All About Law

For undelivered and not refunded food orders worth Rs 362, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kollam (District Commission/Commission) recently ordered the online food delivery app Zomato and the restaurant owner to jointly pay compensation of Rs 8,362 to a law student.

The commission awarded Rs 5,000 as compensation for the customer’s mental agony and Rs 3,000 was ordered as the cost of proceedings.

The commission further ordered that Zomato and the restaurant owner shall comply with the directions within 45 days from the date of the order, failing which the student/complainant will be entitled to recover the amount with interest at the rate of 12% except for costs from opposite parties.

President EM Muhammed Ibrahim, members S Sandhya Rani and Stanly Harold found that the customer was entitled to a refund of Rs 362 with interest and compensation for mental agony.

Granting interim relief to Domino's, the Delhi High Court has restrained an outlet namely Dominick Pizza from using deceptively similar and identical trademark registered in favour of the famous pizza outlet.
Justice Pratibha M Singh observed that it was clear from the manner of listings of social media platforms and online ordering platforms that the name and business of Dominick Pizza was being confused as that of Domino's outlets.

"The reviews of the consumers on Google Reviews, also re-affirms this fact that apart from the confusion that is taking place, there is severe tarnishment and dilution of the Plaintiffs' mark and business. Accordingly, as per the facts and circumstances of this matter, the Plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case in their favour for grant of an ex-parte ad interim injunction," the Court said.
The Court was dealing with a suit filed by Domino's seeking injunction against Dominick Pizza, having three outlets i.e., two at Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh (at Indirapuram and Raj Nagar Extension) and third in Punjab.

Domino's sought protection of its mark 'Domino's Pizza', and the accompanying device mark, logo mark, as also the marks 'Cheese Burst' and 'Pasta Italiano'.

Granting ex-parte ad interim injunction in favour of Domino's, the Court restrained Dominick Pizza from advertising, selling or marketing any product or any documentation using or displaying the impugned marks 'Dominick Pizza', 'Cheese Burst' and 'Pasta Italiano' till the next date of hearing.
The Court also ordered suspension of domain names www.dominickpizza.com and www.dominickpizzas.com.

"Compliance of Order # # Rule 3 CPC be effected within two weeks," the Court directed, while posting the matter for hearing on November 24.

Case Title: DOMINOS IP HOLDER LLC & ANR v. MS DOMINICK PIZZA & ANR.

While saying that q***r people have historically been denied the right to access public places, Justice Chandrachud further added:

"The presence of q***r individuals in public spaces must be the norm rather than the exception. The accomplishment of this simple yet crucial task would breathe life into the decision in Navtej. It is not merely the black letter of the law that these changes must take place in, but in the heart and soul of every Indian. Heteronormativity – in every sense of the word – must give way to plurality of thought and of existence."

The Judge also disagreed with the lyrics of a song by the famous 'Beatles' band where they sang "All you need is love, love; Love is all you need". He said:

"At the risk of ruffling the feathers of music aficionados everywhere, I take the liberty to disagree with them and say – perhaps we need a little more than love."

Concluding the address, Justice Chandrachud said:

"At the heart of personal liberty lies the freedom to choose who we are, to love whom we will, and to live a life that is true to our most authentic selves, not only without the fear of persecution but in full hearted joy and as equal citizens of this country. As we near the fourth anniversary of Navtej, it is my sincere hope that we will be able to live such a life – I have no doubt that this hope will one day be a reality."

Recently, a division bench of Justice Chandrachud and Justice AS Bopana had made certain significant observations, expanding the traditional meaning of family.

"Familial relationships may take the form of domestic, unmarried partnerships or q***r relationships", the Court had observed, while holding that atypical family units are also entitled to the equal protection of law.

The Supreme Court has approved the seat-sharing formula free agreed by the Christian Medical College(CMC) at Vellore and the State of Tamil Nadu for sharing the MBBS and PG medical seats among themselves on 50-50 basis.

"Taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, we find that the arrangement arrived at between the parties to the present petition is just and fair", the Court observed in the order passed on August 10.

Recording terms of the agreement, a bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and PS Narasimha disposed of the writ petition filed by CMC Vellore seeking the quashing of Selection Committee's letter whereby the State of Tamil Nadu sought to impose the state policy of reserving 50% of seats ("state quota") in its favour in the undergraduate and postgraduate degree courses.

The terms of the seat sharing agreement are as follows :

For the Undergraduate MBBS Course

a) 50% of the seats shall be filled up by the management by the same procedure that was being followed for earlier the academic years college on the basis of inter-se merit as per the NEET results.;

b) Out of this 50% of Management quota, as per past practice 10% seats to be allotted to the children of the staff members working in the applicant college on the basis of inter-se merit as per the NEET results.

c) Remaining 50% of the seats will be filled by the State Government from the state merit list of NEET examination in following manner:

(i) 30% of the seats will be filled by the State Government following its policy of reservation strictly in accordance with the NEET merit list; and

(ii) 20% of the seats shall be filled by the State Government candidates belonging to the Christian minority from the State strictly in accordance with the NEET merit list.

Something revolutionary discussion.

Today in

The President of India, Smt. Droupadi Murmu on Wednesday appointed Justice U.U. Lalit as the Chief Justice of India with effect from 27th August, 2022.

On 3rd August, 2022, the Secretariat of the Chief Justice of India NV Ramana had received a communication from the Union Minister of Law and Justice Kiren Rijiju requesting him to recommend the name of his successor. The very next day, CJI Ramana had written back to the Union Government recommending Justice Lalit, the second senior most judge of the Supreme Court as the next Chief Justice of India, as per convention. CJI Ramana is to demit office on 26th August, 2022.

Justice Lalit is the second CJI to be elevated to the Supreme Court directly from the Bar. The first was Justice S M Sikri, who became the 13th CJI in January 1971.

As the 49th CJI, Justice Lalit will have a relatively short term, a little less than three months. He is to retire on 8th November, 2022.

Before his elevation as a judge of the Supreme Court on August 13, 2014, Justice Lalit was a Senior Advocate at the Supreme Court. His father Justice UR Lalit was a Senior Advocate and was an Additional Judge of the Bombay High Court.

Justice Lalit was part of the majority opinon of the Constitution Bench judgment which declared Triple Talaq as unconstitutional. He also led the bench which ordered the handing over of the administration of the Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple from the Travancore Royal Family to a Court-appointed administartive committee. Last year, a bench led by him reversed the controversial "skin-to-skin" judgment of Bombay High Court and held that any physical contact with a minor with sexual intent will be an offence under POCSO even if there is no direct contact with skin. Justice Lalit had recently expressed the need to lay down proper guidelines to reduce the element of subjectivity in awarding death sentences and a bench led by him initiated a suo motu case for streamlining the process of consideration of mitigating circumstances in death penalty matters.

In 2019, Justice Lalit had recused from the Ayodhya Case, citing his appearance for former UP Chief Minister Kalyan Singh in a contempt case in relation to the demolition of Babri Masjid.

As a lawyer, Justice Lalit was especially known for his practice in the field of criminal law and has handled several high profile criminal cases. In 2011, the Supreme Court had appointed him as a Special Public Prosecutor in the 2G scam case.

Born on November 9, 1957, Justice Lalit had enrolled as an advocate in June 1983 and practised in the Bombay High Court till December 1985. He shifted his practice to Delhi in January 1986. He worked with the former Attorney-General, Soli J. Sorabjee, from 1986 to 1992. In April 2004, he was designated as a senior advocate by the apex court.

Justice Lalit as the executive chairman of NALSA since May 2021, initiated several programs to give impetus for alternate dispute resolution through lok adalats and legal aid programs across the country.

The Supreme Court observed that the rule of evidence to prove charges in a criminal trial cannot be used while deciding an application seeking motor accident compensation.

The court observed thus while allowing an appeal filed against a judgment of Bombay High Court which had set aside an award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarding a sum of Rs.8,90,000/- along with interest http:// p.a. The bench noted that the High Court set aside the award on the ground that neither the owner of the offending car nor the Insurance Company has examined the driver to prove that the offending car was not involved in the accident. Disapproving this approach, the bench noted the evidence on record, and observed:

"We find that the rule of evidence to prove charges in a criminal trial cannot be used while deciding an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which is summary in nature. There is no reason to doubt the veracity of the statement of appellant No. 1 who suffered injuries in the accident. The application under the Act has to be decided on the basis of evidence led before it and not on the basis of evidence which should have been or could have been led in a criminal trial. We find that the entire approach of the High Court is clearly not sustainable."
The court also observed that the fact that wife of the deceased did not implead daughters is not really of any consequence. "If the daughters of the deceased have not been impleaded as claimants, it is immaterial as the amount of compensation payable by the tortfeasor will not get enhanced because of the daughters being party to the claim application. It is since the daughters are married, the mother has not impleaded, the daughters as the claimants. It is not really of any consequence as held by the High Court.", the court observed.

The Advocate appearing for Lathika informed that said that she has already given the has already given the exam.
"Is she a Judge?", Justice Chandrachud asked.
"She has cleared the prelims, and the results are awaited", the advocate clarified.
"When are the exams?", he asked. In October, was the reply.
"Ma'am, study hard now. Don't depend on this man. You better study hard and do well for yourself", Justice Chandrachud advised Lathika.
Turning to the father, he added,
"You should be proud of having a daughter like this, who is highly aspirant. You are only giving us complaints about her that she is not talking to me, this, that....."
The Bench then asked if the emotionally distant duo had spoken to each other.
"Did you meet your father? Did you talk to your father? No? Alright, let them talk now", the judge urged.
Hearing this, the advocates prompted the father to move towards his daughter.
In the last 33 years, they have not communicated with each other, Rao's advocate told the court.
"Court ki orders se ithna ho saktha hain", Justice Chandrachud remarked.
"Both the lawyers, take them both to the canteen, please act as our officers now and not as lawyers for the parties", the bench requested, before parting with the matter.
On 5 October 2020, the Supreme Court had directed Rao to pay an amount of Rs 2,50,000 to both, Lathika and her mother within two weeks. But her mother died on September 6, 2021. The grievance of the petitioner was that no amount had been paid towards the arrears of maintenance, i.e., Rs 8,000 per month for Lathika and Rs 400 for her mother.
Rao's advocate told the court that he had duly paid the arrears of maintenance and has placed reliance on the statements of the Union Bank of India.

Two lawyers have moved the Supreme Court against the lion sculpture installed on the top of the new Parliament building under construction as part of the Central Vista Project, alleging that "visible changes: have been made in the approved design of the official emblem.

As per the petition filed by two Advocates-on-Record, Mr. Aldanish Rein and Mr. Ramesh Kumar Mishra, the new emblem violates the description and design of State emblem in Schedule of the State Emblem of India (Prohibition of Improper Use) Act, 2005.

The petition contends that the lions in the concerned emblem appear to be ferocious and aggressive with their mouth open and canine visible, while the ones of the Sarnath Lion Capital of Ashoka, which it ought to resemble, are "calm and composed". It further avers that the four lions being representative of the four core spiritual philosophies of Budhha, is not merely a design, but has cultural and philosophical significance.

Acknowledging the statute is silent on the issue of improper use of State emblem by the Government itself, the petition relies on the Constitutional framework. The core challenge of the petition is that the change in the design of the State emblem violates its sanctity; is manifestly arbitrary; and would not pass muster of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It also argues that the act of the Union Government to impinge upon the emblem without following due process is in derogation of Article 21, which envisaged the right to 'one's national pride and constitutional faith'.

It submits -

"The State emblem of India is a mark of identity of the Republic of India. The republic of India belongs to the people of India, we the Indians. When this identity is unduly interfered with by the government, it hurts the national sentiment of its citizens."

Denying an unmarried woman the right to a safe abortion violates her personal autonomy and freedom", observed the Supreme Court on Thursday while allowing an unmarried woman to seek abortion of her pregnancy of a term of 24 weeks which arose out of a consensual relationship.

Passing an ad-interim order to grant relief to the 25-year old woman, the Supreme Court prima facie observed that her case was covered under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act 1971. The Delhi High Court, before which the petitioner had first approached, had denied her interim relief on the ground that the pregnancy of an unmarried woman arising out of a consensual relationship is not specified among the categories of women whose pregnancy can be aborted during the term of 20-24 weeks as per the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules 2003.

The Supreme Court made a prima facie observation that the High Court has taken an "unduly restrictive view of the provisions unduly restrictive view of the provisions".

The Apex Court said :"Clause (c) speaks of a change of marital status during an ongoing pregnancy and is followed in parenthesis by the words "widowhood and divorce". The expression "change of marital status" should be given a purposive rather than a restrictive interpretation. The expressions "widowhood and divorce" need not be construed to be exhaustive of the category which precedes it".

2021 amendment substitutes "husband" with "partner"; legislative intent to cover unmarried woman.

All you need to know about your parents and ancestors property law and their transfer law in India.

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday directed the PMO secretary to file a detailed and exhaustive reply in a plea seeking a declaration that PM CARES Fund is "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution, adding that it was an important issue requiring a proper response.

A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad also expressed displeasure over a one page affidavit earlier filed on behalf of the PM-CARES Fund Trust in the matter, remarking that the same wasn't detailed enough to justify the concerns raised in the petition.

The affidavit filed by the Under Secretary at Prime Minister's Office had stated that there is no control of either the Central Government or the State Government in the functioning of the PM CARES Trust.

"This is such an important issue and only one page affidavit filed. There is not even a whisper about anything in this reply," the Bench said.
It added "File a proper reply. The issue isn't that simple. We need an exhaustive reply."

Accordingly, the Court granted four weeks time to the Centre for filing a detailed reply in the matter

"We will have to pass a detailed order on each and every point raised," the Court orally remarked.

The matter will now be heard on September 16.

Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, arguing for PIL petitioner Samyak Gangwal, submitted that the Fund is nothing but State within the meaning of Constitution of India and that any fund created by constitutional functionaries cannot be contracted out of the Constitution of India. "You may create a structure but you cannot claim immunity from the constitution," Divan argued.

He added that if the Prime Minister wishes to settle an institution, he may do so, however, the same has to be within the umbrella of the State.

Divan also argued that the Fund is destructive of good governance and may lead to many problems in the future.

Everything you should know about service charges.

The Court observed that fixation of pay scales is a matter of policy that can be interfered by the courts only in exceptional cases where there is discrimination between two sets of employees appointed by the same authority, in the same manner, where the eligibility criteria is the same and the duties are identical in every aspect.

In this case State of Madhya Pradesh v Seema Sharma, the bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and JK Maheshwari further observed that,

"This Court cannot interfere with the policy decision taken by the Government merely because it feels that another decision would have been fairer; or wiser as held by this Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Narmada Bachao Andolan reported in (2011) 7 SCC 639 and relied upon and re-affirmed in Sudhir Budakoti & Others (supra)."

With this observation, the Top Court allowed the appeal assailing Madhya Pradesh High Court's order of directing the State Authorities to pay UGC scale of pay as paid to the Librarians of colleges under the Higher Education Department to a Librarian who had claimed the said relief.

In the present matter, Seema Sharma, who was appointed as Librarian-cum-Museum Assistant, Government Dhanvantri Ayurvedic College, Ujjain, after completion of 8 years of service, had claimed the UGC scale of pay as paid to the persons in the senior scale of Librarian in colleges under the Higher Education Department. Since her request was not acceded to by the State Authorities, she had approached the High Court claiming the said relief under the Madhya Pradesh Education Service (Collegiate Branch), Recruitment Rules, 1990 ("1990 Rules").

While granting her the relief, the Madhya Pradesh High Court directed for paying Sharma, UGC scale of pay as paid to the Librarians of colleges under the Higher Education Department. Since the State Authority's intra court appeal filed by the Appellants was dismissed, the authorities approached the Top Court.

The Patna High Court has issued a tender notice inviting bids for supply of Apple iPhone 13 Pro (256 GB) for all High Court judges.

"Sealed quotations are invited from the reputed firms/authorized dealers/suppliers/service providers for supply of Apple iPhone 13 Pro(256GB) for the Hon'ble Judges of this Court", the tender notice stated.

The following are the tender conditions :

- The rate quoted in the tender should be inclusive of Goods and Service Tax (GST) and service charges;

- GST number, PAN, AADHAR, email and a registered mobile number should be clearly stated in the quotation. Headquarters/ office of the firm/ Shop must be located in Patna;

- No advance payment shall be made and payment will be made through bank (CFMS mode), instead of cash, after submission of bill in duplicate;

- The Court reserves the right to accept or reject any or all quotations;

- The firms/service providers have to be ready for maintenance of aforesaid equipments as and when they are asked for;

- Defective materials should be replaced immediately by the concerned firms, free of cost, within the warranty period;

- Statement regarding any previous supplies made to government/ institutions.

Article 14 and Article 21 of the Indian Constitution the High Court of Kerala has established that a child born in a live-in relationship will be considered a legitimate child. Such a child shall be vested with rights such as the right to property, right to maintenance, and so on.

Case title - Gulam Deen and another v. State of Punjab and others

Essentially, the Bench of Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi was hearing a protection plea filed by the couple (both Muslims) who solemnized their marriage as per Muslim rites and ceremonies.

The couple contended before the Court that in Muslim law, puberty and majority are one and the same and that there is a presumption that a person attains majority at the age of 15 years.

It is further submitted that a Muslim boy or Muslim girl who has attained puberty is at liberty to marry anyone he or she likes and the guardian has no right to interfere.

It was their further plea that their life and liberty is in grave danger at the hands of respondents Nos.5 to 7 and even though they moved a representation to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Pathankot, however, no action has been taken thereon.

The counsel for the petitioners submitted that they would be satisfied at this stage if directions are issued for deciding the said representation in a time-bound manner in accordance with the law.

However, under Muslim law, marriage or Nikah is a contract. The Muslim law recognizes- the right of adults to marry by their own free will. The conditions for a valid Muslim marriage are:

-Both the individuals must profess Islam;
-Both should be of the age of puberty;
-There has to be an offer and acceptance and two witnesses must be present;
-Dower and Mehar; and
Absence of a prohibited degree of relationship.

Want a feel of Zindagi milegi na dobara? Get ready to pay 5000₹ penalty

Paisa he Paisa hoga! Just a click away to get rich

New labour law in India from 1st July

A Delhi Court on Thursday extended the Enforcement Directorate's custody of Aam Aadmi Party Minister Satyendar Jain till June 13, in connection with a money laundering case.

The Minister was produced before Special CBI Judge Geetanjali Goel today on expiry of his 9 days custody in the matter.

Jain was arrested last month by the agency. The Enforcement Directorate had then sought 14 days custody of Jain in the matter. Today, the agency sought five days custody.

ASG SV Raju represented ED today whereas Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal represented Jain in the case before the Special Court.

In a related news, the Delhi High Court has stayed the Trial Court direction permitting Satyendar Jain's counsel to remain present during his interrogation in the matter.

The agency had attached properties worth Rs. 4.81 crore belonging to five companies and others in connection with an alleged disproportionate assets case against Jain and others.

These assets reportedly were in the name of Akinchan Developers, Indo Metalimpex, Paryas Infosolutions, Mangalayatan Projects and J.J. Ideal Estate etc.

The money laundering case is based upon an FIR registered by the CBI against the minister and other individuals in the year 2017, under the Prevention of Corruption Act, wherein it was alleged that during the period of February 2015 to May 2017, the minister had acquired assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. The CBI had then filed a chargesheet in December 2018 against Jain.

In an earlier statement, the ED had reportedly said thus:

"During the period 2015-16, when Satyendar Kumar Jain was a public servant, the above mentioned companies beneficially owned and controlled by him received accommodation entries to the tune of Rs.4.81 crore from shell companies against cash transferred to Kolkata-based entry operators through 'hawala' route," the ED had earlier said in a statement.