- Vipul A Shah vs. All India Film Employees Confederation
Vipul A Shah vs All India Film Employees Confederation & Ors
The Competition Commission of India has found All-India Film Employees Confederation (AIFEC), Federation of Western India Cine Employees (FWICE) & its affiliates and three producer associations i.e. Indian Motion Picture Producers Association (IMPPA), Film and Television Producers Guild of India (FTPGI) and Indian Film and Television Producers Council (IFTPC) to be in contravention of provisions of Section 3 of the Competition Act, 2002, which prohibits anti-competitive agreements.
The CCI, in the MOU filed by Vipul A Shah found that the clauses that mandated that producer can only engage with the members of FWICE & its affiliates, which provided for the constitution of vigilance committee to enforce such mandated as violative of section 3(3)(b) read with section 3(1) of the Competition Act. Also the directive to engage dancers/fighters in the ratio of 70:30 was also found to be in contravention of section 3(3)(c) read with section 3(1) of the act.
Hence the cease and desist order was imposed against the associations.
- Plea to revoke Censor certificate granted to mersal film has been rejected by the Madras High Court.
A Ashvathaman v. Govt. of India & ors
According to court, a Movie is nothing more than an expression & it is for the watchers to look it in their own perspective. The bench also said, when referred to A Arulmozhi vs Government of India by the petitioner, that the instance case is not that of extreme vulgarity or obscenity as against the opinion expressed by one of the characters in a movie.
- Delhi Police directed by the High court to register an FIR against a pvt builder and Maria Sharapova.
Ms. Bhawana Agarwal v. Homestead Infra dev. Pvt. Ltd & ors
The High court has ordered an FIR to be registered for offence of Cheating, Forgery and Criminal Breach of Trust.
A homebuyer complained against Homestead Infrastructure Development Pvt. LTD and Maria Sharapova. According to the buyer, she was lured by them on the pretext of Project named “Ace by Sharapova” wherein a tennis academy was proposed to build in the residential society and was to be run by Sharapova herself. The complainant has already paid Rs. 53.03 Lakh to the company. The project was promised to be delivered in three years. It is alleged by the Complainant’s lawyer that no clearance or sanction to raise the residential flat has been sought by the company.
- Condonation of Delay is a matter of discretion of the Court and length of Delay is no matter.
Dr. Asok Rajmal Mehta & ors v. M/s Shree Tirthankar Co. & ors
The delay in the institution of Revision Petition against an order of eviction by the Small Causes Court has been condoned by the Bombay High Court.
Dr. Ashok Mehta (Petitioner) challenged the order of the appeal benh of the Small Causes Court dated Dec 1, 2015 wherein the institution of revision was refused on January 4, 2016. The delay was of 54 days however the sufficient cause was not shown according to the court.
The high court noted that the apex court in N Balakrishnan vs M Krishnamurthy has held that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the court. Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say such discretion can be exercised only if delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion.
It was also observed that while condoning the delay, the opposite party should not be forgotten altogether and the court shall compensate the opposite party for his loss. The prejudice has been caused to the respondent due to delay and hence Petitioner is liable to pay Rs. 1,00,000 cost for condonation of delay.
- Allahabad High Court Upholds the Death Penalty in rape & murder of 7 year old girl.
Pappu v. State of UP
The bench observed that sentence of death is eminently desirable not only to deter others from committing such atrocious crimes, but also to give emphatic expression to society’s abhorrence of such crime.
- Maintenance Tribunal constituted under the Maintenance and welfare of parents and senior citizens act, 2007 has the power to pass eviction orders from properties belonging to senior citizens.
Shadab Khairi and Anr V. The State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Ors
In the instant case, the two Sons and the father had an agreement amongst them that maintenance of Rs 20,000 monthly has to be paid. On account of failure and a complaint by father, the Maintenance tribunal ordered the two sons to evict the father’s property.
This order was challenged by the two sons in the Delhi High Court which then refused to interfere with the order.
- Madras high court allowed the petitioner to file IT returns without stating his Aadhar number.
Preeti Mohan v. Union of India & Ors
The petitioner was allowed to file her IT return manually without stating her Aadhar ID. The Supreme Court, in Binoy Viswam v. Union of India has already allowed a partial Stay on section 139AA of Income Tax Act which made Aadhar linkage with IT returns mandatory.
Earlier Kerela High Court also allowed the petitioner to file IT returns without quoting the Aadhar number.
- Demolition orders against a 3 storied building belonging to Sri Sri Ravi Shankar’s VDS by NGT.
People united for better living in Calcutta v. East Kolkata Wetland Management Authority & Ors
NGT directed East Kolkata Wetlands Management Authority to demolish the Structure, observing that the structure had encroached upon the protected East Kolkata Wetland.
East Kolkata Wetland Management Authority has the power to remove all illegal structures under clauses (b) and (c) of Sec. 4 of the East Kolkata Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Act, 2006 and further to consider imposition of appropriate penalty upon the Respondents No. 8 & 3 under Sec. 18 of the Act.
- Can state police Probe Corruption Cases Against Central Govt Employees Posted in the State?
Gautam R Morarka v. Union of India & Anr
Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that the State police or special police establishment (SPE) have powers to probe offences of bribery and corruption against the Union Government employees posted in Madhya Pradesh. The bench highlighted that there is absolutely no provision in the MP Special Police Establishment Act making any discretion between the employees of Union of the state in the matter of investigation.
In view of Section 3 of the MP Special Police Establishment Act 1947, the police have jurisdiction to investigate and conduct the trial for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the court said.
- Vande Mataram does not need a protection of Law to get a respect it deserves. (Delhi High Court)
Mohd. Ishtar v. State
In a write Petition, Petitioner sought directions to the centre to consider moving an appropriate bill for amendment in the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 and incorporation of provisions with respect to the national anthem.
The committee was made the Centre on this issue that passed an order on May 30, 2016, noting that status quo may be maintained in this regard for the present, hoping that every citizen of India should remember the historic role of the song in our freedom struggle and show due respect to the song when it is played or sung.
The committee observed that protection under the law is not the only way to show respect to creative work. A nation has only one flag and one anthem; that does not mean that any less respect is meant to other songs or prayers, or that the citizens are prevented from loving respecting, singing and being emotionally attached to other songs, books or symbols.
- Unable to offer physical resistance cannot be made a ground to disbelieve the testimony of a rape survivor: Delhi High Court
The court observed that mere absence of injuries on her body either due to offering physical resistance or internal injuries would not be a reason to discard her testimony. there is every possibility that the prosecutrix out of fear of death might have not resisted to the extent so as to withstand any injury on her body.
Injury is not sine qua non to prove the offence of sexual act, provided the evidence of the victim does not suffer from any basic infirmity and the probability factor does not render it unworthy of credence. Every case has to be seen with regard to its facts and circumstances.