Supreme Court: The Division Bench comprising Ajay Rastogi and Bela M. Trivedi, JJ., reversed the impugned judgment of the Madras High Court and held that when the delay in appointment is attributable to the State, it would not deprive the employees of their right to become the member of the Pension Scheme, 1978 merely on the ground that the Scheme was not applicable to their year of appointment, particularly when other candidates who participated in the common process of selection were availing the same.
The Court remarked,
“The premise on which the High Court has proceeded is not sustainable for the reason that the appellants along with other applicants had participated in the self-same selection process pursuant to advertisement dated 9th September 2001”
Background
The undisputed facts of the instant case were that 53 vacancies for Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade-II were advertised by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in the year 2001. After undertaking the process for selection, 51 persons, including those who were lower in order of merit to the appellants, were appointed by the Government by order dated 24-09-2002.
Pertinently, the names of the appellants were withheld for want of further verification. The Commission on verification granted clearance to both the appellants and intimated the same to the State Government on 03-09-2002 (much before the appointments were made on 24-09-2002). Despite all the formalities being completed, without any reasonable cause or justification, the State Government had withheld the appointments of the appellants, and finally, both the appellants were appointed on 23-08-2005 and 23-04-2004 respectively.
Meanwhile, vide notification dated 06-08-2003, an amendment was made under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978. Pursuant to which the State Government introduced a new Contributory Pension Scheme applicable to the Government employees who were recruited on or after 01-04-2003.
Issue Involved
The grievance of the appellants was that their names were cleared by the Commission much earlier than the date of appointment of the other 51 candidates by the order dated 24-10-2002, but the State Government failed to include their names while appointments of other selected candidates, including those who were lower in order of merit.
Therefore, the appellants contended that their names were withheld for two-three years by the State without any reasonable cause/justification, and the delay in appointments could not be attributable to them in any manner. The appellants argued that because of their later appointments, the Government had denied them the benefits of the Scheme, 1978 which was applicable to the employees appointed on or before 01-04-2003.
Analysis and Findings
The Court observed that when those who are lower in order of merit to the appellants were appointed and no justification had been tendered by the State as to why the names of the appellants were withheld for two-three years, the delay in making appointments could not be held to be attributable to the appellants in any manner.
Hence, the Court found that in the given circumstances, when all other candidates who had participated along with the appellants were appointed on 24-09-2002 including those who were lower in the order of merit, there was no reason for withholding the names of the appellants. The Court held,
“Merely because they were appointed at a later point of time, would not deprive them of claiming to become a member of Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, which is applicable to the employees who were appointed on or before 1st April, 2003.”
In light of the above, the Court set aside the finding recorded by the High Court. The State was directed to treat the appellants to be a member of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 for all practical purposes and benefits as members of the Rules, 1978 to which the appellants were entitled, including retiral benefits. [P. Ranjitharaj v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 508, decided on 25-04-2022]
Kamini Sharma, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.
Orissa High Court: A Division Bench of S. Muralidhar CJ and R. K. Pattanaik J. dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee and upheld AO’s decision to disallow part of the payment towards commission.
The background facts are that the Appellant during the AY in question was engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of P.P. woven sacks meant for packing of fertilizer and cement etc. It filed its return of income and while examining the claims, the AO raised a query regarding payment of commission and asked the Appellant to justify it. It was claimed that the commission was entirely paid through banking channels after deducting Tax at Source (TDS). Each of the commission agents had disclosed the said commission amount in their respective returns and paid tax thereon. In the assessment order dated 8-03-2013, the AO partly allowed the commission expenses to the tune of Rs.23,41,245/- and disallowed Rs.30,08,545/- which was then added to the returned income of the Appellant. The Appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] which was dismissed as the persons to whom the commission was paid were Directors of the appellant or the relatives of such Directors. Thereafter, the Appellant went before ITAT. The Appellant failed to bring on record their expertise to render services and also what services had in fact been rendered to enhance the business of the Appellant. Merely because TDS had been deducted, would not justify allowing the entire amount as claimed towards commission. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, and the instant appeal was filed.
Counsel for the appellants Mr. RP Kar submitted that the commission paid could not be termed as excessive or unreasonable and had been duly accounted for. He insisted that with the TDS having been deducted at the time of paying such commission, and with the recipients of commission having disclosed it in their respective tax returns and having paid tax thereon, again subjecting such payment at the hands of the Appellant would amount to double taxation, which is impermissible in law.
Counsel for respondents Mr. RS Chimanka and A Kedia submitted that the concurrent orders of the AO, the CIT (A) and the ITAT and submits that they call for no interference.
The Court observed that in the given case claiming that each of the seven persons to whom commission was paid actually had the expertise to help the Appellant procuring the IOF from different sources appears to be stretching things a bit too far, and hence the AO appears to be justified in disallowing the commission insofar as it was paid to the said seven persons.
The Court relied on J.K. Woollen Manufacturing v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1969) 72 ITR 612 (SC) and observed that there was the test of commercial expediency. In other words, whether the payment made to the General Manager of the company as commission was an expenditure wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business? It was concluded that the reasonableness of the expenditure had to be adjudged from the point of view of the businessman and not the Income Tax Department. In the circumstances, the entire amount paid to the General Manager as commission was allowed as expenditure.
The Court observed that all the persons to whom commission was paid were either Directors of the Company or their relatives. None of them is shown to have any expertise in procuring IOF from the Indian markets for enabling the Appellant to meet the purchase order placed on it for IOF. The amounts paid as commission were also not insubstantial. Even from the point of view of a businessman, it does appear to this Court that the commission amount which was disallowed by the AO cannot be said to be for the purpose of business of the Appellant.
The Court held “Thus, it cannot be said that the AO’s decision to disallow part of the payment towards commission was unreasonably arrived at.” [Oripol Industries Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner of IT, ITA No.41 of 2017, decided on 12-05-2022]
Arunima Bose, Editorial Assistant ahs reported this brief.
Star India providing bouquet of channels at lesser prices resulting significant loss in consumer base of Asianet Digital Network: Star India abusing dominance of its position?
The Coram of Ashok Kumar Gupta (Chairperson) and Sangeeta Verma and Bhagwant Singh Bishnoi (Members) noted allegations against Star India for providing a bouquet of channels at lesser prices resulting in denying of market access and also amounting to unfair pricing.
7 entities indulged in anti-competitive agreement for supply of signages for branches/offices/ATMs of SBI: E-mails exchanged between parties formed basis for manipulation of bidding process
Noting that in respect of cases concerning cartels that are hidden or secret, there is little or no documentary evidence and may be quite fragmentary, Coram of Ashok Kumar Gupta (Chairperson) and Sangeeta Verma and Bhagwant Singh Bishnoi (Members) imposed penalties on 7 entities and signages for bid-rigging activities and cartelization with respect to the supply of signage for branches, offices and ATMs of State Bank of India.
Forcing buyers to purchase insurance policies? Even if dealers offer to sell insurance policies to customers, customers may yet have option to buy such policies from alternative channels
The Coram of Ashok Kumar Gupta (Chairperson) and Sangeeta Verma and Bhagwant Singh Bishnoi (Members) addressed a matter wherein it was alleged that certain Car Companies were abusing their dominant position and denying the cashless claim to consumers if the insurance policy had not been obtained through them, their dealers or their insurance broking companies.
Notice issued against a dead person is null and void and all consequent proceedings/orders being equally tainted are liable to be set aside
The Coram of Amit Shukla (Judicial Member) and Pradip Kumar Kedia (Accountant Member) allowed an appeal against a revisional order passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Does Income Tax Act prohibit HRA Exemption On Rent Paid To Wife?
An appeal was filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)-21, New Delhi dated 21-01-2019 before the bench comprising of Sh. A. D. Jain (Vice-President) and Dr. B. R. R. Kumar (Accountant Member).
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
When a Statute provides for a particular period of limitation, it has to be scrupulously applied, as an unlimited limitation leads to a sense of uncertainty
The Coram of Justice R.K. Agrawal (President) and Dr S.M. Kantikar (Member) expressed that, when a Statute provides for a particular period of limitation, it has to be scrupulously applied, as an unlimited limitation leads to a sense of uncertainty.
Will Tax deducted at source be attracted on compensation awarded under Consumer Protection Act “in the form of simple interest”?
The Coram of Dinesh Singh (Presiding Member) and Justice Karuna Nand Bajpayee (Member) expressed that in the ‘service’ of ‘housing construction’, if, in a particular case, “compensation” is computed “by way of interest” on the deposited amount it shall not be differently treated than the other cases in which the term “interest” may not at all be used in computing the compensation.
If a person conceals facts about pre-existing fatal disease at the time of taking insurance, would it be a breach of insurance contract?
The Coram of Dinesh Singh (Presiding Member) and Karuna Nand Bajpayee (Member) upheld the decision of the District Commission with respect to concealment of pre-existing fatal diseases at the time of taking insurance.
Consensus between dentists and patients essential to standardize treatment plans and methods: No X-ray conducted prior to performing root canal treatment: Read how NCDRC found dentist negligent
Expressing that, the consensus between the dentists and patients is essential to standardize treatment plans and methods, Coram of Justice R.K. Agrawal (President) and Dr S.M. Kantikar (Member) addressed a case of dental negligence and remarked that,
“The teeth are only part of the face and it cannot be simply concluded that the whole face will become more beautiful once the teeth become neat.”
Whether Shareholders have the right to remove Directors of a company? NCLT explains in light of Companies Act, 2013
Expressing that the management of business affairs in a company is not a sole duty of a Director, the results of a company’s performance is a team of work of Board of Directors, the Coram of Ashok Kumar Borah, Judicial Member and Shyam Babu Gautam, Technical Member, held that, Companies Act gives shareholders the right to remove the Directors of the company.
National Company Law Tribunal orders insolvency proceedings against Supertech: Indebted and defaulted repayment of loan
The Coram of P.N. Prasad, Judicial Member and Rahul Bhatnagar, Technical Member, declared insolvency proceedings against the builder Supertech Limited.
Logix Insolvent? NCLT initiates insolvency proceedings against Logix City Developers
The Coram of Bachu Venkat Balaram Das (Judicial Member) and Narender Kumar Bhola (Technical Member) initiates insolvency proceedings against Logix City Developers due to default in payment.
Reduction of Capital’ is a ‘Domestic Affair’ of a particular company in which, ordinary, a Tribunal will not interfere because of the reason that it is a ‘majority decision’ which prevails
“A ‘special resolution’ is required to determine those matters for which the Act requires a ‘special resolution’ and except these matters in all other situations an ‘Ordinary Resolution’ is to be passed.”
Unregulated tourism activities resulting in damage to environment in eco-sensitive Himalayan States of India: NGT takes suo motu cognizance
The Coram of Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel (Chairperson) and Justice Sudhir Agarwal (Judicial Member), Prof. A. Senthil Vel (Expert Member) and Dr Vijay Kulkarni (Expert Member) took suo moto cognizance based on media report highlighting the damage to the environment in eco-sensitive Himalayan States of India due to unregulated tourism.
Can SEBI proceed against a Chartered Accountant for lack of due diligence? SAT analyses
The Coram of Justice Tarun Agarwala (Presiding Officer) and Justice M.T. Joshi (Judicial Member) while addressing a matter whether a Chartered Accountant could be held guilty by SEBI for lack of due diligence, held that,
Lack of due diligence can only lead to professional negligence which would amount to a misconduct which could be taken up only by ICAI.
Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Appellate Tribunal
Developer issued two allotment letters, increasing cost of a unit in second by correcting taxes, lease rent and advance maintenance charges: Read whether UPRERA finds it to be illegal
The Division Bench of Justice Dr D.K. Arora (Chairman) and Rajiv Misra (Administrative Member) set aside the decision of the Regulatory Authority and held that the developer did not conceal the details of the project including the status of the same.
The Coram of Justice Malay Marut Banerjee (Chairman) and Suranjan Kundu (Judicial Member) and Chanchalmal Bachhawat (Technical Member), expressed that, Article 304(a) frowns upon discrimination (of a hostile nature in the protectionist sense) and not on mere differentiation.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): V.K. Jain (Presiding Member), held that homebuyers cannot be made to wait indefinitely for the possession of the plots allotted to them and they are entitled to refund of the amount which they paid
Developer Company was selected by Government of Uttar Pradesh for the development of a township in Greater Noida in the name of ‘Sushant-Megapolis’.
No Time Frame
Large number of complainants booked residential plots and executed agreements with the OP. In the agreement, no time frame for delivering possession of the plots to the allottees was incorporated but the complainants were verbally told that the possession would be handed over within 36 months from the execution of the agreement.
Case of the Complainants
Complainants stated that the township has not been developed, hence no possession was offered to them along with other allottees.
Class Action
Therefore complainants approached the commission by way of class action under Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act seeking a refund of the amount paid by the allottees along with compensation.
Vide an order in 2017, Commission granted the permission to the complainants to institute this complaint on behalf of all the allotted who wanted a refund of the amount paid to the OP. Hence, public notice in two newspapers, circulated in Delhi/NCR were published and several allottees were permitted to join the complaint.
Preliminary objection raised by the OP was that the complaint is barred by limitation.
Analysis & Decision
OP having not completed the development and having not offered possession of the allotted plots to the allottees, they had a recurrent cause of action to file the Consumer Complaint, bench relied on the decision of Meerut Development Authority v. Mukesh Kumar Gupta, (2012) CPJ 12 (SC).
Commission found no merit in the above contention.
Farmers’ Protest | Compulsory Acquisition
With regard to delay in development due to the farmer’s protest, bench on perusal of the communication sent by OP noted that there was no dispute with the farmers as the land comprised in the project namely ‘Megapolis’ was concerned, the said land having been purchased by the complainant on market rate with the consent of landowners, the said case is not of compulsory acquisition of land by the State government.
Small Parcels of Land | Patches required to be acquired from State Government
The proposed project was a large land acquired directly from the farmers, though there were some small patches which were to be acquired from the State Government. OP having advertised the project and having executed the agreements for development and sale of plots, it was for them to purchase those small patches of land from the landowners at a negotiated price even if they had to pay a price higher than the price they were willing to pay.
Hence, it could not be said that the non-acquisition of such small parcels of land delayed the project.
Further, the bench stated that even if the plea taken by the OP with respect to non-acquisition of those small parcels of land is accepted on its face value, the allottees cannot be made to suffer for the inability of the OP to acquire those land parcels.
It’s been 12 years since the sale of the said plots started, but till this date, it is not known whether the OP will be able to complete the development work and if so when the said development would be completed.
Class Action
Counsel for the complainant stated that they have settled with eleven allottees other than the original complainants and they are in negotiations with thirteen other allottees.
For the above-stated, Commission stated that even if the above situation prevails, that would not lead to the dismissal of the class action. Once the jurisdiction of this Commission by way of a class action is invoked, the Commission is required to take the matter to its logical conclusion unless the matter is settled with each and every member of the class.
No Specific Time Period
Commission added to its analysis that though no specific time period for completing the development and offering possession to the allottees was indicated in the agreement, that would not entitle the builder to prolong the development work to an indefinite period.
As far as the development of plots is concerned, such a work does not require as much time as required for construction of group housing flats in multistoried buildings.
“…the development work of the plots, even on a large scale, must be completed within a period of three years from the approval of the lay-out plans.”
Bench relied on the Supreme Court decision of Pioneer Urband Land & Infrastructure Ltd. v. Govindan Raghavan, (2019) 5 SCC 725 and Kolkata West International City (P) Ltd. v. Devasis Rudra II, (2019) CPJ 29 (SC).
In view of the above discussion, Commission held that the allottees of residential plot in the project namely ‘Sushant Megapolis’ cannot be made to wait indefinitely for the possession of the plots allotted to them and they are entitled to refund of the amount which they paid to the OP along with appropriate compensation.
Further, the OP shall refund the entire principal amount received and pay Rs 50,000 as cost of litigation.[Bhrigu Kaushik v. Ansal Hi-Tech Township Ltd., Consumer Case No. 1951 of 2016, decided on 16-10-2020]
The Tenth NLU Antitrust Law Moot Court Competition 2019 has been inaugurated in the honorable presence of Dean Dr. I.P. Massey and the Registrar. The registrations and exchange of memorials between the teams is underway in the auditorium, while the Researchers have begun with the Researcher’s Test!
4.30 PM – Preliminary Round 1 Begins
The judges have been briefed and they are really excited to witness the competition this time. The first Preliminary Rounds are about to begin and we wish all the participants good luck!
6 PM – Preliminary Round 1 ends
The first set of preliminary rounds have ended. The participants are tired after passionately arguing their sides, yet are enthusiastic for the next set. The second set of preliminary rounds will start soon, which will be followed by the reverse prelims.
8 PM – Preliminary Round 2 ends
The two sets of reverse prelims will begin soon, followed by declaration of the teams advancing to the Octa-finals, to be held tomorrow.
9 PM – Reverse Prelims begin
The the reverse prelims have begun. This is to ensure each team has an equal chance to argue both sides, and thus maintain a balance in scores. The participants are tired, yet are positive as ever!
11.30 PM– Reverse prelims end, results announced
The reverse prelims have been concluded, and due to the brilliant organizers in the tabulation team, we were able to receive the results quickly. Following are the teams qualifying to the Octa-Finals (in no particular order) :
Institute of Law, Nirma University.
Symbiosis Law School, Noida.
National University of Advanced Legal Studies, Kochi.
Gujarat National Law University.
National Law University, Odisha.
ILS Law College, Pune.
Amity Law School, IP.
Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law.
Hidayatullah National Law University.
Symbiosis Law School, Pune.
Government Law College, Mumbai.
School of Law, Christ University.
Faculty of Law, Aligarh Muslim University.
SVKM’S NMIMS KIRIT P Mehta School of Law.
Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies.
Chanakya National Law University.
Memorials have been exchanged according to the match-ups, and the days events have come to an end. We congratulate the Octa-Finalists!
Day 2 – Octa Finals, Panel Discussion and Quarter Finals
The second day of the Tenth NLU Antitrust Moot Court Competition is successfully underway!
9.30 AM – Octa Finals commence
The judges have been briefed and the Octa Finals have commenced in the respective courtrooms. The participants look fresh and well rested even though they might have been ripping apart their opponent’s memorials all through the night! Wishing them all the best!
Judges scrutinizing the arguments.
1 PM – 4th Antitrust Panel Discussion on Competition Law’s Interface with IBC commences
With the first set of Octa Final rounds over, preparations are in full swing for the reverse Octa Final Rounds. Meanwhile, participants attended the 4th Antitrust Panel Discussion, 2019. The topic for this year’s panel discussion pertains to Interface of Competition Law with the Indian Bankruptcy Code.Our esteemed panelists for this discussion are:
Ms. Anubhuti Mishra – An alumnus of King’s College, London and Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur, she is currently working with the Competition Law team at P&A Law Offices, New Delhi. She has advised on several antitrust enforcement as well as merger review matters.
Mr. Shashank Sharma – Graduated from National Law School of India University in 2013. Thereafter, he went on to complete his European Master in Law and Economics in 2017. Since then he has been working with AZB & Partners, where his primary focus is Competition Law, with specific focus on Behavioural & Merger Control.
Mr. Toshit Shandilya – Graduated from National Law University, Delhi in 2013, he is currently an associate in the Competition Law team of Talwar Thakore & Associates. He has been involved in various critical enforcement and merger control cases before the CCI, as well as the COMPAT. He has been a law clerk with Justice V.S. Sirpurkar, former chairman, COMPAT where he assisted on a number of important cartel and Abuse of Dominance cases.
Our esteemed Panelists engaging with the participants.
The participants of the panel discussion posed certain interesting questions to our Panelists. The questions ranged from procedural to policy issues, arising from the requirement of taking CCI’s approval for insolvency resolution plans that include combinations. The participants and the Panelists engaged on concepts, such as, the failing firm defence, composite combination transactions, inter-connected transactions, and so on, to name a few. The Panelists also threw some light on their practical experience as Competition Lawyers while dealing with complicated transactions that fall within the regime of the IBC. The interactive session provided the participants an insight into the complex interface between the IBC and Competition Law.
5 PM – Octa’s concluded, results announced
The Octa Finals and the Reverse Octa Finals have been concluded. While the participants argued commendably, our Judges had a tough time reaching consensus. The following are the teams progressing towards the Quater Finals (in no particular order):
National Law University, Odisha.
ILS Law College, Pune.
Symbiosis Law School, Pune.
Institute of Law, Nirma University.
National University of Advanced Legal Studies, Kochi.
SVKM’S NMIMS Kirit P. Mehta School of Law.
Gujarat National Law University, Gandhinagar.
Symbiosis Law School, Noida.
We congratulate the qualifying teams. The exchange of memorials for the Quarter Finals shall be taking place soon at the Registration desk.
A glance into the Quarter Finals.
Participant engrossed in the opponent’s arguments.
The Quarter Finals of the Tenth NLU Antitrust Law Moot Court Competition have come to an end. Here are the teams that have qualified to the Semi Finals.
Symbiosis Law School, Pune.
Gujarat National Law University.
National Law University, Odisha.
National University of Advanced Legal Studies, Kochi.
A hearty congratulations to all the Semi Finalists!
8 PM – Semi Finals Underway
The Semi Finals are currently underway. The teams are engaged in fierce argumentation before an eminent panel of judges in both court rooms. Here, take a glimpse at the rounds.
Judge Anand Vikas Mishra testing the participant’s understanding of the law.
Judges Anand Kumar Singh (Assistant Professor, National Law University Jodhpur, specialising in Competition Law), Rahul Satyan (Senior Partner, Competition and Antitrust team at AZB & Partners) and Toshit Chandilya (Associate, Competition Law team at Talwar Thakore & Associates) in Court Room 2.
Participants observing the arguments of their opponent team.
10.15 PM – Semi Finals concluded
After establishing their ‘dominant position’ in this relevant mooting market, the following two teams will battle it out in the Finale of the Tenth NLU Antitrust Law Moot Court Competition 2019:
Symbiosis Law School, Pune.
Gujarat National Law University.
The Memorials will be exchanged between the finalists soon. May the best market player win the battle.
Day 3 – Finals and Valedictory Ceremony
9.30 AM–The audience and judges are seated in the auditorium and the Final rounds of the Tenth NLU Antitrust Moot Court Competition will begin shortly.
9.40 AM – The first speaker from the Applicant’s side, begins his speech. He is calm and is responding well to the judges, who waste no opportunity in grilling him on the law and facts. The bench is fairly active, and all the three judges are participating equally.
Dr. K.D.Singh (Joint Director (Law), Competition Commission of India) and Mr. Rahul Singh (Partner, Khaitan & Co.), having a look at the proposition.
Mr. Manas Kumar Chaudhuri (Partner, Khaitan & Co.) indulgent in the oral rounds during the Finals.
10.20 AM –Speaker 2 from the Applicant’s side has now taken over. She begins her submission by trying to prove that DOPE is not an enterprise, as per the statutory definition under Sections 2(h) read with Section 3(3) of the Competition Act, 2002. She relies on the lack of an economic function, to prove so. However, the judges seem unconvinced, and asks the counsel to clarify the origin of this requirement. Mr. Rahul Singh (Partner, Khaitan & Co.) questions the counsel on the intricacies involved while relying on Section 3(3) along with Section 2(h). The counsel further cites the Coordination Committee case, to prove her point.
Respondent’s gearing up for their turn.
10.35 AM –The judges inquire about the ratio of the LPG Gas Cylinder case, and its relevance to the current argument. With only 2 mins left on the clock, the counsel moves to her second issue, regarding cartelisation. She seeks an extension of time, which is granted. Towards the end of her submissions, one of the judges pose a question regarding the lack of any arguments on mitigation of penalty. The counsel confidently replies that her party is not in violation of any competition or antitrust rules, and thereby need not argue on penalty. This creates a good impression upon the judges.
10.46 AM – The first speaker from the Respondent side, takes the podium. He appears immensely composed, and requests 30 seconds to arrange his documents on the podium. His speech is structured and brief, and the judges seem to be nodding in appreciation. He begins his first submission, on the maintainability of Jeevan Pharma’s admission. Mr. Rahul Singh and Dr K.D Singh (Joint Director (Law), Competition Commission of India) question the counsel on the distinction between the ability of the bench to hear the petition, and their power to grant compensation. The Counsel calmly tries to clarify his position, with reliance on the facts and clarifications, citing the relevant paragraphs, perfectly.
The Appellants discussing their strategy during the Finals.
11.00 AM – The counsel then moves to his second submission, regarding Jeevan Pharma’s abuse of its dominant position, and lays down the three tests required to show the same. The judges don’t seem satisfied with increased reliance on foreign cases, in light of extensive Indian jurisprudence in the area, but the counsel responds adequately. He then seeks an extension, which is happily granted by the judges. As the counsel ends his submissions and thanks the bench, the panel of judges apologise for their repeated probe into every submission of his. This lightens the atmosphere. The judges appeared quite pleased with his set of submissions.
11.24 AM – Speaker 2 now arrives at the podium, to continue her fellow counsel’s submissions. She begins her submission by laying out a roadmap, upon the judges seeking a clarification. Her issues pertain to the ability of the DG and CCR to proceed against DOPE, and DOPE’s violation of Section 3(3). The rain of questions continue, as was the case for the previous speakers. The judges question the line of argument, that the cryptic order of DG can be used against anyone. The counsel tries to clarify her position and does not lose hope.
11.35 AM –The counsel moves to her second submission and focuses on the agreement between the manufacturers, as well as between the manufacturers and the DOPE. She informally quotes Lord Denning and then the statutory definition. There is a good level of engagement between the counsel and the judges. After this speech, the judges decide against rebuttals and surrebuttals, However, they give into the finalists’ request. Speaker 1 from the respondent gives a brilliant rebuttal which leaves the audience as well as the judges in awe.
11.40 AM – The rounds have been concluded, and the finalists wait for the results.
12.15 – Valedictory ceremony commenced
Vice Chancellor, Ms. Poonam Pradhan Saxena and the Dean, Dr. I.P. Massey, with other esteemed faculty members and the judges have taken their seats in the auditorium. Senior Member of the Moot Court Committee opened the ceremony with a heart warming speech and addressed the participants waiting eagerly for the results.
12.30 –Vice Chancellor felicitates the gathering
The Vice Chancellor thanked Khaitan & Co. for their valuable partnership in organising this year’s Competition. She further stressed upon the importance of Competition Law as an emerging field. She also encouraged the participants to take part in more moot court competitions, as it helps to further one’s advocacy skills and analytical abilities.
12.35 – Dr. K.D. Singh addressed the crowd and informed the audience about CCI’s endeavours and how CCI has been happy to host the moot in association with NLU Jodhpur, for the past 10 years, and expressed his desire to continue the same for the coming years.
12.37 – Vice Chancellor presents the token of appreciation to Dr. K.D. Singh
12.38 –Mr. Manas Kumar Chaudhuri (Partner, Khaitan & Co) thanked Ms. Poonam Saxena and shared his experience as a corporate lawyer and left a very interesting question for the participants sitting in the audience, whether they are administering “justice” by being the extended arm
12.40 –Declaration of results
Mr. Rohan C. Thomas, Faculty Advisor of the Moot Court Committee, announces the results :
Second Best Student Advocate– Anshika Jain (Gujarat National Law University)
Best Student Advocate – Juhi Hirani (Institute of Law, Nirma University) and Darshan H. Patankar (Gujarat National Law University)
Best Researcher – Eesha H. Sheth (SVKM’S NMIMS Kirit P Mehta School of Law)
Best Memorial – Faculty of Law, Jamia Millia Islamia.
Best Student Advocate for the Finals – Darshan H. Patankar (GNLU)
RUNNERS UP TEAM – Symbiosis Law School, Pune.
WINNING TEAM – Gujarat National Law University.
Winning Team of the Tenth NLU Antitrust Law Moot Court Competition – Gujarat National Law University
Runners Up Team of Tenth NLU Antitrust Law Moot Court Competition – Symbiosis Law School, Pune
12.45 –Closing Speech by the Co-Convener of the Moot Court Committee
Ms. Mansi Srivastava (Co-Convener, Moot Court Committee) shared her experience of being part of the organising committee for the past five years and how it feels surreal to be a part of it for one last time. She thanked the administration, the support staff, the volunteers and all the other Moot Court Committee Members for their support and contribution. She specially thanked Ms. Abhilasha Gupta and Ms. Subarna Saha (Advisors, Moot Court Committee) and Mr. Rahul Mantri (Co-Convener, Moot Court Committee) for being her pillars of strength throughout the competition and providing all the answers when she herself couldn’t find them. Lastly, she thanked Khaitan & Co. for their partnership and the Knowledge partner, SCC Online and Eastern Book Company (EBC) for providing the students with access to SCC Online that helped them in the preparation for their rounds.
12.48 – Certificate of participation given out to the participants.
The Tenth NLU Antitrust Law Moot Court Competition has thus been concluded.
Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad (CESTAT): This appeal was filed before Archana Wadhwa, J. and Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner.
Appellant was engaged in manufacturing and export of footwear and its parts falling under Chapter 64 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. For the purpose of exports and its procurement appellant had established four fully owned subsidiaries in foreign countries. These subsidiaries were working as overseas commission agents and were procuring export orders for the appellant. Inasmuch as the appellant is availing the said commission agent services from the companies located outside India, they were liable to pay Service Tax in respect of the commission paid to them, on reverse charge basis, in terms of Clause (iv) of Rule 2(1)(d) of Service Tax Rules, 1994. But such services come under exceptions. Such exemption should not be available on the export of the goods if the export is made by an Indian partner in a company with equity participation in an overseas joint venture or wholly owned subsidiary. The Commissioner concluded that appellants were not entitled to avail the benefit of the said Notification inasmuch as they have paid commission on export of goods procured through the wholly-owned subsidiaries.
Tribunal was of the view that the plain and simple meaning of the exception was that the exports were required to be made by an Indian partner to a company with equity participation in an overseas joint venture. It was admitted that the appellant had not exported the goods to its own wholly owned subsidiaries or overseas joint ventures. Tribunal thus favoured the appellant’s contention that the demand was barred by limitation. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside. [Super House Ltd. v. CCE, 2019 SCC OnLine CESTAT 6, Order dated 18-02-2019]
Punjab and Haryana High Court: The Bench of Arvind Singh Sangwan, J. set aside an order framing charges under Sections 306 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against petitioner.
The facts of the case were that one Amandeep Singh committed suicide after two years of marriage with the petitioner’s daughter. Pursuant to the dispute between the two families, the deceased’s wife left her matrimonial home. Thereafter, the deceased left his house and told his sister on the phone that he was disturbed because of his wife and was going to take his life by jumping in a canal. Later, his car and other belongings along with a gift bag were found near the canal with a note stating “I love U Aman Best Wishes for ours next life. This is last gift for you by me. Muhha Putt love you.”
A First Information Report was registered by father of the deceased – Ranjit Singh – under Sections 306, 506 read with Section 34 of Penal Code, 1860 against the petitioner and his daughter – Amanpreet Kaur. After completion of the investigation, the trial Court passed an order framing charges under Sections 306 and 506 of IPC, against petitioners. Aggrieved thereby, the instant revision petition was filed.
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no direct allegation of abetment against them. Further, the deceased’s suicide note did not suggest that he had leveled any allegations against the petitioners, rather, he had shown his affection towards his wife. It was further argued that nothing on record to show that the petitioners have ever abetted the deceased to commit suicide.
The Court, opined that before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC, the Court must scrupulously examine facts and circumstances of the case to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left him with no other alternative but to put an end to his life. The person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain actions to facilitate the commission of suicide. Reliance was placed on Apex Court’s dictum in Bhagwan Das v. Kartar Singh, (2007) 11 SCC 205 and Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat, (2010) 8 SCC 628.
It was held that there was nothing on record to show that by way of willful conduct of the petitioners, the deceased was compelled to commit suicide. Allegations in the FIR, as well as the material collected during the investigation, did not prima facie constitute offence under Section 306 IPC as no material has come on record to support the allegations/charge against the petitioners. The alleged suicide note only reflected deceased’s love towards his wife and there was no indication of any harassment. Thus, the impugned order was set aside.[Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2019 SCC OnLine P&H 11, decided on 09-01-2019]
