Bombay High Court- Ravi Shinde, Nagpur and Ors. v.Medical Council of India, Dwarka, New Delhi and Anr.

The Petitioners after passing their 12th standard examination, were selected for MBBS course in the year 2005 in their respective colleges and all of them, thereafter, pursued the first MBBS course. They appeared for the examination conducted in or about 3rd July, 2006. All the Petitioners failed in the said regular examination. Thereafter, they took the next supplementary examination conducted in or about November, 2006 and passed the said examination. The grievance of the Petitioners was that Respondent 2-University ought to have allowed the Petitioners, after passing their first supplementary MBBS examination to join the regular batch or the main batch of the second MBBS course. According to the Petitioners, they should have been allowed to take the second MBBS professional examination along with the students of the regular batch who had passed their first MBBS professional examination. They filed Writ Petition under Regulation 7(7) of Regulations of Medical Council of India against the said refusal of university. Held, Respondent No. 1 Medical Council of India entrusted to ensure quality in medical education and also empowered to make regulations for the said purpose. As per Regulation of 1997 a student must undergo training for 18 months before taking second year medical examination. If student fails in Phase 1 examination he must sit for supplementary exam. By the time failed students cleared their supplementary examination, training of other students had already started. Thus, such students cannot insist on being allowed to take second examination with regular students. University has the liberty to hold supplementary exam any time within six months. Passing the supplementary examination would not relate back to the annual examination. By the time, a student passes the supplementary examination, Phase II training for second MBBS professional examination would have already begun. Such a student, therefore, cannot complete 18 months of mandatory training to be eligible to take second MBBS professional examination, which is held during 5th semester. He cannot join the main batch and take second MBBS professional examination with them. Lowering of eligibility norms would adversely affect Medical Education. As per 1997 Regulation requirement of passing 18 months training cannot be done away with. 1997 Regulations held to be mandatory. Petition dismissed.

Source www.manupatra.com

Delhi High Court- Hawkins cookers limited v. M/s Murugan Enterprises

The Plaintiff is manufacture of pressure cookers and parts thereof under the trademark "HAWKINS" for the last 30 years. The Plaintiff came to know that the Defendant was using the trademark HAWKINS/Hawkins in respect of parts of pressure cooker and therefore, served a Cease and Desist Notice on the Defendant. However, as the Defendant did not pay any heed to the same, the Plaintiff instituted suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of trademark, passing off, delivery up and rendition of accounts etc. against the sole Defendant. Defendant refuted the allegation on the ground that they only state on their product/gasket that the same is suitable for Hawkins Pressure Cookers. Held, Defendant has its own well-established trademark MAYUR. No reasonable person or purchaser can ever assume a trade connection between MAYUR brand of gaskets and Hawkins. Use of the expression 'Suitable for Hawkins Pressure Cookers' in front of the Defendants product would clearly fall within the exception carved out under Section 30. Condition of 'Honest use' is satisfied, since one cannot decipher a commercial connection between the plaintiff and the Defendant by use of the word HAWKINS by the defendant. It is not a case where there is dilution of the value of the trademark of the Plaintiff by unfair advantage being taken of its distinctive character or repute by the Defendant. Prominent display of the own trade mark of the Defendant along with prominent display of the address of its manufacturers as against the same indicates suitability of the gaskets for Hawkins pressure cookers and not one of passing off. Petition dismissed.

Source www.manupatra.com

Supreme Court- Venture Global Engineering v. Satyam Computer Services Ltd. and Anr.

Appellant-Company and Respondent No.1- entered into a Joint Venture Agreement. Disputes arose between the parties and a Sole arbitrator was appointed by the London Court of International Arbitration. Arbitrator passed an award directing the Appellant to transfer the shares to Respondent No.1. Thereafter, Appellant filed a suit before the First Additional Chief Judge seeking declaration to set aside the award and permanent injunction on the transfer of shares under the award. District Court passed an ad-interim ex parte Order of injunction. Respondent No.1 filed an appeal before the High Court, which was dismissed. Hence, present appeal. Held, that provisions of Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 would apply to all arbitrations including international commercial arbitrations and to all proceedings relating thereto unless the parties by agreement, express or implied, exclude all or any of its provisions. Further, Judgment-debtor cannot be deprived of his right under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to invoke the public policy of India, to set aside the award. In present case, Award had an intimate and close nexus to India as company was situated in India and transfer of "ownership interests" shall be made in India under the laws of India. Therefore, if Respondent No. 1 was not prepared to enforce the award in spite of this intimate and close nexus to India, the Appellant would certainly not be deprived of the right to challenge the award in Indian Courts.


Source Manupatra

Supreme Court- Bhagwan Dass and Anr. v. Punjab State Electricity Board

Appellant No. 1 was working with Respondent-Board. While in service he became totally blind. He remained absent from duty without any sanctioned leave for more than three years. A chargesheet was issued against Appellant initiating disciplinary proceedings against him for gross misconduct under Regulation 8 of the Punjab State Electricity Board Employees Punishment & Appeal Regulation 1971. Meanwhile, Appellant requested the Board to retire him from service and also requested that his wife be employed in his place. The chargesheet issued against the Appellant was withdrawn and Appellant was relieved from service. Aggrieved by this, Appellant filed an appeal before the High Court, which was dismissed. Hence, present appeal. Held, that in the letter for retirement, Appellant requested to be retired but at the same time requested that his wife should be given a suitable job. The letter was not a voluntary offer for retirement. Therefore, it was the duty of the superior officers to explain to him the correct legal position and to tell him about his legal rights. Since they failed to do so the action of the concerned officers was depreciable. Denial of a disabled persons rights would not only be unjust and unfair to them and their families but would create larger and graver problems for the society at large therefore termination was bad and illegal. Appellant entitled to all service benefits.

Manupatra Round up