Re-upped Round up - June 21: Surrogacy Laws, Office space, soliciting lawyers and ULIPs

Bar & Bench News Network

Jun 21, 2010

 

Hindustan Times reports that single men, women and even gays and lesbians could soon get the legal sanction to have children using surrogate mothers. The draft Bill legalizing surrogacy in India, The Assisted Reproductive Technologies (Regulation) Bill – 2010 (Download here) has provided for single parenthood by allowing “unmarried couples” and “single persons” from India and abroad to have children using ART procedure and surrogate mothers.

“Along with the term single persons, the path is open for gays and lesbians to use ART procedure,” said senior advocate Rajiv Dhavan, who played a crucial role in drafting the Bill along with his colleagues at Public Interest Legal Support and Research Centre. “The expression ‘unmarried couples’ generally suggests heterosexual relationships. But its interpretation has been left open.”

DNA Reports that the Justice Dinakaran enquiry panel has hardly made any headway due to non-availability of office space. To quote DNA it said “Delay is primarily due to the Centre’s apathy in allotting space in the secretariat to the three-member panel of Supreme Court (SC) judge V.S. Sirpurkar, Uttarakhand High Court Chief Justice J.S. Khehar and lawyer P.P. Rao for conducting proceedings”

Mumbai Mirror reports that Bombay High Court’s inspection officials have asked the Chief Magistrate to take severe action against roadside advocates. In a letter to the Esplanade Court’s Bar Association, N.S. Borse has said “Advocates are found accosting passersby and persons visiting the court.” …. “this unbecoming and objectionable manner of practicing law has not been done away with”.

Finally, ULIP’s regulatory concerns end with IRDA taking over the control. Livemint reports that the Government passed an ordinance to prevent a possible erosion in the credibility of the regulators and the government that could have resulted from a long-drawn legal battle to establish jurisdiction over unit-linked insurance plans (ULIPs), a hybrid insurance product.


 

Add to My Clips Print this Story Email this Story

 

Facebook LinkedIn MySpace Digg Del.icio.us twitter

Comments(2)
  • 1. "Sir, I pity the "roadside Advocates". This situation arises mainly because most of the cases are being cornered by a few Advocates. This situation can be remedied is the Government / Bar Council of India could come up with some cap as to the number of cases that one Advocate can handle at a given point of time, as in the case of Sec. 224 of Companies Act, 1956 fixing the number of Companies in which a Chartered Accountant could be appointed Auditor on a given point of time. Such statutory provision would ensure availability of work for every lawyer and the "roadside" position could be avoided.". R.Ramachandran, New Delhi
  • 2. "Sir,Its really hurts such a comment for professional advocates, but in my opinion we have to accept upto certain extent and hope that certainly BCI will take concrete steps together with all the state bar council to eliminate these scenerio to maintain the dignity of legal fraternity. Adv.Rajesh Joshi, chittaurgarh,Rajasthan". Rajesh Kumar Joshi, (Unknown City?)Chittaurgarh
Post Your Comment

Name* :

Location :

Email Id :

Comment * :

Notify me when there is a comment


 

The Viewpoint: Indemnification Provisions - Is the fight on the indemnity clause worth the effort?

bullets

 

May 17, 2012 | Bar & Bench brings to you the twentieth article on 'The Viewpoint' series with its Knowledge Partner AZB & Partners. AZB Senior Associate Nandish Vyas and Associate Pranati Ishwar in this article seek to examine the context in which indemnification rights are relevant for acquisition transactions, and also seek to explore if there are areas where they are potentially not worth the  comments (4)

 

 

Thank you. Comments are subject to moderation.