Delhi HC denies interim blocking of online gambling and betting websites
It is reported that a Public Interest Litigation has been filed in the Delhi HC, whereby the Petitioner, a social activist named Avinash Mehrotra, sought for the blocking of all online betting and gambling websites on the grounds that the problem of illegal and illicit gambling is an online menace that has ruined the lives and financial security of several persons
The petition was filed earlier requesting Delhi HC to issue a direction to the Union Ministry of Information Technology to ban certain offshore and domestic online gaming websites such as Betway, BetRally India, 1xBet, Royal Panda, Dafabet, Adda52, PokerStars.in and Khelo365. under Sections 67 and 69 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
The petitioner reiterated his concerns that the online poker websites are a threat to the financial security of the public and are in run in contravention to the Foreign Exchange Management Laws and Income Tax Laws.
The Delhi HC, however, held that it was too premature to make a blanket ban on all online betting and gambling websites and hence, refused to grant an interim injunction.
Quick View:
The present PIL challenges the validity of the Nagaland Prohibition of Gambling and Gambling and Promotion and Regulation of Online Game of Skill Act, 2016 which is one of the first legislations in India that expands the scope of gambling regulation to online spaces. While cases decided by various courts have made a distinction between games of chance and games of skill, the fact that this petition challenges a legislation that enables online poker companies to get a license for their operations is very interesting and it remains to be seen what the Delhi HC decides in this case.
Exclusive jurisdiction of the NCLT to try all company matters including contentious and complex issues: NCLAT
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), in the case of MAIF Investment PTE Ltd. V. Ind Bharat Power Infra Limited , passed a judgment holding that the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”) shall have jurisdiction to try all cases under Companies Act, 2013 even though they may include contentious and complex matters.
The hearing was related to a petition challenging the procedure of adopted by NCLT Hyderabad bench in declining to entertain a petition for the rectification of a company’s Register of Members under Section 59 of the Companies Act, 2013.
In this case, the petitioner sought for cancellation of his name in the Register of Members of the Respondent Company for the number of shares held by him. The NCLT Hyderabad Bench held that cases which involve complex issues requiring the examination of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and the Arbitration Act, 1996 must be dealt by the civil courts and not by the NCLT.
This was challenged by the appellant at NCLAT resorting to section 430 of the Companies Act, 2013 which puts a bar on the jurisdiction of the civil courts over company law disputes. The Respondents contended that the claims were substantial in nature regarding the conversion of shares.
The NCLAT agreed with the petitioner and held that the present case does not involve any complex issues related to rectification of entries and even otherwise, that the NCLTs in India are equipped to handle all peripheral and incidental matters regarding rectification of entries in registry.
Quick View:
The judgement acknowledges the change of the law observed in the new Companies Act, 2013 with respect to the jurisdiction of the NCLT and civil courts for company law disputes. The NCLT were established under the Companies Act, 2013 with the intention of setting up specially-equipped courts for the speedy disposal of company cases. Therefore, the judgement reiterates the jurisdiction of the NCLT to handle disputes involving intricate questions of all in addition to incidental matters. This prevents the companies from unnecessarily moving the civil courts for resolving the disputes.
Without any justification, employees set to retire within one year must not be transferred: Raj HC
The Rajasthan High Court (“Raj HC”), in the case of Smt Rani Jain v. Secretary and Transport Commissioner, Transport Department, Government of Rajasthan, passed a judgment holding that unless there is a rationale justification, employees who are set to retire from service within a period of one year must not be transferred.
In the present case, a Regional Transport Officer was given a transfer order six months prior to her retirement from service. She challenged the order at the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal which quashed her transfer order upholding that the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (“Rules”) establish certain rules for initiating proceedings for the payment of pension two years prior to retirement to ensure that the employees receive the payment in timely manner.
Further, the Raj HC held that transferring of an employee without justification would cause avoidable disruption at the fag end of a government servant’s career and create difficulties in post retiral settlements.
Quick View:
Through this judgement, although the Raj HC upheld the principles laid down in the Rules, it also understood that there may be cases where the transfer of employees may be necessary and that there may be a proper justification for the same.
However, as these cases take a long time to be resolved, the government might misuse this exception created by the Raj HC and transfer employees, and such cases may get resolved only after the employee has retired. We hope that this is only the first of many cases and that the Raj HC directs all lower courts and tribunals to deal with such matters at the earliest.
Disclaimer: This post has been prepared for informational purposes only. The information/or observations contained in this post does not constitute legal advice and should not be acted upon in any specific situation without seeking proper legal advice from a practicing attorney.