Introduction: Kerala High Court’s Intervention in the Ban on ‘Ferocious & Dangerous’ Dog Breeds

The Kerala High Court’s recent decision to partially stay the ban on certain dog breeds categorized as “ferocious and dangerous” by the Union Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry, and Dairying Department has sparked significant legal and public interest. This article delves into the background of the case, analyzes the court’s decision, and explores the broader implications for dog owners and enthusiasts.

Background of the Case: The Circular and Legal Challenge

The controversy stems from a circular issued by the Union Ministry on March 12, 2024, which imposed a ban on the import, trading, and selling of approximately 23 breeds of dogs identified as ferocious. However, this blanket ban faced legal challenge through a writ petition filed by a group of dog lovers and owners. Their petition challenged the validity of the circular and raised concerns about its impact on responsible dog ownership.

Court’s Decision: Partial Stay and Legal Justification

In response to the writ petition, Justice T R Ravi of the Kerala High Court issued a partial stay on the operation of the circular. While recognizing the need for public safety measures, the court also acknowledged the rights of dog owners and enthusiasts. By partially staying the ban, the court aimed to strike a balance between safeguarding public safety and protecting individual liberties.

Comparison with Precedent: High Court Decisions on ‘Ferocious & Dangerous’ Dog Breed Ban

The Kerala High Court’s decision to partially stay the ban aligns with similar interim orders issued by the Karnataka High Court and Calcutta High Court. Both courts also intervened to partially suspend the operation of the circular, indicating a consistent judicial approach to the contentious issue of banning specific dog breeds. These decisions serve as legal precedents for future cases involving similar challenges to government regulations.

Controversy Surrounding the Circular: Breed Identification and Public Safety

One of the key points of contention surrounding the circular is the basis for identifying certain dog breeds as “ferocious and dangerous.” Critics argue that such classification lacks scientific validity and may unfairly stigmatize entire breeds based on isolated incidents or misconceptions. Additionally, there is debate over whether breed-specific legislation effectively addresses public safety concerns or if it disproportionately targets certain communities of dog owners.

List of Banned Dog Breeds: Understanding the Scope of the Ban

The circular issued by the Union Ministry includes a comprehensive list of banned dog breeds, ranging from Pitbull Terriers to Mastiffs and Wolf Dogs. Each breed is categorized as potentially hazardous to human life, prompting the government to impose strict regulations, including sterilization mandates for existing pets. However, the inclusion of certain breeds in this list has sparked controversy and raised questions about the criteria used for classification.

Implications of the Court’s Decision: Balancing Rights and Responsibilities

The Kerala High Court’s decision to partially stay the ban has significant implications for both dog owners and government authorities. On one hand, it provides temporary relief to dog owners who may have been adversely affected by the ban. On the other hand, it underscores the importance of addressing public safety concerns without infringing disproportionately on individual rights. The court’s decision reflects a nuanced understanding of the complex issues at stake and highlights the need for a balanced approach to policy implementation.

Future Course of Action: Legal Proceedings and Administrative Response

Following the court’s directive, both the Union and State Governments are required to submit their statements regarding the validity of the circular. This sets the stage for further legal proceedings and administrative action. It remains to be seen how the government authorities will respond to the court’s decision and whether any revisions or amendments will be made to the ban on specific dog breeds. Additionally, stakeholders await clarity on the future regulation of these contentious dog breeds and the broader implications for responsible pet ownership.

Conclusion: Balancing Ban on ‘Ferocious & Dangerous’ Dog Breeds

In conclusion, the Kerala High Court’s intervention in the ban on “ferocious and dangerous” dog breeds exemplifies the judiciary’s role in safeguarding individual liberties while promoting public safety. By issuing a partial stay on the ban, the court has demonstrated a commitment to upholding constitutional principles and ensuring a fair and balanced approach to policy implementation. As legal proceedings continue and stakeholders engage in dialogue, it is essential to consider the diverse perspectives and interests involved in regulating pet ownership and animal welfare. Ultimately, achieving a harmonious balance between public safety measures and individual rights is paramount in addressing the complex challenges posed by breed-specific legislation and promoting responsible pet ownership in society.

The post Ban on ‘Ferocious & Dangerous’ Dog Breeds: Kerala High Court Partially Stays Centre’s Ban – A Legal Development appeared first on Bhatt & Joshi Associates.

FLIPKART ISSUE PRESENTED BEFORE NCLT

A single judge bench of the Bengaluru National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) ordered on  October 24, a Corporate Insolvency Process against Walmart controlled online retailer Flipkart for non-payment of the Rs 26.95 crore of dues to Mumbai based LED TV supplier CloudWalker Streaming Technologies Private Ltd after a petition by the Mumbai based company.

Cloud Walker Streaming Technologies Pvt. and Flipkart entered into an agreement for supply of LED TVs in 2016. As per the petition, Flipkart showed keen interest in selling the products of the supplier for their superior technology, features and other advantages over other suppliers of the product. Cloud Walker claimed that after placing purchase orders for LED TVs, Flipkart initially delayed accepting the order, citing the lack of a warehouse as a reason. Cloud Walker submitted that they had agreed to store the goods in their own warehouse temporarily, but Flipkart never collected the delivery, after making several excuses. Furthermore, Cloud Walker has also said that Flipkart ‘coerced’ them into selling the products at a discounted price, knowing that the order had been warehoused for Flipkart, for a while. In order to avoid any more losses and due to facing liquidity crunch, Cloud Walker agreed to offer a discount, but Flipkart still failed to collect delivery and make payment for over 70% of the stock ordered. It is Cloud Walker’s grievance that the supplier was forced to unload the collected goods at a heavily marked down price, as the goods had been in the warehouse for over 2 months. As a result of non-payment of balance dues, the supplier Cloud Walker issued a demand notice under section 8 of the IBC (Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016) but the Corporate Debtor (CD) Flipkart did not respond to the statutory notice, as is necessitated by the provisions of the IBC.

Flipkart challenged the petition on the ground of having made a payment of over Rs. 85.57 cr. towards the invoices raised against by Cloud Walker, as against the total Purchase Order (PO) amounting to Rs 103.62 cr. Flipkart also contended that there were huge disparities in the amount claimed by the Supplier, by way of invoices, and before these disputes are adjudicated upon by a competent civil court, the insolvency proceedings are a way of misusing the law. In addition, Flipkart submitted that an amount of Rs. 42.96 cr. payable to Cloud Walker had been withheld by them, due to deficiency in services.

In an order uploaded on the NCLT website on 5th November the single judge bench of Rajeswara Rao Vittanala said that Flipkart has committed default by the non-payment of dues despite repeated requests from CloudWalker. Vittanala appointed Deepak Saruparia as the resolution professional in the case. The NCLT Bench also said that Flipkart had failed to raise a dispute regarding deficiency of services on the part of Cloud Walker, before the insolvency petition was preferred by the Supplier, nor did it respond to the statutory demand notice issued under section 8. It was also observed that Flipkart had failed to notify the Supplier Cloud Walker of any substantive pending dispute, suit or arbitral proceedings.

Flipkart followed up with a writ petition in the Karnataka High Court and a day later obtained a stay on the NCLT order.

In its next hearing held on October 31, the Karnataka HC ordered continuation of the stay. The date of the next hearing has not been set yet. “In view of the above, it is clarified that as on date, Flipkart is not undergoing corporate insolvency resolution process and is continuing its operations on a going concern basis under its present management,” the company said in an email statement.

­The matter pertains to an agreement between CloudWalker and Flipkart that dates back to December 2016. CloudWalker, which sells TV under Cloud TV brand, had alleged that Flipkart had signed the agreement to purchase stock worth Rs 103.62 crore but only bought goods worth Rs 85.57 crore, and that too after many delays.

Read more about what is corporate insolvency process?

The post Flipakart ordered for corporate insolvency process by NCLT, Flipkart gets stay from High Court appeared first on Bhatt & Joshi Associates.