Welcoem to posts!!
in the future - u will be able to do some more stuff here,,,!! like pat catgirl- i mean um yeah... for now u can only see others's posts :c
Legal pointπ«ππ΄
==============
Acceptance of gift to minorπ
______________________________
Sakaran Poulu v/s Sundari Vijayamma, 2013(4) RCR (Civil) 85,..it was held,
π Knowledge of gift deed to both the parents as natural guardian of the minor donee is sufficient to indicate acceptance of gift by the minor himself or on his behalf by the parents.
Furthermore it was open to the donor to transfer the title and ownership of the property by way of gift and at the same time to reserve it's possession and enjoyment to himself during his lifetime. There is no prohibition in law that ownership in property can not be gifted without it's possession and right of enjoyment u/s 6 of T. P. Actπ
In Balan v/s Baby Girijja, 2013(2) Ker LJ 646, it was held,
π When donee is a minor the acceptance of the gift can be made only by her natural guardian. When father is himself donor, acceptance of father can be presumedπ
0 - 0
Legal point ππ«π
================
Whether advolerm court fee payable on suit for possession by mandatory injunction against licenseeπ
_________________
Harish Chand v/s Somnath, 2013(1) RCR(Civil) 367,..it was held,
π License stood terminated and mesne profit also claimed but by this plaintiff do not become here liable to pay advolerm court fee on market value of property π
Refund of court fee on private settlement without intervention of courtπ
____________________________"_________
Abbas v. Mayinkutty, 2012(3) KLT 540, it was held,
π A private, arrangement between parties without intervention of the court would not amount to a settlement as provided u/s 89 of the CPC. If sec 89 CPC does not apply, refund of court fee does not ariseπ
Advocate - locus standiπ
ΎοΈπ
ΎοΈ
_____________________________
SIR 2001 SC 1739, it was held,
π Advocate can not file writ petition in his own name as substitute of his clientπ
0 - 0
Legal point ππ«π΄
===============
Can certificate submitted in college at the time admission be retained by college π
____""__________"_""_________""""_____"""
S Muthukamatchi v/s Director of Technical Education, 2013(124) AIC 410, it was held,
π Certificates are property of student. Said certificates not like fixed deposit receipt on which bank claim general lien in term of sec 171 contract act. Held, certificates can not be retained at any rateπ
0 - 0
Legal pointπ΄ππ«
==============
Can order for DNA test to find out paternity be made in proceedings u/s 125 CrPcπ
____________________________________
Soma Rama Chandran v/s State of AP, 2013(3) RCR (Civil) 707(AP),..it was held,
π yes, court can order and even order to use necessary force.
However, it further held, court can not order use of force in criminal cases. Proceedings u/s 125 Crpc are purely civil in nature and not criminal π
0 - 0
Legal pointπ«π΄π
===============
Deed of cancellation of registration of GPA not signed by the person in whose favour GPA was executedπ
_____________________________________________
Mir Khader Ali Khan v/s District Registrar, 2013(6) RCR(Civil) 2319,...it was held,
π Agent of GPA can not derive any independent right under such arrangement. Right of principal to unilaterally cancel the GPA even if coupled with interest is recognized by the law. Principal need not seek the participation of the agent for cancellation of such GPA. Refusing to register the GPA cancellation relying on rule 26(i) (k) of the rules under the Registration Act is not sustainable. Sub- Registrar is directed to process the document presented for registration π
0 - 0
Legal pointππ«π΄
, =========,
Generic word (trade mark) π
__________________________
Reliable International v/s Ashok Dang, 1998 PTC 518,..it was held,
π΄ The term reliable is a general term and no party can claim injunction on its use (sec 9) π΄
Concurrent user π
_________________
Maekawa Bearing Mfg. Co v/s Onkar Bearing Industries, 1998 PTC 300,..it was held,
π΄ In case of honest use, if in the opinion of the Registrar, it is found proper so to do, he may permit registration by more than one proprietors of trade marks which are identical or nearly resemble each other irrespective of the fact whether any such trade mark is already registered or not, in respect of the same goods or description of goods on conditions and limitations, if any, thought fit to be imposed by the Registrar ((sec 12(3) &33))π
Infringement π
_____________
Relaxo Rubber Limited v/s Aman Cable Industries, 1998 PTC 759(DB),...it was held,
π Use of trade mark for different class of goods does not constitute infringement ((sec 30(1)) π
Deceptive similarity π
___________________
S. M. Dyechem Ltd v/s Cadbury (India) Ltd, 2000 PTC 297 (SC), .. it was held,
π if the essential features have been copied, the intention to deceive or to cause confusion is not relevant in an infringement action. Even if without an intention to deceive, a false representation is made, it can be sufficient. Similarly, confusion may be created unintentionally but yet the purchaser of goods may get confused for he doesn't have the knowledge of facts which can enable him not to get confused π
Infringement but delay in taking actionπ
______________________________________
Rupa & Co v/s Dawn Mills Co. Ltd, 1999 PTC 334,..it was held,
π Delay in seeking action can defeat the claim to past damages and accounts but not the relief of injunction π
Phonetic similarityπ
__________________
Charak Pharmaceuticals v/s Deepharma Ltd, 1988 PTC 455,..it was held,
π Both drugs for treatment of same illness but belonging to different system of medicine. Likelihood of confusion. Injunction can not be denied π
Passing off & Infringement- distinctionπ
_____________________________________
Borosil Glass Works v/s O. P. Batra, 1998 PTC 101,...it was held,
π Use of trade mark in question is not necessary but deceit in passing off is necessary π
Abandonment by non useπ
__________________________
Omprakash Gupta v/s Praveen Kumar, 2000 PTC 326, .. It was held,
π Once a person has abandoned a trade mark by non user, he can not claim any right on the basis of such abandoned trade mark of course, by its use again and in such case he would have no remedy against the person who adopts and uses similar trade mark in the meantime π
Advertisement - knowledge / use of trade mark π
______________________________________
Alfred Dunhil Limited v/s Kartar Singh Makkar, 1999 PTC 294,..it was held,
π Dissemination of knowledge of trade mark in respect of a product thru advertisement in media amounts to use of the trade mark whether or not the advertisement is coupled with actual existence of the product in the market π
0 - 0
Legal pointππ«π΄
==============
Stay of Bank Guarantee u/s 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996π
____________________________
Saw Pipes Limited v/s Gas Authority of India Limited, 1999 (49) DRJ 310,..it was held,
π Failure to establish fraud or a case of irretrievable injustice. Absolute discretion conferred on beneficiary to invoke the bank guarantee. Stay of bank guarantee can not be grantedπ
0 - 0
Legal point ππ«π΄
===============
Resjudicata (sec 11 of CPC) in respect of bonafide requirement of premisesπ
___________________________________
Ram Sevak v/s Dr Chakresh Kumar, 2003(1) RCR(Rent) 214(MP),...it was held,.
π suit for eviction filed by land lady for requirement of her grandson, got dismissed. Landlady bequeathed the premises to grandson. Held,
Suit for eviction by grandson is not barred by resjudicata. Bonafide requirement is a recurring cause of actionπ
Sec. 80 CPC notice and it's objectionπ
_____________________________________
Mohant Ram v/s Nankoo Ram, 2003(1) (RCR) Civil 134, ... It was held,
π Objection on notice can be raised by the Government only because notice is required for the benefit of the Government Or Public Officer. They can waive the notice and can be estopped by their own conduct from pleading want of noticeπ
Sec 90 CPC - abatement and/ continuing suit by legal representative of landlordπ
__________________________________
Kanhaiya Lal v/s Lrs of Late Smt Amoli Bai, 2003(2) RCR(Rent) 354(Rajasthan),..it was held,
π Grounds of bonafide requirement and other grounds which were personal to deceased landlord perish with his death. Legal Representatives however can continue the suit on grounds of eviction which were not personal to deceased landlord. Legal Representatives can also add other grounds of eviction which might be available to them π
Difference between appeal & revision (sec 96 & 115 CPCπ
_____________________________________________
M/s I.T.I Ltd v/s M/s Siemens Public Communication Network Ltd., 2003(1) RCR(Civil) 745(SC),...it was held,
π in appeal inference can be made both on facts and law whereas in revision only errors relating to jurisdiction can ge correctedπ
Necessary party in joint ownership and their implement (order 1 rule 10 CPC) π
____________________________________________
Hem Chand v/s Ved Prakash, 2003(4) RCR(Civil) 160,...it was held,
π all the Co-sharers are not necessary to be impleaded as parties to claim for possession. Even one Co-sharer has right to claim for the benefit of all the Co-sharers π
Injunction during execution (order 21 rule 97, sec 94 and 151 CPC) π
___________________________________________
Ahmed Hussain v/s Kanti Lal, 2003(1) RCR(Civil) 110,...it was held,
π Temporary injunction under inherent powers of court can be granted apart from sec 94, 151, order 39 rule 1 of code. It could be done during pendency of execution proceedings to regulate and shorten litigation, in doing substantial justice till rights of parties are finally adjudicated uponπ
Disobedience of temporary injunctionπ
______________________________________
S. K. Yousuf v/s Shaik Madhar Saheb, 2003(4) RCR(Civil) 734 (A.P),... It was held,
π Though order 39 rule 2A of CPC can be invoked in case of disobedience of the injunction, it is always open to parties to seek police protection under section 151 of CPCπ
Advocate commissioner to find out who is in possession of disputed property (order 26 rule 9 of CPC) π
____________________________________________
M/s Benz Automobiles P. Ltd v/s Mohanasundaram, 2003(4) RCR(Civil) 743(Madras),...it was held,
π Advocate Commissioner can not be appointed to find out as to who is in possession. He can not go into the question as to who is in actual possession of the premises and even if the Commissioner were to submit the report, it is always questionable by way of filing objections. Dispute can be properly appreciated only after recording of oral and documentary evidence that may be let in by parties π
Corporate veil when liftedπ
__________________________
Space Enterprises v/s Srivivasa Enterprises Ltd, 1998 (45) 375,...it was held,
π The doctrine of lifting corporate veil could be applied in cases of tax evasion or to circumvent tax obligation or to perpetuate fraud or trading with enemy are concerned π
Framing of legal issueπ
_______________________
Lakshmikant Shreekant (HUF) v/s M. N. Dastur & Co (P) Ltd., 1998 (44) DRJ 502,..it was held,
π issue need not be framed in respect of a point of law which is perfectly clearπ
Contempt of court, when not maintainable (qua violation of injunction order) π
__________________________________
J. R. Jindal v/s Family Planning Association of India, 1999(50) DRJ 451, .. It was held,
π Application under order 39 rule 2-A of CPC rejected on merits. Petition seeking to invoke contempt jurisdiction of High Court in respect of same cause of action is not maintainable π
0 - 0
Legal pointπ π«π΄
===============
Communication between husband and wife- it's admissibilty in evidence (sec 122 Evidence Act) π
___________________________________________
Bhalchandra Namdeo Shinde v/s State of Maharashtra, 2003 (4) RCR(Criminal) 813(Bombay),...it was held,
π΄ Communication between husband and wife is inadmissible in evidence. However, what is witnessed by wife is admissible in evidence as witnessing a thing is not communication π΄
Burden of proof & onus of proof (u/s 102 & 103 of Evidence Act) π
__________________________________________
R. V. E. Venketachala Founder v/s Arulmigu Viswesaraseami & V. P. Temple, 2003(4) RCR(Civil) 705,.....it was held,
π΄ Burden of proof lies upon a person who has to prove the fact and which never shifts. Onus of proof shifts. Such a shifting of onus is a continuous process in the evaluation of evidence π΄
Difference between sec 91 & 92 Evidence Act π
____________________________________________
Roop Kumar v/s Mohan Thedani, 2003(1) RCR(Rent) 615(SC),..it was held,
π sec 91 applies to all documents, whether they purport to dispose of rights or not whereas sec 92 applies to documents which can be described as dispositive. Sec 91 applies to documents which are both bilateral and unilateral unlike sec 92, the application of which is confined to only to bilateral documents π
1 - 0
Legal point ππ«π΄
===============
Widow daughter in law's right to maintenance u/s 19, Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act π
_____________________________________________
Balbir Kaur v/s Harinder Kaur, 2003(1) RCR (Civil) 624 (P&H),... It was held,
π΄ The widowed daughter in law of predeceased son, unable to maintain herself, is entitled to claim right of maintenance against the self-acquired property of her father-in law whether it is in his hand or in the hands of his heie or donee. Such right to maintenance must include provision for food, clothing and a roof over her head as basic need of life π΄
Divorce on ground of Wife's not leaving job and joining matrimonial homeπ
____________________________________________
Jagadish Mangtani v/s Geeta Jagdish Mangtani, 2003(3) RCR(Civil) 279 (Gujrat),... It was held,
π΄ Wife's insistence of not leaving job and to join matrimonial home amounts to desertion. Husband is entitled to decree of divorce u/s 13(1) (ib) of Hindu Marriage Actπ΄
Minor's property sale by natural guardianπ
___________________________________________
A. R. Deivasingamani Mudaliar v/s T. N. Somasundara Nadar, 2003(4) RCR(Civil) 510(Madras),...it was held,
π΄ Since sec 29 of the Guardians and Wards Act deals with disposal of immovable property by guardian appointed by court. It will not apply where property of minor is sold by natural guardian π΄
1 - 0
Welcome to #"Lawyer's instant online Advice" by Adv. Jitu Burman (Bcom, LLB), Legal Remembrancer and Opinionator. I am here to provide insights, guidance, legal advice and opinions on a range of legal topics being part of an apparent #dictionary. From property law and tenant rights to civil cases as well as criminal ones and personal legal queries, I have tried to break down complex legal issues in simple terms. Subscribe to gain clarity on legal matters and empower yourself with the knowledge you need to navigate the legal landscape confidently.
My aim, as a# lawyer/ solicitor, is to bring clarity on commonly applicable laws but in crispy form so that chewing becomes easier and at the same time adding value to own (legal) health.
VARIOUS JUDGEMENTS/ PRECEDENT MEMOIR FOR EARNING MORE CLARITY ON RAISED LEGAL POINTS ETC. ARE BEING INCORPORATED AT COMMUNITY POST... HOPE THIS WOULD HELP...
Query, if any, at advocatejb2009@gmail.com, is welcome