Chavan had challenged the notice saying that the EC did not follow procedure laid out in the Representation of People Act, while issuing the notice
The Delhi High Court on Monday stayed the showcause notice served by the Election Commission (EC) to Ashok Chavan in the paid news case against the former chief minister of Maharashtra.
Chavan had challenged the Commission's notice saying that the EC did not follow the procedure laid out in the Representation of People Act while issuing the notice.
Meanwhile, complainant's lawyer in the case, Dilip Taur said, "The court has issued a notice while hearing his petition. We are not surprised, and we will challenge it in Supreme Court. I think that this notice, which has been issued is prima facie wrong."
"We will place many of the issues that were rejected by the High Court judge in front of the Supreme Court," Taur added.
On 13th July, the Election Commission had rejected the Chavan's explanation in defence of the paid news allegations against him and had issued a showcause notice to him asking why he should not be disqualified as a member of Parliament (MP) from Nanded.
Chavan has been accused of fudging poll expenses during the 2009 Maharashtra Assembly Elections. On the directions of the Supreme Court, the EC had issued a notice to Chavan to appear before it.
What are the rights of statutory tenant, lessee and licensee?
Letting out premises is a sensitive issue. Both landlords and tenants turn hawkish in any discussion on this. The battle of owners versus occupiers would turn less hostile if each understood their limits, claiming only that which is rightfully theirs. There can be roughly three kinds of occupation – statutory tenant, lessee and licensee. Described below are the rights of each of them.
1. Statutory Tenant: A tenant is a protected species under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 and is often aptly referred to as a statutory tenant. He can be evicted only on the limited grounds mentioned in the said Act. The most common ground being “the premises are reasonably and bona fide required by the landlord for occupation by himself or by any person for whose benefit the premises is held.” It is justifiable that ‘destruction of the premises by the tenant’ gives the landlord the right to seek repossession of his property and end the tenancy. Change of use, as well as/or non-use of the premises by the tenant for a continuous period of six months, is yet another ground for eviction under section 16 of the Rent Control Act.
A statutory tenant pays a nominal rent. Upon his death, any relative residing with him at the time of his demise steps into the former’s shoes by law. No testamentary bequest can be made by the tenant in respect of his tenancy rights nor can he transfer, mortgage, sub-let, give on license basis, or otherwise part with his tenancy rights. A tenancy is a creation of the statute and lives as well as falls as by the provisions thereof. Any transgression may cost a tenant dear.
2. Lessee: In the hierarchy of possessory rights, the position of the lessee is far superior. Here, the Transfer of Property Act comes into play. It is a transfer of a right to enjoy property by the lessor/owner in favour of the lessee, so much so that, unless there is a contract or a local usage to the contrary, a lessee can assign, sub-lease, mortgage, or part with his interest in the property. A lessee does not live under the fear that, on the grounds of bona fide requirements his lessor will have him evicted from the premises. He breathes freer air. It is not unusual to come across leases for a term of 100 years or even in perpetuity. There is precious little that an owner can do once he has leased out his property.
3. Licensee: A licensee finds a place for himself at the bottom of the pyramid. He has no interest whatsoever in the premises. As suggested by the term ‘license’, a licensee occupies premises at the pleasure of the licensor/owner.
In wonderful legalese, section 52 of the Indian Easement Act, 1882 defines ‘license’ as follows. “Where one person grants to another, or to a definite number of other persons, a right to do, or continue to do, in or upon the immovable property of the grantor, something which would, in the absence of such right, be unlawful, and such right does not amount to an easement or an interest in the property, the right is called a license”.
This wafer thin right is therefore regarded as the safest option by premises owners in Mumbai. And why not: if a licensee refuses to vacate residential premises, under the Rent Act, a fast track Competent Authority can decide on matters governing eviction and mesne profits. Mesne profits can be as much as twice the license fee fixed under the agreement.
Needless to add, all the three types of instruments- tenancy agreement, lease deed and a leave and license agreement- are compulsorily registerable. Not registering of a tenancy or a leave and license agreement can land the landlord/owner behind bars for a term extending up to three months!
(Divya B Malcolm is a senior associate with Kochhar & Co. The views expressed are her own and not to be construed as legal advice)
MCA’s latest order burdens private limited companies with even more stringent compliance, in case of related party transactions
The Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) is leaving no stone unturned to make matters pertaining to related party and transactions clear. But is it succeeding? On 24 July 2014, the MCA, vide its Companies (Removal of Difficulties) Sixth Order, 2014 (Present Order), amended clause (iv) of Section 2(76) of Companies Act, 2013 (Act of 2013). The Present Order is most likely to create outcry from companies.
It seems that the Ministry is determined to issue weekly clarifications regarding related parties. MCA first issued Companies (Removal of Difficulties) Fifth Order, 2014, dated 9 July 2014 , amending clause (v) of Section 2(76) of the Act of 2013 by replacing ‘and’ with ‘or’. This was followed with clarifications on matters relating to related party transactions vide general circular no. 30/2014 dated 17 July 2014. The MCA further amended the definition of a related party by amending Companies (Specification of definition details) Rules, 2014 vide notification dated 17 July 2014, which came into force from the date of its publication in the official gazette.
Section 2 (76) (iv) of the Act of 2013 has been amended to insert words ‘or his relative’. The amended rule post amendment will stand as under:
2(76) (iv) Related Party: a private company in which a director or manager or his relative is a member or director;
This is done with the intent to expand the purview of related parties, while dealing with private companies. Earlier Section 297 of Companies Act, 1956 (old Act 1956) restricted the scope of related parties to a private company, of which the director is a member or director. However, under the new Act of 2013 there has been an inclusion of 'manager appointed' in such private company and now, vide Ministry’s present order, relative of a director or manager of a private company where such relative is a member or director has also been added.
The MCA had issued a draft notification on 24 June 2014, on the in-applicability/ partial/ modified applicability of certain provisions of the Act of 2013 to private companies, in exercise of powers under section 462 of the Act 2013. Public comments were invited on the same by 1 July 2014. The same was to be placed before both the houses of parliament. The notification altogether exempted private companies from the applicability of Section 188.
However, the draft notification obtained from the Rajya Sabha office has a slight modification in the terms of applicability of Section 188. The entire exemption from applicability of Section 188 was replaced with exemption only from applicability of the second proviso of Section 188 (1) of the Act of 2013. This means that if the related party is a member of the Company, then he shall not be dis-entitled from voting on such resolutions at the general meeting.
The MCA, without realizing the extent of compliance required in case of related party transactions has simply expanded the scope of definition. This means any company entering into a transaction with a private limited company in which relatives of director or manager is a member or director will be a related party transaction. This means it will require prior approval of the Audit committee, wherever applicable. Further, if the transaction is not in the ordinary course of business and not being done on arms length basis, the same will require approval by the Board. Further, if such a transaction exceeds the limits specified under Rule 15 of Companies (Meetings of Board and its Powers) Rules, 2014, prior approval of shareholders will also be required.
The present order will lead to everything but removal of any difficulty!
(Debolina Banerjee is an associate at Vinod Kothari & Company)