Weekly Legal News Updates [12th October – 18th October 2020]

Weekly Legal News Updates 12th October – 18th October 2020.

  • Mere Gold Smuggling Not a ‘Terrorist Act’ Unless Done With Intent to Threaten Economic Security Of India: NIA Court

It is beyond any dispute that mere act of smuggling gold would not attract the offence of terrorist act unless it is coupled with certain other elements, which at least suggest the broad probability of an intentional act to threaten the economic security of India. A careful reading of section 15 of the UA(P) Act leaves no doubt that the act of smuggling of gold to India from abroad would attract the said provision only if it was done ‘with intent to threaten or likely to threaten the economic security of India.

Case Name: Mohamad Anwar T.M vs. Union of India

Case no.: RC No. 02/2020/NIA/KOC

Coram: Judge P. Krishna Kumar

Also Read: All UAPA Offences Are Exclusively Triable By ‘Special Courts’: SC

Also Read: Criminal Defamation in Matrimonial Case: Karnataka HC

Also Read: The Audi Alteram Partem rule cannot by itself, without more, lead to the Conclusion that Prejudice is thereby caused: SC

  • Special Leave to Appeal against HC Judgment Recognizing and Enforcing A Foreign Award Would Lie Only On ‘Extremely Narrow Ground’: SC

The Court referred Para 24 of the judgment of the case Vijay Karia and Ors. vs. Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi SRL and held that this paragraph makes it clear beyond any doubt that Article 136 cannot be used to circumvent the statutory scheme which is contained in Section 50 of the Arbitration Act of 1996. If an Award is enforced under Section 48 by a learned Single Judge of the High Court, no appeal against such judgment shall lie. Obviously, the statutory scheme indicates that even if there be an incorrect judgment by a learned Single Judge on facts or law, such judgment is not appealable. This being the case, we clearly laid down in paragraph 24 (supra) that an appeal under Article 136 would lie on an extremely narrow ground; only if some new or unique point is raised as to the interpretation of the Arbitration Act which has not been answered by the Supreme Court.

Case Name: RESPONSIVE INDUSTRIES LIMITED vs. BANYAN TREE GROWTH CAPITAL L.L.C

Case no.: Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.11404-11405/2020

Coram: Justices RF Nariman, Navin Sinha and KM Joseph

Also Read: A Stepmother can be the Legally Adoptive Mother: Karnataka High Court

Also Read: Conviction may act on the Testimony of Single Eye Witness Provided he is Wholly Reliable

Also Read: While granting Statutory Bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Condition of Deposit of Amount cannot be Imposed

  • Specific Performance Suit Filed Within Limitation Cannot Be Dismissed On The Sole Ground Of Delay Or Laches: SC

The resultant position in law is that a suit for specific performance filed within limitation cannot be dismissed on the sole ground of delay or laches. However, an exception to this rule is where the immovable property is to be sold within a certain period, time being of the essence, and it is found that owing to some default on the part of the plaintiff, the sale could not take place within the stipulated time. Once a suit for specific performance has been filed, any delay as a result of the court process cannot be put against the plaintiff as a matter of law in decreeing specific performance. However, it is within the discretion of the Court, regard being had to the facts of each case, as to whether some additional amount ought or ought not to be paid by the plaintiff once a decree of specific performance is passed in its favour, even at the appellate stage.

Case Name: FERRODOUS ESTATES (PVT.) LTD. vs. P. GOPIRATHNAM (DEAD)

Case no.: CIVIL APPEAL NO.13516 OF 2015

Coram: Justices Rohinton Fali Nariman and Navin Sinha

Advertisement

Also Read: A Credit Rating Agency cannot be Considered as “State”

Also Read: Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act: An Application may be Filed at the Place Where a Part of the Cause of Action has Arisen

Also Read: ‘Overawing the Judiciary’? – The Conflict between Andhra Pradesh CM & Justice Ramana

  • The Bombay HC had Passes Injunction against infringement of Parle Products’ Packaging Copied By Future Group

A comparison of the rival products hardly leaves any doubt about the manner in which Defendants have blatantly copied Plaintiffs’ Packaging/labels. There is no doubt that the rival labels are being used for identical products under nearly identical packaging and trade dresses. The labels/artworks/packaging/trade dresses of Defendants’ “CrackO”, “Kracker King” and “Peek-a-Boo” products are a reproduction of Plaintiffs’ Packaging used in respect of their “MONACO”, “KRACKJACK” and “HIDE & SEEK” products and/or reproductions of substantial parts thereof. It is apparent that Defendants must have had Plaintiffs’ products before them while designing the impugned packaging. The similarity in the rival packaging/labels cannot be a matter of coincidence.

While granting ad-interim relief, Court observed-In these circumstances, a strong prima facie case for the grant of ad-interim reliefs is made out. Unless reliefs, as prayed for, are granted, Plaintiffs are likely to suffer irreparable injury. The balance of convenience is also in favour of Plaintiffs. There are no equities in favour of Defendants.

Case Name: Parle Products Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs. Future Consumer Ltd. & Ors.

Case no.: “Interim Application (L) No. 4133 of 2020” In “Commercial IP Suit (L) No. 4130 of 2020”

Coram: Justice K. R. Shariram

Also Read: Hathras Case: Speedy Cremation Violating the Victim and her Family’s Human and Fundamental Rights

Also Read: Mere registration of a person’s name in the voter list, ipso facto, does not confer Citizenship

Also Read: Supreme Court explained the ambit of Sec 2(s) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005

  • The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ward off the challenge against the constitutionality of the condition for pre-deposit prescribed under Section 43(5) of the Real Estate Regulation and Development Act, 2016 

The Section 43(5) provides that where a promoter files an appeal with the Appellate Tribunal, it shall not be entertained, without the promoter first having deposited with the Appellate Tribunal at least thirty per cent of the penalty, or such higher percentage as may be determined by the Appellate Tribunal, or the total amount to be paid to the allottee including interest and compensation imposed on him, if any, or with both, as the case may be before the appeal is heard. The Court observed that the Appellate Tribunal is not obliged to proceed to ‘entertain’ or hear an appeal that has been filed before it, if the promoter, who has filed such appeal, fails to comply with the direction for making the pre-deposit in terms of the proviso to Section 43 (5) of the Act.

Case Name: Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Haryana and others, and other connected matters

Case no.: CWP No. 38144 of 2018 and other connected matters

Coram: Justice Dr. S Muralidhar and Justice Avneesh Jhingan

Also Read: Pre-arrest Bail is a Discretionary Relief and is to be granted in Exceptional Cases

Also Read: The Right to pre-emption is a “very weak right”: SC

Also Read: All Stay Orders on Civil or Criminal Proceedings will Automatically Expire within a Period of Six Months: SC

Also Read: No Blanket Order to Restrict the Circulation of News on WhatsApp, Facebook etc.

Weekly Legal News Updates 12th October – 18th October 2020.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *