A plea has been filed in the Delhi High Court against “illegal” surcharge levied on transactions done through debit and credit cards across the country while no such charge is imposed on cash payments.

Advocate Amit Sahni in his public interest litigation, likely to be heard by a bench headed by Chief Justice G Rohini, said the “unlawful, unequal and arbitrary treatment is visible on the payment of petrol charges through credit and debit cards”.

The plea said the Ministry of Finance and Reserve Bank of India (RBI) be directed to take “appropriate steps to frame guidelines so as to prevent the charging of unlawful and discriminatory surcharge being levied on the transactions whose payment is made through debit and credit cards, while no such charge is levied when payment is made in cash”.

The petitioner said the ministry and RBI are “responsible for making rules/guidelines and for monitoring banks across the country”.

He further said levying surcharge is not only illegal and discriminatory but it also promotes the circulation of black money in cash.

“The petitioner has noticed that the illegal, unequal and arbitrary treatment is seen across the country on transactions being done through credit and debit card by levying surcharge at the rate of 2.5 per cent or more, while such surcharge is not levied when the payment of such transaction is done by making cash payment in that regard…,” the plea stated.

It further said India is one of the most cash-intensive economies in the world and there is urgent need to incentivise credit or debit card transactions and dis-incentivise cash transactions.PTI

Congress today moved the Uttarakhand High Court challenging a central ordinance authorising expenditure in the state, which is under President’s rule, as the party has contended that the Assembly had duly passed the Appropriation Bill on March 18.

A writ petition challenging promulgation of the ordinance was mentioned by senior Supreme Court lawyer and former Union minister Kapil Sibal before the division bench of the high court comprising Chief Justice K M Joseph and Justice V K Bisht and the hearing was under way.

The Uttarakhand Appropriation (Vote on Account) Ordinance, 2016 was promulgated by the President yesterday.

The ordinance is to provide for withdrawal of certain sums from and out of the Consolidated Fund of the State of Uttarakhand for the services of a part of the financial year 2016-17, it said.

The Supreme Court today dismissed petitions challenging the validity of amendments made in the 114-year-old Land Acquisition Act to save a portion of a five-star resort in Goa which was earlier ordered to be demolished.

“We find no merit in the petitions. We uphold the validity of the amendments made to the Land Acquisition Act,” a bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Prafulla C Pant said.

In 2009, Goa government promulgated an ordinance to amend the law in order to save a portion of five-star resort of Cidade de Goa, owned by Fomento Resorts and Hotels, which had been ordered to be demolished by the Supreme Court.

The apex court, on January 21, 2009 had ordered the demolition of the portion which houses 54 hotel rooms besides a health club, conference and business rooms and other facilities.

The court had given the order as the hotel management violated certain guidelines in the agreement reached between the government and the resort.

The state had decided to promulgate an ordinance amending the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 so that the government is empowered to modify any agreement with the hotel management to meet any exigencies.

The Dona Paula-based resort was given land by the government under certain conditions, including public access to the beach.PTI

The Delhi High Court today sought the response of Delhi Police and a woman volunteer of Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) on a plea filed by its leader Kumar Vishwas seeking quashing of an FIR lodged against him for alleged offence of sexual harrasment.

Justice Sunita Gupta issued notice for July 21 to the police and the woman volunteer on whose complaint a magisterial court had on March 16 ordered registration of the FIR against Vishwas in the matter.

The FIR for alleged offences under sections 354 A (sexual harassment) and 509 (word, gesture or act intended to insult modesty of a woman) of IPC was registered against Vishwas at Sarojini Nagar Police Station here in pursuance to the direction of the magisterial court.

In its order, the magistrate had observed that the accused had made “sexually coloured” remarks and made advances towards the complainant which required police probe.

During the hearing today, senior advocate H S Phoolka, appearing for Vishwas, claimed that allegations levelled against his client were false and the complainant woman had regularly made incorrect accusations against the AAP leader.

Phoolka said that police has initially probed the matter but they had not found any cognisable offence against Vishwas.

“The complainant (woman) has regularly stated against me in the media. She has filed a number of complaints against me.

The order passed by the trial court is wrong,” he said while seeking quashing of the FIR.

Phoolka also claimed that there were contradictions in the statement of the complainant and she had taken Vishwas’ name only in August last year.

Advocate C L Gupta, also appearing for Vishwas, claimed that allegations against his client were false and motivated.

The counsel for the police said that they had filed a status report before the magisterial court and that no cognisable offence was made out against Vishwas.

Police had on March 17 informed the magistrate that an FIR has been lodged on a complaint against Vishwas in the matter.

In the FIR, the complainant has accused Vishwas of making sexually coloured remarks towards her, alleging that he was “trying to exploit” her “physically” and had made advances towards her several times before in 2014 and 2015.

The woman had earlier claimed that she had approached the police but no action was taken against the leader.

In its status report filed before the trial court earlier, the police had said that during its probe, nothing was found to substantiate the allegations levelled by the woman against Vishwas to register any criminal case against him.PTI

The Delhi High Court today sought response of ANI Technologies, which runs app-based cab service under the name of Ola, on its competitor Uber’s plea seeking Rs 49.61 crore as damages from Ola for allegedly interfering in its business by making fake accounts to book rides and then cancel them.

Ola denied the allegations made by Uber and told the court it has no intention of indulging in any of the actions attributed to it by its competitor.

In view of the submission made by Ola, Justice Vipin Sanghi directed Ola to abide by its statement and listed the matter for further hearing on September 14.

“Defendants (Ola and its subsidiary Serendipity Cabs) emphatically deny the allegations. Counsel for defendants states they have not done anything to interfere with plaintiff’s (Uber) business as alleged, or its system by making false accounts, bookings or cancellations… nor has any intention of doing so.

“Defendants, their agents and employees shall abide by this statement…,”the court said, and issued notice to Ola and Serendipity asking them to file their written statement, reply and submit documents within four weeks.

Uber was asked to file its rejoinder to Ola’s reply in another four weeks and the matter was listed for hearing on September 14.

Uber in its plea alleged that Ola’s employees have created over 93,000 fake accounts across India on Uber’s platform and were using them to make false bookings which were later cancelled and thus, causing loss to Uber which has to pay the cancellation charges.

It has claimed to have paid over Rs five lakh as cancellation charges and alleged that by making false bookings, Ola was “squatting” on cabs associated with Uber.

Ola, on the other hand, contended in the court that Uber’s plea is an “offshoot” of the contempt petition filed against it by Ola for allegedly not complying with court directions to phase out diesel cabs.

It also argued that Uber’s plea was based on assumptions that Ola’s employees were creating the false accounts to make bookings and then cancel them.

It also said Uber was not paying any cancellation charges as the customer is charged if he/she does not cancel booking within five minutes of making it.PTI

The Delhi High Court today told the DDCA it “cannot control” what ICC is saying over the issue of lack of completion certificate for the old house club of Ferozshah Kotla ground which may lead to shifting of the semi-final match of World T20 from here.

A bench of justices S Muralidhar and Vibhu Bakhru also clarified to the cricketing body that requisite clearances for hosting the match would be subject to the compliances and DDCA should talk to International Cricket Council (ICC) about it.

“We cannot control what the ICC is saying. You (DDCA) have to take it up with the ICC. You tell this to ICC. It has nothing to do with this court,” the bench told the counsel appearing for Delhi and District Cricket Association (DDCA).

Senior advocate Sandeep Sethi, representing DDCA, then told the bench he would withdraw the petition which sought a direction to South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC) to issue the requisite certificate for the R P Mehra block.

Sethi also told the bench that DDCA would make appropriate representation on the issue after which the petition was “dismissed as withdrawn”.

Justice Mudgal, appointed by the high court to oversee the functioning of DDCA, has asked the cricketing body not to sell tickets of semi-final match for R P Mehra block, having a capacity of around 2,000, and that it be used only for the broadcasters and the media.

During the hearing, Sethi told the bench that ICC has taken an objection to it and is saying that if any of the blocks remain vacant then the semi-final match would be shifted to other venue.

“Justice Mudgal says that let it (R P Mehra block) be occupied by press and commentators only. We have no problem with it but the ICC says that if the block would not be entirely occupied then the semi-final match may be shifted,” Sethi told the court adding that media and commentators cannot fill the entire block.

When the lawyer said DDCA has no problem with what Justice Mudgal was saying, the bench said, “your only problem is the ICC.”

“We cannot give you the permission. It has to be in terms of the earlier order passed by this court,” the bench observed, adding DDCA cannot have the permission without all the requisite clearances.PTI

The Supreme Court today referred to the Chief Justice pleas raising the question as to when lawmakers facing criminal trial would stand disqualified for setting up a constitution bench, saying such issues needed to be decided by larger benches.

A three-bench headed by Justice Ranjan Gogoi said the petitions be sent to Chief Justice T S Thakur for constituting a five-judge bench to deal with the matter.

The court said the larger bench would deal with the question as to when can a legislator be disqualified.

“Can a legislator facing criminal trial be disqualified at conviction or at the framing of charges in the case?” the bench asked.

The court was hearing a petition filed by NGO Public Interest Foundation on the issue.

BJP leader and advocate Ashwani Kumar Updhaya has also filed a plea seeking a direction to the the Centre and others “to bring in electoral reform and to make rules… and Code of Conduct for de-criminalization and de-communalization of politics and for eradication of corruption, casteism and nepotism from electoral system.”

Earlier, the apex court had set a deadline of one year for lower courts to complete trial in criminal cases involving sitting MPs and MLAs.

It had also said that all such proceedings involving lawmakers must be conducted on a day-to-day basis.

In order to expedite proceedings against lawmakers who continue to enjoy membership of a legislative body during the pendency of case, the court had also said that lower courts will have to give explanation to the Chief Justice of the respective high court if the trial is not completed within a year.

The Law Commisison had recommended that such trials be concluded in one year.

“We direct in cases of sitting MPs and MLAs who have been charged for offences under Sections 8(1), 8(2), 8(3)of Representation of People Act, the trial is to be conducted as expeditiously as possible but not later than one year from the date of framing of charges,” it had said.PTI

The Madras High Court here has held that a wedding between minor girl and boy will not become void automatically without either of them obtaining a decree of divorce from family court within two years of their attaining the legal age for marriage.
A division bench here comprising justices S Manikumar and C T Selvam gave the ruling while setting aside the order of a lower court in Tirunelveli in April last refusing to take on file a woman’s divorce petition on the ground that she was a minor while getting married in 1995 and hence the wedding had automatically become void then itself.

The bench said that though the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, prescribed a minimum age for marriage, the breach of the Act would render the marriage void under Section 11 or Section 12.

However, section 13 of the act, which lists out grounds for divorce, states that every child marriage shall be voidable at the option of the contracting party, provided that such marriage, whether consummated or not, was repudiated within two years of either of them attaining the marraige age — 18 for women and 21 for men.

This anomaly was taken note of by a full bench of the high court, which had expressed hope that Parliament would carry out necessary amendments to avoid complications, the division bench noted.
It was apparent that the Tirunelveli court was under the mistaken impression of a marriage involving a child being void.

Hence, it directed the Family Court in Tirunelveli to number the divorce petition and proceed in accordance with law.PTI

The Delhi High Court today asked Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and suspended BJP MP Kirti Azad to file their written statements in a civil defamation suit of Rs 5 crore filed by DDCA for their alleged remarks against the cricket body regarding its functioning and finances.

Joint Registrar Anil Kumar Sisodia directed Kejriwal and Azad to submit their statements within 30 days after they failed to file it today on the ground that the two had not received the fully copy of the suit.

“The counsel for the defendent number 1 and 2 (Kejriwal and Azad) appeared on the summons issue to them and submitted that they have not received the full documents. Plaintiff (DDCA) is directed to supply the copy to the defendants within a week from today.

“The defendants shall file their written statements (to the suit filed by DDCA) within 30 days after receiving the full documents. The DDCA will file replication (the response of a plaintiff to the defendant’s plea in an action at law, or to the defendant’s answer in a suit) within four weeks thereafter. The parties shall file the original documents from ten weeks from today after exchanging the same,” the court said.

It also directed that the affidavit of admission/ denial of documents shall be filed within 12 weeks from today and put up the matter for completion of pleadings and admission/denial of documents on July 7.

The court’s direction came during hearing of Delhi District Cricket Association (DDCA)’s civil defamation suit in which Kejriwal and Azad were issued notice on January 15 for filing their written statements.

DDCA, through its counsel advocate Sangram Patnaik, had said that Kejriwal “with prior motive, indulged in certain false, shocking, scandalous, defamatory, baseless, slanderous, malicious, disgraceful and outrageous statements which are defamatory against them”.

The counsel had said that Azad also indulged in making such statements, “which were made solely with an agenda to defame and cause harm to the plaintiff(DDCA), for self-serving and motivated reasons”.PTI

TERI Executive Vice Chairman R K Pachauri, facing sexual harassment allegations by an ex-woman colleague, today moved Delhi High Court seeking action against some media houses for “deliberately” disobeying its earlier orders restraining them from publishing averments against him.

The contempt petition, which also sought directions to ensure compliance of two orders passed in February last year, will be heard by a bench of Justice J R Midha on March 3.

In his petition, Pachauri referred to some recent media reports claiming “he is being subjected to unfair and illegal media trial” and in these circumstances his fundamental right to get a fair trial would be violated.

“The present case is one of such glaring examples wherein one party to the proceedings before this court is deliberately and contemptuously flouting the orders of this court. It is submitted that in order to maintain the majesty of this court the respondents deserve to be dealt firmly for deliberate and wilful violation of the injunction granted by high court,” the plea, filed through advocate Ashish Dixit, said.

It alleged these media houses were repetitively flouting the directions of high court and were publishing incorrect and misleading reports with some ulterior motives.

The plea claimed that contents of the articles which were being published and aired by these media houses, were highly defamatory and prejudicial to Pachauri’s case.

The FIR in the case was registered on alleged charges of sexual harassment under the IPC sections 354, 354(a), 354(d) (molestation) and 506 (criminal intimidation).