Uncategorized Archives - Page 27 of 72

4 Aug

The Madras High Court delivers landmark judgement on Balancing Right to Freedom of Expression

Prime Legal

Uncategorized

P.Muthukarupan vs The Deputy Superintendent

Decided on: 17 July, 2023

CORAM :THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

Introduction:

Writ Petition (MD) No.17101 of 2023 involves a legal battle between P. Muthukarupan, the petitioner, and the Deputy Superintendent of Police and Inspector of Police in Trichy District, the respondents. The petitioner sought a writ of certiorarified mandamus to challenge the impugned order passed by the second respondent, denying permission to conduct cultural programs, namely, Mahamayi Drama and Gramiya Themmangu Aadalum Paadalum Nigazhichi. The case was presented before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, presided over by Justice D. Nagarjun.

Factual Background:

The petitioner, P. Muthukarupan, intended to organize two cultural events – Mahamayi Drama scheduled on 17.07.2023 from 09:00 pm to 05:00 am, and Gramiya Themmangu Aadalum Paadalum Nigazhichi organized by DMV Nanbargal Deeban Manikandam Kuzhu, scheduled on 18.07.2023 from 07:00 pm to 12:00 am. The petitioner filed a representation on 05.07.2023, seeking permission from the respondent police for both events. However, the police refused to grant permission, prompting the petitioner to approach the High Court through this writ petition.

Petitioner’s Argument:

The petitioner’s counsel, Mr. G. R. Satish, contended that the cultural programs have been conducted peacefully for over 50 years without any complaints. He pointed out that in 2022, the petitioner had filed a previous writ petition (W.P.(MD) No.14614 of 2022), which was allowed, and the programs were conducted without any untoward incidents. The petitioner assured to comply with all police conditions and maintain law and order during the events. He sought the court’s direction to quash the impugned order and grant permission for the scheduled programs.

Respondent’s Submission:

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. side), Mr. S. S. Madhavan, representing the respondents, stated that the police had no objections to granting permission for the Mahamayi Drama scheduled on 17.07.2023 in the ground near the mentioned temples. However, for the Gramiya Themmangu Aadalum Paadalum Nigazhichi scheduled on 18.07.2023, the police were willing to permit it between 07:00 pm and 10:00 pm.

Court’s Decision:

Considering the submissions and the petitioner’s assurance of adhering to police guidelines, Justice D. Nagarjun disposed of the writ petition. The court directed the petitioner to file a fresh application before the respondent police immediately. On filing such an application, the police were instructed to grant permission for the Mahamayi Drama as requested earlier. Additionally, the police were directed to permit the Gramiya Themmangu Aadalum Paadalum Nigazhichi on 18.07.2023 from 07:00 pm to 10:00 pm, following the guidelines issued on 09.04.2019.

Conclusion:

The case of P. Muthukarupan vs. The Deputy Superintendent of Police highlights the delicate balance between the right to freedom of expression and maintaining public order. The court’s decision reflects the importance of upholding constitutional rights while ensuring public safety. By allowing the petitioner’s cultural events with reasonable restrictions, the court emphasized the significance of striking a balance between individual liberties and collective well-being. The case serves as a reminder that while the freedom of expression is a fundamental right, it must be exercised responsibly, considering the interests of society as a whole.

“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.”

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY SHREEYA S SHEKAR

Click here to view judgement

3 Aug

The Madras High Court clarifies aspects regarding Jurisdictional Boundaries and Due Process

Prime Legal

Uncategorized

Sudalaikumar vs The Sub Divisional Executive
Decided on: 14th July, 2023
CORAM: Hon’ble Justice K.K Ramakrishnan

Crl.R.C.(MD).No.733 of 2023

Introduction:
Criminal Revision Petition No.733 of 2023 arises from an order passed by the Sub Divisional Executive Magistrate, Thoothukudi, on 05.07.2023, which resulted in the arrest and detention of the petitioner, Sudalaikumar, under Section 122(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C). Sudalaikumar challenged the jurisdiction of the Executive Magistrate to pass such an order, and the matter was brought before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court. Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan presided over the case and considered the legal arguments presented by both parties.

Factual Background:
Sudalaikumar was arrested and detained under Section 122(1)(b) of Cr.P.C for allegedly violating the conditions of a bond executed under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. The bond was dated 02.02.2023. Sudalaikumar contended that the Sub Divisional Executive Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to issue such an order. He relied on a recent judgment by the Hon’ble Division Bench in P.Sathish @ Sathish Kumar vs. State, reported in 2023 (1) MWN (Crl.) 499, to support his claim for quashing the impugned order.

Petitioner’s Argument:
Sudalaikumar’s counsel argued that the Executive Magistrate did not have the authority to pass an order under Section 122(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. The counsel cited the judgment in P.Sathish @ Sathish Kumar vs. State, where the Hon’ble Division Bench declared certain Government Orders as unconstitutional. The judgment stated that Deputy Commissioners of Police were not vested with powers of an Executive Magistrate under Sections 107 to 110 of Cr.P.C. The counsel contended that the violation of a bond executed under Section 107 of Cr.P.C should be dealt with under Section 446 of the Code, not Section 122(1)(b).

Respondent’s Argument:
The Government Advocate (Crl. Side) representing the respondents informed the court that they intended to file a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the order passed by the Madras High Court in P.Sathish @ Sathish Kumar vs. State. The respondents did not challenge Sudalaikumar’s claim regarding the lack of jurisdiction.

Court’s Analysis and Decision:
Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan reviewed the relevant legal provisions and the judgment in P.Sathish @ Sathish Kumar vs. State. The court agreed with the Hon’ble Division Bench’s findings, which declared the Government Orders conferring Executive Magistrate powers to Deputy Commissioners of Police as unconstitutional. As a consequence, the court held that an Executive Magistrate cannot authorize imprisonment under Section 122(1)(b) for the violation of a bond executed under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. The appropriate course of action in such cases is to initiate proceedings before a Judicial Magistrate for inquiry and punishment under Section 122(1)(b) of Cr.P.C.

Having considered the legal principles and the relevant judgment, the court concluded that the Sub Divisional Executive Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. Accordingly, the court allowed the Criminal Revision Petition and set aside the order dated 05.07.2023. Sudalaikumar was directed to be released forthwith, unless his custody was required in connection with any other case.

Conclusion:
The case of Sudalaikumar vs. The Sub Divisional Executive Magistrate highlights the importance of adhering to the constitutional principles and jurisdictional boundaries when exercising powers under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court’s reliance on the recent judgment in P.Sathish @ Sathish Kumar vs. State exemplifies the significance of precedent in the legal system. The decision reaffirms the role of Judicial Magistrates in handling violations of bonds executed under Section 107 of Cr.P.C, emphasizing the importance of due process and appropriate legal recourse. The case also underscores the need for clear demarcation of powers among different authorities to maintain the integrity and fairness of the justice system.

Click here to view judgement

1 Aug

“The purchases” mentioned in the Condition 3 of VAT Notification dated 9th July refers to all the purchases; no exceptions: Bombay High Court

Prime Legal

Uncategorized #mvat #thepurchases, #vat

Title: Oasis Realty v. The Commissioner of Sales Tax and The State of Maharashtra

Decided on: 26^th July, 2023

+ CRL.A. 530 OF 2016

CORAM: FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA

Facts of the Case:

The appellant, Oasis Realty, is engaged in the real estate business of construction, purchase and sale of buildings. It is registered under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 (“the MVAT Act”) and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

For the purpose of payment of VAT towards the aforesaid construction activity, the Appellant opted for the Scheme of Composition under Section 42(3A) of the MVAT Act.

Issues

Whether conditions in the VAT notification restricts set-off only in respect of purchases of those goods involved in the execution of a works contract the property in respect of which (goods) are transferred in the execution of such works contract?

Contentions

The appellants claimed that only those purchases (of inputs) in which the property has been transferred be considered for the sake of setting-off. It was submitted that the expression “the purchases” in Condition No.3 had to be read harmoniously with the enabling powers in Section 42(3A) of the MVAT Act whereunder the Scheme of Composition was introduced as well as the purpose of the Scheme of Composition, which is to levy tax at a reduced rate.

The Respondents contented that as per the case of Maharashtra Chamber of Housing Industry and Others that there is no compulsion or obligation upon a dealer to opt for such a scheme. As per the Composition Scheme composition amount is one percent of the agreement amount specified in the agreement or the value specified for the purpose of stamp duty in respect of the said agreement under Bombay Stamp Act, 1958, whichever is higher. Thus, the Scheme provides for tax at a flat rate of one percent on the aforesaid amount. However, Condition No.3 provides that a dealer who opts to pay composition under the said Scheme shall not be eligible to claim set-off of taxes paid in respect of the purchases.

Decision

There is no merit in the argument of the Appellant that, just because Condition No.3 refers to “the purchases”, it applies only in respect of certain kind of purchases and does not apply in respect of certain other purchases. If Condition No.3 wanted to make an exception in respect of certain kind of purchases, then it would have expressly stated so. In the absence of any such exception made by Condition No.3 applies to all purchases.

The appeal was thereby dismissed.

Written by- Aparna Gupta, University Law College & Dept. of Studies in Law

Click to view judgment

13 Jul

According to the Allahabad High Court, the “Registered Owner Refuses To Surrender RC Or Absconds” clause of the Motor Vehicle Act is not a requirement to exercise power.

Prime Legal

Uncategorized #allahabadhighcourt#mva#owner#registration

Title: Shahrukh Saleem. vs. State of UP and 2 others

Decided on: 4th July, 2023.

WRIT – A No. – 10418 of 2023

CORAM: Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon’ble Manish Kumar Nigam,J.

Introduction.

According to the Allahabad High Court, the ability to exercise the right under Section 51(5) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 to cancel and issue a new certificate of registration is not contingent upon the registered owner’s reluctance to relinquish the registration certificate or his disappearance.

Analysis.

The Court decided that when the registered owner fails to repay the debt, the financier is entitled to a new certificate of registration in his name. This is the Act’s and the Rules’ intended structure, as shown in Section 51(5) when read in conjunction with Rules 61(2) and 61(3).

The registered owner must relinquish the RC, according to the court, in order for a new RC to be issued in the financer’s name. The registered owner is given notice via Form-37 in the event that he refuses to turn over the RC or flees. The non-obstante clause gives the RTO the authority to issue fresh RC to the financier even if the registered owner has withheld the original RC or has fled.

Written by- Varada Hawaldar

click to view judgement

12 Jul

Delhi High Court has set aside the order passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs under section 15 of the Patents act.

Prime Legal

Uncategorized #delhihighcourt, #HighCourt, #highcourtdelhi, #patents, #primelegal, Blog, Prime Legal

Title: NIPPON STEEL CORPRATION vs THE ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF PATENTS AND DESIGNS

Date of Decision: 7th July, 2023

+ C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 36/2022

CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Introduction

Delhi High Court has set aside the order passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs under section 15 of the Patents act and remanded for fresh consideration to the Respondent- Controller of Patents and Designs within a period of two months from today.

Facts of the case

The Appellant, Nippon Steel Corporation, filed the current appeal according to section 117A(2) of the Patents Act, 1970 (hereafter, “Act” disputing the contested ruling dated March 5, 2012 made under Section 15 of the Act.

According to the impugned order, the Respondent-Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs rejected the Appellant’s application bearing no. 435/DEL/2006 for the grant of a patent in respect of an invention titled “Non-Oriented Electrical Steel Excellent in Magnetic Properties in Rolling Direction and Method of Production of Same” (hereinafter, “subject invention”).

The Tribunals Reforms Act of 2021 allowed for the transfer of the current appeal, which was first brought in 2012 before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (the “IPAB”), to this Court.

Analysis of the court

In Agriboard International LLC v. Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs [C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 4/2022, dated March 31, 2022], this Court held that discussion of the prior art, the subject invention, and how the subject invention would be obvious to a person skilled in the art would be mandatory while rejecting an application for lack of inventive step. It is inadequate to simply get to the plain judgement that the subject invention lacks creative step since doing so would violate Section 2(1)(ja) of the Act.

Following the ruling in Agriboard (supra), this Court once more, in Gogoro Inc. v. Controller of Patents and Designs [C.A. (Comm.IPD-PAT) 25/2021, dated 24th August 2022], set aside the Respondent’s unjustified order refusing the grant of the patent, and restored the patent application to its original position.

Reading the contested order will reveal that the originality and innovative step concerns under Section 2 of the Act were not properly discussed before the order was made. The patent application was abruptly dismissed by the challenged ruling, which makes no mention of any of the FER’s stated previous art. This Court believes that the issue merits being remitted to the Respondent-Controller of Patents and Designs for new consideration after reviewing the contested ruling.

Written By – Shreyanshu Gupta

Click to view the judgement

1 … 25 26 27 28 29 … 72