Author: kkslawoffices

The Delhi High Court (DHC) while hearing a bail application filed by the accused arraigned for the offence of dowry death under Section 304B IPC noted that “For invoking the offence under Section 304B IPC, not only the harassment or cruelty should be soon before death but it should be related to demand of dowry. The expression “soon before death” is a relative expression.” DHC noted that prosecution evidence failed to prove any demand of dowry to be the instigation factor for wife to commit suicide. Further, DHC observed that allegations of extra-marital affair and habit of betting cannot be considered as ground for implicating offence Section 304B IPC.

The Supreme Court (SC) was dealing with a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed under Art.136 of the Constitution assailing an order passed by the Telangana High Court (Tel. HC) rejecting the plea for online hearing. SC noted that since it’s in nature of administrative order and that “..Article 136 contemplates only special leave petition to the Court from adjudication of courts and tribunals and such adjudication must doubtless be judicial.” Thus, it held that no SLP lies in the present case

Australia, on 06.09.2023, passed a new law to curb near-monopoly status of Australia Stock Exchange Ltd. (ASX) and to foster competition in post-trade settlement and clearing services in financial market. The new law creates a framework for fair, transparent and non-discriminatory access to market infrastructure for emerging competitors at par with ASX.

The Delhi High Court (DHC), dealing with maintainability of Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) filed against the order of Single-judge of the DHC against the decision of Registrar of Trademarks, has held that Registrar of Trademarks is not a Civil Court to be susceptible to bar of Section 100A of CPC, 1908. The DHC opined that LPA will not be available where a special statute subjects the appeal remedy to follow the rules applicable to appeals and embodied in the CPC. However, since Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 does not prescribe the appellate remedy to be governed by the provisions of the CPC therefore, LPA lies against the order of Single-judge of High Court.

The Supreme Court (SC), adjudicating on appeals filed against the final order of the Himachal Pradesh High Court upholding the Himachal Pradesh Passengers and Goods (Amendment and Validation), Act, 1997, has held that it is permissible for the legislature to remove a defect in earlier legislation, either prospectively or retrospectively, by a legislative process and previous actions can also be validated. “However, where a legislature merely seeks to validate the acts carried out under a previous legislation which has been struck down or rendered inoperative by a Court, by a subsequent legislation without curing the defects in such legislation, the subsequent legislation would also be ultra-vires“

The Delhi High Court (DHC), in an appeal filed by the wife against the Trial Court’s order for annulment of marriage on ground of cruelty, has held that divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) is only based on the ‘Fault Theory’ and that, at times, marriages do not work because of incompatibility and temperamental differences, for which neither party can be blamed. However, since “Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage” has till now not been recognised as a ground for divorce, the Courts are bound by the limits of HMA and “unless the fault of the other spouse is shown, the parties are left to suffer acrimonious relationship with no way to exit”.

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has granted approval to merger of Tata SIA Airlines Ltd., jointly owned by Tata Sons Pvt. Ltd. (TSPL) & Singapore Airlines Limited (SIA), and Air India Ltd. Post merger, TSPL will hold 51% of the merged entity along with control over Air India Ltd. & its subsidiaries; whereas, SIA will only hold a minority stake of 25.1% in the merged entity. The CCI has given its approval to the transaction, subject to compliance with voluntary commitments offered by the parties which will be enlisted in the CCI’s detailed order in coming future.

The Supreme Court (SC) while dealing with an appeal filed against the order of the Orissa High Court (OHC) in which the OHC had declared Rule 4(b) of the Ministry of Information Technology (Insitu promotion under Flexible Complementing Scheme) Rules, 1998 as ultra vires, has held that in absence of any prayer or grounds made in the pleadings by the petitioner/appellant to declare any provision as ultra vires, there is no requirement for the Constitutional Court(s) to adjudicate upon the same.

The Supreme Court (SC), dealing with the question if illegitimate children are entitled to a share in the coparcenary property under Section 16(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA), has held that “a child who is legitimate under Section 16(1) and 16(2) of the HMA would, for the purposes of Section 3(1)(j) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, fall within the ambit of the explanation ‘related by legitimate kinship’ and cannot be regarded as an ‘illegitimate child’”. The SC, further, noted that while conferring legitimacy to a child born out of void/voidable marriages the legislature has stipulated in Section 16(3) of HMA that such a child will have rights to or in the property of the parents and not in the property of any other person.