Calcutta High Court Annual Digest: Part-I [Citations: 1-99]

ORDERS/JUDGEMENTSUse Of 'Silk' To Denote Paint's Finish Customary, Can't Be Protected As Trademark: Calcutta High Court Dismisses Berger's Plea Against JSW PaintsCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 1Case: Berger Paints India Limited v JSW Paints Private LimitedThe Calcutta High Court recently dismissed an interim injunction application in a suit filed by Berger Paints to restrain JSW Paints from using the term 'SILK' in conjunction with their product range sold under the trademark 'HALO'.A single bench of Justice Krishna Rao held:The use of the expression “SILK” for paint finish is customary in the trade and is not capable of being protected as trademark with respect of paints, emulsions and distempers. The defendant has not applied for the registration of the mark “SILK” and does not intend to market its product under a trade mark “SILK”. The products of the defendant are sold under the mark “HALO”, such as, with the word “Silk” being used only to define the finish/sheen of the paint. By comparison of the two marks, in my view both appears to be substantially different and there is no similarity between both the labels.Wife Making Allegations Of Mental Illness Against Husband's Mother Not 'Cruelty': Calcutta High Court Dismisses Plea For Marriage DissolutionCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 2Case: Gopal Ranjan Bandopadhyay @ Gopal Ranjan Banerjee v Smt. Manidipa Banerjee (Talukdar)The Calcutta High Court has recently dismissed an appeal by a husband challenging the decision of the trial court which dismissed his prayer for dissolution of marriage with his wife, granting him a decree of judicial separation instead.The petitioner/husband had alleged that the wife had committed acts of 'mental cruelty' by alleging that the petitioner's mother had a mental illness, misbehaving with her in-laws, and had also deserted the petitioner by taking away their daughter and leaving the matrimonial home.A division bench of Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Madhuresh Prasad held:The issue of mental illness has not been established or proved with any material in the trial. Such allegation, per se cannot be viewed to constitute an act of mental cruelty. There is also nothing on record to show that the petitioner at any time prior to filing of the suit in question had objected to the respondent residing with her parents, or made any efforts to bring her back to the matrimonial home.Lodging False Case U/S 498A IPC Is An Element Of Cruelty By Wife, Cannot Ignore The Same: Calcutta High Court Allows Dissolution Of MarriageCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 3Case Name: Poulami Biswas v Shamik BiswasThe Calcutta High Court has recently held that a wife making false allegations against her husband & his family members under section 498A of the IPC would constitute an element of the offence of cruelty, which is a ground for dissolution of marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA).In allowing the husband's plea for dissolution of marriage, a division bench of Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Madhuresh Prasad held:Interestingly, the wife in her evidence categorically deposed that she initiated the proceeding under Section 498A/406 of the IPC on the advice of the learned Advocate. The said proceeding ended in an acquittal of all the accused named therein including the husband. Lodging a false criminal case under Section 498A/406 of the IPC is also one of the element of cruelty and, therefore, the Court cannot ignore the same while considering the appeal on merit.Must Respect Citizen's Constitutional Right To Property: Calcutta High Court Directs State To Pay ₹2 Lakh Damages For Unlawfully Taking PossessionCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 4Case: State of West Bengal & Ors. v Achinta Roy @ Achinta Kumar Roy Ghatak ChoudhuryThe Calcutta High Court has recently held that the State must protect citizens and respect their Constitutional right to property, enshrined under Article 300A of the Constitution of India.In directing the authorities to pay damages of Rs 2 lakhs for unlawfully evicting the plaintiffs from the suit property, without any basis in the year 2000, a single-bench of Justice Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury directed for the plaintiff's possession to be restored within 90 days of the order. It held:Admittedly during pendency of the proceeding before the learned court below the defendant -State evicted the plaintiffs from the suit property which was out and out an illegal act. State is supposed to protect the citizens and respect their right of property which is being considered as constitutional right. Therefore, the State has incurred the obligation to pay damages for unlawful possession of the property effect from 1.5.2000 till the possession is restored.Evidence Act, 1872 | When Documentary Evidence Available, Oral Testimony Not Sufficient To Rebut Its Probative Value: Calcutta High CourtCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 5Case: MINATI BHADRA & ORS. v DILIP KR. BHADRA & ORS.The Calcutta High Court has recently held that when documentary evidence is...

Calcutta High Court Annual Digest: Part-I [Citations: 1-99]

Srinjoy Das