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.
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.
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
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
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.