List of Current Affairs

Why in News?

The Orissa High Court (HC) has affirmed the verdict of guilt for six contractors who were convicted of kidnapping two laborers, compelling them to toil as bonded labourers for an extended period, and ultimately severing their palms at the wrists.

What is the Background of the Case?

• Some of the appellants requested the victims and a few other labourers involved in this case to travel to Raipur for employment at a brick-kiln, where they were promised the opportunity to earn Rs. 20,000/- per month.
  • Enticed by such an offer, the innocent victims and others followed the appellants to Raipur.
• The appellants desired the victims to join them in Hyderabad for the mentioned job, detecting something suspicious, the victims, along with others, rejected the proposition.
  • On refusal, the appellants turned aggressive and issued threats of killing the victims unless they complied with their commands.
  • Out of fear, both the victims and the other labourers boarded the train to Hyderabad, while en route, nearly all the labourers managed to escape from the control of the appellants, except for the two victims.
• The appellants compelled the victims to board off the train and after moving them from one location to another, they were confined in the residence of one of the accused individuals where three of the appellants physically assaulted both victims and demanded a payment of two lakh rupees.
• On victims and their family members not being able to arrange the demanded money, the victims were forced to work in the cotton fields as bonded labour.
• The victims were confined in a room and on one night, they were forcibly taken to a forest where they were asked to give their lives or limbs.
• Thereafter, victims were caught hold of by some of the accused persons and two of them chopped the right palms of both the victims from their respective wrists.
• A hotel owner helped them to wrap the wounds and with the aid of villagers they reached the District Headquarter Hospital, Bhawanipatna for treatment.
• The police registered First Information Report (FIR), and the present appellants were charge sheeted.
  • They were convicted for commission of different offences under 307/364A/365/342/370/506/420/323/326/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 16/17 of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dharamgarh, Orissa.
• Hence, the appellants appealed to the HC.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The division bench of Justices Bibhu Prasad Routray and Chittaranjan Dash held that, “In the present case, we are in seisin over a matter where the bonded labourers are encountered with an absolute barbaric act in the hands of so called labour contractor who not only fooled the labourers and fraudulently took away the money owed to them but also subjected them to the most monstrous act, before which even death would appear as an alluring option.”
• The conviction of the appellants under Section 364A of IPC was modified to one under Section 367 and their conviction under Sections 323/342/326/307/420/120B and U/s 201/34 IPC were upheld.

What is Bonded Labour?

• About:
  • Bonded labour, also known as debt bondage or peonage, is a form of modern-day slavery in which individuals are compelled to work against their will to repay a debt.
    • Bonded labour typically occurs when a person borrows money or takes an advance payment from an employer, landlord, or moneylender. They become bonded laborers when they are unable to repay the debt.
  • A specific law to prohibit this practice was enacted in 1976 known as the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act. It is further supported by following legislations:
    • Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970.
    • The Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1979.
    • The Minimum Wages Act, 1948.
• Constitutional Provisions:
  • Bonded labour is prohibited in India by law under Articles 21 and 23 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI)
    • Article 21: Protection of life and personal liberty — No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.
    • Article 23: Prohibition of traffic in human beings and forced labour —
      • (1) Traffic in human beings and begar and other similar forms of forced labour are prohibited and any contravention of this provision shall be an offence punishable in accordance with law.
      • (2) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from imposing compulsory service for public purposes, and in imposing such service the State shall not make any discrimination on grounds only of religion, race, caste or class or any of them.
• Related Case Law:
  • Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India & Ors. (1997), in the present matter The Bandhua Mukti Morcha, an NGO working for the liberation of bonded laborers, filed the case in the Supreme Court of India. The case led to significant legal developments and judgments aimed at eradicating bonded labor and ensuring the welfare and rights of laborers some of which can be enumerated as follows:
    • Identification and Rehabilitation: The court directed the government to identify and rehabilitate bonded labourers across the country. It emphasized the importance of conducting surveys to identify victims of bonded labour.
    • Release and Compensation: Bonded labourers who were identified were to be immediately released from their exploitative situations. The court also ordered the payment of compensation to these individuals.
    • Legal Support: The court emphasized the need for providing legal aid and support to bonded labourers to help them seek justice and regain their freedom.
    • Monitoring Mechanisms: The court recommended the establishment of monitoring committees at various levels to oversee the implementation of these guidelines and ensure that bonded labor was eradicated.
    • Government Accountability: The government was held accountable for enforcing the laws against bonded labor and taking proactive measures to eradicate this form of exploitation.

What are the Provisions of Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 Involved?

• It is an Act enacted to provide for the abolition of the bonded labour system with a view to preventing the economic and physical exploitation of the weaker sections of the people and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
  • The matter at hand pertains to two provisions of the act as described below:
    • Section 16 - Punishment for enforcement of bonded labour — Whoever, after the commencement of this Act, compels any person to render any bonded labour shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and also with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees.
    • Section 17 - Punishment for advancement of bonded debt — Whoever advances, after the commencement of this Act, any bonded debt shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and also with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees.

Source: Delhi High Court

Why in News?

Justice C Hari Shankar observed that the intent to capitalize on the reputation of a known brand, by using a mark similar to the mark of that brand, can give rise to an apprehension of quality compromise by the imitator.

• The Delhi High Court gave this observation in the case of Dominos IP Holder LLC & Anr. v. MS Dominick Pizza & Anr.

What is the Background of Dominos IP Holder LLC & Anr. v. MS Dominick Pizza & Anr Case?

• Domino's (plaintiff) sought a permanent injunction against Dominick Pizza, which has three outlets i.e., two at Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh and one in Punjab.
• Domino's plead before court the protection of its registered mark 'Domino's Pizza', and the accompanying marks also the marks 'Cheese Burst' and 'Pasta Italiano'.
• By virtue of being the owner of the said registered marks, the plaintiffs are entitled under Section 28(1) of the Trademarks Act, 1999 to protect themselves against infringement of the said marks.
• Domino’s contended before court that it is leading to confusion among customers.
• Previously the bench of Justice Pratibha M Singh of Delhi HC gave interim injunction to plaintiff.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Delhi HC observed that Dominick Pizza is restrained from advertising, selling or marketing any product, packaging, menu cards and advertising material using the marks “Dominick Pizza”, “CHEESE BURST” and “PASTA ITLAIANO” or any other mark identical or deceptively similar to plaintiff’s registered trademark “Domino’s”.

What is a Permanent Injunction?

• About:
  • A permanent injunction is a court order that restrains a party from engaging in certain conduct or compels them to perform specific acts.
  • It is considered a final and permanent remedy, distinct from preliminary injunctions, which are issued on a temporary basis during the pendency of a legal proceeding.
• Object:
  • It is a remedy sought by plaintiffs when they seek to prevent an ongoing or imminent harm that cannot be adequately addressed through monetary compensation alone.
  • The objective of a permanent injunction is to provide a lasting solution to a legal dispute by preventing the recurrence of wrongful conduct or enforcing a positive obligation.
• Under Specific Relief Act, 1963:
  • Permanent or Perpetual injunction is granted under Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (SRA).
  • Sub-section (1) of Section 38 of SRA states that a perpetual injunction may be granted to the plaintiff to prevent the breach of an obligation existing in his favour, whether expressly or by implication.
• Nature:
  • A permanent injunction is conclusive in nature and is given as a decree after hearing the merits of the case.
  • It cannot be revoked by the court who passed the order; however, it can be revoked at an appellate stage.

Legal Provisions

• Section 28(1) of the Trademarks Act, 1999: Rights conferred by registration —
  • (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the registration of a trade mark shall, if valid, give to the registered proprietor of the trade mark the exclusive right to the use of the trade mark in relation to the goods or services in respect of which the trade mark is registered and to obtain relief in respect of infringement of the trade mark in the manner provided by this Act.
  • (2) The exclusive right to the use of a trade mark given under sub-section (1) shall be subject to any conditions and limitations to which the registration is subject.
  • (3) Where two or more persons are registered proprietors of trade marks, which are identical with or nearly resemble each other, the exclusive right to the use of any of those trade marks shall not (except so far as their respective rights are subject to any conditions or limitations entered on the register) be deemed to have been acquired by any one of those persons as against any other of those persons merely by registration of the trade marks but each of those persons has otherwise the same rights as against other persons (not being registered users using by way of permitted use) as he would have if he were the sole registered proprietor.

Why in News?

Justice Mohammad Nawaz and Justice Rajesh Rai K observed that merely engaging in driving without a license may not necessarily result in a determination of contributory negligence against the driver if he is involved in an accident that was not caused by him.

What is the Background of the Case?

• An accident happened between Bolero and a motorcycle due to which motorcycle rider died.
• The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) held that as the motor vehicle driver did not have a license and insurance for the vehicle he is bound for contributory negligence.
• The Parents and sister of the deceased approached the court for enhanced compensation from the insurer of Bolero.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Karnataka HC observed that the motor vehicle driver was liable to get enhanced compensation from the insurer of Bolero as MACT’s order of considering the driver of the motor vehicle 25% responsible for contributory negligence was not correct.

What is Contributory Negligence?

• About:
  • The concept of contributory negligence aids in shaping the allocation of responsibility between parties involved.
  • It refers to the degree to which a claimant's own actions or omissions contribute to their injuries or damages.
• Meaning:
  • Contributory negligence becomes relevant when determining liability in accidents.
  • Rather than a black-and-white assessment of fault, it introduces shades of gray by considering the actions of all parties involved.
• Application of Tort Law:
  • It is a rule of tort which restricts the plaintiff from covering damages from the other if both parties were negligent on their part.
  • It is based on “Volenti non fit injuria” that means injury that occurred through voluntary act.
• Example:
  • If a court finds that the claimant was 20% at fault for not wearing a seatbelt, and the defendant was 80% at fault for running a red light, the claimant's compensation may be reduced by 20%. This reduction reflects the claimant's contribution to their own injuries.
• Burden of Proof:
  • The Burden of Proving Contributory Negligence is on the defendant who has to prove that the plaintiff was also at fault.