Bimonthly Legal Tablet Volume 4, Issue 3, May 15, 2014

    NOTIFICATIONS, CIRCULARS, (March – April, 2014)

    RBI

    The Reserve Bank of India

    A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 111 dated March 13, 2014 issued by the Reserve Bank of India, Foreign Exchange Department regarding ‘Rupee Drawing Arrangement – Increase in trade related remittance limit’

    On a review of Permitted Transactions under the Rupee Drawing Arrangements (RDAs), it has been decided to increase the limit of trade transactions from the existing INR 2,00,000/- (Indian Rupees Two Lakh only) per transaction to INR 5,00,000/- (Indian Rupees Five Lakh only) per transaction, with immediate effect. All other instructions issued vide A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 28 dated February 6, 2008, as amended from time to time, will remain unchanged.

    A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 113 dated March 26, 2014 issued by the Reserve Bank of India, Foreign Exchange Department regarding ‘External Commercial Borrowings (ECB) for Civil Aviation Sector

    In terms of A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 113 dated April 24, 2012, external capital as a permissible end-use, under the approval route, subject to the conditions stipulated in the said Circular. The scheme was extended commercial borrowings (ECB) can be raised by airline companies for working till December 31, 2013 vide A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 116 dated June 25, 2013.On a review, it has been decided that this scheme of raising ECB for working capital for Civil Aviation Sector will continue till March 31, 2015. All other conditions stipulated in aforesaid Circular dated April 24, 2012 shall remain unchanged.

    A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 117 dated April 04, 2014 issued by the Reserve Bank of India, Foreign Exchange Department regarding ‘Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA) Foreign Exchange (Compounding Proceedings) Rules, 2000 (the Rules) – Compounding of Contraventions under FEMA, 1999

    A.P. (DIR Series) Circular no. 57 dated December 13, 2011 and the Foreign Exchange (Compounding Proceedings) Rules, 2000 notified by the Government of India vide G.S.R.No.383(E) dated 3rdMay 2000, as amended from time to time, deal with delegation of powers to the Regional Offices of the Reserve Bank of India to compound the contraventions of FEMA.

    On a review, it has been decided to delegate further powers to the Regional Offices of Reserve Bank of India. Accordingly, the powers to compound the following contraventions will now be vested with the Regional Offices:

    S. No FEMA Regulation Brief Description of Contravention
    1. Paragraph 9(1)(A) of Schedule I to FEMA 20/2000-RB dated May 3, 2000 Delay in reporting inward remittance received for issue of shares.
    2. Paragraph 9(1)(B) of Schedule I to FEMA 20/2000-RB dated May 3, 2000 Delay in filing form FC (GPR) after issue of shares.
    3. Paragraph 8 of Schedule I to FEMA 20/2000-RB dated May 3, 2000 Delay in issue of shares/refund of share application money beyond 180 days, mode of receipt of funds, etc.
    4. Paragraph 5 of Schedule I to FEMA 20/2000-RB dated May 3, 2000 Violation of pricing guidelines for issue of shares.
    5. Regulation 2(ii) read with Regulation 5(1) of FEMA 20/2000-RB dated May 3, 2000 Issue of ineligible instruments such as non-convertible debentures, partly paid shares, shares with optionality clause, etc.
    6. Paragraph 2 or 3 of Schedule I to FEMA 20/2000-RB dated May 3, 2000 Issue of shares without approval of RBI or FIPB respectively, wherever required.

    The above contraventions can be compounded by all Regional Offices (except Kochi and Panaji) without any limit on the amount of contravention.  Kochi and Panaji Regional offices can compound the above contraventions for amount of contravention below Rupees one hundred lakh (INR 1,00,00,000/-). The contraventions above Rupees one hundred lakh (INR 1,00,00,000/-) under the jurisdiction of Panaji and Kochi Regional Offices and all other contraventions of FEMA will continue to be compounded at Cell for Effective Implementation of FEMA (‘CEFA’), Mumbai, as hitherto. Accordingly, applications for compounding related to the above contraventions may be submitted by the concerned entities to the respective Regional Offices under whose jurisdiction they fall. For all other contraventions, applications may continue to be submitted to CEFA, Foreign Exchange Department, 5th floor, Amar Building, Sir P.M. Road, Fort, Mumbai 400001. All other instructions on compounding shall remain unchanged.

    A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 121 dated April 10, 2014 issued by the Reserve Bank of India, Foreign Exchange Department regarding ‘External Commercial Borrowing (ECB) Policy – Review of all-in-cost ceiling

    It has been decided that the all-in-cost ceiling as specified under paragraph 2 of A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 99 dated March 30, 2012 will continue to be applicable till June 30, 2014 and is subject to review thereafter. All other aspects of the ECB policy remain unchanged

    A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 122 dated April 10, 2014 issued by the Reserve Bank of India, Foreign Exchange Department regarding ‘Trade Credits for Imports into India – Review of all-in-cost ceiling

    It has been decided that the all-in-cost ceiling as specified under paragraph 4 of A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No.28 dated September 11, 2012 will continue to be applicable till June 30, 2014 and is subject to review thereafter. All other aspects of Trade Credit policy remain unchanged.

    A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 123 dated April 16, 2014 issued by the Reserve Bank of India, Foreign Exchange Department regarding ‘Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in Limited Liability Partnership (LLP)

    In terms of Schedule I to the Foreign Exchange Management (Transfer or Issue of Security by a Person Resident Outside India) Regulations, 2000 (The Principal Regulations), notified vide Notification No. FEMA 20/2000-RB dated May 3, 2000, as amended from time to time, only a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 or a Venture Capital Fund is eligible to accept FDI.

    It has now been decided that Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) formed and registered under the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008 shall be eligible to accept Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) subject to the conditions given in Annex I to this Circular No. 123. A reference is also drawn to paragraph 3.2.5 of the Consolidated FDI Policy Circular 1of 2013 dated April 5, 2013 issued by DIPP, in the matter.

    The instructions issued in this circular shall be effective from May 20, 2011. However, reporting requirement of FDI in LLP shall come into force from the date of issue of instructions by the Reserve Bank in this regard. The LLP which have received foreign investment in terms of FIPB approval between May 20, 2011 to the date of this Circular, shall comply with the reporting requirement in respect of FDI within 30 or 60 days, as applicable, from the date of this circular

    A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 124 dated April 21, 2014 issued by the Reserve Bank of India, Foreign Exchange Department regarding ‘Foreign Direct Investment in Pharmaceuticals sector – clarification’

    In terms of A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No.56 dated December 9, 2011 and the Foreign Exchange Management (Transfer or Issue of Security by a Person Resident Outside India) Regulations, 2000, as amended from time to time, FDI up to 100% is permitted under automatic route for greenfield investments and FDI up to 100% is permitted under Government approval route for brownfield investments (i.e., investments in existing companies) in the pharmaceuticals sector

    The extant FDI policy for pharmaceutical sector has since been reviewed and it has now been decided with immediate effect that the existing policy would continue with the condition that ‘non-compete’ clause would not be allowed except in special circumstances with the approval of the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) of the Government of India.

    A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 125 dated April 25, 2014 issued by the Reserve Bank of India, Foreign Exchange Department regarding ‘Reporting of Cross Border Wire Transfers

    P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 73 dated January 10, 2013 deals with ‘Uploading of Reports on FINnet Gateway’ and states that where all ‘Authorised Persons’, who are ‘Indian Agents’ under MTSS, are advised to upload reports as required by FIU-IND using only FINnet gateway.

    With the amendments to Prevention of Money Laundering (‘PML’) Rules, notified by the Government of India vide Notification No. 12 of 2013 dated August 27, 2013 and in terms of the amended Rule 3, every reporting entity is required to maintain the record of all transactions including the record of all cross border wire transfers of more than INR 5 lakh or its equivalent in foreign currency, where either the origin or destination of the fund is in India. FIU-IND has advised that the information of all such transactions may be furnished to Director, FIU-IND by 15th of the succeeding month

    In this regard, it is advised that the ‘Transaction Based Reporting Format’ (TRF) already developed by FIU-IND and being used for reporting Cash Transaction Reports (CTRs), Suspicious Transaction Reports (STRs) and Non-Profit Organizations Transaction Reports (NTRs) may be used for reporting the Cross Border Wire Transfers. The information may be furnished electronically in the FIN-Net module developed by FIU-IND. All ‘Authorised Persons’, who are ‘Indian Agents’ under MTSS are accordingly advised to take action as required by FIU-IND and ensure that reports are submitted in time as per the schedule.

    DIPP

    Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion

    Consolidated FDI Policy Circular of 2014 (Effective from April 17, 2014) issued by the Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion, Government of India, Ministry of Commerce & Industry’

    DIPP has issued the ‘Consolidated FDI Policy Circular of 2014’. The present consolidation subsumes and supersedes all Press Notes/ Press Releases/ Clarifications/ Circulars issued by DIPP, which were in force as on April 16, 2014 and reflects the FDI Policy as on April 17, 2014. The said Circular accordingly comes into effect on April 17, 2014 and will remain in force until superseded in totality or in part thereof.

    MCA

    General Circular No. 04/2014 dated March 25, 2014, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Corporate Affairs regarding ‘Clarification with regard to Section 180 of the Companies Act, 2013’

    Ministry of Corporate Affairs

    It has been clarified that the resolution passed under Section 293 of the Companies Act, 1956 prior to 12.09.2013 with reference to borrowings (subject to the limits prescribed) and/or creation of security on assets of the company will be regarded as sufficient compliance of the requirements of Section 180 of the Companies Act, 2013 for a period of one year from the date of notification of Section 180 of the Act.

    General Circular No. 06/2014 dated March 28, 2014, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Corporate Affairs regarding ‘Roll out plan of various forms under the Companies Act, 2013 and continuance of forms under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956’

    The Ministry has notified 183 additional sections in addition to 99 sections earlier notified under the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013. In order to facilitate the completion of the notified sections, the Ministry has planned a staggered roll out of various forms. It has been decided to waive fees for all event based filing whose due date falls between 01.04.2014 to 30.04.2014.

    General Circular No. 08/2014 dated April 04, 2014, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Corporate Affairs regarding ‘Commencement of provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 with regard to maintenance of books of accounts and preparations/adoption/filing of financial statements, auditors report, Board’s report and attachments to such statements and reports – Applicability with regard to relevant financial year’

    A number of provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 including those relating to maintenance of books of account, preparation, adoption and filing of financial statements (and documents required to be attached thereto), Auditors reports and the Board of Directors report (Board’s report) have been brought into force with effect from April 01, 2014. Provisions of Schedule II (Useful lives to compute depreciation) and Schedule III (Format of financial statements) have also been brought into force from that date. The relevant Rules pertaining to these provisions have also been notified and have come into force from that date.

    The Ministry has received requests for clarification with regard to the relevant financial year with effect from which such provisions of the new Act relating to maintenance of books of account, preparation, adoption and filing of financial statements (and attachments thereto) auditors report and Board’s report will be applicable.

    It is hereby notified that the financial statements (and documents required to be attached thereto), auditors report and Board’s report in respect of financial years that commenced earlier that April 01, 2014 shall be governed by the relevant provisions/ Schedules/ rules of the Companies Act, 1956 and that in respect of financial years commencing on or after April 01, 2014, the provisions of the new Act shall apply.

    SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CASES:

    Biswanath Ghosh) by LRs and Ors v Gobinda Ghosh Alias Gobinda Chandra Ghosh and Ors. MANU/SCOR/8047/2014

    The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that jurisdiction of the High Court while entertaining second appeal is restricted to such appeals which involves substantial question of law. High Court, as per the mandate given under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, has to first formulate a substantial question of law at the time of admission of the appeal or in other words before hearing the appeal, failing which judgment if passed in second appeal would stand vitiated in law.

    The Court also held that for the compliance of Section 16(c) of the Specific Performance Act it is not necessary for the plaintiff to aver in the same words used in the section i.e. ready and willing to perform the contract. Absence of the specific words in the plaint would not result in dismissal of the suit if sufficient fact and evidence are brought on record to satisfy the court the readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract.

    The readiness and willingness of person seeking performance means that the person claiming performance has kept the contract subsisting with preparedness to fulfil his obligation and accept the performance when the time for performance arrives.

    Rajasthan State TPT Corpn. & Anr v Bajrang Lal MANU/SC/0204/2014

    The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that second appeal, in exceptional circumstances, can be entertained on pure questions of fact. There is no prohibition for the High Court to entertain the second appeal even on question of fact where factual findings are found to be perverse.

    Kone Elevator India Pvt. Ltd v State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., MANU/SC/0424/2014

    The substantial question of law in the present case was “Whether a contract for manufacture, supply and installation of lifts in a building is ‘a contract for sale of goods’ or a ‘works contract’?

    The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that “having regard to the nature of the terms of the contract displayed, it will have to be held that the manufacture, supply and installation of LIFTS/ELEVATORS come under the definition of ‘Sale’ and not ‘Works Contract’. The Hon’ble Supreme  Court further held that’ It will have to be held that even after the 46th Amendment, if Article 366(29A)(b) is to be invoked, as a necessary concomitant, it must be shown that the terms of the contract would lead to a conclusion that it is a ‘Works Contract’. In other words, unless a contract is proved to be a ‘Works Contract’ by virtue of the terms agreed as between the parties, invocation of Article 366(29A)(b) of the Constitution, cannot be made. Alternatively, if the terms of the contract disclose or lead to a definite conclusion that it is not a ‘Works Contract’, but one of outright sale, the same will have to be declared as a ‘Sale’ attracting the provisions of the relevant sales tax enactments’.

    Securities and Exchange Board of India v M/s. Akshya Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. MANU/SC/0372/2014

    The question for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was as to whether an open offer voluntarily made through a Public Announcement for purchase of shares of the target company can be permitted to be withdrawn at a time when the voluntary open offer has become economically not viable to be performed.

    The Hon’ble Supreme Court  while upholding the ratio laid down in “Nirma Industries Ltd. & Anr v Securities and Exchange Board of India” held that an open offer once made can only be withdrawn in circumstances stipulated under Regulation 27 (1) (b) (c) and (d) when it is virtually impossible to perform the Public Offer.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that the very purpose for deleting Regulation 27 (1) (a) was to remove the misapprehension that an offer once made can be withdrawn if it becomes economically not viable. The Court also held that that the delay by SEBI in issuing the impugned directions is no ground to withdraw the Public Offer under Regulation 27 (1) (b). Delay in performance of its duties by SEBI cannot be equated to refusal of the statutory approval requires from other independent bodies, such as under the RBI, Taxation Laws and other regulatory statutes including Foreign Exchange Regulations. The Court further went on to say that SEBI is the “watchdog “of the Securities Market. It is the guardian of the interest of the shareholders and must not to act in a lackadaisical manner in the performance of its duties.

    M/s. Indus Airways Pvt. Ltd. &Ors v M/s. Magnum Aviation Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. MANU/SC/0288/2014

    The Hon’ble Supreme Court in this appeal by special leave decided, “whether the post-dated cheques issued by the appellants (hereinafter referred to as ‘purchasers’) as an advance payment in respect of purchase orders could be considered in discharge of legally enforceable debt or other liability, and, if so, whether the dishonour of such cheques amounts to an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.”

    The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “for a criminal liability to be made out under Section 138, there should be legally enforceable debt or other liability subsisting on the date of drawal of the cheque. We are unable to accept the view of the Delhi High Court that the issuance of cheque towards advance payment at the time of signing such contract has to be considered as subsisting liability and dishonour of such cheque amounts to an offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.” As such if a cheque is issued as an advance payment for purchase of the goods and for any reason purchase order is not carried to its logical conclusion either because of its cancellation or otherwise and material or goods for which purchase order was placed is not supplied by the supplier, the cheque cannot be said to have been drawn for an existing debt or liability.

    National Legal Services Authority v Union of India and Others, MANU/SC/0309/2014

    In this landmark Judgment recognizing the rights of the third gender, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that:

    1. Hijras, Eunuchs, apart from binary gender, be treated as “third gender” for the purpose of safeguarding their rights under Part III of our Constitution and the laws made by the Parliament and the State Legislature.
    2. Transgender persons’ right to decide their self-identified gender is also upheld and the Centre and State Governments are directed to grant legal recognition of their gender identity such as male, female or as third gender.

    The Supreme Court while creating a “Third Gender” made other provisions relating to them.

    COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA’S CASES

    M/s Himalya International Ltd v M/s Himalya Simplot Pvt Ltd & Ors., MANU/CO/0036/2014

    In this case Share Holders Agreement (SHA), Master Agreement (MA) and Spirit of Agreement were executed between Informant and opposite parties. The Informant alleged that Clause 2.5 of the SHA is anti-competitive. The Clause 2.5 of the SHA reads as:-

    “During the term of this agreement, the Company shall act as the exclusive marketing, selling and distribution organisation for Informant for the products in the Product Channels, as each may change from time to time during the term of this agreement. The Company shall perform such services in accordance with the following provisions of this Clause”

    The Competition Commission of India held that, in view of the fact that the alleged exclusive selling and distribution arrangement was the very purpose of the formation of the Joint Venture Company and voluntarily adopted by the parties to further their respective business interests, it cannot be termed to be anti-competitive.

    In Re: Bengal Chemist and Druggist Association, MANU/CO/0030/2014

    In this case it was alleged by the Informant that the BCDA‟s (Bengal Chemist and Druggists Association) executive committee directed its retailer member not to give discount on the MRP in the sale of medicines to consumers. Further, the Informant alleged that in order to ensure strict compliance of its directives, BCDA had been carrying out vigilance operations to identify the retailers defying the directions issued by it, and had even forced the defiant members to shut their shops as a punishment measure. The Informant, therefore, alleged that the conduct of BCDA had curtailed the freedom of trade for the retailers and that discount was not being passed on to the end consumers. This, in the opinion of the Informant, had resulted into directly or indirectly determining, the sale prices of drugs by prohibiting its retailer members from giving discounts on MRP and controlled and limited the production/supply of medicines and the market of provision of services by forcing them to close their business and adversely affected the interest of retailers and consumers.

    In the opinion of the Commission, the above said conduct had resulted or was likely to result in controlling and or limiting supply of medicines and the market of provision of drugs, which contravene the provisions of Section 3(3)(b) of the Act. The Commission further observed that the concerted activities of the BCDA and its affiliated District/ Zonal Committees in enforcing the sale of drugs on MRP had not only adversely affected the interests of retailers but had also adversely affected the consumers. The Commission also observed that the activities of trade association inter alia to direct its members to sell drugs only at their MRP is a palpable anti-competitive conduct which cannot be justified on the ground that most of the members of the BCDA, would be ruined if competitive forces are allowed to operate in the market.

    Considering the discussion, the Competition Commission directed the BCDA and its office bearers & executive committee members to seize and desist from indulging in anticompetitive practices found to be anticompetitive in terms of the provisions of Section 3 of the Act.

    M/s Consim Info Private Limited & Consumer Unity & Trust Society (CUTS) v M/s Google Inc., USA &Ors., MANU/CO/0041/2014

    In this case it was alleged that Google (Opposite party)  provides a number of vertical search services like YouTube, Google News, Google Maps etc. and in order to promote its vertical search services, it mixes many of vertical results into organic search results. The effect of such manipulation of results was that Google’s vertical search partners will appear predominantly when an internet user searches for some information, irrespective of whether the search results are most popular or relevant.

    The Competition Commission noted that the opposite parties had shown an attitude of either withholding the information sought by the DG or furnishing only a part of the information sought. It was observed by the Commission that non filing of complete reply to the notices of the DG showed wilful disregard of the opposite party to the communication of the D

    The Competition Commission, however, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, and, in particular, considering the fact that the opposite parties had submitted some of the information’s/ documents as sought for by the DG, was of opinion that ends of justice would be met if the maximum fine envisaged under the provisions of section 43 of the Act was imposed upon the opposite parties by taking only one instance of non-compliance. In the result, a fine of rupees one crore was imposed upon the opposite parties.

    1st March, 2014

    • The Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Bill 2014, which got Parliament’s approval on February 20 has received the Presidential assent, paving the way for creation of the country’s 29th state by splitting Andhra Pradesh.

    3rd March, 2014

    • The Supreme Court of India has dismissed an appeal filed by some regional film associations against a Competition Commission of India order penalising them for anti-competitive practices, in a victory for movie producers Reliance Big Entertainment and UTV.
    • The Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has stated that disputes over business transactions, where goods are purchased and services availed for commercial purposes, cannot be tried in a consumer court.
    • Union Cabinet of India has cleared the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Ordinance, which proposes common crimes should also be brought under the purview of this Act.
    • The Union Cabinet of India has approved amendments to the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Bill and given Seemandhra region ‘special category’ status for five years.
    • The Delhi High Court has dismissed a suit filed by Israel-based TevaPharma against the Hyderabad-based drug company, Natco seeking an injunction over marketing multiple sclerosis medicine, Copaxone, in the US.
    • The Bombay High Court has held that depositors will get up to a maximum of Rs 1 lakh from the banking insurance system, if a bank goes busted.
    • The Madras High Court while granting a decree in favour of Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam, ruled that the TTD alone is entitled to use the brand name ‘Tirupati Laddu’.

     4th March, 2014

    • The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) extended the date for exchanging the pre-2005 banknotes to 1st Jan, 2015.

    5th March, 2014

    • The telecom department of India plans to tweak the Indian Telegraph Rules (ITR), 1951, by including `mobile phones’ within the definition of the word “telegraph” to ensure mobile operators only deploy cellphones deemed safe after being screened at a local test lab. At present, DoT cannot legally demand such compliance from operators since a mobile phone is a consumer good and outside the broad definition of `telegraph’.
    • The Bombay High Court has upheld UltraTech Cement’s plea and ordered Rajasthan based Apex Cement not to use the phrase “Apex Ultra-Tech Cement – choice of Engineers” with the sun logo for its products, providing relief to the cement brand owned by the Aditya Birla Group Company.

     12th March, 2014

    • The World Health Organization (WHO) has strongly endorsed India’s patent laws and no country, including the United States, has challenged these laws at the WTO claiming that these infringe trade-related intellectual property rights, Indian drug makers have told the US International Trade Commission.
    • The Supreme Court of India has dismissed the Centre’s plea seeking review of its verdict holding that undue delay by the government in deciding mercy plea can be a ground to commute death sentence of a condemned prisoner.

     14th March, 2014

    • The Supreme Court of India has ruled that “intoxication” of a person cannot be a ground for diluting the offence of murder into unintentional killing.

    19th March, 2014

    • The Bombay High Court has held that if an employee voluntarily admits to the charges against him during a departmental inquiry, then no fault can be found with the inquiry officer closing the probe.
    • Google Inc. has settled a landmark copyright lawsuit in which Viacom Inc. accused the Internet search company of posting its programs on the YouTube video service without permission.
    • The Bombay High Court has ordered local financial services firm Edelweiss Research (ERPL) not to use the name ‘Edelweiss’ in any manner as it sounds similar to its rival, the Edelweiss Financial Services, which has a registered trademark for the name.

    21st March, 2014

    • The Election Commission of India (ECI) has given its nod to the Ministry of Corporate Affairs to release the final rules governing the Companies Act, 2013.

    1st April, 2014

    • The Supreme Court of India has refused to review its verdict commuting death sentence of three convicts in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case to life imprisonment and dismissed Centre’s review petition.
    • The Competition Commission of India has tightened its rules to ensure that companies do not escape its scrutiny through innovative structuring of mergers and acquisitions. The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has clarified that it will look at the substance of the transaction and not just the structure while approving any merger.

     14th April, 2014

    • Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) has issued a Public Notice No. MCA21/28/2014-eGov, informing stakeholders that all E-Forms will be available for upload with effect from 28th April, 2014 instead of 14th April, 2014 as notified earlier on 28th March, 2014.
    • Justice Rajendra Mal Lodha has been appointed as the next Chief Justice of India and will assume his charge on April 27, 2014.
    • The Supreme Court of India has sought a response of the Centre, all States and Union Territories on a petition alleging that there is violation of Right to Education (RTE) Act in schools across the country and sought its proper implementation.
    • The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) has directed the Chief Commissioners of income tax to ensure that the comments/objections of the tax department on reconstruction or amalgamation schemes are sent to the Regional Director (MCA) for incorporating them in the response to the High Courts.

     15th April, 2014

    • The Punjab and Haryana High Court while deciding a divorce case of an NRI couple, ruled that any judgment passed by a court of another country in a matrimonial dispute will not be considered “conclusive” in relation to the same matrimonial dispute pending before an Indian court.
    • The Apex Court of India has directed investigating agencies to adopt scientific methods in crime detection to save the judicial system from low conviction rates.
    • In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India has created the “third gender” status for transgenders and directed the Centre to treat transgender as socially and economically backward.

    16th April, 2014

    • Lieutenant governor Najeeb Jung has cleared the order for compulsory registration of marriage and stated that those who fail to do so within 60 days will have to pay up to Rs 1,000 as penalty.
    • The Supreme Court of India while setting aside an order of the Calcutta High Court held that a woman employee of the Central Government can get uninterrupted leave for two years for childcare, which also includes needs like examination and sickness.
    • The Bombay High Court has ordered a Mumbai based fabric maker to pay Rs 10 lakh fine for infringing on the trademark of branded fabric and fashion retailer Raymond.

    17th April, 2014

    • The Karnataka High Court has ruled that depression, temporary phase of mood swings or mere unsound mind cannot be a ground for divorce, it should be an incurably unsound mind or a mental condition like schizophrenia.
    • The Supreme Court of India has held that the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) can audit the account books of private telecom companies which share revenue with the government for using spectrum.

    18th April, 2014

    • SEBI has come out with detailed corporate governance norms for listed companies providing for stricter disclosures and protection of investor rights. SEBI’s norms are aligned with the new Companies Act and are aimed to encourage companies to “adopt best practices on corporate governance”.

    21st April, 2014

    • Supreme Court of India has asked the Secretary of Department of Telecommunications (DoT) to file affidavit on whether the Centre is competent to issue direction to Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to block porn sites particularly those showing child pornography.
    • Justice G Rohini sworn in as the first woman Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court.
    • Andhra Pradesh High Court made it clear that an employer should take into account the period of suspension of an employee, if suspended for any reason, for the purpose of calculating the total period of service for determining his pensionary benefits.
    • US Supreme Court denied request by Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd to stay a lower-court ruling in a patent case that favoured the developers of generic versions of Teva’s top-selling multiple sclerosis drug. 
    • The Kerala High Court held that trial of a criminal case can be allowed to be transferred from one court to another to suit the convenience of the parties only if it ensures a smooth and speedy trial.

    22nd April, 2014

    • Supreme Court of India has allowed mining to resume in Goa, subject to an annual cap of 20 million tonnes from leases other than dumps, lifting a ban that it imposed in 2012.
    • Supreme Court of India while expressing concern over the plight of seriously-affected patients of the clinical trials of new chemical entities, directed the Government to ‘compel’ the sponsor companies of such trials to pay compensation to such patients.

    23rd April, 2014

    • Supreme Court of India has rejected a three-member committee selected by the board to investigate the IPL spot-fixing and betting charges.
    • The Supreme Court of India has set up a committee for framing guidelines to prevent misuse of public funds by the government and its authorities in giving advertisements in newspapers and television to get political mileage.

    24th April, 2014

    • Supreme Court of India while giving an important clarification on live-in relationships stated that children born out of prolonged live-in relationships cannot be termed illegitimate.
    • Punjab & Haryana High Court while refusing to give any relief to a Sudan national has upheld the Ministry of Home Affairs’ guidelines restricting single foreign nationals and unmarried couples from coming on medical visas to India for having kids through surrogacy.

    28th April, 2014

    • Justice RM Lodha was sworn in as the new Chief Justice of India, he was administered the oath of office by President Pranab Mukherjee.

     29th April, 2014

    • The Madras High Court has stated that in cases relating to paternity dispute, a Judicial Magistrate can send an accused to undergo DNA test and even the police can exert reasonable degree of physical force on the accused to subject him to the said tests.
    • The Election Commission of India has clarified that any person can challenge any false affidavit by candidates before the appropriate court for action under Section 125A of the Representation of People Act.
    • Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) of India has overturned Government ban on pacts between carriers that allow them to provide 3G services beyond their licensed zones.

    30th April, 2014

    • The Supreme Court of India in a major reform towards fast-tracking rape trials stated that a rape victim should be taken directly to a magistrate for recording her statement within 24 hours of the crime.

    Doc ID: 14MAYBT36 E: [email protected];  T: +91 11 41674458; FAX: +91 11-26146998©Copyright Protected. Privileged & Confidential for private circulation only for information purposes only. This paper is not to be construed as ‘legal advice‘. The Author(s) and the Firm disclaim any and all liability in respect of the present circulation.

    Leave your comment

    *

    code