Supreme Court Weekly Digest With Subject /Statute Wise Index [May 11 to 20]

Citations 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 361 to 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 390AdvertisementGuidelines for Prevention of Misleading Advertisements and Endorsements of Misleading Advertisements, 2022; Guideline No. 8, 12 & 13 – Held, advertisers/advertising agencies and endorsers are equally responsible for issuing false and misleading advertisements. Such endorsements that are routinely made by public figures, influencers, celebrities etc. go a long way in promoting a product. It is imperative for them to act with a sense of responsibility when endorsing any product and take responsibility for the same. It is the duty of manufacturers, service providers, advertisers and advertising agencies to ensure that the trust of the consumer is not abused or exploited due to sheer lack of knowledge or inexperience. Due diligence is to be undertaken for endorsement of advertisements and requires a person who endorses a product to have adequate information about, or experience with a specific good, product or service that is proposed to be endorsed and ensure that it must not be deceptive. (Para 21) Indian Medical Association v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 381Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 34 & 37 – Interference in arbitral award has limited scope under Section 34 and 37 – As far as the construction of the terms of a contract is concerned, it is for the Arbitral Tribunal to adjudicate upon. If, after considering the material on record, the Arbitral Tribunal takes a particular view on the interpretation of the contract, the Court under Section 34 does not sit in appeal over the findings of the arbitrator. The majority opinion of technical persons need not be subjected to a relook, especially when the learned Single Judge had also agreed with the view taken by the Arbitral Tribunal. The findings of the majority in the Arbitral award is upheld. No merit in appeal. (Para 13 & 15) National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Construction Company Ltd; 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 361Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994Rule 7 – Directions against misleading ads – Held, before an advertisement is printed/aired/displayed, a Self-declaration shall be submitted by the advertiser/advertising agency on the lines contemplated in Rule 7 of the Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994. The Self-declaration shall be uploaded by the advertiser/advertising agency on the Broadcast Sewa Portal run under the aegis of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. No advertisements shall be permitted to be run on the relevant channels and/or in the print media/internet without uploading the self-declaration as directed above. Further held, the directions shall be treated as the law declared by this Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. (Para 23 & 24) Indian Medical Association v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 381Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985Note 3 to Chapter 18 and Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; Section 2(f) – Activities amounting to “manufacture” – Whether the labelling/re-labelling or putting additional labels on the product amounted to manufacture? – Note 3 contemplates three different processes and if either of the three processes are satisfied, the same would amount to manufacture. The three processes are: (i) labelling or re-labelling of containers; or (ii) repacking from bulk packs to retail packs; or (iii) the adoption of any other treatment to render the product marketable to the consumer. Held, in terms of Note 3 to Chapter 18, the process of re-labelling on both sides of the packs containing goods in the present case would amount to 'manufacture'. Hence, view taken by CESTAT that the credit and the rebate were rightly availed of by the respondent is correct and no interference is required. Appeal is dismissed. (Para 13.3, 15 & 16) Commissioner of Central Excise Belapur v. Jindal Drugs Ltd; 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 374Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004; Rule 3 – Held, rule 3 allows cenvat credit only in a case where the process undertaken amounts to manufacture. (Para 5.5) Commissioner of Central Excise Belapur v. Jindal Drugs Ltd; 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 374Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949Section 11 (1) and Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955; Rule 27 – Punishment of compulsory retirement is challenged – The respondent was part of a disciplined force and has been found guilty of assaulting his colleague. The punishment of compulsory retirement is not shockingly disproportionate to the proven misconduct. Hence, there is no reason to interfere with the punishment awarded. The punishment of compulsory retirement awarded to the respondent is affirmed. (Para 35 & 36) Union of India v. Santosh Kumar Tiwari, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 366Section 11 (1) and Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955; Rule 27 – Validity of Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules – Whether Rule 27 to the extent it provides for punishments other than those specified in Section 11 of the CRPF Act, ultra vires the CRPF Act and as such...

Supreme Court Weekly Digest With Subject /Statute Wise Index [May 11 to 20]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags