Thursday, August 27, 2020

Cannot prevent use of 'Coronil' because of a "pesticide registered in its name", SC refuses to entertain trademark case against Patanjali

The order was passed in an appeal moved by Patanjali and the Divya Yog Mandir Trust.

The August 6 order under challenge was passed by Justice CV Karthikeyan, who allowed a trademark infringement suit by Arudra. Arudra had registered the trademark for 'CORONIL-92 B' as an acid inhibitor product for industrial cleaning and chemical preparations for industrial use in June 1993.

While ruling in favour of Arudra in the trademark suit, the Single Judge had also slapped a Rs 10 lakh fine on Patanjali and the Divya Yog Mandir Trust for "exploiting the fear and panic among the general public by projecting a cure for the Coronavirus."

Monday, August 24, 2020

Housing Society is not an industry - Employee cannot be treated as a workman -DELHI HIGH COURT


Housing Society is not an industry - Employee cannot be treated as a workman - Services rendered by the workman as security guard was for the members of housing society - Cannot calim wages and overtime allowances.

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 2 (j) Dismissal of claim for wages - Petitioner as security guard worked diligently for a period of 13 years - Housing Society is not an industry - Workman raised an industrial dispute demanding overtime for his working 12 hours a day whereas he was paid only for 8 hours - Claim rejected on the ground that Housing Society cannot be treated as 'industry' under the Act - Employee cannot be treated as a workman - Services rendered by the workman was for the members of housing society - As per Supreme Court, housing society cannot be an 'industry' - No interference - Petition dismissed.

Friday, August 21, 2020

Sushant Singh Rajput: CBI probe into FIR against Rhea Chakraborty lawful; Mumbai Police to hand over all evidence, Supreme Court

The Supreme Court today held that the Central Bureau of Investigation's (CBI) probe into the FIR lodged against actress Rhea Chakraborty in connection with the death of Sushant Singh Rajput is lawful.

The Court has further directed the Mumbai Police to hand over all the evidence in the case to the CBI.

On July 30, Chakraborty moved the Supreme Court seeking transfer of the case lodged against her.

The transfer petition states that the FIR in Patna alleging abetment to suicide charges against Chakraborty is nothing but an act of "connivance" between the State of Bihar and Rajput's father.

During the hearings before the Supreme Court, the Maharashtra and Bihar governments assailed each other's jurisdiction to investigate the matter, while both alleging that the issue was being politicized.

Meanwhile, the Bihar Police handed over the investigation in the matter to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

Wednesday, August 12, 2020

Daughters Have Coparcenery Rights Even If Their Father Was Not Alive When Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 Came Into Force: SC


In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court has held that a daughter will have a share after Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, irrespective of whether her father was alive or not at the time of the amendment.

Justice Arun Mishra today pronounced the judgment in a batch of appeals that raised an important legal issue whether the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, which gave equal rights to daughters in ancestral property, has a retrospective effect?

"Daughters must be given equal rights as sons, Daughter remains a loving daughter throughout life. The daughter shall remain a coparcener throughout life, irrespective of whether her father is alive or not", Justice Mishra said while pronouncing the judgment today. The bench also comprising of Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and MR Shah, overruled the contrary observations made in Prakash v. Phulavati and Mangammal v. T.B. Raju. The court held as follows:

  1. The provisions contained in substituted Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 confer the status of coparcener on the daughter born before or after amendment in the same manner as a son with the same rights and liabilities.

  2. The rights can be claimed by the daughter born earlier with effect from 9.9.2005 with savings as provided in Section 6(1) as to the disposition or alienation, partition or testamentary disposition which had taken place before 20th day of December 2004.

  3. Since the right in coparcenary is by birth, it is not necessary that father coparcener should be living as on 9.9.2005.

  4. The statutory fiction of partition created by proviso to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as originally enacted did not bring about the actual partition or disruption of the coparcenary. The fiction was only for the purpose of ascertaining the share of deceased coparcener when he was survived by a female heir, of Class ­I as specified in the Schedule to the Act of 1956 or male relative of such female. The provisions of the substituted Section 6 are required to be given full effect. Notwithstanding that a preliminary decree has been passed the daughters are to be given a share in coparcenary equal to that of a son in pending proceedings for final decree or in an appeal.

5 In view of the rigor of provisions of Explanation to Section 6(5) of the Act of 1956, a plea of oral partition cannot be accepted as the statutory recognised mode of partition effected by a deed of partition duly registered under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 or effected by a decree of a court. However, in exceptional cases where plea of oral partition is supported by public documents and partition is finally evinced in the same manner as if it had been affected by a decree of a court, it may be accepted. A plea of partition based on oral evidence alone cannot be accepted and to be rejected outrightly.

Wednesday, August 5, 2020

SC Dismisses Prashant Bhushan's Petition Challenging Registry's Handling Of Contempt Complaint

The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed the writ petition filed by Advocate Prashant Bhushan against Secretary General of SC alleging procedural irregularities in accepting the contempt petition without the sanction of Attorney General. The petition had sought the recall of contempt notice.

A bench comprising Justices Arun Mishra, B R Gavai and Krishna Murari summarily dismissed the petition, without assigning reasons

"We do not find any ground to entertain this writ petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed", said the order passed by the bench.

Appearing for Bhushan, Dushyant Dave, Senior Advocate, stated that the complaint filed by one Advocate Mahek Maheshwari, which sought contempt action against Bhushan, was defective as it was not accompanied with the sanction of the Attorney General as mandated by Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 and Rule 3(c) of the Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court 1975.