Legal Update as on 01.11.2022

legal-updates
  1. MANIPUR HIGH COURT – INDIAN WOMEN WON’T FABRICATE A FALSE STORY OF RAPE FOR BLACKMAIL OR RETALIATION – “An Indian woman will not make a false accusation of rape out of blackmail, hatred, spite, or vengeance because of the stigma attached to it,” the Manipur High Court stated when it denied rape defendants’ bail requests prior to trial.
    YUMNAM SURJIT KUMAR SINGH VS OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, WOMEN POLICE STATION

 

  1. MEGHALAYA HC: ACT OF MUTUAL LOVE BETWEEN A YOUNG BOYFRIEND AND A GIRLFRIEND CANNOT BE EQUALED TO SEXUAL ASSAULT – The Meghalaya High Court ruled that sexual assault under the POCSO Act cannot be attributed to an act where there is mutual love and affection between a young couple. This ruling was made while dismissing POCSO allegations against a minor’s boyfriend.
    SILVESTAR KHONGLAH & ANR. VS. STATE OF MEGHALAYA & ANR.

 

  1. ORISSA HC – MARRIED DAUGHTERS CANNOT BE DENIED BENEFITS UNDER THE REHABILITATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAMME – When reiterating a married daughter’s right to seek compassionate work after her father’s demise, the Orissa High Court found that she cannot be refused benefits under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme.
    BASANTI NAYAK V. STATE OF ORISSA & ORS.

 

  1. DELHI HC – BY INVESTING IN PUBLICITY, THE PROPRIETOR CAN ESTIMATE THE VALUE OF THE TRADEMARK IN MONEY TERMS – According to the Delhi High Court, a trademark serves as an investment by protecting the investments made by the owner in marketing and establishing a positive reputation, and as a result, it develops a monetary worth that may be calculated.
    MR SANJAY CHADHA TRADING AS M/S EVEREADY TOOLS EMPORIUM v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

 

  1. DELHI HC – A RIGHT HASN’T BEEN FORFEITED SIMPLY BECAUSE IT HASN’T BEEN APPLIED TO ALL INFRINGERS. – Delhi High Court ruled that a registered design owner does not lose their rights merely because they have not taken legal action against all infringers, as it is reasonable for a design holder to weigh all of their options, including financial ones.
    RELAXO FOOTWEARS LTD vs AQUALITE INDIA LTD & ANR.

 

  1. KARNATAKA HIGH COURT – POCSO ACT SUPERSEDES PERSONAL LAW – The Karnataka High Court did not agree with the argument that a Muslim girl’s marriage after puberty does not break the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. Instead, it said that the POCSO Act, as a Special Act, takes precedence over personal law.
    ALEEM PASHA V. STATE AND ANOTHER

 

  1. J&K&L HC – GRANTS RELIEF TO PERSON AGGRIEVED BY UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPATION OF PROPERTY BY GOVT SINCE 1958 – the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that unauthorized occupation by the state of immovable property of its citizens gives the recurring cause of action, and thus delay cannot bar such citizen from asserting his rights before a constitutional court.
    AMINA BEGUM VS STATE OF J&K & ORS.

Legal Disclaimer: The information contained in this blog post is for general information and educational purposes only. Nothing contained in this blog post should be construed as legal advice from The Aran Law Firm or the individual author, nor is it intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter.

 

Tags :

Share This:

Legal Updates