PREFACE The Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as the ISO... more PREFACE The Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as the ISO) was enacted to require employers in industrial establishments to define with sufficient precision the conditions of employment under them, and to make the said conditions known to workmen employed by them. The ISO not only requires the employers to lay down conditions of service but also requires that the conditions of service must be clearly laid down so that there may not be any confusion or uncertainty in the minds of the workmen, who are required to work in accordance therewith. It has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the report: Management, Shahdara (Delhi) Saharanpur Light Railway Co. Ltd. V/s S.S. Railway Workers' Union, AIR 1969 SC 513, that the object of ISO is to require employers to define with certainty conditions of service in their industrial establishment and to reduce them to writing and to get them compulsorily certified (Section 3 of the ISO), so that unnecessary industrial disputes can be avoided. The employer of every industrial establishment is required to submit to the Certifying Officer, draft standing orders proposed by him for adoption in his industrial establishment for certification under Section 3 of the ISO. The Certifying Officer is empowered to modify or add to the draft as is necessary to render the draft standing orders certifiable under the ISO. It is important to note that, draft standing orders submitted to the Certifying Officer are to be accompanied by a statement giving prescribed particulars of the workmen employed in the industrial establishment including the name of the trade union, if any, to which the workmen belong.
This article is in the nature of a case study albeit the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme... more This article is in the nature of a case study albeit the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of: Dinesh Singh Thakur v. Sonal Thakur, whereby the Apex Court in a matter concerning matrimonial discord refused to exercise its power of granting anti-suit injunction to stay the proceedings initiated by the respondent-wife (hereinafter referred to as 'W') in the Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit in and for Pinellas County, Florida (USA) for grant of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage and other reliefs, despite the fact that the appellant-husband (hereinafter referred to as 'H') had already filed a petition being HMA No. 601/2016 under Sections 13 and 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in the Family Court (Gurgaon, India).
In one of the most primitive decision on the subject, namely, Singer Manufacturing Co. v. Loog, (... more In one of the most primitive decision on the subject, namely, Singer Manufacturing Co. v. Loog, (1880) 18 Ch D 395: (1882) 8 App Cas 15 (HL), James, L.J. deliberating on the principle underlying the trade mark law observed that: " …No man is entitled to represent his goods as being the goods of another man; and no man is permitted to use any mark, sign or symbol, device or means whereby, without making a direct false representation himself to a purchaser who purchases from him, he enables such purchaser to tell a lie or to make a false representation to somebody else who is the ultimate customer. That being, as it appears to me, a comprehensive statement of what the law is upon the question of trademark or trade designation, I am of opinion that there is no such thing as a monopoly or a property in the nature of a copyright or in the nature of a patent, in the use of any name. Whatever name is used to designate goods, anybody may use that name to designate goods; always subject to this, that he must not, as I said, make, directly or through the medium of another person, a false representation that his goods are the goods of another person… " The view taken by James, L.J. in Singer (Supra) lends credence to the fact that trademark rights like all other property rights that accrue upon an individual pursuant to the property in goods that he owns and possesses, have to be safeguarded jealously against infringement and passing off.
A conjoint reading of Section 114 and Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 makes it crys... more A conjoint reading of Section 114 and Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 makes it crystal clear that court may allow review petition only on the following three grounds: (i) discovery of new and important matter or evidence, which after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the review-petitioner or could not be produced by the review-petitioner at the time when the decree/order/judgment was passed or made; (ii) mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or (iii) for any other sufficient (cogent) reason. In the matter of D.R. Somayajulu & Ors v. Attili Appala Swamy & Anr, (2015) SCCR 254, it was held that an application for review on the ground of discovery of new material facts should be considered with great caution and should not be granted on a mere asking. A review petition can be filed within 30 days from the date of the judgment or order sought to be reviewed. A review petition must be accompanied by a certificate of the lawyer that the review petition is justified.
A ‘Will’ is an instrument by which a person makes a disposition of his property to take effect af... more A ‘Will’ is an instrument by which a person makes a disposition of his property to take effect after his death and which is in its own nature ambulatory and revocable during his life. A ‘Will’ is an obstruction in the line of succession. Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 declares the substantive law regarding the execution of an unprivileged ‘Will’ and it mandates that the testator has to sign or affix his mark in the presence of two or more attesting witnesses, it being not necessary that the two attesting witnesses should simultaneously be present to witness the execution of the ‘Will’. On a combined reading of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, it is clear that a person propounding the ‘Will’ must prove that the ‘Will’ was duly and validly executed, and this cannot be done by simply proving that the signature on the ‘Will’ is that of the testator but by also proving that the attestations made on the ‘Will’ are in the manner (and form) as required by clause (c) of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. Section 71 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides that if the attesting witness denies or does not recollect the execution of the document (‘Will’), its execution may be proved by other evidence. The period of three years (Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963) for institution of a petition for grant of probate commences from the point in time when the right to apply for probate accrues to the petitioner. As per Section 212(2) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, a Hindu, Muhammadan, Buddhist, Sikh, Jaina, Indian Christian or Parsi is not bound to apply for letters of administration (probate). It is optional (and not mandatory) for the above stated categories of persons to seek probate of ‘Will’.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India took upon itself, in the matter of Excel Crop Care v. Competit... more The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India took upon itself, in the matter of Excel Crop Care v. Competition Commission of India (hereinafter referred to as “Excel”), the task of answering certain crucial questions of law relating to the Competition Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), which came before the Hon’ble Court for adjudication. These questions can be accounted for as follows: a. Section 3 of the Act having been notified on 20th May, 2009 is prospective or retrospective in operation? b. Is there any difference between collusive bidding and bid rigging? c. Whether penalty under Section 27(b) of the Act has to be on “total turnover” of the company covering all its products or it is relatable to “relevant turnover” viz. relating to the product in question in respect whereof the provisions of the Act are contravened?
This article is a comment on the ambit, scope and the area of operation of Section 88 read with O... more This article is a comment on the ambit, scope and the area of operation of Section 88 read with Order XXXV of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 dealing with interpleader suits. Preface: An interpleader suit is one in which the real controversy/dispute is not between the plaintiff and the defendant, but is rather between the defendants only, who inter-plead against each other. The hallmark of an interpleader suit is the fact that, in an interpleader suit, the plaintiff is not really interested in the subject-matter of the suit. The primary and the foremost object of an interpleader suit are to have the claims of rival defendants adjudicated, for, in an interpleader suit, there must be some debt, or, some money, or, other property in dispute between the defendants only. The plaintiff in an interpleader suit must be in a position of impartiality/ non-arbitrariness. The Halsbury's Laws of England: The Halsbury's Laws of England (Fourth Edition), Volume 37, Para 264 (at p.200) states that, " Where a person is under liability in respect of a debt or in respect of any money, goods or chattels and he is, or expects to be sued for or in respect of the debt or money or those goods or chattels, by two or more persons making adverse claims thereto, he may apply to the court for relief by way of interpleader " .
PREFACE The Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as the ISO... more PREFACE The Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as the ISO) was enacted to require employers in industrial establishments to define with sufficient precision the conditions of employment under them, and to make the said conditions known to workmen employed by them. The ISO not only requires the employers to lay down conditions of service but also requires that the conditions of service must be clearly laid down so that there may not be any confusion or uncertainty in the minds of the workmen, who are required to work in accordance therewith. It has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the report: Management, Shahdara (Delhi) Saharanpur Light Railway Co. Ltd. V/s S.S. Railway Workers' Union, AIR 1969 SC 513, that the object of ISO is to require employers to define with certainty conditions of service in their industrial establishment and to reduce them to writing and to get them compulsorily certified (Section 3 of the ISO), so that unnecessary industrial disputes can be avoided. The employer of every industrial establishment is required to submit to the Certifying Officer, draft standing orders proposed by him for adoption in his industrial establishment for certification under Section 3 of the ISO. The Certifying Officer is empowered to modify or add to the draft as is necessary to render the draft standing orders certifiable under the ISO. It is important to note that, draft standing orders submitted to the Certifying Officer are to be accompanied by a statement giving prescribed particulars of the workmen employed in the industrial establishment including the name of the trade union, if any, to which the workmen belong.
This article is in the nature of a case study albeit the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme... more This article is in the nature of a case study albeit the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of: Dinesh Singh Thakur v. Sonal Thakur, whereby the Apex Court in a matter concerning matrimonial discord refused to exercise its power of granting anti-suit injunction to stay the proceedings initiated by the respondent-wife (hereinafter referred to as 'W') in the Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit in and for Pinellas County, Florida (USA) for grant of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage and other reliefs, despite the fact that the appellant-husband (hereinafter referred to as 'H') had already filed a petition being HMA No. 601/2016 under Sections 13 and 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in the Family Court (Gurgaon, India).
In one of the most primitive decision on the subject, namely, Singer Manufacturing Co. v. Loog, (... more In one of the most primitive decision on the subject, namely, Singer Manufacturing Co. v. Loog, (1880) 18 Ch D 395: (1882) 8 App Cas 15 (HL), James, L.J. deliberating on the principle underlying the trade mark law observed that: " …No man is entitled to represent his goods as being the goods of another man; and no man is permitted to use any mark, sign or symbol, device or means whereby, without making a direct false representation himself to a purchaser who purchases from him, he enables such purchaser to tell a lie or to make a false representation to somebody else who is the ultimate customer. That being, as it appears to me, a comprehensive statement of what the law is upon the question of trademark or trade designation, I am of opinion that there is no such thing as a monopoly or a property in the nature of a copyright or in the nature of a patent, in the use of any name. Whatever name is used to designate goods, anybody may use that name to designate goods; always subject to this, that he must not, as I said, make, directly or through the medium of another person, a false representation that his goods are the goods of another person… " The view taken by James, L.J. in Singer (Supra) lends credence to the fact that trademark rights like all other property rights that accrue upon an individual pursuant to the property in goods that he owns and possesses, have to be safeguarded jealously against infringement and passing off.
A conjoint reading of Section 114 and Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 makes it crys... more A conjoint reading of Section 114 and Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 makes it crystal clear that court may allow review petition only on the following three grounds: (i) discovery of new and important matter or evidence, which after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the review-petitioner or could not be produced by the review-petitioner at the time when the decree/order/judgment was passed or made; (ii) mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or (iii) for any other sufficient (cogent) reason. In the matter of D.R. Somayajulu & Ors v. Attili Appala Swamy & Anr, (2015) SCCR 254, it was held that an application for review on the ground of discovery of new material facts should be considered with great caution and should not be granted on a mere asking. A review petition can be filed within 30 days from the date of the judgment or order sought to be reviewed. A review petition must be accompanied by a certificate of the lawyer that the review petition is justified.
A ‘Will’ is an instrument by which a person makes a disposition of his property to take effect af... more A ‘Will’ is an instrument by which a person makes a disposition of his property to take effect after his death and which is in its own nature ambulatory and revocable during his life. A ‘Will’ is an obstruction in the line of succession. Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 declares the substantive law regarding the execution of an unprivileged ‘Will’ and it mandates that the testator has to sign or affix his mark in the presence of two or more attesting witnesses, it being not necessary that the two attesting witnesses should simultaneously be present to witness the execution of the ‘Will’. On a combined reading of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, it is clear that a person propounding the ‘Will’ must prove that the ‘Will’ was duly and validly executed, and this cannot be done by simply proving that the signature on the ‘Will’ is that of the testator but by also proving that the attestations made on the ‘Will’ are in the manner (and form) as required by clause (c) of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. Section 71 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides that if the attesting witness denies or does not recollect the execution of the document (‘Will’), its execution may be proved by other evidence. The period of three years (Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963) for institution of a petition for grant of probate commences from the point in time when the right to apply for probate accrues to the petitioner. As per Section 212(2) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, a Hindu, Muhammadan, Buddhist, Sikh, Jaina, Indian Christian or Parsi is not bound to apply for letters of administration (probate). It is optional (and not mandatory) for the above stated categories of persons to seek probate of ‘Will’.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India took upon itself, in the matter of Excel Crop Care v. Competit... more The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India took upon itself, in the matter of Excel Crop Care v. Competition Commission of India (hereinafter referred to as “Excel”), the task of answering certain crucial questions of law relating to the Competition Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), which came before the Hon’ble Court for adjudication. These questions can be accounted for as follows: a. Section 3 of the Act having been notified on 20th May, 2009 is prospective or retrospective in operation? b. Is there any difference between collusive bidding and bid rigging? c. Whether penalty under Section 27(b) of the Act has to be on “total turnover” of the company covering all its products or it is relatable to “relevant turnover” viz. relating to the product in question in respect whereof the provisions of the Act are contravened?
This article is a comment on the ambit, scope and the area of operation of Section 88 read with O... more This article is a comment on the ambit, scope and the area of operation of Section 88 read with Order XXXV of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 dealing with interpleader suits. Preface: An interpleader suit is one in which the real controversy/dispute is not between the plaintiff and the defendant, but is rather between the defendants only, who inter-plead against each other. The hallmark of an interpleader suit is the fact that, in an interpleader suit, the plaintiff is not really interested in the subject-matter of the suit. The primary and the foremost object of an interpleader suit are to have the claims of rival defendants adjudicated, for, in an interpleader suit, there must be some debt, or, some money, or, other property in dispute between the defendants only. The plaintiff in an interpleader suit must be in a position of impartiality/ non-arbitrariness. The Halsbury's Laws of England: The Halsbury's Laws of England (Fourth Edition), Volume 37, Para 264 (at p.200) states that, " Where a person is under liability in respect of a debt or in respect of any money, goods or chattels and he is, or expects to be sued for or in respect of the debt or money or those goods or chattels, by two or more persons making adverse claims thereto, he may apply to the court for relief by way of interpleader " .
Preface: Information regarding any occurrence or offence may be given to the police and the polic... more Preface: Information regarding any occurrence or offence may be given to the police and the police have the power to investigate the same. According to Section 154 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Cr.P.C.), every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer-in-charge of the police station, has to be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant. Every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, has to be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof has to be entered in a book to be kept in the police station, that is, the 'Station Diary', by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf. A copy of the first information report (hereinafter referred to as the FIR) has to be given free of cost to the informant. Any person aggrieved by refusal on the part of an officer-in-charge of the police station to record the information referred to in Section 154 (1) of the Cr.P.C. may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who, if satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him, in the manner provided in the Cr.P.C., and such officer shall have all the powers of an officer-in-charge of the police station in relation to the concerned offence. FIR under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. is not a substantive piece of evidence, its only use is to contradict or corroborate the matter contained thereof (See: Shambhu Dass V/s State of Assam, AIR 2010 SC 3300). In order for a message or communication to be qualified to be a FIR, there must be something in the nature of a complaint or accusation or at least some information of the crime given with the object of setting the police or criminal law in motion. It is true that a FIR need not contain the minute details as to how the offence had taken place nor it is required to contain the names of the offenders or witnesses. But it must at least contain some information about the crime committed as also some information about the manner in which the cognizable offence has been committed. A cryptic message recording an occurrence cannot be termed as FIR (See: Patai alias Krishna Kumar V/s State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 2010 SC 2254). Cognizable Offences:
Uploads
Papers by Shivam Goel
" …No man is entitled to represent his goods as being the goods of another man; and no man is permitted to use any mark, sign or symbol, device or means whereby, without making a direct false representation himself to a purchaser who purchases from him, he enables such purchaser to tell a lie or to make a false representation to somebody else who is the ultimate customer. That being, as it appears to me, a comprehensive statement of what the law is upon the question of trademark or trade designation, I am of opinion that there is no such thing as a monopoly or a property in the nature of a copyright or in the nature of a patent, in the use of any name. Whatever name is used to designate goods, anybody may use that name to designate goods; always subject to this, that he must not, as I said, make, directly or through the medium of another person, a false representation that his goods are the goods of another person… "
The view taken by James, L.J. in Singer (Supra) lends credence to the fact that trademark rights like all other property rights that accrue upon an individual pursuant to the property in goods that he owns and possesses, have to be safeguarded jealously against infringement and passing off.
Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 declares the substantive law regarding the execution of an unprivileged ‘Will’ and it mandates that the testator has to sign or affix his mark in the presence of two or more attesting witnesses, it being not necessary that the two attesting witnesses should simultaneously be present to witness the execution of the ‘Will’.
On a combined reading of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, it is clear that a person propounding the ‘Will’ must prove that the ‘Will’ was duly and validly executed, and this cannot be done by simply proving that the signature on the ‘Will’ is that of the testator but by also proving that the attestations made on the ‘Will’ are in the manner (and form) as required by clause (c) of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
Section 71 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides that if the attesting witness denies or does not recollect the execution of the document (‘Will’), its execution may be proved by other evidence.
The period of three years (Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963) for institution of a petition for grant of probate commences from the point in time when the right to apply for probate accrues to the petitioner.
As per Section 212(2) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, a Hindu, Muhammadan, Buddhist, Sikh, Jaina, Indian Christian or Parsi is not bound to apply for letters of administration (probate). It is optional (and not mandatory) for the above stated categories of persons to seek probate of ‘Will’.
a. Section 3 of the Act having been notified on 20th May, 2009 is prospective or retrospective in operation?
b. Is there any difference between collusive bidding and bid rigging?
c. Whether penalty under Section 27(b) of the Act has to be on “total turnover” of the company covering all its products or it is relatable to “relevant turnover” viz. relating to the product in question in respect whereof the provisions of the Act are contravened?
" …No man is entitled to represent his goods as being the goods of another man; and no man is permitted to use any mark, sign or symbol, device or means whereby, without making a direct false representation himself to a purchaser who purchases from him, he enables such purchaser to tell a lie or to make a false representation to somebody else who is the ultimate customer. That being, as it appears to me, a comprehensive statement of what the law is upon the question of trademark or trade designation, I am of opinion that there is no such thing as a monopoly or a property in the nature of a copyright or in the nature of a patent, in the use of any name. Whatever name is used to designate goods, anybody may use that name to designate goods; always subject to this, that he must not, as I said, make, directly or through the medium of another person, a false representation that his goods are the goods of another person… "
The view taken by James, L.J. in Singer (Supra) lends credence to the fact that trademark rights like all other property rights that accrue upon an individual pursuant to the property in goods that he owns and possesses, have to be safeguarded jealously against infringement and passing off.
Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 declares the substantive law regarding the execution of an unprivileged ‘Will’ and it mandates that the testator has to sign or affix his mark in the presence of two or more attesting witnesses, it being not necessary that the two attesting witnesses should simultaneously be present to witness the execution of the ‘Will’.
On a combined reading of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, it is clear that a person propounding the ‘Will’ must prove that the ‘Will’ was duly and validly executed, and this cannot be done by simply proving that the signature on the ‘Will’ is that of the testator but by also proving that the attestations made on the ‘Will’ are in the manner (and form) as required by clause (c) of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
Section 71 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides that if the attesting witness denies or does not recollect the execution of the document (‘Will’), its execution may be proved by other evidence.
The period of three years (Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963) for institution of a petition for grant of probate commences from the point in time when the right to apply for probate accrues to the petitioner.
As per Section 212(2) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, a Hindu, Muhammadan, Buddhist, Sikh, Jaina, Indian Christian or Parsi is not bound to apply for letters of administration (probate). It is optional (and not mandatory) for the above stated categories of persons to seek probate of ‘Will’.
a. Section 3 of the Act having been notified on 20th May, 2009 is prospective or retrospective in operation?
b. Is there any difference between collusive bidding and bid rigging?
c. Whether penalty under Section 27(b) of the Act has to be on “total turnover” of the company covering all its products or it is relatable to “relevant turnover” viz. relating to the product in question in respect whereof the provisions of the Act are contravened?