Keeping Pace with Legal Change
The Bombay High Court has clarified the fate of Ratan Tata’s unspecified shares. His listed and unlisted shares, not explicitly mentioned elsewhere in his will, will go to the Ratan Tata Endowment Foundation and Ratan Tata Endowment Trust, aligning with his clear charitable intent.
The Delhi High Court is hearing a case where Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) alleges that RSPL Limited’s ‘Ghadi’ detergent advertisements disparage its ‘Surf Excel’ product. HUL claims RSPL uses similar packaging, terms like ‘XL Blue,’ and defamatory phrases. The court has ordered RSPL to remove specific derogatory phrases.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Titan Company Limited in a trademark infringement case against Lenskart Solutions Private Limited. Lenskart admitted to inadvertently using Titan’s “TITAN” and “FASTRACK” trademarks on its website and as metatags, and has since removed them. The suit was decreed after Lenskart stated it would not contest the matter.
The Rajasthan High Court, in Smt. Kailash Kanwar Rathore and Others v. State of Rajasthan, ruled against the arbitrary freezing of bank accounts by investigating agencies. The court emphasized that the mandatory reporting of seized accounts to the Magistrate under Section 102(3) Cr.P.C. is crucial, and non-compliance vitiates the freezing. This decision highlights the importance of procedural safeguards against indiscriminate actions by authorities.
In June 2020, the High Court of Karnataka overturned a 2019 complaint by the Enforcement Directorate against Greenpeace India. The complaint was against the contravention of the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA). This decision poses a huge reprieve to the environmental body as that chapter of a lengthy legal battle over its foreign financing is hopefully over.
Kerala Yukthi Vadi Sanghom petitioned Kerala High Court demanding some tough steps to curb black magic, human sacrifice and associated superstitions. The petition is asking the State and Union governments to implement law and actions that were adopted in Maharashtra and Karnataka.
Kerala High Court quashed criminal investigation against a 80 year old Pediatrician registered as POCSO offence and IPC. The court, in particular, stressed no sexual intent and pointed at the legal immunity that the medical professional who conducts an examination under the parental consent and witness performs.
In this paper, the author has examined the DAZN Limited & Anr. vs. Buffsports.me & Ors., a case reported in the Delhi High Court which provides a dynamic injunction against illicit streaming of sports. It describes the role of the court regarding the copyright and the right to broadcast during the digital era and the necessity to stop online piracy.
Recently, the Madhya Pradesh High Court discussed whether or not evidence that was collected unlawfully might be admitted into court in cases involving marital conflicts. It found that WhatsApp communications, even if they were purportedly obtained without authorization, are admissible in Family Courts if they are significant. This decision upheld Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, which relaxes rigorous evidentiary requirements for the sake of effective conflict settlement.
In a classic case, the Supreme Court set aside criminal cases against distant relatives, who had been falsely dragged into a dowry harassment case. The ruling adds strength to the point that general and lackluster claims of criminality are not sufficient to allow trial that will weaken innocent family members against the frivolous use of the law.
