{"id":3002,"date":"2022-08-30T18:12:00","date_gmt":"2022-08-30T18:12:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/zeus.firm.in\/zeus-newsletter-august-2022\/"},"modified":"2023-04-24T13:38:53","modified_gmt":"2023-04-24T13:38:53","slug":"zeus-newsletter-august-2022","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/zeus.firm.in\/zeus-newsletter-august-2022\/","title":{"rendered":"ZEUS Newsletter August 2022"},"content":{"rendered":"<p style=\"text-align: center;\"><span style=\"color: #800000;\"><strong>Highlights:<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #800000;\"><strong>Corporate Brief<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\"><em>Circular dated 04.07.2022 issued by SEBI in regard to introduction of web-based Investor Grievance Redressal Mechanism.<\/em><\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\"><em>Gazette Notification No. S.O. 3210(E) dated 15.07.2022 issued by Ministry of Finance declaring \u2018zero coupon zero principal instruments\u2019 as securities.<\/em><\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\"><em>Circular dated 18.07.2022 issued by SEBI in regard to levying of Goods and Service Tax on the fees payable to SEBI.<\/em><\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\"><em>Securities and Exchange Board of India (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) (Fifth Amendment) Regulations, 2022.<\/em><\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\"><em>Notification dated 14.07.2022 on the Special Economic Zones (Third Amendment) Rules, 2022. <\/em><\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\"><em>Reserve Bank of India Notification No. FEMA.3(R)(3)\/2022-RB dated 28.07.2022 on Foreign Exchange Management (Borrowing and Lending) (Amendment) Regulations, 2022.<\/em><\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\"><em>Circular No. RBI\/2022-23\/87 dated 07.07.2022 issued by RBI in regard to relaxations on Investment by Foreign Portfolio Investors (FPI) in Debt.<\/em><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong>\u00a0<\/strong><span style=\"color: #800000;\"><strong>RERA Brief<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\"><em>Public Order issued by Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority to amend the proforma of Allotment Letter to be submitted during project registration.<\/em><\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\"><em>Directions issued by Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority regarding registration of Real Estate Projects and Real Estate Agents, Project Extensions and Corrections.<\/em><\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\"><em>Guidelines issued by Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority to the Promoters to provide Regular Updates on Registered Projects.<\/em><\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\"><em>Guidelines issued by Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority in regard to advertisements relating to promotion marketing and sale in Real Estate Projects.<\/em><\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\"><em>Order issued by Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority regarding declaration about separate bank accounts for real estate projects. <\/em><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #800000;\"><strong>Litigation Brief<\/strong><\/span><strong>\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\"><em>Case analysis: Marico Limited vs. Dabur India Limited [pronounced by the Hon\u2019ble High Court of Calcutta on 19.07.2022 in cs no. 264 of 2021]<\/em><\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\"><em>Civil Appeal before the Hon\u2019ble Supreme Court against a final judgment and order dated21.09.2021 passed by the Hon\u2019ble Telangana High Court.<\/em><\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\"><em>An Arbitral Award can be partially\/partly set aside, under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the same would not tantamount to being modification of the award. <\/em><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\"><span style=\"color: #800000;\"><em>\u00a0<\/em><strong><em>Corporate Brief<\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #800000;\"><strong>Circular dated 04.07.2022 issued by SEBI in regard to <\/strong><strong>introduction of web-based Investor Grievance Redressal Mechanism<\/strong><strong>.<\/strong><strong>\u00a0<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">SEBI has implemented an online platform (SCORES) to help investors to lodge their complaints, related to the securities market, against listed companies and SEBI registered intermediaries. It enables investors to lodge and follow-up their complaints and track the redressal status of such complaints from anywhere.<\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">All Recognized Stock Exchanges, including Commodity Derivatives Exchange\/ Depositories have been advised to design and implement an online web-based complaints redressal system of their own for grievance redressal. It has been directed that such redressal mechanism is to be implemented within 6 (six) months from the issuance of the circular and the salient features of the system have been enclosed in the annexure appended to the circular.<\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">It has also been advised that the Stock Exchanges continue with the Hybrid Mode (i.e., online and offline) for conducting redressal through the Grievance Redressal Committee and Arbitration\/ Appellate Arbitration as advised during Covid.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #800000;\"><strong>Gazette Notification No. S.O. 3210(E) dated 15.07.2022 issued by Ministry of Finance declaring \u2018zero coupon zero principal instruments\u2019 as securities.<\/strong><\/span><strong>\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Central Government vide Notification No. S.O. 3210(E) dated 15.07.2022 declared \u2018zero coupon zero principal instruments\u2019 as securities under the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956.<\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">It was explained that \u2018zero coupon zero principal instrument\u2019 means an instrument issued by a Not for Profit Organization which shall be registered with Social Stock Exchange segment of a recognized Stock Exchange in accordance with the regulations made by the Securities and Exchange Board of India.\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #800000;\"><strong>Circular dated 18.07.2022 issued by SEBI in regard to levying of Goods and Services Tax (GST) on the fees payable to SEBI.<\/strong><\/span><strong>\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">The GST council in its meeting held on 28.06.2022 and 29.06.2022, recommended, among other things, to withdraw the exemption granted to services by SEBI.<\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">SEBI vide its circular dated 18.07.2022 informed all Market Infrastructure Institutions, Companies who have listed\/ are intending to list their securities, other intermediaries and persons who are dealing in the securities market that the fees and other charges payable to SEBI will be subjected to GST at the rate of 18% with effect from 18.07.2022.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #800000;\"><strong>Securities and Exchange Board of India (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) (Fifth Amendment) Regulations, 2022.<\/strong><\/span><strong>\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">SEBI notified the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) (Fifth Amendment) Regulations, 2022.<\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">Under Regulation 2(h) the definition of \u2018designated securities\u2019 has been expanded to include the \u2018Zero Coupon Zero Principal Instruments.\u2019 Further clause (zo) has been inserted as follows: the expressions \u201cFor Profit Social Enterprise\u201d, \u201cNot for Profit Organization\u201d, \u201cSocial Enterprise\u201d, \u201cSocial Stock Exchange\u201d, \u201cdraft fund-raising document\u201d, \u201cfinal fund raising document\u201d, \u201cfund raising document\u201d, \u201cSocial Auditor\u201d and \u201cSocial Audit Firm\u201d shall have the same meaning as assigned to them under the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Issue of Capital and Disclosure Requirements) Regulation, 2018.<\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">Chapter IX-A has been inserted which lays down the Obligations of Social Enterprises. According to Regulation 91A, this chapter is applicable to \u201cFor Profit Social Enterprise whose designated securities are listed on the applicable segment of the Stock Exchange(s) and a Not-for-Profit Organization that is registered on the Social Stock Exchange(s). The disclosure requirements for a For Profit Social Enterprise, a Not For Profit Organization, intimations and disclosures by Social Enterprise are further laid down under Regulation 91B, 91C, 91D and 91E. A statement of utilization of funds needs to be submitted by Not For Profit Organizations to the Social Stock Exchange(s) on a quarterly basis in respect of the utilization of the funds raised, under Regulation 91F.<strong>\u00a0<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><span style=\"color: #800000;\"><strong>Notification dated 14.07.2022 on the Special Economic Zones (Third Amendment) Rules, 2022.<\/strong><\/span><strong>\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Central Government vide the Notification issued by the Ministry of Commerce &amp; Industry, dated 14.07.2022, has further amended the Special Economic Zones Rules, 2006, as the Special Economic Zones (Third Amendment) Rules, 2022 (\u201c<strong>Amendment Rules<\/strong>\u201d).<\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">In the Amendment Rules <em>inter alia <\/em>a new rule<strong><em> &#8211; <\/em><\/strong>Rule 43A has been inserted detailing the provisions regarding Work From Home for employees working in Special Economic Zones. The key takeaways of the provision are as follows:\n<ol>\n<li>A Unit may permit its employees, including contractual employees, to work from home or from any place outside the Special Economic Zone in accordance with Rule 43A.<\/li>\n<li>Employees of the Information and Technology and Information and Technology enabled Services Special Economic Zone units, employees who are temporarily incapacitated, employees who are travelling and employees who are working offsite are covered under this new rule.<\/li>\n<li>The Development Commissioner, if satisfied that the proposal is in conformity with this Rule 43A, may grant permission for work for home for such period not exceeding one year at a time.<\/li>\n<li>The proposal for work from home shall cover a maximum of 50% of the total employees, including contractual employees of the Unit and the Unit is required to maintain accurate attendance record for the entire period of permission for work from home and submit such records to the Development Commissioner from time to time. The Development Commissioner may approve a higher number of employees to work from home for any bona-fide reason to be recorded in writing.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #800000;\"><strong>Reserve Bank of India Notification No. FEMA.3(R)(3)\/2022-RB dated 28.07.2022 on Foreign Exchange Management (Borrowing and Lending) (Amendment) Regulations, 2022.<\/strong><\/span><strong>\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">The RBI vide notification dated 28.07.2022 made an amendment to the Individual limits of borrowing in the Foreign Exchange Management (Borrowing and Lending) (Amendment) Regulations, 2018.<\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">Previously all eligible borrowers\/ category of borrowers were permitted to raise ECB of up-to USD 750 Million or equivalent per financial year. However, as per the notification dated 28.07.2022 the limit of USD 750 Million or equivalent per financial year is temporarily increased to USD 1,500 Million or equivalent. This dispensation will be available for ECBs raised till 31.12.2022.<strong>\u00a0<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #800000;\"><strong>Circular No. RBI\/2022-23\/87 dated 07.07.2022 issued by RBI in regard to relaxations on Investment by Foreign Portfolio Investors (FPI) in Debt.<\/strong><\/span><strong>\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">RBI vide its Circular No. RBI\/2022-23\/87 dated 07.07.2022 issued by RBI introduced relaxations on Investment by Foreign Portfolio Investors (FPI) in Debt.<\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">It has been decided that investments by FPIs in government securities and corporate bonds made between 08.07.2022 and 31.10.2022 (both dates included) shall be exempted from the limit on short-term investments till maturity or sale of such investments.<\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">It has also been decided to allow FPIs to invest in commercial papers and non-convertible debentures with an original maturity of up to one year, during the period between 08.07.2022 and 31.10.2022 (both dates included). These investments shall be exempted from the limit on short-term investments till maturity or sale of such investments.<\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">These directions are applicable with immediate effect.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\"><strong><em>\u00a0<\/em><span style=\"color: #800000;\"><em>Real Estate Brief<\/em><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #800000;\"><strong>Public Order issued by Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Mah-RERA) to amend the proforma of Allotment Letter to be submitted during project registration.<\/strong><\/span><strong>\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">Mah-RERA vide its public order dated 01.07.2022 amended the proforma of Allotment Letter that is required to be submitted at the time of registration of a real estate project in compliance of Clause (g) of Sub-section 2 of Section 4 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.<\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">The promoters must use the model allotment letter that has been introduced via this order which suppresses the Order No. 30\/2022 dated 30.06.2022.<\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">The promoters have been given the option of increasing the number of days within which the booking can be cancelled and decreasing the percentage of amount that can be deducted in case of cancellation of booking that has been prescribed under the allotment letter.<\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">The order also lays down that for enabling prompt and speedy verification, the deviation\/modification from the proforma must be highlighted in a different color.<\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">In case of non-compliance, the application of the promoter for registration shall be liable to be rejected according to proviso to Section 5 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><span style=\"color: #800000;\"><strong>Directions issued by Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Mah-RERA) <\/strong><strong>regarding registration of Real Estate Projects and Real Estate Agents, Project Extensions and Corrections<\/strong><strong>.<\/strong><\/span><strong>\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">Mah-RERA vide its public order dated 01.07.2022 lays down the process to be followed in case of different scenarios where the application for registration of Real Estate Projects and Real Estate Agents, Project Extension and Corrections is incomplete or there is any discrepancy.<\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">The application that is submitted with discrepancy or mismatch in information such application will be sent back to the applicant with remarks and treated as incomplete.<\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">The applicant may resubmit the application and if it is found to be incomplete again, then it will be sent back to the applicant.<\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">If the application submitted after resubmitting is also found incomplete, then the applicant will have to appear in the Open House Meeting for resolving the issues. The application will have to be submitted with all the compliances within seven days of the open house.<\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">If the application is found to be incomplete even after resubmitting the application after the open house, then it will be treated as incomplete and closed.<\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">Thereafter, a penalty of 25% of the registration fees will be levied in case of resubmission and all the above processes will be followed again. The application can also be resubmitted if it is found to be incomplete even after following the whole process for second time but a penalty of 40% of the registration fees will have to be paid.<\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">If the application is found incomplete even after following the whole process for the third time, then the Authority will pass the necessary orders.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #800000;\"><strong>Guidelines issued by Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Mah-RERA) to the Promoters to provide Regular Updates on Registered Projects.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">Mah-RERA vide its public order dated 05.07.2022 laid down guidelines to provide Regular Updates on Registered Projects by the Promoters.<\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">Guidelines lay down six categories under which the promoters need to provide the update.<\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">Firstly, the promoters are required to file within twenty days of the end of quarter a \u2019Quarterly Progress Report\u2019 along with the details such as status of booking and project, changes in the building plan, and a self-certification in case no money was withdrawn from the designated bank account.<\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">Secondly, the promoters are required to file Annual Statement of Accounts in Form 5 within six months and Form 2A i.e., Quality Assurance Certificate within three months of the end of financial year.<\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">Thirdly, Form 1, Form 2 and Form 3 are required to be filed in case of withdrawal of money from the designated bank account.<\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">Fourthly, the Promoters are required to update in case of change in any details including that of the litigation, project professional, Reports such as encumbrance and CERSAI, and formation of legal entity.<\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">Fifthly, Form 4 that certifies the completion of Project by the Architect and Occupancy certificates need to be provided by the promoter.<\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">Sixthly, conveyance of the project need to be confirmed through the disclosures attested by both the association of allottees and promoters.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #800000;\"><strong>Guidelines issued by Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (UP-RERA) in regard to advertisements relating to promotion, marketing, and sale in Real Estate Projects.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">UP-RERA vide Notice No. 8258 dated 21.07.2022 laid down guidelines to the promoters in regard to advertisements relating to promotion, marketing, and sale in Real Estate Projects. Please refer to <a href=\"https:\/\/www.up-rera.in\/pdf\/Letter031.pdf\">https:\/\/www.up-rera.in\/pdf\/Letter031.pdf<\/a> for the update.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #800000;\"><strong>Order issued by Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority regarding declaration about separate bank accounts for real estate projects. <\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Mah-RERA vide its order dated 27.07.2022 directed every promoter to submit a declaration about separate bank account for real estate project on the letter head of promoter in the prescribed form at the time of registeration of real estate project.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\"><span style=\"color: #800000;\"><strong><em>Litigation Brief <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #800000;\"><strong>CASE ANALYSIS: MARICO LIMITED VS. DABUR INDIA LIMITED [PRONOUNCED BY THE HON\u2019BLE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA ON 19.07.2022 IN CS NO. 264 OF 2021]<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p>The captioned suit was filed by Marico Limited before the Hon\u2019ble High Court of Calcutta to initiate an action for disparagement and infringement pertaining to advertisements published and widely circulated by Dabur India Limited in both print and electronic media.<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #800000;\"><strong>Facts:<\/strong><\/span><strong><em>\u00a0<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<ol>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">Marico Limited <strong>(\u201cMarico\u201d)<\/strong> and Dabur India Limited <strong>(\u201cDabur\u201d)<\/strong> are both reputed manufacturers and distributors of Fast Moving Consumer Goods (\u201cFMCG\u201d) and are trade rivals in the FMCG market. Marico manufactures a hair product under its registered trademark and label mark \u2018Nihar\u2019 in the name and style of \u2018<em>Nihar Naturals Shanti Badam Hair Oil\u2019. <\/em>Dabur also engages in the manufacture and production of hair oils under its registered trademark \u2018Dabur\u2019, namely, <em>\u2018Dabur Amla Hair Oil\u2019<\/em> and \u2018<em>New Dabur Amla Hair Oil\u2019<\/em>.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<ol start=\"2\">\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">The impugned advertisements published by Dabur contain the caption- \u201cDABUR AMLA DE SHANTI KE MUKABLE 50% ZYADA MAZBOOT BAAL\u201d, along with the disclaimer \u201cUTPAD NIHAR SHANTI AMLA KE SHABD, DEVICE \/ LABEL MEIN TRADEMARK KE ADHIKAR \u2018MARICO LIMITED\u2019 KE PAAS HAIN. PACK SHOTS UDHARAN KE LIYE DIKHAYE GAYE HAIN. VASTVIK PACK KA AKAR ALAG HO SAKTA HAIN\u201d.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<ol start=\"3\">\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">It was alleged by Marico that the pictorial impact of the impugned advertisements demeans and disparages its products, depicting them as ineffective, useless, and an unattractive purchase. It was contended by Dabur that the impugned advertisements are legitimate, honest, truthful, well substantiated, statistically proven and constitute commercial speech, protected under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution of India. It was further contended by Dabur that they are entitled to show a competitor\u2019s product by naming the competitor, as long as use of the competitor\u2019s mark is honest, under comparative advertising.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p><span style=\"color: #800000;\"><strong>Issue: \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The question for consideration before the Hon\u2019ble Court was whether the impugned advertisements disparage the product manufactured by Marico, as per the principles of law of disparagement settled in <em>Reckitt &amp; Colman of India Limited vs. M.P. Ramachandran<\/em> <a href=\"#_ftn1\" name=\"_ftnref1\"><sup>[1]<\/sup><\/a>.<\/p>\n<p><strong><em>Court\u2019s observations and findings:<\/em><\/strong><strong><em>\u00a0<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<ol>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">The principles of law of disparagement laid down in <em>Reckitt &amp; Colman (supra)<\/em>, have been consistently reiterated by different Courts in various judgements such as <em>Heinz India Private Limited vs. Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Healthcare and Others <a href=\"#_ftn2\" name=\"_ftnref2\"><sup><strong>[2]<\/strong><\/sup><\/a>, Dabur India Limited vs. Wipro Limited Bangalore <a href=\"#_ftn3\" name=\"_ftnref3\"><sup><strong>[3]<\/strong><\/sup><\/a>, Pepsi Co. Inc. vs. Hindustan Coca- Cola Limited <a href=\"#_ftn4\" name=\"_ftnref4\"><sup><strong>[4]<\/strong><\/sup><\/a><\/em>, etc.<\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Hon\u2019ble Court while relying on the above observed that a balance has to be struck by the advertiser merely trying to promote its product but not being permitted to brand a competitor\u2019s product as bad. An amount of hyperbole is to be expected in the description of goods, property and services in advertisements, however, an advertiser cannot be permitted to defame his competitors and slander their goods.<\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Hon\u2019ble Court while placing reliance on the judgement in <em>Horlicks vs. Heinz<\/em> <a href=\"#_ftn5\" name=\"_ftnref5\"><sup>[5]<\/sup><\/a> noted that comparative advertising is a modern day reality. A certain amount of disparagement is implicit in such advertisements which are protected by the Constitution of India and the Advertising Standards Council of India Code, as long as the same are limited to puffing. However, while referring to the decisions of <em>Reckitt Benckiser India Private Limited vs. Hindustan Unilever Limited <a href=\"#_ftn6\" name=\"_ftnref6\"><sup><strong>[6]<\/strong><\/sup><\/a>, Glaxosmithkline Consumer Healthcare Limited vs. Heinz India (P.) Limited <a href=\"#_ftn7\" name=\"_ftnref7\"><sup><strong>[7]<\/strong><\/sup><\/a> <\/em>and <em>Colgate Palmolive Company vs. Hindustan Unilever Limited <a href=\"#_ftn8\" name=\"_ftnref8\"><sup><strong>[8]<\/strong><\/sup><\/a><\/em>, the Hon\u2019ble Court further observed that comparative advertising cannot be permitted to be a means to name and shame a rival\u2019s products.<\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">In the aforesaid background, the Hon\u2019ble Court finally held that the impugned advertisements published by Dabur were more than just puffery, conveying that Marico\u2019s <em>Nihar Naturals Shanti Amla Hair Oil<\/em> is ineffective, unattractive and useless. Therefore, the impugned advertisements disparage and rubbish the product manufactured by Marico. Accordingly, the Hon\u2019ble Court restrained Dabur from publishing and circulating the impugned advertisement.<strong><em>\u00a0<\/em><\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #800000;\"><strong>Civil Appeal before the Hon\u2019ble Supreme Court against a final judgment and order dated21.09.2021 passed by the Hon\u2019ble Telangana High Court.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p><strong>IN THE MATTER OF<\/strong><strong>&#8211; My Palace Mutually Aided Co-Operative Society vs. B. Mahesh &amp; Ors.<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Decided by the Hon\u2019ble Supreme Court on August 23, 2022<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #800000;\"><strong>Main Issue-<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">Whether the Hon\u2019ble High Court erred in exercising jurisdiction under Section &#8211; 151 of the CPC when alternate remedies existed under CPC.<\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">Whether the Senior Judge on the Bench, who previously appeared for one of the parties, ought not to have heard the matter.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><span style=\"color: #800000;\"><strong>Facts-<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">The dispute in the present matter relates to Sy No. 57 (Old Sy No. 274) in Shamsguda Village, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana forming part of S. No. 252 of the list of the Mukhtas in the preliminary decree dated 06.04.1959 by the erstwhile Hon\u2019ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in CS No. 7\/1958.<\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">Original suit was filed back in 1953 before the then City Civil Court, Hyderabad by Smt. Sultana Jahan Begum seeking partition of properties of the Nawab known as \u2018Asman Jahi Paigah\u2019. The said suit was later transferred to the High Court and disposed off by way of preliminary cum final decree dated 06.04.1959. The final order provided that the suit was withdrawn by the Plaintiff and furthermore, a compromise was reached in between certain defendants. In contradiction to the aforementioned final order, the suit entered a complicated state with several parallel proceedings taking place and the same not being settled even after passing of 60 years.<\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">The appellant had previously contended that they acquired the property under an Assignment Deed dated 16.09.2000 executed by earlier predecessor-in-interest under a preliminary decree. Also, a Conveyance Deed had been executed on 03.08.2003 in favor of Appellant, conveying the scheduled property with specific boundaries. Both the documents were unregistered and henceforth, another registered document namely \u2018Deed of Declaration\/Confirmation\u2019 dated 12.08.2011 was registered in favor of appellant.<\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">On the basis of above mentioned contention of appellant, an application was filed before the High Court by the appellant along with another party for passing orders in favor of the appellants, physical possession of the said property was also prayed for. The said application was allowed.<\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">State of Andhra Pradesh challenged the said order which was later taken up by the State of Telangana after separation of the two states. State of Telangana sought condonation of delay of 182 days which was later modified to 913 days. The appeal was later dismissed by the Hon&#8217;ble Court.<\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">After passing of 7 years, final decree was granted in favor of the appellant and thereafter 6 Interim Applications were filed by Respondents before the High Court. One of the six applications was granted allowing filing of applications recalling the final decree dated 19.09.2013.<\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">The order allowing the previously mentioned application was challenged but dismissed giving the parties liberty to raise all objections when substantial application for recalling of final decree was to be heard. Hon\u2019ble High Court upon hearing the contentions of all parties, passed the impugned order allowing recall of the final decree dated 19.09.2013.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong>Observations of the Hon\u2019ble Supreme Court- <\/strong><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #800000;\"><strong>Issue 1<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">Hon\u2019ble Supreme Court opined that Section 151 of CPC confers upon the civil court the powers to invoke their inherent jurisdiction in order to meet the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process. The said powers have been limited by the Hon\u2019ble Supreme Court in <strong>Padam Sen vs State of Uttar Pradesh<\/strong><a href=\"#_ftn9\" name=\"_ftnref9\"><sup>[9]<\/sup><\/a> to circumstances where certain procedural gaps exist in order to ensure that substantive justice is not obliterated by hyper procedural technicalities.<\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">Furthermore, while exercising powers by Section 151 of CPC, the civil courts must not exercise substantive jurisdiction to unsettle already settled disputes. It was reiterated that a court having jurisdiction has power to decide and even in cases where the court arrives at a wrong conclusion, such conclusion is binding upon all parties to suit until set aside by any means.<\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">It was provided that Section 151 of CPC could only be taken into consideration strictly in cases where there existed no alternate remedy. Also, such inherent powers could not be in contradiction to statutory provisions and neither could create remedies not provided for in the Code.<\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">The court observed that in the present case, the applicants\/respondents had access to recourse under Section 96 allowing appeal from original decree as the matter was being heard by the High Court exercising its original jurisdiction. Though the said provision does not provide for the category of people who can prefer an appeal but the same has been well settled by various precedents that any person affected by an order may challenge the same with the leave of concerned court.<\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">The court cited previous case of <strong>Ram Prakash Agarwal vs Gopi Krishan<\/strong><a href=\"#_ftn10\" name=\"_ftnref10\"><sup>[10]<\/sup><\/a>, wherein the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court clarified the law on use of Section 151 of CPC in cases of fraud.<\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">To sum up, it was held that recalling of a final decree in provided circumstances was not appropriate under Section 151 of CPC and rather the court ought to direct the respondents to pursue effective alternate remedy available under law.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><span style=\"color: #800000;\"><strong>Issue 2<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Hon\u2019ble Court laid emphasis upon the established principle of law that \u201cNot only must justice be done; it must also be seen to be done\u201d. Furthermore, the court cited the case of <strong>State of West Bengal vs Shivananda Pathak<\/strong><a href=\"#_ftn11\" name=\"_ftnref11\"><sup>[11]<\/sup><\/a> wherein the aforementioned principle was elaborately discussed.<\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">The court pointed out that it was the duty of the Appellant to bring it to the notice of the Senior Judge regarding his previous involvement in the concerned matter.<\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">The appeal was allowed considering overstepping of High Court in exercising jurisdiction provided under Section 151 of CPC.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><span style=\"color: #800000;\"><strong>An Arbitral Award can be partially\/partly set aside, under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the same would not tantamount to being modification of the award. <\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>IN THE MATTER OF: <\/strong>National Highways Authority of India and Ors. vs. \u00a0The \u00a0Additional Commissioner, Nagpur and Arbitrator under the National Highways Act, 1956 and Ors.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">(pronounced by the Hon\u2019ble High Court of Bombay on 20.08.2022 in Arb. Appeal No. 3 of 2022)<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #800000;\"><strong><em>Facts:<\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<ol>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Appellants undertook the process of acquisition of lands of Respondent Nos. 3 to 8, through the Respondent No. 2 [Land Acquisition Collector and Competent Authority], under the National Highway Act, 1956. The land was acquired for a section of National Highway 7.<\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">On 31.03.2018, the Respondent No. 2 passed an order awarding compensation for the said acquisition to Respondent Nos. 3 to 8. Respondent Nos. 3 to 8, being aggrieved by the said order, initiated arbitration before the Respondent No. 1 for the enhancement of compensation.<\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Respondent No. 1, vide order dated 30.11.2019, partly allowed the claims of Respondent Nos. 3 to 8 and enhanced the said compensation. The Appellants herein filed an application under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 <strong>(the Act)<\/strong> challenging the said award.<\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">The learned Principal District Judge, vide order dated 21.12.2020 <strong>(Impugned Order), <\/strong>found favour in the contentions of the Respondent Nos. 3 to 8 on all points except one, i.e., payment of additional amount of 10% on the total compensation for loss of easementary rights as per Section 3 &#8211; G (2) of the National Highway Act, 1956. As such, the learned Principal District Judge partly allowed the application of the Appellants and partly set aside the award dated 30.11.2019 to the above-mentioned extent.<\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">Therefore, the present appeal was filed by the Appellant herein being aggrieved by the order dated 21.12.2020 of Court of Principal District Judge, Nagpur.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p><span style=\"color: #800000;\"><strong><em>Issues:<\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<ol>\n<li>What is the scope and extent under Section 34 of the Act to interfere with an Arbitral Award?<\/li>\n<li>Whether the setting aside of the partial award by the learned Principal District Judge amounts to modification of the arbitral award?<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p><strong><em>Courts Observations and Findings:<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Hon\u2019ble High Court of Bombay, while relying on <em>Mcdermott International Inc. Vs. Burn Standard Co. Ltd.<a href=\"#_ftn12\" name=\"_ftnref12\"><sup><strong>[12]<\/strong><\/sup><\/a> <\/em>and<em> NHAI vs. M. Hakeem,<\/em><a href=\"#_ftn13\" name=\"_ftnref13\"><sup>[13]<\/sup><\/a> reiterated that the Court does not consider an appeal under Section 34 of the Act and it performs a supervisory role wherein it cannot correct the errors of the Arbitrators. The Court can only quash the Award leaving the parties to go for arbitration afresh, if so advised.<\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Hon\u2019ble High Court of Bombay further relied on the judgement of the Hon\u2019ble Supreme Court of India in <em>Delhi Development Authority Vs. M\/s. R.S. Sharma and Company<a href=\"#_ftn14\" name=\"_ftnref14\"><sup><strong>[14]<\/strong><\/sup><\/a><\/em> and stated that the Court while exercising power under Section 34 of the Act does not exercise appellate jurisdiction. It further stated that the findings rendered in the Arbitral Award can be interfered with only on the touchstone of the principles enumerated in the above quoted judgments.<\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Court also placed reliance on the case of <em>S. Jiwani (M\/S.) Vs. Ircon International Ltd.<a href=\"#_ftn15\" name=\"_ftnref15\"><sup><strong>[15]<\/strong><\/sup><\/a><\/em> wherein the full bench had opined that it would be perversity of justice to a party which has succeeded before the Arbitral Tribunal as well as in the court of law but still does not get a relief. The bench stated that to say that it is mandatory for the court without exception to set aside an award as a whole and to restart the arbitral proceeding all over again would be unjust, unfair, inequitable and would not in any way meet the ends of justice and held that:<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\"><em>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u201cThe judicial discretion vested in the court in terms of the provisions of section 34 of the Arbitration and\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 Conciliation Act, 1996 takes within its ambit power to set aside an award partly or wholly depending on the facts and circumstances of the given case.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Hon\u2019ble High Court of Bombay, while referencing <em> G. Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and another,<a href=\"#_ftn16\" name=\"_ftnref16\"><sup><strong>[16]<\/strong><\/sup><\/a><\/em> held that under section 34 of the Act, the Court can partially set aside the arbitral award. It further opined that the when the Award deals with several claims that can be said to be separate and distinct, the Court can segregate the Award on items that do not suffer from any infirmity and uphold the Award to that extent.<\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">Thereby, the Hon\u2019ble High Court of Bombay disposed of the appeal filed by the Appellants.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\"><span style=\"color: #800000;\"><strong>\u00a0<\/strong>****<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Disclaimer:<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><em>For private circulation to the addressee only and not for re-circulation. Any form of reproduction, dissemination, copying, disclosure, modification, distribution and\/ or publication of this Newsletter is strictly prohibited. This Newsletter is not intended to be an advertisement or solicitation. The contents of this Newsletter are solely meant to inform and is not a substitute for legal advice. Legal advice should be obtained based on the specific circumstances of each case, before relying on the contents of this Newsletter or prior to taking any decision based on the information contained in this Newsletter. ZEUS Law disclaims all responsibility and accepts no liability for the consequences of any person acting, or refraining from acting, on such information. If you have received this Newsletter in error, please notify us immediately by telephone.<\/em><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><em>\u00a0<\/em><em>Copyright \u00a9 2014 ZEUS Law. All rights reserved<\/em>. Replication or redistribution of content, including by caching, framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of ZEUS Law.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><a href=\"#_ftnref1\" name=\"_ftn1\">[1]<\/a> (1999) 19 PTC 741<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref2\" name=\"_ftn2\">[2]<\/a> 2009 (2) CHN 479<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref3\" name=\"_ftn3\">[3]<\/a> (2006) 32 PTC 677 (Del)<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref4\" name=\"_ftn4\">[4]<\/a> 2003 (27) PTC 305 (Del)<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref5\" name=\"_ftn5\">[5]<\/a> 2019 (77) PTC 45<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref6\" name=\"_ftn6\">[6]<\/a> (2021) 88 PTC 584<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref7\" name=\"_ftn7\">[7]<\/a> 2010 SCC OnLine Del 3932<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref8\" name=\"_ftn8\">[8]<\/a> 2014 (57) PTC 47 (Del)<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref9\" name=\"_ftn9\"><sup>[9]<\/sup><\/a> AIR 1961 SC 218<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref10\" name=\"_ftn10\"><sup>[10]<\/sup><\/a> (2013) 11 SCC 296<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref11\" name=\"_ftn11\"><sup>[11]<\/sup><\/a> (1998) 5 SCC 513<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref12\" name=\"_ftn12\">[12]<\/a> MANU\/SC\/8177\/2006<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref13\" name=\"_ftn13\">[13]<\/a> MANU\/SC\/0461\/2021<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref14\" name=\"_ftn14\">[14]<\/a> MANU\/SC\/3624\/2008; (2008) 13 SCC 80<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref15\" name=\"_ftn15\">[15]<\/a> MANU\/MH\/1492\/2009; (2010) 1 Mh.L.J. 547<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref16\" name=\"_ftn16\">[16]<\/a> MANU\/SC\/0527\/2011; (2011) 5 SCC 758<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Highlights: Corporate Brief Circular dated 04.07.2022 issued by SEBI in regard to introduction of web-based Investor Grievance Redressal Mechanism. Gazette [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":4235,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_seopress_robots_primary_cat":"","_seopress_titles_title":"","_seopress_titles_desc":"","_seopress_robots_index":"","footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":"_blank"},"categories":[24,31],"tags":[41],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/zeus.firm.in\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3002"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/zeus.firm.in\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/zeus.firm.in\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/zeus.firm.in\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/zeus.firm.in\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3002"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/zeus.firm.in\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3002\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/zeus.firm.in\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/4235"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/zeus.firm.in\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3002"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/zeus.firm.in\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3002"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/zeus.firm.in\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3002"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}