
Rajasthan High Court: Speedy disposal of Trademark application a Fundamental Right under Article 21
The Court issued a general direction to the Registrar of Trademarks to decide all pending trademark registration applications as early as possible.
The Court issued a general direction to the Registrar of Trademarks to decide all pending trademark registration applications as early as possible.
“Section 115(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 mandates the police to obtain the Registrar’s opinion before conducting a seizure under the Trade Marks Act. However, there was no record evidencing such mandatory consultation. The failure to comply with this statutory requirement vitiated the seizure proceedings and amounted to a jurisdictional error.”
“It is a settled proposition of law that whenever any stigmatic order is passed against a person, which causes stigma on his career in future, it is bounden duty of the authority concerned to provide him opportunity of hearing, before passing such an order.”
by Rimali Batra* and Col Rajeev Anand (Retd)**
A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from all High Courts this week.
Once it is found that the original order is passed by the Competent Authority without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the same is liable to be set aside as having been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice.
The Court noted that the appellate authority formed under BPCL’s Policy remedy would have comprised of their officers, and the same could not be permitted as BPCL could not be a judge in their own cause.
The Court stated that only because respondent is police personnel, it cannot be a ground to hold him guilty without conducting the statutorily prescribed departmental enquiry and that too in a matter, where the complainant and the witnesses are also police personnel.
Debarment encompasses a broader scope than termination, as it can prohibit an entity from entering into any contracts with a company altogether, rather than just ending one specific contract, as is the case with termination.
“The opportunity to the petitioner to file a reply to the show cause notice was therefore a mere eye wash, and nothing more.”
Allahabad High Court noted that the penalty order does not appear to bring out any conduct of the petitioner as may indicate or establish collusion between the petitioner and the importing dealer.
by Siddharth R. Gupta*
Cite as: 2024 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 2
“The principle aims of IBC are to promote investment, and resolution of insolvencies of corporate persons, firms, and individuals in a time bound manner. The IBC consolidated and amended a web of laws which had led to an ineffective and inefficient mechanism for resolution of insolvencies marked with significant delay”
“Natural justice is an important concept in administrative law. It is not possible to define precisely and scientifically the expression Natural Justice. The principle of natural justice or fundamental rules of procedure of administrative action, are neither fixed nor prescribed in any code”
Allahabad High Court has said that notice under Section 263 was prepared and uploaded on 28-03-2022 and the same was received on the fixed date and the impugned order dated 31-03-2022 has been passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice.
Justice Alok Aradhe was sworn in as Chief Justice of Telangana High Court on 23-07-2023 by the Governor Tamilisai Soundararajan. He succeeded Justice Ujjal Bhuyan who has been elevated as a Judge in the Supreme Court of India. Justice Aradhe has formerly served as Judge in Karnataka, Jammu and Kashmir and Madhya Pradesh High Courts.
“The opportunity of hearing, which the Officer is statutorily required to give to the person against whom an adverse decision is contemplated, is not an empty formality, and is a well-recognised principle of audi alteram partem, which has rightly been incorporated in Section 75(3) and 75(4) of the CGST Act.”
Delhi High Court observed that repeated use of templated paragraphs, as though the principles of Natural Justice are mere rhetoric, is not permissible.
‘Audi alteram partem application cannot be impliedly excluded under the Master Directions on Frauds.’