|
Legislative and Regulatory Update
|
You
now have the option of customizing
your manupatra round-up .This means that you get updates
on the areas of interest that you select .You may change your
preferences at any time you wish to. If you do not customize
your round up you will continue to get the updates on all
areas
To
customize your round-up now click here.
_____________________________________________________________________ |
|
India Centric
Online Legal & Business Database
Bringing
forth new efficiency and unparalleled results to research
efforts. |
| In This Issue |
|
[No.122]
May 20,
2005 |
|
|
|
|
To keep you informed about the latest Legislative
and Regulatory information manupatra.com
publishes this e-roundup highlighting the recent changes
brought about by the Notifications/Acts/Bills /Ordinances
etc.
About
manupatra.com
../
provides comprehensive and easy to use legal and related
information over the Internet .Our database covers Central
Laws , Judgments of Supreme Court and High Court (full
text of the judgments from 1950 onwards ), Orders of
Tribunals , Bills , Notifications, Circulars and
more
Key features of manupatra are
 |
Content is derived from reliable primary and
secondary sources |
|
Database is updated on a daily
basis |
|
Electronic Ready Reckoner to view the
judgments under a particular section of an Act /
Subject |
|
Powerful search engine with user friendly
interfaces |
|
Search in any one court/year or multiple
courts/year |
|
Hyper-linking of
documents |
|
Updated
modules on WTO, Anti Dumping, Arbitration,
Investment Destinations Abroad, Capital Markets,
Taxation, Environment, Cyber & IT Laws, IPR,
Corporate Laws, Industrial Policies, Foreign
Trade,
Forex & Banking and
more |
For subscription to manupatra.com or for more
details please log onto ../
or call us at 0120 2531811 or send an email to : contact@manupatra.com
If at any stage you wish to stop receiving the
e-roundup please click here to unsubscribe. |
|
| |
|
Supreme
Court |
-
Ajendraprasadji
Narendraprasadji Pandey v Swamy K. Narayandasji and Ors.
Manu/SC/0399/2005
The Appellant filed
for a Special Civil suit questioning the legality of the removal of the
appellant from the post of Acharya. The Trial court passed an interim order
restraining the Respondents from entering the temple premises and removing the
defendant from the post of Acharya. Respondents challenged the said order.
The High court
admitted the appeal but no interim orders was passed, in the circumstances the
appellants herein were constrained to approach the Apex Court.
The Apex Court
allowed the appeal. High Court was directed to hear the matter afresh and
consider the cumulative factors while deciding the application for interim
relief.
Manu/SC/0397/2005
The Petitioner filed
a petition in Public interest under Article 32 of the constitution of India,
seeking a direction for the rectification of the National Anthem by deleting the
word “Sindh” there from.
The main contention
of the petitioner was that since ‘Sindh’ was a part of India pre-partition
and as such the use of this word in the national anthem is misplaced.
The Apex court held
that the petition was devoid of any merit and dismissed the petition with costs.
|
High Courts |
|
Karnataka
Petitioner and
respondent are husband and wife respectively. They had filed two separate
divorce petitions in two separate places, one in Karnataka and one in
Maharashtra. Petitioner husband has filed divorce petition on the ground of
mental cruelty and desertion etc. and respondent wife’s grounds has filed her
petition on the grounds of mental and physical cruelty, desertion, illicit
relation and dowry demand etc. As per the petitioner husband issues of both
these petitions are directly and substantially the same therefore the petition
for divorce filed by the wife should be stayed.
The High Court of
Karnataka while dismissing the petition held that though the issues in both the
petitions are identical but are not directly and substantially the same. On the
question of jurisdiction to stay the matter of another court it was held that
the Court at Karnataka has no territorial jurisdiction over the court located at
Maharashtra.
Punjab and Haryana
Respondent husband
had filed a suit for divorce on the ground of cruelty on the part of the
appellant-wife by lodging complaint under Sec. 406/ 498A and also by approaching
Mahila Sangathan. The learned Addl. District Judge has passed the decree of
divorce on the basis of cruelty and stating that the marriage had irretrievably
broken because the appellant and respondent are living separately for the last
11 years.
Appeal was allowed
by Punjab and Haryana High Court while setting aside the divorce decree passed
by the trial court is set aside .It was held that filing of dowry complaint
couldn’t be a ground for cruelty when the husband still posses the items of
dowry and merely living separately would not be a ground to hold that marriage
has irretrievably broken.
Gujarat
Petitioner was a student of P.T.C. for the year 2003-2004 and was facing criminal charges for appearing as
dummy student in place of another student in class 12th
examination. Petitioner was not allowed to fill the examination form for P.T.C.
as per the order issued by the State examination Board. It was held that there
is no prohibition in allowing the student from appearing in examination in case
he is facing criminal case or trial.
The High Court at
Gujarat allowed the petition and set aside the order passed by the Gujarat State
Examination Board
Chennai
Aluminum ingots
received by the appellants herein are clearly recognizable as non-duty paid. The
suppliers have not paid any excise duty as they satisfied the conditions of
Notification. When it is clearly evident that raw material cleared has not
discharge any Excise duty, they are recognizable as non –duty paid goods. -No
Deemed Credit is allowed on such non-duty paid- goods.
The appeal was
rejected with the observation that the government has no intention to allow
deemed credit on non-duty paid goods.
Delhi
Goods received in
the factory were used in the manufacture of final product eligible for Modvat
credit. Modvat Credit was denied on two grounds –vague description of vehicle
and delay in intimating Assistant Commissioner. The Appellant herein filed an
appeal for availing Mod vat Credit on the original copy of invoice as duplicate
copy of the bill lost on the way.
Appeal was allowed,
it was observed that manufacturer could take credit on the basis of duplicate
copy of invoice but where duplicate copy has been lost in transit, credit could
also be taken on the basis of original copy after satisfying the Assistant
Commissioner about the loss.
|
|
Telecom
Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI)
|
|
Notification No.
14-7/2005-FA Dated 17.05.2005: The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India has
vide this notification, made the TRAI Meetings for Transaction of Business
(First Amendment) Regulation, 2005. These amendments have brought forward the
decision of the Authority to allow members to participate through
videoconference, as it would facilitate higher participation of members,
especially those residing at distant places from Authority’s head office. The
amendments would also help chairperson to convene extra-ordinary meetings in
terms of regulation 14 of the TRAI Meetings for Transaction of Business
regulation, 1999 at short notices to discuss items requiring urgent decisions.
Notification No.
5-4/2000-A&P(Vol.II) Dated 10.05.2005: The Telecom Regulatory Authority of
India has vide this notification, made The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India
(Officers and Staff Appointment) (4th Amendment) Regulation 2005, further to
amend the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Officers and Staff Appointment)
Regulation 2001. Now, the service of drivers has been segregated into two salary
classes, viz. grade–I and grade–II.
|
RBI |
|
AP DIR (Series)
Circular No.
A.P.(DIR Series) Circular No.42 Dated 12.05.2005: Till this circular came
into being, in terms of Regulation 6 of the FEMA notification no.
FEMA.120/RB-2004 dated 7th of July, 2004, an Indian entity is permitted to
invest upto 100 per cent of their net worth in overseas Joint Ventures and/or
Wholly Owned Subsidiaries (JV/WOS) in any bonafide business activity under
automatic route. Now, with a view to promote Indian investment abroad and to
enable Indian companies to reap the benefits of globalisation, it has been
decided to raise the above ceiling from the present 100 per cent of the net
worth to 200 per cent of the net worth of the investing company.
|
| Ministry of
Environment and Forests |
|
Notification No.
GSR315(E) Dated 16.05.2005: The Central Government has made the Environment
(Protection) Second Amendment Rules, 2005 further to amend the Environment
(Protection) Rules, 1986. The said rules shall come into force on 16th day of
April 2005. The amendments relate to the noise limit for generator sets run with
diesel.
|
| Ministry of Finance |
|
CBEC Excise Non-Tariff
Notification No.
27/2005-NT Dated 16.05.2005: The Central Board of Excise and Customs, has vide
this notification, made the CENVAT Credit (Seventh Amendment) Rules, 2005,
further to amend the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Now, if the capital goods are
cleared as waste and scrap, the manufacturer shall pay an amount equal to the
duty leviable on transaction value.
Notification No.
26/2005-NT Dated 16.05.2005: The Central Board of Excise and Customs, has vide
this notification, specified new format for forms ER-1 and ER-3. Form ER-1 is
used for filing monthly return for production and removal of goods and other
relevant particulars and CENVAT credit, and form ER-3 is a form to be submitted
by the assessees falling under proviso to rule 12 of the Central Excise Rules,
2002, along with returns.
CBEC Customs
Notification No.
45/2005 Dated 16.05.2005: Vide this notification the Central Board of Excise and
Customs, has exempted the goods produced or manufactured in a Special Economic
Zones (SEZs) from additional duty of customs leviable under sub-section (5) of
section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, provided that no such exemption shall
be applicable if such goods, when sold in domestic tariff area, are exempted by
the State Government from payment of sales tax or value added tax.
Economic Affairs
Notification No.
GSR286(E) Dated 13.05.2005: The Central Government, vide this notification, has
made the Post Office Savings Account (Amendment) Rules, 2005, further to amend
the Post Office Savings Account Rules, 1981. The amendments focused on
definition of the terms ‘deposit’ and ‘depositor’. 'Deposit' means the
money deposited by a depositor in an account under these rules, while a ‘Depositor’
is an individual who, on his own behalf or on behalf of a minor or a person of
unsound mind of whom he is the guardian, deposits money in an account under
these rules.
Notification No.
GSR288(E) Dated 13.05.2005: The Central Government, vide this notification, has
made the Post Office (Monthly Income Account) Amendment Rules, 2005, further to
amend the Post Office (Monthly Income Account) Rules, 1987. The amendments
focused on definition of the terms ‘deposit’ and ‘depositor’. 'Deposit'
means the money deposited by a depositor in an account under these rules, while
a ‘Depositor’ is an individual who, on his own behalf or on behalf of a
minor or a person of unsound mind of whom he is the guardian, deposits money in
an account under these rules.
Notification No.
GSR291(E) Dated 13.05.2005: The Central Government, vide this notification, has
made the Public Provident Fund (Amendment) Scheme, 2005, further to amend the
Public Provident Fund Scheme, 1968. Now, such accounts could be survived in the
name of self or minor, and not in the name of a Hindu Undivided Family or an
Association of persons.
|
| Ministry
of Health and Family Welfare |
|
Notification No.
GSR285(E) Dated 11.05.2005: The Central Government after consultation with the
Ayurvedic, Siddha, Unani Drug Technical Advisory Board (ASUDTAB), has made
further amendments in the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. The permitted
excipients, that is, additives, preservatives, anti-oxidants, coloring agents,
flavouring agents, alternate sweeteners, to be used in Ayurveda or Siddha or
Unani drugs as per reference standard or grade under the prevention of Food
Adulteration Act (PFA), have been notified.
|
| International Legal
News |
|
Cases
The California
Coastal Commission's approval of a coastal development permit that straddles the
coastal zone boundary is in conformity with the Coastal Act's policies and
requirements.
Sierra Club v. Cal.
Coastal Comm'n
A conviction under
section 10851(a) for unlawful taking or driving of a vehicle does not bar a
conviction under section 496(a) for receiving the same vehicle as stolen
property when the evidence is such that it is not reasonably probable that a
properly instructed jury would have found that the defendant took the vehicle
but did not engage in any post-theft driving.
People v. Garza
Plaintiff's
defamation claim is dismissed under the anti-SLAPP law where defendant's
submission of a Form U-5 to the National Association of Securities Dealers,
which described the reasons for plaintiff's termination, is absolutely
privileged under Civil Code section 47(b).
Fontani v. Wells
Fargo Inv.
A nonjudicial
foreclosure sale conducted by mistake was invalid where the trustee had no right
to sell the property since the buyer and lender entered into an agreement to
cure the buyer's default.
Bank of Am. v. La
Jolla Group
A successful
plaintiff's right to recover prejudgment interest in an action for conversion
will run until entry of a judgment resolving the issue of disputed title.
Irving Nelkin &
Co. v. S. Beverly Hills Jewelry
Aliens denied
temporary or permanent resident status by the INS, under the legalization
program of the Immigration Reform and Control Act, retain the right to judicial
review of that denial.
Guzman-Andrade v.
Gonzales
Denial of
plaintiff's petition for a writ of habeas corpus is reversed where plaintiff
made out a prima facie case that the prosecutor had violated Batson v. Kentucky,
476 U.S. 79 (1986), by striking prospective African American jurors based on
race.
Brinson v. Vaughn
Lawful reentry to
the United States after commission of an offense entitles an individual to
establish a new period of continuous physical presence in the United States.
Okeke v. Gonzales
News
In the last minute
appeal before the Supreme Court, over death penalty involving the lethal
chemical cocktail used by many states, 5-4 vote was illustrative of the court’s
sharp division on the manner of execution of death penalty barring executions of
juvenile killers on grounds that they were cruel and unusual punishment. The
Supreme Court however has never found a specific form of execution to be
unconstitutional. The Corrections Department also laid down that there is no
evidence that the drugs don't work to produce a relatively painless death and
that the lawsuit is more of a public relations assault on capital punishment
than a legitimate scientific attack.
With the execution
of search warrants and seizure of evidence from several individuals across the
country, the federal investigation into the massive theft of sensitive three
lakh personal records from database giant LexisNexis Inc. intensified. Personal
computers and discs were removed from several locations including the homes of
the individuals suspected to be involved in the breach as the break-in began
when hackers sent out a surge of emails containing a virus, which allowed them
to record the keystrokes typed by all recipients of the junk mail.
A Federal Judge
struck down the city law that barred the day laborers from soliciting work from
curbsides holding that the ban infringed on their constitutional rights,
including the right to free speech. The judge also held that Ordinance was vague
since it bars making solicitations from streets and curbs - which could be
misinterpreted as to mean that it is also illegal to solicit from sidewalks.
|
|
|
|
Disclaimer |
|
(1) While
all reasonable care has been taken to ensure that the
information provided in the "round up" and on the website is
fair and accurate the company and its promoters and employees
shall not in any way be responsible for the consequences of any
action taken on the basis of reliance upon the contents of this
"round up". |
|
(2) This is not a Spam
mail. You have received this mail because you have either
requested for it or someone must have suggested your name under
our various referral programs. Since India has no anti-spamming
law, we refer to the US directive, which states that a mail
cannot be considered Spam if it contains the sender's contact
information, which this mail does. In case this mail doesn't
concern you, please unsubscribe from mailing list.
Feedback
| |
