1. Report on State Lawyers' Conference held at Pune

The above Conference was held at Pune on 9th December, 2006. The venue of the Conference was at Bal Gandharva Rangamandir, Pune.

2. The Conference was inaugurated by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dalveer Bhandari, Judge, Supreme Court of India. The Hon’ble Chief Justice of Bombay High Court, Mr. H.S. Bedi, presided over the inaugural session of the Conference. Hon’ble judges of the Bombay High Court, namely, Mr. V. G. Palshikar, Mr. H. L. Gokhale, Mr. R. M. Lodha, Dr. S. Radhakrishan, Mr. D. B. Bhonsle, Mr. D. G. Karnik were the guests of honour and had also taken part in the deliberations during the working sessions.
    

3. The theme of the first session was on ‘Effective implementation of Marathi as a Court language’ and second session was on ‘Right to Information and Expeditious Disposal of Cases’.
    

4. In the inaugural speech, Justice Mr. Bhandari opined that the justice imparting system in India is the best in the world and it is not deteriorated till date. The system is respected by everyone for its best quality and credibility. He further said that Bombay High Court is the best amongst the High Courts in India. He profusely louded the respect and love that is given by the Bar to the Judges which is a very fortunate thing. He thereafter made a categorical statement that ‘Right to Information’ is a fundamental right of every citizen. He further said that Sweden was a first country to introduce this legislation.
    

5. As a Chairman of the session, Hon’ble Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court, Mr. Bedi said that there is nothing wrong to demand Marathi as a court language for disposal of cases at least at the level of District and Sessions Court, to enable litigants to know what exactly happens in the day-to-day proceedings in the Court. But at the same time, English language cannot be ignored since it is a bridge from which one can travel throughout the world.
    

6. By an unanimous voice the participating judges expressed concern about the implementation of the Right to Information Act, since the administration is still not live in respect of the responsibility cast by this Union legislation upon their shoulders.
    

7. Other burning issues such as pendancy of cases in the Courts, holding night courts for the disposal of the same and filling fast the vacant posts of the judges were discussed in greater
   detail and the Conference ended on a satisfactory note at the end of the day.

2. VAT Blues – 2007

Tobacco may come under VAT, as part of a compensation package sought by State’s from the Centre for revenue loss due to the proposed phase out of the Central Sales Tax from April 1, 2007.

2. Recently, the VAT Panel met to decide to seek from the Centre a compensation package, including powers on service tax, authority to levy VAT on imports and certain items under the additional excise duty and relaxation on "Declared goods", to enable States to go in for reduction in the CST from next financial year, observed Panel Chairman Asim Das Gupta
   (E.T. – 12-12-2006).
    

3. Sources close to the Empowered Committed stated that they had decided on tobacco in the first place. In addition, textile and sugar are on their cards as a next move to tax the same. And it is in this context, the Panel is meeting Finance Minister in the next month to present the demands of the Empowered Committee. So let us wait and watch for the outcome of the proposed meeting.

3. Copyright dispute

The Law Reporter of E.T. reported that is rental income from DVD Libraries illegal? This question is a subject of litigation before the Delhi High Court, where ‘Warner Brothers & Entertainment’ has sought a restrain order against a Video Library owner from renting out its original DVDs or their copies. According to the petition, the library owner must have a licence from Warner Brothers for renting out its DVDs.

2. The Delhi High Court has already issued a notice to the respondent. It has also issued a restraint order prohibiting the library owner from importing into India for sale or rent cinematograph films copyright for which vests in Warner Brothers.

4. Supreme Court need not always be correct: Cji

In the midst of a raging debate over the powers of various organs, Chief Justice Y.K. Sabharwal said on 14-11-2006 that no institution was infallible and the Supreme Court need not always be correct but what it said was final.

2. "The Supreme Court decision is final not necessarily because it is right. Every human beings, every institutions have limitations. No institutions are infallible. But since we are final, we are called Supreme Court," the CJI said in reply to a question from a child at a function on the ‘National Child Rights Week’ at the Apex Court premises. This was the first time that such a function was organized in the Apex Court on the occasion of Children’s Day.
    

3. The CJI advocated the necessity of concerted steps for the upholding of children’s rights. (Source: TOI, New Delhi, dated 15-11-2006).

5. Consumer disputes

In a recent judgment in the case of Canara Bank vs. Agnes D’mello Vol. I (2006) CPJ 8 (NC) delivered by the National Commission under Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the bank is held liable as a service provider to pay compensation for any loss of the contents of the locker used by its customers. Following are the brief facts of this case.

2. For loss of ornaments kept in the bank locker the State Commission directed the appellant-Bank to pay compensation to the complainant with interest at 18%. On the bank’s appeal to the National Commission contending that the complainant was not a consumer and their was no deficiency in its service, the Commission held that by providing the use of its locker the bank was rendering to its consumer for the safe-keeping of ornaments, etc. on receipt of locker charges. The very nature of the locker room and the practice of the Manager’s attendant to double-lock using the master key would indicate that the bank was a service provider and the complainant was availing the services rendered by the bank. Therefore the complainant was a consumer. In effect, a person who provides a locker facility undertakes to ensure the safety of the valuables kept in the lockers. There was no dispute about the procedure. Without the master key, the locker could not be opened. After it was locked the person in-charge of the locker room was supposed to ensure before leaving the office that all lockers were properly locked as a measure of safety. If the locker Manager failed to discharge his duty to ensure the security of the locker room and the lockers containing valuables, then the locker Manager and the concerned bank cannot be absolved of the liability of any loss unless a robbery or dacoity takes place at gun point by breaking open the locker. Even then it would be arguable matter. In view of the statement of the locker manufacturer that the key of the consumer could not be taken out without locking the locker there was undisputed evidence that the locker was locked as verified by the complainant. If it had not been properly locked then it had to believed that the locker Manager either did not check that all lockers had been properly locked on that very day or he was negligent and deficient in performing his duty to act in good faith by taking due care and caution. The fact that information of the locker was allegedly found open much later makes it evident that there was deficiency in the bank’s service and it could not escape from its liability to compensate the complainant. The circumstances indicate an implied contract to ensure safety and security of the locker and that its obligation was akin to that created by contract incurred in the aforementioned circumstances. Since the bank has failed to discharge its obligation of taking due care and caution, the complainant would be entitled to receive the compensation from the party-in-default as if the bank had contracted to discharge its obligation to ensure safety of the locker in terms of second part of section 73 of the Contract Act, 1872.
    

3. So, dear readers should you face the above type of unpleasant happening, you are now armed with the above decision of the National Commission.

6. Pressing into service Right to Information Act, 2005

This time I am sharing with you the experience of my friend Shri Prabhakar Vishnu Surte, who had asked for certain information from the Central Public Information Officer of the Central Railway at CST and the said application was lodged with the Mumbai GPO on payment of Rs. 10/- vide receipt No. I-2000 dated 10-10-2006 as the application fee for seeking the information. The Mumbai GPO accepted the application and forwarded the same to the CPIO, Central Railway CST, for necessary action. In spite of this position, the Gen. Manager’s (Central Railway) Office at CST, informed Shri Surte vide letter dated 16-10-2006 that he should resubmit his application along with original money receipt of fee of Rs. 10/-. He was further informed that the fees could be paid in cash or in the form of a DD/Banker’s cheque/IPO in favour of "Chief Cashier, Central Railway, Mumbai CST". Obviously, Shri Surte was perturbed on receiving this reply from the C. Rly. He again took up the matter with the GPO, Mumbai, who in turn, wrote a letter to the DGM, C. Rly., CST, bringing to his notice the Notification issued by the Government of India dated 6-10-2005 where under postal authorities at certain places are authorized to receive such applications together with requisite fees and forward the same to appropriate authorities for disposal. A copy of this Notification is being published in Part III of the Review for the information and knowledge of our readers, should they face similar problem in the matter. In the meantime, Shri Surte is awaiting information on his application from the Central Railway. So the path of seeking information under the Right to Information Act, is not an easy task although the Act is made quite simpler but the authorities concerned are not implementing the same in the right spirit.