Latest news with #GeneralClausesAct
Business Recorder
4 days ago
- Business
- Business Recorder
Industrial policy: Govt considering serious reforms: SAPM
ISLAMABAD: Special Assistant to the Prime Minister (SAPM) on Industries and Production Haroon Akhtar Khan, Thursday, while emphasising boosting investor confidence through policy reforms has said that the government was considering some serious reforms in industrial policy. While chairing a meeting of the sub-committees on Investment Protection and Repatriation Investment here, he said that sustainable economic growth is possible only through reviving investor confidence in government policies. The sub-committees put forward several key proposals, including: (i) Amendments to the Income Tax Ordinance 2001; (ii) Reforms in the Protection of Economic Reforms Act, 1992, and (iii) Revisions to the General Clauses Act, 1897. He highlighted the importance of creating a secure and attractive environment for both local and foreign investors, said a news release. 'We must provide strong legal and institutional protection to investors in order to encourage investment in Pakistan,' he said and maintained that these efforts reflect the government's continued commitment to facilitating economic growth and building investor trust through legislative and policy reforms. The meeting was attended by Prime Minister's Coordinator Rana Ehsan Afzal, representatives from various Chambers of Commerce, and other key stakeholders. The SAPM has announced that the government will ensure improved credit to the small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and distressed segment. Special amendments in various laws will be made to create a business-friendly environment and ensure the investors security as well as promoting localisation. The sick industrial units will be restored and banks will be encouraged to provide them loans. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Indian Express
01-08-2025
- Business
- Indian Express
Can corporations be victims? The debate is on after Supreme Court verdict
Even as companies are increasingly found culpable for corporate crimes, their recognition as victims of crime has also been jurisprudentially established. On July 14, the Supreme Court in Asian Paints vs Ram Babu (2025) ruled that companies aggrieved by any injury owing to criminal conduct can challenge an acquittal or seek enhancement of the sentence, in line with the established jurisprudence on victim justice. The judgment is a landmark one in as much as it grants due recognition to corporates as victims under the criminal justice system. The implications of such recognition are far-reaching, as it enables and grants corporations access to a host of rights available to victims under our criminal procedure. Under section 2(wa), CrPC (now section 2(y) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Samhita, 2023 (BNSS)), a 'victim' refers to any person who has suffered injury or loss as a result of the accused's act or omission. Section 2(26) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Samhita, 2023 (BNS) and section 3(42) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, define a person to include any 'company or association or body of persons.' BNS and criminal law, therefore, generally apply not only to natural persons, but also to legal persons. Given this, a crucial question is whether a corporate entity can suffer an 'injury', as conceived in criminal law, at par with natural persons. Section 2(14) of the BNS defines an injury to mean any harm, illegally caused, to the 'body, mind, reputation and property' of any 'person'. Criminal acts that cause loss or injury to any company, including economic loss, reputational harm, or violation of intellectual property (IP) rights, therefore, amount to victimisation. The reasoning of the Court in the Asian Paints case is based on this interpretation of 'injury'. The company, Asian Paints, suffered both revenue loss as well as weakened market competitiveness due to a loss of reputation, due to a clear IP infringement. The case pertains to a complaint by Asian Paints through a third party authorised on its behalf (complainant) relating to the sale of counterfeit products under its brand name. The accused was acquitted by the trial court, and Asian Paint's appeal to the Rajasthan High Court was rejected with the reasoning that only the original complainant could contest the acquittal, not the affected company. In this context, the Supreme Court ruled that the term 'victim' applies to any entity, individual or juristic that suffers harm from a criminal act and that a company need not be the initial complainant to be recognised as a victim. It further reiterated that the victim's right to appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) stands independently and does not rely on Section 378. Since the Court clarified that the term 'victim' under this provision includes any person or legal entity that has suffered harm or loss as a result of a criminal act, not merely those who initially filed the complaint, consequently, entities like Asian Paints are entitled to appeal not only in cases of acquittal but also where the conviction is for a lesser offence or the compensation awarded is insufficient. This decision marks a shift from passive tolerance to active enforcement. The ruling emphasised that victimhood is determined by the harm endured, rather than procedural status. Citing Mahabir vs State of Haryana, the Court affirmed that the legislature aimed to empower victims, recognising them as central to the justice process. Companies can be victims of crime, corruption, and human rights abuses in various countries, but legal, jurisdictional, and reputational challenges often limit their ability to seek justice. The recognition of companies as victims and the effectiveness of remedies vary significantly, with substantial barriers remaining, particularly in cross-border cases and in countries with weak governance. Corporations rarely invoke the imagery of a crime victim in the public imagination. The same may be attributed to the fact that the stereotypical notion of the ideal victims in Nils Christie's conceptualisation requires the victim to be someone who is weak, carrying out a respectable project, cannot be blamed for the offence, and is victimised by a powerful but unknown offender. While companies may satisfy some of the traits, such as that of involvement in a respectable project and blameless conduct, they often fall short on other traits, such as being weak or victimised by a bad and powerful offender. A recognition of corporations as victims, however, must be accompanied by a caveat. Hopkins' (2016) research titled Business, Victimisation, and Victimology conceptualises that the idea of 'crimes against businesses' has been strategically employed by both governments and corporate entities to construct a narrative of business victimhood. Critics argue that such recognition diverts attention from the illegal activities committed by the businesses by portraying themselves as victims rather than victimisers, and that it may enable powerful corporations with deep pockets to dominate the public discourse on victim justice. Traditionally, India's criminal justice system placed the responsibility for prosecution primarily on the state, leaving victims, especially corporate entities, with a minimal role. While this approach suited conventional crimes involving physical harm, it fails to address the complexities of contemporary corporate offences such as financial damage, brand erosion, and fraud in the supply chain. The Supreme Court's ruling opens up avenues for companies to actively pursue criminal proceedings. It also removes the longstanding reliance on the public prosecutor's discretion, which often impeded companies from seeking justice when the state opted not to appeal. Additionally, this judgment holds particular significance for industries frequently affected by counterfeit and unauthorised market activities. The jurisprudential shift, with the Supreme Court explicitly bringing a corporate entity under the ambit of a victim, expands the scope for judicial interpretation, extending several other victim rights under our criminal justice system to corporate entities. Bajpai is Vice Chancellor at National Law University Delhi, where Ankit is Assistant Professor
Time of India
31-07-2025
- General
- Time of India
Maharashtra govt challenges Bombay high court's ‘Kanjurmarg landfill a protected forest' order in Supreme Court
Mumbai: State govt has moved Supreme Court in appeal against the Bombay high court order that declared 120 hectares of the Kanjurmarg dumping site a protected mangrove forest and ordered its restoration. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The land, which has been used as a scientifically operated solid waste ground landfill for Mumbai, receives more than 10,000 metric tonnes of municipal solid wastes every day. Acting on a 2005 HC order to protect mangroves, state notified over 425 hectares of Kanjurmarg land as 'protected forest'. But, in 2009, state de-notified almost 120 hectares from the 425 hectares to create the landfill. BMC, had along with state govt, challenged the protected forest status as a "mistake". In its special leave petition in SC, govt said HC has "erred in setting aside the notification dated Dec 29, 2009, issued by the state without considering that the same was issued in exercise of its rights under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 to correct the ex-facie evident error in the July 7, 2008 notification". Section 21 provides that where a power to issue notification is conferred, then that said power includes a power to amend, vary and rescind any notification. "The HC has erred in ignoring both prior and pursuant to the notification, various permissions from a sustainable development standpoint such as environmental clearances for carrying out the activity of waste disposal/landfills on the said lands have been received," the state said. The forest in question was never notified as a reserved forest. Further, the subject land came to be used as a waste disposal ground only after the rectification notification was issued and as such, the question of any diversion of a forest land for non-forest purposes did not arise, the state added.
Time of India
30-07-2025
- Time of India
Bail mandatory after 180 days in custody, can't cite holidays to extend filing of final report: Kerala high court
Kochi: If the last date for filing the final report in a case, as prescribed under BNSS, falls on a holiday and the report is filed on the next working day, it cannot be considered as filed within the specified time. Therefore, statutory bail to the accused cannot be denied, the Kerala high court has held. The bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas made the ruling while considering the bail plea of Sanal Satheesh of Cheranallur in Ernakulam, in connection with an NDPS case in which he allegedly transported 25.233kg of ganja in a vehicle. He was arrested on Oct 16, 2024, and the final report in the case was filed on April 15, 2025. In his bail plea, Satheesh contended that if the investigation is not completed within the 180 days prescribed under Section 187(3) of the BNSS, read with Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act, as the case may be, the accused is entitled to be released on bail. He further argued that he had completed 180 days in custody in the case and was therefore entitled to statutory bail. The prosecution opposed the contention and stated that although April 13, 2025, was the last date for filing the final report to continue the remand, it being a Sunday, and the following day a public holiday due to Vishu, the final report was filed only on April 15. It was argued that, by virtue of Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, since the deadline fell on a holiday, the period stood extended to the next working day, and hence the final report was filed within time. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Indonesia: New Container Houses (Prices May Surprise You) Container House | Search ads Search Now Undo Therefore, the petitioner could not claim the benefit of statutory bail. HC, however, held that Section 10 of the General Clauses Act had no application in the present case, as the provision applies only when an act is required to be done or a proceeding is to be taken in any court or office within a period prescribed by law. Since Section 187 of the BNSS does not prescribe any time limit for the police to file a final report, but merely empowers the magistrate to authorise custody, the provision was found inapplicable. Consequently, HC granted bail to Satheesh, subject to certain conditions.
New Indian Express
01-07-2025
- Politics
- New Indian Express
Telangana government slammed for delay in framing fire service rules
The Telangana High Court has strongly criticised the state government and the chief secretary for their prolonged delay in framing the Telangana State Fire Service Subordinate Service Rules. Expressing dissatisfaction over the government's inaction, the division bench comprising Justices P Sam Koshy and Nandikonda Narsing Rao issued a stern warning that the chief secretary must appear before the court on July 16 if the rules are not finalised by then. The court was hearing petitions concerning the failure of the government in framing new rules, despite the Andhra Pradesh Fire Service Subordinate Service Rules under GO 568, dated November 24, 1992, being outdated and unenforceable. Petitioners argued that the old rules were no longer applicable due to numerous outdated provisions and the absence of a General Clauses Act in Telangana. The court noted that for the past four months, it had repeatedly asked government counsels to submit the current status of the rule-making process. In April, the court had given a final deadline of June 16, but the authorities failed to comply, prompting the bench to question the seriousness of the government's commitment.
