2nd Annual Legal Era Conclave 2012
29th & 30th November, 2012, Holiday Inn Atrium, Singapore.
Theme: "Recent Changes & Emerging Trends in Law"

Click on the below link to view conference Agenda 
http://legaleraconclave.com/legalera_conclave_2012_agendapdf

Click on the below link to view list of confirmed Speakers:
http://legaleraconclave.com/speakers

Contact:
Apeksha Sharma: handheld +91 9819002345, or e-mail: apeksha@legalera.in
Yusuf Petiwala: handheld +91- 9819196833 or e-mail: yusuf@legalera.in
Anita Rodrigues: handheld +91- 9773935483 or e-mail: anita@legalera.in

We look forward to welcoming you in November to what will be 
thought-provoking and enjoyable conclave.

Warm Regards,

Aakriti Raizada
Founder Editor, LegalEra - Legal Media Group, India

"CODE OF ETHICS" FOR ADVOCATES - Hemant Kumar, Advocate (hemantkumar.mallb@gmail.com)To read full Article please click the following link: http://lawyersupdate.co.in/LU/8/901.asp

6-month rural stint may soon be a must for MBBS degree

Kounteya Sinha TNN 

New Delhi: It might soon be binding on undergraduate medical students to serve a rural posting for six months to get their MBBS degree. Medical Council of India (MCI) recently presented the proposal to the health ministry. 
    At present, an MBBS course of 5.5 years includes one year of internship. However, most medical students end up practising in urban settings, refusing to serve the country’s rural population. 
    MCI has suggested that a six-month rural posting (serving in a primary or a community health centre) should be made a compulsory part of the curriculum of the country’s undergraduate medical education. Students can spend the other half of the year interning in an urban setting. 
    MCI chairman Dr K K Talwar told TOI that the proposal was presented to the health secretary recently. “We are presently fine-tuning the proposal which will ultimately be notified by the health ministry. A six-month rural posting will become mandatory,” Dr Talwar said. An official said the health ministry and MCI were close to reaching a consensus. “Getting a medical student to practise for one whole year in a rural setting was difficult. So we are breaking it into six months each of urban and rural internship,” an official said.

 Source:::: The Times of India, 03-09-2012, p.09. http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/Client.asp?Daily=TOIM&showST=true&login=default&pub=TOI&Enter=true&Skin=TOINEW

Insurer goes to court over 5L compensation, pays 11L

TIMES NEWS NETWORK 

Chennai: What does the right hand mean to a hairdresser? And, when a motor accident claims tribunal awards Rs 5 lakh as compensation to a hairdresser for loss of a hand, is the insurance company justified in questioning the quantum of the compensation? 
    These were the issues before the Madras HC which heard an appeal by the staterun National Insurance Company. It had moved the HC saying a compensation of Rs 5.25 lakh, awarded to a hairdresser who lost his right hand while travelling in abus, was exorbitant. 
    Taking exception to the plea, the HC enhanced the compensation to Rs 11 lakh, payable along with interest. Justice S Vimala, dismissing the petition , said, “The importance of right hand in hair cutting profession is selfexplanatory. The claimant being a hair dresser, the loss of his right hand means total isability. The injury was such that the claimant had been disabled from all work he was capable of performing.”
Source::::: The Times of India, 03-09-2012, p.09 . http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/Client.asp?Daily=TOIM&showST=true&login=default&pub=TOI&Enter=true&Skin=TOINEW

Man wins 7L payout for not getting flat possession

Rebecca Samervel TNN 

Mumbai: Failing to give possession of a flat and creating third party interest by selling it to another buyer has cost a builder Rs 6.80 lakh. Alongwith the Rs 9.22 lakh paid as advance and registration charges for the flat, Rishabh Enterprises will have to pay Rs 6.80 lakh compensation to a Goregaon man who had purchased flat in the former’s project but not received possession. 
    Darshan Thakkar had booked the 1BHK flat worth Rs 19 lakh and the agreement was signed on April 30, 2008. Thakkar also paid a total of Rs 9.22 lakh to the builder. But the flat was never handed over to him. After repeated requests, the builder gave a cheque to Thakkar, which bounced. The builder then gave Thakkar three cheques amounting to Rs 3 lakh each. They also bounced due to insufficient funds. Thakkar alleged that the builder had sold the flat to another person. Alleging deficiency and unfair trade practice Thakkar filed a complaint in the Mumbai Suburban District consumer Disputes Redressal forum on May 6, 2011. 
    The forum sent a notice to the builder, but he refused it. An order was passed ex-parte. The forum said the builder had accepted that Thakkar had paid a part of the flat amount. This was evident from the fact that the builder made attempts to return the money to Thakkar. The forum took into consideration documents submitted by Thakkar, including a copy of the cheque and letter sent by the bank after it bounced. The forum held the builder guilty of deficiency in service.


Source::::: The Times of India, 03-09-2012, p.02 . http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/Client.asp?Daily=TOIM&showST=true&login=default&pub=TOI&Enter=true&Skin=TOINEW

Compensation can’t be taxed: Consumer court

Rajshri Mehta TNN 

Mumbai: The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held that damages awarded in a case cannot be equated with income and thus, not liable to attract tax deducted at source. The NCDRC passed the order while directing the Airports Authority of India (AAI) to refund the TDS it had subtracted from the compensation of Rs 2.5 lakh it paid to a couple for the death of their daughter. 
    The NCDRC had on August 5, 2004 directed AAI to pay the Dubai-based complainants Geeta and Parmanand Jethani damages of Rs 2.5 lakh after their daughter Jyotsana died while getting off an escalator maintained by the airport authority. The AAI paid the compensation but only after deducting tax and contended that since the TDS had already been deducted, the Jethanis should seek its refund from the income tax authorities. 
    The commission said that AAI should not have deducted the TDS in the first place. “The AAI should have merely passed on the information to the I-T department. The damages paid for the death of a person cannot be equated with income as such,’’ the bench president Justice J M Malik said. 
    The bench referred to a similar order passed in 2002 wherein it held a consumer not liable to pay TDS on the interest on the amount refunded by the Ghaziabad Development Authority. It held that the interest was paid because of deficiency of services.

Source::::: The Times of India, 03-09-2012, p.01 . http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/Client.asp?Daily=TOIM&showST=true&login=default&pub=TOI&Enter=true&Skin=TOINEW

DUTY SHOCKER

Fiat India loses 432cr excise case

Mayur Shetty TNN 

Mumbai: Fiat India has lost an almost decade-old battle with the excise department which had slapped a Rs 432 crore duty on the company for Uno cars sold below cost price between 1996 and 2001. 
    In a landmark judgment on August 29, Justice H L Dattu of the Supreme Court set aside the order passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal and restored the order by the adjudicating authority. 
    The excise department had discovered that the company was importing car kits in completely knocked down (CKD) and semi-knocked down condition and the cost of production of a single car was Rs 3,80,883 (CKD) and Rs 3,98,585 (SKD), respectively, against the assessable value of Rs 1,85,400. 
    Fiat India officials did not comment on the order. However, a source said that the order pertained to a different Fiat company. The tax department’s contention was that cars were imported at a higher price but were sold at loss for a consideration — to penetrate the market, a fact confirmed by the company. 
    Arguing the case, Bishwajit Bhattacharyya, Additional Solicitor General of India, said the price at which the goods were sold by Fiat India clearly indicated that these goods were not “ordinarily sold” in 
terms of Section 4 (1) (a) of the Central Excise Act as the company had sold the cars at 100% loss for five years. “This judgment will bring about clarity and certainty in valuation under the central excise laws,” said Bhattacharyya. 
    The order will have wide implications as the tax department will now feel vindicated on its stand that the central excise duty is chargeable on manufacture or production of goods and not on the sale of goods.
Source::::: The Times of India, 31-08-2012, p.18.http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/Client.asp?Daily=TOIM&showST=true&login=default&pub=TOI&Enter=true&Skin=TOINEW