Would Purchase of a vehicle by a Company for the use of its directors amount to purchase for “commercial purpose"?

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Daimler Chrysler India Pvt. Ltd. v. Controls & Switchgear Company Ltd (09-07-2024) has held that the onus to prove that goods were purchased for commercial purpose and therefore, such goods would fall outside the definition of consumer contained in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, would be on the seller and not on the buyer.

The Hon'ble Apex Court considering facts and circumstances of the case observed that it had been specifically asserted by the complainant that the car in question was purchased by it for the personal use of its Whole-time Director and for his immediate family members, and the dominant purpose of purchasing the car was to treat it as a part of the perquisite to the Director. There was nothing on Record to to show that the said car was used for any commercial purpose or that the purchase of car had a nexus or was linked to any profit generating activity of the company.

(2024) 8 JGC 7

 

SC Directs NGT To Oversee Impact Of Silicosis Prone Industries

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Peoples Rights And Social Research Centre (PRASAR) Vs Union of India (06-08-2024) has directed the National Green Tribunal (NGT) to oversee the impact of silicosis prone industries and the industries, which failed to abide by certain minimal standards to prevent silicosis among their workers should face closure.

The Hon'ble Apex Court has directed the NHRC to oversee the compensation process to next of kins of affected workers. The Court has further directed the ESIC and the Chief Secretaries of the respective states to adhere to the directions of the NHRC and collaborate with them to ensure that the compensation distribution process is carried out efficiently and without delay.

(2024) 8 JGC 6

SC upholds acquittal of accused in cheque dishonour case on account of contradictions in loan details

The Hon'ble Supreme Court recently in Sri Dattatraya Versus Sharanappa (07-08-2024) has upheld the acquittal of accused in cheue dishonour case under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 on account of the inability of the complainant to put forth the details of the loan advanced, and his contradictory statements even though the complainant was able to establish that the signature on the cheque in question was of the accused. 

1. The Hon'ble Apex Court while referring to earlier judgement in Rajesh Jain v. Ajay Singh (2023) 10 SCC 148 has held that an accused may establish non-existence of a debt or liability either through conclusive evidence that the concerned cheque was not issued towards the presumed debt or liability, or through adduction of circumstantial evidence vide standard of preponderance of probabilities.  

2. The Hon'ble Court observed that there was no financial capacity or acknowledgement in his Income Tax Returns by the Appellant to the effect of having advanced a loan to the Respondent. Even further the Appellant has not been able to showcase as to when the said loan was advanced in favour of the Respondent nor has he been able to explain as to how cheque landed in the hands of the instant holder.

  

3. The Hon'ble Court also clarified that since the accused has been able to cast a shadow of doubt on the case presented by the complainant, he has therefore successfully rebutted the presumption stipulated by Section 139 of the NI Act 1881.  

(2024) 8 JGC 5