The Nature of Judicial Power: [Some] Pending Collegium Recommendations

Hon’ble High Court Hon’ble Chief Justice Date of Birth Calcutta Prakash Shrivastava 31/03/1961 Bombay S.V. Gangapurwala [Acting CJ] 24/05/1962 Madras T. Raja [Acting CJ] 25/05/1961 Allahabad Rajesh Bindal 16/04/1961 Karnataka Prasanna B. Varale 23/06/1962 Patna Sanjay Karol 23/08/1961 J&K Tashi Rabstan [Acting CJ] 10/04/1963 Madhya Pradesh Ravi Malimath 25/05/1962 Punjab and Haryana […]

Swiss Military

The Trademarks Act, 1999 Section 2(1)(za)(iv): ‘trade description’ means any description/statement/indication, direct or indirect, as to country in which goods were made/produced/provided. Section 2(1)(i)(I): ‘false trade description’ means a ‘trade description’ which is untrue or misleading in a material respect as regards goods to which it is applied. Section 9(2)(a): a mark shall not be […]

Morality of Constitutional Tort

Needless to say, no one can either be taxed or penalized for holding an opinion which is not in conformity with constitutional values. It is only when an opinion gets translated into action and such action results in injury or harm or loss, an action in tort will lie. Courts cannot turn a blind […]

Unchartered Ocean of Policy Decision V / The Demonetization Recommendation

Shri P. Chidambaram submits, result of demonetization was disastrous. But, if Notification No. 3407(E) [08.11.2016] had a nexus with objectives to be achieved, Notification No. 3407(E) [08.11.2016] would not be bad in law merely because some citizens suffered through hardships. It will not be proper for Court to enter into an area which should be […]

Comparative Advertising III

‘GLUCON-D TANGY ORANGE’ v. ‘DABUR GLUCOPLUS-C ORANGE’ The TV commercial identifies ‘orange glucose’ as ‘product category’. But, is it disparaging in nature? Disparagement is an act of belittling someone’s goods or services with a misleading remark. The TV Commercial does not disparage any ‘orange glucose’ drink. Disparagement cannot be a far-fetched inference. It would […]

Design Piracy / No Bottle, Just Bottle II

Plaintiffs allege infringement by Defendant of their Registered Design No. 306577 which was the subject matter of Diageo Brands B.V. v. Great Galleon Ventures Limited, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 2350 [‘Great Galleon’] as well. Senior Advocate, Amit Sibal points out, Section 22 of The Designs Act, 2000 identifies ‘obvious’ and ‘fraudulent’ imitation as the test. […]

The Revival of Ray XC

Constitution Bench in Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi, (1975) 1 SCC 421 held, the words ‘rules’ and ‘regulations’ are used in an Act to limit powers of a statutory authority; any action of such bodies in excess of their power or in violation of restrictions placed is ultra vires; statutory bodies cannot use […]

Quia Timet III

Learned Counsel for Appellant-Defendant states, Learned Single Judge has erred in not considering: Respondent-Plaintiff had bypassed Section 12A of The Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which prescribes pre-institution mediation as a mandatory requirement. Respondent-Plaintiff is not only a prior adopter but also a prior registrant and allegation of suppression is irrelevant. Court is in agreement, packaging […]

Referred to Larger Bench XVII Answered: Illegal Gratification I

“The question, ‘whether in absence of evidence of complainant / direct or primary evidence of demand of illegal gratification, is it not permissible to draw inferential deduction of culpability / guilt of a public servant under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?’, requires a Larger […]

Referred to Larger Bench XXXIII: K. Meghachandra, (2020) 5 SCC 689

With greatest respect to Hon’ble Bench [R. Banumathi, A.S. Bopanna & Hrishikesh Roy JJ] which dealt with K. Meghachandra Singh v. Ningam Siro, 2020 5 SCC 689, we find, attention was not invited to binding decisions of Coordinate Bench in M. Subba Reddy v. A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, (2004) 6 SCC 729 and Constitution […]

Quia Timet II / The Drastic Power of Rejecting a Plaint VII

My Lord, Allegations in Plaint are Sufficient? No. In assessing whether a quia timet plaint can be rejected outright [Order 7, Rule 11], Teva Pharmaceutical Industries v. Natco Pharma Limited, (2014) 212 DLT 321 cautions, a quia timet action must not be speculative, merely alleging without factual basis. The statement of claim must allege […]

Product Configuration Trade Dress

Plaintiffs are manufacturers of containers, used to store food products, sold under the brand name ’Tupperware’. Defendant is also a manufacturer of containers, used for storage of food products, sold under the brand name ‘Signoraware’. Plaintiffs have brought this action seeking remedies in respect of Plaintiffs’ Suit Products [MM Square, Best Lunch Bag and Spice […]

Section 319 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 II

Court’s power under Section 319 has been reiterated in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92. It has been held, such power is available before pronouncement of a Judgment. After pronouncement of a Judgment of conviction, trial is not complete. Though, it may be so in case of acquittal. A Judge is […]

Honourable Acquittal V

Pramod applied for the post of a Police Constable. He disclosed, he had been tried for an offence under Section 498A, IPC. As he was involved in a criminal case earlier, though acquitted, his candidature was rejected. As such there was no suppression. Pramod was acquitted 7 years before he applied for the post […]

Consent, March 2007

Omkar is a teacher in a Government school. Vimala was a student reading in said school. Vimala alleged, Omkar had sexual intercourse with her on putting her to fear, she would be failed. She was studying in Class VII for 3 years. Trial Judge found her to be more than 18 years. Whereas under Section […]

Dhola Maaru v. Dhola Tharu

Pfizer Products Inc. v. Rajesh Chopra, 2006 SCC OnLine Del 177 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 […]

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 […]

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 […]

Family of Marks

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., proprietor of the trade mark ‘FORZEST’, prayed for grant of an ad-interim injunction restraining DWD Pharmaceuticals Ltd. from using the mark ‘FOLZEST’. DWD Pharmaceuticals asserted, Sun Pharmaceutical obtained above ad-interim ex-parte injunction by concealing various material facts. DWD Pharmaceuticals is a registered proprietor of ‘ZEST Family of Marks’ since 1983. Sr. […]

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 […]

The Last Word

A Diversion for Lawyers and Others