Legislation UpdatesRules & Regulations

G.S.R. 571(E).—In exercise of the powers conferred under sub-sections (1), (2), (3), (4), (8), (9), (10) and (11) of Section 125 and sub-section (6) of Section 124 read with Section 469 of the Companies Act, 2013 (18 of 2013), the Central Government hereby makes the following rules, further to amend the Investor Education and Protection Fund Authority (Accounting, Audit, Transfer and Refund) Rules, 2016, namely –

1. (1) These rules may be called the Investor Education and Protection FundAuthority (Accounting, Audit, Transfer and Refund)Second Amendment Rules, 2019.

(2) The provisions of these rules, Other than rule 6 (i), 6 (iv), 6 (v), 6(vi), 6(vii) and 6 (viii), shall come into force with effect from the 20th day of August, 2019.

(3) The provisions of rule 6 (i), 6 (iv), 6 (v), 6(vi), 6(vii) and 6 (viii), shall come into force with effect from the 20th day of September, 2019.

* Please follow the link to read the detailed amendments notified by the Government: NOTIFICATION


Ministry of Corporate Affairs

[Notification dt. 14-08-2019]

Legislation UpdatesRules & Regulations

G.S.R. 360(E)—In exercise of the powers conferred by Sections 6, 8 and 25 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (29 of 1986) read with sub-rule (4) of Rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986, the Central Government, after having dispensed with the requirement of notice under clause (a) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 of the said rule in public interest, hereby makes the following rules further to amend the Bio-Medical Waste Management Rules, 2016, namely:—

1. (1) These rules may be called the Bio-Medical Waste Management (Second Amendment) Rules, 2019.

    (2) They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette.

2. In the Bio-Medical Waste Management Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the said rules), in Rule 4, in clause (d), the following Explanation shall be inserted, namely:-

“Explanation.- For removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the expression “Chlorinated plastic bags” shall not include urine bags, effluent bags, abdominal bags and chest drainage bags.”.

3. In Schedule III to the said rules, against serial number 3, in column (3), in item (viii), for the brackets and letters
“(viii)”, the brackets and letters “(vii)” shall be substituted.


[Notification dt. 10-05-2019]

Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change

Legislation UpdatesNotifications

EFIs may participate in commodity derivatives contracts traded in stock exchanges in IFSC subject to the following conditions:-
  •  The participation would be limited to the derivatives contracts in non-agricultural commodities only,
  •  Contracts would be cash settled on the settlement price determined on overseas exchanges, and
  •  All the transactions shall be denominated in foreign currency only.
The Exchanges are advised to:
i. take steps to make necessary amendments to the relevant bye-laws, rules and regulations for the implementation of the same.
ii. bring the provisions of this circular to the notice of the members of the exchange and also to disseminate the same on their website.
This circular is issued in exercise of powers conferred under Section 11 (1) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992, to protect the interests of investors in securities and to promote the development of, and to regulate the securities market.
SEBI/HO/MRD/DRMNP/CIR/P/2019/39
[Circular Dt. 18-03-2019]
Securities Exchange Board of India
Legislation UpdatesRules & Regulations

G.S.R. 210(E)— In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (da) and clause (f) of sub-section (2) of Section 29 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992, (15 of 1992), the Central Government hereby makes the following rules further to amend the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Procedure for Holding Inquiry and Imposing Penalties by Adjudicating Officer) Rules, 1995, namely:-

1. Short title and commencement— (1) These rules may be called the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Procedure for Holding Inquiry and Imposing Penalties by Adjudicating Officer) Amendment Rules, 2019.

                   (2) They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette.

2. In the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Procedure for Holding Inquiry and Imposing Penalties by Adjudicating Officer) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as “the said rules”), in the opening para, for the words, brackets, figures and letter “clause (da) of sub-section (2) of Section 29”, the words, brackets, figures and letter “clause (da) and clause (f) of sub-section (2) of Section 29” shall be substituted.

3. In the said Rules, in Rule 1, in sub-rule (1), the words “by Adjudicating Officer” shall be omitted.

4. In the said rules, in Rule 2, in clause (c), for the word, figures and letter “Section 15-I”, the words, brackets, figures and letters “sub-section (4A) of Section 11 or sub-section (2) of Section 11B or Section 15-I of the Act” shall be substituted.

5. In the said Rules, in Rule 4, –

(i) in sub-rule (1), after figures and letter “15E,” at both the places where it occurs, the figures and letters “15EA, 15EB,” shall be inserted;

(ii) for the words “adjudicating officer”, wherever they occur, the words “the Board or the adjudicating officer” shall be substituted.

6. In the said Rules, in Rule 5, –

(i) for the words “adjudicating officer”, wherever they occur, the words “the Board or the adjudicating officer” shall be substituted;

(ii) for the word and figures “Section 15-I”, wherever they occur, the words, brackets, figures and letters, “sub-section (4A) of Section 11 or sub-section (2) of Section 11B or Section 15-I of the Act” shall be substituted.

(iii) after sub-rule (4), the following sub-rule shall be inserted, namely:-

“(5) The Board or the adjudicating officer who has passed an order, may rectify any error apparent on the face of record on such order, either on its own motion or where such error is brought to his notice by the affected person within a period of fifteen days from the date of such order.”

Explanation: For the purpose of this rule, “error apparent on the face of record” shall mean any typographical errors that creep in inadvertently into the order and includes such other errors that do not require a long drawn out reasoning process to ascertain such a mistake.”

7. In the said rules, in Rule 6, for the words “adjudicating officer”, the words “the Board or the adjudicating officer” shall be substituted.

[F. No. 5/05/FM/2017]

Ministry of Finance

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Gauhati High Court: The Bench of Manojit Bhuyan, J. disposed of a writ petition filed for leave encashment benefit with direction to the respondent authority to make an assessment of the number of days standing at the credit of the petitioner towards leave encashment benefits.

Petitioner prayed for a direction to the respondent authority to make a cash payment in lieu of unutilized earned leave standing at his credit until the date of his retirement on superannuation. It was stated that as per rules of the Gauhati University, he was entitled to leave encashment of the unutilized earned leave for 300 days.

The Court held that leave encashment benefit could be extended only for the maximum permissible 300 days. What would be the cash benefit for the number of days of unutilized earned leave must require an evaluation/calculation by the authorities concerned. It cannot be automatically for 300 days altogether. [Bishnu Chakraborty v. Gauhati University, 2019 SCC OnLine Gau 868, Order dated 18-02-2019]

Legislation UpdatesRules & Regulations

G.S.R. 108(E)— In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1), read with clauses (i), (j), (jj), (jjj) and (k) of sub-section (2) of Section 73 of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 (15 of 2003), the Central Government hereby makes the following rules further to amend the Prevention of Money- laundering (Maintenance of Records) Rules, 2005, namely:—

1. (1) These rules may be called the Prevention of Money-laundering (Maintenance of Records) Amendment Rules, 2019.

(2) They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette.

2. In the Prevention of Money-laundering (Maintenance of Records) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the said rules), in rule 2, in sub-rule (1),-

  1. (i)  for clause (aaa), the following clause shall be substituted, namely:-‘(aaa) “Aadhaar number” shall have the meaning assigned to it in clause (a) of Section 2 of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 (18 of 2016);’
  2. (ii)  clauses (aac) and (aad) shall be omitted;
  3. (iii)  in clause (d),

    1. (a)  after the words “driving licence,”, the words “proof of possession of Aadhaar number” shall be inserted;
    2. (b)  after the third proviso, the following proviso shall be inserted, namely:-“Provided also that where the client submits his proof of possession of Aadhaar number as an officially valid document, he may submit it in such form as are issued by the Unique Identification Authority of India;”Please refer the link for detailed notification: NOTIFICATION

Ministry of Finance

[F. No. P.12011/24/2017-ES Cell-DoR]

Legislation UpdatesRules & Regulations

G.S.R. 85(E)—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 156 of the Indo-Tibetan Border Police Force Act, 1992 (35 of 1992), and in supersession of the Indo-Tibetan Border Police Force, Armourer Cadre (Group ‘B’ & ‘C’ posts), Recruitment Rules, 2010, except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such supersession, the Central Government hereby makes the following rules regulating the method of recruitment to Group ‘B’ and ‘C’ posts in Armourer Cadre in Indo-Tibetan Border Police Force, namely:—

1. Short title and commencement—(1) These rules may be called the Indo-Tibetan Border Police Force, Armourer Cadre (Group ‘B’ and ‘C’ posts), Recruitment Rules, 2019.

     (2) They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette.

2. Application—These rules shall apply to the posts specified in column (1) of the Schedule annexed to these rules.

3. Number of post, classification and level in the pay matrix—The number of said post, their classification and level in the pay matrix attached thereto shall be as specified in columns (2) to (4) of the said Schedule.

4. Method of recruitment, age-limit and other qualifications, etc.—The method of recruitment, age limit, qualifications and other matters relating thereto, shall be as specified in columns (5) to (13) of the aforesaid Schedule.

5. Disqualification— No person, —

     (a) who has entered into or contracted a marriage with a person having a spouse living; or

      (b) who, having a spouse living, has entered into or contracted a marriage with any person, shall be eligible for        appointment to the said post :

Provided that the Central Government may, if satisfied that such marriage is permissible under the personal law applicable to such person and the other party to the marriage and that there are other grounds for so doing, exempt any person from the operation of this rule.

6. Medical Fitness—Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, only those persons who are in medical category SHAPE-I, shall be eligible for appointment under the provisions of these rules.

Please follow the link for detailed notification: Notification

Ministry of Home Affairs

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Rajasthan High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Veerender Singh Siradhana, J. dismissed a civil writ petition filed by the petitioner against his transfer from Rajasthan State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Jaipur to District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Jaisalmer.

The petitioner was employed as a class IV employee in the Commission at Jaipur for last 24 years. By the impugned order, as many as six employees including the petitioner were transferred. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal who directed the Commission to consider the representation of the petitioner. However, the Commission declined his representation. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court.

The High Court, while perusing the record, noted that the only grievance put forth by the appellant was that he had a son and four daughters, who were of marriageable age, and therefore, he ought to have been retained at Jaipur. Placing reliance on the Supreme Court decision in Gobardhan Lal v. State of U.P., (2004) 11 SCC 402, which dealt with the scope and extent of judicial review in matters of transfer of an employee, the High Court observed, by a catena of judgments it is now well settled that transfer is an incident of service. Unless transfer is effected in violation of any mandatory statutory rule or having adverse consequences on conditions of service, the same is not to be interfered with by the Courts as an Appellate Authority. In light of the discussion as mentioned herein, the Court declined to interfere with the impugned transfer order as passed by the Competent Authority. The petition was thereby dismissed. [Vinod Kumar Bairwa v.  Rajasthan State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, 2018 SCC OnLine Raj 1358, dated 29-5-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court: A Division Bench comprising of V.K. Tahilramani, Acting CJ, and M.S. Sonak, J. dismissed a writ petition filed challenging the order of Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT) whereby the claim of the petitioner to be appointed as a peon in the office of Deputy Conservator of Forests was dismissed.

The petitioner had applied for the said post in pursuance of the advertisement issued by the respondents. The post was for the reserved category and the petitioner belonged to the Other Backward Classes. He obtained 90 marks in the written test equal to the marks secured by Respondent 4, who was finally appointed to the said post on the basis of higher qualifications. The petitioner challenged the appointment before the MAT, which was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner was before the High Court.

The High Court perused Rule 4(3) of Maharashtra Civil Services (Regulation of Seniority) Rules 1982, on which reliance was placed by the petitioner. The said Rule provides that if two persons were appointed on the same date, the person with the earlier date of birth would be placed at a higher position in the seniority list. On the same analogy it was contended that in case of candidates securing equal marks, the candidate with the earlier date of birth should be appointed. The Court held the contention of the petitioner to be misconceived as much as the said Rule pertains to the matter of seniority in service and could not be applied in the matter of appointment. Holding thus, the Court found no fault in the order impugned. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed. [Yogehsh H. Mhaskar v.  State of Maharashtra, 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 1157, dated 03-05-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Calcutta High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Shampa Sarkar, J. dismissed a writ petition filed by a student of BA English (Honors), holding that it could not pass orders in violation of policies of educational bodies.

The petitioner was a student of BA English (Honors) Part I in the University of Calcutta. She appeared in Part I examination in which she failed. She applied for re-evaluation but the marks remained unchanged. Thereafter, she applied for production of her answer script to the Authority concerned; however, the same was not supplied to her. The petitioner sought an order from the High Court to be allowed to appear in Part II examination as a special case.

The High Court perused the record and found that the result of Part I exam was published in 2017. A copy of petitioner’s answer script was sought to be produced in January 2018. Thereafter, till May 2018, the petitioner did not take any step regarding inaction of the respondent. The High Court categorically observed that it cannot permit any candidate to sit in any examination if they are ineligible under the rules. Further, ‘the writ court sitting in judicial review, cannot pass any order in violation of the rules and policies of the educational bodies’. The examination rules stated that any candidate who had failed in Part I examination, will have to repeat the same exam. The petitioner did not have any vested right to appear in Part II examination. Moreover, the petitioner was sleeping over her right since January 2018. In such circumstances, the petition was dismissed. [Sangita Ganguly v. University of Calcutta, 2018 SCC OnLine Cal 2953, dated 23-5-2018]