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.
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.
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.
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
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.