Daily Alert for 22-10-2024
Supreme Court of India
Case Name: Crl.A. No.-000757-000757 - 2015
Judge(s): JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI, JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
Parties: UMA VS THE STATE REP. BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
Summary: The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment that reversed the trial court's acquittal of the appellants. The court found that the prosecution has established a complete chain of circumstantial evidence, including the motive, presence of the appellants at the time of the incident, their false explanation, and the medical evidence that conclusively points to the guilt of the appellants in murdering the deceased. The court held that the trial court's view of discarding the medical evidence in the absence of direct eyewitness testimony was not a plausible view, and the High Court was justified in re-appreciating the evidence and convicting the appellants. The appeals were dismissed, and the convictions upheld.
Case Name: Crl.A. No.-004324-004324 - 2024
Judge(s): JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI, JUSTICE K.V. VISWANATHAN
Parties: HDFC BANK LTD VS THE STATE OF BIHAR
Summary: The Supreme Court held that the FIR registered against the HDFC Bank and its officials does not disclose the commission of any offence under the Indian Penal Code. The court found that the allegations in the FIR do not prima facie constitute the alleged offences of cheating (Section 420 IPC), criminal breach of trust (Sections 406 and 409 IPC), criminal trespass (Section 462 IPC), and other related provisions. The court held that the continuation of the criminal proceedings would cause undue hardship to the bank, and accordingly quashed the FIR against the bank.
Case Name: C.A. No.-001031 - 2022
Judge(s): JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Parties: VIDYASAGAR PRASAD VS UCO BANK
Summary: The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) and the Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), holding that the entries in the Corporate Debtor's balance sheets as well as its One Time Settlement (OTS) proposal to the financial creditor (UCO Bank) amounted to a clear acknowledgment of the debt under Section 18 of the Limitation Act. This extended the period of limitation for the financial creditor to file the insolvency petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The court found no merit in the Corporate Debtor's arguments and dismissed the appeal.
Delhi High Court
Case Name: C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM)-9/20232024:DHC:8141
Judge(s): JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
Parties: M/S ABBOTT GMBH Vs REGISTRAR OF TRADEMARKS & ANR.
Summary: The High Court of Delhi dismissed the appeal filed by M/s Abbott GmbH against the order of the Registrar of Trademarks refusing to grant opposition to the registration of the trademark "MEBUFEN" by M/s Meridian Medicare Limited. The Court held that the competing marks "BRUFEN" and "MEBUFEN" are not structurally or phonetically similar, and the common suffix "FEN" derived from "IBUPROFEN" cannot be exclusively claimed by the appellant. The Court applied the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in prior judgments on the issue of deceptive similarity between trademarks, and concluded that there is no reasonable possibility of confusion in the market between the two marks. Accordingly, the Court found no grounds to interfere with the order of the Registrar of Trademarks.
Case Name: W.P.(C)-16083/20232024:DHC:8171-DB
Judge(s): HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
Parties: ZILE SINGH PROPRIETOR OF M/S DEEP TRAVELS Vs UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY & ORS.
Summary: The High Court of Delhi dismissed the writ petitions filed by the Petitioner challenging the tender eligibility criteria prescribed in Appendix L. The Court held that the requirement of having at least 2 years of experience in providing CNG school bus services to Defence organizations, as set out in Clause 6(a) of the Additional Terms and Conditions, was within the prerogative of the tendering authority and did not amount to arbitrariness or discrimination. The Court observed that the Petitioner had not challenged Clause 6(a) itself, and the changes made to Appendix L to limit the experience to only Defence organizations, instead of including Government organizations/PSUs as well, were also within the tendering authority's discretion. The Court reiterated the settled legal position that the terms and conditions of a tender, including the eligibility criteria, are primarily the prerogative of the tendering authority, and the court can interfere only if the criteria are found to be arbitrary, discriminatory or mala fide, which was not the case here.
Case Name: LPA-964/20242024:DHC:8098-DB
Judge(s): HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
Parties: UNION OF INDIA Vs OCL IRON AND STEEL LIMITED
Summary: The High Court of Delhi dismissed the appeal filed by the Union of India, upholding the decision of the single judge that the respondent (OCL Iron and Steel Limited) cannot be disqualified from participating in coal mine auctions for the alleged outstanding dues of Rs. 92.25 crores towards the Performance Bank Guarantee (PBG) under the Coal Mine Agreement, as this claim stood extinguished after the approval of the Resolution Plan. The court noted that though the appellant had submitted the claim of Rs. 92.25 crores to the Resolution Professional, it did not re-submit the claim after it was returned, and the appellant also did not challenge the Resolution Plan approved by the NCLT. Relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Ghanashyam Mishra, the court held that claims not made part of the approved Resolution Plan stand extinguished, and the successful Resolution Applicant is entitled to proceed on the principle of "clean slate". The court also observed that the other claim of the appellant for Rs. 9.21 crores towards the prior allottee of the Ardhagram Coal Mine was included in the Resolution Plan and was paid to the appellant. However, the main dispute was regarding the claim of Rs. 92.25 crores, which the court found to have been extinguished due to the appellant's failure to re-submit the claim and challenge the Resolution Plan.
Case Name: W.P.(C)-9339/20242024:DHC:8140
Judge(s): JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
Parties: SMT. SATYAWATI Vs MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI
Summary: The High Court of Delhi upheld the Labour Court's decision to dismiss the workman Shri Sundar's claim for reinstatement and backwages against the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD). The court found that Shri Sundar had failed to complete his evidence, and had in fact closed his evidence on his own statement. The court noted that it could not be ruled out that Shri Sundar had abandoned the litigation after realizing that the documents for his appointment and regularization were forged. The High Court found no infirmity in the Labour Court's impugned award and dismissed the writ petition.
Bombay High Court
Case Name: WP/6690/2024
Judge(s): JUSTICE ARUN R. PEDNEKER
Parties: MR SAROJKUMAR RAMCHANDRA GONJARI Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
Summary: The High Court held that the jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution can be exercised to challenge an award passed by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council under Section 18 of the MSMED Act, but only in exceptional circumstances where the order is patently lacking in inherent jurisdiction and has no semblance of an 'award' under the MSMED Act. In the present case, the Facilitation Council appears to have followed the procedure and heard the parties, even though the petitioner may have grounds to challenge the merits of the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. Entertaining the writ petition solely to avoid the requirement of deposit under Section 19 would defeat the purpose of the special enactment, as per the Supreme Court's ruling in M/s. India Glycols Limited. The court therefore dismissed the writ petition, while reserving the petitioner's right to challenge the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.
Case Name: REVN/40/2006
Judge(s): JUSTICE S. G. MEHARE
Parties: PRAKASH PARMANAND GURBAKSHANI Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Summary: The High Court of Bombay upheld the applicant's conviction under Section 7(i) r/w Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 for selling adulterated cottonseed oil. The court rejected the applicant's arguments that the seizure of the samples was not properly proved and that the delay in sending the samples to the Central Food Laboratory affected the prosecution's case. The court found that the sole panch witness being dead did not invalidate the seizure panchnama, and the applicant had not applied for sending the samples to the Central Food Laboratory within the 10-day period as required by law. However, the court exercised its discretion to release the applicant on probation of good conduct considering his deteriorating health and subsequent conduct.
Case Name: WP/9664/2021
Judge(s): JUSTICE SANDEEP V. MARNE
Parties: M/S TATA STEEL LTD. WIRE DIVISION THR ITS MANAGER Vs MAHARASHTRA SHRAMJIVI GENERAL KAMGAR UNION AND ANR
Summary: The High Court held that the Industrial Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the complaint of unfair labor practices filed by the workers' union against the Petitioner-Company, as the existence of an employer-employee relationship between the Petitioner-Company and the 26 workers was disputed. Relying on the principles established in Supreme Court judgments, the court found that the Respondent Union failed to plead or provide evidence to show that the 26 workers were ever direct employees of the Petitioner-Company. Therefore, the Industrial Court did not have the jurisdiction to decide the complaint seeking a declaration that the 26 workers were permanent employees of the Petitioner-Company.
Case Name: WP/2052/2006
Judge(s): JUSTICE SANDEEP V. MARNE
Parties: MARUTI KRISHANA NAIK AND ORS. Vs M/S.ADVANI OERLIKON LTD. AND ANR.
Summary: The High Court of Bombay has held that: 1. The employer is permitted to justify the termination of employees by leading evidence before the Labour Court, even if no inquiry was conducted prior to the termination. This is in line with the Supreme Court's position. 2. The employer can justify the termination by leading "all relevant evidence", even if the reasons were not specified in the termination order. The court relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Workmen of Motipur Sugar Factory Private Ltd. to arrive at this conclusion. 3. The Labour and Industrial Courts have properly appreciated the evidence on record and there is no perversity in their findings upholding the termination of the Petitioners. The High Court has refused to re-appreciate the evidence and has dismissed the Writ Petition. The High Court has upheld the concurrent findings of the Labour and Industrial Courts.
Case Name: REVN/211/2024
Judge(s): JUSTICE S. M. MODAK
Parties: DATTATRAY BAPU DIGHE Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.
Summary: The High Court of Bombay held that registration of a copyright is not mandatory for initiating criminal prosecution under the Copyright Act. The court distinguished the provisions of the Copyright Act from the Trademarks Act, and relied on its own previous judgments that found registration not to be a prerequisite for copyright enforcement. The court dismissed the applicant's contention regarding the search and seizure procedures, finding them irrelevant to the current revision application, which dealt only with the framing of charges and not a quashing petition.
Case Name: APEAL/1196/2012
Judge(s): JUSTICE S. M. MODAK
Parties: THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs PRAKASH PANDHARINATH RAJPUT
Summary: The High Court of Bombay upheld the acquittal of the respondent, PSI Prakash Rajput, finding the prosecution evidence on the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification to be untrustworthy. The court found inconsistencies in the complainant's statements and documentary evidence, and held that the prosecution failed to satisfactorily explain certain suspicious circumstances surrounding the alleged bribery. However, the court held that the sanction granted by the Special Inspector General of Police to prosecute the PSI was valid, as he was the competent authority under the applicable rules.