Prasar Bharati Cannot Encrypt DD Sports: Delhi High Court, Dismisses Amazon's Plea Against Broadcast Of India-New Zealand Cricket Series On Dish TV

Upholding an interim order of the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal, the Delhi High Court on Friday ruled that Prasar Bharti cannot encrypt the contents of DD Sports as long as it remains in the list of Free-to-air channels which are required to be compulsorily carried by all cable operators.

Justice Yashwant Varma said DD Sports has been made FTA by the government in the exercise of powers conferred by the Cable Television Network (Regulation) Act, 1995 and it continues to remain included in the notification dated September 06, 2013.

"Thus, even if the content in question be one which was acquired by Prasar Bharati under Section 12(3)(c) of the [Prasar Bharati (Broadcasting Corporation of India) Act]1990 Act, as long as the same is aired on the DD Sports platform, it would be subject to the power that the Union Government may exercise under Section 8 of the 1995 Act," said the court

NI Act | Complainant Can't Seek To Prosecute Company's Former Directors For Cheque Issued To Repay Amount Invested When They Held Office: Karnataka HC

Read Judgment

The Karnataka High Court has quashed the proceedings initiated against two former directors of a company under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the complainant claiming that when he invested the money in the company they were directors.

A

single-judge bench of Justice Hemant Chandangoudar allowed the petition filed by Sunita and Vidya and quashed the proceedings pending against them.

A private complaint was filed under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'the Act'), alleging that the cheque, which was issued by the Company in favour of the complainant, when presented for realisation was dishonoured for want of funds. The Magistrate, after recording the sworn statement of the complainant, took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act and issued summons to the accused.

The bench said, "The cheque in question was issued on 01.08.2019. The petitioners, who were the Directors of the Company, ceased to be the Directors of the Company with effect from 22.03.2017 which is evident from Form No.DIR-12 issued by Registrar of the Companies and the same has remained uncontroverted."

It then held, "Hence, it implies that the petitioners ceased to be the Directors of the Companies as on the date of issuance of the cheque. Hence, registration of the complaint against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act is not sustainable."

No fine can be imposed for feeding stray dogs: Supreme Court modifies Bombay High Court order

The Supreme Court on Wednesday modified an order of the Bombay High Court that had directed authorities to impose fines on citizens who feed stray dogs in Nagpur [Swati Sudhirchandra Chatterjee and ors v. Vijay Shankarrao Talewar and ors].

The Bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and JK Maheshwari said that it is permissible to feed stray dogs without causing a nuisance to the public and that no coercive steps like fines can be imposed for feeding the animals.

"Wherever there are human beings, there is bound to be a conflict of interest. There will be wrongs done by stray dogs as well, we have to be conscious of both. There may be other considerations...You cannot insist that people who feed dogs must adopt them." 

*****

Last month, the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court had directed authorities to impose a fine of not more than ₹200 on citizens who feed stray dogs on the roads and in public places in the city.

The High Court had noted that despite measures taken by the authorities, the menace of stray dogs had increased in the city because of the irresponsible behaviour of some citizens, who feed such dogs on the streets.

The Bench had stated that if these so-called friends of stray dogs are really interested in the protection and welfare of the strays, they must adopt them, take them home or at least put them up in dog shelter homes and bear all the expenses for their registration with municipal authorities and towards their maintenance, health and vaccination.

Education is not business to earn profit, tuition fees must be affordable: Supreme Court

Read Judgment

Education is not a business to earn a profit, the Supreme Court observed on Monday while upholding the Andhra Pradesh High Court order to strike down the State government's decision to hike the annual tuition fees for MBBS courses in private unaided medical colleges to ₹24 lakh.

Determination of fee or review of fee, the judges said, shall be within the parameters of the fixation rules and shall have direct nexus to:

- location of the professional Institution

- nature of 
the professional course

- cost of available infrastructure

- expenditure on administration and maintenance

- reasonable surplus required for growth and development of the Institution

- revenue foregone on account of waiver of the fee, if any, in respect of reserved category students.

'Bribe Giver' Is A Party Connected To 'Proceeds Of Crime' ; Can Be Prosecuted Under PMLA : Supreme Court

Read Judgment

The Supreme Court set aside a Madras High Court judgment which quashed PMLA proceedings initiated against a 'bribe giver'.

"By handing over the money to give a bribe, such person will be assisting or will knowingly be a party to an activity connected with the proceeds of crime. Without such active participation on the part of the person concerned, the money would not assume the character of being the proceeds of crime. The relevant expressions from Section 3 of the PML Act are thus wide enough to cover the role played by such a person.", the bench of CJI UU Lalit and Justice Bela M. Trivedi observed.

Padmanabhan Kishore (A2) allegedly handed over a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees fifty lakhs only) to a public servant. An FIR was registered under Section 120B, Indian Penal Code and Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Later, a case was registered by the Enforcement Directorate against the accused including Padmanabhan Kishore under Sections 3 and 4 of the PML Act. Later, the Madras High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the PMLA proceedings against him. According to High Court, the sum of Rs.50,00,000/- as long as it was in the hands of Padmanabhan Kishore (A2) could not have been stated as tainted money because it is not the case of the CBI that he had mobilised Rs.50,00,000/- via criminal activity. The sum of Rs.50,00,000/- became the proceeds of a crime only when Andasu Ravinder (A1) accepted it as a bribe. Even before Andasu Ravinder (A1) could project the sum of Rs.50,00,000/- as untainted money, the CBI intervened and seized the money in the car on 29.08.2011.