Niyamskanoon

Posts

Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353

Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353 Case Summary Introduction The case of Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate involved a dispute between the management of the Dimakuchi Tea Estate and its workers. This case has discussed and cleared the meaning of the expression "any person" used in S.2(K) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of a limited interpretation of the term "any person" thereby excluding the present appellant from the ambit of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947. This decision denied the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate the dispute and extended the benefits and protections of the Act to the employers. Facts of the Case The dispute was raised over the termination of the service of Dr K.P. Banerjee, who was appointed as an Assistant Medical Officer in the Respondent's estate (Dimakuchi Tea Estate), on the grounds of being incompetent. Although th

State of U.P. v. Jai Bir Singh (2005) Case Summary Introduction The present appeal along with other connected cases was made to this 5-Judge Bench on the reference of the 3-Judge Bench of this Court. Factual Background Jai Bir Singh and other respondents were employed by the Uttar Pradesh State Warehousing Corporation (UPSWC), a statutory corporation. Their services were terminated without a formal inquiry or adherence to procedures laid out in the Industrial Disputes Act, of 1947. The respondents challenged their termination, claiming it was unjust and that they were entitled to protections under the Industrial Disputes Act as "workmen." Case History This case was referred by the three-judge Bench of this Court to a five-judge Bench after finding different opinions by this Court in two different cases over the same issue of whether the "Social Forestry Department" of State which is a welfare scheme would be covered by the definition of "industry"

Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v. State of Gujarat (2004) Case Summary Facts It was stated that as a part of retaliatory action to avenge the killing of 56 persons in the Sabarmati Express, an unruly mob burnt down the business named 'Best Bakery' at Vadodara, Gujrat. Zahira was the main eyewitness who lost her family members. She made her statement during the investigation based on which the Chargesheet was filed but she resiled from her statement during the trial. Case History The Trial Court acquitted the accused. She approached the National Human Rights Commission [NHRC] stating that she was turned hostile during the trial because she was threatened by the powerful politicians to not speak against the accused person. Therefore, an SLP under Article 32 was filed by NHRC before the Supreme Court Court. Also, the State, though not up to the mark and with due care, and the appellant filed an appeal before the High Court and one Sahera Banu filed a revision petition before the Hi

Mohd. Ajmal Amir Kasab v. State of Maharashtra (2012) Case Summary Facts Ajmal Kasab, a Pakistani national and a member of the terrorist organisation named " Lashkar-e-Taiba", came to India with 9 others. He carried 12 coordinated shooting and bombing attacks which lasted for four days till 29 Nov 2008 across Mumbai resulting in the death of a total of 175 people with more than 300 injured. After his arrest, he refused to take the services of Indian lawyers and demanded a lawyer from his country. Later on, getting no help from his country, the appellant was convinced to be represented by Indian lawyers. This appeal was raised against the order of the High Court which upheld the conviction order of the Trial Court. The Trial Court relying on the evidences, witnesses and his confessional statement convicted him and sentenced him to death. Contentions of the Appellant's Counsel Fair trial is an essential right of every person, which includes the right to be represe

Rohtas Industries Staff Union v. State of Bihar, AIR 1963 || Case Summary What we will learn Whether the "industrial disputes" cover a dispute raised due to the loss of the employers caused by the strike of the employees. Whether the workers had committed the tort of conspiracy. Whether the workers, who participated in an illegal strike, were protected by S.18 of the Trade Union Act. Whether the company has the right of civil action for damages against the worker. Facts The petitioner, a registered trade Union known as the Rohtas Industries Mazdoor Sangh, went on a strike against the non-payment of bonus and non-implementation of the Shri Jee Jee Bhoy's award by the respondents. The strike ended on an agreement between the parties in which they agreed to settle their dispute through arbitration, as provided under S.10A of the Industrial Dispute Act. The main issue before the arbitrators was whether the workers were liable to get payment for the period of the strike or

R.S. Ruikar v. Emperor, 1935 Case Summary/Brief Facts The appellant was the President of the Nagpur Textile Union, who organized a strike against the Empress Mills, Nagpur for not fulfilling certain conditions settled by them in a previous strike. The appellant in order to make the strike more impactful and to get the involvement of larger members encouraged the members to picket at the mills through speeches. Also, on a complaint from female members, of the harassment by the police, the appellant posted his wife on the gate of a mill with instructions to beat, with her slippers, anyone who interfered with her. The charges under S.7 of the Criminal Amendment Law were made against him for the abetment of picketing and a conviction order was made by the Court. Hence the appellant made a revision petition. Issues Whether the Court was right in making the conviction order. Whether the appellant will get the benefit of S.17 of the Trade Union Act. Contentions of the Appellant By referring

In Re Inland Steam Navigation Worker’s Union, AIR 1936 || Case Summary Facts An application for the registration of the "Inland Steam Navigation Worker’s Union", formed by the employees of all Inland Steamer Services, was rejected by the Registrar on the ground of a declaration made by the General Sec. of the Inland Steam Navigation Worker's Union that this Union was formerly known as RSN and LGN and Ry. Workers' Union which have been declared unlawful under S. 16 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908, and had been banned. Therefore the appellant came here under S.11 of the Trade Union Act. Issue Whether the Registrar of the Trade Union was right to pass a decision after relying on the letter presented before the Bengal Government. Ratio Decidendi The Registrar must have to notify and provide an opportunity to defend to the appellant before rejecting the application on the basis of the letter. Section 8 of the Trade Union Act empowers the Registrar to refuse a

The Tamil Nadu Non-Gazetted Government Officers’ Union, Madras v. The Registrar of Trade Unions, AIR 1962||Case Summary Facts The appellant Union was a Service Association of all the Non-gazetted Officers of the Madras Government except the executive officers of police and prison departments. Ten members of the association made an application to the Registrar for registration as a Trade Union. The Registrar rejected the application on the ground that the said association of ministerial employees cannot claim registration as a trade union. Case History In an appeal under S. 11 of the Trade Union to the Court of Learned Judge Rama Chandra Iyer, w hile upholding the order of the Registrar said:- "Workman" under S. 2(h) of the Trade Union Act includes only manual laborers and workers and does not include civil servants. The concept of collective bargaining which is the rationale behind trade unions does not apply to government servants. Also, a trade union has the r

Abdul Karim v. State of Karnataka (2000) Introduction The present appeal was raised against the order of a Special Designated court which withdrew the charges made under TADA, on an application made by Special Public Prosecutor under S.321 of the CrPC. The appellant alleged that the application to withdraw the prosecution was made in lieu of the release of actor Rajkumar who had been abducted by the prime accused Veerappan. Facts Veerappan, a prime accused in various cases under different penal laws for committing offenses such as smuggling of elephants ivory and sandalwood, kidnapping, murder, and so on, abducted a famous actor Rajkumar and 3 others, out of them 1 was escaped and 1 was released. The accused Veerappan put a total of 12 demands before the State Government of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka for the release of Rajkumar and another. Out of the 12 demands, 2 are important for our consideration in this case. The first was to release his associates from Karnataka pris

Ajay Kumar Parmar v. State of Rajasthan, 2012 Case Summary Facts An FIR was registered on 23.03.1997 after a statement under S.161 of Crpc made before the Dy. SP by the victim Pushpa in which she stated that the appellants Ajay Kumar Parmar and his father had raped her on 10.03.1997. On an application made by Pushpa, as she was unsatisfied with the investigation of the police, the CJM, Sirohi directed the Judicial Magistrate, Sheoganj to take her statement under S.164 of the CrPC. The plaintiff in her statement under S.164 before the Judicial Magistrate stated that the FIR and the statement recorded before the Dy. SP was false and no offence had been committed. Therefore the Magistrate acquitted the appellant. Case History The Session Court while allowing the revision petition filed by the Public Prosecutor reversed the order of the Magistrate on two grounds:- Section 342 and 376 of IPC are triable by the Session Court, therefore no Magistrate can acquit the appellant on an

Mohan Singh v. State of Bihar, 2011

Mohan Singh v. State of Bihar, 2011 Facts An FIR was registered by the Motihari Town Police Station on 03.08.2005 against the appellants Mohan Singh, Laxmi Singh and others for the murder of the father (Sureshwar Jha) and brother (Anil Kumar Jha) of the informant Vikas Kumar Jha. The informant in its fardbeyan disclosed that the appellants were known to his family and had made several attempts to extort money from his family earlier by threatening them for which a complaint had been also filed with the police. The informant alleged that the appellants had killed his brother and father for not having paid the extortion money. Accordingly, the charges were framed for the murder of the deceased and criminal conspiracy under S.120B and extortion under S.387 of the IPC. Case History The Session Court sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment for criminal conspiracy to murder under S.120B, IPC and for extortion (S.387) The High Court upheld the conviction order of the Session Court. There

Rangaswami v. Registrar of Trade Unions, AIR 1962||Case Summary Facts Persons employed at Raj Bhavan of Guindy and Ootacamund, Tamilnadu as domestic helpers, gardeners, and maistries formed a Trade union and applied for its registration before the registrar of Trade Union, Madras. Although all of them were appointed and controlled by the Comptroller, only the domestic helpers were entitled to the pension. Case History The Registrar rejected the application for registration on the ground that members were not associated with a trade or business, which is essential to form a trade union as per S.2(h) of the Trade Union Act, 1926. The petitioner made an appeal under S.11 of the Trade Union Act of 1926. Petitioner Contention The term "Workmen" means one employed in an industry. Although the definition of an Industry is not given in the Trade Union Act Industry, as per S.2(j) of the Industrial Dispute Act includes the services provided by the workers as they were not only serving

State (Delhi Administration) v. Sanjay Gandhi (1978) Case Summary Facts The present appeal for the cancellation of bail was raised after the two approvers turned hostile and resiled from their earlier statements. Earlier the respondent was granted anticipatory bail on charges made by the CBI under S.120B read with S.409, S.435, and S.201 of the IPC. It was alleged that the respondent along with other officials and Minister for Information and Broadcasting, V.C. Shukla, had burnt and destroyed the film "Kissa Kursi Ka" in a factory premises of Maruti Ltd, which had to be screened before the Judges of the Supreme Court to decide whether the censor board had rightly refused to grant certificate for exhibition or not. Issue Whether the High Court was right in rejecting the application for cancellation of bail. Ratio Decidendi The Court said rejection of bail and cancellation of bail is different, it is easier to reject a bail application than to cancel a bail granted. T

Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, 1980 case summary Introduction A very interesting case, where the Court discussed Anticipatory bail which is enshrined in Chapter XXXIII, Section 438 of CRPC, 1973 (Provision of Anticipatory Bail is given under Section 482, Bhartiye Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,2023 ) Facts This appeal was raised by Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia, who was a Minister of Irrigation and Power in the Government of Punjab and allegedly committed various political Corruption, against the judgement of the Full Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court which rejected the anticipatory bail application made under S.438. The Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court formulated eight-point rules to be considered while granting anticipatory bail. These are- The power under S.438 is extraordinary and shall be used sparingly in exceptional cases only. It shall not be granted as a blanket for offences not yet committed or without any accusations made. All the condi

Reckitt Benkiser India Ltd vs Wyeth Ltd. Case Summary Facts The issue referred to this full bench was raised out of an appeal made to the division bench where the appellant was claiming the protection of its registered design for an S-shaped spatula from infringing by the respondent. The referred issues were concerned with the judgement of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dabur India Ltd. v. Amit Jain & Anr ., 2009 in which- they held that the term "prior publication" as mentioned in S.4(b) & S.19(1)(b) does not include publication abroad by the existence of the design in the records of the Registrar which is open for public inspection. they concurred with the judgement of the Single Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case of Gopal Glass Works Ltd. 2006 and held that mere publication of designs, specifications, drawings and/or demonstrations by the patent office in a foreign country would not make a design registered in India liable to cancellation und

Bharat Glass Tube Limited v. Gopal Glass Works Limited 2008 Case Summary/Interpretation|| Bharat Glass Tube Ltd v Gopal Glass Works Ltd summary Facts In a suit filed by the respondent (Gopal Glass Works Ltd), the District Court decreed in his favour and restrained the appellant (Bharat Glass Tube Ltd) from infringing the design registered by the respondent. Thereafter, the appellant filed an application under S.19 of the Design Act, 2000 before the Controller of Patents & Designs for the cancellation of the registration of the respondent's design on the ground that the design was not new or original and has already been published in India. The appellant submitted two documents for his contention:- The German company that manufactured the roller with the design for the respondent had already registered the design in 1992 for the roller. A document downloaded from the official website of the Patent Office of the United Kingdom shows that the same design was registered in the name

Kapil Wadhwa v. Samsung Electronics Case, 2012| Case Summary Facts/Plaint This appeal was raised before the division bench of the Delhi High Court from the judgment of the single bench of this Court in an action for infringement of a trademark registered by the plaintiff-respondents. The respondents pleaded that the appellant was purchasing printers from a foreign market and selling them in the Indian market under the same trademark in which the plaintiff bought i.e. "SAMSUNG". Hence the appellant was infringing the registered trademark in India by importing and selling the goods without the consent or permission of the registered proprietor. S.29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 bars such unpermitted import and sell. The respondents submitted that since those imported printers were not made for the Indian market, the appellants by selling them to the Indian people are causing injury to them. The defendants/appellants contended that the exception to S.29 as under S.30(3) of the T

Search This Blog

Niyamskanoon

Posts

Must Read

M.N. Clubwala v. Fida Hussain Saheb, 1964

Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353

State of U.P. v. Jai Bir Singh (2005) 5 SCC 1

Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v. State of Gujarat (2004)

Mohd. Ajmal Amir Kasab v. State of Maharashtra (2012)

Rohtas Industries Staff Union v. State of Bihar AIR 1963 Pat. 170

R.S. Ruikar v. Emperor AIR 1935 Nag. 149

In Re Inland Steam Navigation Worker’s Union, AIR 1936

The Tamil Nadu Non-Gazetted Government Officers’ Union, Madras v. The Registrar of Trade Unions, AIR 1962

Abdul Karim v. State of Karnataka (2000)

Ajay Kumar Parmar v. State of Rajasthan, 2012

Mohan Singh v. State of Bihar, 2011

Rangaswami v. Registrar of Trade Unions, AIR 1962

State (Delhi Administration) v. Sanjay Gandhi (1978)

Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, 1980

Reckitt Benkiser India Ltd vs Wyeth Ltd. 15 March, 2013

Bharat Glass Tube Limited v. Gopal Glass Works Limited 2008 (37) PTC 1 (SC)

Kapil Wadhwa v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., 194(2012)DLT23; MIPR2012(3)191