06-03-2020  Indian Social Action Forum (INSAF) Vs. Union Of India

*Those organisations which have connection with active politics or take part in party politics, are covered by Rule 3 (vi) of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Rules, 2011*

SC-The *Hon’ble SC* disposed of the Appeal against the *Delhi HC* judgment by stating that it is only those organisations which have connection with active politics or take part in party politics, that are covered by *Rule 3 (vi) of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Rules, 2011.* Such of those organisations which are not involved in active politics or party politics do not fall within the purview of Rule 3 (vi). Organisations used for channelling foreign funds by political parties cannot escape the rigour of the *Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010* provided there is concrete material.

05-03-2020  Suborno Bose Vs. Enforcement Directorate & Anr 
*The contravention referred to in Sec.10(6) of the FEMA Act by its very nature is a continuing offence*

“SC-In a case relating to the *Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999,* the *Hon’ble SC* while dismissing the appeal emanating from the complaint proceedings initiated by the adjudicating authority, has observed that to get benefit of the proviso to *Sec. 42(1) of the FEMA Act,* the appellant should have proved that the contravention took place without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent such contravention and made every effort to rectify it in right earnest”.

 05-03-2020    Mankastu Impex Private Limited V. Airvisual Limited    
*Mere expression “place of arbitration” cannot be the basis to determine that place as the “seat” of arbitration*

*SC- The *Hon’ble SC,* while observing that since the arbitration is seated at Hong Kong, the petition filed by the petitioner under *Sec. 11(6)* of the *Arbitration and Conciliation Act* is not maintainable, has affirmed that the *intention of the parties* as to the *“seat”* should be determined from other clauses in the agreement and the conduct of the parties*.
  05-03-2020   Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal And Ors. Etc

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act- Sec. 24 can’t be used to revive dead and stale claims*

SC- In a case relating to the *Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,2013,* the *Hon’ble SC* has opined that *Section 24* applies to a proceeding pending on the date of enforcement of the Act of 2013, i.e., 1.1.2014. It does not revive stale and time-barred claims and does not reopen concluded proceedings nor allow landowners to question the legality of mode of taking possession to reopen proceedings or mode of deposit of compensation in the treasury instead of court to invalidate acquisition.

04-03-2020    Nirmala Kothari V. United India Insurance Co.Ltd  
*Insurance Company would be liable if the employer finds the driver to be competent to drive and has satisfied himself that the driver has a driving licence*

SC-The *Hon’ble SC* while holding the Insurance Company liable to indemnify the appellant,has opined that If the driver produces a licence which on the face of it looks genuine, the employer is not expected to further investigate into the authenticity of the licence unless there is cause to believe otherwise.

03-03-2020   Additional Commissioner Revenue And Others V. Akhalaq Hussain And Another

*The U.P. ZA & LR Act being a beneficial legislation, the provisions need to be interpreted in a manner so as to achieve the rationale behind the legislation*

SC-In a case relating to *U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950,* the Hon’ble SC has opined that the exchange deed relied upon by the respondents is not a valid exchange and has been executed in violation of provisions of *Sections 157-B and 161* of the U.P. ZA & LR Act. No prior permission was sought from the Assistant Collector as mandated

02-03-2020  D.b.Basnett (D) Through Lrs.V.The Collector East District ,Gangtok,Sikkim & Anr     

    *Even though rights in land are no more a fundamental right, still it remains a constitutional right under Article 300A of the Constitution of India*

SC-The *Hon’ble SC* while allowing the Appeal in a case of land acquisition has opined that since the respondents failed to establish that they had acquired the land in accordance with law and paid due compensation, the appellant would, thus, be entitled to the possession of the land as also damages for illegal use and occupation of the same. The provisions of any Act seeking to divest any person from the rights in property have to be strictly followed. The owner can be entitled to damages for wrongful use and possession of land in respect of which no notification is issued under *Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,* from the date of possession till the date such notification is finally published.

02-03-2020  Parvat Singh & Ors. V.The State Of Madhya Pradesh

*A statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is inadmissible in evidence and cannot be relied upon or used to convict the accused*

SC-The *Hon’ble SC,* while setting aside the order of conviction, has observed that the benefit of *material contradictions, omissions and improvements* must go in favour of the appellants-accused and so, the appellants are entitled to be given *benefit of doubt.*

 28-02-2020    District Bar Association, Dehradun through its Secretary V. Ishwar Shandilya & Ors.   
To go on strike/boycott courts cannot be justified under the guise of the right to freedom of speech and expression*SC-In the case pertaining to the practice of boycotting the Courts on all Saturdays by the advocates in the areas of *Dehradun, Haridwar and Udham Singh Nagar,* the *Hon’ble SC* has issued notices to the *Bar Council of India* and *all the State Bar Councils* to suggest the further course of action and to give concrete suggestions to deal with the *problem of strikes/abstaining the work by the lawyers.*  

25-02-2020    Life Insurance Corporation Of India V. Mukesh  Poonamchand Shah  
*Regulation 39(2) of the LIC of India (Staff) Regulations 1960 mandates compliance with the principles of natural justice*SC-In the case relating to *Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations 1960,* while allowing the appeal against the judgment of the *Division Bench of the Gujarat HC,* the *Hon’ble SC* has observed that following the conviction of the respondent employee by the Special Judge CBI, the appellant was acting within jurisdiction in issuing a notice to show cause under *Regulation 39(4)* to impose the penalty of removal from service.


0 CommentsClose Comments

Leave a comment