Show-cause notice to former judge

Panchkula, December 23
Taking suo motu notice of the news report published in these columns on Friday, the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana has issued a show-cause notice to Dr Mewa Singh, an advocate practising in the Panchkula court here.

Dr Mewa Singh, a former judge, practising in the local court, had been using the nameplate of a “judge” on a car being used by him to visit the court. He was placed under suspension on September 12, 2007, when he was posted as the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Narnaul and later he retired in public interest in January this year.

The notice issued to the advocate stated that it was a violation of the Rule 36 of Bar Council of India Rules. Why the proceedings of professional misconduct be not initiated against him, asked the notice while directing him to be present before the chairman of bar council on January 3, 2011, for his comments. Failing this, his right of practice would remain suspended till further orders, said the notice.

Non-signatory can’t be made accused: HC

Chandigarh, December 23
In a significant judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that a bounced cheque complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not maintainable against a person, “who has neither issued the cheque nor the same has been issued from his account.”

Taking up a petition filed by Navjot Kaur against INSCOL, Justice Alok Singh of the High Court asserted: “The short question involved in the present case is as to whether a person, who is neither a signatory of the cheque, nor has issued cheque, can be made accused in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act?.

“No complaint under Section 138 is maintainable against the person who has neither issued the cheque nor the same was issued from her account.”

INSCOL had earlier filed a complaint against Avtar Singh and his daughter Navjot Kaur. The complainant alleged that Navjot Kaur had secured admission to foreign nursing course; and her father issued an account payee cheque dated September 16, 2007, for Rs 1,25,000.

On the presentation, the cheque was dishonoured due to insufficient funds, after which a complaint was filed before a Magistrate on November 27, 2007.

After hearing the arguments and going through the documents, Justice Alok Singh ruled: “From the perusal of Section 138, I have no hesitation to hold that complaint under Section 138 can only be filed against the person, who has drawn the cheque on an account maintained by him with the banker for payment of any amount of money. 

FOUL CONTENT

Court asks networking sites to face trial

New Delhi, December 23
In yet another blow to 21 social networking sites, including Facebook, Microsoft, Google, Yahoo and YouTube, a Delhi court today issued summons to them for facing trial for allegedly webcasting objectionable contents.
Metropolitan Magistrate (MM) Sudesh Kumar took cognisance on a private criminal complaint and has directed the Centre for taking “immediate appropriate steps” and also file a report in the court by January 13.
The court’s order came three days after another court in a civil case had restrained these sites, including Facebook, Google and YouTube from webcasting any “anti-religious” or “anti-social” content promoting hatred or communal disharmony.
The magistrate has summoned the accused companies to face trial for allegedly committing the offence punishable under various sections of the Indian Penal Code.

Taxation rules for NRIs

Here are some exemptions and tax-saving tips that non-resident Indians can avail of 
Juggling finances in one country is bad enough; having to do it in two can be baffling . When it comes to filing taxes, NRIs find themselves in this unenviable position as the Income tax rules for NRIs are different from those that are valid for residents. Here's a quick guide to NRI taxation. 

Taxes applicable: 
Income which is earned outside India by an NRI is not taxed here. An NRI doesn't have to pay tax on the interest income in a non-resident external (NRE) account or foreign currency nonresident (FCNR) account. But you must be careful about taxes you pay in your new home country as some income that is exempt in India is taxed abroad. 

Filing returns: 
There is no need to file income tax return if you don't have any income here. However, if the income accruing in India through capital gains, rent, dividend or interest is beyond the threshold limit, you will have to file tax returns. Here, too, you can claim certain deductions. So, for 2011-12 , an NRI (male, below 60 years) whose income exceeds 1.8 lakh and a person above 60 years who earns more than 2.5 lakh should file returns in India. 

Investments 
If, as a resident, you made some investments and redeemed them after becoming an NRI, these will be treated differently . For instance, NRIs cannot extend the tenure of their PPF account. Capital gainslong-term or short-term-will be applicable when you redeem/sell your past investments. If you sell shares that are listed on a recognised stock exchange in India after holding them for more than a year, you will not have to pay tax on the capital gain provided the securities transaction tax has been paid. 

Tax-saving tips 
NRIs can save on these taxes by investing in pension plans, life insurance policies and tax-saving mutual funds. The repayment by an NRI towards principal amount of home loan is eligible for deduction up to 1 lakh, while the interest payment is also allowed as a deduction. NRIs can also buy a health insurance policy here for themselves, their family and dependent parents , and claim deduction up to 35,000 for the annual premium paid. If you have been repaying an education loan, the interest paid can be claimed for deduction . NRIs can put their money in tax-saving bonds too. Capital gains up to 50 lakh earned from selling a capital asset can be invested in bonds of NHAI or REC. Investment income foreign currency bonds, are subject to tax at 20% as against the maximum rate of 30%. NRIs can invest in such assets and benefit from the lower rate. Also, an NRI can avail of lower tax rates on interest income through beneficial treaty provisions.

US call centre Bill has slim chance of becoming a law

A Bill that seeks to bar US firms that outsource call centre jobs from receiving federal grants and loans has created uproar in India, but is nowhere close to becoming a law.

The Bill, introduced by Congressman Tim Bishop, a New York Democrat, has been referred to four committees in the House of Representatives: Energy and Commerce, Oversight and Government Reform, Armed Services, and Education and the Workforce. Bishop introduced the legislation earlier this month.
The US Call Centre and Consumer Protection Act is cosponsored by two Republicans, Congressmen Dave McKinley of West Virginia and Michael Grimm of New York, and two other Democrats, Congressmen Mike Michaud of Maine and Gene Green of Texas.
“We are hopeful that the hearings may be forthcoming next year due to the legislation's bipartisan support,” Bishop’s spokesman Oliver Longwell told The Tribune.
Congressional sources said the Bill stands little chance of becoming a law. The Bill requires overseas call centre employees to disclose their location to consumers in America and gives customers the right to be transferred to a US-based call centre on request. The Bill has the support of the 700,000-member Communications Workers of America.
“It is common sense that we should not be rewarding companies that ship jobs overseas, while millions of qualified Americans are looking for work,” Bishop said. “Taxpayer dollars should only be used to give incentives to good corporate citizens who create American jobs,” he added. The Bill would also require the US Department of Labour to monitor firms that send call centre jobs overseas.
These firms would be ineligible for any direct or indirect federal loans or loan guarantees for five years. Customer service/call centre employment in the US has dropped from 5.2 million in 2006 to 4.7 million in 2010 as the US firms have relocated operations overseas in a bid to cut their own costs, according to the Communications Workers of America.
India has been one of the main beneficiaries of outsourced jobs. Outsourcing has become a contentious practice as the US economy has stalled.
“If you are frustrated by dealing with call centres that are located overseas and having to worry about the security of your personal information, this Bill will give you a choice to deal with American workers who must comply with American laws,” said Michael Gendron of Communications Workers of America.

THE FINE PRINT

• No direct or indirect federal loans or loan guarantees for five years for American firms that outsource call centre jobs
• Bill designed to limit identity theft threat at foreign call centres
• It requires overseas call centre employees to disclose their location to consumers in the US and gives customers the right to be transferred to a US-based call centre on request

HC verdict on Sehajdhari voting rights case today

Chandigarh, December 19
The Punjab and Haryana High Court will on Tuesday deliver verdict on the Sehajdhari Sikhs voting rights issue.

A three-Judge Bench of the High Court is scheduled to pronounce the orders on a bunch of three petitions filed by the Sehajdhari Sikhs Federation and other petitioners.

They are seeking directions to the Union of India and other respondents for quashing the impugned notification issued in on October 8, 2003.

The notification debars Sehajdhari Sikhs from voting in the SGPC elections was issued.

HC rap for Punjab rights commission

Says SHRC only a recommendatory institution

Chandigarh, December 19
Finding fault with an order of the Punjab State Human Rights Commission against a DSP and two other police officials, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that the commission is only a recommendatory institution. It does not have the jurisdiction to reject defence version furnished by the police officers.
The ruling came on a petition filed by DSP Balwinder Singh, Barjinder Kumar and Sanjeev Kumar Goel against the State of Punjab and other respondents.
In the petition placed before the Bench of Justice MM Kumar and Justice Rajiv Narain Raina, challenge was thrown to the order dated November 12, 2009, passed by the Punjab State Human Rights Commission.
In its order, the Commission had rejected the defence pleas of the three police officers and recommended to the State Government to initiate department action against them. An interim compensation of Rs 25,000 was also recommended for Vishal Kumar, the victim of police harassment.
Challenging the order, counsel for the petitioner submitted: “Once the commission decides that the defence raised by the three petitioners was rejected, this would certainly prejudice their rights before the regular courts of law where they may have to face criminal or civil proceedings.” The counsel added the rest of the order was recommendatory and there could not be “any possible objection”.
After hearing the rival contentions, the Bench asserted that it was of the view that the submission made by the petitioner’s counsel on the offending portion of the order deserved to be accepted.
“Once the commission is found to be a recommendatory institution by the Division Bench of this court and the commission is only to act as a catalytic body, it would not have any jurisdiction to reject the defence version posed by the petitioner before the commission.”

“If such a course is adopted, it would amount to adjudication of the rights of the parties and their case before the regular courts might be prejudiced…. The following portion of the order is set aside: The commission rejects the defence pleas of the three police officers. The writ petitions are partly allowed. However, rest of the recommendations would stand”.

The rulebook

• The commission had rejected the defence pleas of the three police officers in a case
• It also recommended to the State Government to initiate departmental action against the trio
• The High Court, however, ruled that the commission did not have the jurisdiction to reject defence version as furnished by the police officials
• The ruling came on a petition filed by DSP Balwinder Singh, Barjinder Kumar and Sanjeev Kumar Goel against the State of Punjab and other respondents