The Supreme Court has called for standardization of local measurement of land to avoid confusion in litigation. The court found that in a land acquisition case, the meaning of ‘bigha’ confounded judges. Bigha is a unit of measurement prevalent in north India from olden times. However, its meaning varies in different regions. According to the Advanced Law Lexicon, one bigha in upper India refers to 3,025 sq.yd, whereas in Bengal, it is equal to 1,600 sq.yd. “We are informed that in Delhi and Punjab, a bigha equals 1,008 sq.yd,” the court stated in its recent judgment in the case, U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad vs Sheo Narain. The subordinate court, which dealt with this dispute over compensation for land acquisition, maintained that a bigha is equal to 2,250 sq.yd. In view of this ambiguity, the court observed: “In public documents, deeds of conveyance and judicial orders, it is advisable to use units of measurement which have the same meaning in all parts of the country. For example, the term ‘gunta’ is prevalently used to refer to one-fortieth of an acre in Maharashtra, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh. But the word refers to the same extent of measurement in all states. On the other hand, a word like ‘bigha’ describing a unit of measurement which refers to different extents in different states, or different parts of the same state, should be avoided.
Description by standard units of measurement will be the solution.”
Delhi High Court bars usage of ‘Aquafine’ trade mark
The Delhi high court has barred M/s Pure Water Beverages from manufacturing packaged drinking water under the trade mark Aquafine or any other mark or label “which is deceptively or confusingly similar” to the trade mark Aquafina, used by Pepsico Inc. The latter company had moved the court for a permanent injunction against Pure Water Beverages. After examining the evidence, the court observed that “if one examines the two marks of the parties and the packing material used by Pure Water Beverages, the conclusion is very simple that the same is stolen property and stolen property cannot become rightful property in any manner.
” Bombay High Court rules on cement trade marks
The Bombay High Court has ruled that by using the trade mark ‘Ultra Tuff’ by Alaknanda Cement Ltd, it has infringed the trade mark of Ultra Tech Cement Ltd, namely, ‘Ultratech Cement, the Engineer’s Choice’. The latter company, manufacturers of cement, alleged that its rival sold the same product using deceptively similar marks and package. It also alleged that Alaknanda company passed off its product as that of Ultra Tech. The court accepted its arguments and stated that it has to consider and compare the essential features of both the marks. If the essential features are similar, then confusion among the consumers and deception can be said to arise.
No tax liability on stocks lying in stock
The Bombay high court last week set aside the order of the income tax authorities by which they held that the excise duty on sugar manufactured but not sold and lying in closing stock was a liability incurred by the assessee under Section 145A(b) of the Income Tax Act and has to be considered for disallowance under Section 43B of the Act. According to the revenue authorities, the liability to pay excise duty is incurred on manufacture and the obligation to pay the excise duty continues when the goods are in stock and does not cease to exist. The income tax appellate authority (ITAT) disagreed. The authorities appealed against its ruling. Upholding ITAT’s view in the case, Pune vs Loknete Balasaheb, the high court said that “it is not in dispute that the manufactured sugar was lying in stock and the same were not cleared from the factory. Therefore, in the facts of the present case, the ITAT was justified in holding that in respect of unsold sugar lying in stock, central excise liability was not incurred and consequently the addition of excise duty made by the assessing officer to the value of the excisable goods was liable to be deleted.
” DGFT circular withdrawing benefits partly set aside
The Bombay high court has partially struck down the circular issued by the Director General of Foreign Trade in July last year on a writ petition moved by Vodafone Essar Ltd and three other service providing companies stating that it was against the foreign trade policy for 2004-09. The companies provide services either as Indian Access Providers (IAP) or as International Long Distance Operators (ILDO). They applied for Duty Credit Scrips under the Served From India Scheme (SFIS) of the foreign trade policy. By a later circular, the benefit of the scheme was withdrawn. The companies argued that it cannot be done. Accepting their contention, the court quashed the direction to reopen the SFIS cases and to make recoveries in accordance with the decision taken by the policy interpretation committee last year.
