SUPREME COURT

• CONSTITUTION

Pazhassi Raja Charitable Trust and Anr. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Anr. (Decided on 02.12.2009) MANU/SC/1851/2009

Constitution - Exercise of inherent powers by Court - Article 142 of Constitution of India - Petitioner-producer of film of national importance "PAZHASSI RAJA" filed for interim relief against non screening of film at International Film Festival of India - 2009 - Relief denied by High Court - Whether Supreme Court can invoke its powers under Article 142 to grant relief as prayed for by Petitioner?

Held, Court may exercise its power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to do complete justice in a particular case where matters are relatable directly to Article 21 and akin to deprivation of life - In other words issues which would fall within the category of `rarest of rare' cases - This Court can grant the relief in cases: where manifest injustice has been done: or where there is manifest illegality or manifest want of jurisdiction - In the present case, Court is concerned with a purely commercial venture - Therefore, no interference with Order of High Court - Petition dismissed.

• CIVIL

Kashi Math Samsthan and Anr. Vs. Srimad Sudhindra Thirtha Swamy and Anr. (Decided on 02.12.2009) MANU/SC/1852/2009

Civil - Application for order of injunction - Parameters for grant of relief of injunction by Court

Held, in order to obtain an order of injunction, the party who seeks for grant of such injunction has to prove that he has made out a prima facie case to go for trial, the balance of convenience is also in his favour and he will suffer irreparable loss and injury if injunction is not granted - But it is equally well settled that when a party fails to prove prima facie case to go for trial, question of considering the balance of convenience or irreparable loss and injury to the party concerned would not be material at all, that is to say, if that party fails to prove prima facie case to go for trial, it is not open to the Court to grant injunction in his favour even if, he has made out a case of balance of convenience being in his favour and would suffer irreparable loss and injury if no injunction order is granted - Appellant No. 2 failed to make out a prima facie case in his favour and the balance of convenience was also against him - Therefore, no reason to interfere with the order of the High Court - Appeal dismissed.

• LABOUR AND INDUSTRIAL

Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Vs. Avinash Dhaniramji Kamble (Decided on 03.12.2009) MANU/SC/1858/2009

Labour and Industrial - Termination from employment - Rotational employment -Dispute as to uninterrupted service of 240 days by Respondent employees - Respondent workmen allegedly employed for six months in rotation with other temporaries by employer and upon expiry of each term of six months replaced by another set of temporaries to prevent employees from completing 240 days uninterrupted service.

Held, termination and fresh employment in respect of some temporaries had been several times and none of the complainants (present respondents) challenged their termination being illegal as and when their services were brought to an end on expiry of the period for which they were engaged under the contract of service - Therefore, impugned Judgement of High Court allowing complaint of Respondent-employees set aside

HIGH COURT

• INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS

DELHI HIGH COURT

Banyan Tree Holding (P) Limited Vs. A. Murali Krishna Reddy and Anr. Decided on 23.11.2009 (MANU/DE/3072/2009)

Intellectual Property Rights - Suit for passing off - Territorial Jurisdiction of Forum Court - Suit for passing off filed in High Court of Delhi - Neither of the parties voluntarily resides or carries on business within local limits of Delhi - Plaintiff seeks territorial jurisdiction of Delhi High Court on ground that Defendant's interactive website for soliciting business is accessible in Delhi - Whether hosting of a universally accessible site would grant jurisdiction to a court when neither of the parties to the suit voluntarily resides or carries on business within the territorial limits of the court?

Held, jurisdiction of the Forum Court does not get attracted merely on the basis of interactivity of the website which is accessible in the forum state. The degree of the interactivity apart, the nature of the activity permissible and whether it results in a commercial transaction has to be examined. For the purposes of a passing off action, or an infringement action where the Plaintiff is not carrying on business within the jurisdiction of a court, and in the absence of a long-arm statute, in order to satisfy the Forum Court that it has jurisdiction to entertain the suit, the Plaintiff would have to show that the Defendant submitted itself to the jurisdiction of the Forum Court. For this it would have to be prima facie shown that the nature of the activity indulged in by the Defendant by the use of the website was with an intention to conclude a commercial transaction with the website user and that the specific targeting of the forum state by the Defendant resulted in an injury or harm to the Plaintiff within the forum state

Intellectual Property Rights - Suit for passing off - Territorial Jurisdiction of Forum Court - Defendant sought to be sued on the basis of its interactive website accessible in forum state - Extent of burden of Plaintiff to prima facie establish that Forum Court has necessary jurisdiction - In a passing off or infringement action, where the defendant is sought to be sued on the basis of its website that is accessible in the forum state, what is the extent of the burden on the Plaintiff to prima facie establish that the forum court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit?

Held, for the purposes of Section 20 (c) CPC, in order to show that some part of the cause of action has arisen in the forum state by the use of the internet by the Defendant the Plaintiff will have to show prima facie that the said website, whether euphemistically termed as "passive plus" or "interactive", was specifically targeted at viewers in the forum state for commercial transactions. The Plaintiff would have to plead this and produce material to prima facie show that some commercial transaction using the website was entered into by the Defendant with a user of its website within the forum state resulting in an injury or harm to the Plaintiff within the forum state

• CONSTITUTION

MADRAS HIGH COURT

M.M. Subramanian Vs. The 0.556 Manappadu Catholic Coop Urban Credit Society, The Deputy Registrar of Coop Societies and The Additional Registrar of Coop Societies (Decided On: 25.11.2009) MANU/TN/3219/2009

Constitution - Filing of writ petition when alternative remedy available - Maintainability of writ petition - Article 226 of Constitution of India

Held, even if alternative remedy is available, it cannot be held that a writ petition is not maintainable. However, when there is disputed question of fact, the same should not be entertained in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and parties must be allowed to avail the statutory remedy provided under the relevant law.

• CIVIL

BOMBAY HIGH COURT

Sanjeev Indravadan Dani Vs. Mrs. Rupal Sanjeev Dani (Decided on 12.11.2009) MANU/MH/1283/2009

Civil - Exercise of inherent power by Family Court - Consolidation of two different petitions with two different reliefs by Court - Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure - Whether Family Court, in exercise of inherent powers under Section 151 of CPC, can direct consolidation of two petitions between same parties with different reliefs ?

Held, inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code are certainly available to the Family Court, notwithstanding the provisions in the Family Courts Act - There is no provision in the Family Courts Act, which would inhibit the Family Courts from exercising its inherent power available under Section 151 of the Court - Therefore, Family Court has ample powers to order consolidation of trial of two petitions pending before it between the same parties even if the same were claiming entirely different reliefs - Appeal dismissed.

• CRIMINAL

BOMBAY HIGH COURT

Sudhakar Shridhar Vispute Vs. The State of Maharashtra (Decided on 15.10.2009) MANU/MH/1250/2009

Criminal - Matrimonial Cruelty and Abetting Commission of Suicide - Alleged ill-treatment of married woman by husband forcing her to commit suicide - Conduct of husband - Conviction under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code - Whether husband by his conduct had abetted commission of suicide by wife and whether husband's conviction under Section 498-A of IPC is justified?

Held, where the husband was of suspicious nature and made life difficult for the deceased wife, by demeaning herself then conviction for offence under Section 498-A of I.P.Code was justified - The conduct of the husband should be found to be such that the wife was likely to be driven to commit the suicide (Ratio in Sarojakshan Shankaran Nayar and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra applied) - In the present case too, the appellant assaulted the deceased wife a day or two before the incident of her suicide - He also assaulted her in the very same noon while they were in the agricultural land - Under the circumstances, the only deducible inference would be that he subjected her to mental and physical cruelty and by his conduct, abetted the commission of her suicide - Appeal dismissed.