Recovery of stolen property
In the Indian Penal Code 1860, Section 411 criminalises persons who dishonestly receive stolen property and are punished for a term that may extend to three years, with fines or with both. In Trimbak v State of Maharashtra, AIR 1954 SC 39, The bench has noted that for a conviction to be made under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code,1890, the prosecution needs to prove the following three conditions: 1. The accused was in possession of the stolen property.2. The property was in the possession of someone other than the accused before they got it.3. The accused knew that the property was stolen. In the case of Shiv Kumar vs State of Madhya Pradesh, [CrA 1503 OF 2022], the Supreme Court held that “prosecution Must Establish That Accused Had Knowledge That Property Was Stolen Property.” The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, lays down the procedure for dispatching stolen property to the righteous owner. Section 457 of the CRPC states that during an inquiry or trial, The Magistrate has the authority to either dispose of the property or deliver it to the rightful owner. AUTHOR: Eshwar S, 5th year B.A, LL. B(Hons.), Veltech School of Law, Chennai.
Conspiracy under IPC
Conspiracy is the act of two or more persons forming an agreement for unlawful purposes. It entails individuals agreeing to commit illegal acts together. Under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, section 120A defines Criminal Conspiracy. According to section 120A IPC, when two or more persons agree to commit or instigate the commission of— (1) an unlawful act or (2) an act that, though lawful, is achieved through illegal means, such an agreement is termed criminal conspiracy. Section 120B IPC lays down the punishment for committing a criminal conspiracy. It states that (1) If someone participates in a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence, they are punished by death, life imprisonment, or rigorous imprisonment for two years or more. If there is no specific provision in the law for the punishment of such a conspiracy, they shall be punished as if they had abetted the offence. (2) A person who participates in a criminal conspiracy, excluding those aimed at committing an offence punishable as mentioned earlier, shall be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of up to six months, fined, or both. In Kehar Singh and Others Vs State (Delhi Administration) (1988) [1988 AIR 1883], the Hon’ble Supreme Court determined that the central aspect of the crime of conspiracy is the agreement between two or more individuals to participate in an unlawful act. This illegal act may or may not be carried out as per the agreement, but the agreement itself constitutes an offence and is subject to punishment. AUTHOR: Eshwar S, 5th year B.A, LL. B(Hons.), Veltech School of Law, Chennai.
Powers of Government under the National Security Act, 1980
Sections 3, 5, and 7 of the National Security Act of 1980 speak about the powers of the Government. As per the National Security Act of 1980, the Government is authorised to detain individuals to forestall their involvement in activities deemed harmful to national security, public order, or the provision of vital supplies and services to the community. Under this act, the Central or State Government has the authority to issue detention orders to prevent individuals from undertaking activities that pose a threat to India’s security. The maximum period of detention under this act is 12 months, and the Government has the authority to regulate the place and conditions of detention. Additionally, the act provides for the establishment of a National Security Council to advise the Prime Minister on matters related to national security, strategic policy, and defence. The Government’s powers under the National Security Act of 1980 are aimed at safeguarding national security and maintaining public order in the country. AUTHOR: Eshwar S, 5th year B.A, LL. B(Hons.), Veltech School of Law, Chennai.
What’s in a name?
Delhi High Court says one can’t be stopped from using own name, citing trademark violation (Jindal Industries Private Limited v Suncity Sheets Private Limited and Anr.) In Jindal Industries Private Limited v Suncity Sheets Private Limited and Anr. [CS(COMM) 679/2023], the Delhi High Court has observed that in terms of the Trademarks Act, 1999, the right of a person to use his or her name on one’s own goods cannot be compromised, else it would compromise the right to use one’s name as an identity marker, which would ex facie be unconstitutional. Justice C Hari Shankar said, “In the absence of any such caveat to be found in Section 35 (of Trademarks Act), it may be arguable, at the very least, whether, while the use of one’s name as an identity marker is permissible under Section 35, the instance it spills over into “trademark” territory, it is rendered impermissible. Any such interpretation, in my prima facie view, would be reading a non-existent proviso into Section 35 and, in effect, rewriting the provision.”. Section 35 states that nothing in the law shall give the owner or a registered user of a registered trademark the right to interfere with any genuine use by an individual of their own name. The court observed that the Trademarks Act of 1999 and the privileges it confers cannot be extended to the point where one can monopolise the use of a common name for goods and, by registering it, foreclose the rest of humanity from using it. AUTHOR: Eshwar S, 5th year B.A, LL. B(Hons.), Veltech School of Law, Chennai.
The doctrine of reasonable classification
The doctrine of reasonable classification, as derived from Article 14 of the Constitution of India, allows for discrimination based on rational and logical grounds. It permits the classification of different sections of people on valid reasons such as caste, sex, creed, race, gender, religion, place of birth, and more. This doctrine ensures that discrimination is reasonable and justifiable, allowing for distinct treatment among individuals or groups based on intelligible differences. This provision embodies two fundamental principles: equality before the law and equal protection of the law. Previously, the constitutionality of laws was assessed through the reasonable classification test. This test examined whether there was a valid and rational basis for classifying individuals or groups differently under the legislation. Such classification needed to meet specific criteria to be considered constitutional, ensuring fairness and justice in the application of laws. I n Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice S.R. Tendolkar, AIR 1958, The Supreme Court affirmed that Article 14 prohibits legislation that discriminates against specific classes but allows for reasonable classification for legislative purposes. It condemns discrimination in both substantive and procedural laws. AUTHOR: Eshwar S, 5th year B.A, LL. B(Hons.), Veltech School of Law, Chennai.
GLOBAL DEPOSITORY RECEIPTS
Imagine being an ambitious New York investor looking to invest in new markets and diversify their profile. Now she hears about a promising technological company in India making changes with its innovation. She decides to buy shares from this company, but it isn’t as easy as buying shares from the local markets since different countries have different regulations, currencies, and stock market availability. This investor then learns about Global Depository Receipts (GDRs), a negotiable financial instrument that helps investors invest in foreign companies without dealing with the intricacies of international stock markets. The GDRs are issued by depository banks, where these banks help in facilitating investments in the securities market and store them in electronic form. A GDR is like a document of proof that ensures your purchasing of shares from a foreign company. Global Depository Receipts can be denominated by any currency, but popularly, they are denominated by US dollars or euros. The number of shares represented by a GDR solely depends upon the company since the number of shares can differ from one GDR to another. During the 1992 Securities Scam, The Indian Government wanted companies to raise funds from International markets. Reliance Industries took advantage of this and became the first Indian company ever to make an international share offering. Reliance Industries raised $150 million to expand its market through GDR, which was listed on the New York Stock Exchange. GDRs are traded like regular shares and can easily be transferred between shareholders. Global Depository Receipts have their own set of advantages and disadvantages. On the positive side, GDRs permit access to international capital, improving liquidity and enhancing exposure to the world. This makes GDR a strategic choice for companies that aim to expand their market globally. Investors benefit from GDR by accessing foreign markets and having a diversified portfolio. The drawbacks of the GDR include compliance costs and the fact that it is prone to currency fluctuations that can impact returns. In contrast, GDR paves the way for international investment and integration of markets; investors and companies should weigh the benefits against the complexities and risks involved. AUTHOR: Saraswathy Thogainathan, 5th year BBA. LL.B (Hons.), Saveetha School of Law, Chennai
ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY
“Delhi Continues to battle air pollution as the Air Quality Index remains in a ‘very poor’ category” while reading headlines of that sort. Have you ever wondered who measures these levels of pollution? Environmental laboratories in India play a vital role in analyzing the environment. Their job is to examine samples from both biotic ( air, water, soil) and abiotic (flora, fauna, human being) components. They also take samples from sources that are disposed of in the environment, such as industries, biomedical, agricultural, automobiles, etc. Environmental laboratories are the linchpins of effective pollution control programme. Proper facilities are needed to run these environmental laboratories to get reliable and accurate data. They provide qualitative and quantitative data, contributing to making proper decisions and taking preventive measures to protect the environment. Section 17 (2) of The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, Section 17 (2) of The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and Section 12 of The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 speaks about the establishment and recognition of environmental laboratories in India respectively. In the domain of environmental law, there are various types of environmental laboratories that play a crucial role in adhering to the compliances and the regulatory standards set by the Government. Analytical laboratories conduct tests on the samples collected to identify the pollutants, while compliance laboratories focus on following the environmental rules. Research environmental laboratories help develop scientific knowledge to update the legal department to come up with policies and frameworks. Some important environmental laboratories in India are: Central Pollution Control Board, Delhi, was established in September 1974under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. This board helps collect, assemble, and publish statistics and technical data regarding air and water pollution. It constantly releases reports on the Air Quality Index of big metropolitan cities like Delhi to formulate protocols.Water Pollution Laboratory, Himachal Pradesh,focuses on the water quality in their state, performing research and releasing data to enhance and retain the quality of water bodies.National Agro Foundation, Chennai,is a Public Charitable Trust established in the year 2000, with an advanced soil testing laboratory aiming at analysing soil conditions and providing systematic solutions to improve soil quality.AUTHOR: Saraswathy Thogainathan, 5th year BBA. LL.B (Hons.), Saveetha School of Law, Chennai
GREENMAILING
Greenmailing refers to the method of threatening a hostile takeover by buying enough stocks from a company unless the company agrees to repurchase its own stocks at a premium. In mergers and acquisitions, the companies use greenmailing as a defensive mechanism to avoid a takeover by the corporate raider. The term ‘Greenmail’ is derived from combining blackmail and greenbacks (ie. Dollar bills) by the United States of America. Some Investors see Greenmail as an impeccable way to weed out companies with bad operations, while some see it as a way of extortion that affects the shareholders. Greenmailing is a debatable tactic that may benefit some investors for short-term profits but at the expense of a large shareholder base. After the company pays the premium and purchases its own stocks back, the corporate raider generally backs off from taking over the company. Greenmailing is not explicitly mentioned in Indian laws, but India does have regulations on takeovers, which are mentioned under various legislations such as The Companies Act, 2013; The Competition Act, 2002: Securities and Exchange Board of India (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 2011. In countries like the USA, there are still practices of greenmailing in different forms, and the IRS (Internal Revenue Service) has levied higher percentages of taxes on profits from greenmailing. There are various alternatives available for greenmailing where companies can seek a middle ground on ways to improve the performance of the company to avoid a hostile takeover or engage in friendly merger/acquisitions that would benefit both the company and the shareholders because one main reason for greenmailing is bad management of operations in a company. AUTHOR: Saraswathy Thogainathan, 5th year BBA. LL.B (Hons.), Saveetha School of Law, Chennai