Legal News Shots- The Best Shots of the Day
Legal News Shots- The Best Shots of the Day

Royal Enfield sued by Flash Electronics over patent issues in US court

Flash Electronics India Ltd, a New Delhi Based automobile component manufacturer, has filed a law suit against country’s largest premium motorcycle manufacturer, Royal Enfield, in the US regarding a patent infringement of a component known as regulator-rectifier. Flash will subsequently file similar law suits against the motorcycle manufacturer in the Europe and Asia-Pacific, including India. Royal Enfield approached the company for some samples of regulator-rectifier in September 2014, following which Enfield asked another company to manufacture the product. After the development came to light, three senior executives of Royal Enfield flew down to Delhi to meet the senior management of Flash and accepted the mistake but sought time to settle the issue but the actual reason for requesting for the time was launching the products in various markets. In the last couple of years, the management of Royal Enfield has been actively looking to promote the brand in developed and other emerging markets across the world and this kind of a development will become a setback for the company.

 

Saradha chit fund case: Rajeev Kumar seeks an extension of 7-day protection, Moves SC

The Supreme Court had last week vacated the interim protection from arrest to Rajeev Kumar in the Saradha chit fund scam case but granted him seven days time to approach a competent court to seek legal remedies. Former Kolkata Police Commissioner Rajeev Kumar approached the Supreme Court on Monday seeking an extension of the seven-day period that the apex court had granted him to approach a competent court after his protection from arrest was vacated. Kumar has cited strike of lawyers in West Bengal as the reason behind seeking an extension of the time period.

 

Unhappy with civil courts functioning in summer vacation affecting their personal engagements, lawyers move Gujarat High Court

Unhappy with the decision of the civil courts in Vadodara to conduct matters during the summer vacation declared by the Gujarat High Court administration from May 13 to June 9, three lawyers moved the high court challenging the decision of the lower court. The lawyers contended before the court that post the summer vacation notification issued by the high court administration, they had accordingly arranged their personal programmes including naturopathy treatment. It was submitted by them that despite their repeated requests, the judges at Vadodara kept their civil matters for hearing during the vacation period, causing inconvenience to them. The advocates also submitted that they had already made a representation before the high court administration on April 29 against the fixing of their matters during vacation. Notably, after the representation was made, the registrar general of the high court replied to the same and clarified that the lawyers can seek an adjournment from the concerned court due to their non-availability on account of personal engagement during summer vacation.

 

Priya Ramani Case: Qs on MJ Akbar allowed by the Judge on All Allegations

Former Union Minister MJ Akbar on Monday, 20 May, denied even meeting journalist Priya Ramani at the Oberoi Hotel for a job interview in 1993 during his cross-examination in a defamation case against Ramani at a Delhi Court. However, in a significant development, the judge overruled objections by Akbar’s lawyers to allow questions to be put to him about the allegations of sexual harassment raised by other women against him. This will be important in establishing whether or not Ramani actually defamed his reputation, and could impact his credibility as a witness. The defamation case against Ramani relates to an article in Vogue in 2017 in which she alleged that a famous mediaperson (unnamed in the article at the time) had behaved inappropriately at her job interview conducted at the hotel, as well as the tweet in October 2018 which clarified that she was referring to Akbar.

 

High Court issues notice to Centre and Delhi govt on ‘blocked credits’ under GST

The Delhi High Court on Monday issued a notice to the Centre and the Delhi government on the issue of ‘blocked credits’ under the Goods & Services Tax (GST) regime. Such a mechanism is affecting hotels and malls. The GST Act has a provision, under Section 16, for input tax credit (ITC), which helps businesses deduct the tax paid on inputs at the time of paying tax on output, thus lowering the tax paid in cash. However, this Section is subject to certain restrictions as laid down under Section 17 of the Act. These restrictions are also referred to as ‘blocked credits’. The related Section says: “Where the goods or services or both are used by the registered person partly for the purpose of any business and partly for other purposes, the amount of credit shall be restricted to so much of the input tax as is attributable to the purposes of his business.” The petition was moved by a firm building a five-star hotel in the Capital. It has been procuring multiple goods and services, including works contract services, for use in the construction of the property.

 

Maintenance to estranged wife is for survival, not a bounty- Says Bombay High Court

Maintenance awarded to an estranged wife is for her survival and should not be seen as a “bounty”, and it has to be given from the date of her application, the Delhi High Court has held. The court order came while dismissing a man’s plea challenging a trial court’s May 2017 order directing him to pay an interim maintenance of Rs 40,000 to his estranged wife from the date of filing of the application—March 2014. The plea said the payment should not have been related to the date of the application but to the date of the order by the trial court. The high court noted in its recent order that the man has not challenged the quantum of maintenance assessed by the trial court. “The object of grant of maintenance is to afford a subsistence allowance to the wife who is not able to maintain herself…the award normally should be from the date of the application. For the court to award maintenance from the date of the order there have to be compelling circumstances.

 

 

 

 

 

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here