Strategic Consultant
The Supreme Court (SC), in an appeal against a NCDRC order, held that insurers bear the burden of proving the applicability of exclusionary clauses in insurance contracts. Such clauses must be strictly interpreted against the insurer, as they can completely exempt the insurer from its liability. The SC set aside the NCDRC order noting that the exclusionary clause, in the insurance policy, excluded coverage for factors like faulty design.
The Supreme Court, setting aside the order of Madras High Court, revoked the bail of eight individuals associated with the banned Popular Front of India (PFI) and charged under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 (UAPA). The SC observed that the allegations of raising funds for terrorist activities against them appeared to be prima facie valid. Further, the SC also directed for an expedited trial in the case.
The Supreme Court (SC), dismissing the criminal charges under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1882, pertaining to alleged non-repayment of investments made in benami properties, held that individuals asserting ownership of benami properties cannot file legal actions against those in whose name the properties are registered.
The Supreme Court has ruled that under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Act), confiscating a vehicle without hearing its owner is illegal. Citing Section 63 of the Act, the Supreme Court emphasized that confiscation orders must adhere to due process. According to the Act, such orders cannot be issued until one month after seizure and must include a hearing for anyone claiming rights over the confiscated vehicle.
The Supreme Court (SC) upheld the recommendations made by the Gujarat High Court (GHC), to give 65% promotion quota to Senior Civil District Judges on the basis of merit-cum-seniority principle. The SC found no fault in the promotion process adopted by the GHC as they satisfied the twin requirements stipulated in the All India Judges Association case – (i) the objective assessment of legal knowledge of the judicial officer including adequate knowledge of case law, (ii) the evaluation of continued efficiency of the individual candidate.
The Supreme Court (SC) in an appeal held that the only person who may be charged with bigamy, a crime punishable under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1882, is the person engaging in the second marriage. The SC further, observed that the appellants must demonstrate not only that they have attended a bigamous wedding but also that the defendants have committed an overt act or omission indicating their common intention to engage in bigamy.
The European Commission (EC) upon receiving a self-assessment notification from Booking.com regarding their potential status as gatekeeper of online intermediation services has held Booking.com as an important gateway between business and consumers. Thus, EC designated Booking.com as a gatekeeper.
The Supreme Court (SC), in an appeal filed against the order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Resolution Commission (NCDRC) holding deficiency in services by the Advocates, has held that the legal profession is sui generis in nature, requiring advance education and training, thus a professional cannot be treated equally or at par with a businessman, trader or a provider of products or goods. The SC while setting aside the NCDRC order further held that the lawyers cannot be held for deficiency in services under Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The Supreme Court (SC) in an appeal while dealing with issue of nature of adjudication by the Court in an application for setting aside of Arbitral Tribunals’ award under S.34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act), has held that Court does not sit in appeal over the arbitral award findings in an application for setting aside the Arbitral Tribunal’s award & may interfere on merits on the limited ground provided under Section 34(2)(b)(ii) of the Arbitration Act.
The Delhi High Court (DHC) in an application under S.482 Cr.P.C. seeking grant of parole for consummation of his marriage with his live-in partner has held that, neither the law in India or the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 “permit grant of parole on the ground of maintaining conjugal relationships, that too with live-in partners.” The DHC further noted that the ‘right to procreation’ enshrined under Art.21 of the Constitution of India is not an absolute right.
The rules of the Bar Council of India prohibit law firms from soliciting work or advertising in any manner. By clicking on 'I AGREE', the user acknowledges that The information provided in the website does not amount to advertisement and the user merely wishes to gain more information about KK Sharma Law Offices, its practice areas and its attorneys, for his/ her own information and use;
The information is made available/ provided to the user only on his/ her specific request and any information obtained or material downloaded from this website is completely at the user's volition and any transmission, receipt or use of this site is not intended to, and will not, create any lawyer-client relationship; and none of the information contained on the website is in the nature of a legal opinion or otherwise amounts to any legal advice. Thus KK Sharma Law Offices will not be liable for any consequence of any action taken by the user relying on material/ information provided under this website.
Having got one of the global automobiles giants imposed with a fine of Rs. 87 crores amongst other instances, our grip on this sector is complete. KK Sharma Law Offices ('Firm') has dealt with the procurement of services of Car Carrier Trucks by market leader in automobile sector in India and brought the anti-competitive practices to the fore.
The very first investigation in the country into competition law violations was made which resulted in a cascading effect of company after company giving up the claims of loan foreclosure charges in home and car loans across the country, amongst others, were under taken.
When the allegations of cartel were brought before the enforcement machinery against the flexible conveyor belt manufacturers they were clear in their mind that only KKSLO can deal it successfully and, accordingly, they availed our services.
The very first successful instance of cartelisation dealt by the competition agency in the case of Ficci Multiplex Association was very successfully dealt with by the competition agency under the overall supervision of Mr. Sharma.
The very first penalty on the leading stock exchange of the country exceeding Rs.50 Crores was based on the investigation done by the Mr. Sharma. Subsequently, when there were allegations of future trading and guar gum and other similar commodities, for saving the enterprises from huge fines, the Firm was the natural choice for representing these companies.
It may not be that well known no manufactured vehicle can leave the premises of the manufacturer except without being loaded on to the car carrier trucks. When the instances of anti competitive practices came to the fore, the Firm was the first choice to taken services from.
