The HC ruling is important because it takes the 2005 reform in the Act to its logical conclusion. While the amendment restricted itself to providing women equal inheritance rights, the verdict now allows them to manage property and rituals of a joint family.EW DELHI: The eldest female member of a family can be its “Karta”, the Delhi high court has ruled in a landmark verdict. A unique position carved out by Hindu customs and ancient texts, “Karta” denotes managership of a joint family and is traditionally inherited by men.

“If a male member of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), by virtue of his being the first born eldest, can be a Karta, so can a female member. The court finds no restriction in law preventing the eldest female co-parcenor of an HUF, from being its Karta,” Justice Najmi Waziri said in a judgment made public earlier this week.

The Karta occupies a position superior to that of other members and has full authority to manage property, rituals or other crucial affairs of the family. These include taking decisions on sale and purchase of family assets, mutation of property etc.

READ ALSO: Women can claim stridhan even after separation from husband, Supreme Court says

The ruling came on a suit filed by the eldest daughter of a business family in north Delhi staking claim to be its Karta on the passing of her father and three uncles. She was challenging her cousin brother.

The family consisted of four brothers, with the surviving eldest shouldering the responsibility of Karta. Trouble began when the brothers passed away. The eldest son of a younger brother declared himself to be the next Karta, but was challenged by the daughter of the eldest brother who is also the seniormost member of the family.

The term co-parcenor refers to rights derived in Hindu law to be the joint legal heir of assets in a family. Traditional Hindu view, based on treatises such as Dharmshastra and Mitakshara school of law, recognises only male inheritors to ancestral property. Amendments to the Hindu Succession Act in 2005 introduced section 6 that levelled the playing field for women.

The court termed it “rather odd” that following the amendments, “while females would have equal rights of inheritance in an HUF property, this right could nonetheless be curtailed when it comes to the management of the same”. Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, it pointed out, did not place any restriction on women becoming the Karta.

The HC ruling is important because it takes the 2005 reform in the Act to its logical conclusion. While the amendment restricted itself to providing women equal inheritance rights, the verdict now allows them to manage property and rituals of a joint fami

Disclaimer

This newsletter is compiled and prepared from the information available in public domain. Nothing in this newsletter should be deemed as legal advice and DSA shall have no liability, whatsoever, with respect to the content published herein.

Newsletter- AUGUST 2018

Delhi HC directs Kamla Nagar vendors to pay 20 Lakhs for selling Louboutin Knock-offs

On 31st July, 2018, Delhi HC held that vendors cannot be permitted to enjoy the benefits of evasion or covert priorities by infringing Louboutin’s trademark. Thus, decreed for a sum of rs 20 lakhs to Louboutin along with 10% of interest on damages.

Delhi HC orders status quo in trademark Dispute over Radio Nasha

On 27 July, 2018, Delhi HC has directed HT Media to stop using the name ‘Radio Nasha’ and ordered the parties to maintain status quo till next date of hearing.

SC: Not mandatory to serve Notice to Opposite Party to set aside Award

SC has clarified that it is not mandatory to serve prior notice to opposite party before filing an application to set aside an Arbitral Award u/s 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

New Commercial Courts Ordinance, 2018 mandates Pre-Institution Mediation in commercial Disputes in India

Section 12A of Chapter IIIA of this Ordinance makes it mandatory for the cases which contemplates urgent interim relief, no suit qua a commercial dispute shall be instituted in the court unless Plaintiff first exhausts this remedy of PIM before Legal services Institutions constituted under Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.

SC Remands Jaypee Infratech matter to NCLT

Supreme Court on August 9, 2018 remanded the matter back to NCLT and also directed the homebuyers to be included in Committee of Creditors (CoC).

SC held that challenge to arbitral award is a ‘dispute’ under Insolvency Code

SC consisting of bench of Justice R.F. Nariman and Justice Indu Malhotra on August 14, 2018 upheld the principle laid down in Kirusa software Pvt Ltd. Vs Mobilox Inovations and directed that an Insolvency process cannot be put into operation when the corporate debtor has challenged an arbitral award passed against it.

Oral Evidence in Application to Set Aside Arbitral Award shouldn’t be allowed unless Necessary

Recently, SC held in the case of M/s Emkay Global Financial Services Ltd. Vs Girdhar Sondhi held that an application for setting aside an arbitral award will not require anything beyond the record that was before the arbitrator.

However, in case there are matters that are not contained in such record and are relevant to the determination of issues arising u/s 34 (2) (a), then they may be brought to notice of Court by way of Affidavits filed by both parties.

Corporates (Private sector) are brought within the ambit of Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018

The recent amendment that received assent of the President brought the private sector entities within the net of Indian Anti-Corruption Law. The instant amendment necessitated domestic laws to be brought in line with international practices.

Section 9 of Act for offences relating to bribing a public servant by commercial organisation grants that if any person associated with such commercial organizations gives or promises to give any undue advantage to a public servant. Commercial organisations include bodies, partnerships or any other association of persons incorporated within and outside India which carry on at least a part of their business in India.

Intent of Parties must guide interpretation Arbitration Clause: SC

SC recently held in M/S Zhejiang Bonly Elevator Guide Rail Manufacture Co. Ltd. Vs M/S Jade Elevator Components that the intention of parties to settle disputes by arbitration must be prescribed when the relevant contract clause does not provide for arbitration as only option. This principle was endorsed by SC while disposing of a petition brought by a Chinese company against an Indian one.

Stamp duty is not required for Enforcement of Foreign Awards

Recently, SC in M/S Shriram EPC Limited vs Rioglass Solar SA resolved the issue regarding payment of Stamp Duty for enforcement of Foreign Awards in India and finally held that that since a foreign award, is not contained within the expression “award” in Item 12 of Schedule I, it is not taxable under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

Denial of Passport encroaches on Fundamental Rights: Delhi HC

Recently, Delhi HC comprising of Hon’ble Justice Vibhu Rakhru in Jasvinder Singh Chauhan vs Union of India held that denial or non-renewal of passport infringes on the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. It noted that a passport can be refused on the grounds mentioned under Section 6 of the Passports Act, 1967.

He further stated that, “the fundamental rights of a citizen cannot be held hostage to an inordinately long inquiry being conducted by the respondent or its agencies.”

Power of Director General to investigate Competition Act: DHC

It was recently held by Delhi HC in Cadila Healthcare Ltd. & Anr vs. Competition Commission of India and Ors. That Director general has the power to proceed with his inquiry against parties who are not specifically named in the general complaint made to the Competition Commission of India (CCI).

Absence of a Specific direction against a party in an order passed in terms of Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002, would also not deter the DG to proceed against it. It was further clarified by Hon’ble Court that power of DG is not limited by a remand or restricted to the matters that fall within the Complaint.

No CBI Probe: SC accepts CEC Report on Illegal Iron Ore Mining in Chhattisgarh

SC in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs UOI, accepted a Central Empowered Committee (CEC) Report on Illegal Iron Ore mining in Kanker, Chhatisgarh.

The three- judge bench held that: “We accept the Report of the CEC. From a reading of this Report of the CEC, it is apparent that Mr. Anil Lunia (the licensee) had flagrantly violated the law and had carried out mining in the forest areas. It is clear from the records that the confiscated iron ore has been mined from the adjoining forest land. The authorities concerned are free to auction the aforesaid confiscated iron ore in accordance with law.

Delhi HC takes suo-motu cognizance of Loopholes in Aadhar Verification System

Recently, DHC took cognizance of existing problems in Aadhar Verification System at the time of linkage with existing mobile connections and its subsequent misuse in suo motu petition i.e. Manish Bansal vs State of N.C.T. of Delhi. The genesis of  petition lies in an FIR registered by the Delhi Police against the owner of a mobile shop for fraudulently issuing fresh sim cards in the name of individuals who had come to the shop for Aadhaar verification and linkage to their mobile numbers. This new Sim was then used for the purpose of committing fraud on individuals with regard to their LIC policies.

 

 

 

 

READ ALSO: SC fillip to women’s property rights

 

Justice Waziri underlined that the “impediment which prevented a female member of a HUF from becoming a Karta was that she didn’t possess the necessary qualification of co-parcenership”, but section 6, “a socially beneficial legislation”, removed that bar.

 

Top Comment

Hindu culture is because of Woman.Nitin Desai

Justice Waziri said Section 6 gave “equal rights of inheritance to Hindu males and females, its objective is to recognise the rights of female Hindus and to enhance their rights to equality apropos succession. Therefore, courts would be extremely vigilant in any endeavor to curtail or fetter statutory guarantee of enhancement of their rights. Now that this disqualification has been removed by the 2005 amendment, there is no reason why Hindu women should be denied the position of a Karta.”

 

The son maintained that Hindu law recognises the right of eldest male member to be the Karta. He claimed that even the 2005 amendment recognised the rights of a female to be equal to those of a male only with respect to succession to ancestral properties, not management of estate.

Woman can be ‘karta’of a family: Delhi high court

Abhinav Garg

The eldest female member of a family can be its “Karta”, the Delhi high court has ruled in a landmark verdict. A unique position carved out by Hindu customs and ancient texts, “Karta” denotes managership of a joint family and is traditionally inherited by men.

| TNN | Feb 1, 2016, 02.02 AM IST

Woman can be ‘karta’of a family: Delhi high court

Abhinav Garg

The eldest female member of a family can be its “Karta”, the Delhi high court has ruled in a landmark verdict. A unique position carved out by Hindu customs and ancient texts, “Karta” denotes managership of a joint family and is traditionally inherited by men.

| TNN | Feb 1, 2016, 02.02 AM IST

EW DELHI: The eldest female member of a family can be its “Karta”, the Delhi high court has ruled in a landmark verdict. A unique position carved out by Hindu customs and ancient texts, “Karta” denotes managership of a joint family and is traditionally inherited by men.

“If a male member of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), by virtue of his being the first born eldest, can be a Karta, so can a female member. The court finds no restriction in law preventing the eldest female co-parcenor of an HUF, from being its Karta,” Justice Najmi Waziri said in a judgment made public earlier this week.

The Karta occupies a position superior to that of other members and has full authority to manage property, rituals or other crucial affairs of the family. These include taking decisions on sale and purchase of family assets, mutation of property etc.

READ ALSO: Women can claim stridhan even after separation from husband, Supreme Court says

The ruling came on a suit filed by the eldest daughter of a business family in north Delhi staking claim to be its Karta on the passing of her father and three uncles. She was challenging her cousin brother.

The family consisted of four brothers, with the surviving eldest shouldering the responsibility of Karta. Trouble began when the brothers passed away. The eldest son of a younger brother declared himself to be the next Karta, but was challenged by the daughter of the eldest brother who is also the seniormost member of the family.

The term co-parcenor refers to rights derived in Hindu law to be the joint legal heir of assets in a family. Traditional Hindu view, based on treatises such as Dharmshastra and Mitakshara school of law, recognises only male inheritors to ancestral property. Amendments to the Hindu Succession Act in 2005 introduced section 6 that levelled the playing field for women.

The court termed it “rather odd” that following the amendments, “while females would have equal rights of inheritance in an HUF property, this right could nonetheless be curtailed when it comes to the management of the same”. Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, it pointed out, did not place any restriction on women becoming the Karta.

The HC ruling is important because it takes the 2005 reform in the Act to its logical conclusion. While the amendment restricted itself to providing women equal inheritance rights, the verdict now allows them to manage property and rituals of a joint family.EW DELHI: The eldest female member of a family can be its “Karta”, the Delhi high court has ruled in a landmark verdict. A unique position carved out by Hindu customs and ancient texts, “Karta” denotes managership of a joint family and is traditionally inherited by men.

“If a male member of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), by virtue of his being the first born eldest, can be a Karta, so can a female member. The court finds no restriction in law preventing the eldest female co-parcenor of an HUF, from being its Karta,” Justice Najmi Waziri said in a judgment made public earlier this week.

The Karta occupies a position superior to that of other members and has full authority to manage property, rituals or other crucial affairs of the family. These include taking decisions on sale and purchase of family assets, mutation of property etc.

READ ALSO: Women can claim stridhan even after separation from husband, Supreme Court says

The ruling came on a suit filed by the eldest daughter of a business family in north Delhi staking claim to be its Karta on the passing of her father and three uncles. She was challenging her cousin brother.

The family consisted of four brothers, with the surviving eldest shouldering the responsibility of Karta. Trouble began when the brothers passed away. The eldest son of a younger brother declared himself to be the next Karta, but was challenged by the daughter of the eldest brother who is also the seniormost member of the family.

The term co-parcenor refers to rights derived in Hindu law to be the joint legal heir of assets in a family. Traditional Hindu view, based on treatises such as Dharmshastra and Mitakshara school of law, recognises only male inheritors to ancestral property. Amendments to the Hindu Succession Act in 2005 introduced section 6 that levelled the playing field for women.

The court termed it “rather odd” that following the amendments, “while females would have equal rights of inheritance in an HUF property, this right could nonetheless be curtailed when it comes to the management of the same”. Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, it pointed out, did not place any restriction on women becoming the Karta.

The HC ruling is important because it takes the 2005 reform in the Act to its logical conclusion. While the amendment restricted itself to providing women equal inheritance rights, the verdict now allows them to manage property and rituals of a joint fami

 

Disclaimer

This newsletter is compiled and prepared from the information available in public domain. Nothing in this newsletter should be deemed as legal advice and DSA shall have no liability, whatsoever, with respect to the content published herein.

Newsletter-July 2018

 Hyderabad High Court Suspended an Order of the NCLT

On July 16, 2018, in Ramky Infrastructure Ltd. vs Todi Minerals Pvt. Ltd., NCLT (Hyderabad Bench) assented for the initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) as provided by IBC against Corporate Debtor. The only objection raised on this was on the NCLT’s Jurisdiction to entertain the case as an appeal already lay with NCLAT.

The issue here revolves around the clear specification of the parameters under which HC can interfere in Orders of NCLAT under Article 227. Wherefore, an interim suspension of order of NCLT being deposited with Registry was passed suspending the same.

Talcum Powder Case: J&J ordered to pay $ 4.69 Billion

US Pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson was ordered to pay out $ 4.69 Billion in damages in a lawsuit representing 22 women and their families who alleged a talc sold by the company contained asbestos and caused them to suffer Ovarian Cancer.

 

It was said by the firm that “Johnson & Johnson is deeply disappointed in the verdict, which was the product of a fundamentally unfair process.”

 

Dishonour Of Cheque-Presumption U/S 139 Of NI Act Can’t Be Rebutted By Mere Denial: SC Reiterates.

Recently, in Kishan Rao vs Shankargouda, SC reiterated that mere denial of a debt or liability cannot shift the burden of proof from the accused in a case of dishonour of the cheque.

Apex Court also held that the accused may adduce evidence to rebut the presumption, but mere denial regarding the existence of debt shall not serve any purpose.

SC: Superior Not Guilty if Staffer Ends Life due to Heavy Workload

SC recently ruled that Superiors cannot be held responsible for abetment if an employee who is depressed because of workload at Office, commits Suicide as it cannot be assumed that the Employee assigning the work be of criminal bent of mind.

Prior to this Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court held that, an officer culpable even if there was no direct abetment on the grounds that the conditions could lead to unbearable mental tension for the employee.

Delhi HC says no Nasha for Fever FM over Trademark Dispute with Radio Mirchi

 

ENIL filed a suit in the Delhi High Court, contesting HT Media’s adoption of the name “Nasha” as being identical/deceptively similar to ENIL’s trademark.

In ENIL vs HT Media, Justice RS Endlaw on July 13th, 2018 allowed a prayer for an interim injunction against HT Media, brought by the Entertainment Network [India] Limited (ENIL), which owns Radio Mirchi.

CCI imposes Maximum Penalty on SALPG for Denial of Market Access at Vizag Port

In this case, EIPL filed an information with CCI u/s 19 (1) (a) of Competition Act, 2002 alleging that SALPG has been insisting on mandatory use of caver while allowing it to use blender.

After an investigation by Director General of CCI it was found that SALPG has been indulged in anti competitive conduct. Wherefore, SALPG was imposed a penalty of INR 19.07 Crore for denying market access to East India Petroleum Pvt. Ltd. (EIPL) and found South Asia LPG Company Ltd (SALPG) guilty of abuse of its dominant position by limiting its terminalling services for import of LPG Vishakhapatnam Port.

No Frustration of Contract if Parties agree that Force Majeure Condition would not Operate, Delhi HC

Recently, the Delhi High Court held that there can be no frustration of Contract if the parties to a contract agree to fulfil their obligations despite an intervening circumstance.

The Court held that Section 56 of the Contract Act would not apply in this case as according to Clause 25 the parties had agreed that the force majeure condition would not operate to discharge them of their contractual obligation as far as supply of material and payment thereof is concerned.

Clause Excluding Interest on Security Deposit Not a Bar on Arbitrator to Award Pendente Lite Interest

In M/S Ravechee and Co. vs. Union of India, SC held that a clause in agreement excluding interest on security deposit does not bar the arbitrator to award Pendente Lite interest.

The legal issue in the case was whether the Grant of Pre-award Interest by Arbitrator is legal or not? In which the Court held that Clause 16(3) cannot be treated as a bar on award of interest pendente lite, as it was only dealing with the arrest of interest on the security deposit. It was further held that the bar to award interest on the amounts payable under Contract would not be sufficient to deny the payment of interest pendent lite.

Eye Witnesses’ Evidence Can’t Be Doubted On The Ground That They Made No Attempts To Save The Deceased.

In Motiram Padu Joshi v. State Of Maharashtra, SC while affirming conviction in a murder case, held that evidence of the eye witnesses cannot be doubted.

The bench observed: “Their evidence cannot be doubted on the ground that they did not intervene in the attack nor made attempts to save the deceased. On witnessing a crime, each person reacts in his own way and their evidence cannot be doubted on the ground that the witness has not acted in a particular manner. The evidence of PWs 3 and 4 cannot be doubted merely because they have not acted in a particular manner.”

Thus, the Bench upheld the HC Judgment and gave confirmation on sentence of life imprisonment imposed.

Failure To Determine Blood Group Of Accused From Sample Collected From The Scene Not Enough To Acquit Him: SC .

Recently, in Prabhu Dayal vs. State of Rajasthan, SC opined that a mere non- determination of blood group from the sample obtained from the scene of crime would not be enough to acquit an accused. The Bench relied upon the judgment of State of Rajasthan vs. Teja Ram where it was held that non- determination of origin of the blood does not necessarily prove fatal to the case of prosecution.

It was further noted by Court that reports of Forensic Science Laboratory also supported the case of prosecution which concludes that Dayal participated in the unlawful assembly which has gathered to murder the victim.

HC allows NRI to depose in Court using Video Chat 

In Sucha Singh vs Ajmer Singh, it was for the first time allowed by Punjab and Haryana HC to an US based NRI (Petitioner in a Property Dispute) to depose in Court using a video chat through applications.

Court opined that it was not necessary for Petitioner to approach the Consulate and further directed him to intimate the Trial Court about his availability for a Video Chat through one of the Apps like Facetime, Whatsapp, Skype and other similar applications.

 

Inter Ikea Systems BV Versus Akea Furniture Solutions

 

In this case, an Injunction was ordered in favour of Plaintiff restraining defendant from manufacturing, selling etc. The mark “AKEA” or any other identical marks with Plaintiff’s mark IKEA. In which Defendant has no objection if present suit decreed in accordance with prayers of Plaint.

 

 

READ ALSO: SC fillip to women’s property rights

 

Justice Waziri underlined that the “impediment which prevented a female member of a HUF from becoming a Karta was that she didn’t possess the necessary qualification of co-parcenership”, but section 6, “a socially beneficial legislation”, removed that bar.

 

Top Comment

Hindu culture is because of Woman.Nitin Desai

Justice Waziri said Section 6 gave “equal rights of inheritance to Hindu males and females, its objective is to recognise the rights of female Hindus and to enhance their rights to equality apropos succession. Therefore, courts would be extremely vigilant in any endeavor to curtail or fetter statutory guarantee of enhancement of their rights. Now that this disqualification has been removed by the 2005 amendment, there is no reason why Hindu women should be denied the position of a Karta.”

 

The son maintained that Hindu law recognises the right of eldest male member to be the Karta. He claimed that even the 2005 amendment recognised the rights of a female to be equal to those of a male only with respect to succession to ancestral properties, not management of estate.

Woman can be ‘karta’of a family: Delhi high court

Abhinav Garg

The eldest female member of a family can be its “Karta”, the Delhi high court has ruled in a landmark verdict. A unique position carved out by Hindu customs and ancient texts, “Karta” denotes managership of a joint family and is traditionally inherited by men.

| TNN | Feb 1, 2016, 02.02 AM IST

Woman can be ‘karta’of a family: Delhi high court

Abhinav Garg

The eldest female member of a family can be its “Karta”, the Delhi high court has ruled in a landmark verdict. A unique position carved out by Hindu customs and ancient texts, “Karta” denotes managership of a joint family and is traditionally inherited by men.

| TNN | Feb 1, 2016, 02.02 AM IST

EW DELHI: The eldest female member of a family can be its “Karta”, the Delhi high court has ruled in a landmark verdict. A unique position carved out by Hindu customs and ancient texts, “Karta” denotes managership of a joint family and is traditionally inherited by men.

“If a male member of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), by virtue of his being the first born eldest, can be a Karta, so can a female member. The court finds no restriction in law preventing the eldest female co-parcenor of an HUF, from being its Karta,” Justice Najmi Waziri said in a judgment made public earlier this week.

The Karta occupies a position superior to that of other members and has full authority to manage property, rituals or other crucial affairs of the family. These include taking decisions on sale and purchase of family assets, mutation of property etc.

READ ALSO: Women can claim stridhan even after separation from husband, Supreme Court says

The ruling came on a suit filed by the eldest daughter of a business family in north Delhi staking claim to be its Karta on the passing of her father and three uncles. She was challenging her cousin brother.

The family consisted of four brothers, with the surviving eldest shouldering the responsibility of Karta. Trouble began when the brothers passed away. The eldest son of a younger brother declared himself to be the next Karta, but was challenged by the daughter of the eldest brother who is also the seniormost member of the family.

The term co-parcenor refers to rights derived in Hindu law to be the joint legal heir of assets in a family. Traditional Hindu view, based on treatises such as Dharmshastra and Mitakshara school of law, recognises only male inheritors to ancestral property. Amendments to the Hindu Succession Act in 2005 introduced section 6 that levelled the playing field for women.

The court termed it “rather odd” that following the amendments, “while females would have equal rights of inheritance in an HUF property, this right could nonetheless be curtailed when it comes to the management of the same”. Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, it pointed out, did not place any restriction on women becoming the Karta.

The HC ruling is important because it takes the 2005 reform in the Act to its logical conclusion. While the amendment restricted itself to providing women equal inheritance rights, the verdict now allows them to manage property and rituals of a joint family.EW DELHI: The eldest female member of a family can be its “Karta”, the Delhi high court has ruled in a landmark verdict. A unique position carved out by Hindu customs and ancient texts, “Karta” denotes managership of a joint family and is traditionally inherited by men.

“If a male member of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), by virtue of his being the first born eldest, can be a Karta, so can a female member. The court finds no restriction in law preventing the eldest female co-parcenor of an HUF, from being its Karta,” Justice Najmi Waziri said in a judgment made public earlier this week.

The Karta occupies a position superior to that of other members and has full authority to manage property, rituals or other crucial affairs of the family. These include taking decisions on sale and purchase of family assets, mutation of property etc.

READ ALSO: Women can claim stridhan even after separation from husband, Supreme Court says

The ruling came on a suit filed by the eldest daughter of a business family in north Delhi staking claim to be its Karta on the passing of her father and three uncles. She was challenging her cousin brother.

The family consisted of four brothers, with the surviving eldest shouldering the responsibility of Karta. Trouble began when the brothers passed away. The eldest son of a younger brother declared himself to be the next Karta, but was challenged by the daughter of the eldest brother who is also the seniormost member of the family.

The term co-parcenor refers to rights derived in Hindu law to be the joint legal heir of assets in a family. Traditional Hindu view, based on treatises such as Dharmshastra and Mitakshara school of law, recognises only male inheritors to ancestral property. Amendments to the Hindu Succession Act in 2005 introduced section 6 that levelled the playing field for women.

The court termed it “rather odd” that following the amendments, “while females would have equal rights of inheritance in an HUF property, this right could nonetheless be curtailed when it comes to the management of the same”. Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, it pointed out, did not place any restriction on women becoming the Karta.

The HC ruling is important because it takes the 2005 reform in the Act to its logical conclusion. While the amendment restricted itself to providing women equal inheritance rights, the verdict now allows them to manage property and rituals of a joint fami

 

Disclaimer

This newsletter is compiled and prepared from the information available in public domain. Nothing in this newsletter should be deemed as legal advice and DSA shall have no liability, whatsoever, with respect to the content published herein.