0

The Karnataka High Court has affirmed that unaided educational institutions managed by linguistic minority bodies are eligible to receive funding under Section 98 of the Karnataka Education Act.

Title: Rajarajeshwari Dental College and Hospital and Dr Sanjay Murgod

Decided on: 12th, OCTOBER 2023

Writ C No. – 580 OF 2023 (S-RES)

CORAM: The Hon’ble Mr Prasanna B. Varale, Chief Justice and The Hon’ble Mr Justice Krishna S Dixit 

INTRODUCTION

A legal dispute concerning the applicability of Section 98 of the Karnataka Education Act to unaided educational institutions run by linguistic minority organizations was brought before the Karnataka High Court in Bengaluru. The court’s ruling on this issue and its consequences for these institutions is outlined in its judgment, which was released on October 12, 2023. 

FACTS OF THE CASE

 A disagreement exists in this case between Dr. Sanjay Murgod and Rajarajeshwari Dental College. A single judge ruled that Dr. Murgod’s termination notice was invalid and ordered his reinstatement with back pay. In its appeal, Rajarajeshwari Dental College claimed that unaided educational institutions managed by linguistic minority bodies were exempt from Section 98 of the Karnataka Education Act. The court dismissed the appeal after ruling that Section 98 applied to these kinds of institutions.  

COURTS ANALYSIS AND DECISION

According to the Karnataka High Court, unaided educational institutions managed by linguistic minority organizations are subject to Section 98 of the Karnataka Education Act. The Rajarajeshwari Dental College’s appeal was denied by the court, which upheld the section’s application to all employees of educational institutions in order to safeguard their employment security and working conditions. The significance of defending workers’ interests in the education sector is emphasized by this ruling.  

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer. “

Written by- Kusuma R

Karnataka Hc 1

0

In an NDPS case, the High Court has granted bail owing to a 10-gram discrepancy in the inventory of seized charas: Bombay High Court

Title: Sunil Shishupal Nayak v. State of Maharashtra

Decided on: OCTOBER 23, 2023

Writ C No. – Bail Application NO. 1450 OF 2023

CORAM: M. S. Karnik, J

INTRODUCTION

Sunil Shishupal Nayak requested bail in this case in order to face charges under sections 8(c), 20(c), and 29 of the NDPS Act. There was a discrepancy in Charas possession in this case. The applicant claimed that drying caused a weight change after being arrested with one kilogram and ten grams of Charas. The NDPS Act’s provisions and the significance of the weight disparity were the deciding factors in the court’s decision regarding the bail application.

FACTS OF THE CASE

In a case filed on April 16, 2022, Sunil Shishupal Nayak was charged under the NDPS Act for having a large quantity of “Charas.” A weight disparity surfaced during the legal proceedings; at first, Nayak was discovered in possession of 1 kg and 10 grams of Charas, which were deemed to be commercial quantities; however, the recorded weight was only 1 kg following a 59-day drying period. The charges and penalties in the case were contingent upon Charas’s legal classification. Nayak requested bail, which would have affected his freedom to stand trial.

COURTS ANALYSIS AND DECISION

 The court granted bail to Sunil Shishupal Nayak, who was charged under the NDPS Act in connection with a “Charas” possession case involving a weight discrepancy, was granted bail by the court. The court declined to make any pretrial rulings, emphasizing that matters pertaining to the weight of the contraband should be resolved during the trial. The results of the investigation, Nayak’s prolonged detention, and his lack of previous criminal history all played a role in the decision. Conditions attached to bail were put in place to make sure he cooperated with the court system.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer. “

Written by- Kusuma R

Bombay Hc

0

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INFRINGEMENT AND PASSING OFF UNDER TRADEMARK ACT.

INTRODUCTION

 A trademark is defined by the Trademarks Act of 1999 as something that can be visually represented and is able to set one person’s goods or services apart from another. This can include how the products are shaped, how they are packaged, and how the colours are combined. The mark must be distinctive in order for consumers to be able to distinguish one trader’s goods from those of rivals. Devices, brands, headings, labels, tickets, names, signatures, words, letters, and numerals, shapes of goods, packaging, or colour combinations, either singly or in combination, are a few examples of items that may be deemed trademarks.

Meaning of infringement of trademark:

  The term “trademark infringement” describes the infringement of a registered trademark owner’s legal rights as specified in sections 28 and 29 of the Act. These rights give the registered owner the ability to sue any rival retailer, especially if the registered mark is used in conjunction with comparable or exact goods and services. Crucially, in order to enforce these rights, the Act does not require that the mark have been used previously. This means that, even in cases where the registered mark has not been used in the market before, legal action may still be taken to stop the use of competing marks.

Meaning of passing off of Trademark:

  Trademark passing off is a separate legal concept. It involves someone pretending that their goods belong to someone else, which is against the law. The idea of passing off is distinct and unaffected by any possible contradictions or overlaps with Trademarks Act provisions. Passing off is the idea that no one is allowed to present their goods as those of another person, and no one is allowed to use a mark, symbol, device, or sign that may lead to such misrepresentation. This idea was well-established in the Singer Manufacturing Co. v. Loog (1880)18 Ch. D 395 case.[1]

Difference between Trademark and passing off:

Points of differences Infringement Passing off
1.     Registration of Trademark Trademark provide protection for registration of goods and service. Passing off provides unregistered of goods and service.
     
2.     Action Trademark infringement is essential for a defendant to use trademark of plaintiff to bring an action against them. Passing off not essential for a Defendant to use trademark of Plaintiff to bring an action against them.
3.     Remedy Trademark infringement has statutory remedy under the section 29 of trademark Act 1999  Passing off has common law remedy.
4.     Burden of proof Trademark Infringement the burden of proof lies on the Plaintiff.  Passing off the burden of proof lies on the person who uses the trademark without others consent i.e., defendant
5.     Essential Infringement registration terms to be essential. Passing off has goodwill. Damages and misrepresentations terms to be essential.
6.     Section Infringement of trademark suits can be solved under the section 134 of Trademark Act 1999. Passing off suits can be solved under section 20 of civil Procedure Code 1908.

The famous case laws which highlight the differences between Infringement and Passing off are:

  1.  Listen Ltd v/s Harley.

In this case, he opined that if you are restraining the infringement of a registered mark, you can restraint the man from using the mark, but if your restraint him from selling the article under the same label word which plaintiff or another person has been using without differentiating it from the Plaintiff’s good, then it is a different thing.[2]

  1. S. Syed Mohideen v. P. Sulochana Bai

 In this case, both the appellant and respondent were the registered owner of ‘Irrutukadai Halwa’ but the respondent proved in the Supreme Court that it is not just about the use of trademark but it has become a household name for her family as they have been selling this halwa since the 1990s and have a different reputation to which court said that as it has become the Goodwill of respondent thus no one can use this particular trademark and it was also observed that passing off right is a broader remedy than trademark.[3]

Precedent Case laws:

Infringement on dissimilar goods

  1.  In Brahmos Aerospace Pvt. Ltd. V. FIIT JEE Limited, 2014 (58) PCT 90(Del).,[4] the court stated that if the registered trademark is a well-known trademark, the same can be protected even in relation to dissimilar goods used by the defendants. The registered trademark BRAHIMOS was a registered trademark which was associated in the substantial segment of public as the same was being used for supersonic missile in the aerospace industry. The defendant who was using BRAHMOS for providing educational training and programmes were prevented from using this trademark.
  2. Tata sons ltd. V. Atul Tiwari, 2012 (50) PTC 528 (Del). the court held that the trademark TATA was well known trademark and therefore, the use of mark TATA by the defendants on their business constituted infringement within the meaning of section 29(4) of the Act.

Infringement on advertisement

  1.  Compaq V. Dell, (1992) FSR 93., the computers published an advertisement claiming that their home computers functioned similarly to “Compaq” computers but were cheaper. Their claim’s function was untrue in various important details. The court found it to be an Infringement and granted interlocutory relief in respect of injurious falsehood.

A registered trademark is not infringed

  1.  Orchid Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. V. Wockhardt Ltd., 2013 (56) PTC 558 (Mad)(DB) the court stated that section 30 limited the effect of registered trademark. A perusal of section 30 would show that section 29 is subject to it. Section 30, therefore is an overriding provision to section 29 of the Act. The court exemplified the provision by stating that in a case where a party was using registered trademark belonging to another one, if it was in accordance with honest practices in industrial or commercial matters or was detrimental to the distinctive of trademark. The court further stated the section 28 to 30 have to be read in connection with each other to understand the intending purpose and object. 

  Use of registered trademark as tradename [ section 29(5) ]

  1. Health & glow retailing Pvt, Ltd. V. Dhiren Krishna Paul, 2007 (35) PTC 474 (Mad) p.508. the court held that apart from providing a safety valve in section 35 itself, by using the expression “confide use “and “confide descriptions “ , one more safeguard is been provided under section 29(5) of the Act against infringers who seek to take advantage of the saving provision

Registration is no defence to passing off action

  1. N. R Dongre V. Whirlpool Corporation AIR 1995 Delhi 300, It is also been decided in supreme court (1996)5 SCC 714
  2. Gorbatschow wodka KG V. John Distilleries Limited 2011 (47) PTC 100 (Bom) at p.220

Passing off of Domain Name

  1. Satyam infoway ltd V. Sifynet Solutions (P) Ltd, (2004)6 SCC[5] 145 at pp. 150-151, the supreme court was considering the issue of whether the principles of trademark law in particular those relating to passing off apply to domain name. The court held that an action for passing off, as the phrase “passing off “itself suggest is to restrain the defendant from passing off the goods or services to the public as that of the plaintiff.

Conclusion:

From a business perspective, trademark protection is essential, as is shielding customers from dishonesty and fraud. It is possible to use the passing-off action with unregistered goods and services. Comparing passing off to trademark infringement, the former has a narrower scope. Whether or not the trademark is used, the registered proprietor may file a lawsuit for infringement. A trademark suit, as opposed to a reputation suit, is known as an infringement action.

Endnotes

  1. (1880)18 Ch. D 395
  2. Listen Ltd v/s Harley.
  3. Syed Mohideen v. P. Sulochana Bai
  4. 2014 (58) PCT 90(Del)
  5. (2004)6 SCC
0

To prove undervaluation in customs duty cases, the Supreme Court requires evidence of contemporaneous import prices, or else the benefit of the doubt favors the importer.

Case Title: Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai v. M/s Ganpati Overseas through its Proprietor Shri Yashpal Sharma & Anr

Decided on: 06 October,2023

Neutral Citation: 2023INSC881

CORAM :  B.V. Nagarathna, Ujjal Bhuyan

INTRODUCTION

The case of “Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai v. M/s Ganpati Overseas” revolves around allegations of under-invoicing of imported goods from Hong Kong and the subsequent imposition of penalties by Customs authorities in India. The Supreme Court examined the rejection of invoice prices, the burden of proof in under-valuation cases, and the reliance on foreign export declarations.

The Court upheld the decision of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) to set aside the penalties and value enhancements, setting a precedent in customs valuation rules and evidence standards.

FACTS OF THE CASE

In the case where under-invoicing imported goods from Hong Kong, potentially evading customs duty. The case reached the Supreme Court after the Customs Commissioner imposed penalties.

The central issue was the rejection of the invoice price and the burden of proof for under-valuation. The Customs Valuation Rules were essential in this case. The Supreme Court upheld the CESTAT’s decision to set aside the penalties, emphasizing the need for solid reasons and evidence for rejecting invoice prices in customs disputes.

 This case established a significant precedent for customs valuation rules and the burden of proof in similar cases.

Courts Analysis and Decision.

 The court emphasized that the Customs department must provide solid reasons and evidence when rejecting invoice prices in customs disputes. The burden of proof for under-valuation lies with the department, and detailed inquiries and adequate evidence are required to allege under-valuation.

The Court noted that both the department and the adjudicating authority had not justified the rejection of the import invoice price as incorrect and the subsequent enhancement of the price. As a result, the CESTAT’s decision to set aside the penalties and value enhancements was upheld, and the appeals filed by the Customs Commissioner were dismissed. This case established a significant precedent in customs valuation rules and evidence standards.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer. “

Written by- Kusuma R

 

0

Bombay High Court dismisses appeal challenging the conviction order under Sec. 302 IPC

Title: Smt. Sangita Vilas Kiwade v. State of Maharashtra

Decided on: 4th JULY 2023

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 619 OF 2021

CORAM: REVATI MOHITE DERE & GAURI GODSE, JJ.

Facts of the Case

The case revolves around an incident that occurred on November 18, 2010, in Mukundnagar, Dias plot Canal at Gultekdi, Pune. The appellant was allegedly involved in an illegal money-lending business and had lent a sum of Rs. 50,000 at 10% interest to the complainant two years prior to the incident. Allegedly harboring resentment over non-repayment of the loan, the appellant kidnapped the complainant’s grandchildren – Rohit (9), Rahul (7), Anmol (5), and Tejas (3). The appellant then took them in an auto-rickshaw to the canal and pushed Rohit, Rahul, and Anmol into the water, attempting to kill them. Tejas drowned in the canal, and his body was found later. The prosecution charged the appellant under sections 363 (kidnapping), 366 , 307 (attempted murder), and 302 (murder) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 32-B(b) of the Bombay Money Lenders Act 1946.

Issues:

The main issues revolve around the credibility of the child witnesses’ testimonies, the intention of the appellant, and whether the evidence supports the charges of attempted murder, kidnapping, and money-lending without a valid license.

Contentions:

The prosecution argued that the child witnesses’ consistent accounts, along with the corroborative evidence, indicated that the appellant had lured the children with ice cream, kidnapped them, and attempted to kill them. They also emphasized the presence of the appellant’s daughter at the scene and her objections to the appellant’s actions. The prosecution asserted that the evidence established the appellant’s intent to commit the crimes.

The Respondents contended that the child witnesses’ testimonies were unreliable and possibly influenced by tutoring. They argued that inconsistencies in the evidence, as well as natural connections between the families, cast doubt on the prosecution’s version of events. They also argued that the incident might have been an unfortunate accident rather than a premeditated act.

Decision:

After examining the evidence and arguments presented by both sides, the court found the child witnesses’ testimonies to be credible and consistent. The court emphasized that the witnesses had undergone preliminary questioning to ensure their understanding and ability to provide rational answers. It ruled that their evidence, along with corroborating testimonies and other evidence, supported the prosecution’s case.

The court held that the appellant’s act of pushing the children into the canal indicated a clear intent to harm and even kill them. The court also found the evidence sufficient to establish the offense of kidnapping and upheld the appellant’s conviction for attempted murder, kidnapping, and money-lending without a valid license under relevant sections of the IPC and the Bombay Money Lenders Act.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Aparna Gupta, University Law College & Dept. of Studies in Law

Click to view judgment

1 2 3