SEBI
Hot Off The PressNews

On 24-06-2022, Securities and Exchange Board of India (‘SEBI’), on request from the KYC Registration Agency extended the date  of the commencement from 01-07-2022 till 01-08- 2022 of the following :

  • KYC records of all existing clients (who have used Aadhaar as an OVD) shall be validated within a period of 180 days from 01-08 2022.
  • The validation of all KYC records (new and existing) shall commence from 01-08-2022.

This circular has been issued to protect the interests of investors in securities and to promote the development of, and to regulate the securities market. The Circular dated 06-04-2022 was issued by SEBI in pursuance of amendment to SEBI KYC Registration Agency Regulations, 2011 according to which Clause 9 and Clause 13 were to come effect from 01-07-2022.

Himachal Pradesh High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

   

Himachal Pradesh High Court: Vivek Singh Thakur, J. dismissed the petition filed under Sec 482 Criminal Procedure Code (‘CrPC') for extension of parole as the right remedy is under Article 226 of Constitution of India.

The instant petition was filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking extension of term of parole granted to the petitioner on medical grounds.

The Court noted that grant of parole to a convict/prisoner is governed by provision of H.P. Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1968 and Rules framed thereunder.

The Court observed that omission or commission on the part of concerned authority in granting or rejecting the claim of a prisoner under H.P. Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Rules, 1968 is an administrative action, but not an action governed by provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure or any other Criminal Law and therefore instead of filing petition under Section 482 CrPC, a petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India shall be maintainable.

The Court thus dismissed the petition with liberty to file a fresh comprehensive petition and directed the Authority not to take any coercive action till 15-07-2022.

[Mohd. Margoob v. State of HP, Criminal Misc. Petition (Main) No. 470 of 2022, decided on 21-06-2022]


Advocates who appeared in this case :

Vinod Kumar, Advocate, for the Petitioner;

Hemant Vaid, Advocate, for the Respondent.


*Arunima Boase, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Calcutta High Court: Shampa Sarkar, J. decided on a petition which was filed for a direction upon the respondents 7 and 8 to cancel and/or quash the notice dated April 6, 2022, with regard to handing over the possession of the ferry ghat to the Pradhan of the Mahanandatola Gram Panchayat, upon expiry of the lease of the petitioner.

Petitioner was the operator of Kosi Passengers Ferry Ghat. The lease period of the petitioner had been ended on 31-03-2022. The petitioner submitted that until ferry ghat was settled by way of an open tender, the petitioner must be allowed to operate.

The Court found that the rules with regard to the settlement of the ferry ghat and the circulars issued in this behalf did not permit continuation after expiry of the lease.  The Court clarified that the authority can make a stop-gap arrangement under emergent situation but Court sitting in judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot direct the authorities to allow the petitioner to operate until the open tender is finalised.

Petitioner also submitted that the Pradhan did not have any right to ask the petitioner to hand over possession of the concerned ferry ghat as the water body over which the ferry services were carried on, spread over more than 5 acres and such settlement cannot be made by the concerned Gram Panchayat.

Advocate appearing on behalf of the Pradhan, submitted that the Gram Panchayat had approached the Block Development Officer to permit a public auction of the said ferry ghat. However, he submitted that no decision had been taken with regard to operation of the ferry ghat in the interim period.

Senior Government Advocate submitted that the ferry ghat was settled in favour of the petitioner by the concerned Gram Panchayat, which meant that the area of the water body must not have exceeded 5 acres.

The Court was of the view that the panchayat authorities themselves, had decided that the ferry ghat should be settled by public auction, such a policy decision cannot be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Transparency and maximisation of the revenue by allowing all eligible persons to participate in such tender is the correct method. The Court believed that it does not have any authority to either set aside the auction or to hold the policy of the authority to be bad in law, for the following reasons:

a) Judicial review of an administrative decision is permitted only when the decision making authority does not act in accordance with law or acts arbitrarily and with mala fide intentions relying on the judgment of Supreme Court in Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651 where principles with regard to judicial review of administrative action were laid down.

b) The auction notice has been issued as a policy decision and the court must refrain from interfering with the policies of the Government. There are no allegations of unreasonableness, arbitrariness and favouritism. The petitioner was himself awarded the settlement through a public auction which was held when the pandemic was in the rise relying on the decision in Directorate of Film Festivals v. Gaurav Ashwin Jain, (2007) 4 SCC 737 where it was made clear that it was a settled law that policy decisions of the State were not to be disturbed unless they were found to be grossly arbitrary or irrational.

c) The idea of open auction is to ensure maximization of revenue and the panchayat samity cannot be faulted for having taken a policy decision to go for open auction when the pandemic situation has improved considerably and normalcy has resumed in every aspect of life.

The Court finally relying on Goa Foundation v. Sesa Sterlite Ltd., (2018) 4 SCC 218 and Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India, (2012) 3 SCC 1  held that the panchayat authorities have decided to go for a public auction, the competent authority under the law, shall go for a public auction, at the earliest, and all eligible bidders including the petitioner shall be entitled to participate. Prayer for extension of the lease of the petitioner during the stop gap period could not be granted by the court.[Azizur Rahaman v. State of West Bengal,  2022 SCC OnLine Cal 921, decided on 13-04-2021]


Mr Gazi Faruque Hossain,Mr Debasish Kundu, Ms Priyanka Mondal: for the petitioner

Mr Lalit Mohan Mahata,Mr Prasanta Behari Mahata: for the State

Mr Sufi Kamal: for the respondent 8


Suchita Shukla, Editorial Assistant ahs reported this brief.

Legislation UpdatesNotifications

SEBI vide circular dated September, 2020 issued “ Guidelines for Investment Advisers” which prescribed timeline of six months from the end of each financial year for Investment Advisers (IA) to conduct annual audit in respect of compliance of SEBI (Investment Advisers) Regulations, 2013 (“IA Regulations”) and circulars issued thereunder.
After due consideration, for financial year ending March 31, 2021, it has been decided to extend the timeline for compliance with the aforesaid requirements by three months.
Accordingly, the Circular stands partially modified as under:
  • In accordance with clause 2 (vii) of the Circular, for financial year ending March 31, 2021, the IAs shall conduct the annual compliance audit by December 31, 2021 and submit the adverse findings of the audit, if any, by January 31, 2022.
  • Further, in accordance with clause 2 (i) of the Circular, for financial year ending March 31, 2021, IA shall obtain a certificate from an auditor by December 31, 2021.
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Rajasthan High Court: The Division Bench of Indrajit Mahanty, CJ and Mohammad Rafiq, J., dismissed a petition challenging an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur.

 In the present case, the respondent was sanctioned one year of study leave from 01-10-2010 to 30-09-2011 for pursuing a two-year course in MBA on a regular basis. The duration of the course was two years and the respondent had applied for an extension of leave for another year. The leave was not extended by the applicant hence the respondent had to join the duties on 03-10-2011. The applicant-department thereafter had asked the respondent to submit the necessary documents for consideration of the leave extension which was thereafter rejected.

The Court upon perusal of the records reiterated the decision of the Tribunal wherein it was stated “In the present case, the applicant has furnished a certificate of satisfactory performance for one year of study which the respondents allowed him against the two year course. As such therefore, it would be manifestly unjust for any claim to be made to the effect that it was the applicant’s fault that the did not complete the course when it is clear from the record and the admission of the respondents themselves that he was not granted the necessary extension of leave in order to do so. As the applicant did not overstay the period of leave granted in substantive terms and continues to serve with the respondents after rejoining duties, there appears to be no justification for visiting him with the recovery demand in question.”

High Court thereafter referred to the Rule 14 of the Study Leave Rules in the Indian Railway Establishment Code Volume-I, which provides for recovery in a situation where the applicant does not complete the course due to his/her own fault whereas in the present case, the respondent was unable to pursue the course because of the applicant-department declining the extension.

The Bench upheld the order passed by the respondent and dismissed the present application. [Union of India v. G.S. Rathore, 2019 SCC OnLine Raj 3943, decided on 22-10-2019]

Case BriefsTribunals/Commissions/Regulatory Bodies

Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC): Coram of P.K. Pujari (Chairperson) and Dr M.K. Iyer (Member) and I.S. Jha (Member) allowed the petition of the Odisha Power Generation Corporation Limited for drawal of start-up power and injection of infirm power from Unit-4 of the petitioner`s Thermal Power Plant at Jharsuguda to complete the auto loop tuning and unit stabilization on full load for the period up to 23.10.2019 or actual date of commercial operation, whichever is earlier, in terms of clause (7) of Regulation 8 of the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission Regulations, 2009.

The Fourth Proviso to Regulation 8(7) of the Connectivity Regulations provides that the petitioner can seek an extension of the period for the interchange of power on an application to be filed at least two months in advance of the completion of the prescribed period. The petitioner could not approach the Commission within the stipulated time due to the technical failures faced at their Unit which were beyond the control of the petitioner. Therefore, it was constrained to file the present petition after the deadline of 23.5.2019, seeking an extension of time for drawal of infirm power.

The Commission after taking into consideration the difficulties expressed by the petitioner allowed the instant petition, however, clarifying that extension of time granted as above shall not entitle the petitioner for IEDC/IDC for the delay in declaration of COD from the scheduled COD which will be decided in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Tariff Regulations.[Odisha Power Generation Corpn. Ltd. v. Eastern Southern Regional Power Committee, 2019 SCC OnLine CERC 74, decided on 22-07-2019]

Hot Off The PressNews

The due date for filing of Income Tax Returns for Assessment Year 2019-20 is 31-07-2019 for certain categories of taxpayers. Upon consideration of the matter, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) extends the ‘due date’ for filing of Income Tax Returns from 31-07-2019 to 31-08-2019 in respect of the said categories of taxpayers.


[Press Release dt. 23-07-2019]

Ministry of Finance

Cabinet DecisionsLegislation Updates

Based on the prevailing situation in the state as stated in the report of Governor of Jammu and Kashmir, the Union Cabinet, chaired by the Prime Minister Narendra Modi has approved the extension of President’s Rule in Jammu and Kashmir for a further period of six months with effect from 03-07-2019, under Article 356(4) of the Constitution of India.

Implications:

The decision implies that the President’s rule in Jammu and Kashmir will be extended for a further period of six months with effect from 03-07-2019.

The present term of President’s Rule is expiring on 02-07-2019 and the Governor has recommended that President Rule in the State may be extended for a further period of six months with effect from 03-07-2019.

Implementation:

A resolution seeking approval of parliament for the same will be moved in both the houses of parliament during the forthcoming session.

Background:

The Governor of Jammu & Kashmir issued a proclamation on 20-6-2018 under Section 92 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir with the concurrence of the President of India, thereby assuming to himself the functions of the Government and Legislature of the State and making some incidental and consequential provisions. The State Assembly, initially kept in suspended animation was dissolved by the Governor on 21-11-2018.

The proclamation issued by the Governor on 20-6-2018 ceased on 19-12-2018 after six months. Under Section 92 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir, there is no provision for further continuation of such Proclamation after six months. Hence, on the recommendation of Governor and having regard to the prevailing situation in the State, President issued a proclamation promulgating President’s Rule in J&K under article 356 of the Constitution of India. Subsequently, a Resolution approving the subject Proclamation by President was passed in the Lok Sabha on 28-12-2018 and in the Rajya Sabha on 03-01-2019.

The present term of President’s Rule is expiring on 02-07-2019 and the Governor has recommended that President Rule in the State may be extended for a further period of six months with effect from 03-07-2019.


[Press Release dt. 12-06-2019]

Cabinet

Business NewsNews

‘Changes in RTGS time window’

It has been decided to extend the timings for customer transactions (initial cut-off) in RTGS from 4:30 pm to 6:00 pm. Accordingly, the RTGS time window with effect from June 01, 2019 has been stated in the official notification to which the link is given below.

 The directive is issued under Section 10 (2) read with Section 18 of the Payment and Settlement Systems Act 2007 (Act 51 of 2007).

*Please follow the link for official Notification: Notification


[Notification dt. 28-05-2019]

Reserve Bank of India