Indian Constitution

 Bapu @ Gajraj Singh vs State of Rajasthan - Supreme Court Case Summary of Leading Case - On 4th June, 2007, a two Judges Bench in Bapu @ Gajraj Singh vs State of Rajasthan [Criminal Appeal No.1313 of 2006] held that “every person, who is mentally diseased, is not ipso facto exempted from criminal responsibility.” “In dealing with cases involving a defence of insanity, distinction must be made between cases, in which insanity is more or less proved and the question is only as to the degree of irresponsibility, and cases, in which insanity is sought to be proved in respect of a person, who for all intents and purposes, appears sane.” The Bench held that “under Section 84 IPC, a person is exonerated from liability for doing an act on the ground of unsoundness of mind if he, at the time of doing the act, is either incapable of knowing (a) the nature of the act, or (b) that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law. The accused is protected not only when, on account of insanity,

 C.C. Alavi Haji vs Palapetty Muhammed - Supreme Court Case Summary of Leading Case - On 18th May, 2007, a three Judges Bench in C.C. Alavi Haji vs Palapetty Muhammed & Anr. [Criminal Appeal No.767 of 2007] held that “it is not necessary to aver in the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act that service of notice was evaded by the accused or that the accused had a role to play in the return of the notice unserved.” The Bench held “when the notice is sent by registered post by correctly addressing the drawer of the cheque, the mandatory requirement of issue of notice in terms of Clause (b) of proviso to Section 138 of the Act stands complied with.” It further held that it is “for the drawer to rebut the presumption about the service of notice and show that he had no knowledge that the notice was brought to his address or that the address mentioned on the cover was incorrect or that the letter was never tendered or that the report of the postman was incorrect.”

 Aashirwad Films vs Union of India - Supreme Court Case Summary of Leading Case - On 18th May, 2007, a two Judges Bench in Aashirwad Films vs Union of India & Ors [Writ Petition (Civil) No.709 of 2004] held that the impugned levy of higher rate of entertainment tax by the State of Andhra Pradesh on non-Telugu feature films compared with films produced/ screened in Telugu could not be sustained being discriminatory in nature. “It is difficult to laud the objective of the taxation statute in the instant matter which differentiates on the basis of language alone. This is definitely derisive of social attributes of the polity and Article 14 [of the Constitution] in its basic form i.e. equality before law”, the Bench said. Landmark Cases  of India /  सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले

 G.L. Sultania vs SEBI - Supreme Court Case Summary of Leading Case -  On 16th May, 2007, a two Judges Bench in G.L. Sultania and another vs The Securities and Exchange Board of India and others [Civil Appeal No.1672 of 2006] held that “when a public offer made under the Securities & Exchange Board of India (Substantial Acquisition of Shares & Takeovers) Regulations, 1997 is challenged on the ground that the shares had not been properly valued and the price offered in the public offer document does not represent the fair price of the share in question, the Court must examine whether the provisions of the Regulations have been scrupulously observed, and whether the Securities & Exchange Board as the regulatory authority has exercised its authority and discretion in a proper manner so as to ensure fairness to the shareholders.” The Bench held that the “Board as the regulator is not bound to accept the offer price which is required to be incorporated in the public offer, if it

Institute of Chartered Financial Analysts of India & Ors vs Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India - Supreme Court Case Summary of Leading Case -  On 16th May, 2007, a two Judges Bench in Institute of Chartered Financial Analysts of India & Ors vs Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India & Ors [Civil Appeal No.6835 of 2000] vide two separate but concurring judgments set aside the notification dated 3rd August, 1989 issued by Respondent No.1 which prescribed that if any member of the RespondentInstitute i.e. any Chartered Accountant, who obtained the qualification of the Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA) on or after 1st January, 1990; or having obtained the said qualification earlier did not surrender the same before the said date, would be held to be guilty of professional misconduct in terms of the provisions of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949. The notification was held to be violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitutio

 Ram Kripal Singh vs State of U.P. - Supreme Court Case Summary of Leading Case -  On 16th May, 2007, a two Judges Bench in Ram Kripal Singh vs State of U.P. & Ors [Civil Appeal No.2675 of 2007] held that the “right of State Financial Corporation (SFC) unilaterally exercisable under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 is available against a debtor, if a company, only so long as there is no order of winding up. SFCs cannot unilaterally act to realize the mortgaged properties without the consent of the official liquidator.If the official liquidator does not consent, SFCs have to move the Company Court for appropriate directions to the official liquidator.” Landmark Cases  of India /  सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले

  Section 80 The Trade Marks Act, 1999:  Restriction on registration of textile goods.— (1) In respect of textile goods being piece goods— (a) no mark consisting of a line heading alone shall be registrable as a trade mark; (b) a line heading shall not be deemed to be capable of distinguishing; (c) the registration of trade mark shall not give any exclusive right to the use of a line heading. (2) In respect of any textile goods, the registration of letters or numerals, or any combination thereof, shall be subject to such conditions and restrictions as may be prescribed. Supreme Court of India Important Judgments And Leading Case Law Related to Section 80 The Trade Marks Act, 1999:  Union Of India vs Association Of Unified Telecom on 24 October, 2019 व्यापार चिह्न अधिनियम, 1999 की धारा 80 का विवरण :   To download this dhara / Section of  The Trade Marks Act, 1999 in pdf format use chrome web browser and use keys [Ctrl + P] and save as pdf.

  Section 79 The Trade Marks Act, 1999:  Textile goods.—The Central Government may prescribe classes of goods (in this Chapter referred to as textile goods) to the trade marks used in relation to which the provisions of this Chapter shall apply; and subject to the said provisions, the other provisions of this Act shall apply to such trade marks as they apply to trade marks used in relation to other classes of goods. Supreme Court of India Important Judgments And Leading Case Law Related to Section 79 The Trade Marks Act, 1999:   Documents citing Section 79 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 Vishwa Mitter vs O. P. Poddar And Others on 30 September, 1983 Ram Kishore vs State Of U.P on 28 March, 1966 Vishwa Mitter Of Vijay Bharat vs O.P. Poddar And Ors. on 30 September, 1983 Cellular Operators Association vs Telecom Regulatory Authority Of  on 11 May, 2016 State Of U.P vs Ram Nath, Partner M/S. Panna Lal on 24 November, 1971 Raveendran. K & Anr vs Excise Inspector, Vadakara & Anr on 21

  Section 78 The Trade Marks Act, 1999:  Rights conferred by registration of certification trade marks.— (1) Subject to the provisions of sections 34, 35 and 76, the registration of a person as a proprietor of certification trade mark in respect of any goods or services shall, if valid, give to that person the exclusive right to the use of the mark in relation to those goods or services. (2) The exclusive right to the use of a certification trade mark given under sub-section (1) shall be subject to any conditions and limitations to which the registration is subject. Supreme Court of India Important Judgments And Leading Case Law Related to Section 78 The Trade Marks Act, 1999:  Vishwa Mitter vs O. P. Poddar And Others on 30 September, 1983 Vishwa Mitter Of Vijay Bharat vs O.P. Poddar And Ors. on 30 September, 1983 State Of U.P vs Ram Nath, Partner M/S. Panna Lal on 24 November, 1971 Raveendran. K & Anr vs Excise Inspector, Vadakara & Anr on 21 October, 2008 व्यापार चिह्न अधिनिय

  Section 77 The Trade Marks Act, 1999:  Cancellation or varying of registration of certification trade marks.—The Registrar may, on the application in the prescribed manner of any person aggrieved and after giving the proprietor an opportunity of opposing the application, make such order as he thinks fit for expunging or varying any entry in the register to a certification trade mark, or for varying the regulations, on any of the following grounds, namely:— (a) that the proprietor is no longer competent, in the case of any of the goods or services in respect of which the mark is registered, to certify those goods or services; (b) that the proprietor has failed to observe any provisions of the regulations to be observed on his part; (c) that it is no longer to the public advantage that the mark should remain registered; (d) that it is requisite for the public advantage that if the mark remains registered, the regulations should be varied. Supreme Court of India Important Judgments And

  Section 76 The Trade Marks Act, 1999:  Acts not constituting infringement of certification trade marks.— (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the following acts do not constitute an infringement of the right to the use of a registered certification trade mark— (a) where a certification trade mark is registered subject to any conditions or limitations entered on the register, the use of any such mark in any mode, in relation to goods to be sold or otherwise traded in any place, or in relation to goods to be exported to any market or in relation to services for use or available for acceptance in any place, country or territory or in any other circumstances, to which having regard to any such limitations, the registration does not extend; (b) the use of a certification trade mark in relation to goods or services certified by the proprietor of the mark if, as to those goods or services or a bulk of which they form part, the proprietor or another in accordance with his auth

  Section 75 The Trade Marks Act, 1999:  Infringement of certification trade marks.—The right conferred by section 78 is infringed by any person who, not being the registered proprietor of the certification trade mark or a person authorised by him in that behalf under the regulations filed under section 74, using it in accordance therewith, uses in the course of trade, a mark, which is identical with, or deceptively similar to the certification trade mark in relation to any goods or services in respect of which it is registered, and in such manner as to render the use of the mark likely to be taken as being a use as a trade mark. Supreme Court of India Important Judgments And Leading Case Law Related to Section 70 The Trade Marks Act, 1999:  South Asia Industries Private Ltd vs S. B. Sarup Singh And Others on 18 January, 1965 व्यापार चिह्न अधिनियम, 1999 की धारा 70 का विवरण :  प्रमाणीकरण व्यापार चिह्नों का अतिलंघन-उस व्यक्ति द्वारा धारा 78 द्वारा प्रदत्त अधिकार का अतिलंघन किया जाता है ज

  Section 74 The Trade Marks Act, 1999:  Filing of regulations governing use of a certification trade mark.— (1) There shall be filed at the Trade Marks Registry in respect of every mark registered as a certification trade mark regulations for governing the use thereof, which shall include provisions as to the cases in which the proprietor is to certify goods or services and to authorise the use of the certification trade mark, and may contain any other provisions which the Registrar may by general or special order, require or permit to be inserted therein (including provisions conferring a right of appeal to the Registrar against any refusal of the proprietor to certify goods or to authorise the use of the certification trade mark in accordance with the regulations); and regulations so filed shall be open to inspection in like manner as the register as provided in section 148. (2) The regulations so filed may, on the application of the registered proprietor, be altered by the Registra

  Section 73 The Trade Marks Act, 1999:   प्रमाणीकरण व्यापार चिह्नों के रजिस्ट्रीकरण का विरोध-जब कोई आवेदन स्वीकार कर लिया जाता है तब रजिस्ट्रार, तत्पश्चात् यथाशक्यशीघ्र, यथास्वीकृत आवेदन को विहित रीति में विज्ञापित कराएगा और धारा 21 के उपबंध उस चिह्न के रजिस्ट्रीकरण के संबंध में उसी प्रकार लागू होंगे जिस प्रकार वे धारा 18 के अधीन आवेदन के संबंध में लागू होते हैं । Supreme Court of India Important Judgments And Leading Case Law Related to Section 73 The Trade Marks Act, 1999:   Opposition to registration of certification trade marks.—When an application has been accepted, the Registrar shall, as soon as may be thereafter, cause the application as accepted to be advertised in the prescribed manner, and the provisions of section 21 shall apply in relation to the registration of the mark as they apply in relation to an application under section 18. व्यापार चिह्न अधिनियम, 1999 की धारा 73 का विवरण :  P.M. Swamy vs K. Sultan Mohideen on 23 January, 1958 Manash Ranjan Chakravarty vs Tropical

  Section 72 The Trade Marks Act, 1999:   Consideration of application for registration by the Registrar.— (1) The Registrar shall consider the application made under section 71 with regard to the following matters, namely:— (a) whether the applicant is competent to certify the goods in respect of which the mark is to be registered; (b) whether the draft of the regulations to be filed under section 74 is satisfactory; (c) whether in all the circumstances the registration applied for would be to the public advantage, and may either— (i) refuse the application; or (ii) accept the application and approve the said draft of the regulations either without modification and unconditionally or subject to any conditions or limitations, or to any amendments or modifications of the application or of the regulations, which he thinks requisite having regard to any of the said matters. (2) Except in the case of acceptance and approval without modification and unconditionally, the Registrar shall not

  Section 71 The Trade Marks Act, 1999:  Applications for registration of certification trade marks.— (1) An application for the registration of a mark as a certification trade mark shall be made to the Registrar in the prescribed manner by the person proposed to be registered as the proprietor thereof, and accompanied by a draft of the regulations to be deposited under section 74. (2) Subject to the provisions of section 70, the provisions of sections 18, 19 and 22 shall apply in relation to an application under this section as they apply in relation to an application under section 18, subject to the modification that references therein to acceptance of an application shall be construed as references to authorisation to proceed with an application. (3) In dealing under the said provision with an application under this section, the tribunal shall have regard to the like considerations, so far as relevant, as if the application were application under section 18 and to any other consider

Important Judgments of 2021 | Landmark Cases of Supreme Court of India in 2021  1 Rajiv Suri v. DDA - Cetral Vista Judgment 2 Rakesh Vaishnav vs Union of India - Farm Law Case - New agrarian laws were stayed which later repealed by Parliament 3 Union of India v. Rajendra Shah- 97th Constitutional Amendment partly struck down - related to cooperatives 4 Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v. Chief Minister - OBC reservation of Maratha struck down,  105 Constitutional amendment is to overcome the impact  of judgment 5 Union of India vs Rakesh Malhotra - National Task force was constituted for oxygen allocation in COVID issues 6 Manohar Lal Sharma vs Union of India - Pegasus Case / Pegasus Spygate 7 ECI vs Vijay Bhaskar - murderous remark by Madras High Court 8 Attorney General v. Satish - Skin to Skin contact - POCSO Case 9  In re: PROBLEMS AND MISERIES OF MIGRANT LABOURERS - Migrant workers and right to life issue 10  In Re: EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL OF CASES UNDER SECTION 138 OF N.I. ACT, and issued

 Manzar Sayeed Khan vs State of Maharashtra - Supreme Court Case Summary of Leading Case - On 5th April, 2007, a three Judges Bench in Manzar Sayeed Khan vs State of Maharashtra & Anr [Criminal Appeal No.491 of 2007] while directing the Respondents not to proceed against Professor James W. Laine, the author of the book titled “Shivaji: Hindu King in Islamic India”, for offences under Sections 153, 153A and 34, IPC held that “the intention to cause disorder or incite the people to violence is the sine qua non of the offence under Section 153A, IPC and the prosecution has to prove prima facie the existence of mens rea on the part of the accused.” “The intention has to be judged primarily by the language of the book and the circumstances in which the book was written and published. The matter complained of within the ambit of Section 153A must be read as a whole. One cannot rely on strongly worded and isolated passages for proving the charge nor indeed can one take a sentence here and

 Greater Bombay Co-op. Bank Ltd vs M/s United Yarn Tex. Pvt. Ltd. - Supreme Court Case Summary of Leading Case - On 4th April, 2007, a three Judges Bench in Greater Bombay Co-op. Bank Ltd vs M/s United Yarn Tex. Pvt. Ltd. & Ors [Civil Appeal No. 432 of 2004] held that “Co-operative banks” established under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960; the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964; and the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 transacting the business of banking, do not fall within the meaning of “banking company” as defined in Section 5(c) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. Therefore, the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 by invoking the Doctrine of Incorporation are not applicable to the recovery of dues by the co-operatives from their members.” “The field of co-operative societies cannot be said to have been covered by the Central Legislation by reference to Entry 45, List I of the Seventh Sch

 Kishore Lal vs Chairman, Employees State Insurance Corporation - Supreme Court Case Summary of Leading Case - On 8th May, 2007, a three Judges Bench in Kishore Lal vs Chairman, Employees State Insurance Corporation [Civil Appeal No.4965 of 2000] held that “the service rendered by the medical practitioners of hospitals/nursing homes run by the ESI Corporation cannot be regarded as a service rendered free of charge.” The Bench held that “the service provided by the ESI hospital/ dispensary falls within the ambit of ‘service’ as defined in Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act. ESI scheme is an insurance scheme and it contributes for the service rendered by the ESI hospitals/dispensaries, of medical care in its hospitals/dispensaries, and such service given in the ESI hospitals/dispensaries to a member of the Scheme or his family cannot be treated as gratuitous.” Landmark Cases  of India /  सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले

  Section 70 The Trade Marks Act, 1999:  Registration of certification trade marks.—A mark shall not be registrable as a certification trade mark in the name of a person who carries on a trade in goods of the kind certified or a trade of the provision of services of the kind certified. Supreme Court of India Important Judgments And Leading Case Law Related to Section 70 The Trade Marks Act, 1999:   The Anglo French Drug Co.,vs R.D. Tinaikar on 13 February, 1957 Bombay High Court  India Electric Works Ltd. vs Registrar Of Trade Marks on 28 May, 1946 Calcutta High Court  E. Griffiths Hughes Ltd. vs Vick Chemical Co. on 19 May, 1959 Calcutta High Court  Tea Board vs Itc Limited on 20 April, 2011 Calcutta High Court  Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Rice vs The State on 11 August, 1975 Andhra High Court  Mohamed Oomer, Mohamed Noorullah vs S.M. Noorudin on 13 August, 1951 Bombay High Court  Bata India Limited vs Vitaflex Mauch Gmbh on 24 August, 2015 Delhi High Court  S.M. Nooruddin vs Mahomed

  Section 69 The Trade Marks Act, 1999:  Certain provisions of this Act not applicable to certification trade marks.—The following provisions of this Act shall not apply to certification trade marks, that is to say,— (a) clauses (a) and (c) of sub-section (1) of section 9; (b) sections 18, 20 and 21, except as expressly applied by this Chapter; (c) sections 28, 29, 30, 41, 42, 47, 48, 49, 50, 52, 54 and sub-section (2) of section 56; (d) Chapter XII, except section 107. Supreme Court of India Important Judgments And Leading Case Law Related to Section 69 The Trade Marks Act, 1999:   Haldiram Bhujiawala And Anr vs Anand Kumar Deepak Kumar And Anr on 28 February, 2000 Infosys Technologies Ltd vs Jupiter Infosys Ltd. & Anr on 9 November, 2010 Vishnudas Trading As Vishnudas vs The Vazir Sultan Tobaccoco. Ltd.  on 9 July, 1996 व्यापार चिह्न अधिनियम, 1999 की धारा 69 का विवरण :   इस अधिनियम के कतिपय उपबंधों का प्रमाणीकरण व्यापार चिह्न को लागू न होना-इस अधिनियम के निम्नलिखित उपबंध प्रमाणीक

  Section 68 The Trade Marks Act, 1999:  Additional grounds for removal of registration of collective mark.—The registration of a collective mark may also be removed from the register on the ground— (a) that the manner in which the collective mark has been used by the proprietor or authorised user has caused it to become liable to mislead the public as a collective mark; or (b) that the proprietor has failed to observe, or to secure the observance of the regulations governing the use of the mark. Explanation I.—For the purposes of this Chapter, unless the context otherwise requires, “authorised user” means a member of an association authorised to use the registered collective mark of the association. Explanation II.—For the purposes of this Act, use of a collective mark by an authorised user referred to in Explanation I shall be deemed to be the use by the registered proprietor thereof. Supreme Court of India Important Judgments And Leading Case Law Related to Section 68 The Trade Mark

  Section 67 The Trade Marks Act, 1999:   Infringement proceedings by registered proprietor of collective mark.—In a suit for infringement instituted by the registered proprietor of a collective mark as plaintiff the court shall take into account any loss suffered or likely to be suffered by authorised users and may give such directions as it thinks fit as to the extent to which the plaintiff shall hold the proceeds of any pecuniary remedy on behalf of such authorised users. Supreme Court of India Important Judgments And Leading Case Law Related to Section 67 The Trade Marks Act, 1999:   व्यापार चिह्न अधिनियम, 1999 की धारा 67 का विवरण :  सामूहिक चिह्न के रजिस्ट्रीकृत स्वत्वधारी द्वारा अतिलंघन की कार्यवाहियां-वादी के रूप में सामूहिक चिह्न के रजिस्ट्रीकृत स्वत्वधारी द्वारा संस्थित अतिल्लंघन के वाद में न्यायालय प्राधिकृत उपयोक्ता को हुई किसी हानि या होने के लिए संभाव्य किसी हानि को हिसाब में लेगा और ऐसे निदेश दे सकेगा, जो वह इस बारे में ठीक समझे कि ऐसे प्राधिकृत उपयोक्ता की ओर से किसी धनी

 Section 66 The Trade Marks Act, 1999:  Amendment of regulations.—Any amendment of regulations referred to in sub-section (1) of section 63 shall not be effective unless the amended regulations are filed with the Registrar, and accepted and published by him in accordance with section 64. Supreme Court of India Important Judgments And Leading Case Law Related to Section 66 The Trade Marks Act, 1999:  M/S. Kerala Bakers vs The Assistant Commissioner  Batti Kunwar And Ors. vs Chunni Lal Shukla And Ors. on 6 January, 1964 M/S. National Chemicals And vs Reckitt And Colman Of India  on 12 April, 1990 Star India Private Limited vs Department Of Industrial Policy  Nishi Gupta vs M/S Cattle Remedies on 4 June, 2021 व्यापार चिह्न अधिनियम, 1999 की धारा 66 का विवरण :  विनियमों का संशोधन-धारा 63 की उपधारा (1) में निर्दिष्ट विनियमों का कोई संशोधन तब तक प्रभावी नहीं होगा जब तक कि संशोधित विनियम रजिस्ट्रार के पास फाइल नहीं किए गए हैं और उनको धारा 64 के अनुसार रजिस्ट्रार द्वारा स्वीकार और प्रकाशित नहीं

  Section 65 The Trade Marks Act, 1999:  Regulations to be open to inspection.—The regulations referred to in sub-section (1) of section 63 shall be open to public inspection in the same way as the register as provided in section 148. Supreme Court of India Important Judgments And Leading Case Law Related to Section 65 The Trade Marks Act, 1999:  The Anglo French Drug Co. vs R.D. Tinaikar on 13 February, 1957 National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd vs James Chadwick & Bros. Ltd.(J.& P. on 7 May, 1953 Jitendra Kumar @ Gopal vs State Of Bihar on 26 October, 2010 Biochem Pharmaceutical vs Biochem Synergy Limited on 12 March, 1997 Whether Reporters Of Local Papers vs State Of Gujarat & on 20 January, 2017 व्यापार चिह्न अधिनियम, 1999 की धारा 65 का विवरण :   विनियमों का निरीक्षण के लिए खुला होना-धारा 63 की उपधारा (1) में निर्दिष्ट विनियम, सर्व साधारण के निरीक्षण के लिए वैसे ही खुले होंगे जैसे कि धारा 148 में यथाउपबंधित रजिस्टर होते हैं । To download this dhara / Section of  The Trade Mark

  Section 64 The Trade Marks Act, 1999:   Acceptance of application and regulations by Registrar.—If it appears to the Registrar that the requirements for registration are satisfied, he shall accept the application together with the regulations, either unconditionally or subject to such conditions including amendments of the said regulations, if any, as he may deem fit or refuse to accept it and if accepted shall notify the regulations. Supreme Court of India Important Judgments And Leading Case Law Related to Section 64 The Trade Marks Act, 1999:  M/S S.M. Dyechem Ltd vs M/S Cadbury (India) Ltd on 9 May, 2000 M/S S.M. Dyechem Ltd vs M/S Cadbury (India) Ltd on 9 May, 2000 Lupin Ltd vs Johnson And Johnson on 23 December, 2014 Shakti Bhog Foods Limited vs Parle Products Private Limited on 23 December, 2014 Imperial Tobacco Co. Of India Ltd. vs Registrar Of Trade Marks And Anr. on 28 May, 1968 व्यापार चिह्न अधिनियम, 1999 की धारा 64 का विवरण :  आवेदन और विनियमों का रजिस्ट्रार द्वारा स्वीका

  Section 63 The Trade Marks Act, 1999:   Application to be accompanied by regulations governing use of collective marks.— (1) An application for registration of a collective mark shall be accompanied by the regulations governing the use of such collective mark. (2) The regulations referred to in sub-section (1) shall specify the persons authorised to use the mark, the conditions of membership of the association and, the conditions of use of the mark, including any sanctions against misuse and such other matters as may be prescribed. Supreme Court of India Important Judgments And Leading Case Law Related to Section 63 The Trade Marks Act, 1999:  In Re: The Bangalore Woollen, vs Unknown on 27 August, 1942 Bombay High Court M/S. Venkateshwara & Co vs The Assistant Commissioner on 26 February, 2019 Madras High Court  State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi vs Naresh Kumar Garg on 20 March, 2013 Delhi High Court  Zahir Ahmed vs Azam Khan on 21 September, 1995 Calcutta High Court  Whether Reporters

   Section 62 The Trade Marks Act, 1999:  Collective mark not to be misleading as to character or significance.—A collective mark shall not be registered if it is likely to deceive or cause confusion on the part of public in particular if it is likely to be taken to be something other than a collective mark, and in such case the Registrar may require that a mark in respect of which application is made for registration comprises some indication that it is a collective mark. Supreme Court of India Important Judgments And Leading Case Law Related to Section 62 The Trade Marks Act, 1999:  Dabur India Ltd vs K.R. Industries on 16 May, 2008 M/S Paragon Rubber Industries vs M/S Pragati Rubber Mills & Ors on 29 November, 2013 Competition Commission Of India vs Bharti Airtel Ltd on 5 December, 2018 व्यापार चिह्न अधिनियम, 1999 की धारा 62 का विवरण :  सामूहिक चिह्न का स्वरूप या महत्व के संबंध में भ्रामक न होना-कोई सामूहिक चिह्न रजिस्ट्रीकृत नहीं किया जाएगा यदि इससे, विशिष्टतया तब जब उसे सामूहि

 Section 61 The Trade Marks Act, 1999:  Special provisions for collective marks.— (1) The provisions of this Act shall apply to collective marks subject to the provisions contained in this Chapter. (2) In relation to a collective mark the reference in clause (zb) of sub-section (1) of section 2 to distinguishing the goods or services of one person from those of others shall be construed as a reference to distinguishing the goods or services of members of an association of persons which is the proprietor of the mark from those of others. Supreme Court of India Important Judgments And Leading Case Law Related to Section 61 The Trade Marks Act, 1999:  Star India Private Limited vs Department Of Industrial Policy  Chandra Bhan Agarwal And Anr. vs Arjundas Agarwal And Ors. on 8 June, 1979 Competition Commission Of India vs Bharti Airtel Ltd on 5 December, 2018 Union Of India vs Association Of Unified Telecom on 24 October, 2019 व्यापार चिह्न अधिनियम, 1999 की धारा 61 का विवरण :  सामूहिक चिह्

 Raja Ram Pal vs The Hon'ble Speaker, Lok Sabha - Supreme Court Case Summary of Leading Case - On 10th January, 2007, a Constitution Bench in Raja Ram Pal vs The Hon'ble Speaker, Lok Sabha & Ors [ Writ Petition (Civil) No.1 of 2006] examined the question as to whether in exercise of the powers, privileges and immunities as contained in Article 105 of the Constitution, the Houses of Parliament are competent to expel their respective Members from membership of the House; that if such a power exists, is it subject to judicial review and if so, the scope of such judicial review. Summarizing the principles relating to parameter of Judicial Review in relation to exercise of Parliamentary Provisions, the Bench per majority held as follows:- "(i) Parliament is a co-ordinate organ and its views do deserve deference even while its acts are amenable to judicial scrutiny; (ii) Constitutional system of government abhors absolutism and it being the cardinal principle of our Constitu

 Appasaheb & Anr. vs State of Maharashtra - Supreme Court Case Summary of Leading Case - On 5th January, 2007, a two Judges Bench in Appasaheb & Anr. vs State of Maharashtra [Criminal Appeal No. 1613 of 2005] held that "demand for money on account of some financial stringency or for meeting some urgent domestic expenses or for purchasing manure cannot be termed as a demand for dowry as the said word is normally understood." Landmark Cases  of India /  सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले

 I.R. Coelho (Dead) By Lrs. vs. State of Tamil Nadu - Supreme Court Case Summary of Leading Case - On 11th January, 2007, a nine Judges Bench in I.R. Coelho (Dead) By Lrs. vs. State of Tamil Nadu [ Civil Appeal Nos 1344-45 of 1976] determined the nature and character of protection provided by Article 31-B of the Constitution to the laws added to the Ninth Schedule by amendments made after 24th April, 1973. On the said date the judgment in the Kesavananda Bharati case was pronounced propounding the doctrine of Basic Structure of the Constitution to test the validity of constitutional amendments. The Bench held that "the constitutional validity of the Ninth Schedule Laws on the touchstone of basic structure doctrine can be adjudged by applying the direct impact and effect test, i.e., rights test, which means the form of an amendment is not the relevant factor, but the consequence thereof would be determinative factor." In conclusion, it held that : “(i) A law that abrogates or

 N. Suriyakala vs. A. Mohandoss - Supreme Court Case Summary of Leading Case - On 12th February, 2007, a two Judges Bench in N. Suriyakala vs. A. Mohandoss & Ors. [Criminal Appeal No. 188 of 2007] while clarifying the scope of Article 136 of the Constitution said that "Article 136 of the Constitution is not a regular forum of appeal at all. It is a residual provision which enables the Supreme Court to interfere with the judgment or order of any court or tribunal in India in its discretion". "The use of the words "in its discretion" in Article 136 clearly indicates that Article 136 does not confer a right of appeal upon any party but merely vests a discretion in the Supreme Court to interfere in exceptional cases", the Bench said. Re-iterating that Article 136 was never meant to be an ordinary forum of appeal at all like Section 96 or even Section 100 CPC, the Bench said "under the constitutional scheme, ordinarily the last court in the country in

 Sri Rajendra Singh Rana & Ors. vs Swami Prasad Maurya - Supreme Court Case Summary of Leading Case - On 14th February, 2007, a Constitution Bench in Sri Rajendra Singh Rana & Ors. vs Swami Prasad Maurya & Ors. [ Civil Appeal No.765 of 2007] held that the 13 MLAs of the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly who had met the Governor and requested him to invite the leader of the opposition party to form the Government stood disqualifed from the Assembly.  "The very giving of a letter to the Governor requesting him to call the leader of the opposition party to form a Government by them itself would amount to their voluntarily giving up the membership of their original political party within the meaning of paragraph 2 of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution. If so, the conclusion is irresistible that the 13 members of BSP who met the Governor on 27.8.2003 stand disqualified in terms of Article 191(2) of the Constitution read with paragraph 2 of the Tenth Schedule thereof, w

 Smt. Mayadevi vs. Jagdish Prasad - Supreme Court Case Summary of Leading Case - On 21st February, 2007, a two Judges Bench in Smt. Mayadevi vs. Jagdish Prasad [Civil Appeal No. 877 of 2007] held that "cruelty includes mental cruelty, which falls within the purview of a matrimonial wrong. Cruelty need not be physical." The Bench observed that "in physical cruelty, there can be tangible and direct evidence, but in the case of mental cruelty there may not at the same time be direct evidence. In cases where there is no direct evidence, Courts are required to probe into the mental process and mental effect of incidents that are brought out in evidence. It is in this view that one has to consider the evidence in matrimonial disputes." The Bench held that to "constitute cruelty, the conduct complained of should be "grave and weighty" so as to come to the conclusion that the petitioner spouse cannot be reasonably expected to live with the other spouse. It mu

Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd. vs Prakash Kaur - Supreme Court Case Summary of Leading Case - On 26th February, 2007, a two Judges Bench in Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd. vs Prakash Kaur & Ors. [Criminal Appeal No. 267 of 2007] held that Banks "should resort to procedure recognized by law to take possession of vehicles in cases where the borrower may have committed default in payment of the instalments instead of taking resort to strong arm tactics." Deprecating the practice of hiring recovery agents, who are musclemen", the Bench said such practice "needs to be discouraged".   Landmark Cases  of India /  सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले

 Rama Narang vs Ramesh Narang - Supreme Court Case Summary of Leading Case - On 15th March, 2007, a three Judges Bench in Rama Narang vs Ramesh Narang & Anr.  [Contempt Petition No. 148 of 2003] held that in order to maintain sanctity of the orders of the highest court of the country, it is imperative that "those who are guilty of deliberately disregarding the orders of the Court in a clandestine manner should be appropriately punished." "The Majesty of the Court and the Rule of Law can never be maintained unless this Court ensures meticulous compliance of its orders", the Bench said. Landmark Cases  of India /  सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले