Whirlpool Corporation Vs Registrar of Trade Marks Mumbai and Ors on 26 Oct 1998

Posted on July 23, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

Landmark judgment from a division bench of the Apex Court.

From Paras 14 and 15,

14. The power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 of the Constitution is plenary in nature and is not limited by any other provision of the Constitution. This power can be exercised by the High Court not only for issuing writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights contained in Part III of the Constitution but also for “any other purpose”.
15. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this Court not to operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely, where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. There is a plethora of case- law on this point but to cut down this circle of forensic whirlpool, we would rely on some old decisions of the evolutionary era of the constitutional law as they still hold the field.

Whirlpool Corporation Vs Registrar of Trade Marks Mumbai and Ors on 26 Oct 1998 (CM Ver)

Citations : [1998 SCC 8 1], [1999 AIR SC 22], [1998 AIR SC 3345], [1999 BOMCR SC 2 70], [1998 JT 7 243], [1998 SCALE 5 655], [1998 SUPREME 8 176], [1998 AIR SCW 3345]

Other Sources :

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/575fd361607dba63d7e6e044

UOI and Ors Vs Tantia Construction Pvt Ltd on 18 Apr 2011

Posted on July 23, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench held that an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to the invocation of the writ jurisdiction of the High Court or the Supreme Court and that without exhausting such alternative remedy, a writ petition would not be maintainable.

From Paras 27 and 28,

27. Apart from the above, even on the question of maintainability of the writ petition on account of the Arbitration Clause included in the agreement between the parties, it is now well-established that an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to the invocation of the writ jurisdiction of the High Court or the Supreme Court and that without exhausting such alternative remedy, a writ petition would not be maintainable. The various decisions cited by Mr. Chakraborty would clearly indicate that the constitutional powers vested in the High Court or the Supreme Court cannot be fettered by any alternative remedy available to the authorities. Injustice, whenever and wherever it takes place, has to be struck down as an anathema to the rule of law and the provisions of the Constitution. We endorse the view of the High Court that notwithstanding the provisions relating to the Arbitration Clause contained in the agreement, the High Court was fully within its competence to entertain and dispose of the Writ Petition filed on behalf of the Respondent Company.
28. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the views expressed by the High Court on the maintainability of the Writ Petition and also on its merits. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed, but without any order as to costs.

UOI and Ors Vs Tantia Construction Pvt Ltd on 18 Apr 2011

Citations : [2011 SCC 5 697], [2011 AIOL 293], [2011 SUPREME 3 294], [2011 SCALE 4 745], [2011 RCR CIVIL SC 3 821], [2011 SCC CIV 3 117], [2011 LW 3 691], [2011 ARBLR SC 2 115], [2012 PLJR 1 455], [2011 JCR SC 3 8], [2011 UJ 4 2210], [2011 KLJ 2 15], [2011 AWC SC 5 4568], [2011 SCR 5 397], [2011 JT SC 5 59]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/609434/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609aeffe4b01497114154a4

MS Radha Krishan Industries Vs State of Himachal Pradesh on 20 Apr 2021

Posted on July 22, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Apex Court held the following principles in regards to approaching a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

From Para 27,

27 The principles of law which emerge are that :
(i) The power under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue writs can be exercised not only for the enforcement of fundamental rights, but for any other purpose as well;
(ii) The High Court has the discretion not to entertain a writ petition. One of the restrictions placed on the power of the High Court is where an effective alternate remedy is available to the aggrieved person;
(iii) Exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy arise where (a) the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of a fundamental right protected by Part III of the Constitution; (b) there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice; (c) the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction; or (d) the vires of a legislation is challenged;
(iv) An alternate remedy by itself does not divest the High Court of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in an appropriate case though ordinarily, a writ petition should not be entertained when an efficacious alternate remedy is provided by law;
(v) When a right is created by a statute, which itself prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing the right or liability, resort must be had to that particular statutory remedy before invoking the discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. This rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion; and
(vi) In cases where there are disputed questions of fact, the High Court may decide to decline jurisdiction in a writ petition. However, if the High Court is objectively of the view that the nature of the controversy requires the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, such a view would not readily be interfered with.

MS Radha Krishan Industries Vs State of Himachal Pradesh on 20 Apr 2021

Citations : [2021 SCC ONLINE SC 334]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/62362537/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/60806fd6125abdf1726ab6fb

Arshad Ahmad and Ors Vs State NCT of Delhi and Anr on 02 Jun 2022

Posted on July 22, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

Arshad Ahmad and Ors Vs State NCT of Delhi and Anr on 02 Jun 2022

Hrishikesh Sahoo Vs State of Karnataka and Ors on 23 Mar 2022

Posted on July 20, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

Hrishikesh Sahoo Vs State of Karnataka and Ors on 23 Mar 2022

Citations :

Other Sources :

Hrishikesh Sahoo Vs State of Karnataka and Ors

Posted on July 20, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

2022-07-19

From Para 4,

4. Until further orders, there shall be an ad-interim stay of the common impugned judgment and final order dated 23rd March, 2022 passed by the High Court of Karnataka in Writ Petitions No.48367/2018 and 50089/2018 and further proceedings in relation to Special C.C. No. 356 of 2017 arising out of FIR bearing Crime No. 19/2017, pending before the Additional City and Sessions and Special Court for cases under the POCSO Act, Bangalore.

Hrishikesh Sahoo Vs State of Karnataka and Ors on 19 Jul 2022

The Karnataka HC decision is here.

Sandeep Pamarati Vs Ungrateful Knife (Bigamy under 494 and 495 IPC)

Posted on July 18, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

After lot many delays, I moved forward on the Bigamy complaint against the disgruntled knife at Ongole.

2022-07-18

Went to Ongole to attend the Spandana Programme to submit my complaint of Bigamy against the Knife. The Staff at the SP Office directed me to the Taluka PS which is adjacent to the SP Office. The Writer heard me and took me to the CI. Questions raised are as follows:

Why complain now after a gap of many years?
Why here and not in Hyderabad or Pune?
Why not talk and settle matter?
Why for a NC (non-cognizable case), came to Ongole all the way from Vijayawada?
Without taking legal opinion, how can we register FIR immediately?
Why evidences are attached?

2022-08-22

Came to Taluk PS to ask for FIR and give my 161 CrPC Statement, if FIR was done. Of course, as expected the responsible persons were on Bandobast duty and hence not available at Police Station. So with this, CrPC 154(1) is complied and completed. Next CrPC 154(3) and the follow it up with another visit to Ongole SP Office on a Spandana-Monday.

2022-09-05

Went to SP office straight and waited for my turn. First time experiencing a public grievance system. My issue was documented into a template and I was asked to appear before a DSP. I wanted for my turn and when it was time, I went in and sat before the DSP. After a lot of questions and answers (from me, obviously), the DSP directed (both orally on the phone) and on the template to register an FIR and investigate. Hurrraaayyyyyyyyy!

I got successfully registered my complaint at Spandana (weekly once public grievance program in all Govt offices of AP)

The interaction was interesting and I found another lead to pursue my other goal. Conduct free legal awareness sessions.

DSP: Being advocate, don’t you know that Police cannot directly register a 494 IPC case? (I did not hear the work ‘Cognizable’)
SP: It is made cognizable in AP sir.
DSP: (Surprised) Is it?
SP: Yes sir, here is the 2-page copy of the State amendment.
DSP: Immediately dials the Assistant Direction of Prosecutions to confirm. Call ends in 15 seconds with positive news.
SP: Not many are aware of this amendment sir. Even I came to know about this only from AP High Court judgments (like here and here).
DSP: This is news to me, it was not covered in the training imparted to the Police attendees.
SP: (Flash lights in my mind) Not just this sir, another issue in PWDV Act is also horribly implemented in AP and I filed petitions before the AP High Court.
DSP: Calls the CI of the Taluka PS, Ongole. No response. Calls the Writer in the Taluka PS. Comes to know the regular CI is on leave and only in-charge is in the Station. Call in-charge and orally directs that a case has to be registered for 494 IPC and the victim is an advocate and it will be difficult for you (in-charge/regular CIs) if he goes to High Court.
SP: Thanked the DSP profusely and offered to send the case laws to him over phone. Obtained his contact and immediately sent both the case laws. Later offered to take up any issue, with his support and guidance.

Overall, a good day, indeed!

2022-09-17

Received a call from a Head Constable asking me to appear before CI, Taluka PS, Ongole. After a quick conversation, informed him that I will appear on Saturday for the same.
Went to Taluka PS, Ongole at 11AM and waiting until 1.30PM. Then had lunch and went to meet DSP DTC, Shri G Rama Krishna garu. Had a worthwhile conversation and requested him to remind the CI, Taluka PS to register FIR and inform me to record my statement u/s 161 CrPC. If no FIR done, then I am to appear before SP, Prakasam District on a Monday (in the Spandana Program), Sep 26, 2022.

Hope this time around the FIR will be registered.

2025-06-07

Whatever happens, happens for our own good, so will NOT hurry this CFR matter until I get favorable Order in Nullity case here.

Index of all cases laid on me is here.

Article 348 – Language to be used in the Supreme Court and in the High Courts and for Acts Bills etc

Posted on July 17, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

348. Language to be used in the Supreme Court and in the High Courts and for Acts, Bills, etc.—
(1) Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this Part, until Parliament by law otherwise provides—
(a) all proceedings in the Supreme Court and in every High Court,
(b) the authoritative texts—
(i) of all Bills to be introduced or amendments thereto to be moved in either House of Parliament or in the House or either House of the Legislature of a State,
(ii) of all Acts passed by Parliament or the Legislature of a State and of all Ordinances promulgated by the President or the Governor of a State, and
(iii) of all orders, rules, regulations and bye-laws issued under this Constitution or under any law made by Parliament or the Legislature of a State,
shall be in the English language.
(2) Notwithstanding anything in sub-clause (a) of clause (1), the Governor of a State may, with the previous consent of the President, authorise the use of the Hindi language, or any other language used for any official purposes of the State, in proceedings in the High Court having its principal seat in that State:
Provided that nothing in this clause shall apply to any judgment, decree or order passed or made by such High Court.
(3) Notwithstanding anything in sub-clause (b) of clause (1), where the Legislature of a State has prescribed any language other than the English language for use in Bills introduced in, or Acts passed by, the Legislature of the State or in Ordinances promulgated by the Governor of the State or in any order, rule, regulation or bye-law referred to in paragraph (iii) of that sub-clause, a translation of the same in the English language published under the authority of the Governor of the State in the Official Gazette of that State shall be deemed to be the authoritative text thereof in the English language under this article.

Manish Kanaiyalal Gupta Vs State of Gujarat on 08 Jul 2015

Posted on July 17, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Gujarat High Court held as follows regarding the language of a High Court.

From Paras 13, 14 and 15,

13. Before we further proceed to examine the aspects of competency to assist the Court, we need to first consider on the aspect of language of the High Court. Article 343 of the Constitution of India provides for official language of the Union. Whereas, Article 348 of the Constitution of India provides for languages of Supreme Court and High Court, etc. It is hardly required to be stated that before the constitution was framed, there were constitutional debates and deliberation on various points including about language to be used in Supreme Court and High Courts. After deliberations constitutional framers have finalised Article 348 of the Constitution. The aforesaid shows that until the Parliament by law otherwise provides, all proceedings in the Supreme Court and every High Court shall be in English. Sub-Article (2) provides that the Governor of the State may with the previous consent of the President Authorise the use of Hindi language or any other language in the proceedings of the High Court having its principal seat in that State. But such would not be applicable to any judgment decree or order passed or made by such High Court.
14. The Parliament has enacted the Official Language Act, 1963 for providing languages to be used for official purpose of Union for transaction of business in Parliament under Central and State Act and also for certain purposes in the High Courts. The aforesaid shows that the President may authorise the use of Hindi or official language of the State in addition to English language for the purpose of any judgement decree or order passed or made by the High Court, but such shall be accompanied by a translation of the same in English language.
15. The aforesaid are the enabling powers, but so far as High Court of Gujarat is concerned, the learned Advocate General after verification, made a clear statement that no such order has been passed by the Governor under Article 348 (2) of the Constitution nor any order for authorisation has been passed by the President for use of Gujarati language or any other language and he further submitted that English language is already prescribed in the proceedings of the High Court and Supreme Court by Article 348 (1) of the Constitution. To say in other words, in absence of any order of the Governor under Article 348(2) of the Constitution or in absence of any authorisation under Section 7 of the Official Language Act, the language of the High Court of Gujarat as per the Constitution of India has to be English since the word used by the Constitution is “Shall be in English language”. Hence, it can be said that the language of the High Court of Gujarat shall be English unless any authorisation has been issued under Article 348(2) of the Constitution of India or under section 7 of the Official Language Act by the Governor or the President, as the case may be.

From Para 18,

18. It is hardly required to be stated that the Constitution or any provision of the Constitution will prevail over any Act or the law made by the Parliament or the Rules made by any Rule making authority. If Rule 37 is to be given effect read with the above referred constitutional provision, it would mean the memorandum of proceedings by a party may be submitted in Gujarati or in English, but if it is in Gujarati, the party may be asked to supply English translation also and if there has no financial capacity to provide English translation, Court may direct the English translation to be made by the High Court and thereafter, the matter may be considered further. If Rule 37 of the Rules is not interpreted in that manner, it would run counter to Article 348 of the Constitution.

Manish Kanaiyalal Gupta Vs State of Gujarat on 08 Jul 2015

Citations :

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/178909148/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5ac5e38c4a93261a1a76788f/

Satender Kumar Antil Vs CBI and Anr on 11 Jul 2022

Posted on July 12, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Apex Court passed the following guidelines with respect to Arrest and Bails

From Para 24,

24.Section 41A deals with the procedure for appearance before the police officer who is required to issue a notice to the person against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received or a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed a cognizable offence, and arrest is not required under Section 41(1). Section 41B deals with the procedure of arrest along with mandatory duty on the part of the officer.
25.On the scope and objective of Section 41 and 41A, it is obvious that they are facets of Article 21 of the Constitution. We need not elaborate any further, in light of the judgment of this Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273:
26.We only reiterate that the directions aforesaid ought to be complied with in letter and spirit by the investigating and prosecuting agencies, while the view expressed by us on the non-compliance of Section 41 and the consequences that flow from it has to be kept in mind by the Court, which is expected to be reflected in the orders.
27.Despite the dictum of this Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra), no concrete step has been taken to comply with the mandate of Section 41A of the Code. This Court has clearly interpreted Section 41(1)(b)(i) and (ii) inter alia holding that notwithstanding the existence of a reason to believe qua a police officer, the satisfaction for the need to arrest shall also be present. Thus, sub-clause (1)(b)(i) of Section 41 has to be read along with sub-clause (ii) and therefore both the elements of ‘reason to believe’ and ‘satisfaction qua an arrest’ are mandated and accordingly are to be recorded by the police officer.
28.It is also brought to our notice that there are no specific guidelines with respect to the mandatory compliance of Section 41A of the Code. An endeavour was made by the Delhi High Court while deciding Writ Petition (C) No. 7608 of 2017 vide order dated 07.02.2018, followed by order dated 28.10.2021 in Contempt Case (C) No. 480 of 2020 & CM Application No.25054 of 2020, wherein not only the need for guidelines but also the effect of non-compliance towards taking action against the officers concerned was discussed. We also take note of the fact that a standing order has been passed by the Delhi Police viz., Standing Order No. 109 of 2020, which provides for a set of guidelines in the form of procedure for issuance of notices or orders by the police officers. Considering the aforesaid action taken, in due compliance with the order passed by the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition (C) No.7608 of 2017 dated 07.02.2018, this Court has also passed an order in Writ Petition (Crl.) 420 of 2021 dated 10.05.2021 directing the State of Bihar to look into the said aspect of an appropriate modification to give effect to the mandate of Section 41A. A recent judgment has also been rendered on the same lines by the High Court of Jharkhand in Cr.M.P. No. 1291 of 2021 dated 16.06.2022.
29.Thus, we deem it appropriate to direct all the State Governments and the Union Territories to facilitate standing orders while taking note of the standing order issued by the Delhi Police i.e., Standing Order No. 109 of 2020, to comply with the mandate of Section 41A. We do feel that this would certainly take care of not only the unwarranted arrests, but also the clogging of bail applications before various Courts as they may not even be required for the offences up to seven years.
30.We also expect the courts to come down heavily on the officers effecting arrest without due compliance of Section 41 and Section 41A. We express our hope that the Investigating Agencies would keep in mind the law laid down in Arnesh Kumar (Supra), the discretion to be exercised on the touchstone of presumption of innocence, and the safeguards provided under Section 41, since an arrest is not mandatory. If discretion is exercised to effect such an arrest, there shall be procedural compliance. Our view is also reflected by the interpretation of the specific provision under Section 60A of the Code which warrants the officer concerned to make the arrest strictly in accordance with the Code.

Satender Kumar Antil Vs CBI and Anr on 11 Jul 2022

Citations :

Other Sources :

There is another Order passed earlier in this very same case with respect to NBW recall here.

Index of Bail Judgments is here.

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Author: ShadesOfKnife

Whirlpool Corporation Vs Registrar of Trade Marks Mumbai and Ors on 26 Oct 1998

UOI and Ors Vs Tantia Construction Pvt Ltd on 18 Apr 2011

MS Radha Krishan Industries Vs State of Himachal Pradesh on 20 Apr 2021

Arshad Ahmad and Ors Vs State NCT of Delhi and Anr on 02 Jun 2022

Hrishikesh Sahoo Vs State of Karnataka and Ors on 23 Mar 2022

Hrishikesh Sahoo Vs State of Karnataka and Ors

Sandeep Pamarati Vs Ungrateful Knife (Bigamy under 494 and 495 IPC)

Article 348 – Language to be used in the Supreme Court and in the High Courts and for Acts Bills etc

Manish Kanaiyalal Gupta Vs State of Gujarat on 08 Jul 2015

Satender Kumar Antil Vs CBI and Anr on 11 Jul 2022