The Bench and the Bar

While a case of cheating and violating lawful orders was yesterday lodged against global cab company Uber after one of its drivers was arrested for raping a woman, a plea was filed in the Delhi high court alleging that the company was doing business in the country without accountability to Indian laws.

Former Bharatiya Janata Party ideologue KN Govindacharya filed an application saying the failure to adhere to local laws resulted in “collapse of policing”.

Govindacharya sought legal action against the US-based cab service provider.

Filed through advocate Virag Gupta, the application said the first crucial eight hours, after police were informed about the rape, were spent in locating Uber’s office, as even senior police officers were clueless about how to contact the company since there were no contact or office details on the company website.

“Police had to download the app, book a cab and ask him to take them to their registered office, which was operated from a hotel room in Gurgaon where no one was present,” the application said.

“The only way to access data about the concerned cab was to get it from the New York office,” it said.

The application said more than 20 such taxi companies and thousands of other companies for various services were still operating and doing business in India without complying with various laws and court orders.

The application further alleged that Uber, an intermediary company, does not have a grievance officer, which was a legal mandate as per various direction of the high court.

The application said the high court Aug 23 last year had ordered internet companies to appoint a grievance officer to deal with complaints from any user or victim and display the details on their websites, but the central government failed to implement the same.

“The court passed various orders which have yet not been implemented by the government, thus Uber taxi service was able to perpetuate the illegal operations in India, which resulted in the tragic rape incident of a young MNC executive in Delhi,” it said.

“Uber, being intermediary, has never appointed a grievances officer as per above legal mandate and is doing huge business operations through 3,000 car drivers which reflects failure of collapse of governance in the country,” said Govindacharya, on whose plea the stipulation for the appointment of a grievances officer was passed.

Quoting a statement by Mumbai Service Tax Commissioner SK Solanki that Uber has “not paid a single penny towards service tax”, the application said: “These companies are also liable to pay service tax in India since they are giving the services and receiving the payment through credit cards.”

A high stakes case was part-argued today by government and petitioners on the constitutional validity of certain sections of the Information Technology Act 2000.

Fortis Hospital Bangalore, whose organ transplant licence was cancelled in 2011 after alleged medical negligence by two of its surgeons led to the death of a patient undergoing pancreatic transplant, lost its appeal in the Karnataka high court.

In a writ petition, Fortis had challenged the authority of the Appropriate Authority for Transplantation of Human Organs to pass the order cancelling its licence. Justice BS Patil, in his judgment, agreed with the decision of the Appellate Authority that based on the illegal pancreas transplant performed by the hospital, its licence should be cancelled.

The victims husband, Pankaj Rai, commented: “For me it has been a very personal journey, because it provides some justice in a matter pertaining to the untimely demise of my wife.”

“There are a very few judgments on Transplantation of Human Organs Act. With the exception of two judgments, all the judgments in India are on the issues of donors/recipients being denied permission by the Authorisation Committee. This judgment is the first of its kind in India because it pertains to a Hospital violating the provisions of Transplantation of Human Organs Act,” added Rai.

Senior counsel {CV Nagesh} briefed by advocate K Suman was acting for Fortis. Advocate D Aswathappa was acting for the Appropriate Authority and the Health and Family Welfare Department of the Karnataka government. Rai appeared in person.

Download judgment

A total of 62,641 cases were disposed of and settlement amount of Rs 65 crore awarded by various Delhi courts on the Second National Lok Adalat Saturday.

“As many as 201 benches took up all kind of cases i.e. civil cases, criminal compoundable cases, Negotiable Instrument Act cases, electricity cases, motor accident claims, bank loan cases, labour cases, arbitration cases, matrimonial cases and traffic challans apart from pre-litigative matters and plea bargaining Cases in which 61,951 cases were disposed of and the settlement amount was Rs. 26.53 crore,” the Delhi State Legal Services Authority (DLSA) said in a statement.

It added that pendency of cases in district courts was reduced by 5.19 percent in a single day.

“Other than judicial courts, the National Lok Adalat sittings were held in tribunals and commissions including the revenue department, Consumer Commission etc. 31 benches were constituted wherein 690 matters were disposed and settlement amount was Rs.38.44 crore,” a DLSA official said.

As such in the state of Delhi, in all 232 benches disposed of 62,641 cases and the settlement amount was Rs.64.97 crores, he said, adding there would be no further revisions or appeals in these cases.

The Second National Lok Adalat was organised by DLSA in the Delhi high court and all the district court complexes - Tis Hazari, Karkardooma, Patiala House, Saket, Rohini and Dwark --under the supervision of Delhi Chief Justice G Rohini.

Lok Adalats were also held in the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (SCDRC), Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Revenue Department Courts i.e. SDM cCourts apart from Permanent Lok Adalats and District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums.

"Heavens are not going to fall if the provisions are stayed. This matter cannot be treated lightly. Two years have passed and there is no definite answer from you [Centre]… either you file your affidavit or we will stay the operation of these provisions,” said Supreme Court Justice J Chelameswar yesterday in a case challenging the operation of sections 66A and 74 of the Information Technology Act, reported the Indian Express and others.

NDTV reported that the petition was brought by Faisal Farooqui, founder of reviews website Mouthshut.com, in a bid to challenge the draconian and vague anti-free speech law that requires those who host content to remove objectionable or offensive content (s66A) or face three years in jail, with intermediaries facing two years in jail for not complying (s74).

The next hearing is scheduled for 9 December.