Right to speedy trial is a fundamental right.
The right to speedy trial is an integral feature of Article 21. Though no time limit can be fixed since it is a relative concept varying from case to case but the trial is vitiated if speedy trial is not granted.. In the instant case not a single witness had been examined by the prosecution for 26 years, hence the court quashed the proceedings against the accused. [ Moti Lal Saraf v. State of J &K and Anr. Cr. App. No. 774 of 2802, decided on September 29, 2006 ].
In trademark action irreparable loss can be presumed if balance of convenience is in favour of the appellant.
In the instant case, the court had to interpret the provisions of Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. The court held that to determine infringement, when a prima facie case is made out and balance of convenience is in favour of the appellant, it may not be necessary to show more than loss of goodwill and reputation to fulfil the condition of irreparable injury. If the first two pre-requisites are fulfilled, in trade mark actions irreparable loss can be presumed to have taken place. If an infringement is established the onus would be on the defendants to show that he is entitled thereto either by acquiescence on the part of the proprietor or he himself has acquired a right thereto. In a case of infringement of trademark, injunction would ordinarily follow where it is established that the defendant had infringed the trademark and had not been able to discharge its burden as regard the defense taken by it. The court restrained the respondents from using the trademark including the trade name 'Ramdev Masala' in any of their products but, however, permitted them to carry on their business in any other name insofar as manufacturing of spices is concerned.
[(Ramdev Food Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Arvindbhai Rambhai Patel and others) (Civil Appeal Nos. 8815-8816 of 2003(with Civil Appeal No. 8817 of 2003) decided on August 29, 2006 ].
Principle of Natural Justice cannot be applied in the straight jacket formula
In the instant case wherein the Appellant challenged the decision of the High Court which upheld the order passed by the Director of Education (Appellate Authority) regarding the dismissal of Appellant as Head Master who was on probation on the ground of intentional serious dereliction of duty, misappropriation of funds etc., the Supreme Court while confirming the decision of the High Court, held that the contention of the appellant cannot be accepted that no copy of the enquiry report has been furnished to him thereby causing violation of principle of natural justice. The Court observed that it is now well-settled principle of law that doctrines of principle of natural justice are not embodied in the Rule. It cannot be applied in the straight jacket formula. To sustain the complaint of violation of the principle of natural justice one must establish that he has been prejudiced by non-observance of principle of natural justice. So, in the present case, as appellant has not been able to show as to how he has been prejudiced by non-furnishing of the copy of the enquiry report, accordingly, petition is liable to be dismissed. [Om Prakash Mann v. Director of Education (basic) &Ors . Civil Appeal No. 6014 of 2004 decided on 29th August 2006]
Whether DRT Act and Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 create first charge in favour of bank.
In this case the Supreme Court of India relied upon the judgment in State of M.P. v. State Bank of Indore [(2002) 10 KTR 366 (SC)] and held that even if there is first charge in favour of the bank, the same will not adversely affect the statutory first charge of the State. Hence, the Hon'ble Court refused to interfere with the proposed sale of the mortgaged properties but gave liberty to the bank to proceed to execute the decree passed in its favour in accordance with law. Writ appeal filed by the bank was dismissed.
The brief facts of this case are hereunder:
The appellant-bank granted loan to respondent nos.3 to 5, who mortgaged their immovable properties as security for repayment. After 8 years, the bank filed O.S. No.720 of 1992 for recovery of amount of loan with interest. The suit was decreed on 30.1.1995 for a sum of Rs.3,51,36,973/-. After lapse of three years, the bank filed O.A. No.1081 of 1998 for recovery of the amount in terms of decree dated 30.1.1995. On 26.7.2000, the Debt recovery Tribunal issued recovery certificate in favour of bank. In the meanwhile, Tehsildar, Ottapalam issued notice under Section 49(2) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act on 2.6.1999 for sale of the mortgaged properties for recovery of sales tax dues amounting to Rs.85,45,276/-. The appellant challenged the proposed sale in Writ Petition (O.P. No.17701 of 1999) and prayed that the State and its functionaries may be restrained from selling the property. [Central Bank of India Versus State of Kerala and others(CIVIL APPEAL NO.95 OF 2005)dicided on February 27, 2009]
