Important Legal News – April 2024 [Updated Daily @6PM]

Supreme Court Bar Association v. BD Kaushik

The Supreme Court, on May 2, 2024, ordered a minimum 1/3rd reservation for women in the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) positions starting from the 2024-25 elections. This significant directive includes reserving the Treasurer post exclusively for women in the upcoming elections.

The bench of Justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan emphasized the need for one position among office bearers to be reserved for women on a rotational basis, beginning with the Treasurer position. Additionally, there will be a minimum of 1/3rd women’s reservation in both the junior and senior executive committees. The elections are scheduled for May 16, 2024, with results on May 19, 2024. The Court highlighted the necessity for reforms in the SCBA’s norms and invited suggestions for improvement.

Tarsem Lal v. Directorate of Enforcement Jalandhar Zonal Office, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 121/2024

The Supreme Court reserved its judgment on whether the stringent bail conditions under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) apply to an accused who appears before a Special Court in response to a summons. The core issue is whether executing a bond under Section 88 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) by an accused to ensure court appearance can be equated to applying for bail, thereby necessitating the fulfillment of the PMLA’s stringent bail conditions.

These conditions require the court to be prima facie satisfied that the accused is not guilty of the offence and is unlikely to commit any further offence while on bail. Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra argued that merely securing the accused’s presence via a bond should not be considered as applying for bail under PMLA. In contrast, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju supported the application of Section 45 conditions, asserting that securing a bond under Section 88 Cr.P.C. equates to bail. The case, Tarsem Lal v. Directorate of Enforcement, now awaits a decisive ruling from the apex court.

M/S Docket Care Systems vs M/S Hariwill Electronics India Pvt. Ltd.: Allahabad High Court Rules Courts Can Allow Installment Payments for Predeposits Under MSME Act

The Allahabad High Court, under the division bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Jaspreet Singh, ruled that courts have the discretion to allow predeposits to be made in instalments under Section 19 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006. This decision came after a commercial court dismissed an appellant’s petition for failing to predeposit 75% of an arbitral award as mandated by the MSME Act. The appellant had requested a waiver of this predeposit due to ongoing loan processes, which the commercial court initially denied.

Challenging the commercial court’s decision, the High Court found that the stringent application of this rule without considering the appellant’s readiness to deposit the amount constituted a miscarriage of justice. The High Court emphasized that the provision allows courts to impose conditions as deemed necessary, granting flexibility in how these deposits are handled. Consequently, the appellant was directed to deposit the required amount by the specified deadline, allowing the appeal.

Devansh Kaushik vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh and Anr: Madhya Pradesh High Court Upholds Stringent Eligibility Criteria for State Judicial Service

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has upheld the eligibility criteria of either three years of legal practice or achieving at least 70% in law graduation for candidates aspiring to enter the state’s judicial service. The decision, aimed at enhancing the quality of judicial appointments, rejects the necessity to produce six order sheets as proof of one year’s practice.

The court emphasised that this rule aligns with the constitutional obligation to elevate the standards in the judiciary, which have remained unchanged for decades. This ruling was part of the court’s response to petitions challenging the amendment to the Judicial Service Rules. The court also noted the differing standards among universities do not justify a disparity in evaluating candidates’ merits.

Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs Union of India: ‘5 Year Duration For LL.B Course Unreasonable’: Plea In Supreme Court For 3-Year Law Degree Course After 12th Standard

A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed in the Supreme Court by Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, challenging the current 5-year duration of the LL.B course post-12th standard as “unreasonable and irrational.” The plea advocates for a 3-year law degree course immediately after high school, akin to other undergraduate courses like B.Sc, B.Com, and B.A. 

The petitioner argues that the extended duration imposes unnecessary financial burdens and delays professional practice, citing instances of notable lawyers starting their careers early. The petition highlights that reducing the course to three years would align with other degrees and allow graduates additional years of courtroom experience. A prompt decision is sought with upcoming course admissions.

Is there any punishment for tampering with or manipulating EVMs? Supreme Court asks ECI

The Supreme Court’s inquiry into whether there are legal provisions for punishing officials who manipulate Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) underscores a significant concern about the integrity of the electoral process in India. The court’s dialogue suggests a gap in the current legal framework specifically addressing the manipulation of EVMs, although penalties for breach of office by officials do exist.

The suggestion by the court to possibly introduce more stringent punishments highlights the need for a robust mechanism to deter tampering with the electoral process. It also emphasizes the importance of maintaining public trust in the voting system, as the court advocates for reliance on technological solutions to minimize human error and bias in elections.

The ongoing debate on tallying Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) slips with EVMs, and the resistance to reverting to paper ballots, reflects a broader conversation about the best methods to ensure accurate and transparent elections. The discussion around the potential vulnerabilities of programmable chips in EVMs and comparisons to international practices further illustrates the complexities involved in securing electoral systems.

Ashutosh Yadav v State: Allahabad High Court Rules Kanyadan Not Essential for Valid Hindu Marriage

The Allahabad High Court, led by Justice Subhash Vidyarthi, has clarified that ‘Kanyadan,’ a ritual where the bride’s father gives away his daughter to the groom, is not a mandatory ceremony for a valid Hindu marriage.

The observation came while interpreting Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which specifies ‘saptpadi’ (seven steps taken by the bride and groom jointly before a sacred fire) as an essential ceremony for Hindu marriages.

The Court was addressing a petition that questioned the validity of a marriage based on the performance of Kanyadan. The High Court upheld the trial court’s decision, stating that the ceremony of Kanyadan is not crucial for determining the validity of a Hindu marriage.

The ruling emphasises that the power to summon witnesses under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should not be exercised casually and only when essential for a just decision.

Prem Raj versus Poonamma Menon & Anr.: Supreme Court Clarifies Binding Nature of Civil Court Decrees on Criminal Proceedings

The Supreme Court, in a recent judgment, clarified that while the outcome of civil proceedings does not generally bind criminal proceedings, it can impact the latter to the extent of making sentences or damages arising out of criminal proceedings unsustainable in law.

Justices Sanjay Karol and Aravind Kumar highlighted that when the core dispute is the same in both civil and criminal proceedings, the civil outcome can bind the criminal outcome, particularly concerning sentences or damages. This was demonstrated in a case where a civil court restrained the encashment of a cheque, which subsequently affected the criminal proceedings related to the cheque’s dishonour under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1882.

The Court referenced earlier judgments, emphasising that conflicting decisions in civil and criminal courts are possible, but sentences and damages in criminal proceedings can be influenced by civil court outcomes. This ruling provides clarity on the interplay between civil and criminal jurisdictions in cases involving common disputes.

Delhi High Court Recognizes Haldiram as a Well-Known Trademark

The Delhi High Court has declared the trademark ‘HALDIRAM’ and its red oval-shaped logo as well-known marks in the food industry, restaurants, and eateries. Justice Prathiba M Singh made the decision after acknowledging Haldiram’s long-standing use of the mark since the 1960s. The Court emphasized that the concept of a well-known mark is dynamic and extends beyond geographical boundaries, highlighting Haldiram’s international presence and its cultural and commercial impact.

The ruling also stated that family divisions within the company would not affect the well-known status of the HALDIRAM mark. Additionally, the Court ordered that all trademark applications by defendants seeking registration of ‘HALDIRAM’ and ‘HALDIRAM BHUJIYAWALA’ be rejected by the Registrar of Trademarks. This decision reinforces the protection of Haldiram’s brand reputation and consumer trust.

Riak Insurance and Financial Services & Ors. vs HDFC Bank Limited: Bombay High Court Rules on Waiver of Arbitrator’s Ineligibility in HDFC Case

The Bombay High Court, led by Justice RI Chagla, clarified that under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act, the ineligibility of an arbitrator can only be waived through an express written agreement by both parties. The case involved a dispute between Riak Insurance and Financial Services and HDFC Bank Limited, where the bank unilaterally appointed Dr. D.K. Sonawane as the sole arbitrator.

The petitioners challenged the arbitrator’s appointment, arguing that it was impermissible under the law. The High Court agreed, stating that the arbitrator’s ineligibility cannot be waived by implied consent or participation in arbitration proceedings. As a result, the High Court set aside the arbitral award issued by Dr. Sonawane, emphasising the importance of written consent for waiving an arbitrator’s ineligibility.