Month: March 2021

CALL FOR BLOGS: CORPORATE LAW BOARD OF ALL INDIA LEGAL FORUM ABOUT CORPORATE LAW BOARD

Posted on

ABOUT CORPORATE LAW BOARD:

The Corporate Law Board is an autonomous board of All India Legal Forum. It is an initiative to engage a discussion around corporate law and policy in India and across the globe. The Board adopts a cross jurisdictional and multi-disciplinary approach in analysing the various corporate law issues, regulatory framework and policy obligations. The Board aims to critically overlook the various corporate law enactments and the objectives that such
enactments propose.

PEOPLE BEHIND ALL INDIA LEGAL FORUM:

All India Legal Forum is a team of more than 800 law students across the country to tackle basic problems which a legal researcher faces in day to day life. We are pleased to have the support of a diverse group of eminent personalities, comprising: Justice Arjan Kumar Sikri, Justice Mukundakam Sharma, Justice Bellur Srikrishna, Justice S.L. Bhayana, Justice Amarnath Jindal, Dr.Vinod Surana, CEO and Partner, Surana and Surana International
Attorneys, Mr. Ajit Prakash Shah, Former Chairman, 20 th Law Commission of India, Mr. Rishabh Gupta, Partner, Shardul Amarchand and Mangal Das, Mr. M S Bharath, Senior Partner, Anand and Anand Associates, Mr. Safir Anand, Senior Partner, Anand and Anand Associates, Mr. JLN Murthy and many more as our honorary board members.

SUBMISSION GUIDELINES:

  • The Corporate Law Board accepts submissions on a rolling basis on corporate law, securities law, insolvency law, banking law, commercial, competition law and taxation law etc.
  • Submissions can be in the form of articles, opinions, case comments and short notes on the aforementioned topics.
  • Submissions for the blog shall be reviewed on a rolling basis.
  • Submissions must be original. By submitting an article, the author undertakes that it has not been submitted, accepted, or published elsewhere.
  • Authors are advised to keep their articles concise and precise to enhance the effectiveness of their posts, ideally not more than 1500 words excluding footnotes.
  • Authors are advised to make succinct, initial paragraphs to summarize the substance of their posts.
  • The font size should be Times New Roman 12 for the body, TNR 14 for headings with 1.5 line spacing for the text in the body. The footnotes should be TNR 10 with single spacing.
  • All relevant sources must be given proper referencing. The mode of citation to be followed is OSCOLA.
  • Submissions must be in Word Format (.doc or .docx).
  • The maximum number of co-authors permitted is two.
  • Please ensure that the title of the submission is not more than eight words long.
  • Authors must include their full name and institution/organization name in the separate cover letter and submit their Blog at (ailf12345corporate@gmail.com) with the subject line- ‘AILF Corporate law Blog Submission’.
  • The Corporate Law Board solely reserves the right to accept or reject the submission after a due and rigorous editorial review.
  • Any non-compliance with the above-mentioned guidelines shall result in a breach. Thus, leading to the rejection of the submission.
  • The author will be communicated about the acceptance or the rejection of his/her submission within 2-3 weeks of submitting the blog via email.
  • Non-adherence to the above-mentioned guidelines will lead to a direct rejection of the article.
  • If submission of author is accepted, then it will be notified via email once we have uploaded it to our Blog website and certificate of publication will be issued to the author.

ENTRY FEE:

No entry fee will be charged. Submissions are free of cost on rolling basis. One person can submit as many articles as one wish and as frequently as one wishes to.

DEADLINE:

There is no deadline for submissions, however early submissions would be appreciated. We are currently accepting submissions on a rolling basis.

PERKS:

  • An e-certificate would be awarded to the authors whose blogs are published along with blog link.
  • Top 3 reads will get a shout-out from all our social media handles.

SUBMISSION PROCEDURE:

Submissions should be mailed to ailf12345corporate@gmail.com in .doc format, with the subject of the mail as “Submission of Blog for Corporate Law Board, AILF”. Kindly go through the submission guidelines before submitting your blog.

CONTACT DETAILS:

In case of any query, kindly mail to us at: ailf12345corporate@gmail.com.

Visit us for more such opportunities: http://lexpeeps.in/

ALL INDIA LEGAL FORUM PRESENTS A BLOG WRITING COMPETITION ON “CORPORATE, BANKING AND FINANCIAL LAWS”: Register by 31/03/2021.

Posted on

ABOUT THE ORGANISER:

All India Legal Forum, the brainchild of several legal luminaries and eminent personalities across the country and the globe, is a dream online platform which aims at proliferating legal knowledge and providing an ingenious understanding and cognizance of various fields of law, simultaneously aiming to generate diverse social, political, legal and constitutional discourse on law-related topics, making sure that legal knowledge penetrates to every nook and corner of the ever-growing legal fraternity. All India Legal Forum also houses a blog that addresses contemporary issues in any field of law. We at All India Legal Forum don’t just publish blogs, we also guide the authors when their research paper is not up to the mark.

HONORARY BOARD:

All India Legal Forum is pleased to have support of diverse group of eminent personalities, comprising: Justice Arjan Kumar Sikri, Justice Mukundakam Sharma, Justice Bellur Srikrishna, Justice S.L. Bhayana, Justice Amarnath Jindal, Dr. Vinod Surana, CEO and Partner, Surana and Surana International Attorneys, Mr. Ajit Prakash Shah, Former Chairman, 20 th Law Commission of India, Mr. Rishabh Gupta, Partner, Shardul Amarchand and Mangal Das, Mr. M S Bharath, Senior Partner, Anand and Anand Associates, Mr. Safir Anand, Senior Partner, Anand and Anand Associates, Mr. JLN Murthy and many more.

ABOUT THE BLOG WRITING COMPETITION:

All India Legal Forum is back with another Blog Writing Competition. While our previous instalments were a massive success, we look forward to replicate it with this edition of the competition. The themes this time around are extremely relevant to the current world. We thereby invite all of you to take part in this exciting competition and showcase your writing
and research skills.

THEME OF THE COMPETITION:

Any topic within the ambit of Corporate, Banking and Financial Laws. Today’s world is the era of companies, corporations and banking institutions along with the headlines of their achievements, merger, frauds, etc. The relevancy of each respective sector in our country right now is high as all the three sectors deal with aspects which comprise of how consumers,
companies, communities, government and their individual economical brackets interact with one another. This competition will specifically aid you in developing your research skills and get a better understanding of the topic that you will be catering to which will eventually help your law career.

SUBMISSION GUIDELINES:

  • The submission of the blog for the competition should be an original work of the author and not under consideration for publication in any other journal, blog, or platform.
  • Co- authorship: 2 people (maximum) is allowed to participate in the
  • competition.
  • An abstract of 150 words (exclusive of the word limit) and Inclusion of 4-5
  • keywords is mandatory.
  • The work should not be plagiarized more than 20%, otherwise blog will be
  • rejected. Minimum word limit: 1500 words, Maximum: 2000 words.
  • Submissions must be in Times New Roman format, font size: 12, line spacing: 1.5.
  • The citation format will be in the form of Hyperlink with endnotes (endnotes: for those sources which cannot be hyperlinked and OSCOLA to be followed for endnotes). Relevant sources must be duly acknowledged and hyperlinked in the text of the submission itself.
  • The participants shall receive an acknowledgment email on receipt of the
  • article by the Editorial Board within a day. In case this does not happen kindly resend the submission.
  • The submission should be accompanied by a covering letter in separate word document specifying the participants’ name, designation, institute, contact number, and e-mail for future reference. No personal details of the author(s) should be present in the article.
  • All entries must be submitted in .doc or .docx format.
  • All submissions of blog must be mailed at ailf12345events@gmail.com with the subject of the e-mail as ‘Blog Writing Competition Submission’.

ELIGIBILITY:

  • Academicians, Researchers and Ph.D./Doctoral Scholars from the field law.
  • Law students pursuing bachelors or masters in law (UG and PG).
  • Advocates, NGOs and Think Tank.
  • Government officers and employees of Government undertaking.
  • Representatives of Regulatory.

PERKS:

  • Campus Ambassador Internship and Legal Research Internship at All India
  • Legal Forum to Top 5 Submissions.
  • 20% off on Publication fee for Top 5 participants at Lex Bonafide.
  • Free registrations on upcoming 7 events and Campus Ambassador Internship to all the winners at Legal Intellect.
  • Internship opportunities to all participants from Indian Law Watch.
  • Internship opportunities at Lex Acharya.
  • Free blog publication to all participants, free registration to the merit
  • performers in upcoming quiz/ article writing competition and 25% discount on registration fee in upcoming quiz/article writing competition to all participants at Team Attorneylex.
  • 10% off in online courses by Katog and 25% off in publication fee witl JLSR
  • Journal for all participants.
  • Campus ambassadorship for all the participants at Katcheri.
  • Publishing Blog at Nyaya Drishti.
  • 10% discount in upcoming courses for all the participants at Legal Utility.
  • Internship and Publication in the Journal to all the winning participants at
  • Lawyer’s Gyan.

REGISTRATION:

IMPORTANT DATES:

  • Date of registration: March 6, 2021
  • Last date for registration- March 31, 2021 (11:59 pm)
  • Last date of submission: April 31, 2021 (11:59 pm)
  • Date of publication of results: May 15, 2021. There shall be a winner, a runner up, and a special mention declared by the team.

CONTACT DETAILS:

In case of any queries, feel free to reach out at:
Email: ailf12345submission@gmail.com

Contact no:

  1. Gauransh Gaur – 7753807732
  2. Smera – 7388474114
    FOR MORE DETAILS, KINDLY VISIT THE WEBSITE OF ALL INDIA LEGAL FORUM:
https://allindialegalforum.in/

Visit us for more such opportunities: http://lexpeeps.in/

Call for Blogs: All India Legal Forum: No submission fees; Submissions on Rolling Basis

Posted on

About the Blog:

All India legal Forum (AILF) is a platform to provide valuable contemporary assessment of issues and developments in the legal field and also put forward quality legal content for the masses. The initiative aims to generate diverse social, political, legal and constitutional discourse on law related topics for the ever-growing legal fraternity. The platform distinguishes itself by promoting quality legal education and aims to tackle basic problems
which a legal researcher faces in day to day life from basic research to drafting. With the assistance and guidance of an exemplary Honorary and Advisory Board consisting of eminent jurists of The Supreme Court and professors from various National Law Universities and other prominent Law Schools, All India legal Forum poses as a paramount source of educational forum for the ever developing legal fraternity. 

Board of Advisors:

AILF is pleased to have support of diverse group of eminent personalities, comprising: Justice A.K. Sikri eminent jurist and an international Judge of the SICC; Advocate JLN. Murthy who is Vice Chair of the American Bar Association of United States and International Organizations; Dr. Vinod Surana, International Lawyer CEO & Managing Partner, Surana and Surana International Attorneys; Justice M.K.Sharma Former Judge Supreme Court of India, SL Bhayana, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India; Justice Amarnath Jindal; Prof. J.S. Patil is a Professor of Law and currently the Vice-Chancellor of National Law University and Judicial Academy, Assam; Sr. Adv. Geeta Luthra, Delhi High Court Sr. Adv. Amit Trivedi, Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench, Lucknow; Sr.Adv. Dhruvin.U.Mehta Gujarat High Court and many more.

Themes or Topics:

We welcome blogs that address contemporary issues in any field of law. It will be appreciated if submissions are with respect to editorial commentary and candid views. We prefer posts which include critical analysis or explore
particular themes of wider resonance.

SUBMISSION GUIDELINES AND ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

For Submission Guidelines, visit us at :
https://allindialegalforum.wordpress.com/submission-guidelines/
For Assessment criteria, visit us at :
https://allindialegalforum.wordpress.com/assessment-criteria/

Entry Fee:

No entry fee will be charged. One person can submit as many articles as one wish and as frequently as one wishes to.

Important Dates and Deadlines:

All India Legal Forum is currently accepting submissions on a rolling basis.

How to Submit?

Submissions should be mailed to ailf12345submission@gmail.com in MS Word .doc format, with the subject of the mail as “Submission of Blog for AILF”

Perks and Awards:

An e-certificate of publication would be awarded to all those authors whose articles are selected for publication. A certificate of appreciation will be given to authors who have a minimum of 3 entries published in All India Legal Forum. Top 3 reads for the month will get a shout-out on all our social media handles along with a certificate of appreciation.

OUR POLICY -:

No Unnecessary Delay. Just mail your piece to us and we will get back to you within 10-14 days regarding its eligibility for publication. We Guide You
If your Paper is not eligible for the publication, our team will give you feedback, explain you the loopholes and guide you for its publication. We at All India Legal Forum guide our authors about the use of legal databases like SCC Online, MANUPATRA, ZOTERO, etc. We also teach you the basics of researching and formatting.

Contact Details:

For general queries,
E-mail: ailf12345editorial@gmail.com

Important Links:

REGARDING MORE DETAILS KINDLY VISIT AILF WEBSITE
The website link is here: https://allindialegalforum.in/

Visit us for more such opportunities: http://lexpeeps.in/

Job Opportunity: Legislegal, New Delhi

Posted on

Legislegal is looking for a candidate with up to 2 years PQE in corporate commercial litigation and advisory.

Role includes:

Drafting, vetting of corporate commercial agreements
Drafting of cases specifically matters relating to companies act, IBC, Income Tax,GST. Court appearances in all lower courts.

Location

New Delhi

To apply:

Email at ishita@legislegal.net
arnab@legislegal.net

Visit us for more such opportunities: http://lexpeeps.in/

Jaikrishandas Manohardas Desai v. State of Bombay

Posted on

Case Number

Criminal Appeal No. 159 of 1957.

Equivalent Citation

(1960) 3 SCR 319 : AIR 1960 SC 889 : 1960 Cri LJ 1250 

Bench 

S.J Imam, K.N Wanchoo and J.C Shah, J.J

Decided on

16th March 1960.

Relevant Act/ Section 

  1. S.409 of the Indian Penal Code of 1860 – Criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker, merchant, or agent.
  2. S. 34 of the Indian Penal Code of 1860 – Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. 

Brief Facts and Procedural History

In the present case, the two accused appellants were the Director and the technician of a Textile Dyeing Company, respectively. They had submitted to a tender and was accepted in accordance with general conditions. Based on the contract, almost 2,51,060 yards of cloth were supplied to the Company for dyeing. The Company however only successfully dyed 1,10,000 yards of cloth and after some correspondence, the company decided to cancel the contract with the Textile Commissioner. The Commissioner then asked the company to account for the balance amount of cloth as soon as possible which the Company again failed to do so. The Company was also entering into financial difficulties around that point of time and had creditors suing them for insolvencies. Numerous letters and notices were served towards the two appellants and almost all of them were unattended except one time where the First Appellant wrote back a letter which stated that the cloth had numerous problems to go forward with delivery. The appellants, however said that they would account for it but they again failed to do so. The respondent commissioner along with the police raided the cloth factory wherein the cloth was nowhere to be found. When taken to the Trial Court, the court immediately dismissed the present appellants plea of not having dominion over the cloth. The High Court also ruled in favor of the respondent cloth commissioner and sentenced the appellants guilty under Sections 409 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Aggrieved, the appellants brought the present case to the Supreme Court of India. 

Issues before the Court

  1. Whether the appellants should be acquitted and not tried for criminal breach of trust?

Ratio of the Case

The ratio decidendi of the present case was that even if dishonest  misappropriation may not, in ordinary circumstances, be direct proof, but if it is found by the court that the property is entrusted to an individual or if the individual had some kind of dominion over it, and the individual has given a false excuse or explanation for his failure to account for it, then an inference of misappropriation with dishonest intent may readily be made.

Decision of the Case

The Supreme Court, in this case, decided against the appellant-accused’s reasoning of it not being a criminal breach of trust under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. The court further stated that the High Court has not erred in charging the appellants under S.409 read with S.34 of the Code, because S.34 in itself does not create an offence. The Apex Court also stated that the sentences of 3 and 1 passed by the High Court was also correct as both of the accused were people in high positions dishonestly misappropriating a product of considerable value. The second appellant should get a lesser sentence as even though he was considered a Director, he was essentially a technician and acted on the orders of the first appellant. 

Latest Posts

Archives

State of Karnataka v. Basavegowda

Posted on

Case Number

Criminal Appeal No. 572 of 1994 

Relevant Citation

1996 SCC OnLine Kar 665: (1997) Kant LJ 81 (DB): 1997 Cri LJ 4386 

Bench

M.F Saldanha and H.N Narayan, J.J 

Decided on

04th December 1996.

Relevant Act/ Section

  1. Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code of 1860 – Grievous hurt.
  2. Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code of 1860 – Extortion.
  3. Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code of 1860 – Sentence. 

Brief facts and Procedural History

In the present case, the complainant, Bhagyamma, alleged that her husband, the respondent – accused took her to a nearby forest within 10 days of marriage in the pretext of going to a wedding but instead threatened to kill her if she does not give her entire jewellery to him at that moment. Even after giving jewellery worth Rs.10,500, the husband picked up a stone and started hitting her with it and injuring her. He only stopped hitting when he heard people coming by and ran away. The complainant was then taken to a hospital where the doctor attested that one injury on her ribs is severe out of everything and that it could have been from a stone. The complainant gave the details of the accused after which he was arrested, and the jewellery was recovered from his possession. When the case was taken to the Trial Judge, the accused was acquitted by the court stating that the sole testimony of the wife was insufficient along with the witnesses turning hostile during the trial process. The case was then brought to the present court by the aggrieved wife. 

Issues before the Court

  1. Whether the Trial judge was correct in acquitting the accused? 

Ratio of the Case

The ratio decidendi of the present case is that the Trial court committed an extremely erroneous decision by acquitting the accused. The court had claimed that nothing could justify the action of the accused taking the wife into the forest with a criminal intent. The case may not have been one of attempted murder but the intention to commit a crime was still present, and along with the material evidence as well as the submission of the victim, it becomes enough proof to prove the guilty mind of the accused. 

Decision of the Case

The bench in this case convicted the accused of committing grievous hurt under Section 325 of IPC by way of injuring the wife with a stone and with an obvious criminal intent to hurt or harm her. Under this punishment, he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. This leniency is primarily due to the fact that it had already been 9 years since the offence was committed. The accused is also liable under S.384 of IPC for extortion of jewellery by threatening the life of Bhagyamma. He is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years for this offence. 

Latest Posts

Archives

Sekar v. Arumugham

Posted on

Case Number

Cri. Revn. Case no. s 585, 586, 658 of 1999

Equivalent Citation

1999 SCC OnLine Mad 604: 2000 Cri LJ 1552: (2001) 1 BC 211

Bench

Single judge bench of A. Ramamurthi, J.

Decided on

10th August 1999.

Relevant Act/Section

  1. Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases. 
  2. Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 – Summons to produce document or other thing.
  3. Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Punishment for theft.
  4. S.203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Dismissal of Complaint.

Brief facts and Procedural History 

Mr. Sekar had filed two revision petitions in the trial courts asking back for the custody of the lorry that he alleged being the owner of. He had filed a complaint under sections 451 as well as section 91 before the learned Magistrate asking for the lorry from the respondent. Along with it, Mr. Sekar filed a complaint of theft under S.379 of IPC stating that the respondent, Bank of Madura, had committed an offence under the aforementioned section by taking away the lorry from the rightful owner. The learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint under S.203 which resulted in the petitioner filing a complaint with the Additional District Judge of Trichy wherein his petition was allowed. The respondent part, Bank of Madura, aggrieved by this order, filed a revision petition wherein the Sekar’s petitions were dismissed by the trial magistrate. Aggrieved against this, Sekar filed the current revision petition in the High Court of Madras contending that the magistrate has erred in dismissing his petitions. The respondent bank states that it was well within their rights as a lender of finance to take away the lorry on default of any contractual agreement between the bank and an individual/group. 

Issues Before the Court 

  1. Whether the learned magistrate has erred in dismissing the petitions of Mr. Sekar?
  2. Whether the bank should be punished for an offence committed under S.379 of the Indian Penal Code?

Ratio of the Case 

The ratio decidendi in the above case is that the bank cannot be said to have committed an offence under S.379 when it was strictly doing its job as a finance lending institution that has the rights to seize the borrower’s property in case of default of payment even after countless warnings by the bank. 

Decision of the Case 

Ramamurthi, the presiding judge in the above case, after a careful perusal, stated that none of the judges except the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Trichy has made a mistake in dismissing the petitions of Mr. Sekar. Sekar himself entered into a hypothecation agreement with the respondent Bank for funds. When it was time for Sekar to pay back the amount, he failed to do so even after repeated warnings. It is the right of the Bank therefore to seize the security of the borrower and then sell it to whoever they want to, because Sekar ceased being the owner of the lorry when he defaulted on payment. 

Therefore, the court held that the learned magistrate has not committed any mistake in dismissing the petitions and that the decision will be upheld by the High Court also. The bank has also not committed an offence under S.379 of the Penal Code. 

Latest Posts

Archives

TOOLKIT: NIKITA JACOB, SHANTANU MULUK GET INTERIM PROTECTION TILL 15 MARCH

Posted on

A metropolis Court on Tues adjourned hearing within the preceding bail applications filed by Shantanu Muluk and Bombay based mostly attorney, Nikita Jacob in manoeuver with the urban center Police FIR over the ‘toolkit’ created for organizing farmers protests. However, the Court went ahead to increase their interim protections.
Additional Sessions choose Dharmender amphibian genus granted the relief when the counsel showing from each the suspect persons same they required time to travel through the reply filed by the urban center Police before advancing arguments within the matter.
The choose detected the submission and directed the police to not take any powerful action against each suspect until March fifteen, once the court can any hear the matter.
Jacob, Muluk, and Ravi were set-aside for violations and different charges.
Additional Sessions decide Dharmender amphibian genus adjourned the matter when hearing each the preceding bail pleas at the same time. The matter can currently be detected on the fifteenth of march 2021. Advocate Vrinda Grover alongside Advocate Sarim Naved appeared on behalf of Shantanu Muluk whereas Senior Advocate Rebecca John appeared on behalf of Nikita Jacob.

Vrinda Grover and Rebecca John had each quested the Court to adjourn the matter when the metropolis Police had filed a comprehensive reply with careful and researched annexures that were provided to each applier party these days.

Both Shantanu and Nikita had filed preceding bails within the wake of ending of the transit preceding bail granted to them by the Bombay court on the sixteenth and seventeenth of February severally. Shantanu alongside Nikita Jacob has joined the probe on twenty-second February in respect of the toolkit FIR. Each was a gift before the Dwarka workplace of the metropolis Police’s Cyber Cell for the aim of interrogation within the matter.
While the court granted Shantanu Muluk transit preceding bail for an amount of ten days, Nikita Jacob was granted the protection for three weeks, permitting each to approach the competent court for seeking applicable relief. The metropolis Court had vided order dated twenty-fifth February 2021 granted interim protection from arrest to Shantanu Muluk until March nine.

Advocate Vrinda Grover for Muluk submitted before the Court that since he had been cooperating with the investigation and has been gift within the interrogation known as by the metropolis Police Cyber Cell, the Court ordered that no powerful step shall be taken against the suspect Muluk until the consequent date of hearing i.e. 9th March. On the opposite hand, the Court vide order dated ordinal March 2021 adjourned the hearing in Nikita Jacob’s preceding bail when Senior Advocate Rebecca John submitted before the Court that her interim protection granted by the court can expire on the tenth of March.

Therefore, taking into consideration John’s submissions and request of the extra lawyer asking time to file a close and comprehensive reply within the matter, the Court ordered that the preceding bail pleas of each suspect shall be detected on the ninth of March at the same time. In another development within the case, the Bombay court vide order dated third March 2021 granted ten days transit preceding bail to state-based mostly activist, Subham Kar Chaudhuri, member of the organization “Extinction Rebellion”, apprehending arrest within the toolkit FIR.

According to the applier Chandhuri, he had volunteered for the “Extinction Rebellion” organization and is presently its South Asia Liaison. Shantanu Muluk and Nitika Jacob even have links as being volunteers with the same organization. It had been happy by Chandhuri that Nikita Jacob, Shantanu Muluk, and Disha Ravi have allegedly conspired to form the web “toolkit” thereby denying any role to play in its creation. Disha Ravi, the primary suspect within the toolkit case, was granted bail by an equivalent decide when perceptive “considering scanty and incomplete proof on record, I don’t notice any palpable reason to deny bail.”
“In my thought-about opinion creation of a WhatsApp cluster or being editor of associate degree innocuous Toolkit isn’t associate degree offense. Further, since the link with the same toolkit or PJF is not objectionable, mere deletion of the WhatsApp chat to destroy the proof linking her with the toolkit and PJF additionally becomes purposeless.

Reported By: Komal Dhore

Copying and pasting orders is one of the computer age’s issue

Posted on

On Friday, Justice D. Y. Chandrachud said, “I’m tired of seeing cut-and paste orders from High Courts.”
For an order to be confirmed, there must be independent reasons given! 

There must be an independent mental application! 

The judge continued, “Cutting, copying, and pasting from the Tribunal’s judgement just adds to the number of pages but does not address the main problem of appeal!”

The UPSC’s SLP was being considered by the bench, which also included Justice M. R. Shah, in light of an Orissa High Court decision upholding the order of the CAT, Cuttack Bench on the question of whether the respondent could be refused a position in the IAS due to a disciplinary penalty levied in 2011.
The UPSC Rules under Article 320, not the DoPT guidelines, will hold sway in this case, and Justices Chandrachud and Shah set aside the HC order, restoring the plea before the HC.


“The High Court should not apply its mind independently!  Only the order of the Tribunal has been copied! “, Justice Chandrachud remarked.
By reconvening the Selection Committee meeting, the tribunal ordered the appellant-UPSC to reconsider the case of the respondent for promotion to the IAS.” 

If the respondent was considered worthy by the Review Selection Committee, the respondent was to receive consequential benefits.

The High Court, after being moved from the tribunal’s order, extracted the tribunal’s judgement and observed that “the tribunal has elaborately discussed the statute” and that “there is no jurisdictional error and no intervention is warranted,” the supreme court noted in its order.
The petitioner-UPSC had primarily argued before the HC that the Tribunal had exceeded its authority by granting relief to the claimant, and that it had miserably refused to recognise that the induction is not a promotion. 

The DOPT guidelines are not applicable in this case; they are only applicable in cases of promotion.

It was also said that the Tribunal had made a significant mistake by remanding the case back for reconsideration. 

It was argued that the applicant has no right to be elevated to I.A.S., and that he only has a right to be considered for I.A.S. induction. 

The petitioner’s attorney argued that the applicant has no right to be considered for induction into I.A. because of his misbehaviour.

By Aishwarya Daftari

SC held that TDS not required on the import of shrink-wrapped software.

Posted on

The Supreme Court in one of its judgments held that the payments made by resident Indian end-users or distributors on import of ‘shrink-wrapped’ software cannot be considered as a royalty payment, leading to no withholding of tax obligations in India against such payments.

At several levels of judicial appeals, it has been held that the payments made for the import of shrink-wrapped software overseas can be assessable to tax as Royalty under the provisions of the I-T Act. Since the Indian distributors failed to meet the TDS obligations, they were held as ‘assessees at the default’ and were faced with certain heavy tax penalties. With the advent of this judgment, they can now file for refunds as well.

For 20 years, including the incessant appeals in February, the apex court heard nearly 80 appeals before it on the issue of ‘Royalty’ payment. Which included several big-shot corporations like Samsung Electronics, IBM India, Sonata Information Technology, etc. the contention raised by these corporations was that the use given to the Indian companies was limited to making a backup copy or of its redistribution. They were not granted the exclusive right to modify the shrink-wrapped software. In one of the judgments by an HC, the payment made to the overseas supplier could not be categorized as business income by overseas entities and hence there was not any tax withholding obligation. The Supreme Court, in this case, set aside the High Court judgment and held the otherwise. 

With this judgment, long-standing litigation on this particular issue was finally put to rest, and relief to Indian companies was provided who was pursued by the I-T department for the alleged withholding of income tax. The apex court also held that the appeals made before it could be categorized in a bunch of 4 sets of appeals. 

  1. The first category involves the case where computer software is purchased directly by an end-user, a resident of India from a foreign, non-resident supplier or manufacturer.
  2. The second category deals with cases where resident Indian companies act as distributors or resellers by purchasing software from foreign, non-resident suppliers or manufacturers and then reselling the same to resident Indian end-users.
  3. The third category comprises cases where the distributor is a foreigner who, after buying the software from a foreigner resells the same to the Indian resident distributors or end-users. 
  4. And the last category includes cases where the computer software is affixed onto the hardware and is sold as an integrated unit/equipment.

The case was adjudged by a 3-judge bench comprising of Justice R F Nariman, Justice Hemant Gupta, and Justice B.R. Gavai 

Reported By- TANUJ SHARMA