THE Supreme Court emphasised last week that private land cannot be acquired without adequate reason, invoking the urgency clause in the Land Acquisition Act. In its judgment in the case, Darshan Lal Nagpal vs Government of Delhi, the acquisition was quashed as it was bad in law. There was no urgency and the owner did not get a hearing. The land was acquired for setting up an electric sub-station by Delhi Transco Limited. The Delhi high court had rejected the challenge to the acquisition. The land owner appealed to the Supreme Court where the company submitted that the work for establishing the sub-station has been completed to a large extent. Rejecting the contentions of the company and the government, the court noted that “compulsory acquisition has generated enormous litigation in the last more than five decades … it must be remembered that compulsory acquisition of property belonging to a private individual is a serious matter and has grave repercussions on his Constitutional right of not being deprived of his property without the sanction of law.”
E-filing of tax returns
The Rajasthan high court has stated that in this era of E-filing of tax returns under various laws, such a practice is an acceptable form of filing of returns to the various revenue departments. However, rules for filing of soft copies must be available statutorily when they were filed. In this case, Hindustan Zinc Ltd vs State of Rajasthan, the company filed soft copies of documents for assessment years before 2009, when a notification was issued by the government permitting E-filing. The notification permitted only a certain class of assessees to avail of this facility. The revenue authorities rejected the returns filed by the company on the ground that certain documents were in soft copy form. The company moved a writ petition before the high court. Rejecting the petition, the high court stated that when the notification sets a date for enforcing the new rules, it should be complied with. The court cannot order that the rule should be applied retrospectively, though E-filing should be encouraged.
Insurance company’s appeal
A division bench of the Madras high court rejected last week the appeal of United India Insurance Company and awarded Rs 20.8 lakh as compensation to a 25-year-old driver, Pachiappan, who lost his right leg and was permanently incapacitated from doing any worthwhile job throughout his life. The insurance company argued that his disability was only 80 per cent, but the high court stated that the actual loss of earning capacity is virtually 100 per cent as he had lost his job with a company. The insurance company also invoked the schedule of the Workman’s Compensation Act and the Minimum Wages Act but the arguments were rejected.
Court protects Mother Dairy logo
The Delhi high court has passed an injunction in favour of Mother Dairy Fruit & Vegetable Ltd prohibiting Mallikarjuna Dairy Products Ltd of Andhra Pradesh from infringing the registered copyright in the logo and packaging design of Mother Dairy. The court also imposed punitive damages of Rs 5 lakh on the Andhra firm. Mother Dairy alleged that the packaging/trade dress being used by the rival firm in the same trade was deceptively and confusingly similar to that of Mother Dairy. After examining the logo and designs, the court was convinced that there was infringement of copyright by the Andhra dairy.
'Red Label' cannot be a trade mark
The Intellectual Property Appellate Board last week dismissed four appeals of Hindustan Unilever claiming exclusive right to use the words ‘Red Label’ in its tea packages. The company claimed that it was using the words from 1971 for its tea packages. It appliedfor registration in 1982. The Registrar of Trade Mark had decided that the trade mark consisted of words and colours that are common to the trade and that the mark is not distinctive. The company filed appeals against this finding. A rival firm in the same trade, Girnar Exports, opposed the claim of Hindustan Unilever and objected to the registration of the trade mark. It argued that the word Red Label was descriptive and the colour combination and the word Red Label was common to the trade. The word Red Label was not a fanciful word. Girnar showed 69 brands of tea which have similar or identical colour scheme. Rejecting the claim of Hindustan Unilever and imposing cost on it, the board asserted that the disputed words are common to the trade and are not distinctive.