Category: news

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has issued draft Commitment Regulations, 2023 (Comm. Reg.) for stakeholders’ comments on newly inserted Section 48B of the Competition Act, 2002 (Act). The draft Comm. Reg. gives liberty to an enterprise/commitment applicant against whom an inquiry, under Section 26(1) of the Act, to offer commitments to remedy the market distortion as set out by CCI in its Section 26(1) order. The Application can be filed within 45 days from the receipt of Section 26(1) Order or prior to receipt of DG report under Section 26(4) of the Act, whichever is earlier. Thereafter, the application must be decided within 90 days.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court (P&H HC), in a writ petition against the order of Second Appellate Authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act), criticised the Second Appellate Authorities for passing cryptic and non-speaking orders. In view thereof, the P&H HC drafted the following parameters to be included in Authorities’ order : 1) Points on which the information is sought; 2) Point-wise reply w.r.t. the information sought; 3) Categorical findings in relation to information supplied or not & if supplied, the date on which it has been supplied; 4) In case the information sought is not to be supplied owing to any bar contained in RTI Act then, after recording its stand and after considering the submissions made by both the parties with respect to the said point/issue, return a finding with respect to the said issue/point; 5) Any other observation which the authority deems fit.

The Supreme Court (SC), in an appeal filed by the revisionist against the dismissal of criminal revision petition by the Allahabad High Court (AHC), observed that in absence of a party (revisionist) or its counsel, the Court adjudicating the revision petition must consider the case on its merits. The SC, observing that since the case was not considered on its merits, held that the AHC’s order is a non-reasoned order and further, that “When an adverse order would affect the personal liberty of a person, the fact that he is a convict cannot be a reason to deprive him of fair treatment in the matter of consideration of his revision petition in the manner prescribed by this Court….”

The Madras High Court (Mad. HC) dismissed the appeal filed by PhonePe challenging the Single Judge’s order refusing to restrain DigiPe from using its logo. The Division Bench in the present case noted that PhonePe has failed to show that both PhonePe and DigiPe app catered to similar set of consumers and how use of the word ‘Pe’ could lead to confusion. Further, PhonePe is not the innovator of the “Pe” formative mark.

The Supreme Court (SC), upholding the decision of Karnataka High Court refusing to grant relief for redemption of mortgage, held that under section 58(c) of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, no transaction shall be deemed to be a mortgage unless the condition for reconveyance is contained in the document which purports the effect of sale.

The Delhi High Court (DHC) in a commercial suit filed by Universal Studios and other prominent Hollywood Studios passed a ‘Dynamic+ injunction’ against various rogue websites which allow viewing, streaming and downloading of content produced by these Studios, without any license or authorisation. The Dynamic+ injunction restrains the rogue websites or any mirror/redirect websites or alphanumeric variations against not only the current copyrighted content of the Studios but also extends to their future works. The DHC observed that “Copyright in future works comes into existence immediately upon the work being created, and Plaintiffs may not be able to approach the Court for each and every film or series that is produced in the future, to secure an injunction against piracy.”

The Supreme Court (SC), in a case relating to pregnancy borne out of sexual intercourse on the false pretext of marriage, for which a case under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC has been filed by the survivor, allowing the survivor to terminate her 25-weeks old pregnancy, has held that “…the right of dignity entails recognising the competence and authority of every woman to take reproductive decisions, including the decision to terminate the pregnancy.”

The Gujarat High Court (GHC), quashing a complaint alleging cruelty under section 498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860, observing that the expression used, for accused, in section 498A is ‘husband’ & ‘relatives of the husband’, held that a complaint under 498A can be filed by a women after divorce but only for incidents that took place while the marriage was subsisting.

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) in an information in alleging imposition of restrictive terms and conditions by Educational Institutions, in the tenders floated by them for procurement of books for their libraries, rejected the Informant’s contentions and held that a procurer/consumer has the right to make decisions that serve its best interests and must be allowed to exercise its choice freely while purchasing goods and services in the market.

The Madras High Court (Mad. HC) in a batch of appeals challenging the dismissal order of a Single Judge, rejecting the pleas filed by Matrimony.com and 13 other digital companies opposing the new billing policy of Google for its PlayStore, granted temporary relief to companies by restraining Google from delisting them from its PlayStore. Through the updated billing policy Google allowed apps developers to use alternative billing option however, for the same Google imposed a service fee of 11-26%, which according to the companies are exorbitant.