SUPREME COURT

• ELECTION

Laxmi Kant Bajpai Vs. Hazi Yaqoob and Ors. Decided on 08.12.2009 (MANU/SC/1882/2009)

Election - Challenge to contents of electoral roll - Jurisdiction of civil courts - Section 30 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1950 - Whether civil courts have jurisdiction with regard to entertaining or adjudicating on any question relating to contents of electoral roll once it is finally published ?

Held, Courts cannot decide any issue relating to issuance or revision of an electoral roll. The remedy lies in the procedure laid down in the prescribed rules. There is scope for challenging the contents of the electoral roll. However, once an electoral roll is finally published, it becomes final and then no court can interfere with the said publication of the electoral roll and it shall be the electoral roll of the constituency.

Election - Election Petition - Contents of Election Petition - Dismissal of an Election Petition

Held, it is a settled legal position that an election petition must clearly and unambiguously set out all the material facts which the appellant is to rely upon during the trial, and it must reveal a clear and complete picture of the circumstances and should disclose a definite cause of action. In the absence of the above, an election petition can be summarily dismissed.

• SERVICE

Mohd. Ayub Vs. State of U.P. and Ors Decided on 20.11.2009 MANU/SC/1885/2009

Service - Computation of time - Section 10 of General Clauses Act - Appellant applied for post in question - Medical certificate in lieu of same submitted on subsequent date of last prescribed date on account of 2 consecutive holidays preceding last prescribed date - Application rejected by concerned authority - Whether application filed by Appellant valid ?

Held, there is a general principle that a party, prevented from doing an act for some reasons beyond his control, can do so at the first subsequent opportunity (Ratio in of Huda and Anr. v. Dr. Babeswar Kanhar and Anr applied). Underlying object of Section 10 is to enable a person to do what he should have done in a holiday, on the next working day. Said principle is based on doctrine that law does not compel the performance of impossibility. Therefore, the application filed by the Appellant on the post of Constable Amorer Course is valid and should be considered as valid.

• CRIMINAL

Moti Lal and Ors .Vs. State of U.P. Decided on 02.12.2009 (MANU/SC/1866/2009)

Criminal - Conviction for unlawful Assembly and offence of rioting - Concurrent Findings by Trial Court and High Court - Interference by Supreme Court - Article 136 of Constitution

Held, this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution, normally does not interfere with such concurring finding of facts arrived at the Courts below upon proper appreciation of evidence available on record unless it is shown that such appreciation suffers from any manifest error resulting in miscarriage of justice. In the present case, the Courts below properly appreciated the evidence and rested their conclusions mainly relying upon the evidence of PWs 5 and 6 and the evidence of forensic expert Dr. K. Singh (PW7). Therefore, no merit in this appeal.

HIGH COURT

• CRIMINAL

MADRAS HIGH COURT

D. RangarajanVs. A. Abdul Rahim Decided on 11.11.2009 (MANU/TN/3240/2009)

Criminal - Dishonour of cheque - Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act - Complaint against Petitioner by Respondent for dishonour of cheque - Case posted for hearing - Thereafter, petition filed by Petitioner seeking direction to send dishonored cheques for comparison of signature - Same dismissed by Trial Court - Whether revision petition maintainable?

Held, petition filed by the Revision Petitioner is not maintainable, since he had not disputed the signature and issuance of cheque by way of reply notice prior to the filing of the complaint and not taken any steps after receiving the Court notice and the prosecution evidence was over. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the petition filed by the petitioner at the belated stage, is only delay tactics adopted by the petitioner/accused (Ratio in Kalyani Baskar v. M.S. Sampoornam applied)

• COMMERCIAL

JHARKHAND HIGH COURT

Arun Choudhury Vs. State of Jharkhand and Anr Decided on 11.11.2009 (MANU/JH/0912/2009)

Commercial - Storing of excess quantity of commodity than allowed - Non-display of stock of commodity outside shop as per Jharkhand Essential Commodities (Price and Stock Display) Order, 1977 - Whether Petitioner liable to be prosecuted for contravention of provisions of Display Order?

Held, prosecution for contravention of the provisions of the display order seems to be bad on account of the fact that before launching prosecution against the Petitioners, no sanction has been obtained though under proviso to Clause (6) of the display order, it was required to be obtained from the competent authority. The proviso makes it clear that no prosecution shall lie against any person for contravention of any of the provisions of the order unless the sanction has been obtained from competent authority. Thus, the prosecution on account of contravention of the provision of the display order is bad in law.

• INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS

BOMBAY HIGH COURT

Reed Elsevier Properties Inc. and Anr. Vs. Best Media Associates (India) Pvt. Ltd. Decided on 11.11.2009 (MANU/MH/1328/2009)

Intellectual Property Rights - Trademarks - Infringement thereof - Acquiescence in use of trademark - Alleged acquiescence on the part of Plaintiff to file suit - Whether there was any acquiescence on the part of Plaintiff

Held, the record does not disclose any acquiescence on the part of the plaintiffs in the use of the mark by the defendant. There is nothing to show that the plaintiff was aware of the use of the mark by the defendant prior to 2006. The defendant publishes its directories annually. There is no evidence on record showing that the circulation of the defendant's publication is such that it would necessarily have come to the knowledge of others, including the plaintiff/plaintiff's correspondents. The mere fact that defendant had used the same as part of its web-site cannot be held against the plaintiff. The plaintiff was not bound to take a search and involve itself in any extensive, investigative process.

• MOTOR VEHICLES

DELHI HIGH COURT

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. through its Deputy Manger, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt Kamlesh W/o Late Sh. Joginder Singh and Ors. Decided on 04.12.2009 MANU/DE/3147/2009

Motor Vehicles - Motor Vehicle Accident - Injury to Claimant due to rash and negligent driving by driver of vehicle - Compensation awarded by Tribunal - Compensation refused by Insurance Company on ground of driver not having valid licence - Liability of Insurer to pay compensation in respect of third party risks - Section 149 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988

Held, when the Insurance Company takes the plea that it is not liable to pay compensation or to indemnify the insured as the driver was not holding a valid licence for driving the vehicle on the date of the accident and the vehicle was being driven in breach of the terms of the policy, the Insurance Company has to discharge the burden by placing legal and cogent evidence before the Tribunal. Mere non-production of licence is not enough to discharge the burden of the insurance company.