Author: kkslawoffices

The Competition and Markets Authority (‘CMA’) has launched an investigation, for potential cartelization, against top sports broadcasters in the UK. The investigation will focus on purchase of freelance services, by sports broadcasters, which support the production and broadcasting of sports content in the UK.

The Supreme Court (‘SC’), while hearing an appeal of a rape convict, detained for 10 years instead of his original sentence of 7 years, held “When such a convict is detained beyond the actual release date it would be imprisonment or detention sans sanction of law and would thus, violate not only Article 19(d) but also Article 21 of the Constitution of India.” The SC also observed that a State is vicariously liable for the acts and omissions committed by its officers in the course of employment and therefore, directed the State to pay the appellant compensation to the tune of ₹7.5 lakh.

The Supreme Court, in a property dispute case, observed that continuous readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff is a condition precedent for grant of the relief of specific performance.

The SC added that there is a distinction between readiness and willingness to perform the contract and both ingredients are necessary for the relief of specific performance. While readiness means the capacity of the plaintiff to perform the contract which would include his financial position, willingness relates to the conduct of the plaintiff.

The Supreme Court (‘SC’) observed that any non-compliance of Section 41 and 41A of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, at the time of arrest, would entitle the accused for grant of bail. Section 41 and 41 A of the CrPC govern the arrest of any person without a warrant.

Holding that Sections 41 & 41A are facets of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the SC stated “The investigating agencies and their officers are duty-bound to comply with the mandate of Section 41 and 41A of the Code and the directions issued in Arnesh Kumar judgement…..Any dereliction on their part has to be brought to the notice of the higher authorities by the court followed by appropriate action.”

Twitter has requested a Delaware Court to compel Elon Musk to complete the $44 billion buy of Twitter at $54.20 per share. “Musk apparently believes that he – unlike every other party subject to Delaware contract law – is free to change his mind, trash the company, disrupt its operations, destroy stockholder value, and walk away,” said the lawsuit.
The excuse of Musk has been that he is walking away from the deal because Twitter failed to provide information regarding fake or spam accounts on the platform, which is fundamental to its performance.

The Kerala High Court, while going through a Public Interest Litigation (‘PIL’) challenging the 50% reservation for Muslims at a state-run coaching centre for Civil Service aspirants, had issued notice to the State Government, the Institute of Career Studies & Research, as well as Center for Continuing Education Kerala, and the Kerala State Civil Service Academy. The PIL stated, “The State should never be party to an illegal attempt to increase the number of persons in the administrative services from a particular religious community. Cadres of the Administrative Services play a pivotal role in the administration of this diverse country. Any attempt to manipulate the composition of the Services will have deleterious effect”.

The Supreme Court (‘SC’), while allowing the review petition challenging the 2018 judgment of the SC, had sentenced Congress Leader Navjot Singh Sidhu to one year imprisonment in a 1988 road rage case in addition to the fine of 1000 Rs. earlier imposed on him. The SC held that, “We have allowed the review application on issue of sentence. In addition to fine imposed, we impose a sentence of imprisonment of one year to be undergone by the respondent“.

The European Commission (‘EC’), on suspicion of cartel and other restrictive business practices, has started conducting unannounced inspections at the premises of various companies in the fashion industry. The EC statement also emphasised that, “Unannounced inspections are a preliminary investigative step into suspected anticompetitive practices. The fact that the Commission carries out such inspections and sends out formal requests for information does not mean that the companies are guilty of anti-competitive behaviour nor does it prejudge the outcome of the investigation itself.”

The Supreme Court (‘SC’), in a civil appeal filed before it, reiterated that an appeal against the order of National Company Law Tribunal (‘NCLT’) shall be filed before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (‘NCLAT’) within a period of 30 days, and the NCLAT has the power to extend the period of limitation by another 15 days.

This civil appeal was filed before the SC, under Section 62 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, against the order passed by the NCLAT, wherein, after condonation of delay, a notice was issued even after delay of 388 days in filing the appeal before NCLAT.

The division bench, presided by Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice C Hari Shankar, of the Delhi High Court has delivered a split verdict in the marital rape case, regarding the validity of Exception 2 of Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. As per the exception, the charge of rape cannot be attracted against a husband who has non-consensual sex with his wife.

Justice Rajiv Shakdher held that “The impugned provisions in so far as they concern a husband having intercourse with his wife without consent are violative of article 14 and are, therefore, struck down”. However, the provision was upheld by Justice C Hari Shankar, who held that “I do not agree. There is no support to show that impugned exception violates Articles 14, 19 or 21. There is an intelligible differentia. I am of the view that the challenge cannot sustain.”