Today’s Legal Updates

Friday, 1st April 2022

Legal Awareness :- CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

Part – XII FINANCE, PROPERTY, CONTRACTS AND SUITS

CHAPTER – I FINANCE

Distribution of Revenues between the Union and the States

Article – 278 Agreement with States in Part B of the First Schedule with regard to certain financial matters. Rep. by the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956, s. 29 and Sch.

Article – 279 Calculation of “net proceeds”, etc.

(1) In the foregoing provisions of this Chapter, “net proceeds” means in relation to any tax or duty the proceeds thereof reduced by the cost of collection, and for the purposes of those provisions the net proceeds of any tax or duty, or of any part of any tax or duty, in or attributable to any area shall be ascertained and certified by the Comptroller and Auditor-General of India, whose certificate shall be final.
(2) Subject as aforesaid, and to any other express provision of this Chapter, a law made by Parliament or an order of the President may, in any case where under this Part the proceeds of any duty or tax are, or may be, assigned to any State, provide for the manner in which the proceeds are to be calculated, for the time from or at which and the manner in which any payments are to be made, for the making of adjustments between one financial year and another, and for any other incidental or ancillary matters.

Today’s Legal Updates:-

  1. On Friday the Chief Justice of India (CJI) NV Ramana urged the Central government to create an independent statutory body so as to bring various investigative agencies like the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) and Enforcement Directorate (ED) under one roof.
  2. On Wednesday the Supreme Court held that in cases of execution of a will, there is no place for the Courts to see whether the distribution made by the testator was fair and equitable to all of his children. (Swarnlatha and ors v. Kalavathy and ors)
    • “In the matter of appreciating the genuineness of execution of a will, there is no place for the Court to see whether the distribution made by the testator was fair and equitable to all of his children. The Court does not apply Article 14 to dispositions under a will,”
    • the Court said, The law relating to suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of a Will is already well-settled and it needs no reiteration….Cases in which a suspicion is created are essentially those where either the signature of the testator is disputed or the mental capacity of the testator is questioned.
    • The High Court made a mountain out of a molehill, by reading too much into the lack of knowledge on the part of appellant No.1 about the time of registration of Exhibit P-2 (Will) and the minor contradictions between her statement as PW-1 and the statements of PWs 4 and 5. The adverse inference sought to be drawn by the High Court about the failure of the testator Mannar Reddiar to ensure the presence of the daughter and the second daughter-inlaw at the time of execution of Exhibit P-2, has no basis in law.
  3. On Friday A Mumbai Sessions Court remanded Nagpur lawyer Satish Uke and his brother Pradeep Uke to 6-day custody with the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in a money laundering case.
    • The predicate offences are made out as per the schedule under the PMLA Act. Investigation is at preliminary stage, detailed investigation is necessary, hence considering submission of both parties, the accused are remanded to ED custody till April 6, 2022.
    • Satish Uke had filed multiple petitions against BJP leaders including the former Chief Minister of Maharashtra, Devendra Fadnavis in which he had alleged that Fadnavis had not disclosed pending criminal cases against himself.
    • Satish Uke had also approached the Nagpur Bench of the High Court seeking police probe into the death of Judge BH Loya, who had been hearing the the Sohrabuddin Shaikh fake encounter case.
    • Special Public Prosecutor Hiten Venegaonkar for the agency submitted:-
      • That the offences in the FIR pointed out that the accused were indulging in activities connected with proceeds of crime derived out of commission of scheduled offence which is still continuing.
      • With further investigation, it was discovered that the accused made forged and bogus documents leading to removal of properties leading to a belief that there is sufficient material to connect the accused with alleged crime.
      • It was also submitted that since the accused had not co-operated with the investigation, their personal interrogation was necessary.
      • Accordingly custody was sought of 14 days.
    • Advocate Ravi Jadhav for Pradeep Uke and Satish Uke in person made the following submissions:-
      • That there is violation of provisions of the Constitution. ED officers detained the accused since morning, and did not allow any of the family members to leave their house.
      • The present case was filed out of political vendetta.
      • Both accused co-operated with the investigation and will continue to do so; additionally they also have all documents in their possession.
      • The FIRs are false and additionally, the High Court in a case pertaining to one of the FIRs had even asked the local police not to file chargesheet in the matter, until an order of this court.
      • That one of the complainants had filed various complaints against Uke. He added that he had got anticipatory bail from a Sessions Court in Nagpur.
      • That he had obtained legitimate rights over the property, and had not committed any offence under PMLA.
  4. On Friday the Delhi High Court inaugurated a creche facility within its premises, the inaugural event was attended by Supreme Court judges Justices Indira Banerjee and BV Nagarathna and Delhi High Court Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sangi and judges Justices Prathiba M Singh and Mukta Gupta.
    • Justice Indira Banerjee said, “It is a big leap towards equality and equal opportunity to women,” 
      • Parenting is a joint responsibility. But there is a deep rooted mindset and that pervades down through all levels of society, we judges included. I was just wondering why all the members of the crèche committee were all women? This is because of the mindset that it is the woman who is responsible for rearing the child. I am glad that the High Court has taken this big leap.
      • I actually first realised the use of the crèche after I came to the Supreme Court. My PA used to leave her little child there and report to duty. Unfortunately, with the pandemic, everything closed and here this lady was in immense difficulty.
    • Justice BV Nagarathna  said :-
      • I am sure that the committee will appoint staff who have the ability to step into the shoes of a mother and caregiver. I am sure the environment would aid the intellectual and psychological development of the children.
      • Let me start by saying that no country, community or economy can achieve its potential without full and equal participation of women. To encourage more mothers to join and participate in labour force, good childcare is essential.
      • In India it’s rather disappointing that although entry of women is increasing, talent is not being retained. One of the reasons is finding an alternate care giver when they become parents. Research has shown that where such facilities are provided, employee productivity and retention has significantly improved. I firmly believe that maternity should not be barrier for women’s career.
    • Chairperson of the Creche Committee and Judge of the Delhi High Court, Justice Prathiba M Singh Said :-
      • The crèche has been a long pending demand which has taken fruit today. In 1999, women lawyers had represented for a crèche. In 2007, the Delhi HC made a statement that they would be setting up a crèche. It is now 15 years down the line.
    • Justice Mukta Gupta Said, Gone are the days where mothers were expected to leave the profession and care for children. Every woman judge has been associated with this.
    • Delhi High Court’s Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi pointed out :-
      • We can all think of brilliant women comprising promising careers…This is unfair when done with lack of choice. With change in family structure has made childcare even more challenging.
      • The crèche is to liberate every woman. In today’s scenario the crèche is not just for mothers but also fathers who are bringing up their little ones.
      • the work participation rate of women is low, especially in the High Court where it is 23 percent. He opined that an important factor contributing to this is the lack of safe childcare forcing women to compromise their careers.
  5. On Friday the Kerala High Court held that as long as a fair procedure is adopted, family courts do not require the consent of parties to order enquiries to ascertain the truth while adjudicating on family disputes.  (Nisha Haneefa v Abdul Latheef)
  6. On Friday the Bombay High Court granted bail to ten accused and rejected bail to eight in the Palghar lynching case in which two Hindu Sadhus and their driver were killed in Maharashtra in April 2020.
  7. On Friday the Karnataka High Court dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) petition seeking to recommend late Dr. Sri Sri Shivakumara Swamiji for the Bharat Ratna award.  (Rehan Khan v. Hon’ble Prime Minister of India)
    • the writ petition as “misconceived”, and that the award of the Bharat Ratna is to be determined by the President of India on recommendation by the Prime Minister.
    • The Court also suggested that the petitioner Rehan Khan should approach the Home Minister Amit Shah with the request, especially since Shah is currently in Bengaluru.
    • Advocate Mohammed Tahir, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that as Sri Sri Shivakumar Swamiji, who passed away in January 2019, has rendered exceptional public services for harmony between people in society, and in the field of education, he should be conferred the highest civilian honour of Bharat Ratna.
    • the Court observed, Nobody can claim to be awarded a medal or seek directions to award the Bharat Ratna to any particular person.
  8. On Friday the Jharkhand High Court ordered that ‘Whatsapp‘ be impleaded as a party to a suo motu case before it in connection with the killing of judge Uttam Anand.  (Court on its own motion Vs. Chief Secretary & Ors.)
  9. The Bombay High Court rejected a plea filed by an advocates’ association challenging the approval granted by the High Court for establishing a court in Wai, located in Satara district of Maharashtra, Reiterating that the role of the courts is only to aid in the delivery of justice for the litigant.  (The Satara District Bar Association Satara v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.)
  10. On Friday Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria has written to the Union Law Minister urging him to implement and enforce the 44th Constitutional amendment that reduces the maximum preventive detention period from three to two months when not in concurrence with the Advisory Board for the purpose.
  11. On Friday the Delhi High Court allowed the reopening of the mosque at Nizamuddin Markaz for the month of Ramzan.  (Delhi Waqf Board, Through its Chairman v. GNCTD and Ors)
  12. On Friday the Bombay High Court declined to interfere with a Nanded court’s orders directing a school teacher to pay interim maintenance to her ex-husband, who claimed to have no sources of income. (Bhagyashri Jaiswal vs Jagdish Sajjanlal Jaiswal & Anr.)
  13. On Friday the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) allowed the Central government to take over the affairs of the Delhi Gymkhana Club, appointing a 15-member committee to manage its affairs. (Union of India, MCA v Delhi Gymkhana Club)
  14. The Supreme Court of India has officially announced that hearings before it will be via physical mode from 4th April 2022, Monday.
  15. On Friday the Supreme Court set aside a Gujarat High Court order which had refused to interfere with the proposed redevelopment of the Sabarmati Ashram by the State of Gujarat. (Tushar Arun Gandhi v State of Gujarat)
  16. The Supreme Court on Monday refused to interfere with the Bombay High Court order which had dismissed a plea by the Maharashtra government seeking the constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the case pertaining to former State Home Minister Anil Deshmukh. (State of Maharashtra v. CBI)
  17. On Friday the Delhi High Court sought a status report from the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on a plea by journalist Rana Ayyub seeking permission to travel abroad.  (Rana Ayyub v Union of India and Anr)
  18. On Friday A Delhi court has dismissed the anticipatory bail application of SpiceJet promoter Ajay Singh in relation to an alleged cheating case. (Ajay Singh v. State)
  19. On Friday the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi ordered the East Central Railways to pay ₹1 lakh as compensation to a complainant who was not provided a berth despite making a reservation one month prior to the journey. (Inder Nath Jha v Union of India)
  20. On Wednesday the Bombay High Court held that non-filing of the certified copy of a judgment cannot be an impediment to accept papers and register appeals.  (Babi Krushna Pawar vs The State of Maharashtra)
  21. On Friday the Delhi High Court called for a status report on the recent vandalism that took place outside the residence of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal.  (Saurabh Bharadwaj v. Delhi Police, Through Its Commissioner and Anr)

Legal Prudent Fraternity