A summary of cases from the causelist of the Supreme Court of India and the Delhi High Court..TABLE OF CASES.Supreme Court.Abhiram Singh v. CD CommachenSampurna Behrua v. Union of India & Ors.Amit Sibal v. Arvind KejriwalState Bank Of India And Ors. v. Kingfisher Airlines Ltd. And Ors..Delhi High Court.Procter & Gamble Manufacturing (Tianjin) Co. Ltd and Ors v. Anchor Health and Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd.Reckitt Benckiser (India) Pvt Ltd v. The Advertising Standards Council of IndiaProcter & Gamble Home Products Pvt Ltd v. Hindustan Unilever.SUMMARY OF CASES.1. Abhiram Singh v. C D Commachen.[Item 701 in court 1 – CA 37/1992].Bench: Chief Justice TS Thakur, Madan B Lokur, SA Bobde, AK Goel, UU Lalit, DY Chandrachud, L Nageswara Rao JJ..Revisiting of the two-decade-old Hindutva judgement for an authoritative pronouncement on electoral law categorizing misuse of religion for electoral gains as “corrupt practice”. The issue is the scope of corrupt practices mentioned in sub-section (3) of Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951..Today in Court: Senior Advocates Shyam Diwan and Arvind Datar made their submissions..2. Sampurna Behrua v. Union of India.[Item 1 in Court 6 – WP(C) 473/2005].Bench: Madan B Lokur, Adarsh Kumar Goel JJ..Petition to implement the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000..Today in Court: This item could not be tracked. Any suggestions/updates welcome..3. Amit Sibal v. Arvind Kejriwal & Ors..[Item 18 in court 9 – SLP (Crl) 1306/2014].Bench: AK Sikri, NV Ramana JJ..An appeal against the Delhi High Court order in the defamation case filed by Senior Advocate Amit Sibal against Arvind Kejriwal and other AAP leaders for their comments that Sibal had misused his father Kapil Sibal’s ministerial position to represent telecom companies..The Delhi High Court had refused to quash defamation proceedings against the AAP leaders, but had directed the trial court to consider the discharge plea of Kejriwal..Today in Court: The Court adjourned the matter to after the Diwali break..4. State Bank Of India And Ors. v. Kingfisher Airlines Ltd. And Ors.[Item 11 in court 8 – IA 9-12/2016 in SLP(C) 6828-6831/2016].Bench: Kurian Joseph, Rohinton Fali Nariman JJ..Appeals filed by a consortium of banks against an order of the Karnataka High Court which had turned down a plea to restrain Vijay Mallya from leaving the country. The consortium had rejected a proposal by Mallya for repayment of the loans..Today in Court: The Apex Court slammed loans defaulter Vijay Mallya for not making a full disclosure of his foreign assets, as per its order, and gave him an additional four weeks to do so..Delhi High Court.1. Procter & Gamble Manufacturing (Tianjin) Co. Ltd and Ors v. Anchor Health and Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd..[FAO (OS) 257/2016; Court No. 3 Item No. 2].Bench: Badar Durrez Ahmed, Ashutosh Kumar, JJ..Appeal against the injunction order passed by Jayant Nath, J. restraining P&G from using the tagline “All Round Protection” in their product..The matter arises out of a previous injunction order passed by Vibhu Bakhru, J. restraining the appellants from using the tagline for their toothpaste. The appellants stopped the usage of the tagline to promote their toothpaste but continued to do so for the toothbrushes. The respondents filed a contempt petition against them for doing so..Today in Court: The matter was listed for pronouncement of judgment. The bench held that the injunction order restraining the defendants from using the tagline “All Round Protection” is applicable only on toothpastes manufactured by the company and not on the toothbrushes..2. Reckitt Benckiser (India) Pvt Ltd v. The Advertising Standards Council of India.[C.S. (OS) 458/2016; Court No. 21 Item No. 10].Bench: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J..Suit against the Advertising Standards Council of India in regard to the nationwide broadcast of an advertisement..During the last hearing, the defendant had argued against the jurisdiction of the court along with the maintainability of the suit. The bench granted time to the parties to refer to judgments of the court on the two issues and listed the matter for today..Today in Court: The matter was adjourned..3. Procter & Gamble Home Products Pvt Ltd v. Hindustan Unilever.[C.S. (OS) 463/2016; Court No. 21 Item No. 32].Bench: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw.Suit for injunction filed by P&G against HUL over HUL’s advertisement for Clinic Plus Strong and Long Shampoo. Justice Endlaw has granted an interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff after hearing arguments from senior counsel Rajiv Nayyar and AS Chandiok..According to P&G, the advertisement for HUL’s Clinic Plus shampoo makes, “false, unsubstantiated and malicious statements” against P&G’s Head & Shoulders shampoo..Today in Court: Senior counsel Rajiv Nayyar and Sandeep Sethi continued arguments in the matter for P&G and HUL. Nayyar argued that once a party has approached ASCI for the enforcement of their rights, they cannot do so again under O. 39(1) and (2). The matter will now be heard on November 2.
A summary of cases from the causelist of the Supreme Court of India and the Delhi High Court..TABLE OF CASES.Supreme Court.Abhiram Singh v. CD CommachenSampurna Behrua v. Union of India & Ors.Amit Sibal v. Arvind KejriwalState Bank Of India And Ors. v. Kingfisher Airlines Ltd. And Ors..Delhi High Court.Procter & Gamble Manufacturing (Tianjin) Co. Ltd and Ors v. Anchor Health and Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd.Reckitt Benckiser (India) Pvt Ltd v. The Advertising Standards Council of IndiaProcter & Gamble Home Products Pvt Ltd v. Hindustan Unilever.SUMMARY OF CASES.1. Abhiram Singh v. C D Commachen.[Item 701 in court 1 – CA 37/1992].Bench: Chief Justice TS Thakur, Madan B Lokur, SA Bobde, AK Goel, UU Lalit, DY Chandrachud, L Nageswara Rao JJ..Revisiting of the two-decade-old Hindutva judgement for an authoritative pronouncement on electoral law categorizing misuse of religion for electoral gains as “corrupt practice”. The issue is the scope of corrupt practices mentioned in sub-section (3) of Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951..Today in Court: Senior Advocates Shyam Diwan and Arvind Datar made their submissions..2. Sampurna Behrua v. Union of India.[Item 1 in Court 6 – WP(C) 473/2005].Bench: Madan B Lokur, Adarsh Kumar Goel JJ..Petition to implement the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000..Today in Court: This item could not be tracked. Any suggestions/updates welcome..3. Amit Sibal v. Arvind Kejriwal & Ors..[Item 18 in court 9 – SLP (Crl) 1306/2014].Bench: AK Sikri, NV Ramana JJ..An appeal against the Delhi High Court order in the defamation case filed by Senior Advocate Amit Sibal against Arvind Kejriwal and other AAP leaders for their comments that Sibal had misused his father Kapil Sibal’s ministerial position to represent telecom companies..The Delhi High Court had refused to quash defamation proceedings against the AAP leaders, but had directed the trial court to consider the discharge plea of Kejriwal..Today in Court: The Court adjourned the matter to after the Diwali break..4. State Bank Of India And Ors. v. Kingfisher Airlines Ltd. And Ors.[Item 11 in court 8 – IA 9-12/2016 in SLP(C) 6828-6831/2016].Bench: Kurian Joseph, Rohinton Fali Nariman JJ..Appeals filed by a consortium of banks against an order of the Karnataka High Court which had turned down a plea to restrain Vijay Mallya from leaving the country. The consortium had rejected a proposal by Mallya for repayment of the loans..Today in Court: The Apex Court slammed loans defaulter Vijay Mallya for not making a full disclosure of his foreign assets, as per its order, and gave him an additional four weeks to do so..Delhi High Court.1. Procter & Gamble Manufacturing (Tianjin) Co. Ltd and Ors v. Anchor Health and Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd..[FAO (OS) 257/2016; Court No. 3 Item No. 2].Bench: Badar Durrez Ahmed, Ashutosh Kumar, JJ..Appeal against the injunction order passed by Jayant Nath, J. restraining P&G from using the tagline “All Round Protection” in their product..The matter arises out of a previous injunction order passed by Vibhu Bakhru, J. restraining the appellants from using the tagline for their toothpaste. The appellants stopped the usage of the tagline to promote their toothpaste but continued to do so for the toothbrushes. The respondents filed a contempt petition against them for doing so..Today in Court: The matter was listed for pronouncement of judgment. The bench held that the injunction order restraining the defendants from using the tagline “All Round Protection” is applicable only on toothpastes manufactured by the company and not on the toothbrushes..2. Reckitt Benckiser (India) Pvt Ltd v. The Advertising Standards Council of India.[C.S. (OS) 458/2016; Court No. 21 Item No. 10].Bench: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J..Suit against the Advertising Standards Council of India in regard to the nationwide broadcast of an advertisement..During the last hearing, the defendant had argued against the jurisdiction of the court along with the maintainability of the suit. The bench granted time to the parties to refer to judgments of the court on the two issues and listed the matter for today..Today in Court: The matter was adjourned..3. Procter & Gamble Home Products Pvt Ltd v. Hindustan Unilever.[C.S. (OS) 463/2016; Court No. 21 Item No. 32].Bench: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw.Suit for injunction filed by P&G against HUL over HUL’s advertisement for Clinic Plus Strong and Long Shampoo. Justice Endlaw has granted an interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff after hearing arguments from senior counsel Rajiv Nayyar and AS Chandiok..According to P&G, the advertisement for HUL’s Clinic Plus shampoo makes, “false, unsubstantiated and malicious statements” against P&G’s Head & Shoulders shampoo..Today in Court: Senior counsel Rajiv Nayyar and Sandeep Sethi continued arguments in the matter for P&G and HUL. Nayyar argued that once a party has approached ASCI for the enforcement of their rights, they cannot do so again under O. 39(1) and (2). The matter will now be heard on November 2.