Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: November 20 To November 26, 2023

Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 359 To 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 365 NOMINAL INDEX G.Mayakannan v. The District Collector, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 359 Apollo Hospitals Enterprises Ltd v Dr Dheeraj Saurabh, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 360 AM Paramasivan and another v State, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 361 State v XXX, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 362 M/s. Lenovo (India) Pvt. Ltd. Versus JCIT, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 363 M/s. Jain Metal Rolling Mills Versus Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 364 Manav Menon Versus DCIT, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 365 REPORT Married Woman Cannot Be Presumed To Have Disowned Residential Rights At Her Parents’ House: Madras High Court Case Title: G.Mayakannan v. The District Collector Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 359 While dismissing a plea challenging the appointment of a woman to the post of Panchayat Secretary claiming that she was not a resident of that place, the Madras High Court observed that a married woman should not be presumed to have disowned the residential rights at her parents home on account of her marriage. Justice RN Manjula stressed that retaining or waiving the residential address was completely at the will of the married woman and her family in certain circumstances. This will, along with a house was enough to provide her with a residential certificate, the court added. “Apollo” A Well Known Mark In Pharma Industry: Madras High Court Injuncts Bihar Hospital From Using “New Appolo Hospital” Mark Case Title: Apollo Hospitals Enterprises Ltd v Dr Dheeraj Saurabh Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 360 Granting relief to the Apollo group, the Madras High Court recently observed that the trademark “Apollo” was a well-known mark in the healthcare and pharmaceutical industry and was entitled to highest level of protection as the public associated the name “Apollo” only with the healthcare group. Justice Abdul Quddhose was hearing a plea by Apollo Hospitals Enterprises Ltd to declare their “Apollo” mark as a well-known trade mark and to injunct the defendant, DR Dheeraj Saurabh, proprietor of New Appolo Hospital in Bihar from using their marks. With respect to the grant of recognition as well well-known mark, the court observed that after amendment in 2018, the Trade Marks Rules empowered the trademark registry to grant recognition of a trademark as a well-known mark within the meaning of Section 2(1)(zg) of the Trade Marks Act 1999. However, the court noted that the amendment had not taken away the court’s power to grant such recognition. The court thus observed that the court and the registry had concurrent powers to recognise a mark as a well-known trademark. Madras High Court Upholds Sentence Of Former Minister’s 80-Yr-Old Wife In Disproportionate Assets Case Case Title: AM Paramasivan and another v State Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 361 While deciding a 23-year-old appeal against the order of Special Judge sentencing former Minister for Labour Welfare Late AM Paramasivam and his wife under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Madras High Court confirmed the sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment and fine imposed on the minister’s wife Nallammal. Paramasivam was a member of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly during the period 1991 to 1996 and served as the Minister for Labour Welfare in Government of Tamil Nadu during 1993-1996. During this period, Paramasivam, along with his wife had acquired properties beyond their known pecuniary resources during the check period between 1991 to 1996. Justice G Jayachandran observed that the Minister, being a public servant had acquired wealth 400% above his known sources of income and his wife had lend her name in acquiring properties through undeclared sources thus committing the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Doctors Conducting 'Two Finger Test' On Rape Survivors Will Be Guilty Of Misconduct: Madras High Court Case Title: State v XXX Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 362 The Madras High Court recently reiterated that medical practitioners who continued to conduct Two-Finger Test banned by the Supreme Court will be guilty of misconduct. The bench of Justice SS Sunder and Justice Sunder Mohan made the observation while coming across a Medico-Legal Examination report in a rape case where a Two Finger Test had been conducted. The court expressed regret that even after directions from the Supreme Court and the High Court, doctors were still continuing to conduct the test. ALSO READ: POCSO Act | When Procedural Lapses Do Not Cause Any Dent In Prosecution, Trial Will Not Be Vitiated: Madras High Court 2 Years Limitation To File GST Refund Application Is Directory & Not Mandatory: Madras High Court Case Title: M/s. Lenovo (India) Pvt. Ltd. Versus JCIT Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 363 The Madras High Court has held that the 2-year limitation to file a GST refund application is a directory and not...

Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: November 20 To November 26, 2023

Upasana Sajeev

Tags