15th May 2023 - Legal News Analysis

1. The land grabber's attempt to take away the temple land in

any form is intolerable: Madras High Court

 In the case, T Thanthoni and others v Executive Officer, a batch of pleas

filed by 20 petitioners, all claiming to be agricultural cultivators,
challenging the eviction proceedings initiated against them by the
respondent temple. The petitioners were members of an agricultural
cooperatives society that in turn had entered into a lease agreement
with the temple in 1969. As per the agreement, the temple land was to
be used by the society's members for agricultural cultivation.

 However, while the lease ended in 1981, the petitioners continued to

occupy the said land, and also defaulted on the rent payable to the
society. The society was subsequently liquidated and in 2012, a local
revenue court issued an eviction order against the petitioners. The
revenue court also directed them to pay the arrears of rent that are now
worth over ₹50 lakh.

 The Petitioners contended that they had not been given a fair hearing as
mandated under the Tamil Nadu Public Trust Act, 1961. The respondent
counsel argued that the petitioners had no locus standi to invoke the
provisions of the Public Trust Act against the temple, since the subject
property belonged to the temple and there was no agreement between
the temple and the petitioners.

 The Madras High Court while rejecting the plea held that "This court is of
the considered opinion that the cases on hand are classic cases, where
under the guise of the membership of the third respondent-Society, the
writ petitioners are attempting to continue in the temple property
without any authority and in the absence of any tenancy agreement. The
cultivating activities also are not being done. Even as per the respondent
temple, the petitioners have started subletting the property for

1
 commercial purposes and earning huge money for personal gains, which
is unjust and illegal.”

2. There is need to re-examine the provisions in the Patents Act

which lay down that ‘business methods’ are not patentable:
Delhi High Court

 In the case, OpenTV Inc v The Controller of Patents and Designs and
Anr, an appeal filed by US based company OpenTV Inc seeking directions
to set aside the decision dated May 31, 2021 issued by the office of the
Controller of Patents and Designs refusing the company's application for
grant of a patent titled ‘System and method to provide gift media’ under
Section 15 of the Patents Act.

 The patent was refused on the ground that the scope of the claimed
subject matter fell within the scope of Section 3(k) of the Act and
therefore, could not be patented. Section 3(k) said that “What are not
inventions. — a mathematical or business method or a computer
programme per se or algorithms.”

 The High Court ordered that “The sum and substance of the above
discussion is that despite the extremely persuasive submissions made on
behalf of the appellant, the subject invention is not entitled for grant of
a patent. In light of the above findings, the appeal is dismissed. No order
as to costs. All pending applications, if any are also disposed of.”

 The Delhi High Court further said that “There is a need to have a re-look
at the exclusions in Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970, in view of the
growing innovations in this space. As the Parliamentary Committee
Report referred to above recommends, the need to consider the march
of technology in the digital space, is an urgent one, so that patent law is
not outpaced and patenting itself does not become irrelevant in the
years to come.”

2
 The High Court passed a direction to the registry to send a copy of the
judgment to the Secretary, Department for Promotion of Industry and
Internal Trade (DPIIT), Ministry of Commerce and Industry for
consideration.

3. The Supreme Court of India is the guardian of not the

Constitution alone but also of the ideals and values that our
forefathers fought for: Supreme Court judge Justice Krishna
Murari

 Recently, Justice Krishna Murari while delivering a lecture on the

evolution of the Indian Constitution at the Faculty of Law of the Aligarh
Muslim University said that "The development, evolution and protection
of rights throughout judicial interpretation largely originates from Article
21."

 Justice K Murari further said that "I would like to say that draw
inspiration from the great children of mother India, that is those of the
bar and bench. Unless there is good bar there cannot be good judgments
and there would be no development in law. Start career in litigation, first
few years though will be turbulent. But if you manage to sail through, a
very bright future awaits all where sky is the limit. Great determination
and commitment would be needed.”

 Justice Murari further said that "Make up your mind, work hard and
litigation will take you where you cannot imagine. At the end I would like
to add that two more values that need to be imbibed in your personality
are honest and humbleness. This is my humble advice that it should
always follow you, am saying so from 42 years of experience.”

3
4. ‘Whether amendments to tax exemption statutes can be
challenged based on the doctrine of legitimate expectation’,
Supreme Court delivered a split verdict.

 In the case, KB Tea Product Pvt Ltd & anr v. Commercial Tax Officer,
Siliguri and ors, appeals filed before the Top Court against a Calcutta
High Court order that had upheld the removal of exemption of the
petitioners from sales tax payments based on a 1994 that was amended
by the 2001 West Bengal Finance Act. As a result of the latter, the
appellants were denied benefits of the tax exemption that they had
enjoyed for two years.

 Justice MR Shah opined that "As per the settled position of law, nobody
can claim the exemption as a matter of right. The exemption is always
on the fulfilment of the conditions for availing the exemption and the
same can be withdrawn by the State. To grant the exemption and/or to
continue and/or withdraw the exemption is always within the domain of
the State Government and it falls within the policy decision and as per
the settled position of law, unless withdrawal is found to be so arbitrary,
the Court would be reluctant to interfere with such a policy decision.”

 Justice Murari in their dissenting opinion said that "If the public
authority fails to do so [fulfil its legitimate expectations], the individual
or group has a right to challenge the decision and seek a remedy, such as
an order to enforce the legitimate expectation, as is the situation in the
case at hand.”

 Justice Murari concluded that "For a democratic state to function on the

principles of equality and justice, the state must be ruled, not by its
ruler, but by the law. In such a circumstance, to prevent such a
contamination of the rule of law, the application of the doctrine of
legitimate expectation becomes most important. If a state is allowed to
make promises, and rescind the same without justification or
explanation, it would lead to a situation wherein every action of the
state would be bereft of accountability, and every person governed by
the laws of this country would live in a state of fear and unrest, causing a
chilling effect on the civil liberties of the people.”

4
5. Authorities are not empowered to impose such a punishment,
which is not provided under the said Rules: Andhra Pradesh
High Court

 In this case, the petitioner had sought relief under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, challenging the reduction in the time scale of pay
by one stage for a period of one year, affecting future increments and
pensions. The petitioner contended that the punishment was unjust,
disproportionate, and violated the principles of natural justice.

 The High Court said that the present impugned proceedings dated
28.11.2022 issued by the respondents is a major punishment and not
envisaged under Rule 9 of A.P.C.S (CCA) Rules, 1991. It is also not in
dispute that the authorities are not empowered to impose such a
punishment, which is not provided under the said Rules.

 The High Court while relying on a similar judgment rendered by the High
Court of Telangana, set aside the impugned proceedings, stating that
they were not in accordance with the established rules and principles.

 The Andhra Pradesh High Court clarified that the respondents were free
to proceed further in accordance with the A.P.C.S (CCA) Rules, 1991
while ensuring due opportunity and adherence to the principles of
natural justice.