Category: news

The Delhi High Court (DHC) has rejected an appeal filed by PepsiCo. against the order of Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Authority (Authority) that revoked PepsiCo.’s registration for a potato variety grown exclusively for its Lay’s potato chips. The Authority had revoked the registration on the grounds that the Certificate of Registration had been issued based on incorrect information regarding the date of the first sale of FL 2027 potato plant variety and its categorization been marked as “new” instead of “extant.”

The Belgian Competition Authority (BCA) has sent statement of objections to three private security sector companies, Securitas, G4S and Seris Security, after forming a preliminary view that these entities have been involved in cartelization in private security services market. According to BCA these companies have, for several years, engaged in fixing minimum prices determined within the sectoral trade association, exchanges of information and coordination in tenders and reciprocal non-solicitation agreement for each other’s employees

The Telangana High Court (Tel. HC) has held that the Telangana Eunuchs Act, 1919 (Act) regress into the private sphere of an individual and violates fundamental rights of the Transgender (Eunuchs) on the ground that it criminalises the entire community of Eunuchs. Therefore, the Tel. HC opining that “This legislation is violative of the human rights of the third gender community besides it is an intrusion into their private sphere as well as an assault on their dignity. It is thus offensive of both the right to privacy and the right to dignity of transgender persons. It is not only violative of Article 14 but is also clearly violative of Article 21 of the Constitutional of India” held the Act unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court (SC), setting aside the order passed by the Madras High Court (Mad. HC) under section 482 of Cr.PC. quashing the order passed under section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFEASI Act) on the ground that the Magistrate’s order was passed ex-parte, opined that “any remedy against such order can be availed only under the SARFAESI ACT, 2002”.

The Supreme Court (SC) set aside an interim order passed by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court (Cal. HC) directing fresh selection of 32,000 teacher posts, before the end of August 2023, in relation to School Jobs for Cash Scam in West Bengal. The SC, setting aside Cal. HC order, accepted the fact that call for selection and interview of 32,000 teachers within the time frame would not be possible and that it would be an expensive exercise.

The Supreme Court (SC), in an appeal against the Allahabad High Court order reducing the quantum of sentence from 10 years, under aggravated penetrative sexual assault, to 7 years under penetrative sexual assault, despite the fact that section 5(m) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) provides that penetrative sexual assault on a child less than 12 years old would amount to aggravated sexual assault, held that “When a penal provision uses the phraseology “shall not be less than….”, the Courts cannot do offence to the Section and impose a lesser sentence. The Courts are powerless to do that unless there is a specific statutory provision enabling the Court to impose a lesser sentence.”

The Supreme Court (SC) has held that the right to possess land in notified reserved forests is not only limited to Adivasis, notified forest-dwellers or backward communities alone, but also extend to those having legitimate claims over the forest land. SC while pointing out that “these other groups, who do not get recognition under the law as a forest dwelling community due to several socio-political and economic reasons, are also an integral part of the said forest communities and are essential to their functioning,” further, held that even persons not belonging to such notified communities have a right to be heard before they are evicted from the forest land they possess.

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.