THE Supreme Court has ruled that a full-time single member of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) has the power to cancel the recognition granted to a stock exchange. In this case, Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange vs Sebi, the stock exchange was granted recognition under the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act. In 2007, it was issued notice by Sebi to show cause as to why its recognition be not withdrawn due to diverse failures and non-compliances of regulations. Later, the full-time member of Sebi ordered withdrawal of recognition and further directed that the trading members shall cease to be its trading members and therefore liable to be de-registered as stock brokers and, therefore, their certificate of registration granted by Sebi shall stand automatically cancelled. The order was challenged in the appellate tribunal and the Gujarat high court arguing that a full-time single member of Sebi had no jurisdiction to cancel or withdraw recognition. The petitions were dismissed. The Supreme Court upheld those orders.
Eviction of public sector tenants
The Supreme Court last week set aside the judgment of the Bombay high court and ordered the eviction of the Maharashtra civil supplies ministry and New India Assurance from a Parsi trust building. The insurance company and its sub-tenant, the ministry, had claimed that the state Rent Control Act would not apply to them. The high court had accepted the argument. However, the Supreme Court reversed the finding in the case, Kesri Commissariat vs Ministry of Food and Civil Supplies. Citing an earlier judgment, the court observed that “multinational companies, international agencies, statutory corporations, government companies, public sector companies can certainly afford to pay rent at the market rates...They are basically cash-rich entities.”
Tough deal for economic offenders
The Supreme Court has upheld the ruling of the Punjab and Haryana high court in an economic offences case and denied probation on good conduct to a black marketer, who was convicted under the Essential Commodities Act. The court severely criticized his conduct for abusing the process of court repeatedly. “The petitioner, being the black-Marketer, presumed that he had a right to dictate terms to the court and get desired results, thus, approached this court again. He has lost in four courts earlier.” In this fact-situation he should not be permitted to abuse the judicial process as he likes, the court stated in the case, Sunil Kumar vs State of Haryana, and imposed a heavy fine on him, to be paid to the legal aid committee.
Trade mark dispute over ‘Heritage’ rice
In a trade mark dispute over the word ‘Heritage’ for basmati rice between Lt Foods Ltd and Sunstar Overseas Ltd, rice exporters, the Delhi high court has restrained the latter from using the word for its products till the final decision in the case. Both parties claimed ownership rights over the trade mark and alleged that the trade mark was deceptively similar to each other’s. They filed cross suits. The high court ordered that till the disposal of suit, Sunstar, their licencees and franchisees are “restrained from selling, exporting or dealing in rice under the impugned trade mark , Indian Heritage Select/Heritage Select, or any other trade mark as may be deceptively similar to the trade mark Heritage".
Designs Act issue for larger bench
The Delhi high court has referred to a larger bench three important questions of law regarding the Designs Act in view of conflicting views expressed by various courts on these issues and the “legislative vacuum” existing in the field. The order was passed in the case, Micolube India Ltd vs Rakesh Kumar Trading. The questions are: a) Whether the suit for infringement of a registered design is maintainable against another registered proprietor of the design under the Design Act, 2000 ? b) Whether there can be an availability of remedy of passing off in the absence of express saving or preservation of the common law by the Designs Act and more so when the rights and remedies under the Act are statutory in nature? C) Whether the conception of passing off as available under the Trade Marks Act can be joined with the action under the Designs Act when the same is mutually inconsistent with that of remedy under the Designs Act?
Appeal against IPAB dismissed
The Bombay high court last week dismissed the writ petition of Medical Technologies Ltd challenging the order of the Intellectual Properties Appellate Tribunal in the trade mark dispute with Neon Laboratories Ltd. The high court upheld the appellate board’s order rejecting the plea for expunction of the entry made in the Register of Trade Marks of the trade mark Rofol registered in the name of Neon Laboratories.
