Let us first learn Law relating to Liquidated damages in India. Section 73 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 Compensation for loss or damage caused by breach of contract.—When a contract has been broken, the party who suffers by such breach is entitled to receive, from the party who has broken the contract, compensation for any loss or damage caused to him thereby, which naturally arose in the usual course of things from such breach, or which the parties knew, when they made the contract, to be likely to result from the breach of it. —When a contract has been broken, the party who suffers by such breach is entitled to receive, from the party who has broken the contract, compensation for any loss or damage caused to him thereby, which naturally arose in the usual course of things from such breach, or which the parties knew, when they made the contract, to be likely to result from the breach of it.” Such compensation is not to be given for any remote and indirect loss or damage sustained by reason of the breach. Compensation for failure to discharge obligation resembling those created by contract.—When an obligation resembling those created by contract has been incurred and has not been discharged, any person injured by the failure to discharge it is entitled to receive the same compensation from the party in default, as if such person had contracted to discharge it and had broken his contract. —When an obligation resembling those created by contract has been incurred and has not been discharged, any person injured by the failure to discharge it is entitled to receive the same compensation from the party in default, as if such person had contracted to discharge it and had broken his contract.” Explanation.—In estimating the loss or damage arising from a breach of contract, the means which existed of remedying the inconvenience caused by the non-performance of the contract must be taken into account. Section 74 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 74 Compensation for breach of contract where penalty stipulated for:- [When a contract has been broken, if a sum is named in the contract as the amount to be paid in case of such breach, or if the contract contains any other stipulation by way of penalty, the party complaining of the breach is entitled, whether or not actual damage or loss is proved to have been caused thereby, to receive from the party who has broken the contract reasonable compensation not exceeding the amount so named or, as the case may be, the penalty stipulated for. Explanation. — A stipulation for increased interest from the date of default may be a stipulation by way of penalty.] (Exception) — When any person enters into any bail-bond, recognizance or other instrument of the same nature or, under the provisions of any law, or under the orders of the [Central Government] or of any [State Government], gives any bond for the performance of any public duty or act in which the public are interested, he shall be liable, upon breach of the condition of any such instrument, […]Continue Reading
Judicial activism is most debated among the students of law and laymen. What is judicial activism? Judicial activism is exercising the power of judicial review to set aside government acts by the judiciary. Last decade we saw most of the orders passed to administer various policies of the government by the Supreme Court. From abortion of 24-week fetuses to supply of oxygen and medicine, gay rights, gay marriages, Aadhaar- PAN linking, repeal of Article 370, Ram Temple, Rafael allegation. During the coronavirus pandemic court orders were passed distribution of remdesivir, vaccine, oxygen. In Uttar Pradesh, photos of the burial of bodies at Ganga Ghat were used to create sensation and Hon’ble Court dismissed such frivolous litigation. PITH AND SUBSTANCE Origin: It is a legal doctrine originated in Canada. The doctrine is primarily used when a law is challenged on the basis that one level of government (be it provincial or federal) has encroached upon the exclusive jurisdiction of another level of government. (as applicable in Canada) The doctrine was first articulated in Cushing v. Dupuy, where the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council held that certain rules of civil court procedure could be prescribed under the federal bankruptcy power. It was subsequently confirmed in Tennant v. The Union Bank of Canada, where rules governing warehouse receipts with respect to bank loans could be prescribed under the federal banking power. *The full test was articulated in General Motors v. City National Leasing by Dickson CJ, where he summarized and outlined the analysis to be used in that regard in future cases: The court must determine whether the impugned provision can be viewed as intruding on provincial powers, and if so to what extent. It must establish whether the act (or a severable part of it) in which the impugned provision is found is valid. In cases under the second branch of s. 91(2) this will normally involve finding the presence of a regulatory scheme and then ascertaining whether the hallmarks articulated by the Court have been met by the scheme. If the scheme is not valid, that is the end of the inquiry. If the regulatory scheme is declared valid, the court must then determine whether the impugned provision is sufficiently integrated with the scheme that it can be upheld by virtue of that relationship. This requires considering the seriousness of the encroachment on provincial powers, in order to decide on the proper standard for such a relationship. If the provision passes this integration test, it is intra- vires Parliament as an exercise of the general trade and commerce power. If the provision is not sufficiently integrated into the scheme of regulation, it cannot be sustained under the second branch of s. 91(2). *(source Wikipedia) INDIA AND THE BASIC STRUCTURE OF THE CONSTITUTION Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala Case, is also known as the Fundamental Rights case. It is one of the most significant decisions in Indian constitutional history, post-independence. It was heard by 13 judges’ bench of the Supreme Court. S.M. Sikri C. J., Hegde J, Mukherjee J, Shehlat J, Grover J, Jaganmohan Reddy J, and Khanna J delivered […]Continue Reading
State Government of Maharashtra received several complaints from the Housing Societies, Housing Federations and individual members regarding the mismanagement of Co-operative Societies which are in the midst of re-development. By and large, the nature of complaints received in the matter of re-development of Co-operative Housing Societies is as follows: – Not taking members in confidence in the Re-development process; Non-transparency in the Tendering Process; Arbitrary appointment of contractors; Conducting business in violation of the Co-operative Law, Rules and Byelaws; Lack of co-ordination in the work to be done by the Architects and project Consultants; Non-Planning of Re-development Project Report; Not adopting a fair procedure for the finalisation of tenders; Non-Parity in the Agreements to be executed with Developers. Considering the gravity of issues government of Maharashtra is supersession of the Government Resolution dt.3rd January, 2009, issued Revised Guidelines for Redevelopment of Co-operative Society Buildings in Maharashtra- G.R. dated 4th July, 2019 and gave following directions under Section 79(a) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. Government Resolution: – If any Competent Authority has declared the building of a co-operative housing society as ruinous or dilapidated or dangerous for inhabitation or as posing danger to the passers-by or any structure or place in the neighbourhood and the society is eligible to redevelop the building under the Development Control Regulations, then such society in its General Meeting can take a decision regarding re-development of the building. These directions shall apply to all kinds of Redevelopment such as Re-development carried out by a developer under an agreement, Self-redevelopment, cluster redevelopment in Federal Societies, re-development by a group of societies etc. All the procedure prescribed for the appointment of a developer shall apply to all the afore stated kinds of re-development, the appointment of a contractor or the development carried out under an agreement. The decision regarding re-development of the buildings of housing societies shall be taken in the Special General Meeting of the society held as per the registered byelaws of such society in accordance with the procedure prescribed by these guidelines. The Authorised Officer/Administrator appointed by the Registrar cannot take the decision regarding re-development of the buildings of co-operative housing societies. Convening Special General Meeting for the Re-development of Society Building: –It will be essential that not less than 1/5th members of the co-operative housing society whose buildings are to be re-developed should submit an application addressed to the Secretary of the Managing Committee of the society duly elected and constituted as per the bye-laws of the society and under the law for convening the Special General Meeting for deciding the policy in the matter of re-development of buildings belonging to the society, together with their schemes and suggestions regarding re-development of such buildings. The Managing Committee shall take note of such application within 8 days of the receipt thereof and the Secretary of the society shall convene a Special General Meeting of all members of the society within 2 months. Agenda of this Meeting should be circulated to each member of the society 14 days in advance and the acknowledgment thereof should be maintained in the record of the society. Before […]Continue Reading
INTRODUCTION AI is a blessing for health care. When we are scared of an AI in such an arena if I say it’s a boon then of course I must explain how. In the Western world healthcare is good but the patient has to wait for days or months. While in my Country India, it’s immediate. We just get admission and the next day the patient is operated on. In the West, there is a shortage of human resources. Many countries issue visas for medical and para-medical services with benefits attached. So AI can be a blessing in disguise for the West. Let’s analyze how. FACTS AND TECHNOLOGY In India, for various types of surgeries, doctors are already using robots. These surgeries are complicated like cancer, dental surgeries, stone, spine, etc. These surgeries are affordable because of the use of robots by doctors. It’s called robotic surgery. India is now a medical hub because of its competitive price, availability of doctors, immediate care, and affordability. If AI is brought in, in the medical field many lives can be saved as there will be immediate attention given to the patient. This will help even a person who is going through pain to get early relief. Nowadays there is much discussion on new invention of an AI “eye”. If this EYE is introduced in the medical field then we do not require huge machines like X-rays and MRIs. This will save cost and also space. Especially in metro cities space crunch is always an issue. I understand that this EYE technology will give an instant cause of disease and doctors can treat patients fast. Many patients are scared of huge machines which catch their body in. So this issue of scare will also be resolved. DISCUSSION But with blessings, there are shortcomings too. The question arises when robotic surgery fails. Who is responsible for error done by robots? The hospital? The doctor who was in command of the robot? or the company which designed and activated software and algorithms? Usually, if a surgery is done by a human being a certified licensed surgeon then of course he is liable. But in the case of robotic surgery malfunction maker of the robot company is responsible. Certain fundamental laws are dictums about liability. But it needs to be codified. Certain resolutions are passed by the UN but it is in the nascent stage. CONCLUSION Use technology for the benefit of humankind. As such rockets and bombs are also technology but it’s for destruction. During surgery if the internet signal is lost who is responsible? Well, human race is ready for AI? Surgeries were done even in ancient India. Sushrut Samhita speaks of it. Another question therefore arise is do we need AI? All these questions will be answered with the passage of time. But at present whatever inventions are there in the market it’s a blessing to humankind SHRUTI DESAI 22th June 2023Continue Reading
IS DELHI A UNION TERRITORY? CAN CENTRAL GOVERNMENT REMOVE SPECIAL STATUS OF DELHI ? IF YES, WHAT ARE THE PROVISIONS?
As of date, there is a lot of friction going on between the Delhi Government and the Central Government regarding the administration of the state, it’s time for us to know whether Delhi is a full-fledged state or a Union Territory. So let us first read the Constitution provisions. Do you know Delhi is a Union Territory? Yes, under the Indian Constitution Delhi is a Union Territory. Delhi was given a special status in 1991 by the 69th Amendment to the Constitution. Union Territory of Delhi was given a new name and shall be called the National Capital Territory and the administrator thereof appointed under Article 239 shall be designated as the Lieutenant Governor. This was confirmed by 5 judges’ bench of the Supreme Court in the matter of New Delhi Municipal Corporation vs State of Punjab We have already dealt with the special features of Article 239-AA and need not repeat it. Indeed, a reference to Article 239-B read with clause (8) of Article 239-AA shows how the Union Territory of Delhi is in a class by itself but is certainly not a State within the meaning of Article 246 or Part-VI of the Constitution. In us, it is also a territory governed by clause (4) of Article 246. As pointed out by the learned Attorney General, various Union territories are in different stages of evolution. Some have already acquired Statehood and some may be on the way to it. The fact, however, remains that those surviving as Union territories are governed by Article 246(4) notwithstanding the differences in their respective set-ups – and Delhi, now called the “National Capital Territory of Delhi”, is yet a Union territory. The following are the provisions: The following Article was inserted by way of the 69th Amendment in 1991 and was effective from 1st February 1992. 239AA. Special provisions with respect to Delhi —(1) As from the date of commencement of the Constitution (Sixty-ninth Amendment) Act, 1991, the Union territory of Delhi shall be called the National Capital Territory of Delhi (hereafter in this Part referred to as the National Capital Territory) and the administrator thereof appointed under article 239 shall be designated as the Lieutenant Governor. (2)(a) There shall be a Legislative Assembly for the National Capital Territory and the seats in such Assembly shall be filled by members chosen by direct election from territorial constituencies in the National Capital Territory. (b) The total number of seats in the Legislative Assembly, the number of seats reserved for Scheduled Castes, the division of the National Capital Territory into territorial constituencies (including the basis for such division) and all other matters relating to the functioning of the Legislative Assembly shall be regulated by law made by Parliament. (c) The provisions of articles 324 to 327 and 329 shall apply in relation to the National Capital Territory, the Legislative Assembly of the National Capital Territory, and the members thereof as they apply, in relation to a State, the Legislative Assembly of a State and the members thereof respectively; and any reference in articles 326 and 329 to “appropriate Legislature” shall be deemed to be a reference to Parliament. (3) (a) Subject to the provisions of this […]Continue Reading