Uncategorized Archives - Page 15 of 72

This petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging a notice dated 2nd October 2023, passed by the respondent, the Executive engineer of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. The order was passed directing the petitioner who is a practicing senior advocate to restore remove or demilish the unauthorized merging of a niche area into his office.

The petitioner has claimed that the order was passed without any notice, and it is a non speaking order that does not address the means of the case. It is also pointed out that the MCGM has examined the building three times in the past and has not raised an issue before.

Court’s analysis:

The court allows the hearing saying that they are constantly faced with petitions filed because of illegal construction going on in broad daylight. The court cited the case of Kamla Industrial parks v MCGM where a similar issue was reported. Other than the issuance of a stop worl notice, no further action was taken. The court finds this problematic as in most cases there are large scale illegalities which affect the adherence of law and general town planning.

The court stayed impugned notification, and directed the Corporation to stay the notice and not take any action until further orders

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by: Radhika Shekhawat

14 Nov

Evidence not enough, does not inspire confidence of the court: Karnatak High Court acquits accused group

Prime Legal

Uncategorized #evidence #reasonabledoubt #guilty

Case name: state of Karnataka V Santhosha and Ors

Case No.: Spl. Case No: 82/2011

Date: 10.11.2023

Coram: K. C. Sadanandswamy, J

Introduction

The Karnataka High Court passed final judgement on a case which had been on trial for over a decade, and held that the accused group of persons were not guilty as the prosecution could not prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt

Facts of the case

The complainant was studying in SSLC girls college. The accused [No. 1-6], made acquaintance with the complainant, and later forced her to get in intimate relations with Accused No.1, threatening to kkill her if refused.

On 25.2.2011, the complainant was confined in a room by the accused men, and accused no.1 sexually assaulted her. Later, the group broke the almirah to extort cash and gold.

In 2021, the complainant was again abducted and forced to live with accused no.1 in a house for 4-5 days. The complainant then approached the police station, claiming that her mother has forced her to marry a relative rather than file a complaint.

Court’s judgement

The court went through a rigorous investigation which stretched over a decade, and finally held that accused NO. 1-6 and 9 would be acquitted, as there was a lack of strong evidence, and the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court also stated that PW1 was untrustworthy and thus her statement was invalid.

The evidence on record failed to inspire confidence of the court, and the accusations were stated to be false.

Written by: Radhika Shekhawat

14 Nov

Government monitoring of non scheduled drug formulations prices a public policy concern says Delhi High Court.

Prime Legal

Uncategorized #delhihc #DPCO #Drugregulation

Case name: Union of India v Bharat Serums and vaccines ltd

Case no.: CM no 7868/2023

Date:8.11.2023

Coram: Subramonium Prasad, J

Introduction

The Delhi HC went into a deep dissection of Para 20 of the 2013 DPCO, and shone light on the necessity of government monitoring of non scheduled drug formulation prices.

Facts of the case

The appellants in the current appeal have approached court for clarification on interpretation of Paa 20 of the 2013 DPCO [ Drug Prices Control order] which talks of monitoring the prices of non scheduled formulations. DPCOs are orders issued by government of India under Essential Commodities Act, they are passed to regulate and monitor drug prices in invida. The 2013 DPCO, para 20 says that the government shall monitor MRP of all drugs including non scheduled formulations, in order to ensure that no manufacturer increases prices of any drug over the MRP.

Court’s analysis:

The court said that the 2013 DPCO only applied to drug formulations and not to bulk drugs. It clarified that the government has control over scheduled formulations drug prices, but it can only monitor the price changes in non scheduled formulations, and thus 2013 DPCO does not form part of the price control regime.

It is also clarified that the 2013 DPCO instructions are centrally concerned with public policy and consumer interests, and ensures equitable distribution of drug. Para 20 of the DPCO cannot said to be wholly a penal provision.

The court went into a deep analysis of the DPCO and provided detailed clarifications on the interpretation of Para 20 of the same.

It dismissed the appeal along with any pending applications.

Written by: Radhika Shekhawat