Z. Sanwarwala & CO.

17/11/2020

Guidelines for grant of police aid for implementation of court orders

The lower Courts are frequently confronted with the question of issuing police protection. Since the issuance of police aid is often ra...

27/12/2018

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India said, that if the advice of an advocate goes wrong in somehow, even then no FIR can be lodged under section 420 Indian Penal

08/10/2017

http://www.livelaw.in/sc-issues-guidelines-quashing-fircriminal-proceedings-ground-settlement-partiesread-judgment/

A three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court has summarized the principles that need to be kept in mind by the High Courts while considering a plea for quashing an FIR/ Criminal Proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground of settlement between parties. The Bench compris...

12/04/2017

Important Judgments of this week (07/04/2017)

Matrimonial cases filed by husband or wife and are residing in two States – Use of video conferencing for such cases – Directions issued - 2017 (2) KHC 380 (SC)

Court fee cannot be refunded when appeal is settled out of Court and no compromise is recorded - 2017 (2) KHC 389 (FB)

MACT - Vehicle driven by minor — No negligence can be attributed to rider for the reason that he is aged 16 years - 2017 (2) KHC 327 (DB)

NI Act S.138 - Cheque issued by sole proprietary concern – A person, who is not either drawer of dishonoured cheque or proprietor, but is in charge of the day-to-day affairs of the sole proprietary concern, cannot be made vicariously liable - 2017 (2) KHC 317

Prohibition of sale of liquor on National and State highways – SC modifies the order in specific cases - 2017 (2) KHC 360 (SC)

NI Act S.138 - If accused is a Managing Director or a Joint Managing Director, then it is not necessary to make specific averment in the complaint - 2017 (2) KHC 401

MACT - Apportionment of claim amount, towards principal and interest – How to be done - 2017 (2) KHC 315

Education — Once selection of a campus is made, no request for change can be entertained either before or after the admission for any reason whatsoever - 2017 (2) KHC 14 (SC) (SN)

Prohibition on exhibition of dubbed serial on television is against S.3 of the Competition Act - 2017 (2) KHC 15 (SC) (SN)

Land Reforms - Non-inclusion of survey number in a Purchase Certificate cannot be reckoned as a clerical mistake - 2017 (2) KHC 336

MACT - Insured-owner of a vehicle has got statutory liability to verify as to whether Driver of the vehicle possessed a valid licence - 2017 (2) KHC 342 (DB)

24/10/2016

High Court Lays Down Criteria For Designation Of Advocate As 'Senior Advocate

The Madras High Court has, with a view to bringing in transperency and objectivity to the selection process for designation of an advocate as a "senior advocate" under section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961, issued Notification No. 298/2013 dated 24.10.2013 setting out the criteria for the designation.

Broadly, the requirements are the following:

(i) The advocate should have 15 years standing at the Bar and his annual professional income should not be less than Rs. 7 lakhs for the past three years;

(ii) There should be at least 15 judgements where the advocate has contributed to the growth of law in the preceeding three years;

(iii) it is made clear that the main criteria for designation as Senior Advocate is the calibre, merit, ability and academic distinction of the Advocate concerned, including his/her character, conduct and behaviour towards the court and members of the Bar.

It is also provided that the senior advocate should have at least two juniors in his chamber. Also, he is not permitted to draft or sign pleadings or to directly give consultation to any litigant. It is also provided that the senior advocate has always to be assisted by another Advocate.

The Rules also provide that a senior advocate can be stripped of his designation if he acts in breach of the undertaking given or commits professional misconduct/ displays intemperate behaviour in Court.

It is worth noting that there are a few interesting differences in comparision to the Rules framed by the Bombay High Court. For instance, while the Madras Rules require that the professional income should not be less than Rs. 7.5 lakhs, the Bombay Rules require that the tax paid on the professional income should not be less than Rs. 7.50 lakhs. Also, while the Madras Rules require the advocate to have 15 judgements to his credit (in the preceding 3 years), the Bombay Rules require that he should have 10 reported judgements to his credit (in his lifetime). Further, while the Madras Rules mandate that the senior should have at least two juniors in his chamber, there is no such requirement in the Bombay Rules. The selection process also differs. While the Bombay Rules requires a 2/3 majority of Judges voting in secret ballot, the Madras Rules provide for a committee of 10 judges to decide. If the Committee is not unanimous in their decision, the decision is left to the Chief Justice.

03/09/2016

S. 37 of Income Tax Act- Any proceeding before the Income Tax Officer in which powers under sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) are exercised by him, would be judicial proceeding for purposes of Indian Penal Code. Babita Lila v. Union of India, Criminal Appeal 824 of 2016, 31.8.16 SC

Find latest judgments, bare acts. Subscribe to ILF StayUpdated.

14/06/2016

Cheating- Deceit- Mens Rea- In every case of cheating, there is deceit- To deceive means to induce a man to believe that thing is true which is false & which person practicing deceit knows or believes to be false. IR Technology Services P. Ltd v. State of West Bengal, CRR 2528/09, 22.4.16, Calcutta HC

13/01/2016

31/08/2015

The Union Cabinet chaired by the Prime Minister, Shri Narendra Modi, today gave its approval for amendments to the Arbitration and Conciliation Bill, 2015 taking into consideration the Law Commission’s recommendations, and suggestions received from stake holders. The Government of India has decided to amend the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by introducing the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Bill, 2015 in the Parliament.

The salient features of the amendments are as under:

(i) In order to ensure neutrality of arbitrators, it is proposed to amend Section 12 to the effect that when a person is approached in connection with possible appointment of arbitrator, he shall disclose in writing about existence of any relationship or interest of any kind, which is likely to give rise to justifiable doubts. Further, if a person is having specified relationship, he shall be ineligible to be appointed as an arbitrator.

(ii) Insertion of a new provision that the Arbitral Tribunal shall make its award within a period of 12 months. Parties may extend such period up to six months. Thereafter, it can only be extended by the Court, on sufficient cause. The Court while extending the period may also order reduction of fees of arbitrator(s) not exceeding five percent for each month of delay, if the court finds that the proceedings have been delayed for reasons attributable to the arbitral tribunal. If the award is made within a period of six months, arbitrator may get additional fees if the parties may agree.

(iii) It is proposed to insert a provision for fast track procedure for conducting arbitration. Parties to the dispute may agree that their dispute be resolved through fast track procedure. Award in such cases shall be given in six months period.

(iv) Amendment of Section 34 relating to grounds for challenge of an arbitral award, to restrict the term ‘Public Policy of India” (as a ground for challenging the award) by explaining that only where making of award was induced or affected by fraud or corruption, or it is in contravention with the fundamental policy of Indian Law or is in conflict with the most basic notions of morality or justice, the award shall be treated as against the Public Policy of India.

(v) A new provision to provide that application to challenge the award is to be disposed of by the Court within one year.

(vi) Amendment to Section 36 to the effect that mere filing of an application for challenging the award would not automatically stay ex*****on of the award. Award can only be stayed where the Court passed any specific order on an application filed by the party.

(vii) A new sub-section in Section 11 to be added to the effect that an application for appointment of an Arbitrator shall be disposed of by the High Court or Supreme Court as expeditiously as possible and an endeavour should be made to dispose of the matter within 60 days.

(viii) A new Section 31A is to be added for providing comprehensive provisions for costs regime. It is applicable both to arbitrators as well as related litigation in Court. It will avoid frivolous and meritless litigation/arbitration.

(ix) Section 17 is to be amended for empowering the Arbitral tribunal to grant all kinds of interim measures which the Court is empowered to grant, under Section 9 and such order shall be ‘enforceable in the same manner as if it is an order of Court.

Apart from above, amendments in Sections 2(1)(e) , 2(1)(f)(iii), 7(4)(b), 8(1) and (2), 9, 11, 14(1), 23, 24, 25, 28(3), 31(7)(b), 34 (2A) 37, 48, 56 and in Section 57 are also proposed for making the arbitration process more effective.

Background:

The Government of India has under its consideration proposals for making Arbitration a preferred mode for settlement of commercial disputes by making it more user-friendly and cost effective. This will lead to expeditious disposal of cases. The Govt. of India is committed to improve its legal framework relating to Arbitration. The Law Commission