The Supreme Court on 18.05.2023 in Chanchalpati Das vs The State of West Bengal and Anr.has imposed a fine of Rs. 1 Lac on ISKCON Kolkata for filing a false case against ISKCON Bengaluru and to deposit in the office of the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association. Justices Ajay Rastogi and Bela M Trivedi expressed strong disapproval of the proceedings, which were initiated based on a complaint filed eight years after the alleged bus theft incident, stating that it was a clear case of misusing and abusing the law.
The court observed that the complaint appeared to be motivated by personal animosity and lacked substantial evidence or a prima facie case against the accused. It criticized the investigating officer for failing to gather compelling evidence to support the prosecution of the accused-appellants. The court found the allegations to be absurd and implausible, indicating that the complaint was filed solely to settle personal scores. The court expressed concern when individuals claiming to be global spiritual leaders engage in such frivolous litigations, using the legal process as a platform for their personal agendas.
The bench firmly stated that courts should not be exploited for personal motives and made it clear that such misuse of the legal system would not be tolerated. In order to discourage others from following a similar path, the court imposed a fine of Es. 1 lakh on the ISKCON Kolkata official.
The Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud on 12.05.2023 launches E-Filing 2.0
On 12.05.2023, the Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud launched E-Filing 2.0 and the facilitation centre. The facility will be available to the lawyers 24×7 to encourage the use of technology and less wastage of paper.
Supreme Court refuses to provide injunction on the broadcasting of Wipro Advertisement
Delhi High Court in Reckitt Benckiser v. Wipro Enterprises held while deciding an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 regarding a television advertisement featuring a bottle resembling Dettol hand wash, which promotes the moisturizing properties of the Santoor’s product. The Hon’ble Justice C.Hari Shankar after considering all the aspects held that comparative advertisement is protected under Art. 19 (1) (A) as commercial speech. The principle of puffery applies in cases of comparative advertising, where the overall impact of the commercial should be to promote one’s own product rather than disparaging the competitor’s product unfavourable comparisons can be made as long as they do not interfere with the storyline or message conveyed by the commercial.
