Important Indian Court Cases of July 2016

Arbitration – While courts in India may have the power to injunct arbitration proceedings, they must exercise that power rarely and only on principles analogous to those found in sections 8 and 45, as the case may be, of the 1996 Act. McDonald’s India Private Ltd. Vs. Vikram Bakshi [Delhi High Court, 21-07-2016] http://goo.gl/YvXujQ


Cinema Law – Offending links that point to illicit downloads of the film in question, Great Grand Masti – Injunction restraining intermediaries and cable/DTH operators from making any broadcast or making available any form of download of this film without a specific written authorisation from the Plaintiffs. Balaji Motion Pictures Ltd. Vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. [Bombay High Court, 04-07-2016]  http://goo.gl/BGg2pa


Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order 7 Rule 10 – Return of the Plaint – Cause of Action – Compulsory Licences – Cancellation of – Suit proceeds on the basis of an alleged infraction of a right under the compulsory licence – exclusive jurisdiction clause in the voluntary licence agreement – Held, the fact that the compulsory licences were granted / issued by the Registrar of Copyrights in Delhi is a material one for the purposes of considering the plea of territorial jurisdiction. Music Broadcast Limited Vs. Axis Bank [Delhi High Court, 28-07-2016] http://goo.gl/Eakc7b


Constitution of India – Article 21 – Voice Samples – Fair Investigation – Sample Voice Recording – Spectrographic Examination – Held, procedure which is adopted for drawing a voice sample must be fair and reasonable – it is not open to the accused to dictate the course of investigation – a commonality of words is necessary to facilitate a spectrographic examination. Sudhir Chaudhary Vs. State (Nct of Delhi) [Supreme Court of India, 29-07-2016] http://goo.gl/VVSjSB


Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Haryana Superior Judicial Service Revised Pay Rules 2001 – Recovery of an excess payment towards salary –Held, the officer to whom the payment was made in the first instance was clearly placed on notice that any payment found to have been made in excess would be required to be refunded. The officer furnished an undertaking while opting for the revised pay scale. He is bound by the undertaking. High Court of Punjab & Haryana Vs. Jagdev Singh [Supreme Court of India, 29-07-2016]  http://goo.gl/W3sm13


Copyright Act, 1957 – Section 31(1)(b) – Compulsory Licences – Cancellation of – Suit proceeds on the basis of an alleged infraction of a right under the compulsory licence – exclusive jurisdiction clause in the voluntary licence agreement – Held, the fact that the compulsory licences were granted / issued by the Registrar of Copyrights in Delhi is a material one for the purposes of considering the plea of territorial jurisdiction. It is material because the infraction of a right, coupled with the right itself constitutes a cause of action. The compulsory licences provided the rights and the action complained of, i.e., the cancellation of the compulsory licences relates to the infraction of that right. Therefore, both the issuance of the compulsory licences and the cancellation thereof constitute the bundle of facts, which, in turn, can be referred to as the ’cause of action’. Music Broadcast Limited Vs. Axis Bank [Delhi High Court, 28-07-2016] http://goo.gl/Eakc7b


Copyright Act, 1957 – Section 55 – Expert Opinion – to point out to the court the similarities and differences between the design and the alleged infringement – the court below ought to have afforded the plaintiff an opportunity to apply for the appointment of an expert to compare the two works and to submit a report to the court pointing out the similarities and differences in the two works. The decision of the court below dismissing the suit filed by the appellant cannot therefore be sustained. M. Radhakrishnan Vs. Surabhi Publications [Kerala High Court, 04-07-2016] http://goo.gl/KMNPO9


Criminal Law – Attachment of Property of the deceased Accused – There is no legal provision which enables continuance of prosecution upon death of the accused. U. Subhadramma Vs. State of A.P. [Supreme Court of India, 04-07-2016] http://goo.gl/2g92Ep


Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 357 – Condition to deposit certain amount for admitting the appeals – harshness of such condition – Order to deposit 30% of the cheques amount – Held, What is to be seen by the appellate Court at the time of admitting the appeals and releasing the accused on bail, is quite obvious that whether filing of appeals is genuine or only with a view to prolong the time and thereby to delay the execution of order of conviction – therefore, in such cases, if appellate Court deems it fit to impose condition to deposit certain amount, it cannot be said that such condition is illegal. Rajnikant Nathalal Maniar Vs. Jagdish Jasvantlal Patwa [Gujarat High Court, 05-07-2016] http://goo.gl/P3G3xc


Haj Committee Act, 2002 – Section 8(2) – Interpretation of – Reconstitution of Committee – Whether a member, who was elected for more than 2 terms, can be eligible for renomination on the Haj Committee, considering the wording of Section 8(2) of the Act that, “an outgoing member shall be eligible for renomination on the Committee for not more than two terms.” Held, the words “retiring” and “outgoing” respectively, are used in presente and coupled with the use of the word “renomination”, thereby clearly suggesting that, in the instant case also, if the petitioner was being considered for nomination for the third term, in continuation of his earlier two terms, he would not have been eligible. However, as the petitioner was holding the office of the membership in the past in the year 2008-09 and 2010-13, he is definitely not an “outgoing member” at the time of nomination in the year 2016. His nomination was also not in continuation of his earlier terms, hence it is not “renomination”. Ebrahim Gulam Nabi Vs. State of Maharashtra [Bombay High Court, 28-07-2016] http://goo.gl/a7SKFP


Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – Section 25 – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 – Claim of Juvenility – Juvenile on the date of occurrence – Inquiry with regard to juvenility – The subsequent repeal of the 2000 Act on and with effect from 15.01.2016 would not affect the inquiry with regard to claim of juvenility was found to be acceptable. [email protected] Muntyaz Vs. State of U.P. (Now Uttarakhand) [Supreme Court of India, 01-07-2016] http://goo.gl/ibbxbq