Indian High Courts Monthly Digest August 2018

Civil P.C. 1908 - Defendants have been found in possession of the suit land on the basis of the sale deed executed in their favour. However, surprisingly, the plaintiffs have neither challenged the aforesaid sale deed nor sought possession of the suit land. Therefore, the suit as filed by the plaintiffs for declaration simplicitor was not at all maintainable; Prem Lal v. Parvinder Singh [Himachal Pradesh High Court, 03-08-2018]

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - A contemnor is not in a position of an accused and contempt proceedings are separate and distinct from criminal proceedings; Louis Vuitton Malletier v. Omi, 07-08-2018 CCP(O) No. 10 of 2018

Contract Act, 1872 - S.27 - No employer has a right to restrain an employee from taking up competing employment after the term of employment. Such a clause is invalid and unenforceable; Deepayan Mohanty v. Cargill India Pvt. Ltd. [Delhi High Court, 03-08-2018]

Designs Act, 2000 - S. 2(d) - "design" - Meaning of - Use of design not substantially different from the registered design would of course, amount to infringement - designs must be protected against imitations since the statutory right of exclusive use is granted only for a limited period of time - Damages can never be an adequate compensation to the plaintiffs if are deprived of their statutory right of commercial exploitation; Dart Industries v. Polyset Plastics [Delhi High Court, 01-08-2018]

Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939 - Whether in a suit filed under Section 2 of the Act, the Civil Court was competent to grant the reliefs in respect of maintenance of the children and matrimonial property of the parties, for which other statutory enactments and the other forums are available; Adnan Chara v. Farhat Adnan [Bombay High Court, 02-08-2018]

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - S.12(1)(a) - Voidable Marriages - Mere non-consummation of marriage is not sufficient for granting a decree for annulment of marriage. Non-consummation of marriage shall be due to the impotence of either spouse; Sanu v. Sandeep, [Kerala High Court, 01-08-2018]

Injunction - An order of injunction is discretionary order and once the Trial Court exercises a discretion and grants or refuses to grant interim injunction, the same will not be normally interfered with by the Appellate Court, unless it is found that such a discretion has been exercised arbitrarily or capriciously or perversely, or where the court ignored settled principles of law regarding the grant or refusal of interim injunction; Ghulam Mohammad Wani v. Ali Mohammad Ganaie [Jammu & Kashmir High Court, 03-08-2018]

Minimum Wages Act, 1948 - High Court can interfere with a notification fixing minimum wages only on "the most substantial grounds"; Federation of Okhla Industrial Association (Reg.) v. Lt. Governor [Delhi High Court, 04-08-2018]

Penal Code, 1860 - S. 498A - Conviction of the accused, even when the co-accused were acquitted on the same evidence, was liable to be set aside; Balaji v. State of Maharashtra [Bombay High Court, 02-08-2018]

Public Safety - It is not necessary that there should be multiplicity of grounds for making or sustaining an order of detention; Basharat Ahmad Mir v. State [Jammu & Kashmir High Court, 03-08-2018]

State Policy - Right of the State to change its policy from time to time under the changing circumstances cannot be questioned, though the changed policy deviated from the judicial pronouncements of the Supreme Court; Rifat Basheer v. State of J&K [Jammu & Kashmir High Court, 03-08-2018]

Suo motu cognizance - Boy on school picnic falls in water harvesting pit, dies - Held, the Sites of all manholes, pits, holes, tanks or any other opening in the ground of any kinds shall be regularly inspected and maintained; Court On Its Own Motion v. Govt. of Nct [Delhi High Court, 03-08-2018]

Trade Marks Act, 1999 - S.2(z)(g) - Prior user and goodwill are two of the indispensable ingredients, requiring to be positively established by the party seeking injunction, in a passing off action; Turning Point v. Turning Point Institute Pvt. Ltd. [Delhi High Court, 02-08-2018]

Post a Comment

Previous Post Next Post