List of Current Affairs

Source – Allahabad High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the High Court of Allahabad in the matter of UP State Industrial Development Authority, Unnao v. Gurmeet Singh, held that the application for condonation of delay must be dealt with liberally otherwise it will cause obstruction of justice.

What is the Background of the U.P. State Industrial Development Authority, Unnao v. Gurmeet Singh Case?

• The Present appeals have been preferred in the HC of Allahabad against the order dated 19^th July 2023 passed by the Real Estate Regulatory Authority Tribunal thereby rejecting the appeals preferred by the appellants only on the grounds of delay.
• It has been submitted by learned counsel for appellant that the respondent had preferred complaints before the Real Estate Regulatory Authority which were allowed on various dates.
• Against the said orders, the appellant had preferred an appeal.
• There were delays in filing of the appeal by a period of 103, 242, 62, 124 days respectively and along with the appeal, an application for condonation of delay was also preferred.
• The Appellant further contended that the delay ought to have been condoned as the reasons were duly explained and were beyond the control of the appellant.
• The HC noted that the appellant had sufficiently explained the delay and so the appeals were allowed and remanded back to the Tribunal to be decided on merits.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The HC observed that any order passed either allowing the application for condonation of delay or rejecting the same without recording a finding sufficiently would be arbitrary and liable to be interfered by the superior courts.
• The HC further held that a court or tribunal considering the application for condonation of delay must consider the facts asserted in support of the application. Findings must be recorded on whether the facts detailed are sufficient for condoning the delay or otherwise.

What is Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963?

• Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 deals with the concept of condonation of delay.
  • The condonation of delay means the extension of prescribed time in certain cases subject to sufficient cause.
  • The concept of condoning a delay is primarily preferred to the applications and appeal and does not cover the suits.
• Section 5 states that any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period.
• Explanation to Section 5 states that the fact that when the appellant or the applicant was missed by any order, practice or judgment of the HC in ascertaining or computing the prescribed period may be sufficient cause within the meaning of this section.
• The Supreme Court in the case of Raheem Shah & Anr. v. Govind Singh & Ors. (2023), held that the legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting Section 5 of the Limitation Act of 1963, in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on merits. The expression sufficient cause employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice-that being the life-purpose for the existence of the institution of courts

Source: Delhi High Court

Why in News?

A bench of Justice Pratibha Singh was hearing a rectification petition by Vimal Agro Products seeking court’s order for cancellation of registered trade mark of Ching's Secret owner Capital Foods' on “SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY”.

• The Delhi High Court gave the observation in the case of Vimal Agro Products P. Ltd. v. Capital Foods P. Ltd. & Anr.

What is the Background of S Vimal Agro Products P. Ltd. v. Capital Foods P. Ltd. & Anr Case?

• The petitioner Vimal Agro Products Private Limited sought cancellation of the trade mark ‘SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY’.
• The said trademark relates to a large number of food products inter alia chutneys, salad, dressing, sauces, snack foods and so on.
• The case of the Petitioner is that ‘SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY’ is a descriptive and a generic mark.
• The question that arises is whether trademark ‘SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY’ is descriptive/generic, and would be hit by Section 9 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 or not.
• The respondent contended that the court does not have jurisdiction to hear the petition.

What was the Court’s Observation?

• The court in its order denied putting a stay on registered trademark and said that it will first deal with the contention upon jurisdiction in further hearings.

What is Section 9 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999?

• The Section 9 covers following grounds for refusal of registration:
  • The trade marks which are devoid of any distinctive character, that is to say, not capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one person from those of another person shall not be registered.
  • The trade marks which consist exclusively of marks or indications which may serve in trade to designate the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, values, geographical origin or the time of production of the goods or rendering of the service or other characteristics of the goods or service shall not be registered.
  • The trade marks which consist exclusively of marks or indications which have become customary in the current language or in the bona fide and established practices of the trade, shall not be registered.
• The Section 9 of the Trade Marls Act, 1999 provides that a trade mark shall not be refused registration if before the date of application for registration it has acquired a distinctive character as a result of the use made of it or is a well-known trade mark.
• As per Sub-section 2 of the Section 9 the following trade marks shall not be registered:
  • If the trade mark is of such nature as to deceive the public or cause confusion;
  • If it contains or comprises of any matter likely to hurt the religious susceptibilities of any class or section of the citizens of India;
  • If it comprises or contains scandalous or obscene matter;
  • If its use is prohibited under the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950.
• As per Sub-section 3 of the Section 9 the following trade marks shall not be registered:
  • The shape of goods which results from the nature of the goods themselves; or
  • The shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result; or
  • The shape which gives substantial value to the goods.
• Section 9 also provides an explanation which clarifies that for the purposes of this section, the nature of goods or services in relation to which the trade mark is used or proposed to be used shall not be grounds for refusal of registration.

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

A five-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, S Ravindra Bhat, Hima Kohli, and PS Narasimha pronounced the judgment refusing to recognize the same-sex marriage.

• The Supreme Court gave the observation in the case of Supriyo v. Union of India and other connected matters.

What is the Background of Supriyo v. Union of India Case?

• A five judges bench was hearing a batch of petitions upon recognition of same-sex marriages.
• The bench heard 20 petitions challenging the provisions of Special Marriage Act, 1954 (SMA), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA), and the Foreign Marriage Act, 1969 (FMA).
• During the hearings, the court refused to comment on personal laws and hence has not heard contentions upon HMA.
• During the hearings, the Central Government stated before the court that it is willing to formulate a committee to provide some rights to same-sex couples without providing a legal recognition to their marriage.
• The court reserved its judgment in May 2023.

What was the Court’s Observation?

• Court asked for formulation of committee to determine the rights of queer couples and held that report submitted by the committee shall be implemented at the administrative level by the Union Government and the governments of the States and Union Territories

What are the Major Aspects Determined by SC for Same-Sex Couples?

• Institutional Limitation:
  • The court said that petitioners are seeking to declare SMA void for excluding queer couple marriages.
  • However, if court do so, it will take the nation back to the pre-independence era where two persons of different religions and caste were unable to marry.
  • And if the court interprets the words itself, it will step into the shoes of legislature, which is not possible because the judicial legislation is not permissible in law.
  • The court held that, “Court is not equipped to undertake an exercise of such wide amplitude because of its institutional limitations”.
• Valid Age to Marry:
  • The court said that deciding valid age for marriage of queer couple is not possible for court.
  • Clause (c) of Section 4 FMA was in question which requires the bridegroom to be at least twenty-one years and the bride to be at least eighteen years of age.
  • Several approaches were proposed for the age of marrying including a common minimum age however the court said that doing so would amount to judicial legislation.
  • And further held, “When there are various options open for a legislative change and policy considerations abound, it is best left for Parliament to engage in democratic decision-making and settle upon a suitable course of action”.
• Atypical Family Unit:
  • The court said that a normal family consists of a mother and a father and later children continue the family cycle.
  • The court further said that “Myriad persons do not follow this blueprint for the creation of a family. They instead have their own, atypical blueprint”.
• Right to Health:
  • Queer persons have right to access mental healthcare and not to be subjected to inhumane and cruel practices or procedures.
• Right to Enter into Abiding Union:
  • The court said that all persons have a right to enter into an abiding union with their life partner. This right, undoubtedly, extends to persons in queer relationships.
  • The court held that any person may enter into a consensual romantic or sexual relationship with another person.
  • Their partner will have several rights as a consequence of the relationship including the right to have the body of deceased partner.
• Transgender Marriage:
  • On transgender marriage the court held that “Whether transgender persons can marry ought to be decided separately from the issues arising under the SMA in relation to homosexual persons or those of a queer sexual orientation”.
  • The court further said that if a transgender person is in a heterosexual relationship and wishes to marry their partner by fulfilling other requirements set out in the applicable law, such a marriage would be recognized by the laws governing marriage.
• Adoption by Queer Couples:
  • The court held that unmarried couples (including queer couples) can jointly adopt a child.

What are the Guidelines of Court on Constitution of Committee for Same Sex Couples?

• The SC gave the following guidelines to Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of Union Government:
  • The government will constitute a committee chaired by the Cabinet Secretary for the purpose of defining and elucidating the scope of the entitlements of queer couples who are in unions.
  • The Committee shall include experts with domain knowledge and experience in dealing with the social, psychological, and emotional needs of persons belonging to the queer community as well as members of the queer community.
  • The Committee shall before finalizing its decisions conduct wide stakeholder consultation amongst persons belonging to the queer community, including persons belonging to marginalized groups and with the governments of the States and Union Territories.
• The Committee shall in terms of the exposition in this judgment consider the following:
  • Enabling partners in a queer relationship to be treated as a part of the same family for the purposes of a ration card; and to have the facility of a joint bank account with the option to name the partner as a nominee, in case of death;
  • In terms of the decision in Common Cause v. Union of India (2018), as modified by Common Cause v. Union of India (2023), medical practitioners have a duty to consult family or next of kin or next friend, in the event patients who are terminally ill have not executed an Advance Directive. Parties in a union may be considered ‘family’ for this purpose;
  • Jail visitation rights and the right to access the body of the deceased partner and arrange the last rites; and
  • Legal consequences such as succession rights, maintenance, financial benefits such as under the Income Tax Act, 1961, rights flowing from employment such as gratuity and family pension and insurance