CCI approves Sun Life India increasing stake in Birla Sun Life

The Competition Commission of India has permitted Sun Life India to increase its shareholding in the joint venture vehicle, Birla Sun Life. Whereas Sun Life held 26 per cent of the entity, it will increase its shareholding to 49 per cent by purchasing shares from Aditya Birla Nuovo Group.

Sources: Manupatra Newsline

UPSRTC tenders divide Competition Commission

A six member bench of the Competition Commission of India concluded four-to-two that the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation did not have a dominant position as the largest procurer of passenger buses for public transport in Uttar Pradesh. The Informant, successful bidder in a tender issued by UPSRTC, had complained that the price it offered towards annual maintenance contracts of the buses was shadowed by the Corporation’s increasing maintenance inclusions. The bidder claimed that it would face significant losses due to such unfair conditions and the discriminatory terms imposed on it, as compared to two other companies, Tata Motors and Ashok Leyland. The majority opinion accepted that UPSRTC procured over half of all passenger buses in the State, but the same did not lead to a presumption of dominance. As such, it being only one of many state transport undertakings and low market share, UPSRTC was not in a dominant position.

Members Sahoo and Justice Mittal’s dissent focused not on UPSRTC’s conduct, which they concurred was not abusive, rather the inquisitorial role of the Commission. They opined the Commission’s responsibility to “ascertain if there exists a prima facie case to proceed further”. It would have to verify if the material on record supported the alleged conduct, and if such was in violation of any of the provisions of the Act, not just those which had been alleged to have been violated. They concluded that preferential treatment in favour of Tata Motors and Ashok Leyland suggested a “strong possibility of some understanding between the parties.” Being empowered to suo moto pursue violations of competition law, both members were in favour of the Commission ordering investigation into parties’ conduct under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002.
Relevant
Section 26 Competition Act, 2002

Mazahar to not be treated as previous statement unless versions exist

Video recordings made by investigating officer during preparation of scene mahazar cannot be used as a previous statement under Sections 145 and 155 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In the instant case, prosecution had not relied on video DVDs prepared by the officer at the crime scene nor had the same certified to make them admissible as electronic evidence. During cross-examination of the officer, defence sought to adduce the DVDs, however, the request was denied by the trial court. The High Court reiterated that a mazahar could not be treated as a previous statement; “what was seen by the person, who prepared the mazahar, are recorded”. Only when the person recording made several versions, could mazahars be treated as previous statement.
Relevant
Ramaiah alias Rama v. State of Karnataka
Section 65B Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Section 145 Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Source: Manupatra Newsline

Trade mark ruling eases Lupin’s pressure

Intellectual Property Rights

Bombay High Court granted a motion in favour of Lupin Limited, maker of ‘Nebistar’ line of medicines. It determined Lupin’s registered mark and ‘Nebistol’, manufactured by the Defendants, had “phonetic, visual and structural similarity”. The Court rejected Defendants’ submission that ‘-star’ and ‘-stol’ were distinct, making the marks themselves dissimilar. The Court reiterated that under the principles of comparison laid down, the question of deceptive similarity would be based on the average intelligence and imperfect recollection of an unwary purchaser. Both marks would have to be looked at in totality, and within the auspices of imperfect pronunciation, arising out of imperfect recollection and other fallibilities of the shopper.
Relevant
Durga Dutta Sharma v. Navaratna Pharma
Amritdhara Pharmacy v. Satya Deo Gupta
Section 11 Trade Marks Act, 1999

Sources: Manupatra Newsline

Gujarat government ordered to sensitize people on Right to Free Education

Gujarat High Court directed the State Government to give wide publication of the rights provided under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. The Court heard various petitions seeking redress against non-fulfillment of the provisions of the Act, which guarantees a right to free education to children between the ages of 6 and 14. Complaints ranged from an inadequate provision of seats compared to the demand for education and grievances against the grievance redressal mechanism established. The Court, mindful of the large numbers of complaints before the authority clearing complaints, noted that it may be overstep its jurisdiction granted under Article 226 of the Constitution if it reopened each and every such complaint.
Relevant
Society for Un-aided Private Schools of Rajasthan vs. Union of India (UOI) and Anr.
Section 3 Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009

Sources: Manupatra

Lower eligibility limit for OBC student applying to M. Phil Programme ordered

Jawaharlal Nehru University’s policy of requiring OBC students meeting the same threshold to qualify for its M. Phil Programme as general category students was struck down for being unconstitutional under Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court noted that the University was within its rights in setting the minimum eligibility bar at the same level for general and OBC students, however, such a determination was contrary to its admission policy of ensuring that underprivileged and socially handicapped sections of society were represented in the institution. Though the Court did not itself specify a lower threshold for OBC students, it directed the same to be between the concession accorded to SC/ST students and the standard for general category students. Petitioner was permitted to join the course from 2016 onwards.
Relevant
P.V. Indiresan (2) v. Union of India & Ors.
Sadananda Halo & Ors. v. Momtaz ali Sheikh and Ors.,

Exercise that right to reservation


Sources: Manupatra Newsline