Legislation UpdatesRules & Regulations


On 28-09-2022, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India has notified the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Professionals) (Fourth Amendment) Regulations, 2022 which introduces a new Form AA for application for registration as an insolvency professional. The amendment modifies Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Professionals) Regulations, 2016.

The amendment inserts a new clause in Regulation 6 dealing with Application for certificate of registration which provides that An insolvency professional entity eligible for registration as an insolvency professional under sub-regulation(2) of regulation 4 may make an application to the Board in Form AA of Second Schedule along with a non-refundable application fee of two lakh rupees.

The amendment also inserts a new clause in Regulation 7 which provides that in case an insolvency professional entity is an insolvency professional, it shall allow only a partner or director, as the case may be, who is an insolvency professional and holds a valid authorisation for assignment to sign and act on behalf of it.

Central Government Notification
Legislation UpdatesRules & Regulations


The Central Government has notified Prevention of tampering of the Mobile Device Equipment Identification Number (Amendment) Rules, 2022 to amend the prevention of tampering of the Mobile Device Equipment Identification Number, Rules, 2017.

The amendment inserts a new Rule dealing with Registration of International Mobile Equipment Identity Number providing that the manufacturer must register the international mobile equipment identity number of every mobile phone manufactured in India with the Indian Counterfeited Device Restriction portal (https://icdr.ceir.gov.in) of the Government of India in the Department of Telecommunications prior to the first sale of the mobile phone. The said clause will come into effect from January 01, 2023.

The amendment also provides that the international mobile equipment identity number of the mobile phone imported in India for sale, testing, research or any other purpose shall be registered by the importer with the Indian Counterfeited
Device Restriction portal (https://icdr.ceir.gov.in) of the Government of India in the Department of Telecommunications prior to import of mobile phone into the country. The said clause will come into effect on the date of publication.

Allahabad High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts


Allahabad High Court: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J. dismissed a habeas corpus petition holding that the certificates issued by Arya Samaj alone do not prove the legality of a marriage.

The petition was filed alleging that corpus was wife of petitioner 1 and for proof that they were legally married counsel for petitioners had placed reliance upon a certificate issued by Arya Samaj Mandir, and further a certificate of registration of marriage as well as certain photographs. An FIR was lodged against petitioner 1 by the father of corpus and the investigation was undergoing.

The Court stated that the courts are flooded with the marriage certificates issued by different Arya Samaj Societies which have been seriously questioned during different proceedings by numerous High Courts of the country.

“The said institution has misused their beliefs in organizing the marriages without even considering genuineness of documents and since the marriage has not been registered, therefore, only on the basis of said certificate it cannot be deemed that the parties have married.”

Further, relying on Mohd. Ikram Hussain v. State of U.P., (1964) 5 SCR 86 and Kanu Sanyal v. Distt. Magistrate, (1973) 2 SCC 674, the Court reiterated that habeas corpus is a prerogative writ and an extraordinary remedy. It cannot be issued as a right but only on reasonable grounds or probability.

The Court however reminding that the petitioners have other remedies available for the purpose under criminal and civil law, dismissed the petition finding it to be not maintainable. The Court clarified that in the present case the corpus is a major and an F.I.R. has been lodged against the petitioner 1 by father of corpus and investigation was undergoing, therefore, there is no case of illegal detention.

[Bhola Singh v. State of U.P., Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. – 637 of 2022, decided on 31-08-2022]

Advocates who appeared in this case :

Dharam Veer Singh, Advocate, Counsel for the Petitioner;

Sunil Srivastava, Advocate, Counsel for the Respondent.

*Suchita Shukla, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.

Law School NewsMoot Court Announcements



Amity Law School, Amity University Madhya Pradesh was established in 2013. Amity Law School conducts three integrated 5 years under-graduate courses, LLB (Hons) (3 Years), LL.M. (One Year) and PhD programmes in law-related subjects.


During these unprecedented times, we are keen to nourish minds that are comfortable and skilled in dealing with the differing legal systems and cultures that make up our global community.

Amity Law School is proud to announce that it is organizing the AUMP National Virtual Moot Court Competition, 2022 which is scheduled to be held from September 15-16, 2022.

Moot Court Committee, Amity Law School, Amity University Madhya Pradesh is privileged to invite you for advancing premier level arguments and to hone your research as well as argumentative skills on a National level event of Moot Court Competition which shall be judged and presided over by the Hon’ble Justices (Sitting or retired) of the Court of law, renowned Advocates in the arena of Criminal Laws and distinguished Academicians.

Having successfully organized various webinars and competitions in a row, this edition speaks of our efforts that aim at improving the whole experience by ensuring that the teams are met with a challenging problem based on contemporary and developing aspects of the law.

This Competition will be conducted virtually allowing the students to hone their advocacy skills while sitting safe at their homes. This Competition aims to provide an opportunity to the participants to develop the requisite skills for a dynamic process of Advocacy.


The Competition shall be open for ‘bona fide’ students who are pursuing an integrated 5 years or 3 years Law Program in India from an institution recognized by the Bar Council of India.


Each team shall consist of a minimum of two (2) members and maximum of three (3) members. Teams comprising of two members shall only have two (2) speakers and teams comprising of three members shall have two (2) speakers one (1) researcher.


All interested teams must register themselves on or before September 08, 2022 by diligently filling the registration Google Form. Only one form per team is to be submitted. The registration fees for this Competition is INR 1,000/- per team.


Mode of payment of the registration fees shall be via Bank Transfer or by UPI Transfer to be made on following details:

Bank: Axis Bank Limited, Kanwal Complex, Shrimant Madhav Rao Scindia Marg, City Centre, Gwalior, M.P. (IFSC Code: UTIB0000158), Pin 474002.

Account Name: Amity University Madhya Pradesh

Account Number: 911010033371991


Name – Nupur Bhatt

UPI Handle – nupurbhatt046@paytm


Last date of registration

September 08, 2022

Last date to seek clarifications

September 06, 2022

Last date Memorial Submission

September 10, 2022

Date of the Competition

September 15-16, 2022


In case of any queries, please contact us alsmootcourtcommittee2022@gmail.com. You may also contact the following:

  1. Prof. (Dr.) Sandeep Kulshrestha (Convener, Moot Court Committee): +91 70009 15701

  2. Ms. Shubhangi Gupta (Assistant Professor, Amity Law School) +91 97273 83869

  3. Ms. Eshita Mittal (Co-ordinator, Moot Court Committee): +91 89899 24648

  4. Ms. Nupur Bhatt (Co-ordinator, Moot Court Committee): +91 91316 64340


For the Moot Proposition, click here.

For the Rules of the Competition, click here.

For the Registration Form, click here.

For updates, like our Facebook page. Do follow us on Instagram.

For more details click here: Event Description, Proposition and Rulebook

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Gujarat High Court: A.S. Supehia, J. allowed the writ petitions filed by D. Pharm students aggrieved by their non-registration as Pharmacist under the Pharmacy Act, 1948 (the Act) irrespective of their training.

The case of the petitioners was that the respondent-the Gujarat State Pharmacy Council was not registering them as Pharmacist under the Act despite having been undertaken the necessary training of 500 hours for three months from the respective medical stores. It is the case of the respondent authorities that the training from the medical stores, from which the petitioners have undertaken, are not approved and hence, the petitioners cannot be registered as Pharmacist.

The Court noted that the entire issue was with regard to their undertaking practical training from the medical stores, which were not approved and hence, they were not registered as Pharmacist.

The Court stated that respondent 2  in its affidavit-in-reply admitted the fact that the Pharmacy Council of India (PCI) no medical store under regulation 4.4 of the Pharmacy Practice Regulations, 2015 (the Regulation of 2015) for the purpose of imparting practical training to the students of Diploma in Pharmacy Course like the present petitioners has been approved. Thus, the Court was of the opinion that petitioners cannot be faulted for the action of the respondent authorities in not approving the medical stores under regulation 4.4 of the Regulation of 2015 and hence, the petitioner has no option to take their training from the respective medical stores.

The affidavit-in-reply also mentioned that the Council will be notifying the process of granting approval of Pharmacy/Chemist and Druggist through online mode and necessary technology support for the same is under development and validation.

Finally, in the affdiavit-in-reply, it was stated that in order to avoid hardship to the students, who have already undergone or undergoing the D.Pharm course, the practical training undertaken by a student from a Pharmacy, Chemist and Druggist licenced under the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 and rules made thereunder shall be considered as approved for registration of students by the State Pharmacy Councils as per the precedence, provided the student has undergone the D.Pharm course in an institution approved by the PCI under Section 12 of the Act.

The Court allowed the writ petitions in view of the affidavit filed by the PCI and the impugned order(s) challenging in the respective petitions denying such registration of the petitioners as Pharmacist by the respondent 3 were quashed and set aside. It was directed that the petitioners shall be registered as Pharmacist under the State Pharmacy Council.

[Oza Nikun Dashrathbhai v. State of Gujarat, R/Special Civil Application No. 19626 of 2018, decided on 03-08-2022]

for the Petitioner: Hardik D Muchhala

for respondent 1: Sahil Trivedi

for respondent 2:  Devang Vyas

for respondent 3: Rashesh H Parikh, Hemang H Parikh

for respondent 4: SAN Associates LLP

*Suchita Shukla, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.

Madras High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts


Madras High Court: Anita Sumanth, J. set aside the impugned order which rejected a registration application filed under Section 22 read with Section 25 of Central Goods and Service Tax (‘CGST Act') and Rule 8 of CGST Rules, without assigning proper reasons and adhering to proper procedure.

The petitioner filed an application seeking registration in accordance with Section 22 read with Section 25 of the CGST Act, 2017 and Rule 8 of the CGST Rules, 2017 in respect of a rice mandi which was duly acknowledged, and physical verification was also duly undertaken. A notice was issued by the respondent officer seeking clarification as the application did not enclose the details of the principal place of business of the petitioner. Pursuant to which, a copy of the rental / lease deed was uploaded however, registration was refused by way of a monosyllabic order simply mentioning ‘rejected’ without assigning any reasons or explanation for rejection. Aggrieved by this, the present petition was filed.

Rule 9(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 states:

‘9. Verification of the application and approval

………….(4) Where no reply is furnished by the applicant in response to the notice issued under sub-rule (2) or where the proper officer is not satisfied with the clarification, information or documents furnished, he [may], for reasons to be recorded in writing, reject such application and inform the applicant electronically in FORM GST REG-05.’

The Court noted that the word ‘may’ only refers to the discretion to reject and not to blatantly violate the principles of natural justice. If the assessing authority is inclined to reject the application, which he is entitled to, he must assign reasons for such objection and adhere to proper procedure, including due process.

Thus, the Court allowed the petition and set aside the impugned order.

[B C Mohankumar v. Superintendant of Central Goods and Service Tax, WP No. 13272 of 2022, decided on 16-06-2022]

Advocates who appeared in this case :

Adithya Reddy, Advocate, for the Petitioner;

Prakash for Mr. Rajendran Raghavan Senior Standing Counsel, Advocates, for the Respondent.

*Arunima Bose, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.

Central Government Notification
Legislation UpdatesRules & Regulations

The Central Government has notified Surrogacy (Regulation) Rules, 2022 which provides Form and manner for registration and fee for a surrogacy clinic and the requirement, and qualification for persons employed, at a registered surrogacy clinic.

Key points:

  • Surrogacy clinics shall have at least one gynaecologist, one anesthetist, one embryologist and one counselor. The clinic may employ additional staff by the Assisted Reproductive Technology Level 2 clinics; normally Director, Andrologist and shall appoint such staff as may be necessary to assist the clinic into day-to-day work.
  • Manner of application for obtaining a certificate of recommendation by the Board has been specified in Form 1.
  • The intending woman or couple must purchase a general health insurance coverage in favour of surrogate mother for a period of thirty six months from an insurance company or an agent recognized by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority established under the provisions of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority Act, 1999 for an amount which is sufficient enough to cover all expenses for all complications arising out of pregnancy and also covering post- partum delivery complications.
  • Number of attempts of any surrogacy procedure on the surrogate mother shall not be more than three times.
  • Consent of a surrogate mother shall be as specified in Form 2.
  • Gynaecologist must transfer one embryo in the uterus of a surrogate mother during a treatment cycle: Provided that only in special circumstances up to three embryos may be transferred.
  • Surrogate mother may be allowed for abortion during the process of surrogacy in accordance with the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971.
  • An application for registration for a surrogacy clinic shall be made by the surrogacy clinic which is carrying out procedures related to the Surrogacy.
  • The appropriate authority shall, after making such enquiry and after satisfying itself that the applicant has complied with all the requirements, shall grant a certificate of registration in Form 4 to the applicant.
Experts CornerKhaitan & Co

India has witnessed family settlements or arrangement since ancient times – the only difference being that evolution of time enabled individuals to formalise such arrangements in a more organised and legitimate fashion. Halsbury’s Laws of England describes a family arrangement as “an agreement between members of the same family intended to be generally and reasonably for the benefit of the family, either by compromising doubtful or disputed rights or by preserving the family property or the peace and security of the family by avoiding litigation or by saving its honour”.[1] Family arrangements are often recorded in writing as a memorandum capturing the terms agreed amongst the family members so that there are no issues left open and it resolves all disputes and disagreements amongst the members finally – as an aide-mémoire.


Unlike ordinary contracts which require “consideration” as an essential element for their validity, family arrangements do not entail any consideration in the strictest sense. Any consideration, if at all, would be the expectation that such a settlement would help in ensuring goodwill, harmony and peace amongst the family members.[2]


Analysing Family Arrangements

  1. Essential Elements

The essentials of a family arrangement were laid down by the Supreme Court of India in Kale v. Director of Consolidation[3] to include the following:

(a Bona fide settlement.—The family arrangement should be bona fide to resolve family disputes and facilitate fair and equitable allotment of properties amongst the various members of the family.

(b)  Voluntary settlement.—The settlement must not be induced by fraud, coercion or undue influence.

(c) Oral or written.—The family arrangements may be oral or written. No registration is necessary for an oral agreement.

(d)  Registration.—Registration of family arrangement could be necessary only if the terms of the family arrangement are reduced into writing. A distinction should be made between a document containing the terms of a family arrangement and a mere memorandum prepared after the family arrangement for the purpose of the record. In such a case the memorandum itself does not create or extinguish any rights in immovable properties and therefore, not compulsorily registrable.[4] In a recent judgment by the Delhi High Court, the Judge pronounced that if an understanding has been arrived at between the parties and it is only written down in a document after the settlement has been arrived at, the same would not require registration.[5] The memorandum of family settlement involved in the instant case was held to not partition the properties itself but only record the same as an aid of memory.

(e) Antecedent title.—The members who may be parties to the family arrangement must have some antecedent title, claim or interest in the property which is acknowledged by the parties to the settlement. Even if one of the parties to the settlement has no title but under the arrangement the other party relinquishes all its claims or titles in favour of such a person and acknowledges him to be the sole owner, then the antecedent title must be assumed and the family arrangement will be upheld.

(f)  Fair and equitable.—Even if bona fide disputes, present or possible, which may not involve legal claims are settled by a bona fide family arrangement which is fair and equitable the family arrangement is final and binding on the parties to the settlement.

  1. Tax implications

A family arrangement is not treated as conveyance or a transfer, rather as a realignment of pre-existing rights. Therefore, even though properties and assets are settled among the family members, it is typically not subject to taxation under capital gains in respect of gains derived by the members who are parties to the arrangement. On the other hand, in case the properties are sold and bought among the family members, it would amount to transfer and result in capital gains tax. In Govind Kumar Khemka v. CIT,[6] the tax payer received some assets on account of a family settlement, and the court held that this should not be treated as a commercial transaction given the absence of consideration. Similarly, in CIT v. Kay Arr Enterprises[7], rearrangement of shareholding in the company to avoid possible litigation among family members was considered as a prudent arrangement and not as “transfer” of shares exigible to capital gains tax. There could be various other elements relevant to this, and therefore, cogent and specialist tax advice should be obtained for a family settlement. Other than capital gains tax, which may lead to taxation in the hands of the transferor of assets, there are also certain other provisions governing taxation of assets received in the hands of the recipient of certain assets, and there are some exemptions specifically given under the relevant provisions which require analysis.


This gets even more complicated where assets are to be transferred between companies and bodies corporate as each has its own tax implications to consider and assess. Arguably, companies are non-family members, and the existence of the corporate veil begs the question whether a company can itself ask for lifting of corporate veil and claim that the transfer from the companies would come under the purview of family arrangement,[8] and can shareholders claim they have any right to a company’s assets before liquidation[9].


Thus, while a family arrangement is prima facie tax neutral, all of these issues require intricate fact-specific analysis, and not all of this is as straightforward as one would like to see.


  1. Implications on Public Listed Companies

Companies listed on stock exchanges may be managed and/or owned by families desirous of entering into a family settlement. In the event that such family settlement involves transfer of shares of such listed companies, disclosures under Securities and Exchange Board India (SEBI) Regulations come into play. Specifically, Regulation 30 read with Schedule III, Part A, Paragraph A(5) of the SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015 mandates disclosures to stock exchanges in case of any family settlement agreement that impacts management and control of a listed entity. Similarly, transfer of substantial shares of a listed entity, albeit pursuant to a family settlement agreement, may trigger compliances and disclosure requirements under the SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeover) Regulations, 2011 as well.


  1. Family Arrangements Generally

From a broader perspective, family arrangements entail lesser compliance requirements than commercial arrangements; nonetheless, there is often an impetus to divide and address each aspect of existence going forward. Therefore, one not only does divide assets and largesse, but also tends to address harmonious functioning of businesses going forward, including, through non-compete, non-solicit, confidentiality and brand usage agreements. Tax benefits and absence of long drawn court battles make family arrangements one of the best mediums to plan distribution of assets.  Increasingly, more families with joint ownership of assets are pursuing this modus under expert advice and guidance to cleanly structure future co-existence, and also preserve and accelerate business growth in the interests of all stakeholders, including, employees, customers, etc.

†      Partner, Khaitan & Co.

††     Partner, Khaitan & Co.

†††   Associate, Khaitan & Co.

[1]       Halsbury’s Laws of England (5th Edn.) Vol. 91 (2012), p. 623, para 903.

[2]       CIT v. A.N. Naik Associates, 2003 SCC OnLine Bom 688 : (2004) 187 CTR 162.

[3]       (1976) 3 SCC 119 : AIR 1976 SC 807.

[4]       Ravinder Kaur Grewal v. Manjit Kaur,  (2020) 9 SCC 706 : AIR 2020 SC 3799.

[5]       Himani Walia v. Hemant Walia,  2022 SCC OnLine Del 893.

[6]       2019 SCC OnLine ITAT 2922.

[7]       2007 SCC OnLine Mad 1208 : (2008) 215 CTR 244.

[8]       B.A. Mohota Textiles Traders (P) Ltd. v. CIT, 2017 SCC OnLine Bom 10116.

[9]       CIT v. Sea Rock Investment Ltd., 2007 SCC OnLine Kar 654 : (2009) 317 ITR 253.

Legislation UpdatesRules & Regulations

On January 14, 2022, the Securities and Exchange Board of India notifies Securities and Exchange Board of India (Foreign Portfolio Investors) (Amendment) Regulations, 2022 to further amend the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Foreign Portfolio Investors) Regulations, 2019.

Key amendment:

In the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Foreign Portfolio Investors) Regulations, 2019:

  • In sub-regulation (1) of regulation 7, the words “National Securities Depositories Limited” shall be substituted with the word “the Board”.

Regulation 7 provides:

Certificate of registration.—(1) The designated depository participant shall on behalf of the Board grant the certificate of registration, bearing registration number generated by National Securities Depositories Limited, as specified in the First Schedule to an applicant if it is satisfied that the applicant is eligible and fulfils the requirements as specified in these regulations.

  • In Chapter VIII-A, after regulation 43A, the following regulation shall be inserted, namely,

Exemption from strict enforcement of the regulations in other cases.
43B. (1) The Board may suo motu or on an application made by a foreign portfolio investor, for reasons recorded in writing, grant relaxation from the strict enforcement of any of the provisions of these regulations, subject to such conditions as the Board deems fit to impose in the interests of investors and the securities market and for the development of the securities market, if the Board is satisfied that:

(a) the non-compliance is caused due to factors beyond the control of the entity; or
(b) the requirement is procedural or technical in nature.

(2) The application referred to under sub-regulation (1) shall be accompanied by a non-refundable fee of US $ 1,000 payable by way of NEFT/ RTGS/ IMPS or any other mode allowed by the Reserve Bank of India in the designated bank account of the Board.”

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
Case BriefsTribunals/Commissions/Regulatory Bodies

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai: A two-Member Bench of Pramod Kumar (Vice President) and Ravish Sood (Judicial Member) allowed the Board of Control for Cricket in India (“BCCI”) to continue with its registration under Section 12-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 making it eligible for income tax exemption benefits. The main controversy arose regarding the commercial nature of the Indian Premier League (“IPL”) organised by BCCI, however, there is significant discussion on substantive law in the decision of the Appellate Tribunal.

Factual Matrix

BBCI challenged correctness of the order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai (“CIT”), rejecting its application for registration under Section 12-A(1)(ab) read with Section 12-AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Notably, BCCI was duly granted registration under Section 12-A in 1996, which is yet to be cancelled or withdrawn. However, BCCI applied for fresh registration in wake of the amendment in its ‘memorandum of association, and rules and regulations’, to implement the recommendations of Justice R.M. Lodha Committee.

While rejecting BCCI’s application, the CIT took note of the amended Memorandum of Association (“MoA”) and inter alia noted that a specific clause was inserted for conducting Indian Premier League (“IPL”) matches, and concluded that “it can be easily concluded that activities of the applicant specially in relation to the IPL are in the nature of trade, commerce or business, and therefore, the applicant is squarely covered by proviso to Section 2(15) and hence applicant’s claim of being covered by the last limb, i.e. advancement of any other object of general public utility cannot be held to be charitable purpose”.

BCCI on the other hand contented that its activities are wholly charitable and genuine, and the element of profit in organising the IPL event does not vitiate its predominant character.  It was submitted that BCCI was in fact under no obligation to approach the CIT for fresh registration as the amendments did not even remotely affect its basic objects for which the registration was earlier granted; nevertheless it approached the CIT in deference  to the observations made by another Bench of the Appellate Tribunal to the effect that “the assessee society should approach the registering authority with the changes and amendments so that the authorities could examine as to whether the amendments in question meet the requirement of law”.

Law, Analysis and Decision

Application of S. 12-A(1)(ab)

Referring first to Section 12-A(1)(ab), the Appellate Tribunal noted that the true trigger for an application under that section has to be the modification of objects “which do not conform to the conditions of the registration”. Therefore, unless such modifications are demonstrated, there is no occasion for CIT to assume jurisdiction. The registration granted to BCCI in 1996 was on the basis of MoA, 1940. Unless, therefore, there were significant amendments in that Memorandum of Association, the provisions of Section 12-A(1)(ab) will not come into play inasmuch these provisions come into play only when the assessee “has adopted or undertaken modifications of the objects which do not conform to the conditions of registration”.

The Appellate Tribunal then compared MoA, 1940 and the amended MoA, 2018, and found that the amended MoA does not show any change which is contrary to the corresponding clause in the earlier MoA. It was noted that there was nothing in the impugned order to even indicate that the modifications in the objects of the amended deed do not conform to the objects in the memorandum of association based on which the registration was granted. The Appellate Tribunal observed:

“It is also important to bear in mind the fact that Section 12-A(1)(ab) specifically refers to ‘objects’ of the assessee trust or institution, and, it cannot, therefore, be open to the Principal Commissioner to go beyond the ‘objects’ so far as jurisdiction under this Section 12-A(1)(ab) is concerned. It is only when there is such a modification in the object clause that it does not conform to the conditions of registration, i.e. objects clause in the documents based on which registration was granted – only the memorandum of association in this case, that Section 12-A(1)(ab) can come into play.”

It was also noted that any changes to bring out reforms in the functioning of BCCI and specifically approved by the Supreme Court to be for that purpose (by its order dated 9-8-2018), cannot be termed to be the changes that dilute the fundamental objective of promoting the game of cricket, or said to be “not in conformity” with the objects of promoting the game of cricket all along espoused by BCCI and as set out in the pre-amendment MoA. In this view of the matter also, the condition precedent for invoking Section 12-A(1)(ab), was not fulfilled.

Referring to the view of another Bench that the assessee society should approach the registering authority with the changes and amendments so that the authorities could examine as to whether the amendments in question meet the requirement of law, the Appellate Tribunal observed:

“[T]his requirement, in our humble understanding, does not necessarily extend to the filing of the fresh application of registration under Section 12-A(1)(ab) unless the amendments are such as not in conformity with the documents based on which registration was originally granted. There is a difference in these two situations, i.e. between keeping the registration authority [informed] about the changes in the memorandum of association etc., and between making an application for fresh registration which comes into play only when the amendments in question do not conform to the objectives in respect of which registration was granted or obtained. Unless that condition is satisfied, Section 12-A(1)(ab) [does not] come into play.”

It was observed that there is a vital distinction between “object” and “power”. It could not even be in dispute that the object of BCCI is the promotion of cricket game, and, at best, it has powers to hold IPL for achieving this object. Whether this power of conducting IPL is exercised with predominantly pecuniary gains in mind or not is a different aspect, but then this is a “power” not an “object”. The Appellate Tribunal was of the opinion that:

“So far as the provisions of Section 12-A(1)(ab) are concerned, the Principal Commissioner was only required to examine the objects of the institution and not to extend her considerations to the powers vested in the institution. Unless the bridge of finding variations in objects of pre-amendment or post-amendment objects is crossed, there is no occasion to examine anything else. “

Application of proviso to S. 2(15)

Next, it was noted that the entire basis of declining registration by CIT was invoking the proviso to Section 2(15) on the ground that IPL activities are in the nature of commercial activities and cross the threshold limit specified in exceptions to the proviso to Section 2(15). On this point, the Appellate Tribunal observed:

“It is, however, well-settled in law that so far as registration under section 12-AA is concerned, Section 2(15) has no application in the matter.”

Relying on its earlier decision in Kapurthala Improvement Trust v. CIT, 2015 SCC OnLine ITAT 8111, the Appellate Tribunal concluded that the remedy to the proviso to Section 2(15) coming into play is not denial of registration under section 12-A or 12-AA but denial of benefits of exemption under Section 11, under Section 13(8). That is the reason that along with the insertion of proviso to Section 2(15), effective from the same date, sub-section 13(8) was also inserted and these two provisions are thus clearly complementary in nature.

Indian Premier League

Interestingly, as to the question whether IPL can indeed be said to be commercial in nature in the sense that the entire orientation of these matches is aimed at making money in the garb of promotion of cricket, the Appellate Tribunal was of the view that it was not necessary to go into that aspect in the instant case. It however added:

“[O]n the face of it merely because a sports tournament is structured in such a manner so as to make it more popular, resulting in more paying sponsorships and greater mobilisation of resources, the basic character of the activity of popularising cricket is not lost. It is indeed possible that the predominant object remains the promotion of cricket but that activity is done in a more effective and financially optimal manner, and that there is no conflict in the cricket becoming more popular and the cricket becoming more entertaining. It results in providing significant economic opportunities to those associated with the holding of the IPL tournament and, in the process, enriching the resources of the assessee trust. As long as the object of promoting cricket remains intact, and that continues to be the predominant object, the assessee cannot be said to be not following the object of promoting cricket, just because the operational model of a cricket tournament, whether IPL or any other tournament, is more entertaining, more economically viable, provides greater economic opportunities to all those associated with that tournament, and mobilises greater financial resources for popularising cricket. The purpose for which all the funds at the disposal of the assessee trust, including the additional funds generated by holding the IPL tournament, are employed is certainly for promoting cricket, and that is what really matters. Improvising the rules of the game, adding entertainment value to it and making it economically attractive, may be a purist’s nightmare but the same factors can also be viewed as radical and innovative ideas to popularise a game –  the very raison d’être of an institution like this assessee, and that is how we view it.”

In such view of the matter, the Appellate Tribunal held that BCCI was entitled to continuance of its registration under Section 12-A dated 12-2-1996. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the CIT was quashed. [BCCI v. CIT, ITA No. 3301/Mum/2019, dated 2-11-2021]

Uttarakhand High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Uttaranchal High Court: The Division Bench of Raghvendra Singh Chauhan, CJ. and Narayan Singh Dhanik, J. decided on a petition which was filed challenging the validity of the order passed by the Single Judge whereby the respondent-writ petitioner, M/s Kohli Enterprises, was not only blacklisted, but even its registration was cancelled by the appellants.

Counsel for the appellants, submitted that the impugned order passed by the Single Judge was a non-speaking order, as it does not spell out the three factors, which were required for grant of a stay order. Therefore, the impugned order passed deserved to be set aside by this Court.

Counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner, submitted that since the petitioner had challenged the jurisdiction of the Regional Manager to pass the impugned order dated 21-10-2021, and since no power of canceling a registration was granted either to the Regional Manager, or to the Managing Director, both the blacklisting, and the cancellation of the registration is patently illegal.

The Court after perusal of the impugned order noted that the Single Judge had merely observed that “having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also the reasons indicated in the impugned order, this Court is prima facie satisfied that petitioner has made out a case of grant of interim order”.

The Court found the reasoning given by the Single Judge cryptic as he neither discussed the existence of a prima facie case in favour of the respondent-writ petitioner, nor discussed the balance of convenience, nor discussed the irreparable loss that would be caused to the respondent-writ petitioner in case the stay were not granted by the Court.

The need for passing a reasoned order need not be emphasized. For, it is well known that a judicial order necessarily has to be a reasoned one, where the mind of the learned Court needs to be revealed, and cogent and convincing reasons need to be stated even while granting a stay order.

The Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the case back to Single Judge requesting to decide the Interim Stay Application within a period of two weeks.[Uttarakhand State Warehousing Corporation v. Kohli Enterprises, 2021 SCC OnLine Utt 1313, decided on 22-11-2021]

Suchita Shukla, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.

Counsel for the appellants. : Mr D.S. Patni, Senior Counsel assisted by Mr Parikshit Saini

Counsel for the respondent. : Mr Anil Kumar Joshi

Kerala High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Kerala High Court: P.B.Suresh Kumar, J., held that the requirement for Medical students who had studied abroad to undergo CRRI for obtaining permanent registration under State Medical Register was inconsistent with prevailing provisions.


The petitioner, an Indian citizen enrolled for obtaining medical qualification without obtaining Eligibility Certificate insisted in terms of Section 13(4B) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, which she obtained later on in 2017. She graduated in 2019, thereupon, she underwent one year internship in the various teaching hospitals under the Dubai Health Authority.

The petitioner cleared the Screening Test in terms of Section 13(4A) of the IMC Act in order to become eligible to be enrolled in a State Medical Register in India as well and applied for permanent registration under State Medical Register. Her application for registration was rejected by the State Medical Council, the Council insisted on requirement of Compulsory Rotatory Residential Internship (CRRI) in any one of the medical institutions approved by the Medical Council of India for foreign medical graduates before granting permanent registration to them in terms of Ext.P21 decision taken by the State Medical Council on 20-10-2017 in order to ensure that they learn and gain clinical experience and exposure about the epidemiological and clinical profile of local community.

Analysis and Findings of the Court

In the backdrop of above, the Court was to address following questions:

  1. Whether a person who has not undertaken internship as part of the medical course undertaken by him/her abroad is eligible to appear in the Screening Test provided for under Section 13(4A) of the IMC Act?

Regulation 11 of Screening Test Regulations, 2002 provides that candidates who qualify the Screening Test may apply to any State Medical Council for provisional or permanent registration and the State Medical Councils shall issue provisional registration to such candidates, who are yet to undergo one year internship in an approved institution and issue permanent registration to such eligible candidates who have already undergone one year internship. Therefore, internship is not insisted for appearing in the Screening Test and the only requirement for appearing in the Screening Test is that the candidates should possess a primary medical qualification.

Noticing that the State Medical Council did not have a case that the petitioner did not possess a primary medical qualification as defined in the Regulations at the time when she applied for and cleared the Screening Test, the Bench held that the stand of the State Medical Council that only students who had completed internship as part of the medical course undertaken by them in the medical institution abroad were entitled to appear for the Screening Test was unsustainable.

  1. Whether a person who obtains Eligibility Certificate after taking admission in a medical institution abroad, be denied enrolment on a State Medical Register, if he/she satisfies all other eligibility criteria for the same?

On the issue that the petitioner had obtained Eligibility Certificate only after taking admission in the medical institution abroad, the Bench observed that the Council had no case that the petitioner would not have been issued Eligibility Certificate, had she applied for the same before taking admission for the medical course in the medical institution abroad.

Section 13(4B) of the IMC Act itself provides that in case any person obtains any medical qualification without obtaining Eligibility Certificate, he shall not be eligible to appear for the Screening Test concerned. Noticing the fact that the petitioner was permitted by the competent authority i.e. Indian Medical Council to appear for Screening Test and the fact that she had cleared the Screening Test were not disputed by the State Medical Council,  the Bench remarked,

“True, the State Medical Council, while considering applications for registration, both provisional and permanent, has the power to verify whether the candidate has obtained Eligibility Certificate, but that does not mean that the State Medical Council is empowered to adjudicate the right of a person to obtain Eligibility Certificate and to appear for the Screening Test, ignoring the decisions taken by the Medical Council of India in this regard.”

Accordingly, the stand of the Council that the qualification obtained by the petitioner could not be regarded as one in accordance with the provisions of the IMC Act as she had not obtained Eligibility Certificate before taking admission, so as to become eligible to be enrolled as a medical practitioner in the State Medical Register was held to be unsustainable.

  1. Whether a person who obtains a medical qualification from a medical institution abroad and undertakes one year internship thereafter in the country of education and satisfies all other eligibility criteria for enrolment on a State Medical Register be insisted to undergo CRRI for the said purpose?

As per the IMC Act and Regulation 11 a person who obtains medical qualification granted by medical institutions outside India recognised for enrolment as medical practitioner in that country and who clears the Screening Test in terms of Section 13(4A) of the IMC Act, is entitled to be enrolled as a medical practitioner on any State Medical Register, if he has already undergone one year internship.

Since the fact that the petitioner had obtained a medical qualification granted by a medical institution in a country outside India recognised for enrolment as medical practitioner in that country and the fact that she had cleared the Screening Test were not in dispute, including the fact that the petitioner had completed one year internship after acquiring the primary medical qualification, the Bench held that the State Medical Council was obliged to grant permanent registration to the petitioner and they could not insist that the petitioner should undergo CRRI for the said purpose.

  1. Whether the State Medical Council is empowered to take decisions in the nature of Ext.P21?

Opining that a person who is entitled to registration in a State Medical Register in terms of the provisions of the IMC Act could not be denied registration by the State Medical Council, and the medical qualifications of foreign medical graduates who satisfy the requirements in the said provision are deemed to be recognised medical qualifications for the purpose of the IMC Act, the Bench was of the view that the requirement in terms of Ext.P21 that such medical graduates should undergo CRRI for claiming permanent registration was inconsistent with the requirement in terms of the IMC Act and also the Regulations.

“The IMC Act is one relatable to Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution and the TCMP Act is one relatable to Entries 25 and 26 of List III of the Seventh Schedule.   In other words, Ext.P21 decision of the State Medical Council being inconsistent with the provisions contained in the IMC Act, the same is invalid and unenforceable.”  


In the result, the writ petitions were disposed of directing the State Medical Council to permit the petitioner to apply for the permanent registration, and if applied, grant permanent registration to the petitioner without insisting her to undergo CRRI. [Sadhiya Siyad v. State of Kerala, 2021 SCC OnLine Ker 3954, decided on 20-10-2021]

Kamini Sharma, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.

Appearance by:

Counsel for the Petitioner: Santhosh Mathew, Arun Thomas, Jennis Stephen, Vijay V. Paul, Karthika Maria, Veena Raveendran, Anil Sebastian Pulickel and Divya Sara George

Counsel for the State: Titus Mani and N.Raghuraj, SC, TCMC & KNMC

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: The Division Bench of K.M Joseph* and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ., held that an unregistered family settlement document is admissible to be placed “in” evidence if it does not by itself affect the transaction though the same cannot be allowed “as” evidence. The Bench expressed,

“Merely admitting the Khararunama containing record of the alleged past transaction, is not to be understood as meaning that if those past transactions require registration, then, the mere admission, in evidence of the Khararunama and the receipt would produce any legal effect on the immovable properties in question.”

The Court was dealing with the impugned order of the Telangana High Court, whereby the High Court had set aside the order passed by the Trial Court by holding that the unregistered and unstamped family settlement “Khararunama” and receipt of Rs. 2,00,000 by the respondent were not admissible in evidence.

Factual Contours

The respondent, younger brother of the appellants had instituted a suit seeking declaration of title over the plaint schedule property and for eviction of the appellants and consequential perpetual injunction was also sought against the appellants. Evidently, there was a partition between the appellants, the respondent and their other siblings. Pursuant to some disputes between the parties a Khararunama dated 15-04-1986 was executed recording the facts.

It was contended by the respondent that the Khararunama required registration under section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act, 1908 and under the said settlement, appellants ought to pay certain sum to the respondent. The document would come into force after the receipt of the consideration.

Statutory Requirements

Undoubtedly, Section 17(1)(b) makes ‘other non-testamentary instruments’, which purport or operate to create, assign, limit or extinguish whether in present or in future any right or interest whether vested or contingent of the value of Rs.100/- and upwards in an immovable property compulsorily registrable. Section 17(1)(c) reads as follows:

“17(1)(c) non-testamentary instruments which acknowledge the receipt or payment of any consideration on account of the creation, declaration, assignment, limitation or extinction of any such right, title or interest; and”

Section 49(c) of Registration Act prohibits the admitting of compulsorily registrable documents which are unregistered as evidence of any transaction affecting immovable property unless it has been registered.

Opinion and Analysis

Opining that unregistered document can be used as evidence of any collateral transaction, the Bench stated, however, the said collateral transaction should not itself be one which must be affected by a registered document. In K. Panchapagesa Ayyar v. K. Kalyanasundaram Ayyar, 1956 SCC OnLine Mad 141, the Madras High Court was of the view:

“To sum up it is well settled in a long series of decisions which have since received statutory recognition by the Amending Act of 1929 (vide the concluding words of the new proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act) that a compulsorily registrable but an unregistered document is admissible in evidence for a collateral purpose that is to say, for any purpose other than that of creating, declaring, assigning, limiting or extinguishing a right to immovable property”.

Whether the Khararunama by itself affected rights in the immovable properties in question?

The next question before the Bench was whether the Khararunama by itself ‘affects’, i.e., by itself creates, declares, limits or extinguishes rights in the immovable properties in question or whether it merely refers to what the appellants alleged were past transactions which had been entered into by the parties, the Bench answered, going by the words used in the document, they indicate that the words were intended to refer to the arrangements allegedly which the parties made in the past and the document did not purport to by itself create, declare, assign, extinguish or limit right in properties.

Evidentiary Value of Khararunama

As per Section 49(1) (a), a compulsorily registrable document, which is not registered, cannot produce any effect on the rights in immovable property by way of creation, declaration, assignment, limiting or extinguishment. Thus, observing that Section 49(1) prevents an unregistered document being used ‘as’ evidence of the transaction, which affects immovable property, the Bench stated,

“If the Khararunama by itself, does not ‘affect’ immovable property, being a record of the alleged past transaction, though relating to immovable property, there would be no breach of Section 49(1)(c), as it is not being used as evidence of a transaction effecting such property.”

The Bench held that being let in evidence is different from being used as evidence of the transaction; thus, the transaction or the past transactions could not be proved by using the Khararunama as evidence of the transaction. In other words, the Bench held, “merely admitting the Khararunama containing record of the alleged past transaction, is not to be, understood as meaning that if those past transactions require registration, then, the mere admission, in evidence of the Khararunama and the receipt would produce any legal effect on the immovable properties in question.”

In Muruga Mudallar v. Subba Reddiar, 1950 SCC OnLine Mad 136, the Madras High Court had held that, “the consequence of non-registration is to prohibit the document from being received not “in” evidence, but “as” evidence of any transaction affecting such property.”

As far as stamp duty was concerned, the Bench was of the view that since the Khararunama was a mere record of past transaction it did not require to be stamped.


Lastly, the Bench held, when there had been a partition, there may be no scope for invoking the concept of antecedent right as such, therefore since the appellants and the respondents had partitioned their joint family properties, the properties mentioned in the Khararunama would be separate properties of the respondent.

Resultantly, the Appeal was allowed. The impugned Judgment was set aside and the Khararunama was held to be admissible in evidence but not as evidence.

[Korukonda Chalapathi v. Korukonda Annapurna Sampath Kumar, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 847, decided on 01-10-2021]


Kamini Sharma, Editorial Assistant has put this report together

Appearance by:

For the Appellants: Advocate M. Vijay Bhaskar

For the Respondent: Advocate Venkateshwar Rao

*Judgment by: Justice K.M Joseph

Know Thy Judge| Justice K.M. Joseph

Legislation UpdatesRules & Regulations

The Government of Goa has notified the Goa Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Rules, 2021 on 23rd September 2021. The Goa Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Rules, 2021 permit the electronic means for sending application for registering a society.


Rule 4 of the Goa Co-operative Societies Rules, 2003, which deals with the application for registration, has been modified by the amendment to include that the application for registration shall be sent to the Registrar by registered post or delivery by hand or through electronic means.


*Tanvi Singh, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.

Legislation UpdatesRules & Regulations

The Delhi Labour Department has notified the Delhi Shops and Establishments (Amendment) Rules, 2021 on September 24, 2021 to further amend the Delhi Shops and Establishments Rules, 1954.

The Rules make the following amendment under the Act:


  • Rule 3, substituted, deals with form for submitting statement and other particulars relating to name of the employer, the category of the establishment etc. The Rule provides that the occupier of the establishment, within 90 days of the commencement of work of his establishment shall apply for the registration under the Act, online on the Shop and Establishment Portal of Labour Department.
  • Rule 4, substituted, states that on submission of application online on the Shop & Establishment portal of Labour Department, Government of NCT of Delhi, the registration certificate shall be generated online in Form C.
  • Rule 6, substituted, the occupier shall notify any change in respect of any information under section 5(1) of the Act within 30 days after such change has taken place, online, on the Shop & Establishment Portal of Labour Department, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi.


*Tanvi Singh, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.

Legislation UpdatesStatutes/Bills/Ordinances

On September 17, 2021, the Rajasthan Assembly passed the Compulsory Registration of Marriages (Amendment) Bill, 2021 in order to amend the Rajasthan Compulsory Registration of Marriages Act, 2009.

Key Amendments:

  • Section 8 relating the duty to submit memorandum has been modified. It has been substituted with the following : 

(1) The parties to the marriage, or in case the  bridegroom has not completed the age of twenty one years and/or bride has not completed the age of eighteen years, the parents or, as the case may be, guardian of the parties shall be responsible to submit the memorandum, in such manner, as may be prescribed, within a period of thirty days from the date of solemnization of the marriage to the Registrar within whose jurisdiction the marriage is solemnized, or the parties to the marriage or either of them are residing for at least thirty days before the date of submission of the memorandum.
(1A) If, at any time, death of either of the parties  to the marriage or of both occurs, the surviving party, parents, adult child or, as the case may be, guardian of the parties may submit the memorandum, in such manner, as may be prescribed, to the Registrar within whose jurisdiction the marriage is solemnized, or the surviving party, parents, adult child or, as the case may be, guardian of the parties is residing for at least thirty days before the date of submission of the memorandum.

  • Section 2 clause (f) of the Rajasthan Compulsory Registration of Marriages Act, 2009  substituted with the following:

(f) “District Marriage Registration Officer, Additional District Marriage Registration Officer and Block Marriage Registration Officer” mean the District Marriage Registration Officer, Additional District Marriage Registration Officer and Block Marriage Registration Officer respectively appointed under section 5;

Legislation UpdatesRules & Regulations

The Ministry of Civil Aviation has passed the Drone Rules, 2021 vide gazette notification dated August 25, 2021. The Unmanned Aircraft System Rules, 2021 stand repealed.


Key highlights of the Rules are:

  • Application: The Rules shall apply to all persons – (a) owning or possessing, or engaged in leasing, operating, transferring or maintaining an unmanned aircraft system in India; (b) all unmanned aircraft systems that are registered in India; and (c) all unmanned aircraft systems that are being operated, in or over India. These rules shall not apply to an unmanned aircraft system belonging to, or used by, the naval, military or air forces of the Union of India. The Rules shall apply to an unmanned aircraft system with all-up-weight of less than 500 kg.
  • Certification: The Director General may issue a type certificate for any particular type of unmanned aircraft system. No security clearance is required before any registration or license issuance for drones. The requisite fees for permissions have also been reduced to nominal levels. Several approvals have been abolished, including the unique authorisation number, the unique prototype identification number, the certificate of conformance, the certificate of maintenance, the operator permits, the authorisation of the R&D organisation, and remote pilot instructor authorisation, among others.
  • Penalties: The Rules prescribe the maximum penalty for violating rules shall be ₹1 lakh.
  • Unmanned Aircraft Systems Promotion Council: An Unmanned Aircraft Systems Promotion Council is to be set up to facilitate a business-friendly regulatory regime.
  • Import: The import of drones will be regulated by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT). Drone corridors will also be developed for cargo deliveries, the new rules dictate.
  • Airspace Map: Interactive airspace map with green, yellow, and red zones will be displayed on the digital sky platform. The yellow zone has been reduced from 45km to 12km from the airport perimeter. No permission is required for operating a drone in the green zone and up to 200 feet in the area between 8km-12km from the airport perimeter.
  • Zone Registration: Online registration of all zones shall occur through the Digital Sky platform, with an easy process prescribed for the transfer and deregistration of drones.
  • Drone School: The new drone policy aims to provide for the regularisation of the existing drones in India. All drone training and examination will be carried out by an authorised drone school. The DGCA shall prescribe training requirements, oversee drone schools, and provide pilot licenses online.
  • Safety and Compliances: Safety features like ‘No permission – no take-off (NPNT)’ real-time tracking beacon, geo-fencing, and the like shall be notified in the future, the policy notes. A minimum six-month lead time will be provided for compliance.

*Tanvi Singh, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.

Legislation UpdatesStatutes/Bills/Ordinances

The Inland Vessels Act, 2021 was assented by the President on August 12, 2021. It replaces the Inland Vessels Act, 1917.  The Act regulates inland vessel navigation by states including the registration of vessels, and safe carriage of goods and passengers. The Act seeks to introduce a uniform regulatory framework for inland vessel navigation across the country promoting economical and safe transportation and trade through inland waters.

Key highlights of the Act are:

  • Mechanically propelled inland vessels: The Act defines such vessels any inland vessel in the inland waters which is propelled by mechanical means of propulsion such as ships, boats, sailing vessels, container vessels, and ferries.
  • Inland water area into zones: The State Government shall declare by notification any inland water area to be a “Zone” depending on the maximum significant wave eight criteria.
  • Registration: For operating in inland waters, all such vessels must have a certificate of survey, and a certificate of registration.  Vessels with Indian ownership must be registered with the Registrar of Inland Vessels (appointed by the state government).  The registration certificate will be valid across the country and will indicate the inland water zones (areas of operation to be demarcated by states) for such vessels.
  • Safety in navigation: Inland vessels shall be required to follow certain specifications for signals and equipment to ensure navigation safety, as specified by the central government.  In case of a navigation hazard, the master of a vessel must immediately send a distress signal to other vessels in proximity and to the concerned state government.
  • Accidents: Accidents in any case must be reported to the head officer of the nearest police station, as well as to a state government appointed authority.  The state may require the District Magistrate to question into these matters and submit a report recommending actions to be taken.
  • Contravention of provisions: The central government will prescribe the minimum number of people that vessels must have, for various roles. Contravention of any provisions will attract a penalty of up to Rs 10,000 for the first offence, and Rs 25,000 for subsequent offences. The central government will prescribe the standards for qualification, training, examination and grant of certificate of competency, which indicate the fitness of the recipients to serve in the specified roles.  State governments will grant these certificates.
  • Prevention of pollution: The central government will release a list of chemicals, any ingredients or substance carried as bunker or as cargo, or any substance in any form discharged from any mechanically propelled inland vessel, as pollutants. Vessels will discharge or dispose sewage, as per the standards specified by the central government. The State governments will grant vessels a certificate of prevention of pollution, in a form as prescribed by the central government.
  • Database on inland vessels: An electronic centralised record of data on inland vessels to be maintained by the central government. These will include information with respect to the(i) registration of vessels, (ii) crew and manning, and (iii) certificates issued.
  • Development fund: A Development Fund to be established under the Act for the following purposes: (i) emergency preparedness, (ii) containment of pollution, and (iii) boosting inland water navigation. Each state will constitute such a development fund. Sources of contribution to the fund include: (i) schemes of state governments, (ii) stakeholders, and (iii)collections from sale of wreck or cargo.
  • Non-mechanically propelled inland vessels: The Act delegates the power to State Government to make rules to regulate non-mechanically propelled inland vessels.


*Tanvi Singh, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: The bench of Ashok Bhushan* and R. Subhash Reddy, JJ has held that consent decree recognising pre-existing rights created by oral family settlement does not require registration under section 17 of  Registration Act, 1908.


In the present case, Shri Sher Singh, husband of Jagno had half share in the agricultural land situate in village Garhi Bajidpur, which was suit property. Sher Singh died in 1953. Jagno after enforcement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 by virtue of Section 14 became the absolute owner of the half share of the suit property.

She had succeeded to half share in the agricultural land and she was the absolute owner when she entered into family settlement with her nephews i.e. sons of her brother.

On 19.08.1991, the trial court passed the consent decree in favour of the plaintiffs declaring the plaintiffs owners in possession of the half share in the land.

The descendants of brother of husband of Jagno filed a Civil Suit praying for declaration that the decree dated 19.08.1991 is illegal, invalid and without legal necessity. They also claimed decree of declaration in their favour declaring them owners in possession of land in question.


The Court took note of the judgment in Som Dev v. Rati Ram, (2006) 10 SCC 788 wherein decree was based on an admission recognising pre-existing rights under family arrangement. It was held that the decree did not require registration under Section 17(1)(b).

In in K. Raghunandan v. Ali Hussain Sabir, (2008) 13 SCC 102, the Court interpreted Section 17 and held,

“… a property which is not the subject-matter of the suit or a proceeding would come within the purview of exception contained in clause (vi) of sub-section (2) of Section 17 of the Act. If a compromise is entered into in respect of an immovable property, comprising other than that which was the subject-matter of the suit or the proceeding, the same would require registration.”

The recent judgment in in Mohammade Yusuf v. Rajkumar, (2020) 10 SCC 264 was also taken note of wherein it was held that if decree which was sought to be exhibited was with regard to the property which was subject matter of suit, hence, was not covered by exclusionary clause of Section 17(2) (vi) and decree did not require registration. (Justice Ashok Bhushan, the author of the present judgment had also penned the said judgment.)

Hence, in the present case, the Court held that in view of the fact that the consent decree dated 19.08.1991 relate to the subject matter of the suit, hence it was not required to be registered under Section 17(2) (vi) and was covered by exclusionary clause.

[Khushi Ram v. Nawal Singh, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 128, decided on 22.02.2021]

*Judgment by: Justice Ashok Bhushan 

Appearances before the Court by:

For appellant – Advocate Ranbir Singh Yadav

For respondent – Senior Advocate Manoj Swarup


Married woman’s heirs on paternal side are not strangers; she can enter in family settlement with such heirs: Supreme Court

Law School NewsLSAT India

To ensure fairness for students who have registered for the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) Class XII examinations in May, the Law School Admission Council (LSAC) announced today that it will reschedule the 2021 LSAT—India, originally scheduled to begin 10 May 2021, to 14 June 2021. By allotting more time between tests, students will be able to adequately prepare for both examinations.

Due to the ongoing pandemic, the LSAT—India will be administered through an online test delivery system utilizing artificial intelligence-assisted remote proctoring to secure the integrity and validity of the test. The LSAT—India will be delivered over several days and time slots in the week starting 14 June 2021 in order to accommodate the large number of anticipated test takers. The deadline for registration has also been extended to 4 June 2021.

For students who wish to take the LSAT—India before the CBSE, LSAT—India will open an administration on 25 March 2021. Registration for that session opens from 3 Feb and close on 17 May 2021.

Aspirants who choose this option can take the test in March – well before the scheduled board exams – and use these scores for their law college application. An aspirant can also re-test in June and have their best score reported for their preferred college for admissions.

Students can register for the LSAT—India 2021 by visiting discoverlaw.in/register-for-the-test.

Students who register prior to 12 February 2021 will be eligible for the special early-bird price of INR 3499 per test for the March or June test administration. Students who register after 12 February 2021 will pay the standard price of INR 3799 for either administration. Students who register after 12 February but wish to sit for both tests, will be able to pay a discounted fee of INR 7300.

After the closure of registration period, candidates will receive scheduling details and instructions on how to take the online test to facilitate a seamless experience. LSAC will provide additional information about the online LSAT—India in the weeks ahead.

The LSAT—India is being used by many top law colleges in India as the entrance exam for securing admission to their law programmes. The LSAT—India allows students to take a single test to apply to many top law schools, making it a great choice for students who want to maximize their opportunities and save time, stress, and money.  The list of colleges accepting LSAT—India as one of their key admission criteria can be accessed HERE

Applicants can prepare for the exam using the material that is free to download from the Discover Law website (discoverlaw.in/prepare-for-the-test).

For more detailed information, please visit www.discoverlaw.in 

About LSAT—India

LSAT—India is a standardised test adopted as an admission criterion by multiple law colleges across India. It measures skills that are considered essential for success in law school. LSAT—India is specially created for admission to law schools in India by the Law School Admission Council, USA (LSAC). The LSAC has been helping law schools in various countries evaluate the critical thinking skills of their applicants for more than 70 years.