Author: kkslawoffices

The Supreme Court (SC) criticized the Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) who filed a reply before the SC in a criminal appeal stating that the accused was charged for commission of offence under Section 180 of the IPC, for refusing to sign a confession statement. The SC observed, “An officer, who is a DSP, ought to know that in terms of section 162, Cr. PC, no statement made by a person to a police officer in the course of any investigation under Chapter XII of the Cr. PC, which is reduced to writing, is required to be signed by the person making the statement and that section 180 of the IPC gets attracted only if a statement is refused to be signed which a public servant is legally competent to require the person making the statement to sign.”

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court dismissed a criminal appeal, upholding the acquittal of the accused for charges of abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Ranbir Penal Code, 1989 for the lack of intention and active participation in abetment and observed that, “There may be various instances of matrimonial discord between husband and wife and at times wife being constantly taunted and subjected to sarcastic remarks in the house of her in-laws may be driven to commit suicide. However, such instances are normal wear and tear of a matrimonial life. In my opinion mere harassment of a wife by her husband or in-laws due to matrimonial discord or sarcastic remarks perse does not attract Section 306 RPC.

Big Tech giants like Amazon Inc., Apple Inc., Google LLC, Meta and Microsoft accepted the classification of “gatekeeper” under the Digital Markets Act (DMA) of the European Union (EU), which became applicable from 02.05.2023. The gatekeeper status will be confirmed by the EU by September, this year, and the companies are expected to adopt the appropriate statutory requirements under the DMA by then.

The Supreme Court, in an appeal regarding the legality of a condition to deposit money for grant of anticipatory bail in a cheating case, noted that the conditions imposed should not be onerous, unreasonable or excessive. It further observed that in exceptional cases like misappropriation of public money, it may be appropriate to consider whether the money misappropriated should be deposited, “however, such an approach would not be warranted in cases of private disputes where private parties complain of their money being involved in the offence of cheating.”

Mexico’s Federal Economic Competition Commission (COFECE) has initiated an investigation into possible monopolistic practices in the market for sale and development of digital goods and services. Affirming the need for a balanced market, the Director General of the COFECE observed, “We are working to protect the rights of all participants in the market, to ensure the fair and equitable functioning of commerce and to prevent any practices that may hinder, damage or limit competition.”

The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), upon conducting a Phase 1 investigation, found competition concerns regarding the acquisition of Figma Inc. by Adobe Inc., in the supply of screen design software where the two companies compete. Further, CMA is concerned that the transaction could threaten the innovation in the creative design software sector where Figma Inc. is an emerging competitive threat to Adobe Inc. The CMA has given Adobe Inc. time to submit proposals to address the competition concerns, failing which Phase 2 investigation will be initiated by the CMA.

The Department of Justice, Canada has determined that Microsoft’s acquisition of Activision Blizzard, the videogame maker that owns the game “Call of Duty”, could potentially reduce competition in the areas of gaming consoles, multigame subscription services, and cloud gaming. The Canada Competition Bureau notified Microsoft that it would continue to monitor its acquisition of Activision Blizzard after the formal waiting period preventing the execution of the proposed transaction expired.

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) in an information filed against a wholesale supplier of consumer durable goods, alleging that the supplier unilaterally changed the amount of refundable security deposit and was ignoring the purchase orders, among other things, resulting in cheating, misappropriation and fraud on the part of the supplier, dismissed the case at prima facie stage, stating that the “allegations are purely in the realm of commercial disputes arising out of a failed business arrangement raising no competition concerns.”

The Madras High Court, dealing with the constitutional validity of the notifications issued under Consumer Protection (Qualification for Appointment, Method of recruitment,…) Rules, 2020 already held unconstitutional by the Bombay High Court in 2021, and subsequently by the Supreme Court, held that “The law is settled to the effect that once a provision of the Central Law or a Rule is held to be unconstitutional by a High Court, the same would stand effaced from the statute book in respect of the entire Nation and it cannot be said that it would not be valid within the jurisdiction of the particular High Court and it would be valid in other areas.”