Legal News | September 14

Delhi High Court Permanently Bars YouTube Channels and Social Media Handles from Using Aaj Tak’s Trademark

In a decisive ruling, the Delhi High Court has issued a permanent injunction, favoring Living Media India Limited, which owns the registered trademark “Aaj Tak.” The court has restrained numerous YouTube channels and social media accounts from employing marks that closely resemble or are identical to Aaj Tak’s trademark.

The defendants, including Aabtak News Channel, Rajasthan Tak, Aap Tak, Haryana Tak, Samay Tak News, Kal Tak and Ab Tak TV News, have been permanently restrained from using “Aaj Tak” and its derivative forms. Last year, the court had initially issued an injunction in Aaj Tak’s favor.

Justice C Hari Shankar emphasised that as the defendants used the suffix “Tak” for services identical to Aaj Tak’s, the impugned marks were clear infringements of Aaj Tak’s registered trademark. The court ruled that the defendants must remove their websites and social media pages within a week, with social media platforms acting if they fail to comply.

Supreme Court Acquits Murder Accused, Emphasising ‘Reasonable Doubt’ in Proving Insanity

The Supreme Court, in a significant ruling, clarified that the standard of proof required to establish insanity in criminal cases is ‘reasonable doubt.’ An accused seeking exoneration under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code must prove legal insanity, not medical insanity, according to a bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Prashant Kumar Mishra.

The case involved Rupesh Manger (Thapa), who had been convicted of murdering his grandfather by the Sikkim High Court, overturning the Trial Court’s acquittal. The Trial Court had found him incapable of understanding the nature of his actions due to unsoundness of mind.

The Supreme Court, in its appeal ruling, considered medical evidence regarding the accused’s mental condition and abnormal behavior at the time of the incident. It emphasised that the Trial Court’s conclusion was not perverse and should not be disturbed on appeal merely because a different view is possible.

The court clarified that the distinction between legal insanity and medical insanity is crucial in such cases, with the court’s concern being legal insanity. The decision draws upon the recent case of Prakash Nayi @ Sen vs. State of Goa for guidance on the issue of insanity.

Supreme Court Acquits Accused Based on ‘Principle of Parity’ in Same Evidence Scenario

The Supreme Court has acquitted certain accused individuals, even though they didn’t file an appeal themselves, emphasising the “principle of parity” when evidence against all accused is identical. The Court’s ruling stems from an appeal filed by another accused person. In cases where eyewitness evidence against two accused is similar or identical, the Court cannot convict one while acquitting the other. The principle of parity ensures that the court decides similar cases alike, avoiding discrimination.

The Court also recalled an order from 2018 that summarily dismissed a Special Leave Petition filed by one of the accused. In this case, 13 individuals were prosecuted for mob violence in Gujarat in 2013. Some were convicted and sentenced, while others were acquitted. The present appeal was filed by one of the convicted individuals and the Court extended the benefit of acquittal to those who hadn’t challenged the judgment, citing fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Supreme Court Deems Reliance on Contractual Teachers at NLU Jodhpur “Unacceptable and Undesirable”

The Supreme Court has expressed strong disapproval of National Law University (NLU) Jodhpur’s reliance on contractual teachers, deeming it “unacceptable and undesirable.” The court’s stance came during NLU Jodhpur’s appeal against a Rajasthan High Court ruling, which held that as a statutory body, the university should not employ staff, including teachers, on a contractual basis when their roles are ongoing.

The High Court had invalidated NLU Jodhpur’s Service Regulations that allowed such contractual hiring and the Supreme Court had earlier stayed these High Court directions in 2019. The appeal argued that even amended regulations that called for 50% permanent staff and 50% contractual hires had not been implemented. According to University Grants Commission Regulations, only 10% of staff at a university can be hired on a contractual basis.

The Supreme Court expressed dissatisfaction with NLU Jodhpur’s argument that it was not a funded institution, emphasising that NLUs could not be considered “institutions of excellence” with a constant turnover of teaching staff.

The Court urged the educational institution to address the issue independently, rather than relying on the court to resolve it. The case was scheduled for further directions on October 31.

Senior Advocate Dhruv Mehta and other legal representatives represented NLU Jodhpur, while a team of advocates represented the respondents.

Cafe Coffee Day Settles With IndusInd Bank; NCLAT Overturns NCLT’s Insolvency Admission

Cafe Coffee Day (CCD) has reached a settlement with IndusInd Bank, leading to the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) in Chennai setting aside an earlier order from the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) in Bengaluru that had admitted an insolvency plea against Coffee Day Global, the parent company of CCD.

The settlement prompted both the bank and CCD to request the NCLAT to terminate the corporate insolvency resolution process initiated against the coffee chain. The NCLAT accepted the settlement and allowed an appeal filed by Malavika Hegde, a former director of CCD and the wife of VG Siddhartha, who founded CCD before his unfortunate death by suicide in 2019.

As a result of the settlement, the NCLAT set aside the NCLT’s earlier order. The debt owed to the bank was also assigned to an asset reconstruction company, ASREC (India Ltd).

Senior Advocate Arvindh Pandian, along with other advocates, represented Malavika Hegde, while Advocate Chitra Nirmala represented IndusInd Bank.

Kerala High Court Rejects Plea to Erect Saffron Flags at Temple

The Kerala High Court has rejected a petition seeking permission to erect saffron flags on the premises of the Muthupilakkadu Sree Parthasarathy temple. Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V stated that temples should not be used for political purposes or one-upmanship and their sanctity and reverence must be maintained.

The petitioners, who claimed to be devotees of the temple, had formed an organisation and sought permission to display saffron flags during special occasions and festivals. The government argued that allowing such flags associated with a political party would turn the temple into a battleground for political conflicts.

The court dismissed the petition, noting that the petitioners had not demonstrated the authority to conduct temple rituals and should not be allowed to erect flags within the temple premises.

Bilkis Bano: Supreme Court to Examine Whether Convicts Got Preferential Treatment in Remission

The Supreme Court of India has stated that it needs to examine whether the convicts in the Bilkis Bano gangrape case received preferential treatment regarding their premature release from prison. While agreeing that the nature of a crime and evidence are not factors to consider for remission or early release applications, the court questioned whether the convicts in this case were treated differently.

The court is hearing pleas challenging the Gujarat government’s decision to grant remission to 11 convicts who had gang-raped Bilkis Bano and murdered her family members during the 2002 Gujarat riots. The convicts were released ahead of the state assembly polls, leading to the current batch of pleas. The hearing will continue on September 20.

Divorced Daughter Can’t Claim Maintenance Under HAMA: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has ruled that a divorced daughter cannot claim maintenance from her mother or brother under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act (HAMA). The court noted that while there are categories of dependents recognised under HAMA, a divorced daughter is not among them.

The court also pointed out that a divorced woman can claim maintenance from her husband even after divorce but cannot claim maintenance from her mother and brother under HAMA. The case involved a woman who had been divorced and sought maintenance from her maternal family. The court found that she had no statutory right to claim maintenance under HAMA.

Husband Cohabiting with Another Woman After Long Separation Not cruelty: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has ruled that a husband living with another woman long after separating from his wife cannot be considered cruelty when there is no possibility of reuniting with the wife. The court stated that after many years of separation, if the husband has found peace and comfort with another woman, it should not disqualify him from seeking a divorce from his wife.

The court rejected the wife’s plea challenging the family court’s decision to grant a divorce to the husband on the grounds of cruelty. The court found that the wife had not been able to substantiate her claims of harassment and cruelty.

SC Collegium Recommends Permanent Appointment of 7 Additional Judges of Allahabad High Court

The Supreme Court Collegium has recommended the permanent appointment of seven Additional Judges of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The names recommended for permanent appointment are:

• Shri Justice Umesh Chandra Sharma
• Smt. Justice Renu Agarwal
• Shri Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra
• Shri Justice Mayank Kumar Jain
• Shri Justice Shiv Shanker Prasad
• Shri Justice Gajendra Kumar
• Shri Justice Nalin Kumar Srivastava

The recommendation was made by the Collegium of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad on May 1, 2023 and it has received concurrence from the Chief Minister and Governor of the State of Uttar Pradesh.

The suitability of the Additional Judges for permanent appointment was assessed by a Committee of two judges of the Supreme Court, as per the Memorandum of Procedure. After scrutinising the material and opinions of consultee judges, the Collegium found these judges fit and suitable for permanent appointment as judges of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

SC Collegium Recommends Permanent Appointment of 11 Additional Judges of Punjab-Haryana High Court

The Collegium of the Supreme Court has recommended the permanent appointment of eleven Additional Judges of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The recommended judges for permanent appointment are:

• Ms. Justice Nidhi Gupta
• Shri Justice Sanjay Vashisth
• Shri Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya
• Shri Justice Namit Kumar
• Shri Justice Harkesh Manuja
• Shri Justice Aman Chaudhary
• Shri Justice Naresh Singh @ Naresh Singh Shekhawat
• Shri Justice Harsh Bunger
• Shri Justice Jagmohan Bansal
• Shri Justice Deepak Manchanda
• Shri Justice Alok Jain @ Alok Kumar Jain

This recommendation was made by the Collegium of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana on May 20, 2023. The Chief Ministers and Governors of the States of Punjab and Haryana have also concurred with this recommendation.

The suitability of the Additional Judges for permanent appointment was assessed by a Committee of two judges of the Supreme Court and after considering various factors, the Collegium found them fit and suitable for permanent appointment as judges of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.

Supreme Court Integrates Real-Time Case Data with National Judicial Data Grid for Enhanced Transparency

Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud has announced the integration of the Supreme Court’s real-time case data with the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) portal. This initiative provides details of case pendency, case types (civil or criminal) and year-wise data. The portal will be updated in real-time and include information on 3-judge, 5-judge and 7-judge cases pending before the Supreme Court. The NJDG portal also offers month-and year-wise data on case filings and disposals.

This integration brings the Supreme Court under the National Judicial Data Grid platform, allowing for the tracking of case pendency court-wise. Previously, the Supreme Court was not part of the NJDG.

The move is aimed at enhancing transparency and accountability in the justice delivery system. It comes as part of the broader eCourts Project Phase III, which was approved by the Union Cabinet with a financial outlay of Rs 7,210 crores. Phase-III envisions facilitating various new features to improve the last-mile delivery of justice.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi praised the initiative, highlighting its potential to enhance transparency and the justice delivery system in the country.