Search Judgments

Trade Marks Act, 1999 – Section 57 – This petition was filed under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, by the petitioner, Saint-Gobain Group, seeking rectification of the Register of Trade Marks by removing the entry for the trademark “GYPLOCK,” registration No.3536418, owned by the first respondent.

The petitioner argued that it had been using the trademark “GYPROC” for building materials since 2002, with registrations in multiple countries dating back to 1921. They contended that the first respondent’s mark “GYPLOCK” was deceptively similar to “GYPROC” and used for identical goods, creating a likelihood of confusion. The respondent argued that “GYP” is common in the trade, derived from “Gypsum,” and that their mark, “GYPLOCK INDIA-S CEIL,” when viewed as a whole, is distinct.

Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 – Sections 3, 4, 6, and 7
Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – Section 12A; Letters Patent Act 1956 Clause 32 – The case involves a suit filed as an admiralty action in personam to recover damages for a collision allegedly caused by the defendant. The defendant sought rejection of the plaint and revocation of leave to sue, primarily arguing that the collision occurred outside Indian territorial waters, the defendant doesn’t reside or carry on business within the court’s jurisdiction, and pre-institution mediation was not exhausted.

The plaintiff contended that the cause of action arose within the court’s jurisdiction due to subsequent events like lodging a police complaint and loss estimation. They argued that the claim qualifies as a maritime claim maintainable under Sections 6 and 7 of the Admiralty Act.

Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Sections 302 and 201; Indian Evidence Act – Section 106; Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) – Section 313 – The State appealed against the acquittal of Sudalaimuthu (A1) by the Principal Sessions Judge, Tuticorin, in connection with the murder of Manoharan. The case originated from the discovery of a headless body in Jothi Nagar in 2010. The prosecution’s case rested on circumstantial evidence, alleging that Sudalaimuthu, a life convict on parole, conspired with another person to kill Manoharan and make it appear as if Sudalaimuthu was the deceased.

Key evidence included the DNA report identifying the deceased as Manoharan, the testimony of a witness who saw Sudalaimuthu taking Manoharan away, and the discovery of a partially burnt parole order belonging to Sudalaimuthu near the body.

Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Sections 408, 420, 477A and Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) – Section 31 & 428 – This Criminal Revision Case challenges the judgment confirming the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner, who was an Appraiser in a bank. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner provided a false appraisal report for gold ornaments, enabling co-accused to obtain loans and default, causing loss to the bank. The petitioner was charged under Sections 120-B, 408, 420, and 477A r/w 109 of the IPC.

The Trial Court found the petitioner guilty under Sections 408, 420, and 477A of the IPC, sentencing him to two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000 for each offense, with consecutive sentences.

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) – Sections 5, 51, 52A, 60, 63
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) – Sections 451, 457 – This judgment addresses a batch of Criminal Revisions filed against orders dismissing petitions for interim custody of vehicles seized in cases registered under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The petitioners sought interim custody under Sections 451 and 457 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.).

The court considered the provisions of the NDPS Act, particularly Section 63 regarding confiscation of seized articles. It also examined Section 51 of the NDPS Act, which applies the Cr.P.C.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) – Section 233 – This criminal revision case challenges an order by the Sessions Judge, Nilgiris, regarding the examination of defense witnesses in S.C.No.2 of 2018, a case concerning a crime at the Kodanadu Estate Bungalow. The petitioners (accused 3, 5, and 8) sought to examine several witnesses, including prominent figures like the former Chief Minister and associates of the late Chief Minister, to support their defense, claiming the investigation was biased and aimed to protect certain individuals.

The Sessions Judge had partially allowed the petition, permitting the examination of only one witness. The petitioners argued that denying the examination of key witnesses violated their fundamental rights under Section 233 of the Cr.P.C.

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) – Section 173(1) and Section 528 – This Criminal Original Petition was filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, seeking the withdrawal of investigation in Crime No. 10 of 2024 from the third respondent police and its transfer to the fourth respondent. The case originates from a complaint lodged by the fifth respondent alleging offences under Sections 120B, 420, 465, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against the petitioner and others, pertaining to forgery and fraud within Yuvaraj Scaffolding Private Limited and Rhino Scaff Industry Private Limited.

The petitioner argued that the third respondent lacked territorial jurisdiction, as the alleged offences occurred within Madurai, where the companies’ registered offices are located and where the fifth respondent purportedly resides.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138, 147; Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 320 – This Criminal Revision Case was filed challenging the conviction and sentence passed by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, which confirmed the conviction and sentence made by the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Valparai under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The initial case involved a cheque dishonored due to insufficient funds, leading to the conviction of the revision petitioners and a sentence of one-year simple imprisonment, along with a compensation order.

During the pendency of the Revision Case, both parties entered into a compromise, leading to a settlement agreement where the revision petitioners agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,45,00,000 to the respondent.

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – This case involves appeals against a judgment by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) concerning alleged medical negligence by Dr. Neeraj Sud and the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research (PGI), Chandigarh, during a surgery on a minor for congenital ptosis (drooping eyelid).

The complainants, the patient’s father and son, initially filed a complaint with the State Commission, which was dismissed. The NCDRC partly allowed the subsequent appeal, holding Dr.

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Section 14(1) and 14(2) – This judgment addresses the interpretational difficulties and inconsistencies in the application of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, specifically concerning the rights of Hindu females to property.

The court acknowledges the long-standing confusion stemming from sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 14, leading to conflicting judicial opinions across various High Courts and within the Supreme Court itself. It highlights the divergence between judgments that steadfastly apply the principles laid down in V. Tulasamma vs.