All About Law

17/11/2022

For undelivered and not refunded food orders worth Rs 362, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kollam (District Commission/Commission) recently ordered the online food delivery app Zomato and the restaurant owner to jointly pay compensation of Rs 8,362 to a law student.

The commission awarded Rs 5,000 as compensation for the customer’s mental agony and Rs 3,000 was ordered as the cost of proceedings.

The commission further ordered that Zomato and the restaurant owner shall comply with the directions within 45 days from the date of the order, failing which the student/complainant will be entitled to recover the amount with interest at the rate of 12% except for costs from opposite parties.

President EM Muhammed Ibrahim, members S Sandhya Rani and Stanly Harold found that the customer was entitled to a refund of Rs 362 with interest and compensation for mental agony.

01/09/2022

Granting interim relief to Domino's, the Delhi High Court has restrained an outlet namely Dominick Pizza from using deceptively similar and identical trademark registered in favour of the famous pizza outlet.
Justice Pratibha M Singh observed that it was clear from the manner of listings of social media platforms and online ordering platforms that the name and business of Dominick Pizza was being confused as that of Domino's outlets.

"The reviews of the consumers on Google Reviews, also re-affirms this fact that apart from the confusion that is taking place, there is severe tarnishment and dilution of the Plaintiffs' mark and business. Accordingly, as per the facts and circumstances of this matter, the Plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case in their favour for grant of an ex-parte ad interim injunction," the Court said.
The Court was dealing with a suit filed by Domino's seeking injunction against Dominick Pizza, having three outlets i.e., two at Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh (at Indirapuram and Raj Nagar Extension) and third in Punjab.

Domino's sought protection of its mark 'Domino's Pizza', and the accompanying device mark, logo mark, as also the marks 'Cheese Burst' and 'Pasta Italiano'.

Granting ex-parte ad interim injunction in favour of Domino's, the Court restrained Dominick Pizza from advertising, selling or marketing any product or any documentation using or displaying the impugned marks 'Dominick Pizza', 'Cheese Burst' and 'Pasta Italiano' till the next date of hearing.
The Court also ordered suspension of domain names www.dominickpizza.com and www.dominickpizzas.com.

"Compliance of Order ###IX Rule 3 CPC be effected within two weeks," the Court directed, while posting the matter for hearing on November 24.

Case Title: DOMINOS IP HOLDER LLC & ANR v. MS DOMINICK PIZZA & ANR.

01/09/2022

While saying that q***r people have historically been denied the right to access public places, Justice Chandrachud further added:

"The presence of q***r individuals in public spaces must be the norm rather than the exception. The accomplishment of this simple yet crucial task would breathe life into the decision in Navtej. It is not merely the black letter of the law that these changes must take place in, but in the heart and soul of every Indian. Heteronormativity – in every sense of the word – must give way to plurality of thought and of existence."

The Judge also disagreed with the lyrics of a song by the famous 'Beatles' band where they sang "All you need is love, love; Love is all you need". He said:

"At the risk of ruffling the feathers of music aficionados everywhere, I take the liberty to disagree with them and say – perhaps we need a little more than love."

Concluding the address, Justice Chandrachud said:

"At the heart of personal liberty lies the freedom to choose who we are, to love whom we will, and to live a life that is true to our most authentic selves, not only without the fear of persecution but in full hearted joy and as equal citizens of this country. As we near the fourth anniversary of Navtej, it is my sincere hope that we will be able to live such a life – I have no doubt that this hope will one day be a reality."

Recently, a division bench of Justice Chandrachud and Justice AS Bopana had made certain significant observations, expanding the traditional meaning of family.

"Familial relationships may take the form of domestic, unmarried partnerships or q***r relationships", the Court had observed, while holding that atypical family units are also entitled to the equal protection of law.

22/08/2022

The Supreme Court has approved the seat-sharing formula free agreed by the Christian Medical College(CMC) at Vellore and the State of Tamil Nadu for sharing the MBBS and PG medical seats among themselves on 50-50 basis.

"Taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, we find that the arrangement arrived at between the parties to the present petition is just and fair", the Court observed in the order passed on August 10.

Recording terms of the agreement, a bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and PS Narasimha disposed of the writ petition filed by CMC Vellore seeking the quashing of Selection Committee's letter whereby the State of Tamil Nadu sought to impose the state policy of reserving 50% of seats ("state quota") in its favour in the undergraduate and postgraduate degree courses.

The terms of the seat sharing agreement are as follows :

For the Undergraduate MBBS Course

a) 50% of the seats shall be filled up by the management by the same procedure that was being followed for earlier the academic years college on the basis of inter-se merit as per the NEET results.;

b) Out of this 50% of Management quota, as per past practice 10% seats to be allotted to the children of the staff members working in the applicant college on the basis of inter-se merit as per the NEET results.

c) Remaining 50% of the seats will be filled by the State Government from the state merit list of NEET examination in following manner:

(i) 30% of the seats will be filled by the State Government following its policy of reservation strictly in accordance with the NEET merit list; and

(ii) 20% of the seats shall be filled by the State Government candidates belonging to the Christian minority from the State strictly in accordance with the NEET merit list.

12/08/2022

Something revolutionary discussion.

Today in

11/08/2022

11/08/2022

The President of India, Smt. Droupadi Murmu on Wednesday appointed Justice U.U. Lalit as the Chief Justice of India with effect from 27th August, 2022.

On 3rd August, 2022, the Secretariat of the Chief Justice of India NV Ramana had received a communication from the Union Minister of Law and Justice Kiren Rijiju requesting him to recommend the name of his successor. The very next day, CJI Ramana had written back to the Union Government recommending Justice Lalit, the second senior most judge of the Supreme Court as the next Chief Justice of India, as per convention. CJI Ramana is to demit office on 26th August, 2022.

Justice Lalit is the second CJI to be elevated to the Supreme Court directly from the Bar. The first was Justice S M Sikri, who became the 13th CJI in January 1971.

As the 49th CJI, Justice Lalit will have a relatively short term, a little less than three months. He is to retire on 8th November, 2022.

Before his elevation as a judge of the Supreme Court on August 13, 2014, Justice Lalit was a Senior Advocate at the Supreme Court. His father Justice UR Lalit was a Senior Advocate and was an Additional Judge of the Bombay High Court.

Justice Lalit was part of the majority opinon of the Constitution Bench judgment which declared Triple Talaq as unconstitutional. He also led the bench which ordered the handing over of the administration of the Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple from the Travancore Royal Family to a Court-appointed administartive committee. Last year, a bench led by him reversed the controversial "skin-to-skin" judgment of Bombay High Court and held that any physical contact with a minor with sexual intent will be an offence under POCSO even if there is no direct contact with skin. Justice Lalit had recently expressed the need to lay down proper guidelines to reduce the element of subjectivity in awarding death sentences and a bench led by him initiated a suo motu case for streamlining the process of consideration of mitigating circumstances in death penalty matters.

In 2019, Justice Lalit had recused from the Ayodhya Case, citing his appearance for former UP Chief Minister Kalyan Singh in a contempt case in relation to the demolition of Babri Masjid.

As a lawyer, Justice Lalit was especially known for his practice in the field of criminal law and has handled several high profile criminal cases. In 2011, the Supreme Court had appointed him as a Special Public Prosecutor in the 2G scam case.

Born on November 9, 1957, Justice Lalit had enrolled as an advocate in June 1983 and practised in the Bombay High Court till December 1985. He shifted his practice to Delhi in January 1986. He worked with the former Attorney-General, Soli J. Sorabjee, from 1986 to 1992. In April 2004, he was designated as a senior advocate by the apex court.

Justice Lalit as the executive chairman of NALSA since May 2021, initiated several programs to give impetus for alternate dispute resolution through lok adalats and legal aid programs across the country.

11/08/2022

The Supreme Court observed that the rule of evidence to prove charges in a criminal trial cannot be used while deciding an application seeking motor accident compensation.

The court observed thus while allowing an appeal filed against a judgment of Bombay High Court which had set aside an award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarding a sum of Rs.8,90,000/- along with interest http:// p.a. The bench noted that the High Court set aside the award on the ground that neither the owner of the offending car nor the Insurance Company has examined the driver to prove that the offending car was not involved in the accident. Disapproving this approach, the bench noted the evidence on record, and observed:

"We find that the rule of evidence to prove charges in a criminal trial cannot be used while deciding an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which is summary in nature. There is no reason to doubt the veracity of the statement of appellant No. 1 who suffered injuries in the accident. The application under the Act has to be decided on the basis of evidence led before it and not on the basis of evidence which should have been or could have been led in a criminal trial. We find that the entire approach of the High Court is clearly not sustainable."
The court also observed that the fact that wife of the deceased did not implead daughters is not really of any consequence. "If the daughters of the deceased have not been impleaded as claimants, it is immaterial as the amount of compensation payable by the tortfeasor will not get enhanced because of the daughters being party to the claim application. It is since the daughters are married, the mother has not impleaded, the daughters as the claimants. It is not really of any consequence as held by the High Court.", the court observed.

23/07/2022

The Advocate appearing for Lathika informed that said that she has already given the has already given the exam.
"Is she a Judge?", Justice Chandrachud asked.
"She has cleared the prelims, and the results are awaited", the advocate clarified.
"When are the exams?", he asked. In October, was the reply.
"Ma'am, study hard now. Don't depend on this man. You better study hard and do well for yourself", Justice Chandrachud advised Lathika.
Turning to the father, he added,
"You should be proud of having a daughter like this, who is highly aspirant. You are only giving us complaints about her that she is not talking to me, this, that....."
The Bench then asked if the emotionally distant duo had spoken to each other.
"Did you meet your father? Did you talk to your father? No? Alright, let them talk now", the judge urged.
Hearing this, the advocates prompted the father to move towards his daughter.
In the last 33 years, they have not communicated with each other, Rao's advocate told the court.
"Court ki orders se ithna ho saktha hain", Justice Chandrachud remarked.
"Both the lawyers, take them both to the canteen, please act as our officers now and not as lawyers for the parties", the bench requested, before parting with the matter.
On 5 October 2020, the Supreme Court had directed Rao to pay an amount of Rs 2,50,000 to both, Lathika and her mother within two weeks. But her mother died on September 6, 2021. The grievance of the petitioner was that no amount had been paid towards the arrears of maintenance, i.e., Rs 8,000 per month for Lathika and Rs 400 for her mother.
Rao's advocate told the court that he had duly paid the arrears of maintenance and has placed reliance on the statements of the Union Bank of India.

23/07/2022

Two lawyers have moved the Supreme Court against the lion sculpture installed on the top of the new Parliament building under construction as part of the Central Vista Project, alleging that "visible changes: have been made in the approved design of the official emblem.

As per the petition filed by two Advocates-on-Record, Mr. Aldanish Rein and Mr. Ramesh Kumar Mishra, the new emblem violates the description and design of State emblem in Schedule of the State Emblem of India (Prohibition of Improper Use) Act, 2005.

The petition contends that the lions in the concerned emblem appear to be ferocious and aggressive with their mouth open and canine visible, while the ones of the Sarnath Lion Capital of Ashoka, which it ought to resemble, are "calm and composed". It further avers that the four lions being representative of the four core spiritual philosophies of Budhha, is not merely a design, but has cultural and philosophical significance.

Acknowledging the statute is silent on the issue of improper use of State emblem by the Government itself, the petition relies on the Constitutional framework. The core challenge of the petition is that the change in the design of the State emblem violates its sanctity; is manifestly arbitrary; and would not pass muster of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It also argues that the act of the Union Government to impinge upon the emblem without following due process is in derogation of Article 21, which envisaged the right to 'one's national pride and constitutional faith'.

It submits -

"The State emblem of India is a mark of identity of the Republic of India. The republic of India belongs to the people of India, we the Indians. When this identity is unduly interfered with by the government, it hurts the national sentiment of its citizens."

23/07/2022

Denying an unmarried woman the right to a safe abortion violates her personal autonomy and freedom", observed the Supreme Court on Thursday while allowing an unmarried woman to seek abortion of her pregnancy of a term of 24 weeks which arose out of a consensual relationship.

Passing an ad-interim order to grant relief to the 25-year old woman, the Supreme Court prima facie observed that her case was covered under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act 1971. The Delhi High Court, before which the petitioner had first approached, had denied her interim relief on the ground that the pregnancy of an unmarried woman arising out of a consensual relationship is not specified among the categories of women whose pregnancy can be aborted during the term of 20-24 weeks as per the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules 2003.

The Supreme Court made a prima facie observation that the High Court has taken an "unduly restrictive view of the provisions unduly restrictive view of the provisions".

The Apex Court said :"Clause (c) speaks of a change of marital status during an ongoing pregnancy and is followed in parenthesis by the words "widowhood and divorce". The expression "change of marital status" should be given a purposive rather than a restrictive interpretation. The expressions "widowhood and divorce" need not be construed to be exhaustive of the category which precedes it".

2021 amendment substitutes "husband" with "partner"; legislative intent to cover unmarried woman.