Category Archives: Blog Category 1

ONE BAR-ONE VOTE Principle towards Associations

High Court of Delhi recently directed to implement the ONE BAR-ONE VOTE principle towards associations i.e. Delhi High Court Bar Association, the Delhi Bar Association, the New Delhi Bar Association, the Rohini, Shahdara, Saket and Dwarka Courts Bar Association and all other Courts concerned.

“To invoke Article 226, what is determinative is not merely the nature of the organization, but the function it perform, said the Court”

The Court while delivering the Judgment in ‘One Vote One Bar’ repel the contention that Article 226 cannot be invoked against Bar Associations are not statutory bodies, but merely represent the interests of their members, i.e., lawyers and they do not possess any regulatory control or power over the functioning of enrolled lawyers, nor can discipline them for misconduct.

It was said that it is clear that when a private body exercises its public functions even if it is not a State, the aggrieved person has a remedy not only under the ordinary law but also under the constitution, by way of a writ petition under Article 226”.
**********************************

1. Delhi HC seeks Centre’s reply on surcharge on debit, credit card

Curtsy Online News Portal

The Delhi High Court today sought response of the Centre and RBI on a plea against the “illegal” surcharge levied on transactions done through debit and credit cards across the country while no such charge is imposed on cash payments. A bench comprising Chief Justice G Rohini and Justice Jayant Nath issued notice to Ministry.

2. Hero Cycles files lawsuit vs Avon on IPR ‘violation’ : Bicycle maker Hero Cycles has filed a lawsuit…..

Bicycle maker Hero Cycles has filed a lawsuit against Avon Cycles, alleging piracy of its registered design, in a district court here.

The lawsuit was filed a month after Hero Cycles issued a cease and desist notice to Avon, cautioning the latter against intellectual property rights (IPR) violation practices, a statement by Hero Cycles said.

The lawsuit pertains to the Hero Cycles’ product HERO RX-1 whose design is registered under the Designs Act, 2000 under No 270519, the official said.

The said design is well-known and enjoys unparalleled goodwill and reputation in the market, he said.

The lawsuit alleges that Avon Cycles product AVON X-Track is “identical” to the registered design of Hero Cycles’ product, indicating infringement of intellectual property rights, the statement claimed.

It quoted Bharat Goel, CFO and Company Secretary of Hero Cycles Limited as saying that the company has filed a suit seeking injunction and other relief.

He said summons in the suit have been issued seeking a response from Avon Cycles.

Meanwhile, Avon Cycles CMD Onkar Singh Pahwa said the company has received a notice regarding the lawsuit filed by Hero Cycles.

In a statement, Pahwa said he was surprised over the move of Hero Cycles, despite Avon Cycles “bringing change” in the design of cycle model in question.

3. Penal laws on defamation constitutionally valid, says SC : The Supreme Court today upheld the….

The Supreme Court today upheld the constitutional validity of penal provisions on defamation law, observing that the right to freedom of speech is “not an absolute right”.

The bench passed the judgement on a batch of petitions filed by Congress Vice President Rahul Gandhi, Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, BJP leader Subramanian Swamy and others.

“We have held that penal provisions are constitutionally valid,” a bench comprising Justices Dipak Misra and Prafulla C Pant said.

“The right to freedom of speech and expression is not an absolute right,” the court said.

The bench directed magistrates across the country to be extremely careful in issuing summons on private complaints on defamation.

Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC, dealing with the criminal defamation, and section 119 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are constitutionally valid, the court ruled.

Section 500 deals with the provision of punishment for defamation which entails upto two years imprisonment or fine or both.

The bench said the stay of criminal proceedings granted by it in the trial court on the batch of petitions challenging the issue of summons will continue for eight weeks, during which the petitioners can file their appeal before respective High Courts for seeking reliefs in terms of today’s judgement.

The bench said the interim protection given to them will continue for eight weeks.

After the verdict was pronounced, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Rahul, said the Congress leader has to appear before trial court on July 19 and the order granting stay of proceedings for eight weeks will not cover him.

Sibal wanted the stay to be extended till July 19 but the bench said he can seek the relief by mentioning the matter in the month of July.

The constitutional validity of penal laws on defamation was challenged on the ground that they are “outmoded” and inconsistent with right to freedom of speech and expression.

The pleas had sought setting aside of sections 499 and 500 (defamation) of the IPC and suggested that there is a need to decriminalise penal provision for offence of defamation.

Pitching for their retention in the statute book, the Centre had strongly batted for the laws on grounds including that they have stood the test of time.