Connect with us

Nagpur News Legal

Holding hands of minor, unzipping pants won’t amount to sexual assault: Bombay HC

The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court, on January 15th, said that the act of holding a minor girls hands and unzipping of pants would not amount to sexual assault? under Section 7 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act 2012. 

 

The order, passed by a single bench of Justice Pushpa Ganediwala further states that the act rather comes under the definition of sexual harassment? under Section 354-A (1) (i) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 

 

Whoever, with sexual intent touches the vagina, penis, anus or breast of the child or makes the child touch the vagina, penis, anus or breast of such person or any other person, or does any Act with sexual intent which involves physical contact without penetration is said to commit sexual assault.

 

The ruling was pronounced on January 15th,against the conviction and sentence awarded to a 50-year-old man, accused for molesting a five-year-old girl.

 

The complaint was filed by the mother of the victim, who had found the accused holding her five-year-old daughter’s hands and taking her into a room, while the zip of his trouser was open.

 

Based on the complaint, the sessions court had said that the case was of aggravated sexual assault? and had convicted the accused under Sections 354 (A) (Sexual harassment) and 448 (Punishment for house trespass) of the IPC, along with Section 8 (Punishment for sexual assault), 10 (Punishment for aggravated sexual assault) and 12 (Punishment for sexual harassment) of the POCSO Act.

 

The accused was later sentenced to five years of rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs 25,000 with a default simple imprisonment for six months.

 

Continue Reading
Click to comment
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Legal

HC asks Joint District Registrar to pay back excess stamp duty of Rs 23 lakh collected from SDPL

Published

on

By

Amar Ashok Jajoo | Nagpur

Representational Image

The Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court has ordered the Joint District Registrar, Nagpur, to pay back Rs 23,03,810, which was collected as excess stamp duty from Sandeep Dwellers Private Limited (SDPL).

While Adv Kartik Shukul appeared for SDPL, Assistant Government Pleader NR Patil appeared for The Joint District Registrar and other two respondents – The State of Maharashtra and The Inspector General of Registration.

SDPL, which is into construction, entered into one development agreement on December 28, 2020, and two agreements on December 31, 2020. The agreements were registered on February 10, 2021, January 1, 2021, and June 29, 2021, respectively. Before execution of the development agreements, SDPL made an application under Section 31 of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958, for adjudicating upon the stamp duty chargeable on the development agreements.

Under the application, SDPL contended that since the development agreements were covered by government notification dated August 28, 2020, issued by Revenue and Forest Department, which reduced stamp duty chargeable on conveyance as per Article 25(b) of Schedule I of the Stamp Act, the development agreements were liable to be charged with lesser stamp duty. The notification dated 28.8.2020 had reduced the stamp duty chargeable on conveyance under Article 25(b) by two per cent for the period between 1st September 2020 to 31st December 2020 and by one and half per cent for the period from 1st January 2021 to 31st March 2021.

This contention of SDPL, however, was not accepted by the Joint District Registrar, who by an order passed on December 12, 2020, held that full stamp duty as is prescribed under Article 5(g-a) read with Article 25(b)(i), Schedule I of the Stamp Act, would have to be paid by SDPL. The petitioner abided by the adjudication and went ahead to execute the agreements on the dates mentioned earlier.

Through the petition, SDPL questioned the legality of the December 18 order passed by the Joint District Registrar and also demanded a refund of the amount of Rs 23,03,810, which SDPL said was paid in excess of the requirement of law. SDPL also demanded interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the said amount.

After hearing arguments from Adv Shukul and Adv Patil, the court partially allowed SDPL’s petition. The court quashed the December 18 order and directed the Joint District Registrar to refund the stamp duty paid in excess of the duty, which was required to be paid in respect of each of the three development agreements as per the rate stated in the notification dated August 28, 2020. The Joint District Registrar has been ordered by court to pay back the excess stamp duty within eight weeks. During its ruling, the court rejected SDPL’s request for interest on the said amount.

Giving an insight on the ruling, Adv Shukul told Nation Next, “This opens doors for other builders, who entered into development agreements registered during this period in the Maharashtra, to get a 2% refund of stamp duty, if it was collected in excess from them.”

Continue Reading

Legal

Major relief for Nagpur family as MahaRERA issues order against Sahara City Homes

Published

on

By

Radhika Dhawad | Nagpur

In a setback to Sahara City Homes ? a housing project of Sahara group’s real estate arm ? and a major win for Nagpur based advocates Rishabh R Agrawal and Suyash R Agrawal, Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) granted relief to Sanjay Bansilal Paliwal and Bansilal Namumal Paliwal against the real estate giant. 


The authority directed Sahara City Homes to hand over the possession of a row house along with the promised amenities.

The Paliwals, on January 13, had filed a complaint seeking relief from MahaRERA to either direct Sahara City Homes to handover the possession of the row house, along with interest for the delayed possession of the same, or refund the entire money paid by Paliwals along with interest for the delayed possession under the provisions of Section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016.

The authority directed Sahara City Homes to hand over the possession of the row house to Paliwals after obtaining Occupation Certificate along with an interest at the rate of Marginal Cost Lending Rate (MCLR) of the State Bank of India (SBI) with an additional two percent, until the flat is handed over to Paliwals. 

As per the order, the row house was purchased for total consideration amount of ₹56,30,000.
The Paliwals further stated that they had paid an amount of ₹48,04,779 to Sahara City Homes but despite making a huge payment, the latter failed to hand them over the possession of the row house. 

However, in a letter dated September 15, 2016, Sahara City Homes had mentioned that the date of possession of the said row house was July 13, 2012 and had also agreed to pay ₹16,62,738 towards reimbursement for losses for delayed period to the Paliwals. 

Sahara City Homes, in the letter, had also assured an additional reimbursement for the losses incurred in case of further delay in possession of the row house by the Paliwals.
The order also stated that Paliwals repeatedly made oral requests to Sahara City Homes thus reminding them of the promise the latter had made. However, they failed to give the possession to Paliwals.

Continue Reading

Legal

Unijules MD Faiz Vali rubbishes Rhugved Pharmaceutical’s accusation of dengue medicine trademark infringement

Published

on

By

Amar Ashok Jajoo | Nagpur

Teen Mundi Chhap medicine sold by Rhugved Pharmaceuticals (L) and Chaar Mundi Chaap medicine sold by Unijules Group.

Teen Mundi Chhap medicine sold by Rhugved Pharmaceuticals (L) and Chaar Mundi Chaap medicine sold by Unijules Group.

Two Nagpur-based pharmaceutical companies have locked horns over a trademark used for selling dengue/malaria medicine. As a result of the tussle, on September 25, Rhugved Pharmaceuticals, situated in Dhantoli, filed a complaint with Shanti Nagar Police against the managing director and directors of 89-year-old Unijules Group situated in Kalmeshwar.

In the complaint, Dr Yashwant Ambatkar from Rhugved has stated that from November 10, 2011, to September 24, 2021, Unijules used a ‘Char Mundi’ logo similar to the ‘Teen Mundi’ logo allegedly owned by Rhugved to sell the dengue medicine. Ambatkar further alleged that Unijules gave advertisements in the newspaper stating that ‘Teen Mundi Chaap’ medicine is now ‘Chaar Mundi Chaap’ medicine. As a result of the complaint, Shanti Nagar Police have called managing director Faiz Vali and two directors DK Belani and Amit Chhabra for statement.

Speaking to Nation Next, Vali rubbished the allegations levelled against Unijules by Rhugved. Vali said: “We have been selling the medicine ‘Febronal’ – used for fever, pain and dengue – since 1946. The Teen Mundi trademark was registered by us under the provisions of the Trade Marks Act 1999 on January 6, 2011. The trademark is valid till 2030. When we got to know that Rhugved is selling the same kind of medicine under the name ‘Febromal’ with a different variation of the Teen Mundi logo, we decided to use the ‘Chaar Mundi Logo.’ We gave advertisements in newspapers stating that Teen Mundi Chaap medicine will now be sold by us as Chaar Mundi Chaap during 2010-2011. We have also applied for tradmark of Febromal Char Mundi Chaap which is under consideration.

The 'Teen Mundi' trademark registered by Unijules in January 2011.

The ‘Teen Mundi’ trademark registered by Unijules in January 2011.

Vali added: “This is an attempt by Rhugved to stop us from selling the medicine. They have been trying to do that since many years.” Vali, who has been called for his statement by Shanti Nagar Police on September 27, has now decided to file a complaint against Rhugved and is also contemplating legal action.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending

0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x