Category: news

The Karnataka High Court (Karnataka HC), dismissing a writ for release of funds received from a foreign charity, has held that obtaining a permanent registration under the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act, 2010 does not create a right in favour of the registration holder to get the amounts credited to the designated bank account and it is always subject to the clearance by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). The Karnataka HC noted that the MHA had earlier instructed the bank not to credit the amount received from the particular donor without a clearance from it and therefore, the Petitioner is not entitled to funds.

The Supreme Court (SC), overruling a judgment of Mad. HC, has held that ‘Self-respect Marriages’ do not require public solemnization or declaration and that marriage certificate issued by an Advocate thereof is valid. ‘Self-respect Marriage’/ Suyamariyathai/Seerthiruththa is a system of marriage based on Section 7A, inserted by Tamil Nadu State Amendment, in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, according to which a Suyamariyathai marriage can be solemnized, without following rituals or without solemnization by a priest, by declaring marriage in the presence of relatives, friends or other persons

The Supreme Court (SC), in an appeal filed by the accused against the order of conviction passed by the Bombay High Court, has held that merely because the complainant suffered simple injuries that does not absolve the accused from being convicted for the offence under Section 307, attempt to murder, of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The SC observed that an intention coupled with the overt act committed by the accused is important for conviction under Section 307 IPC. The SC while noting that the accused tried to assault the complainant with Gupti on his head held that such an overt act by the accused would be covered by Section 307 IPC.

The Delhi High Court (DHC) in a Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) petition held that the Courts can partially set aside an Arbitral Award (AA) if the part of the AA is capable of being severed or validly incised from the rest. The DHC noted that the proviso to Section 34(2)(a)(iv) of the Arbitration Act acknowledges that AA may sometimes be capable of being severed. Further, that such a course, of partially setting aside AAs, is not only confined to the scenarios enumerated in Section 34(2)(a), but also applicable to all scenarios stipulated under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.

The Supreme Court (SC) acquitting a death row prisoner reiterated precautions to be exercised while relying on Dying Declaration (DD) of the victims. The SC noted that DD is substantial piece of evidence provided it is proved that it was voluntary, truthful and made in a fit state of mind. On the basis of two DDs, both the Sessions Court and the Allahabad High Court held the accused guilty. However, the SC held that DD alone cannot be relied as there were discrepancies between them and other eye-witness statements.

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.