• Admin

Daily Current Affairs : 21-Dec-2019

Major Topics Covered :

  1. NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (NCLAT)

  2. ALL ABOUT SECTION 144 CrPC

  3. EChO NETWORK

  4. OPERATION TWIST

  5. PANNA-MUKTA OILFIELD

  6. SILVER LINE PROJECT

  7. INDIAN PHARMACOPOEIA

  8. JUS COGENS

  9. DIGITAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION (DCC)

  10. “GAY CONVERSION THERAPY”



NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (NCLAT)

Part of GS- 3 Economy


Why in news?

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on Wednesday reinstated Cyrus Pallonji Mistry to the position of Executive Chairman of Tata Sons and Director of the Tata Group of companies for the remainder of his tenure.


Highlights:

  • Mistry, who was at one time the favourite protégé of Tata Sons Chairman Emeritus Ratan Tata, was unceremoniously sacked both as Executive Chairman and Director in 2016.

  • The NCLAT held Mistry’s sacking and the subsequent appointment of N Chandrasekaran to the top post at Tata Sons illegal, prejudicial, and oppressive.

  • It set aside a July 2017 order by the Mumbai bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), which had upheld Mistry’s removal from his positions at Tata Sons and other Group companies.


About NCLT:

  • The NCLAT was constituted under Section 410 of The Companies Act, 2013 to hear appeals against the orders of the NCLT(s).

  • It is also the appellate tribunal for orders passed by the NCLT(s) under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, and for orders passed by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) under Sections 202 and 211 of the IBC.


Source: Indian Express


ALL ABOUT SECTION 144 CrPC

Part of GS- 2 Polity and Governance


Why in news?

As protesters against the Citizenship Amendment Act hit the streets in large numbers in several states on December 19, state governments sought to tamp down on the demonstrations by issuing prohibitory orders under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973.


What is Section 144?

  • Section 144 CrPC, a law retained from the colonial era,

  • Empowers a district magistrate, a sub-divisional magistrate or any other executive magistrate specially empowered by the state government in this behalf to issue orders to prevent and address urgent cases of apprehended danger or nuisance.

  • The magistrate has to pass a written order which may be directed against a particular individual, or to persons residing in a particular place or area, or to the public generally when frequenting or visiting a particular place or area.


In emergency cases,

  • The magistrate can pass these orders without prior notice to the individual against whom the order is directed.

  • However, it can be used to restrict even a single individual.

  • Such an order is passed when the magistrate considers that it is likely to prevent, or tends to prevent, obstruction, annoyance or injury to any person lawfully employed, or danger to human life, health or safety, or a disturbance of the public tranquility, or a riot, of an affray.

  • However, no order passed under Section 144 can remain in force for more than two months from the date of the order, unless the state government considers it necessary. Even then, the total period cannot extend to more than six months.


How have courts ruled on Section 144?


In Re: Ardeshir Phirozshaw vs Unknown (1939),


A British judge of the Bombay High Court censured the Chief Presidency Magistrate in Bombay for passing an illegal order under Section 144: “A Magistrate acting under Section 144 may no doubt restrict liberty. But he should only do so if the facts clearly make such restriction necessary in the public interest, and he should not impose any restriction which goes beyond the requirements of the case.”


The judge criticised application of power under Section 144 for two months, “not only to the particular riot, but to any past riots and any future riots which may take place within the next two months are strong measures and; require cogent facts to justify them”.


The first major challenge to the law was made in 1961 in Babulal Parate vs State of Maharashtra and Others.


A five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court refused to strike down the law, saying it is “not correct to say that the remedy of a person aggrieved by an order under the section was illusory”.


It was challenged again by Dr Ram Manohar Lohiya in 1967 and was once again rejected, with the court saying “no democracy can exist if ‘public order’ is freely allowed to be disturbed by a section of the citizens”.


In 2012, the Supreme Court came down heavily on the government for imposing Section 144 against a sleeping crowd in Ramlila Maidan.