Lex Summarium

Competition  Commission  of India Competition Commission of India(CCI) had established as per provisions laid down in Chapter III, Section 7 of Competition Act, 2002.  Competition Act, 2002 was enacted keeping in view of the economic development of the country, for the establishment of a Commission to prevent practices having adverse effect on competition, to promote and sustain competition in markets, to protect the interests of consumers and to ensure freedom of trade carried on by other participants in markets , in India, and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. This act replaced the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (MRTP Act) on the recommendations of Raghavan committee. Why has CCI fined Maruti Suzuki for Rs 200 Crore? CCI has found that MSIL not only imposed the Discount Control Policy on its dealers, but also monitored and enforced the same by monitoring dealers through MSAs, imposing penalties on them and threatening strict ...

Introduction Three Farm Laws (i.e., THE ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2020, THE FARMERS’ PRODUCE TRADE AND COMMERCE (PROMOTION AND FACILITATION) ACT, 2020 & THE FARMERS (EMPOWERMENT AND PROTECTION) AGREEMENT ON PRICE ASSURANCE AND FARM SERVICES ACT, 2020) have faced a lot of criticism in India. Majority of opposition parties are protesting against these three laws and so are the farmers from India. To know about the details of whether these laws are white or black we have to understand old system of sale of Farm produces and disadvantages faced by farmers in old system. In older system, Farmers were bound to take their farm produce to mandis, where government procure their produce by means of mandi committees. Tax was further imposed on the farm produce and state government's make their revenue out of that tax.  We have to look at all aspects of old system and new system in detail in order to answer this question "Whether these 3 farm laws are really black in natu...

 Case Citation : (2008) 3 SCC 222 Bench: Altamas Kabir. J Facts of the case: 1. The respondent in the first of these two appeals and the appellants in the other appeal applied for appointment as Constable-Drivers under the Haryana Police and submitted their respective application forms, which contained two columns, namely, 13(A) and 14, which read as follows:-      13(A): Have you ever been arrested?      14: Have you ever been convicted by the Court of any offence? Respondent answered the both questions as negative. 2. Subsequently, during verification of the character and antecedents of the said respondent, it was reported that he had been arrested in connection with a case arising out of FIR. However, he was aquitted in that matter by judicial magistrate. 3. Appellant, however, alleged that the respondent had concealed these facts from the Selection Committee and had not correctly furnished the information in columns 13(A) and 14 of the applica...

Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Shri Dilip K. Basu vs State Of West Bengal & Ors  laid down the following  requirements to be followed in all cases of arrest or detention till legal provisions are made in that behalf as preventive measures: (1) The police personnel carrying out the arrest and handling the interrogation of the arrestee should bear accurate, visible and clear identification and name togs with their designations. The particulars of all such police personnel who handle interrogation of the arrestee must be recorded in a register. (2) That the police officer carrying out the arrest of the arrestee shall prepare a memo of arrest at the time of arrest a such memo shall be attested by atleast one witness who may be either a member of the family of the arrestee or a respectable person of the locality from where the arrest is made. It shall also be counter signed by the arrestee and shall contain the time and date of arrest. (3) A person who has been arres...

Sections Involved Section 10 IEA: Things said or done by conspirator in reference to common design. –– Where there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired together to commit an offence or an actionable wrong, anything said, done or written by any one of such persons in reference to their common intention, after the time when such intention was first entertained by any one of them, is a relevant fact as against each of the persons believed to be so conspiring, as well for the purpose of proving the existence of the conspiracy as for the purpose of showing that any such person was a party to it. Section 17 IEA:  Admission defined.––An admission is a statement, 1 [oral or documentary or contained in electronic form], which suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact, and which is made by any of the persons, and under the circumstances, hereinafter mentioned.  Section 18 IEA:  Admission––by party to proceeding or his agent....

Bench: N.S. Hegde, B.N. Kirpal Facts of the case: 1.  ICI  India Ltd. executed an agreement of sale wherein it agreed to transfer on an “as is where is” basis and “as a going concern” its fertilizer business of manufacturing, marketing, distribution and sale of urea fertilizer in favour of Chand Chhap Fertilizer and Chemicals Ltd. (“CCFCL”), also a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 which company has since been renamed as M/s Duncans Industries Limited, Fertilizer Division, Kanpur Nagar (the appellant herein) for a total sale consideration of Rs 70 crores which was termed as “slump price” in the agreement. 2.  Pursuant to the said agreement, a deed of conveyance was executed by the said ICI in favour of CCFCL, on the presentation of the said Conveyance Deed for registration.  3. The Sub- Registrar made a reference to the Collector under  Section 47-A(2)  of the Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter refe...

Equivalent citations: AIR 1974 AP 226 Bench: Kondaiah, Lakshmaiah Facts of the case   1.  The plaintiff's husband, late Profulla Kumar Raj and the defendant were friends. Plaintiff alleged that his husband had obtained a possessory mortgage  on 1-9-1957 with a view to run a touring cinema in that place. 2. Plaintiff’s husband built a temporary cinema structure and erected a temporary pandal in a portion of the site where he bought a cinema projector worth Rs. 16327 and the oil engine and accessories worth Rs 3506.   3.  The aforesaid cinema projector and the oil engine and their accessories have been imbedded and installed in the earth by constructing foundations for the purpose of running the cinema concern known as 'Kumar Touring Talkies'.   4.  Finding no time to manage the cinema concern the entrusted the management of the trust and confidence in him. The defendant taking advantage of his position, as being the person in ...