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


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.


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.


 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




 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.


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.


  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

The Calcutta High Court has emphasized that maritime claims require supporting evidence and should not be characterized by harsh or oppressive measures.

Title: Hindustan Aegis LPG Ltd. vs. Owners of Vessel MT TSM Pollux.

Decided on:  19th October, 2023.

Writ C No. – 9266889

CORAM: Hon’ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya.


Alleged carelessness and damage to marine loading arms at Haldia Oil Jetty Port I give rise to an admiralty jurisdiction dispute in the case of Hindustan Aegis LPG Ltd. vs. Owners of Vessel MT TSM Pollux. The plaintiff requests compensation, but the court challenges the claim’s validity and emphasizes the need for supporting documentation and just compensation. The case brings to light the intricacies of admiralty law, and an order is made for a joint survey to evaluate the harm.


In this instance, an incident happened in September 2023 at Haldia Oil Jetty Port I, where the ship MT TSM Pollux harmed Hindustan Aegis LPG Ltd.’s marine loading and unloading arms.

The plaintiff filed a claim under Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, alleging the owners of the vessel were negligent. As long as the loss is predictable and a direct result of the breach, Section 73 provides compensation for losses resulting from contract violations.

The plaintiff’s claim was examined by the court, which emphasized the need for supporting documentation and just compensation.

 To evaluate the damage, a cooperative survey was mandated. This case serves as a reminder of the intricacies involved in admiralty law and how Section 73 is applied to determine compensation.

COURTS ANALYSIS AND DECISIONThe court acknowledges the plaintiff’s claim for damages caused to marine equipment by the vessel MT TSM POLLUX. Due to the urgency of the matter, the court orders the arrest of the vessel to secure the plaintiff’s claims. The document specifies the conditions for the arrest order, including a deadline for the plaintiff to pay court fees and the possibility of the order being vacated if the defendant deposits a specified amount as security. Various authorities are instructed to assist in implementing the arrest order, and the document sets a returnable date for the application. It also warns that failure to pay the court fees will result in the dismissal of the suit. 

“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

Calcutta Hc



The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that a prisoner’s potential to elude capture while on parole is insufficient grounds for denying them temporary release.

Title: Kapil v. State of Haryana and others.

Decided on: October 17, 2023

Writ C No. – 7247-2023(O&M)

CORAM: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Lisa Gill and Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Ritu Tagore.


In the Punjab & Haryana High Court case CRWP-7247-2023, Kapil, the petitioner, requested regular parole for a period of ten weeks. The Haryana Goods Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 2022 was cited by the Divisional Commissioner of Ambala as justification for rejecting the request. The petitioner won the case, with the court stating that there is insufficient reason to deny temporary release based only on the petitioner’s potential to abscond while out on parole.


 In this case Kapil, a prisoner serving life in prison under Section 302/34, ten years in prison under Section 364/34 IPC, and six months in prison under Section 120-B/34 IPC, requested regular parole in the case number CRWP-7247-2023 in order to visit his family. Based on information from the District Magistrate and the Police Commissioner of Ghaziabad, the Divisional Commissioner of Ambala rejected his request, expressing worries that Kapil might change his place of residence and abscond. In the High Court, Kapil contested this ruling on the grounds that it was arbitrary and unwarranted. The main questions were whether the Divisional Commissioner’s rejection reasons were reasonable and if there was sufficient proof to back them up.


The court decided that these worries weren’t enough to keep someone from getting parole. It overturned the refusal and granted Kapil a four-week parole sentence with suitable restrictions to maintain a just equilibrium between the prisoner’s rights and public safety. The ruling highlights the requirement for legitimate, fact-based justifications when denying parole.

“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

Orissa Hc (1) PB and Hr Hc


The Kerala High Court stated that judicial separation cannot be given as an alternative when divorce grounds under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act are unproven.

Title: S v. D & connected matter

Decided on: 18, September 2023

Writ C No. – 148/2014

CORAM: The Honorable Mr. Justice Anil. K. Narendran and The Honorable Mrs. Justice Sophy Thomas.


The Kerala High Court is hearing a case involving a marital dispute. According to Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the husband filed an Original Petition (OP) alleging matrimonial cruelties and an illicit relationship between his wife and her brother in order to obtain a divorce from her. The divorce petition was denied by the Family Court, but a judicial separation decree was approved. Furthermore, the husband was recognized by the Family Court as the child’s biological father and given compensation, all without the need for any special pleadings or prayers. Both parties then filed appeals in the case—the wife against the judgment of judicial separation and the husband against the dismissal of his divorce petition.


In this case, a husband requested a divorce, claiming that his wife had an extramarital affair with her brother and conceived despite the fact that their union had not yet been consummated. In order to establish that he wasn’t the child’s biological father, he also asked for a DNA test. The wife wished to keep the marriage intact and refuted these accusations. The husband was named the child’s father by the Family Court, which also granted judicial separation and awarded the child compensation, even though the divorce was denied. The ruling was appealed by both parties. 


The Kerala High Court rejected a husband’s request because there was insufficient proof to back up the husband’s allegations of his wife’s supposed adultery, the Kerala High Court denied the husband’s request for a divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act. The court further decided that judicial separation was not an acceptable substitute remedy. It stressed that a long-term absence alone does not prove an irreversible marital breakdown and chastised the Family Court for overstepping its bounds of authority. The husband’s appeal for divorce was denied, the wife’s appeal was upheld, and the judicial separation decree was annulled. The wife’s costs were also mandated to be covered by the husband. 

“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

Kerala Hc 1


1 2 3 5