SUPREME COURT CASES:
2. OTT PLATFORMS: EXPLAIN ACTION TAKEN, SC TELLS GOVT
The Supreme Court on Tuesday said nothing appear convinced with the government’s submission that it is “contemplating” regulations for OTT (over-the-top) platforms such as Netflix and Amazon Prime.
“Everybody in the world can contemplate... You put it out in an affidavit what you are doing,” Chief Justice of India Sharad A. Bobde addressed Additional Solicitor General K.M. Nataraj, for the government.
The court issued notice on a plea filed by advocates ShashankShekharJha and ApurvaArhatia seeking a proper board/institution /association for monitoring and managing the content of different OTT/streaming and digital media platforms.
Initially, during the hearing, the court had asked the petitioners to approach the government with their representation. However, the court, later on, decided that the government should better file a written reply to the petition.
The plea contended that there was no law or autonomous body governing the digital content to monitor and manage the content of OTT platforms made available to the public at large without any filter or screening, it said.
“Lack of legislation governing OTT/streaming platforms is becoming evident with each passing day and every new case that is filed on these grounds... The government is facing heat to fill this lacuna with regulations from the public and the judiciary; still the relevant government departments have not done anything significant to regularise these OTT/Streaming Platforms,” the plea said.
None of the OTT/streaming platforms, including Netflix, Amazon Prime, Zee5, and Hotstar, have signed the self-regulation provided by Ministry of Information and Broadcasting since February 2020, it said.
HIGH COURT CASES:
3. HIGH COURT ACQUITS PRIYA RAMANI IN M.J. AKBAR’S DEFAMATION CASE.
Case name:Mobashar Jawed Akbar Vs. PriyaRamani
Facts: Ms. Ramani accused Mr. Akbar of sexual harassment at the height of #MeToo movement in 2018. In response to it Mr. Akbar filed a defamation case against her. He claimed that Ms. Ramani’s tweet and her articles were defamatory and lowered his reputation
Held: The Delhi Court on acquitting Ms. Ramani held that woman cannot be punished for raising voice against sex abuse on the pretext of criminal complaint of defamation as the right of reputation cannot be protected at the cost of right of life and dignity of woman as guaranteed in Indian Constitution under Article 21 and right of equality before law and equal protection of law as guaranteed under article 14 of the Constitution. A woman has a right to put her grievance at any platform of her choice even after decades.
4. DETENTION OF A PERSON DESPITE FURNISHING OF PERSONAL BOND VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 21: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Case Name: Shiv Kumar Verma and Another Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Others.
As there was some dispute between the petitioners regarding the ancestral property, the Police officials arrested the petitioners under section 151 of Cr. P.C (Arrest to prevent the commission of cognizable offences without an order from a magistrate and without a warrant). On receipt of the Challani Report, the Sub Divisional Magistrate registered the case.
Section 107 of Cr. P.C - Section 107 Cr. P.C requires the Magistrate, receiving the information that any person is likely to commit a breach of the peace and is of opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, he may require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond for keeping the peace a period not exceeding one year.
In the instant case, despite the submission of personal bonds and other papers by the petitioners on October 12, 2020, the magistrate did not release them. Only on October 21, 2020 the petitioners were released following which they approached the High Court.
The Allahabad High Court held that the Non-release of the petitioners even after submission of personal bond/bond and other papers, is a clear breach of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
5.LAWYERS FLAG VIOLATION OF NORMS IN DISHA ARREST:
Top lawyers have termed Bangalore-based climate activist Disha Ravi’s arrest “ab-initio-illegal”, meaning illegal from the beginning.
Disha was arrested for “editing” a tool-kit for organising farmers’ protest. Global climate leader, teenager Greta Thunberg, had forwarded the tool-kit online.
What’s the issue?
The arrest violated every legal and constitutional right of Disha, starting from her not being produced in court in Bangalore, where she was arrested, for a transit remand; to not being provided a legal counsel in Delhi, where she was remanded in police custody.
Rules and other provisions in this regard:
As per the lawyers, almost every due process of law was overlooked.
It is stated that the Delhi Police did not follow any of the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v State of Bihar (2014).
Section 80 of CrPC stipulates that the arrested person must be produced before the magistrate within the jurisdiction of arrest, which must be followed in every case.
She also did not have an opportunity to seek legal counsel nor was one provided to her, in breach of Article 22.
1. Which of the following is not an interpretation of the Right to Privacy as explained by the Supreme Court in Puttaswamy judgment?
a) The destruction by the State of a sanctified personal space, of body and mind is violative of the guarantee against arbitrary state action.
b) The intersection between one‘s mental integrity and privacy entitles the individual to the freedom of self-determination.
c) The privacy of an individual recognizes an inviolable right to determine how freedom shall be exercised.
d) The guarantee of privacy is a guarantee against the arbitrary State action.
2. Which of the following is true in relation to the scope of the newly evolved ‗Right to Privacy‘?
a) The Right to Privacy cannot be denied, even if there is a miniscule fraction of the population which is affected.
b) The majoritarian concept applies to the Constitutional Rights and the Courts must adhere to the majoritarian view.
c) One‘s sexual orientation is undoubtedly not an attribute of privacy.
d) Right to Privacy is an unrestricted and inviolable right, outside the fetters of any State action
3. In which of the following cases the Supreme Court held that, “Sexual orientation is an attribute of privacy. Discrimination against an individual on the basis of sexual orientation is deeply offensive to the dignity and self-worth of the individual. Equality demands that the sexual orientation of each individual in society must be protected on an even platform. The right to privacy and the protection of sexual orientation lie at the core of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution.”?
a) Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India.
b) Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India.
c) NALSA v. Union of India.
d) Suresh Kumar Koushal v. NazFundation.
4. Which of the following is not a ground for judicial review of a discretionary action of an Administrative Authority in India?
a) Failure to exercise discretion
b) Excess or abuse of discretion
c) A breach of rules of Natural Justice
d) None of the above
5. What is the meaning of a writ of “Certiorarified mandamus”?
a) A writ of Mandamus, issued against an adjudicating body to quash a decision.
b) A writ of Certiorari issued to an administrative body to quash its decision.
c) A simultaneous writ to quash a decision and also to give a direction.
d) A simultaneous writ to quash a direction and give a decision.
1. In case of guarantee, liability of the surety is
(A) Primary as compared to that of the principal debtor
(B) Secondary as compared to that of the principal debtor
(C) Co-extensive with that of the principal debtor
(D) Both (A) and (C)
2. Sasi& Co., a building contractor entered into an agreement with Sky Heights Housing Association to refurnish a block of 30 flats. This contract was subject to a liquidated damages clause if they did not complete the contract on time. Sasi& Co engaged Lokesh to do the carpentry work for an agreed price of Rs.50,000. After six months of commencing the work, Lokesh realised that he had priced the job too low and would be unable to complete at the originally agreed price. Sasi& Co. Agreed to make additional payments of Rs. 1575 per flat. Lokesh worked for a further period of 6 weeks but only received an additional amount of Rs. 1000. He then ran out of money and refused to continue unless payment was made. Sasi& Co. engaged another carpenter to complete the contract and refused to pay Lokesh the further sums.
(A) The agreement to pay extra was unenforceable as there was no consideration for the subsequent agreement.
(B) Consideration was provided by Lokesh in the form of conferring a benefit on the Sasi& Co by helping them to avoid the penalty clause. Therefore, Sasi& Co was liable to make the extra payments promised.
(C) The consideration provided by Lokesh as to avoid the penalty clause was not main object of the contract. Therefore, Sasi& Co. was not liable to make the extra payments promised.
(D) Sasi& Co. Is liable to pay compensation to Lokesh as they have committed a breach of contract by employing another carpenter.
3. What is a continuing guarantee?
(A) A guarantee which continues even after the contract comes to an end
(B) A guarantee which shall be applicable to any other person who becomes a party to the contract
(C) A guarantee which extends to a series of transaction
(D) A guarantee which continues till the contract does not come to an end
4. A wanted to sell his house to B and made an offer by e-mail to sell his house at 65 Lacs. On the same day, without knowledge of A’s e-mail, B sent a email to A informing him that he would like to buy the house for 65 lacs, Identify the correct statement
(A) The contract is valid as both offer and acceptance have been made
(B) The contract is valid as both parties have agreed upon the same terms of agreement
(C) The contract is invalid as there is no acceptance
(D) The contract is invalid as there is no proper offer
5. Statement A: A surety is discharged from his liability under a contract of guarantee if the creditor does or omits to do something that results in impairment of a remedy available to the guarantor against the principal debtor in case of his default.
Statement B: The guarantor is invested with all the rights, which the creditor had against the principal debtor, after due payment and performance by him on behalf of the principal debtor on his default.
(A) The Statement A is true but Statement B is false
(B) Both Statement A and B are false
(C) Both Statement A and B are true and Statement B is the reason for Statement A
(D) Both Statement A and B are true but Statement B is not the reason for Statement A
1. OPTION C
2. OPTION A
3. OPTION A
4. OPTION A
5. OPTION C
Guarantee: A “contract of guarantee” is a contract to perform the promise, or discharge the liability, of a third person in case of his default. A guarantee may be either oral or written.
Surety: The person who gives the guarantee is called the “surety”;
Principal debtor: The person in respect of whose default the guarantee is given is called the “principal debtor”,
Creditor: The person to whom the guarantee is given is called the “creditor”.
According to Section 128 of Indian contract act, The liability of the surety is co- extensive with that of the principal debtor, unless it is otherwise provided by the contract.This section depends on the contract as well. Therefore, the surety’s liability depends on the terms of the contract and is not liable to pay more than the principal debtor has taken.
A guarantees to B the payment of a bill of exchange by C, the acceptor. The bill is dishonoured by C. A is liable, not only for the amount of the bill, but also for any interest and charges which may have become due on it.
Section 2(d) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872
When, at the desire of the promisor, the promisee or any other person has done or abstained from doing, or does or abstains from doing, or promises to do or to abstain from doing, something, such act or abstinence or promise is called a consideration for the promise.
Section 2(c) of the Indian Contract Act,1872
The person making the proposal is called the “promisor”, and the person accepting the proposal is called the “promisee”.
Section 2(e) of theIndianContractAct,1872
Every promise and every set of promises, forming the consideration for each other, is an agreement.
According to Section 129 of Indian contract act, a guarantee which extends to a series of transaction, is called as "Continuing guarantee".
Difference between continuing guarantee and simple guarantee:
1). A continuing guarantee can be revoked. Whereas, simple guarantee can not be revoked.
2).In continuing guarantee, the transaction can go for long period of time therefore the surety will be held liable for long time as well whereas in simple guarantee the surety liability is over when the debt is paid or the performance is done.
In the case of Nottingham Hide Co vsBottrill 1873, it was held that the facts, circumstances, and intention of each case has to be looked into for determining if it is a case of continuing guarantee or not.
Revocation of continuing guarantee:
The continuing guarantee can be revoked at any time by surety, It can be done:
1) By giving notice to the creditor (Sec.130)
2) By death of the surety (Sec. 131).
Section 2(b) of The Indian Contract Act, 1872 states that, "When the person to whom the proposal is made signifies his assent thereto, the proposal is said to be accepted. A proposal, when accepted, becomes a promise".
According to Section 4 of ICA,"The communication of a proposal is complete when it comes to the knowledge of the person to whom it is made".
Acceptance, in order to be valid, must be made under circumstances which would show that the acceptor is able and willing to fulfill the promise. If no such intent is present, the acceptance is not valid.
Acceptance cannot precede an offer. A person who has no knowledge of an offer cannot be said to have accepted it merely because he happened to act just by chance in the manner prescribed by the offer.
When the offeree accepts the proposal, he must have known that an offer was made. He cannot communicate acceptance without knowledge of the offer.
In case of LalmanShukla v. GauriDutt, The High Court of Allahabad held that knowledge and acceptance of a proposal must be communicated to people which are the basic essentials in order to constitute a valid contract. The person can claim reward if he gives his consent and perform the terms of the proposal.
In this question A made an offer and subsequently without knowledge of A's offer, B made another offer to A. So there is no acceptance.
Section 139of ICA states that, if the creditor does any act which is inconsistent with the rights of the surety or omits to do any act which his duty to the surety requires him to do, and the eventual remedy of the surety himself against the principal debtor is thereby impaired, the surety is discharged.
Section 140 of the ICA states that, where a guaranteed debt has become due, or default of the principal debtor to perform a guaranteed duty has taken place, the surety upon payment or performance of all that he is liable for, is invested with all the rights which the creditor had against the principal debtor.
Section 139 deals with Statement A and Section 140 deals with Statement B.