Weekly Legal Updates main objective is to update the legal knowledge of law students, lawyers, academicians and other professionals. If we do not update our legal knowledge regularly, our knowledge become redundant.
Kerala moves Supreme Court against President Droupadi Murmu for sitting on 4 bills
In an unusual move, Kerala govt has petitioned Supreme Court against President Droupadi Murmu withholding assent to four bills that were passed by the state assembly. The plea, filed through advocate CK Sasi, said the matter relates to the acts of Kerala governor in reserving seven bills, which he was required to deal with himself, to the President. Not one of the seven bills had
anything to do with Centre-state relations.
The govt said these bills had been pending with the governor for as long as two years and his action “subverted” the functioning of the state legislature, rendering its very existence “ineffective and
otiose”.
“The bills include public interest bills, which are for the public good, and even these have been rendered ineffective by the governor not dealing with each one of them “as soon as possible” as required by the proviso to Article 200,” the state govt’s plea stated.
The govt said that on Feb 23, MHA informed it that the President had withheld assent to four of seven bills -University Laws (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 2021, Kerala Co-operative Societies
(Amendment) Bill, 2022, University Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2022, and University Laws (Amendment) (No. 3) Bill, 2022.
The petition urged SC to declare as unconstitutional the President not granting assent to these bills without assigning a reason.
(Courtesy:- The Times of India, 24 March 2024)
Preventive detention by routine exercise of powers must be nipped in bud: Supreme Court
The appellant was arrested under the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act of 1986 on the order of the Rachakonda police commissioner on September 12 last year. Four days later, the Telangana High Court rejected the man’s petition.
Observing that preventive detention is a draconian measure and any such move based on a capricious or routine exercise of powers must be nipped in the bud, the Supreme Court has set aside a Telangana High Court order rejecting a detenu’s appeal.
A bench headed by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud Thursday said the essential concept of preventive detention is that the detention of a person is not to punish him for something he has done but to prevent him from doing it. “Inability on the part of the state’s police machinery to tackle the law-and-order situation should not be an excuse to invoke the jurisdiction of preventive detention,” the bench, also comprising Justice J B Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra, said.
The appellant was arrested under the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act of 1986 on the order of the Rachakonda police commissioner on September 12 last year. Four days later, the Telangana High Court rejected the man’s petition.
The SC said preventive detention has to be exercised with great care, caution and restraint.
“We are of the view that mere registration of the two FIRs for the alleged offences of robbery etc. could not have been made the basis to invoke the provisions of the Act 1986 for the purpose of preventively detaining the appellant herein on the assumption that he is a ‘GOONDA’ as defined under Section 2(g) of the Act,” it said.
(Courtesy:- The Indian Express, 24 March 2024)
Suit for Determination of Rights to Be Instituted at Location of Property: Supreme Court
The top court dismissed a transfer petition filed by M/s Acme Papers Ltd on the basis of a contention that since the memorandum of understanding related to the purchase of land was signed in Kolkata, a suit filed related to property in Sehore in Madhya Pradesh should be transferred to Kolkata.
The Supreme Court has said that suits for the determination of any right to or interest in an immovable property would be instituted in the court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situated.
A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Prasanna B Varale dismissed a transfer petition filed by M/s Acme Papers Ltd on the basis of a contention that since the memorandum of understanding related to the purchase of land was signed in Kolkata, a suit filed related to property in Sehore in Madhya Pradesh should be transferred to Kolkata.
In the case, M/s Acme Papers Ltd entered into an MoU with M/s Chintaman Developers Pvt Ltd & Ors in 2022 to purchase 74.06 acres of land at Sehore for over Rs 20.69 crore.
Since the company could not obtain the necessary approvals required for selling of suit property, respondents filed a suit for specific performance of the MoU, which the petitioner now seeks to transfer to Kolkata where they have already filed a suit for declaration that the MoU stands terminated and is incapable of being acted upon. Both parties filed transfer petitions in the apex court.
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the MoU was executed in Kolkata and the suit filed by them goes to the root of the matter, i.e., validity and enforceability of the MoU. The company contended that the respondent’s suit for specific performance would only arise if the agreement is valid so the reliefs sought by it are required to be decided first and cannot be raised as an issue before the district judge, Sehore, as it is already an issue raised by them in their suit.
The counsel for the respondent, on the contrary, submitted that the question of the existence of the MoU or the location where it was entered into has no nexus with the choice of jurisdiction. Whereas, the existence of the MoU and its specific performance are intrinsically connected and relate directly to the suit property, located in Sehore, Madhya Pradesh. Further, it was also contended that the petitioner has filed other suits in Sehore and is also appearing in a matter before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh in connection with the suit property.
The court, however, said the petitioner’s reliance on the cause of action arising in Kolkata due to the MoU being executed over there is completely erroneous in view of section 20, CPC, which provides that a suit can be initiated where the defendant resides or cause of action arises is a residuary provision only applicable to cases beyond those in Section 15 to 19, CPC. Thus, the section has no application in this case as when the subject matter of the MoU is the suit property located at Sehore.
It also pointed out that section 16, CPC, inter alia provides that suits for the determination of any other right to or interest in immovable property should be instituted in the court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situated.
The bench also noted the suit filed at Sehore, Madhya Pradesh was earlier in time. The respondent no 1 filed its suit on May 12, 2023 at Sehore and the petitioner filed its vakalatnama therein on June 28, 2023. Thereafter, on July 20, 2023 the petitioner filed its suit in Kolkata and two days later the petitioner filed its written statement in Sehore.
The court also said, section 10, CPC, inter alia mandates that no court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue between the parties, litigating under the same title, where such suit is pending in the same or any other court in India having jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed. It has been incorporated to avoid multiplicity of proceedings on issues which are directly and substantially in issue in the previously filed suit, it added.
Among others, the bench pointed out, since the suit property is located in Sehore, all property records and government documents would be present in the vicinity, including most witnesses. The court also noted as per the counter affidavit that the suit property is mortgaged to Bank of Baroda, through its Bhopal branch and an auction has taken place on the strength of which the Bank, as well as the auction purchasers, have been impleaded in the suit filed at Sehore.
The court, therefore, transferred the suit pending at the City Civil Court in Kolkata to the court of Principal Judge, Sehore.
(Courtesy:-https://www.news18.com/, 26 March 2024)
Restraining people from political activities can’t be bail condition : Supreme Court
Holding that bail conditions restraining an accused from participating in political activities violate his/her fundamental rights, the Supreme Court has quashed such a bail condition imposed on a man by the Orissa High Court.
The order came on a petition filed by Berhampur Municipal Corporation mayor and BJP leader Siba Shankar Das challenging the January 18, 2024, HC order rejecting his plea for withdrawal of the bail condition imposed on him on August 11, 2022.
“The appellant shall not create any untoward situation in public and shall not be involved in any political activities, directly or indirectly,” the high court had ordered, while granting him bail. However, the top court disapproved of such a bail condition.
“We find that the imposition of such a condition would breach the fundamental rights of the appellant and no such conditions could have been imposed. We, therefore, quash and set aside the condition imposed by the HC, to the extent the same is extracted above,” a Bench led by Justice BR Gavai said, allowing the appeal filed by Das.
His counsel had argued that the appellant, being a political person, be permitted to take part in political activities in view of the ensuing General Election. But the State of Orissa counsel had opposed it, saying after being released on bail, a murderous attempt was made on him.
(Courtesy:- The Tribune, 27 March 2024).
Supreme Court directs states & UTs to issue ration cards to 80 million migrant workers
In a significant move benefiting 80 million migrant workers enlisted on the e-Shram portal, the Supreme Court has instructed states and Union Territories to issue ration cards to them within two months.
While hearing the case last week, a top court bench comprising Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah expressed concern over delays in the issuance of ration cards, particularly due to the necessity of updating eKYC for all 800 million ration cardholders before complying with the court’s directive.
The bench noted that the matching of e-Shram registrants with National Food Security Act (NFSA) beneficiaries had been completed, revealing that 8 crore individuals lacked ration cards, thus missing out on food grain benefits under the NFSA.
Emphasising the urgency of issuing ration cards, the court directed that any eKYC exercise undertaken by the Centre should not impede the issuance process.
Furthermore, the court clarified that ration cards must be issued regardless of the quotas defined in Section 3 of the NFSA, which entitles eligible households to receive subsidised food grains under the Targeted Public Distribution System.
“The State Governments/Union Territories shall continue the said exercise notwithstanding the mandate of Section 3(2) of the National Food Security Act, 2013. The effect thereof shall be examined at a later stage,” the bench stated in its order.
The court scheduled the next hearing for July 16 and directed the respective Chief Secretaries of states and Union Territories to file affidavits, with copies provided to the counsel for the Union of India for data collation.
During the proceedings, the bench emphasised the central government’s responsibility to ensure food grains reach every citizen, particularly during crises like the Covid pandemic.
The case was heard in response to a public interest plea concerning the challenges faced by migrant workers during the pandemic and subsequent lockdowns.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing social activists Anjali Bharadwaj, Harsh Mander, and Jagdeep Chhokar, highlighted concerns about excluding over 100 million workers from the Food Safety Act due to outdated census statistics from 2011 failing to account for population growth.
(Courtesy:- India Today, 27 March 2024)
No discrimination in promotion of women officers: Army tells Supreme Court
The Indian Army and Centre have rebutted allegations of discrimination and gender bias in the promotion of women officers to the post of colonel vis-a-vis their male counterparts, underlining that the army has acted in the interest of gender neutrality without compromising on merit or previous policies on promotion.
“There has been no discrimination on the basis of gender and the women officers have been considered for promotion on their own merits,” the army and the central government said in an affidavit filed jointly on March 7 following a petition by some army officers alleging discrimination in promotion.
The affidavit will come up for consideration before a bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud on April 1.
This is the third time the army has faced allegations of discrimination and gender bias before the top court. In February 2020, the Supreme Court ordered a level playing field for women short service commission (SSC) officers vis-a-vis their male counterparts for permanent commission, rejecting the Centre’s stand on their “physiological limitations” as being based on “sex stereotypes” and calling it “gender discrimination against women”. The apex court directed that all serving SSC women officers have to be considered for permanent commission irrespective of them having completed 14 years or, as the case may be, 20 years of service within three months.
In March 2021, the Supreme Court also struck down the discriminatory yardsticks applied to women while denying them permanent commission.
Since the 2021 verdict, 244 women officers succeeded in getting permanent commission in the respective arms/services of the army and were up for empanelment for promotion to colonel.
The Special No. 3 Selection Board, which was set up to promote women officers from the rank of lieutenant colonel to colonel, considered their case in January 2023 and empanelled only 108 women officers. Nearly 30 among the 136 women officers who failed to make it filed a contempt petition in the top court last year accusing the army of violating the court’s previous orders.
Following the Supreme Court’s directions on November 3, 2023, 12 more women officers made it to the rank of colonel out of a vacancy pool of 42. In their contempt plea, the women officers said the army was considering them along with the women officers who stood empanelled in the earlier round held in January 2023. They further claimed that such a rule was not adopted for similarly promoting male officers.
The army’s affidavit said it had acted in a bona fide manner and in line with the laid down policies applicable to all officers of Indian Army uniformly, including women officers.
The army rejected that it had discriminated against the women officers. “In case of male officers, till date no Special No 3 Selection Board is held nor any waiver is given to them which is given to women officers.” It added that the male officers were considered by regular selection board.
An officer is permitted three chances for empanelment and any other consideration beyond the mandated 3 chances is governed by special review.
In their counter-affidavit filed through lawyer Rakesh Kumar on March 17, the women officers insisted that the army had discriminated against them in more ways than one. “The respondents failed to take into account that due to gender discrimination and absence of any career progression for women officers, most of the women officers were forced to get voluntary release from service due to which batch strength of women officers became very low,” the women officers said.
This reduced the opportunities for women officers since the vacancies were allocated on the basis of batch strength, the counter-affidavit said. It added that their empanelment be reconsidered by the Special No 3 Selection Board, arguing that the board meeting pursuant to the court’s November 3 order was held in a “highly clandestine” manner and no observer was appointed from the officers as was the practice in all selection board proceedings convened in the past.
They further reasoned that since they have exhausted their three chances for consideration of empanelment, the policy applicable for special review will apply to them where the lowest merit of the officer empanelled from their batch would serve as the benchmark for any fresh empanelment.
The army, however, stressed that the women officers would not qualify under “Special Review” and faulted them for assuming that all existing vacancies for colonel were to be exhausted as per the November 3 order. At present, 22 vacancies remain and these are for considering the women officers from 2007 to 2009 batches who are yet to be considered for empanelment.
“The question of willfully defying the order of this court does not arise as respondents belong to disciplined forces and are law-abiding citizens of India,” the army affidavit, filed on behalf of the chief of army staff, chief of defence staff and military secretary, said
The army said it has complied with the November 3, order that required the selection board to apply a common cut-off of June 1, 2021, for reckoning their confidential reports. Further, the army said that the already empanelled officers were included to ensure that their seniority is not affected in any manner, as held by the top court’s November 3 direction.
In the course of the March 4 hearing, the bench indicated that it was not prima facie convinced that a case of contempt was made out and asked the centre to file a short affidavit on the criteria. “Once we find that the process was fair, we will leave it. You file a short affidavit indicating what was the criteria followed for empanelment of male officers.”
(Courtesy:- The Hindustan Times, 27 March 2024)
Delhi HC Grants Interim Injunction To Eveready Industries Against Use Of The Trademark “EveryDay”
Delhi High Court recently granted an interim injunction to Eveready Industries against the use of the trade mark “EveryDay” for kitchen appliances.
Eveready Industries filed a trade mark and copyright infringement suit before the Delhi High Court against an entity KSC Industries to restrain it from using the trade mark “EveryDay” for kitchen appliances including kitchen lighters.
Eveready Industries was founded in the year 1905 and is engaged in the business of batteries, flashlights, and various other lighting products under the trade mark “EVEREADY”. Eveready argued that the adoption of the trade mark “EveryDay” by the Defendants is completely with the mala fide intent to deceive the consumer and pass off its goods as of Eveready. Eveready also argued that the trade dress adopted by the Defendant is also completely similar to Eveready’s trade dress.
The Hon’ble Court after hearing the submissions on the matter restrained the Defendant from using the trade mark “EveryDay” and its trade dress or any other identical to or deceptively mark.
Eveready was represented by Mr Ankur Sangal, Partner, Khaitan & Co with the assistance of Ms Sucheta Roy, Principal Associate and Ms Nidhi Pathak, Associate.
(Courtesy:- BWLegal World, 27 March 2024)
Delhi High Court warns AAP legal cell of severe consequences
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday warned of “severe consequences” if any protest is staged by AAP’s legal cell in any courts of the national capital. The AAP’s legal cell had called for a protest on Wednesday and Thursday in the courts to protest the arrest of Arvind Kejriwal in the Delhi excise case.
A division bench, headed by acting chief justice Manmohan Singh, on Wednesday verbally remarked that the consequences of holding a protest on court premises will be “very severe”. “Court cannot be withheld. Court cannot be stopped,” the bench stated.
The development took place after a lawyer made a mention about his complaint against the call given by AAP legal cell. The lawyer said he had e-mailed a complaint against the protest call at midnight and sought hearing of the matter.While the bench said that it would hear the matter on Thursday, it issued a warning to the lawyers intending to protest inside the court premises. The bench made it clear that litigants cannot be prevented from entering courts.
In a related development, the Bar Council of India has requested the legal fraternity not to protest in courts.
(Courtesy:- The Economic Times, 27 March 2024)
Relief for CM Arvind Kejriwal as Delhi high court rejects PIL against him after arrest by ED
The Delhi high court on Thursday rejected a PIL seeking the removal of Arvind Kejriwal from the post of chief minister of Delhi, after his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate in a money laundering case linked to the now-scrapped Delhi excise policy.
A bench headed by acting chief justice Manmohan refused to comment on the merits of the issue, saying the same fell outside the scope of judicial interference.
“It is for the other wings of the government to examine in accordance with the law,” the bench, also comprising Justice Manmeet PS Arora, said.
During the hearing, the court asked petitioner Surjit Singh Yadav’s counsel to show the legal bar on the continuation of Arvind Kejriwal as the chief minister.
“There may be practical difficulties but that is something else. Where is the legal bar?” the court asked.
The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) national convener, who was arrested on March 21 and subsequently remanded to the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) custody till March 28 by a Delhi court, faces allegations of direct involvement in a conspiracy related to the formulation of the excise policy favouring specific individuals.
(Courtesy:- Hindustan Times, 28 March 2024)
Haryana Right to Service Commission gets Auto Appeal Software’s copyright
The Haryana Right to Service (RTS) Commission has secured the “copyright” for ‘Auto Appeal Software’ (AAS), an official spokesperson said.
Through the Haryana RTS Commission, 656 services have been notified and a definite time frame has been set to complete the task.
Haryana RTS Commission applied for copyright in 2022 and it was granted on March 20, 2024. The copyright is a type of intellectual property that grants the creator of an original work, or another rights holder, exclusive and legally protected rights to copy, distribute, adapt, display, and perform the work. The purpose of copyright is to protect the original expression of an idea in the form of a creative work.
A spokesperson of the commission further stated that the chief commissioner of the commission, TC Gupta, has played a crucial role in obtaining copyright of the AAS, the ownership of which has now been transferred to the Haryana RTS Commission.
If the service is not provided within the specified time frame to the applicant, an automatic appeal is generated through the AAS. This appeal first goes to the First Grievance Redressal Authority (FGRA) and then to the Second Grievance Redressal Authority (SGRA), and finally to the commission.
“The AAS is the first software of its kind in the country which eliminates the need for the complainant to do anything to file an appeal,” the spokesperson said, adding through AAS, a total of 11,70,766 appeals have been raised by March 27, 2024, out of which 11,56,595 appeals have also been disposed of.
“This means that the disposal rate of appeals in AAS is 98.8%. Haryana is the first state in the country to provide this facility to its citizens through AAS. Other states are also considering implementing this facility in their regions,” the spokesperson said.
(Courtesy:- Hindustan Times, 28 March 2024)
Wow! Momo gets relief in trademark case versus restaurant Wow Punjabi
The Delhi High Court has temporarily halted the multi-cuisine restaurant chain Wow Punjabi from using a mark closely resembling that of the fast food giant Wow! Momo, according to a report by Bar and Bench.
Justice Anish Dayal, presiding over the case, found merit in the arguments put forth by Wow! Momo, granting a prima facie injunction until the next hearing date.
“Balance of convenience lies in favour of plaintiff and plaintiff is likely to suffer irreparable harm in case the injunction, as prayed for, is not granted,” read the court order dated March 22.
The court session revolved around a petition filed by Wow! Momo, seeking a permanent injunction against Wow Punjabi, citing trademark infringement, passing off, unfair trade practices, and damages.
Wow! Momo emphasised its claim of originating and adopting the trademark ‘Wow’/’Wow! Momo’ as early as 2008, establishing itself as a prominent player in the food industry.
The plaintiff further highlighted its extensive presence, boasting over 600 outlets spread across more than 30 cities, with a brand valuation of approximately ₹1,225 crore in 2021. Notably, the company witnessed a growth rate exceeding 60% in 2022.
Additionally, Wow! Momo presented evidence of its registered trademarks utilising the ‘Wow’ mark, including its acquisition of the domain name ‘www.wowmomo.com’ back in 2013.
The court took cognisance of Wow Punjabi’s failure to respond to both a cease and desist notice and a subsequent legal notice issued by the petitioner.
Following a thorough examination of the trademarks in question, the court concurred that Wow! Momo had established a prima facie case warranting intervention.
Consequently, the court issued a notice to Wow Punjabi, restraining it from using, advertising, or engaging in any activities related to goods or services under its trademark until further orders.
Wow! Momo was represented by Ankur Sangal, Partner at Khaitan & Co, along with Ankit Arvind, Senior Associate, and Shashwat Rakshit, Associate.
(Courtesy:- https://www.cnbctv18.com/, 28 March 2024)
*Disclaimer: – Always check with the original copy of judgment from the Court website.
Legal News in this Weekly Legal Update are compiled by Team www.deepakmiglani.com
Also Read Weekly Legal Updates ( 31 December to 6 January 2024)
Also Read Weekly Legal Updates ( 7 January to 13 January 2024)
Also Read Weekly Legal Updates ( 14 January to 20 January 2024)
Also Read Weekly Legal Updates ( 21 January to 27 January 2024)
Also Read Weekly Legal Updates ( 28 January to 3 February 2024)
Also Read Weekly Legal Updates ( 4 February to 10 February 2024)
Also Read Weekly Legal Updates ( 11 February to 17 February 2024)
Also Read Weekly Legal Updates ( 18 February to 24 February 2024)
Also Read Weekly Legal Updates ( 25 February to 2 March 2024)
Also Read Weekly Legal Updates ( 3 March to 9 March 2024)
Also Read Weekly Legal Updates ( 10 March to 16 March 2024)
Also Read Weekly Legal Updates ( 17 March to 23 March 2024)