Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
B. P. Kanungo re-appointed as RBI Deputy Governor
The Central Government has re-appointed Shri B. P. Kanungo as Deputy Governor, Reserve Bank of India for a further period of one year with effect from April 3, 2020, or until further orders, whichever is earlier, upon completion of his existing term on April 2, 2020.
Reserve Bank of India
[Press Release dt. 31-03-2020]
In terms of paragraph 5 (3) of the ‘Yes Bank Ltd. Reconstruction Scheme, 2020’ notified by Government of India on March 13, 2020 and in exercise of powers conferred to it under sub section (1) of Section 36 AB of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, Reserve Bank has appointed Shri R Gandhi (former Deputy Governor, Reserve Bank of India) and Shri Ananth Narayan Gopalakrishnan (Associate Professor, S P Jain Institute of Management and Research) as additional directors on the board of Yes Bank Limited, w.e.f. March 26, 2020 for a period of two years.
Reserve Bank of India
[Press Release dt. 20-03-2020]
President appoints Justice Bhushan Pradyumna Dharmadhikari, Judge of the Bombay High Court, to be the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court with effect from the date he assumes charge of his office.
Ministry of Law and Justice
[Notification dt. 18-03-2020]
President appoints the following as Judges of Gujarat High Court:
Ministry of Law and Justice
[Notification dt. 28-02-2020]
President appoints the following Additional Judges to be Judges of Karnataka High Court with effect from the date they assume charge of their respective offices.:
(i) Mohammad Nawaz,
(ii) Harekoppa Thimmanna Gowda Narendra Prasad,
(iii) Ashok Golappa Nijagannavar,
(iv) Hethur Puttaswamygowda Sandesh, and
(v) Krishnan Natarajan
Ministry of Law and Justice
[Notification dt. 21-02-2020]
President appoints Shri Rajnesh Oswal, to be a Judge of Common High Court for the Union territory of Jammu and Kashmir and Union territory of Ladakh with effect from the date he assumes charge of his office.
Ministry of Law and Justice
[Notification dt. 29-01-2020]
President appoints the following as the Judges of the Andhra Pradesh High Court:
Ministry of Law and Justice
[Notification dt. 10-01-2020]
President appoints the following as the Additional Judges of the Bombay High Court:
Ministry of Law and Justice
[Notification dt. 10-01-2020]
President appoints Justice Sanju Panda, the senior-most Judge of the Orissa High Court to perform the duties of the Office of Chief Justice of that High Court with effect from 05-01-2020, consequent upon the retirement of Justice Kalpesh Satyendra Jhaveri, Chief Justice, Orissa High Court.
Ministry of Law and Justice
[Notification dt. 03-01-2020]
S.O. 72(E).— Consequent on the completion of the term of Office of Justice Shri M.M. Kumar as President, National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on 04.01.2020, Shri Bethala Shantha Vijaya Prakash Kumar, Member (Judicial), the senior-most Member in NCLT, shall act as President, NCLT in terms of Section 415 of the Companies Act, 2013 (18 of 2013) for a period of three months with effect from 05.01.2020 or until a regular President is appointed or until further orders, whichever is earliest.
Ministry of Corporate Affairs
[Notification dt. 03-01-2020]
President is pleased to appoint the following as the Additional Judges of the Karnataka High Court:
Ministry of Law and Justice
[Notification dt. 02-01-2019]
President is pleased to appoint S/Shri Justices:
(1) Dixit Krishna Shripad,
(2) Shankar Ganapathi Pandit,
(3) Ramakrishna Devdas
(4) Bhotanhosur Mallikarjuna Shyam Prasad,
(5) Siddappa Sunil Dutt Yadav,
Additional Judges to be Judges of the Karnataka High Court with effect from the date they assume charge of their respective offices.
Ministry of Law and Justice
[Notification dt. 02-01-2020]
Ms G. Babita Rayudu took charge as Executive Director in SEBI on 01-01-2020.
She will handle the Legal Affairs Department, Enforcement Department and Special Enforcement Cell (SEC). Prior to her promotion as Executive Director, Ms. Rayudu was in the Legal Affairs Department in SEBI.
Securities Exchange Board of India
[Press Release dt. 01-01-2020]
PR No.: 1/2020
S.O. 4479(E).—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 189 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (31 of 2016), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Sudhaker Shukla, as Whole Time Member of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India with effect from 14-11-2019, i.e. date of assumption of the charge for the period of five years or upto his attainment of sixty-five years of age or until further orders, whichever is the earlier, on a consolidated salary of Rs. 4,00,000/- (rupees four lakhs ) per month.
Ministry of Corporate Affairs
[Notification dt. 13-12-2019]
Supreme Court Collegium has approved the proposal for appointment of following five Additional Judges of Karnataka High Court as Permanent Judges of that High Court:
Justice Siddappa Sunil Dutt Yadav.
[Collegium Resolution dt. 17-12-2019]
Prior to his promotion as Executive Director, Shri Sundaresan was working as Chief General Manager in Enquiries and Adjudication Department in SEBI.
Shri Sundaresan has more than 30 years of experience in the development, regulation and protection of interest of investors in the Indian Securities Market and has worked in various departments in SEBI.
He was head of the Investigations Department till July 31, 2019. He had supervised more than 500 investigation cases on market manipulation, insider trading, the takeover of companies, public issues, collective investment schemes, compliance with continuous listing requirements, etc..
His past assignments include formulation and enforcement of regulations on issuance of securities, listing, takeover of companies, buy-back and delisting, trading, clearing and settlement, risk management, dematerialization, registration and supervision of stock brokers.
Shri Sundaresan has been a member of various SEBI and inter-regulatory Committees.
A graduate in Commerce, Shri Sundaresan holds Post Graduation in Finance and Human Resources and a degree in law. He is also a Certificated Associate Member of the Indian Institute of Banking and Finance.
SEBI
[Press Release dt. 10-12-2019]
Supreme Court: The Division Bench of Uday Umesh Lalit and Vineet Saran, JJ., dismissed an appeal with respect to the denial of appointment for the post of sub-inspector on the ground of a criminal case having been registered against respondent when he was a juvenile.
Court noted the significance of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act as follows:
“The thrust of the legislation as well i.e. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 as well as the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 is that even if a juvenile is convicted, the same should be obliterated, so that there is no stigma with regard to any crime committed by such person as a juvenile.”
The facts of the present case are that, the respondent had cleared his process of application and interview and was thus selected and offered an appointment for the post of Sub-Inspector in Central Industrial Security Forces (CISF). Further, he was required to submit a form that contained a column relating to whether any FIR had been lodged against the respondent in the past, for which the respondent had given the details of the FIR lodged against him. Respondent had clearly mentioned in his form that he was acquitted for the same on a compromise.
Further respondent’s case was referred to the Standing Screening Committee which found his appointment to be unsuitable on the ground of a criminal case lodged in the past against him. Thus his appointment was cancelled by the National Industrial Security Academy.
Supreme Court’s Observation & Decision
Supreme Court in the present appeal noted that the complaint lodged against respondent was to the effect when he was a minor, he had teased a girl and went to the extent of catching hold of her hand. However, the girl and her parents decided to pardon the respondent resulting in his acquittal.
For the above-said, “even if it is found to be true, the Court stated that it cannot be said that the respondent committed such a crime which would be covered under the definition of moral turpitude, specially when the respondent is said to have committed the alleged offence when he was a minor.”
“Even if the allegations were found to be true, then too the respondent could not have been deprived of getting a job on the basis of such charges as the same had been committed while the respondent was juvenile.”
Further, the Court noted that, the case against the respondent is not with regard to the suppression of any conviction or charges having been framed against him. Respondent had very fairly disclosed the charges which had been framed and his acquittal.
Thus, the appeal was dismissed with a direction that the respondent shall be entitled to all the benefits of the Judgment. [Union of India v. Ramesh Bishnoi, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1531, decided on 29-11-2019]
The Appointments Committee of the Cabinet has approved the appointment of Shri Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, presently District and Sessions Judge, North-East District, Karkarduma Courts, Delhi to the post of Secretary, Department of Legal Affairs, on contract basis, as per usual terms and conditions applicable to officers appointed as Secretary to the Government of India on contract basis, from the date of his assumption of charge of the post upto 30-03-2023 i.e. till his attaining the age of 60 years or until further orders, whichever is earlier.
Appointments Committee of the Cabinet
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions
[Notification dt. 14-10-2019]
Supreme Court:
“The presence of lady members in the police force, considering the crime against women, is a prime need of the hour. Thus we feel that every endeavor should be made to ensure that there is higher representation of women in the police services.”
Granting relief to women candidates who could not appear for the physical test during the selection process for Bihar Police held in 2018 because of their pregnancy, the Court has directed the Bihar Police Subordinate Service Commission to conduct a fresh test for such applicants. The bench of Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Krishna Murari, JJ has asked the Commission to conduct the physical test of the candidates and adjust them against vacancies notified this year. The Court said,
“We are of the view that not only the appellant but all such candidates who sought deferment on account of pregnancy alone should be called for PET.”
It was brought to the Court’s notice that the total number of ladies who claimed extension of PET on the basis of pregnancy or injuries is stated to be 78 in all, out of which 73 are on account of pregnancy. Noticing that it is on the prodding of the Supreme Court that these examinations were held, the Court said that had recruitments taken place in accordance with certain pre-defined schedules, intervention of this court would not have been called for as candidates would have known as to when recruitment would take place and would have to plan their life accordingly. The Court, hence, held that
“it is a fit case where the benefit should be made available to the candidates who may be in the advance stage of pregnancy at the relevant stage of time but have otherwise qualified the test.”
The Court, hence, directed that out of the candidates so called those who qualify the PET and are otherwise found in the merit for appointment alone would be eligible to be considered for appointment, subject to verification of the factum of pregnancy. Such process should be completed within a period of two months. All such people will, however, take merit at the bottom of the current list as it is the vacancies which are now advertised against which the candidates are being adjusted.
The bench, however, clarified that the aforesaid direction was a one-time measure as now the examinations are being held periodically. It, said,
“We are not inclined to open a flood gate effecting the sanctity of the future examination.”
Case Timeline
[Khushbu Sharma v. Bihar Police Subordinate Service Commission, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1323, order dated 27.09.2019]
Madhya Pradesh High Court: G.S. Ahluwalia, J., dismissed a petition after considering the facts of the case and found that the petitioner was not eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds.
The factual matrix of the instant case is that the father of the petitioner was an employee of Union Bank of India and he died in harness on 23-04-2002. At the time of his death, the father of the petitioner had already put in more than five years of service in the Bank and was over 35 years old. The petitioner was minor at the time of death of his father and he laid his claim for appointment on compassionate ground on 22-11-2006. The petitioner has filed petitions for a compassionate appointment two times and both were rejected, first time, under the policy of 2003 and the second time under the policy of 2007.
The Court held that in the light of the Judgment passed by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of State of M.P. v. Laxman Prasad Raikwar, 2018 SCC OnLine MP 1187, it is clear that the application for appointment on compassionate ground has to be considered in the light of the policy which is in force on the date of consideration of the application. The Court observed that the above-mentioned aspect is an academic issue because both the policies, i.e. which was in force on the date of consideration of his application for the first time and the policy which was in force on the date of consideration of his application for the second time, do not cover the case of the petitioner. As per the policy of 2003, which was in force at the time of consideration of the application for the first time, the petitioner was not entitled for compassionate appointment because he had laid his claim after the expiry of more than four years, whereas as per the policy which was in force on the date of consideration i.e. policy of 2007, of his application for the second time, the petitioner is not entitled to compassionate appointment on the ground that his father had already completed more than five years of service in the Bank and was above 30 years.
In view of the above, the Court dismissed the petition as the petitioner is not entitled for appointment on compassionate ground under any of the policies. [Deepak Sharma v. Union Bank of India, 2019 SCC OnLine MP 2664, decided on 04-04-2019]
