Anevagi.com

NEWSLETTER
___________________________________ANA/NL/ December 2013 ___________________________________ Rules framed by the State cannot supersede Central Law
The Hon’ble National Green Tribunal in the matter of application filed by the M.P. State Mining Corporation Ltd., Government of Madhya Pradesh inter alia held that the environmental clearance under the Central law can only be granted by the Ministry of Environment and Forests or State Environment Impact Assessment Authority, depending upon the category of the project that comes up for consideration of these authorities. The State is vested with no power to change the system with regard to the grant of environmental Clearance under the law. The consideration and grant of environmental Clearance is statutorily regulated by the Notification of 2006. The State Government would not be competent to alter or completely give a go-by to the said statutory procedure and methodology and assume to itself any authority appointed by it to grant environmental clearance. The environmental clearance has to be granted by the authority specified under the Central law. [Case No.- Miscellaneous Application No. 708 of 2013, Order Date 28/11/2013] _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ SC lays down guidelines to determine live-in relationships under Domestic Violence Act
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Indra Sarma Vs. V.K.V. Sarma laid down guidelines for testing, under what circumstances, a live-in relationship wil fall within the expression, "relationship in the nature of marriage" Under Section 2(f) of the Domestic Violence Act. The said “(1) Duration of period of relationship; (2) Shared household; (3) Pooling of Resources and Financial Arrangements; (4) Domestic Arrangements; (5) Sexual Relationship; (6) Children; (7) Socialization in Public; (8) Intention and conduct of the parties…” [Case No. - Criminal Appeal No. 2009 of 2013 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 4895 of 2012, Order Date – 26/11/2013] _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Dispute on domain Name
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center in the case of Reliance Telecom Limited vs. Domains ByProxy.com and Sukhraj Randhawa decided on the complaint made by Complainant against Respondent on use of domain name cal ed WIPO after considering provisions of Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy and facts of the case. The Panel denied the Compliant and inter alia held that there is insufficient evidence for the Panel to reach a conclusion that the Complainant had such a reputation in its then unregistered RELIANCE Mark in 1997 that the registration of the Domain Name was for the purpose of cybersquatting. Furthermore, given the fact that the Domain Name consists of two ordinary English words, it is not implausible that there was another purpose in the registration of the Domain Name. There is no evidence that the Respondent is a domain name trader or has ever registered any other domain names for il egitimate commercial purposes. [Case No. - [Case No. D2013-1470, Order Date – 08-10-2013] _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Order of amalgamation doesn't transfer tenancy rights – unless served to the landlord
The Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case of Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. vs Rajeev Daga while deciding on the question whether the original tenant being a body corporate, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 could stil be considered as "tenant" despite having merged with the transferee company by virtue of an Order of Amalgamation, inter alia held that: Interpretation of a document would depend upon the purpose for which it was executed and how the parties understood the same and acted upon it. When a tenant would claim protection under the tenancy law prevalent at the relevant period, it would have the restrictions imposed in the said law including Section 14 of the West Bengal Tenancy Act, 1956 that would make a tenancy vulnerable in case of transfer of tenancy without the knowledge and consent of the landlord. A body corporate being a tenant would not be entitled to claim immunity in case of amalgamation without the knowledge and consent of the landlord. Mere payment of rent by itself would not create any tenancy in favour of the payee. [Case No.- A.P.D. NO. 271 OF 2013, Order Date 05-12-2013] _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Other Headlines:
 To mitigate the hardship of smal investors and to expedite disposal of cases pending before the Company Law Board the first ever “Lok Adalat” was successful y held at the Company Law Board, Mumbai Bench at Mumbai on 07-12-2013. The next Lok Adalat at Mumbai is proposed to  In continuation of the efforts to further simplify and rationalize the Demat account opening process. SEBI vide its circular no. CIR/MIRSD/12/2013 dated December 04, 2013 has informed that the existing BO-DP Agreements shal be replaced with a common document “Rights and Obligations of the Beneficial Owner and Depository Participant. Now, no stamp duty is required  CBDT has informed that tax dedicators who deduct TDS but do not deposit the same into the Government Account within the stipulated time period are liable for prosecution under Section 276B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The defaulters if found guilty, are liable to be sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a term which can extend upto seven years. The offence u/s 276B of the Income Tax Act can be compounded by Chief Commissioner having jurisdiction on the case, either before or after the launching of prosecution proceedings. As per revised guidelines the criterion of minimum retention period of 12 months has been dispensed with (Press release _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Prepared By:
The Team of Lawyers at Abhay Nevagi & Associates
Disclaimer:
This newsletter provides general information and guidance as on date of preparation and does not express views or expert opinions of Abhay Nevagi & Associates. Contents of this Newsletter should neither be regarded as comprehensive nor sufficient for making any decisions. No one should act on the basis of information provided in this newsletter without obtaining proper expert professional advice. Abhay Nevagi & Associates disclaim any responsibility and hereby accept no liability for consequences of any person acting or omitting or refraining to act on the basis of any information

Source: http://anevagi.com/PDF/december_2013.pdf