Know Your Rights!!

Hello – "Can you hear me now?" or "Sorry, I missed that, could you repeat?" Call drops and poor signal strength are frustrating. So, when mobile towers started popping up on building terraces, many of us thought, "Finally, better reception!" But, have you ever wondered if these towers are safe? Let us see what happened in the Lake View Co-Operative Housing Society vs. The Municipal Corporation Of Greater Mumbai & Ors (WP. 1382 of 2016)  case. The court tackled the heated debate by combining three other writ petitions (WP. 2152 of 2014, WP. 2800 of 2015, WP. 2060 of 2016) over mobile towers and their potential health risks. The case decided on January 23, 2019, revolved around whether these towers, known as Telecom Cell Sites/Base Stations (TCS/BS), should be allowed on building terraces given the concerns about electromagnetic fields (EMF) radiation.   Health vs. Connectivity In 2016, residents of Lake View Co-Operative Housing Society (the peti...

In the world of legal disputes, the lines between professional conduct and consumer rights sometimes blur, leading to landmark judgments. One such case involved Advocate M. Mathias, his client D.K. Gandhi, and a dishonoured cheque issued by Kamal Sharma. The Twists and Turns - Bar of Indian Lawyers v. D.K Gandhi & Anr. (SC) 2024 The case began when D.K. Gandhi hired Mathias to file a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act after Kamal Sharma's cheque for Rs.20,000 was dishonoured. Sharma agreed to provide a Demand Draft (DD) of Rs.20,000 and a cheque of Rs.5,000 for expenses. However, Mathias demanded Rs.5,000 in cash from Gandhi and filed a suit claiming this amount as his fee. He later handed Gandhi a DD for Rs.20,000 and a cheque for Rs.5,000, which Sharma stopped at Mathias's request. Gandhi then sought Rs.15,000 in compensation, including Rs.10,000 for mental agony, from the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Delhi.   Legal Battles: F...

  I prefer not to write about matrimonial disputes as they are incredibly personal and often filled with complex emotions. However, a recent case of Prateek Bansal v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., Crl.A. No.-002167-002167 / 2024 stands out —not just for the personal drama but because it shows how the legal system can be misused, and that's something we should all care about. This case involves a Chartered Accountant from Hisar and his wife, a Deputy Superintendent of Police in Udaipur. They got engaged and married in 2015, but by October 2015, complaints were filed by the wife’s father first in Hisar and then in Udaipur, under similar allegations of cruelty. This led to multiple FIRs (First Information Reports) being filed. The matter escalated to the Rajasthan High Court, which decided not to dismiss the second FIR, stating that the police in Udaipur weren't aware of the first FIR filed in Hisar. This decision was challenged in the Supreme Court, which took a different view. ...

  Property disputes happen when people argue about claims of ownership and possession. Adverse possession is a legal idea often brought up in these disagreements. It means someone says they own the property because they've been using it for a long time, even if they didn't originally own it. Once more, the Supreme Court clarifies how adverse possession works and how it helps settle these arguments. The case revolves around a property dispute in Chennai, originally owned by Sungani Bai, who passed away in 1947. In 1945, Sungani Bai divided the property among three individuals using a registered settlement deed as she had no legal heirs. Subsequently, Radheshyamlal, the plaintiff in this case also the legal heir of one of the individuals who received a 1/3rd share of the property from the settlement deed, claims to have been in continuous possession of the property since 1950. Radheshyamlal filed a lawsuit seeking ownership declaration through adverse possession against both the ...

  I once read that "Every cheque tells a story of trust, accountability, and financial integrity." So, when I stumbled upon the case of K. Ramesh v. K. Kothandaraman SLP(Crl) 3377 of 2019 (Supreme Court) , it was intriguing to see how legal experts can dispute even the smallest details to support their clients. Surprisingly, the matter of the dispute in front of the Supreme Court was not on cheque bouncing; instead, the dispute centred around the age of the ink used for the signature on the cheque and the age of the signature and contents of the cheque. Let's explore how our highest court navigates through such intricacies in cheque disputes. As the case unfolded, the courts emphasized a key legal presumption outlined in Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, of 1881. According to this provision, when an individual signs a cheque and hands it over to the payee (receiver of a cheque), it is "presumed" that he is responsible for honouring the payment unl...

In a recent case, I found a compelling example of how the law protects our privacy rights, especially in the digital landscape. The laws surrounding call recording and privacy rights are complex, and the emergence of deep fakes adds another layer of concern. Deep fakes, which involve the manipulation of audio or video content to make it appear authentic, pose a serious threat to privacy, security, and trust. Yet, as the laws concerning deep fakes develop, we'll look into whether phone calls recorded by people can be used as proof in court. The case involved a husband recording his wife's conversations without her knowledge, leading to a significant legal showdown over privacy violations. The petitioner-wife challenged an order passed by the Family Court under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) along with the certificate issued under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act, 1872 (‘IEA’), which allowed the husband to use recorded conversations as evidence. However, the Ch...

This is an important update to the August 2023 blog post, "Shopping Bag Charges from a Legal Perspective," where I delved into the dynamics between consumer rights, trademark laws, and retail practices. In that piece, I discussed how the common practice of charging for branded bags as an extension of a brand's identity was considered legitimate by large retail chains. Link to the August 2023 post: https://www.ampslegal.in/2023/08/shopping-bag-charges-from-legal.html Fast forward to now, and a significant development following a recent ruling by the Bangalore Consumer Court . This ruling challenges the legitimacy of charging customers for what has been considered a promotional item – a shopping bag printed with a brand's logo. In this case, a Bengaluru resident took furniture giant Ikea to court for charging ₹20 for a carry bag with the company logo. She visited the store in October 2022, where she purchased items worth ₹2,428. However, she was charged an additional ₹...

  🚨 Update Alert! 🚨 Read the latest addendum to 'Shopping Bag Charges from Legal Perspective' for a game-changing insight from the recent Bangalore Consumer Court judgment. 🛍️✨ #LegalUpdate Link to the November 2023 post: https://www.ampslegal.in/2023/11/unpacking-shopping-bag-charges-recent.html My recent visit to the IKEA store taught me that every action of ours has a section in law. As I made my way to the checkout counter, I was presented with a unique scenario – the option to purchase a shopping bag featuring the store's logo for a nominal cost. This seemingly mundane transaction triggered a cascade of inter-connected questions ranging from environmental awareness, and consumer rights to marketing tactics in my legal-oriented mind. Why would a store charge customers for a bag that essentially served as a walking advertisement for their brand? It was a question that sparked a conversation with the store manager, who graciously explained their perspective. "The...

I first learned about living wills when a newspaper article “Renowned gynaecologist registers living will” caught my attention. Then of course, at one of the OTT platforms I saw the movie “Salam Venky” based on the true story of a 25-year-old chess player Kolavennu Venkatesh from Hyderabad who in 2004 pleaded to be euthanised. Almost after 14 years, in March 2018, the Supreme Court of India issued a landmark judgement recognizing the right to die with dignity and allowing for passive euthanasia in certain circumstances. The judgement, passed by a five-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, held that "the right to life includes the right to die with dignity" and that individuals have the right to refuse medical treatment or life support in cases of terminal illness or irreversible coma. The case was brought to the Supreme Court by a non-governmental organization called Common Cause, which argued that the right to die with dignity was a fundamental ri...

Title credits: HI (Human Intelligence) + AI (Artificial Intelligence #ChatGPT) A pending criminal case can be a daunting obstacle in the passport renewal process, but it doesn't have to put your travel plans on hold.  "The world is a book, and those who do not travel read only one page." - Saint Augustine In India, the Passport Act of 1967 gives the government the authority to deny, impound or revoke a passport if it is in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of India, friendly relations of India with any foreign country, or in the interests of the general public. It has been seen that in certain cases, the government has denied renewal or issuance of passports to individuals having pending criminal cases. A Bombay High Court judgement in the case of Nijal Navin Shah vs. State of Maharastra (Criminal Application No. 1193 of 2022) has clarified that an individual with pending criminal cases can renew their passport, subject to checks and ...