Prosecution proceedings launched by Delhi court against finance company
- Delhi Court launched prosecution proceedings against finance company
- Madras High Court held that State cannot be made responsible for man’s suicide over school fees
- State Government intends to repeal Rule of Mandatory 10% Open Spaces in Mid- Sized Apartment Complexes
- Amendments to The Specific Relief Act, 1963 will curtail court’s powers to grant compensation in cases related to development projects
Delhi Court launched prosecution proceedings against finance company
A Delhi court has taken launched prosecution proceedings against manager of finance company for snatching a vehicle the company had financed and beating up the driver. The Court took cognizance of the complaint on an application by the borrower, seeking a direction to the Delhi Police to lodge an FIR against the manager of the finance company.
The Complainant alleged to have taken loan from the company with a repayment plan of some month per month. The Complainant alleged to have repaid the loan, but even thereafter the employees of the company intercepted the vehicle and snatched key and beat up the driver.
Rule 114H of Income Tax Rules, 1962 Amended
The Rule 114H of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 hereinafter referred as Rules have been amended vide Notification No.48/2016 [S.O.2151(E)] dated 20th June 2016.
Various timeslines have been amended in this context which are referred herein:
- To provide sufficient time to the reporting Financial Institutions for completing the due diligence procedure in respect of other reportable account referred to in Rule 114H (3)(d)(ii), which is high value account as on 31st December, 2015, the timeline specified for review of pre-existing individual account has been extended from 30th June, 2016 to 31st December, 2016.
- Timeline in case of U.S. reportable account which is low value account as on the 30th June, 2014, shall continue to be 30th June, 2016.
- Similarly, in respect of other reportable account referred to in Rule 114H(5)(e)(i), timeline specified for review of pre-existing entity account has been extended from 30th June, 2016 to 31st December, 2016.
- The timeline in case of a U.S. reportable account shall continue to be 30th June, 2016.
Madras High Court held that State cannot be made responsible for man’s suicide over school fees
The Madras High Court is shocked over a petition filed by a woman who is seeking compensation from the State government for the death of her husband who has committed suicide after killing his child due to exorbitant fees demanded by a private school.
Dismissing the appeal, the court stated: “The distressful economic conditions alone may not have forced the husband of the writ petitioner herein to take recourse to the said action which can also be reasonably attributed to a mental aberration… The petitioner now seeks compensation for the double tragedy of hers but we are at a loss to appreciate the contention canvassed in this regard.”
The Court further stated that such violent act of having killed an innocent child out of frustration could not be condoned at all since there were several other methods of providing education to children by either admitting them in government-run educational institutions or approaching other organisations for financial support.
The Court has further rejected Petitioner’s plea for payment of compensation against the State government. The Court further observed that the State is not at all responsible for the violent action committed by the husband of the writ petitioner.
State Government intends to repeal Rule of Mandatory 10% Open Spaces in Mid- Sized Apartment Complexes
The State government is intending to propose to repeal the rule of mandatory 10 % open spaces in mid-size apartment complexes.
The Department had cleared the move to repeal the law and only retain what is prescribed in the building bylaws as per the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act.
However, this decision has been protested by the environmentalists.
The Centre is contemplating amendments to the Specific Relief Act, 1963, to limit the compensation and relief that courts can grant in cases relating to execution of infrastructure and development projects.
The proposed changes seeks to achieve and implement
- To lay down guidelines for reducing the discretion granted to courts and tribunals while granting performance and injunctive relief.
- To enhance “ease of doing business”
“Any public work must progress without interruption. This requires consideration whether a court’s intervention in public works should be minimal.
The role of courts in this exercise is to interfere to the minimum extent so that public works projects will not be impeded or stalled,” the report stated.