Category: news

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.”

A Division Bench of Delhi High Court (Delhi HC) has upheld the order passed by the Single Judge holding that services rendered by advocates are professional activities and cannot be taxed under the category of business establishment or professional establishment. The Delhi HC was dealing with issue of levy of property tax on the premises which was used as a law office. Delhi HC while noting that rule of strict interpretation applies for taxation statute has held that “insofar as the statute has not included “professional activity” of lawyers as “commercial activity” the former cannot be put to tax.”

A POCSO Court in Mumbai convicted the accused on charges of sexual assault under the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO), dismissing the challenge to the victim’s testimony where she was unable to remember specific dates of offence. During trial, the victim could not describe sodomy but the judge relied on medical evidence to conclude the commission of the offence. Further, the victim has stoutly denied the suggestions put to her, during cross-examination, that no such incident occurred; and her testimony inspired confidence to base the conviction upon it.

The Mad. High Court (Mad. HC), dealing with the validity of advertisement for appointment of Archakas/Sthanikam (temple priest), at a temple in Salem, held that any person belonging to any caste or creed can be appointed as an Archaka provided he is a well-versed and an accomplished person in the Agamas and rituals necessary to be performed in a temple.

The Madras High Court (Mad. HC) in a petition alleging discriminatory action by a Senior Advocate of Madras Bar Association (MBA), denying a non-member from using water filter kept in the premises of MBA’s hall, noted that it is a case of class discrimination and therefore, is within the ambit of untouchability. Further, the Mad. HC held that broad reading of Article 17 of the Constitution makes it inclusive of all forms of untouchability and what needs to be considered is that whether the practice was one of social subordination, exclusion, and segregation to be falling within the ambit of untouchability.

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has dismissed allegations against LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. (LG) for abuse of dominance in the “market for manufacture and sale of Variable Refrigerant Flow (VRF) Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) Air conditioners in India.” It was alleged that LG refused to allow the Informant to install its Hybrid Thermal Solar panels, on LG’s air conditioning units, which when installed reduces the electricity consumption by 30-40%. CCI noted that LG does not have a dominant position based on the fact “that there are many VRF/VRV HVAC air conditioner manufacturers and suppliers in India” and LG merely has 16% market share in the relevant market.

The Allahabad High Court dismissing a writ petition, to give protection to an inter-faith live-in couple from their families, held that the writ jurisdiction is an extraordinary jurisdiction not made to resolve disputes between two private parties. The Court further stated “Law traditionally has been biased in favour of marriage. It reserves many rights and privileges to married persons to preserve and encourage the institution of marriage. The Supreme Court is simply accepting a social reality and it has no intention to unravel the fabric of Indian family life.”

The Madras High Court, while recognising the contribution made by a wife to facilitate her husband to purchase the property by performing multiple tasks as a home maker, observed that, “In my view, if the acquisition of assets is made by joint contribution (directly or indirectly) of both the spouses for the welfare of the family, certainly, both are entitled to equal share.”