Tag: Supreme Court of India

Supreme Court’s Key Ruling on Trademark Law :No Monopoly on Common Words
18Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court’s Key Ruling on Trademark Law :No Monopoly on Common Words

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that deceptive similarity must be assessed holistically, not by dissecting composite marks. The common element "PRIDE" was generic and non-distinctive. No likelihood of confusion was found, as the overall impression, trade dress, and dominant features of the rival marks were distinct. Interim injunction was rightly denied. Facts Of The Case: The appellants, Pernod Ricard India Private Limited, are manufacturers and distributors of alcoholic beverages, holding registered trademarks for 'BLENDERS PRIDE', 'IMPERIAL BLUE', and 'SEAGRAM’S' whiskies. They filed a suit against the respondent, Karanveer Singh Chhabra, alleging that his use of the mark 'LONDON PRIDE' for whisky, along with its packaging and trade dress, constituted tra...
Read More
Husband’s Second Marriage Leads Supreme Court to Use Special Power for Divorce
18Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Husband’s Second Marriage Leads Supreme Court to Use Special Power for Divorce

The Supreme Court, invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, dissolved the marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown. The decree was granted subject to the husband paying a one-time permanent alimony of ₹1.25 crores to the wife, ensuring a complete settlement. Facts Of The Case: The marriage between the appellant-husband, A. Ranjithkumar, and the respondent-wife, E. Kavitha, was solemnized on February 15, 2009. Shortly thereafter, the couple relocated to the United States of America, where the husband was employed. A son was born from the union on April 7, 2010. However, the marital relationship soured, leading the husband to file a divorce petition on September 26, 2012, under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on the grounds of cruelty and adultery. Th...
Read More
Supreme Court Hostile Witness & Unproven Demand Lead to Acquittal in Landmark Corruption Appeal
17Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Hostile Witness & Unproven Demand Lead to Acquittal in Landmark Corruption Appeal

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, ruling that the mere recovery of tainted money is not conclusive proof of guilt under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The prosecution failed to prove the crucial element of demand beyond a reasonable doubt. The accused's plausible explanation under Section 313 CrPC was entitled to the benefit of doubt. Facts Of The Case: The case involved an appeal against the conviction of a Lower Division Clerk at the Passport Office, Thiruvananthapuram, under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The prosecution's case was that the accused demanded an additional ₹500 as a bribe from the complainant to expedite his passport application. After negotiation, an initial gratification of ₹200 was to be paid along with the official ₹1000 fee. The Cen...
Read More
Supreme Court Key Ruling: Tenant’s Defence Struck Out for Missing 30-Day Deposit Deadline
17Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Key Ruling: Tenant’s Defence Struck Out for Missing 30-Day Deposit Deadline

This Supreme Court held that the time limit under Section 7(1) and (2) of the WBPT Act for depositing admitted rent and filing an application is mandatory and cannot be extended by Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The proviso to Section 7(2) only permits an extension for paying the amount determined by the court post-adjudication, not for the initial statutory deposit and application. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Seventh Day Adventist Senior Secondary School, is a tenant in a premises in Kolkata for which the admitted monthly rent was Rs. 1090. The respondents, the landlords, filed an ejectment suit on 11.06.2019 on grounds including arrears of rent. The summons for this suit was served upon the appellant-tenant on 29.09.2022. The statutory period of 30 days for compliance und...
Read More
Influencing Witnesses? Supreme Court Sets Strict Rules for Granting Bail in Serious Crimes
17Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Influencing Witnesses? Supreme Court Sets Strict Rules for Granting Bail in Serious Crimes

The Supreme Court reiterated that bail grant requires a balanced assessment of the nature and gravity of the offence, the prima facie case, and the accused's potential to influence the trial or evade justice. It set aside the High Court's bail order for failing to consider these established parameters, particularly the accused's conduct and the crime's seriousness. Facts Of The Case: The case stems from an FIR registered concerning a violent incident on the intervening night of May 4-5, 2021. The accused, Sushil Kumar, and his associates were alleged to have abducted several individuals from different locations in Delhi and taken them to Chhatrasal Stadium. There, they were violently attacked with wooden sticks and lathis, and gunshots were allegedly fired. One of the abducted in...
Read More
Supreme Court Reins In Judicial Intervention in Arbitration After Appointment
17Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Reins In Judicial Intervention in Arbitration After Appointment

This Supreme Court judgment holds that a non-signatory to an arbitration agreement has no legal right to be present in the arbitral proceedings as the award would not bind them, violating the confidentiality mandate under Section 42A. Furthermore, a court becomes functus officio after appointing an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and cannot entertain subsequent applications for intervention or issue ancillary directions. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from an oral family settlement between Pawan Gupta (PG) and Kamal Gupta (KG), later recorded in a Memorandum of Understanding/Family Settlement Deed (MoU/FSD) dated 09.07.2019, which was not signed by KG’s son, Rahul Gupta (RG). PG initiated proceedings under Section 11(6) of the Arbitra...
Read More
Supreme Court: 20-Year Life Sentence Means Release After 20 Years, No Remission Needed
16Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court: 20-Year Life Sentence Means Release After 20 Years, No Remission Needed

The Supreme Court ruled that a "life imprisonment" sentence specifying a fixed term of "actual imprisonment without remission" is a determinative sentence. Upon completing that fixed term, the convict is entitled to automatic release and need not apply for remission. Any detention beyond this period violates Article 21 of the Constitution. Facts Of The Case: Sukhdev Yadav was convicted for the 2002 murder of Nitish Katara, alongside Vikas and Vishal Yadav. In 2015, the Delhi High Court, while upholding his life sentence, specifically modified it to "life imprisonment which shall be 20 years of actual imprisonment without consideration of remission." This fixed-term sentence was later affirmed by the Supreme Court. Sukhdev Yadav completed this mandated 20-year period of actual inc...
Read More
Supreme Court Rules: Pre-Independence Documents Hold Highest Value in Tribe Claim
16Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules: Pre-Independence Documents Hold Highest Value in Tribe Claim

The Supreme Court held that pre-Independence documents carry greater probative value for caste claims and that the affinity test is not a litmus test. It cannot be the sole basis for rejection, especially given modernization and assimilation. The Court emphasized that such claims must be evaluated primarily on reliable documentary evidence. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Yogesh Madhav Makalwad, sought admission to a medical college based on a caste certificate claiming he belonged to the Scheduled Tribe community of Koli Mahadev. His claim was supported by historical documents, including the 1943 school record of his grandfather, which explicitly mentioned the caste as Koli Mahadev. Subsequent school records from 1975 and 1979 for his father and uncle, as well as his own school record...
Read More
Complete Justice: Supreme Court Uses Special Powers to End Family Dispute, Quashes FIR After Settlement
16Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Complete Justice: Supreme Court Uses Special Powers to End Family Dispute, Quashes FIR After Settlement

The Supreme Court, invoking its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, quashed the criminal proceedings. It held that continuing prosecution after a mutual divorce and full settlement serves no legitimate purpose and amounts to an abuse of the process of law, especially in the absence of specific allegations. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from an FIR (No.67 of 2019) registered by the second respondent against her husband (appellant No.1) and in-laws (appellant Nos. 2 & 3) under Sections 323, 406, 498-A, and 506 of the IPC, alleging cruelty, criminal breach of trust, and criminal intimidation. The marriage, solemnized in March 2018, lasted approximately ten months before the wife left the matrimonial home. Subsequently, a chargesheet was filed in November 2019. However...
Read More
No Grace Marks: Supreme Court Shuts Down Plea from UP Lekhpal Candidates After Answer Key Change
16Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

No Grace Marks: Supreme Court Shuts Down Plea from UP Lekhpal Candidates After Answer Key Change

The Supreme Court held that applications challenging exam answers filed after the cut-off date (21.11.2023) were barred by its prior order and thus dismissed. However, it allowed applications that were pending as of 24.04.2025, restoring them for re-evaluation benefits, while rejecting claims for grace marks as impermissible after a court-directed re-evaluation. Facts Of The Case: The case arose from a dispute concerning the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Lekhpal examination conducted in 2021-22 by the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Service Selection Commission. The initial litigation focused on the correctness of specific questions, notably Question No. 88 in Booklet Series 'F'. The Supreme Court, in an order dated 21.11.2023, directed that answer 'D' be treated as correct for this question and order...
Read More