Today’s Legal Updates

Tuesday, 12th June 2022



CHAPTER- I THE EXECUTIVE (The President and Vice-President)

Article – 60 Oath or affirmation by the President.

Every President and every person acting as President or discharging the functions of the President shall, before entering upon his office, make and subscribe in the presence of the Chief Justice of India or, in his absence, the senior-most Judge of the Supreme Court available, an oath or affirmation in the following form, that is to say—

“I, A.B., do swear in the name of God that I will faithfully execute the office solemnly affirm
of President (or discharge the functions of the President) of India and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and the law and that I will devote myself to the service and well-being of the people of India.”.

Today’s Legal Updates :-

  1. On Tuesday the Ministry of Corporate Affairs has released a notification inviting online application for filling up of posts of eight Judicial Members and eleven Technical Members at the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT).
  2. On Tuesday A Bengaluru court passed a John Doe order directing social media platforms to take down a photograph which was widely circulated with the claim that two of the persons therein are Justices Surya Kant and JB Pardiwala of the Supreme Court.
    • The Court ordered Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter and WhatsApp to take down all libellous and defamatory content against Dipali Sikand, the owner of club MindEscapes, where the photo was clicked with some guests.
    • the suit said, Shockingly, the posts on social media and WhatsApp claimed that two guests in the picture were Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pardiwala, who were hearing the Nupur Sharma petition. Similar posts are being made and forwarded by several individuals on WhatsApp groups as well.
    • Sikand stated in the suit, Several individuals are still posting about the photograph with false captions and defamatory statements about the plaintiff and its guests.
  3. On Tuesday the Delhi High Court has permanently restrained a Bangalore-based confectionary shop from using ‘Facebake‘,’Facecake‘ or any other name which is deceptively similar to that of Facebook.  (Meta Platforms Inc v. Noufel Malol & Anr)
    • In a trademark infringement suit filed by Facebook’s parent company, Meta, Justice Navin Chawla awarded nominal damages worth ₹50,000 in favour of the social media giant, and ordered that the costs of the present suit shall also be borne by the defendants.
    • The defendants, its directors, proprietors, subsidiaries, affiliates, franchisees, officers, servants, agents, distributors, representatives and anyone acting for or on its behalf are permanently restrained from using the ‘Facebake’ marks; the domain name; the email ids;; the mark ‘Facecake’; the Facebook marks, the Facebook Visual Presentation, and any other “Facebook” formative trade marks of the plaintiff, or any other mark deceptively similar thereto in relation to products and services related to confectionary items, or any other goods or services, in any manner, including on social media.
    • The overall visual representation adopted by the defendants, clearly depicts the mala fide intent of the defendants in obtaining unfair advantage by the use of the mark similar to that of the plaintiff and also leads to the dilution of the mark of the plaintiff. It can lead to an unwary consumer being at least interested in taking note of the defendants as having some kind of connection with the plaintiff.
  4. On Tuesday the Kerala High Court aquitted 13 workers of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) who had been convicted by a trial court for the alleged murder of a Communist Party of India (Marxist) member in 2008.
    • The manner in which events were portrayed before Court, smacks of a deliberate attempt to tutor witness and collect evidence, to define a scripted story. The sad saga of political rivalry and mindless killing, as we have noticed in many cases, tears asunder the social fabric of the State… We cannot but acquit the accused of the charges levelled against them; the prosecution having miserably failed to prove the incriminating circumstances against the accused…There is absolutely no evidence worth its salt, and the prosecution failed to prove any corroborative circumstance, but for the political rivalry existing between two groups.
    • the Court said, Political rivalry, is a simmering cauldron of intrigue, spite and deceit, often spewing out the venom of hatred, in the form of mindless bloodshed. The men in red and those saffron clad, are divided on political lines and the instant case is alleged to be the murder of one among the former, by a few in the latter group.
    • the Court said, In many a case where the crime is the product of political rivalry, we see an over zealousness on the part of the investigating and prosecuting agency. The cherry-picked witnesses speak with precision on every minute aspect, unmindful of the disbelief it evokes.
    • the Court said as it set aside the convictions of the accused and set them at liberty, The conspiracy is nonsensical and the witnesses are clearly tutored, who go on a tirade of embellishments, about what transpired in a public place in broad daylight, without any of that spoken in the prior statements to the Police. …The witnesses proffered by the prosecution; whose very presence is suspect, speak on the details of the attack, the crime proper and the get-away, in a manner which makes the observations made, impossible of perception, within the short time in which the incident is said to have occurred.
    • The saga written in blood continues and the memorials held by the rival parties offer no solace to destitute parents, hapless widows and orphaned children, who often loose the only bread winner of the family. The yearly remembrances, only stoke the fires of rivalry and does not wipe the tears of the bereaved or awaken the conscience of those who matter. Another life is lost and yet another prosecution fails, both lying on the wayside, grim reminders to the society of the futility of it all.
  5. On Tuesday the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Chennai reiterated the importance of adhering to timelines under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).  (The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner EPFO v. Mr. Vasudevan Resolution Professional & Liquidator of M/s. Titanium Tantalum Products Limited)
    • Speed’ is the essence of I & B Code, 2016. `Time Wasted’/`Lost’ cannot be revisited/regained. The process of Liquidation is time bound, to be completed within one year in the teeth of the I & B Code, 2016. Undoubtedly, the Code is an inbuilt and self-contained one and the object of the I & B Code, 2016, is that, a time barred `Debt’ cannot be resurrected or given a fresh tenure of life, as opined by this `Tribunal’.
    • Just because the Appellant is a Statutory Organisation, no `indulgence’ or `latitude’ can be shown since the `Law’ applies to one and all in a level playing field.
    • An unpardonable lackadaisical approach / attitude of the `Party’ in pursuing a matter before the `Competent Authority’/`Tribunal’ is not to be accepted. The `Law of Limitation’ being harsh, will affect a `Litigant’, but it has to be pressed into service with all its vigour and rigour in the considered opinion of this `Tribunal.
  6. On Last week the Allahabad High Court acquitted a murder accused who was awarded death penalty by the trial court. (Ram Pratap @ Tillu v State of UP)
    • A bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Sameer Jain said that though motive and abscondence may give rise to strong suspicion, merely on the basis of those two circumstances, an accused cannot be held guilty.
    • the Court ordered, The reference to confirm the death penalty is answered in negative and reference to confirm the death penalty awarded to accused-appellant Ram Pratap @ Tillu is rejected. The judgment and order of the trial court is set aside. The appellant Ram Pratap @ Tillu is acquitted of all the charges for which he has been tried. The appellant shall be released forthwith, unless wanted in any other case.
    • For all the reasons recorded above, the judgment of the trial court in our opinion cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.. The reference to confirm the death penalty is answered in negative and reference to confirm the death penalty awarded to accused-appellant Ram Pratap @ Tillu is rejected.
  7. On Tuesday Former Partner at Algo Legal and Founder of Samvid Legal Namitha Mathews and former Associate Partner at DSK Legal Jitendra Soni have joined Argus Partners as Partners in Delhi.
  8. On Monday the Karnataka High Court Judge Justice HP Sandesh recorded in his order the details of the threat of transfer he had received for monitoring certain cases being handled by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) of the State. (Mahesh PS v. State of Karnataka)
    • In the meanwhile, on account of superannuation of the Hon’ble Chief Justice, a dinner was arranged by this Court to bid farewell on 01.07.2022. A Hon’ble sitting Judge came and sat by the side of me and stated that he received a call from Delhi (not disclosed the name) and said that the person who called from Delhi, enquired about me and immediately I replied that I am not affiliated to any political party and the Hon’ble Judge did not stop the same there itself and further said that ADGP is from North India and he is powerful and also gave an instance of transfer of Senior Judge of this Court to some other State and told that for no mistake on his part, he was transferred and chances of one side feeding to them and the same is nothing but an attack on the independence of judiciary and interference in dispensation of justice.
    • court remarked, There cannot be a threat to the Court…I have intimated to concerned regarding the threat. This certainly amounts to threat to independence of judiciary and intervening in the dispensation of justice.
    • the court said, I know where I have to disclosed it, I have already disclosed it. I need not to disclose it here in the Court the name of the judge. Don’t try to make me to commit mistake in this Court. Don’t do all this. I have already intimated to whom I have to intimate.
    • Justice Sandesh also examined the service records of ADGP Seemanth Kumar Singh, and recorded remarks, “A remark was made that the Officer has to give adequate attention to police image while performing his duties or supervising the duties of subordinate ofcers/ranks. It is further observed in column No.9 that lesser strength are loose supervision, soft going on subordinates, inability to say ‘No’.”
    • SG Mehta said, Somebody applied for regular bail. He could have been granted or refused bail. The judge went on to observe that department is not working properly and sought details of B summary report since 2016.
    • Justice Sandesh had said, Your ADGP so powerful (unclear). Some persons spoke to one of our High Court judges. That judge came and sat with me and he said giving an example of transferring of one of the judge to some other district. I will not hesitate to mention the name of the judge also! He came and sat by the side of me and there is a threat to this court.
  9. On Tuesday the Uttar Pradesh (UP) Police has set up a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe cases against Alt News co-founder Mohammed Zubair in the State.
  10. On Monday the Kerala High Court held that a licence under the Kerala Places of Public Resort Act, 1963 is necessary for opening and running a gymnasium in the State.  (Dhanya C & Anr. v State of Kerala & Ors.)
    • Justice PV Kunhikrishnan also directed the State government to issue directions to the authorities concerned to send notices to gyms functioning without the required licence so that they can procure the same within a period of three months without any disruption to their business.
    • the judgment, As long as the Act, 1963 (Kerala Places of Public Resort Act) is in force, the gymnasiums should obtain a licence from the statutory authority. The 1st respondent (State government) will give necessary instructions to all the Corporations, Municipalities and Panchayats to send a notice to the gymnasiums working in their area of operation if they are functioning without licence as per the Act 1963. Sufficient time should be given to the gymnasiums to get licence. No gymnasium shall be closed down immediately for the reason that there is no licence as per the Act, 1963 till a reasonable time of three months is granted to them.
    • the Court said in its judgment, Gymnasium have become a holy places like temples, mosques, churches etc for the young and the older people alike in the current world. Going to the gym is taken as a credit by men and women of all age groups. That is a good signal for achieving a healthy world. But the atmosphere in a Gymnasium should be attractive, and it should function legally after obtaining all the statutory licences.
    • the Court observed, The duty of the lawyer is to take care of the interest of his client and to tell him the exact laws and provisions of the particular case and what are the remedies. He should not hurt the interest of his client by any of his acts and omissions. The stand taken by the counsel of the Municipality will be against section 58 of the Municipality Act. Even after this Court repeatedly alerted the lawyer that he is arguing against the interest of his client, the lawyer stuck to his argument. Only God can save these types of lawyers. I leave it there.
    • the Court held and set aside the order of the municipality rejecting the one of the petitioner’s application for licence, If such a stand of the municipality is accepted, anybody can stall the functioning of a gymnasium by simply submitting an objection, without any reason. Each objection is to be considered on its merits and an inspection of the premises based on the objection raised is necessary from the side of the municipality.
  11. On Tuesday the Allahabad High Court held that there is no fetter on the High Court granting transit anticipatory bail to enable persons to approach courts outside its jurisdiction for relief in cases registered there. (Amita Garg v State Of UP)
  12. On Tuesday the Delhi High Court dismissed a petition challenging two land acquisition notifications issued by the Delhi administration in the year 1959 and 1960.
    • A Division bench of Justices Siddharth Mridul and Gaurang Kanth held that the petition had been filed after an inordinate delay of 62 years despite the fact that petitioners’ predecessors had accepted the enhanced compensation for the land without reserving any right whatsoever.
    • the order, The Court cannot permit the Petitioners to alter a settled position after almost six decades, when the Petitioners have remained silent for decades and have accepted the enhanced compensation awarded to them. It is a settled position of law that delay and laches is one of the factors which is to be borne in mind by the High Court while exercising their discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution.
    • the Court held, Therefore, now after an inordinate delay of about 62 years after the acquisition, the Petitioners cannot challenge the said acquisition proceedings.
  13. On Tuesday the Delhi High Court made clear its displeasure at the PM Cares Fund for filing a one-page affidavit in response to a petition seeking a declaration that the Fund is ‘State’ under Article 12 of the Constitution.
  14. On Monday the Supreme Court reiterated that evidence of a hostile witness can be considered to the extent, it supports the case of the prosecution.  (Malti Sahu and Another v. Rahul and Another)
  15. On Tuesday Mansukhlal Hiralal & Co. has elevated Shreya Dalal to Associate Partner in the General Corporate team at the firm.
  16. On Tuesday the Kerala High Court has refused to grant anticipatory bail to 7 persons accused in a scam involving misappropriation of over ₹7.5 crores from the Kerala Advocates Welfare Fund.  (Sreekala K v Central Bureau of Investigation)
  17. On Tuesday the Supreme Court sought the response of the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana in a plea seeking action against alleged irregularities in the voters’ list of the District Bar Association, Ludhiana.  (Sukhwinder Singh Bhatia vs Bar Council of Punjab & Haryana and ors)
  18. On Tuesday the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has deprecated and condemned the practice of implicating the advocates as accused along with their clients for offences alleged to have been committed by clients. (P Velumani v State)
  19. The Delhi High Court will hear on July 20, the petitions challenging recruitment in armed forces through Agnipath scheme which proposes to induct youth into the army for four years.
  20. On Tuesday the Supreme Court asked the Karnataka High Court to defer for three days, the hearing in a bail matter in which it had made certain remarks against the Additional Director General of Police (ADGP) of the State Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB).  (Seemanth Kumar Singh v. Mahesh PS)
  21. On Tuesday the Supreme Court agreed to list the dispute between the Central and Delhi governments regarding which government has administrative control over the transfers and postings of officers in Delhi. (Govt of NCT of Delhi v Union of India)
  22. On Monday the Supreme Court ordered that the interim protection granted to Alt News co-founder Mohammed Zubair by the top court in the case registered against him by Uttar Pradesh Police will continue until further orders.  (Mohammed Zubair v. State of Uttar Pradesh)
  23. On Tuesday  Patiala House court, Delhi adjourned to July 14 the bail hearing of Alt News co-founder Mohammed Zubair, who was booked for, among other things, promoting enmity among religious groups through his tweets.
  24. On Monday the Punjab & Haryana High Court issued notice in a plea by Bollywood actor Kangana Ranaut seeking quashing of defamation proceedings against her in relation to ‘Shaheen Bagh Dadi’ tweet put out by her that sparked controversy during the farmer’s protests last year. (Kangana Ranaut v Mahinder Kaur)
  25. The Bombay High Court judge, Justice AK Menon demitted office on Monday bringing down the strength of the High Court to 54. The sanctioned strength of the Court is 94 judges.
  26. On Monday the Madras High Court held that suspecting the character of the husband, visiting his office and creating a scene and then filing a complaint against him without submitting any evidence would amount to mental cruelty.  (C Sivakumar vs A Srividhya)

Legal Prudent Fraternity