Modi Government soughts probe into implementation of Uniform Civil Code
- Modi Government asked Law Commission to examine implementation of Uniform Civil Code
- The Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016 promises consumer rights and builder obligations
- Apex Court held that Arbitration proceedings are permissible under Section 69(3) of the Partnership Act
- Apex Court held that Trial Courts not to appreciate entire evidence afresh in routine manner while hearing criminal appeals
- Public Interest Litigation filed claiming hurting of religious sentiments by beer ‘Godfather’
Modi Government asked Law Commission to examine implementation of Uniform Civil Code
The Modi government has asked the Law Commission headed by retired Supreme Court Judge Balbir Singh Chauhan to “examine” the issue of implementing the controversial Uniform Civil Code “in detail and submit a report”.
Article 44 of the Indian Constitution sets implementation of the code as a duty of the state. Article 44 of the Constitution of India is reproduced here under :
“The State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India”.
UCC will set common personal laws for all citizens, irrespective of the religion, setting aside the current form of different set of personal laws for different communities. There are different personal laws for Hindus and Muslims which cover property, marriage and divorce, inheritance and succession. It is to be noted that the Supreme Court had asked government to clarify whether there is any definite move to push in the Uniform Civil Code as there was “total confusion” in the country due to various personal laws governing religious practices.
The Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016 promises consumer rights and builder obligations
The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 2016 (or RERA) has been passed to protect consumer rights, enhance builder obligations and promotes transparency in property transactions. .
Under the RERA, the governments at the Centre, in States and in Union Territories are obliged to set up a Real Estate Regulatory Authority and appoint a “Regulator” to register complaints from consumers.
All agents will have to secure registration from the Authority.
Developers will have to execute a sale agreement if they are collecting 10% of sale money in advance.
Promoters have to disclose all projects executed during the past five years.
The RERA also provides for penalties for various violations. The developers are liable to pay 10 per cent of the project cost to the buyers for failure to register the project, 5 per cent project cost for providing false information, daily penalty up to 5 per cent of the project cost for failure to comply with RERA orders, and 10 per cent of the project cost and three years of imprisonment for failure to comply with RERA and Appellate Tribunal orders.
Apex Court held that Arbitration proceedings are permissible under Section 69(3) of the Partnership Act
Apex Court has held that expression “other proceedings” in Section 69(3) of the Partnership Act does not include Arbitration Proceedings and the ban imposed under the said Section to have no application to Arbitral proceedings as well as the Arbitration Award.
The Apex Court further held that Section 35 and 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996 is specifically restricted to treat the Award as a decree of a Court and does not equate Arbitration proceedings with court proceedings.
Apex Court held that Trial Courts not to appreciate entire evidence afresh in routine manner while hearing criminal appeals
Apex Court has held that it cannot appreciate the entire evidence de novo (starting from beginning) in a routine manner while hearing Criminal Appeals, and that too when the conviction is based on concurrent findings of two courts. The bench further held that that It is only when the Court comes to a conclusion that the impugned finding though concurrent in nature is wholly arbitrary, unreasonable or/and perverse to the extent that no judicial mind of average capacity can ever record such conclusion, the Court may in appropriate case undertake the exercise of appreciating the evidence to the extent necessary to find out the error.
Public Interest Litigation filed claiming hurting of religious sentiments by beer ‘Godfather’
A PIL was filed in the Delhi High Court seeking to restrain supply of Godfather beer popular in Northern region in the national capital, saying that it hurt religious sentiments.
The Petitioner has pleaded that “sentiments and emotions” of the public at large of every religion would be affected as the word God is used by everyone to refer to the “almighty power”.
“The Godfather manufacturer should extend their apology to the people through two national English and Hindi newspapers in order to protect the sentiments and emotions of public at large,” the petition pleaded.