SC Cancels RERA Registration Of Amrapali; Asks NBCC To Take Over Noida

Projects:

 The bench of Justices Arun Mishra and U U Lalit found that Amrapali group had
siphoned off homebuyers money with the connivance of Greater Noida and Noida
authorities.

 The Court has directed the Enforcement Directorate to initiate action under
Prevention of Money Laundering Act and Foreign Exchange Management Act
against Amrapali directors and authorities, and update the Court with progress of
probe with periodic reports.

 The Court has protected the interests of homebuyers by saying that banks and
financial institutions have to recover their dues from Amrapali assets other than
project properties.

 The Greater Noida Authority told the apex court Amrapali Group had five projects
under its jurisdiction. Of this, four were vacant land and without any construction.
Of the Rs 3,400 crore outstanding dues, the authority had received only Rs 363
crore from Amrapali Group.

 The Court had reserved verdict on May 10 after Noida and Greater Noida
authorities submitted that they lacked the expertise and resources to complete the
projects. They had requested the court to hand over the project to a reputed
builder under the supervision of a high-powered committee constituted by the
Court.

 Sharma, Priya and Kumar have been in the custody of Uttar Pradesh Police since
last October and have been housed in a Noida hotel on an Apex Court directive.
They have been accused of not cooperating with forensic auditors examining
financial transactions by the company and its directors. The court had therefore
 directed them to be kept under police surveillance in a hotel till investigation
against the company was completed.

Orissa HC order restraining State from reviewing Telemedicine policy set aside by
Supreme Court:

 The Supreme Court recently set aside an order of the Orissa High Court
restraining the State from reviewing its policy on telemedicine. The Supreme
Court ruled that it amounted to an interference in an exercise which was purely in
the executive domain.

 In this regard, the Supreme Court held that there was no valid justification for the
High Court to restrain the State in a matter which was purely in the executive
domain. The Supreme Court also said that the High Court was not justified in
entrusting the exercise of verification to a former Judge of that Court.

 During the course of the hearing, the High Court had called upon the State to file
an affidavit detailing the steps taken by the government as regards the selection of
entrepreneurs. The State had filed its reply providing details regarding the
selection of entrepreneurs, the status of loans sanctioned and disbursed, among
other things. The State had also placed on record its grievance regarding
inadequate data on the actual benefits provided by the opening of telemedicine
nodes by the Respondent organisation.

 A decision was taken by the State not to permit further expansion of the project
before the policy was revisited with a holistic perspective. However, the State had
submitted before the High Court that the process for selecting entrepreneurs must
be allowed to go on in a transparent manner after a request for proposal is made.

 The Supreme Court also requested the High Court to adjudicate the petition
before it expeditiously and make an endeavour to conclude the same within three
 months. It further requested the Chief Justice of the High Court to place the
matter before presided over by him.

Delay To File Suit For Specific Performance Not A Ground To Deny Relief If It Was
Filed Within Limitation Period: SC

 The Supreme Court has observed that the delay in filing suit for specific
performance cannot be a ground to deny relief to the plaintiff, as long as it is filed
within the period of limitation.

 Disapproving this approach, the bench comprising of Justice Rohinton Fali

Nariman and Justice Surya Kant observed that the High Court was incorrect in
putting a short delay in filing the Suit against the plaintiff to state that he was not
ready and willing.

 The bench referred to an old Supreme Court judgment in Mademsetty

Satyanarayana v. G. Yelloji Rao which had explained the fundamental difference
between the two systems-English and Indian-qua the relief of specific
performance.

Should Deloitte and BSR be punished? NCLT reserves its order:

 After hearing Deloitte Haskins and BSR & Associates - auditors of IL&FS,
the Mumbai bench of National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) reserved its order
yesterday.

 NCLT also directed Deloitte Haskins and BSR & Associates to file written
submissions of their arguments within two days. Deloitte Haskins and BSR &
Associates were opposing the application of Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA)
to ban them for five years.
  A division bench of VP Singh and Ravikumar Duraiswamy of NCLT, Mumbai
heard the matter on Friday and final arguments were made yesterday.

 The MCA, under Section 140 (5) of Companies Act, 2013, had moved an
application seeking the removal of the auditors and banning them for five years
for allegedly conniving with the management of IL&FS Financial Services
(IFIN). The MCA had also sought an appointment of statutory auditor on June 10.
Section 140(5) empowers NCLT to direct a company to remove or change an
auditor acting in a fraudulent manner.

 Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) probe had revealed that the auditors
colluded with IFIN executives and concealed information about the wrongdoings
of the management despite having full knowledge of the affairs at IL & FS.
Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) argued that NCLT has a discretionary power
to remove and ban Auditors as prime intent and emphasis of section 140 (5) of
Companies Act, 2013 is to debar them.

Equip all PCR vans with Mobile Phone or iPad: HC directs Delhi Police

 The Delhi High Court has directed the Commissioner, Delhi Police to equip all
PCR vans in the national capital with either a mobile phone or an iPad so that they
can record the contemporaneous scene of a crime and tender the same in Court as
legal evidence.

 For this purpose, the Court has further stated that appropriate training should also
be imparted to police personnel.

 A Division Bench of Justices Manmohan and Sangita Dhingra Sehgal passed the
judgment in a batch of appeals by two convicts, Dhanesh and Vikrant against their
conviction under Sections 302/34 IPC.
  The case of the prosecution was that the deceased, who was nine months
pregnant, was found to have been stabbed multiple times with a knife.

 According to the police, Vikrant informed them that the deceased was
continuously nagging/taunting him for being unemployed.

 Subsequently, the family members of the deceased victim made allegations of

dowry demands and torture against Dhanesh and Vikrant as well as the father- in-
law, Ajit Singh. Accordingly, charges were framed against the three.

 The trial court convicted Vikrant and Dhanesh only under Sections 302/34 IPC
and additionally Vikrant under Section 316 IPC read with Section 27 of Arms Act.

 Counsel for Dhanesh and Vikrant, Advocate Pramod Kumar Dubey submitted that
the former’s conviction under Section 302 IPC was contrary to the principles of
criminal jurisprudence as no substantive charge under the provision had ever been
framed against her.

 It was also argued that the presence of both the convicts at the scene of the crime
had not been established, as the “star witness” Amrish Kumar had turned hostile.
The appellants argued that there was non-compliance with Section 157 of CrPC
and that the recovery of bloodstained jeans allegedly belonging to Vikrant was
doubtful as there was contradictory evidence with regard to the place of its
recovery.

Absence of Joint Parentage violates Fundamental Rights; Plea in SC challenges

Laws on Custody, Guardianship of children:

 A petition has been filed in the Supreme Court contending that absence of shared
parentage under Indian laws and entrusting the custody of child exclusively to one
parent in case of separation of spouses affects the fundamental rights of parents
 and child. On this ground, the petitioner has challenged the Constitutional validity
of various laws on custody and guardianship in India.

 Specifically, the petitioner has assailed Sections 6 (a) and 7 of the Hindu
Minorities and Guardianship Act, 1956, Section 25 of the Wards and Guardians
Act and Shariat Act, 1937 to the extent of their unconstitutionality.

 Sulochana Rani, an Indian presently employed in London, has filed the petition.

 The petitioner has submitted that the legal provisions, which currently exist as per
various personal laws, are in the nature of entrusting the custody of children
exclusively to one of the parents in case of separation. The statutes create a strong
presumption in favour of exclusive custody. This presumption severely affects the
fundamental rights of the spouse who has been denied the custody rights and the
fundamental rights of the child who will be deprived of care and love of both
parents.

 The petitioner has contended that Family Courts currently grant custody and
guardianship of the child to one parent and visitorial rights to the other.

 Since the provisions expressly provide custody for either of the parents, it raises
the presumption in favour of exclusive custody for a single parent, preferring one
over the other. Consequently, the children will eventually end up in deprivation of
physical proximity, care, love, affection and time of both the parents. This, it has
been claimed, adversely affects the overall development of the personality of the
children.

 Therefore, the petitioner argues that gender-based fixation of right to custody and
guardianship is discriminatory and it has to be held as unconstitutional as it
violates Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Karnataka Crisis: Petition by MLAs for Floor Test adjourned to tomorrow:

 The petition filed in the Supreme Court by two Karnataka MLAs seeking
directions to hold a trust vote has been adjourned for tomorrow. A Bench headed
by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi recorded the submissions made by the
Speaker that the Assembly session is in progress, and that he was optimistic that
the trust vote could happen in the next two days. Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi
persisted with the demand for a direction to hold a floor test by 6 pm today.
However, Court decided to adjourn the matter for tomorrow.

 The petition has been filed by R Shankar and H Nagesh. Shankar belongs to the
KPJP
 Political party and represents the Ranebennuru constituency, while Nagesh is an
independent MLA representing Mulabagilu constituency.

 Shankar and Nagesh, who were supporting the ruling coalition government in
Karnataka, have stated that they have withdrawn their support to the government.
They have contended that the trust vote is not being conducted despite the
government being in minority and that a government which does not have the
confidence of the majority is being allowed to continue in office. The petitioners
submit that despite the Governor’s directions to hold a floor test, the same was not
complied with. It is also alleged that taking advantage of the logjam, the minority
government has taken several executive decisions like transferring police officers,
IAS officers etc. The petition also alleges that Karnataka Chief Minister HD
Kumaraswamy may rake up an emergent situation and use medical emergencies
to delay the trust vote.

 Last week, the Supreme Court directed the Speaker of the Karnataka Legislative
Assembly to decide on the resignations of the rebel Congress and JD(S) MLAs
within an appropriate time frame. However, the Court refrained from laying down
 any particular time frame. It also ordered that the 15 MLAs cannot be compelled
to participate in the proceedings of the House.

Bombay HC quashes criminal defamation proceedings against Ratan Tata, N

Chandrasekaran and others:

 The Bombay High Court has quashed proceedings initiated against Tata Sons
former
 Chairman Ratan Tata, current Chairman N Chandrasekaran, and eight directors in
a criminal defamation case filed by Nusli Wadia. A Division Bench of Justices
Ranjit More and Bharati Dangre passed a ruling to this effect on Monday.

 At the outset, the High Court ruled that a company is well within its rights to
remove a Director as per Section 169 of the Companies Act, if it is found that he
was acting against the interests of the company.

 As regards the truthfulness of the content of the Special Notice, the Court held. It
is not necessary for us to assess or judge the truthfulness of the
imputation/allegation since ultimately the allegations levelled against the
respondent No.2 has caused his removal by the Board of Directors of the
respective companies. The imputation contained in the Special Notice cannot be
viewed independent of the purpose for which it is included in the Special Notice
and if the petitioners have adopted a legal course permissible to be adopted under
the frame work of the statute governing it, we do not think the allegations can be
termed as “per se defamatory”.

 The Court found merit in Singhvi’s submission that there was non-application of
mind on the part of the Magistrate in issuing notice. As noted in the judgment,
“The Magistrate before issuing the process, has failed to take into consideration
the conspectus of the matter and though it is the duty cast upon him to be satisfied
 before issuance of a process, he had concluded without any material being placed
before him that the statement is defamatory.”
 The High Court also noted that it is not conclusively established whether it was
Ratan Tata and the others who leaked the information to the media. “It could not
be said that it was circulated widely over a section of general public. Publication
of news about a resolution passed by well-acclaimed business house happened to
be business news for media and Ratan Tata and Nusli Wadia being well- known
business personalities, the story of removal of Wadia happened to be a hot topic
for media.

 The Court went on to observe that there was no prima facie defamation involved
and that it could not find any actual harm caused to Wadia’s reputation. It noted
that the element of mens rea was absent and that the publication of the content
was only limited to the Board of Directors and the shareholders. In this backdrop,
the Court opined that since summoning of an accused such as Ratan Tata and
others is a serious matter affecting his dignity and reputation in society, there has
to be application of mind before initiating the process.

 It, therefore, allowed Tata’s plea, ruling that, “We conclude that the order passed
by the magistrate is without application of mind and cannot be sustained and
resultantly, we quash and set aside the impugned order.” Senior Advocates Mohan
Parasaran and Amit Desai also appeared for Ratan Tata, N Chandrasekaran and
other petitioners. They were briefed by a Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas team led
by Nitesh Jain along with Atul Jain, Adrish Majumdar, Zulfiquar Memon, Parvez
Memon, Waseem Pangarkar, Chirag Naik, Sidharth Sharma, L Nidhiram Sharma,
Azeem Samuel, and Ashwin Kumar.

Delhi High Court Bar Association bars Advocate Seema Sapra from entering Delhi
HC’s cafeteria, bar rooms etc.:
 The Delhi High Court Bar Association has barred Advocate Seema Sapra from
entering/using Delhi High Court’s cafeteria, bar rooms, library, car parking,
consultation room, the Executive Centre and any other facility provided by the
Association to its members. A Resolution to this effect was passed by the
Executive Committee of the DHCBA in an emergent meeting held on July 19.
During the meeting, it was observed that Sapra was a constant source of
annoyance and nuisance in the Delhi High Court for quite some time. It was noted
that Sapra had been exhibiting strange behaviour and her conduct was
unbecoming of an Advocate. She was also found distributing pamphlets, sending
emails leveling unfounded allegations against numerous respected members and
Judges of the High Court and the Supreme Court.

 It was also stated that Sapra had been threatening the staff in the cafeteria as well
as the cleaners in the chamber block and court complex. Several complaints
against her misbehavior were also taken into consideration by the Executive
Committee. Since Sapra was not a member of the DHCBA, it was felt that she
was not entitled to use any facilities provided by it. After extensive deliberations
and discussions, the Executive Committee was of the unanimous opinion that
immediate remedial measures ought to be taken to prevent Seema Sapra from
vitiating the atmosphere of the Delhi High Court and impeding the fundamental
rights of the respected members to practice their profession with dignity.

 The Executive Committee thus barred Seema Sapra from entering/using Delhi
High Court’s cafeteria, bar rooms, library, car parking, consultation room,
Executive Centre and any other facility provided by DHCBA to it members. The
Committee has also urged the Chief Justice of the High Court, Justice DN Patel to
take note of her misconduct and pass appropriate orders to prevent the creation of
any further nuisance by Sapra.