Dhola Maaru v. Dhola Tharu

Pfizer Products Inc. v. Rajesh Chopra, 2006 SCC OnLine Del observed, threat of selling offending goods in Delhi would itself confer jurisdiction to Courts in Delhi to entertain a suit claiming injunction. Exphar SA v. Eupharma Laboratories Ltd., (2004) 3 SCC 688 held, where an issue of territorial jurisdiction is raised, plaints need to be […]

Read more "Dhola Maaru v. Dhola Tharu"

The Case of Mr. Amitabh Bachchan

Amitabh Bachchan alleges violation of his ‘publicity rights as a celebrity’ as has also been recognized by this Court in Titan Industries Ltd. v. Ramkumar Jewellers, 2012 SCC OnLine Del 2382. It cannot seriously be disputed, Amitabh Bachchan is a well-known personality and is also represented in various advertisements. Amitabh Bachchan is aggrieved by unauthorized […]

Read more "The Case of Mr. Amitabh Bachchan"

The Revival of Ray LXXXIX

Manish Kumar v. Union of India, (2021) 5 SCC 1 has exhaustively referred to case law, on reasonable classification under Article 14, to observe, Article 14 frowns upon what constitutes hostile discrimination but does not bar classification which is reasonable. To answer whether a classification is reasonable, one must look beyond the classification to the […]

Read more "The Revival of Ray LXXXIX"

Indira Jaising

October, 1980 – Abdul Rahman Antulay set up Indira Gandhi Pratibha Pratisthan Trust which had Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as Trustees. It was a prayer, Court should issue a Writ of Quo Warranto declaring Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 disqualified from continuing to hold office.   _____ This constitutional action stands in a class by […]

Read more "Indira Jaising"

Claim of Juvenility IV

The crime is heinous. Its execution was vicious and cruel, by any stretch of imagination. The entire crime was calculated and ruthless. Our adjudication is restricted to, whether Shubam Sangra was a juvenile on date of commission of offence. The ratio discernible is, credibility and acceptability of documents would depend on facts and circumstances. We […]

Read more "Claim of Juvenility IV"

The Doctrine of Blue Pencil

An insurance contract by its very nature mandates disclosure of all ‘material facts’ by both parties. Manmohan Nanda v. United Insurance, (2022) 4 SCC 582 summarizes same. A contract meant to cover a shop situated in a basement had an exclusion clause which specified, the contract did not cover the basement. Tata AIG General Insurance […]

Read more "The Doctrine of Blue Pencil"

Ethnic

Mumbai witnessed mob frenzy, violence, communal tension and riots from 06.12.1992 to 10.12.1992 and from 06.01.1993 to 20.01.1993. When citizens of Mumbai were about to breathe a sigh of relief, there were serial bomb blasts on 12.03.1993.   The meaning of ‘ethnic’ according to Merriam­-Webster Dictionary is, “of or relating to large groups of people […]

Read more "Ethnic"

Review of Death Penalty XXXII

Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India, (2014) 3 SCC 1 quoted in Ajay Kumar Pal v. Union of India, (2015) 2 SCC 478 had laid down, undue long delay in execution of Death Sentence would entitle prayer of commutation of Death Sentence to Life Imprisonment. First and foremost, time taken cannot be called or termed […]

Read more "Review of Death Penalty XXXII"

Contempt Jurisdiction X

Court convicted the contemnor for having committed civil and criminal contempt. It had become evident, the contemnor has, in his well-calculated and deliberate scheme of things, given assurances and undertakings to mislead Courts in India, including this Court, when he had no intention to comply or abide by any of his assurances. Acts would demonstrate, […]

Read more "Contempt Jurisdiction X"

Faraaz

As discussed, right to privacy is not inheritable by heirs of deceased. Plaintiffs may have been successful if their personal right to privacy was in any way being infringed by making of this movie. But, unfortunately, no such circumstance has been pleaded by Plaintiffs. It is asserted, Plaintiffs are entitled to be left alone, to […]

Read more "Faraaz"

Promissory Estoppel X

Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills, (1979) 2 SCC 409 was authored by Bhagwati J for a Two-Judge Bench. Within 2 years, Kailasam J for a Two-Judge Bench in Jit Ram Shiv Kumar, (1981) 1 SCC 11 found fault in Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills and held, observations made were not in tune with Judgments of Constitution Benches […]

Read more "Promissory Estoppel X"

No Turn

It is evident, Plaintiff has a registered trade mark – ‘NO TURN’. Plaintiff has been in continuous use of this trade mark since 15.01.2008. Defendant is the prior user of the mark since 2007. The use of the mark by Defendant is intermittent and not voluminous so as to establish the defence under Section 34 […]

Read more "No Turn"

One Mark, One Source, One Proprietor

‘Classic Trinity Test’ of ‘Goodwill, Misrepresentation and Damages’ [Reckitt and Colman Products Ltd. v. Borden Inc, [1990] 1 All ER 873] – Satisfied. _____ Both parties claim proprietary rights and utilize the mark ‘GeoCrete’ in respect of identical goods. To permit concurrent use, in factual situation noted, would cause public confusion and result in violation […]

Read more "One Mark, One Source, One Proprietor"

Ex Debito Justitiae II

The principle of ‘ex debito justitiae‘ has been emphasized. No man should suffer because of mistakes of Court. To err is human and Courts including Apex Court are no exception. It has been held, rules of procedure are handmaidens of justice and not mistresses of justice. The principle of ‘ex debito justitiae‘ cannot be given […]

Read more "Ex Debito Justitiae II"

Preventive Detention Statute IV

Ashok Kumar v. Delhi Administration, (1982) 2 SCC 403: Preventive Detention is devised to afford protection to society. Sk. Nizamuddin v. State of West Bengal, (1975) 3 SCC 395: if there is any delay in arresting, pursuant to ‘order of detention’, which is prima facie unreasonable, State must give reasons explaining. Bhawarlal Ganeshmalji v. State […]

Read more "Preventive Detention Statute IV"

Lord Hale’s Ghost Returns

The concept of dignity forms the very foundation to the Constitution and the rights enshrined in it [Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225]. _____ Statutes are considered to be ‘always speaking’ [Dharni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India, (2019) 5 SCC 480]. Court’s power to purposively interpret a statutory […]

Read more "Lord Hale’s Ghost Returns"

Uno Minda v. Minda Uto

Plaintiffs cannot seek a restraint against Defendants from using their registered trademark ‘MINDA UTO’ for Plaintiffs do not have registration for said goods under Class 04 while Defendants do. In view of Section 31 of The Trade Marks Act, 1999 registration of the trademark is prima facie evidence of its validity in favor of Defendants. […]

Read more "Uno Minda v. Minda Uto"