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.150]                                                                    March 03, 2006 Supreme Court High Courts Ministry of Commerce & Industry Ministry of Finance Ministry of Railways International Cases and News Site Links Roundup Archives Free Trial Contact us 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 http://www.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 http://www.manupatra.com/ 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  Ushabai and Ors v. Balkrishna Biharilal and Ors. An appeal was filed against the order passed by a single judge of the Maharashtra High Court that set aside the decree of eviction granted by the first appellate court. The original owner of the suit property had let it out on rent and later executed a mortgage deed in favour of the respondents and then effected a partition of his property including the suit house which fell into the share of his son and after his death, the present plaintiffs who are his wife and sons succeeded to the suit premises and became owners. The mortgage deed was redeemed by the plaintiffs after tendering the mortgage money and sought eviction on two grounds i.e. bonafide need for doing business and for sub-letting the suit premises to a firm. The main issue involved were whether the First appellate court had correctly approached the bonafide needs of the plaintiffs or not. Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court held that since the plaintiffs had made the entire payment, the mortgage has been discharged and the plaintiffs had become full owner of the suit property as per the partition and is entitled to maintain the suit on grounds of bonafide need. The High Court had not examined whether the first appellate court correctly approached the eviction sought by the plaintiff on the ground of bonafide need or not. Therefore the order of the High Court is set aside and the matter remitted back to the High Court for reconsideration. Puran Das v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. An appeal was filed against the judgment of a division bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court at Shimla, which held that appellant was not entitled to promotion from the date his juniors were granted promotion. The main issue involved was that since the appellant had qualified the requisite test after the re-instatement, whether he should be deemed to have acquired the right to be considered for promotion along with his juniors. Dismissing the appeal as devoid of merits, the Supreme Court held that the appellant could not be considered for promotion, as he did not have the basic qualification under the Indo-Tibetan Border Police (Non-Gazetted Telecommunication Cadre) Rules, 1983. Though the appellant had qualified the Grade II and Grade I test and became eligible for the promotion test and became qualified subsequently, the qualification cannot be given retrospective effect. Food Corporation of India v. Laxmi Cattle Feed Industries An appeal was filed questioning the legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dismissing the First Appeal questioning correctness of the order of Additional District Judge, Delhi who had granted a decree of Rs. 81,442.53 with interest in favour of the respondent who was the plaintiff before the Trial Court. The main issues involved was whether Trial Court as well as the High Court had erroneously held that the appellant could not claim storage charges and interest on account of late payment since the appellant had committed breach of contract by not delivering the goods for the whole amount deposited. Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court held that the records clearly show that the evidence was led to establish the loss suffered on account of delay in lifting damaged stock by the appellant. The Trial Court as well as the High Court had held that the appellant had committed breach without any material. The High Court had erroneously proceeded on the wrong assumption that the plaintiff had led the evidence and not the appellant Corporation and therefore the judgment and decree of the Trial Court as affirmed by the High Court cannot be sustained and are set aside. High Courts Bombay Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Shri Bhogawati Sahakari Sakhar Karkahna Ltd. In this case, the appeal was made by the Commissioner under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Tribunal where it directed that deduction towards non-refundable deposits are not trading receipts and interest on these deductions is an allowable expenditure. The question involved in the present case is whether the interest on non-refundable deposits is trading receipt and to be treated as income of the assessee. The High Court held that deduction towards non refundable deposits are not trading receipts and interest on these deposits is to be added to the income of the assessee. The High Court further directed the Tribunal to decide afresh the question of Area Development Fund. Kolkata Narayan Chandra Ghosh & Another Vs Biswajit Lahiri In the present case, appeal was made by the appellant against the order of the Trial Judge where he held that the present appeal is barred by Section 12 A of the West Bengal Building (Regulation of Promotion of Construction and Transfer by Promoters) Act, 1993. The question for consideration was whether the suit is barred under Section 12A of the West Bengal Building (Regulation of Promotion of Construction and Transfer by Promoters) Act, 1993. The High Court dismissed the appeal holding that the Trial Judge was right in holding that Section 12A of the Act and there was no reason to change the decision. Krishna Prosad Chatterjee Vs Satyen Chakraborty & others In this case, appeal was made to the High Court against the order of the Trial Judge where he allowed documents as evidence without any proof. The question to be decided was whether deeds submitted as evidence have any importance. The High Court held that the Trial Judge should allow the documents as evidence only by formal tender and after considering its importance for the case and directed the Trial Judge to expedite the suit without any undue delay. Orissa Smt. Indu Dhawan Vs Bhanupriya Khuntia and others The appeal was made against the order of the Tribunal where the Tribunal directed the husband of the petitioner to pay the entire amount of compensation under Section110A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. In the present case, the matter to be decided was whether it was right for the appellant to file a prayer after nine months of the accident instead of contesting the case before the Tribunal. The Court directed that the proceeding against the petitioner should be quashed and her husband should be directed to pay the entire amount of compensation. Ministry of Commerce & Industry Commerce Tea Board (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Officers Appointed by Government) Amendment Rules, 2006 Notification No: GSR 72(E) dated 20.02.2006. Vide this notification the Central Government proposes to amend the Tea Board (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Officers appointed by Government) Rules, 1971. The same shall come into force on their final publication in the Official Gazette. Vide this notification in the Schedule, against serial No. 1 "Rs.14, 300-400-18, 300" shall be substituted, in column 10, the entry "4 years which may be extended by one year" shall be substituted and in column 11, the following entry shall be substituted, namely:“1. Secretary, Department of Commerce, 2.Additional Secretary, Department of Commerce, 3. Joint Secretary, Department of Commerce 4. Chairman, Tea Board." The Tea (Amendment) Rules, 2006 Notification No: SO 228(E) dated 20.02.2006. Vide this notification the Central Government has amended the Tea Rules, 1954. The same shall come into force on the date of their final publication in the official Gazette. In the Tea Rules, 1954, in the proviso to rule 37, for the words "six months", the words "twenty years" shall be substituted.  DGFT Amendments in the Foreign Trade Policy, 2004-2009 Notification No.: 46(RE-2005)/2004-2009 dated 16.02.2006. Vide this notification the Central Government has amended the Foreign Trade Policy, 2004-2009. At the end of Para 4.1.13 the following clause should be added "In addition, the State Trading Enterprises are permitted to issue ‘NO Objection certificate’, if they so desire, for import by advance licence holder. However, the licensee would be required to file Quarterly Returns of the imports effected against such ‘No Objection certificate’ to the concerned State Trading Enterprises (STEs) and the STEs, in turn, would submit Half-yearly import figures of such imports to the concerned administrative Department for monitoring with a copy endorsed to the Department of Commerce.” Ministry of Finance Customs The Project Imports (Amendment) Regulations, 2006 Notification No: 17/2006 dated 01.03.2006. Vide this notification the Central Board of Excise and Customs has amended the Project Imports Regulations, 1986.The same shall come into force on the 1st day of March, 2006. Vide this notification in the Project Import Regulations, 1986, in the Table, after Sr. No. 3C and the entries relating thereto, Sr. No.3D and entries shall be inserted. Service Tax Service Tax (Amendment) Rules, 2006 Notification No: 5/2006 dated 01.03.2006. Vide this notification the Central Government has amended the Service Tax Rules, 1994. The same shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette. Vide this notification in rule 4 after sub-rule (5) sub rule (5A) shall be inserted. In sub-rule (7), the following words shall be inserted at the end " to the Superintendent of Central Excise”. After sub-rule (7), sub-rule (8) shall be inserted. In rule 5 in sub-rule (1), the brackets, shall be omitted and after sub-rule (2), sub-rules 3 and 4 shall be inserted. Ministry of Railways The Railway Claims Tribunal (Procedure) Amendment Rules, 2006 Notification No: GSR 66(E) dated 15.02.2006. Vide this notification the Central Government has amended the Railway Claims Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989. The same shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette. Vide this notification in schedule I at serial number 12, in column 3, the following entry shall be substituted, namely "Districts of Agra, Bulandshahar, Moradabad, Bijnore, Mathura, Ghaziabad, Meerut, Aligarh, Saharanpur, Jyoitiba Phule Nagar (Amroha), Bagpat, Etah, Firozabad, Gautam Budh Nagar (Noida), Maha Maya Nagar (Hathras), Muzaffar Nagar, Rampur, Pilibhit and Mainpuri of the State of Uttar Pradesh and Districts of Haridwar and Dehradun of the State of Uttranchal." International Legal Cases and News Cases Civil Mason Brown V. John Snow Court of appeal held that the jurisdiction exercised by the district court over the subject matter of sexual harassment and retaliation was proper. However, court rejected the appeal on merit stating that the appellant failed to prove his allegation of sexual harassment on the employer by lowering the grade on his performance evaluation card. Also, the appellant did not mention in the complaint that he was terminated from the services of Internal Revenue Services in retaliation of his sexual harassment charges and never made an attempt to amend the complaint. Appeal rejected. Prospect Med. Group, Inc. v. Northridge Emergency Med. Group Court held that section 1379 of Health and Safety Code did not prohibit non-contracted emergency room Physician from raising balance bill on the patient/subscriber in the event of balance bill not paid by the health care service plan or its delegate. Further, it was held that the physician was not required to accept the payment as per the Medicare Rate as full reimbursement from the health care service plan or its delegate. However, the health care service plan or its delegate had the right to litigate the reasonableness of the bill raised by an emergency room physician. Insurance United Air Lines, Inc. v. Ins. Co. of the State of Pennsylvania The appellate court held that the respondent – insurance company was not liable to indemnify the appellant under the policy, against the loss of earnings caused due to the national disruption of flight service and temporary shut down of airport by the government after 11th September terrorist attack. Criminal People v. Le Court affirmed the conviction and sentence of the Defendant for causing great bodily injury and for attempting murder with an intention to do so along with the other related offences. The contention of the defendant that a mere soft tissue injury could not be considered as great bodily injury was rejected by the court. Also, another contention that court security fine can be imposed only in cases of Vehicle Code violation was also rejected by the court. News Sale Of Us Ports Operating Rights To Dubai Firm Approved A British judge approved the takeover of a British Shipping and Ports Company by Dubai Ports World, a United Arab Emirates Company. This move could lead to the Arab company taking control of operations of six major US ports. A US company, Eller & Co. had asked the court to block the takeover because it would cost jobs, but the same was denied by the High Court judge in London and approved DP World's takeover. Meanwhile, a US federal judge refused to grant an order for a full government investigation into the controversial takeover of port operations by DP World on the ground that there was no need for a federal investigation because DP World voluntarily agreed to allow the US government a 45-day review of the takeover. The decision effectively denies New Jersey's request for an injunction to force the federal government to investigate whether the takeover presents a security risk. The DPW takeover is controversial in the US as critics as well as members of Congress from both parties say the US government is putting national security at risk by allowing the Dubai-based company to control the ports. Abortion ban approved by Mississippi House committee The Mississippi House Public Health Committee has approved a bill that would prohibit most abortions in Mississippi. The bill, which only allows exceptions to save a woman's life, would tighten Mississippi's already strict abortion laws that requires a 24-hour waiting period, counseling, and consent from both parents for a minor. Last week, the South Dakota legislature passed a similar bill banning abortions in the state except those saving a woman’s life. The Missouri Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld a state law requiring doctors to wait 24 hours after consulting with a woman before performing an abortion. Last year, a federal judge held a provision of Mississippi statute banning abortions after the first trimester as unconstitutional. School Board ban on Sikh daggers overturned by Canadian Court The Supreme Court of Canada unanimously overturned a Quebec School Board's ban on carrying Sikh ceremonial daggers at school. The Court ruled that it infringed the students' religious freedom under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The petitioner challenged the ban after a school prohibited him from carrying the dagger when it accidentally fell from his clothing in 2001. Sikhism requires that Sikh males wear the ceremonial dagger, known as a kirpan, at all times, but they are forbidden to use it as a weapon. The Canadian ruling comes in the context of international tension over the wearing of religious dress in schools. Sikh turbans have been the center of controversy in several disputes. A US-based Sikh group had announced that it would use EU anti-discrimination law to challenge a new French law banning religious dress, including Sikh turbans, in state academics. Renewal of Patriot Act goes forward in US Senate The US Senate has voted to accept amendments to legislation that would renew the USA PATRIOT Act. This would set the stage for a final vote to authorize the renewal legislation. The amendments reflect a compromise agreement reached by four Republican senators who were against the same with the White House. Sixteen key provisions of the Patriot Act were set to expire at the end of last year, but members of Congress were unable to reach an agreement on a long-term extension before Christmas. The Congress then passed two short-term extensions keeping the provisions in force until March 10. The US House of Representatives and the White House had backed the renewal proposal in December's conference report, but Senate Democrats, joined by the four Republicans, refused to agree, calling for more civil liberties protections to be incorporated into the renewal. The bill will go to the US House of Representatives where approval is also expected and then President Bush must sign the bill before it can take effect. 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