Professional Documents
Culture Documents
By:
Utkarsh Upadhyaya
Section: E
2012IPM115
owned by Delhi Cloth Mills Limited, a public company limited by shares and
which is engaged in an industry vital to public interest and with potential to
affect the life and health of the people. The issue of availability of Article 21
against a private corporation engaged in an activity which has potential to
affect the life and health of the people was vehemently argued by counsel for
the applicants and Shriram
Quoting the order of the Supreme Court-Shriram is an authority within the
meaning of Article 12 so as to be subjected to the discipline of the
fundamental right under Article 21, we do not think it would be justified in
setting up a special machinery for investigation of the claims for compensation
made by those who allege that they have been the victims of oleum gas
escape. But we would direct that Delhi Legal Aid and Advice Board to take up
the cases of all those who claim to have suffered on account of oleum gas and
to file actions on their behalf in the appropriate court for claiming
compensation against Shriram. Such actions claiming compensation may be
filed by the Delhi Legal Aid and Advice Board within two months from today
and the Delhi Administration is directed to provide the necessary funds to the
Delhi Legal Aid and Advice Board for the purpose of filing and prosecuting
such actions
Impact on Business
The case had a significant impact of business as it being in the aftermath of
the Bhopal Gas Tragedy made it a landmark one
The court can innovated new methods and strategies for the purpose of
securing enforcement of the fundamental rights, particularly in the case of
the poor and the disadvantaged who are denied their basic human rights
and to whom freedom and liberty have no meaning.
The power of the Court is not only injunctive in ambit, that is, preventing
the infringement of a fundamental right, but it is also remedial in scope
and provides relief against a breach of the fundamental right.
The power of the court to grant such remedial relief may include the power to
award compensation in appropriate cases where infringement of the
fundamental right is gross and patent, such infringement should be on a large
scale affecting the fundamental rights of a large number of persons or it should
appear unjust or unduly harsh or oppressive on account of their poverty or
disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position.
Similar Cases
Dr. Shiva Rao Shantaram Wagle v. Union of India, AIR 1988
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1988
Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India, AIR 1990
Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India, AIR 1990
S. Jagannath Vs Union of India (1997) 2 SCC 87: AIR 1997
Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum Vs Union of India (1996)
M.C. Mehta Vs Union of India, (1997)
M.C. Mehta Vs Union of India, (1997)
M.C. Mehta Vs Kamal Nath, (1997)
References
http://www.environmentallawsofindia.com/some_important_cases.html
http://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l265-M.C.-Mehta-v.-Union-ofIndia.html
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1486949/
Facts of Law
The case dealt with the concept of corporate veil and separate legal
personality.
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council reasserted that a
company is a separate legal entity, so that a director could still be
under a contract of employment with the company he solely
owned
References
http://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/company-law/theseparate-entity-principle.php
http://kennie-businesslaw.blogspot.in/2010/04/lee-v-lees-airfarming.html
http://milleniasociety.blogspot.in/2010/04/lee-v-lees-air-farmingltd.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_v_Lee%27s_Air_Farming_Ltd
The Plaintiffs being a famous German car company and its subsidiary in
India, filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of trade
mark against the Defendant towards use of its trade mark Benz along with
the device of a three pointed human being on undergarments.
The symbol was used by the makers of VIP underwear in an advertisement
featuring a man in a pose mimicking the logo of the famous auto brand, on top
of this the range of under garments were named VIP Benz
Principle of Law
Court observed that the mark Benz and the device of device of a three
pointed human being are well known marks
There are names and marks which have become household words. Benz as
name of a Car would be known to every family that has ever used a quality
car. The name Benz as applied to a car, has a unique place in the world.
There is hardly one who is conscious of existence of the cars/automobiles,
who would not recognize the name Benz used in connection with cars
The court observed that- Trade Mark law is not intended to protect a person
who deliberately sets out to take the benefit of somebody elses reputation
with reference to goods, especially so when the reputation extends world wide.
By no stretch of imagination can it be said that use for any length of time of
the name Benz should be not objected to
The court stated that- Benz is a name given to a very high priced and
extremely well engineered product. The defendant cannot dilute, that by user
of the name Benz with respect to a product like under-wears
Impact on Business
The Defendant was restrained from using the mark Benz along with the device of a
three pointed human being for undergarements.
Similar Cases
Cadbury India Limited And Ors. vs Neeraj Food Products on 25 May, 2007
References
http://indiankanoon.org/search/?formInput=trademark%20infringement
%20cases&pagenum=2
https://indiancaselaws.wordpress.com/2014/06/26/daimler-benzaktiegesellschaft-anr-v-hybo-hindustan/
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1460548/
The claimants, Mr Hadley and another, were millers and worked together in a
partnership as proprietors of the City Steam-Mills in Gloucester.
They cleaned grain, ground it into meal and dressed it into flour, sharps, and
bran.
A crankshaft of a steam engine at the mill had broken and Hadley arranged to
have a new one made by W. Joyce & Co. in Greenwich.
Before the new crankshaft could be made, W. Joyce & Co. required that the
broken crankshaft be sent to them in order to ensure that the new crankshaft
would fit together properly with the other parts of the steam engine.
Hadley contracted with defendants Baxendale and Ors, who were operating
together as common carriers under the name Pickford & Co., to deliver the
crankshaft to engineers for repair by a certain date at a cost of 2 sterling and
4 shillings.
Baxendale failed to deliver on the date in question, causing Hadley to lose
business.
Hadley sued for the profits he lost due to Baxendale's late delivery, and the
jury awarded Hadley damages of 25.
Baxendale appealed, contending that he did not know that Hadley would
suffer any particular damage by reason of the late delivery.
The question raised by the appeal in this case was whether a defendant in a
breach of contract case could be held liable for damages that the defendant
was not aware would be incurred from a breach of the contract.
Facts of Law
Impact on Business
This case sets the basic rule to determine consequential damages from a breach of
contract: a breaching party is liable for all losses that the contracting parties should
have foreseen, but is not liable for any losses that the breaching party could not have
foreseen on the information available to him.
Similar Cases
References
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadley_v_Baxendale
http://www.lawnix.com/cases/hadley-baxendale.html
http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/cases/Hadley-v-Baxendale.php
http://www.drukker.co.uk/publications/reference/rule-hadley-vbaxendale/#.Vtl21ZN96CQ
The plaintiff asked the defendants, who were motor dealers, to supply a car
that would be suitable for touring purposes
The defendants recommended a Bugatti, which the plaintiff bought. The
written contract excluded the defendant's liability for any "guarantee or
warranty, statutory or otherwise"
The car turned out to be unsuitable for the plaintiff's purposes, so he rejected it
and sued to recover what he had paid.
The Court of Appeal held that the requirement that the car be suitable for
touring was a condition
Since the clause did not exclude liability for breach of a condition, the plaintiff
was not bound by it.
Principle of Law
As a general rule when a person buys something it is his duty to see whether
that something suits his purpose or not .He cannot hold any body responsible
for making a bad choice. This is known as the doctrine of caveat emptor when
seller gives express condition or warranty regarding a product; he is bound to
honor that.
In case the goods bought do not comply with such condition or warranty, the
seller is liable to compensate the buyer. Even in the absence of express
stipulations by the seller, law presumes that products should meet certain
conditions and warranties, breach of which has the same effect as the breach
of express stipulations
Impact on Business
10
When a consumer buys goods from a trader, both parties enter into a contract.
A contract may be defined as an agreement between two or more parties that is
intended to be legally binding
Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, certain standards apply to every
transaction for the sale and supply of goods (including hire purchase, hire, part
exchange and contracts for work and materials).
Section 3(2) provides that if goods are sold and delivered to minors or those
mentally incapacitate the minor will be liable to pay a reasonable price if the
goods are necessaries. Necessaries are goods suitable to the persons' condition
of life and actual requirements at the time of contracting.
Similar Cases
References
http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/articles/print_this_page.asp?article_id=379
http://www.lawctopus.com/academike/sale-goods-domestic-internationaldomain/
http://www.justcite.com/Document/b2CtoXadmSaaa/baldry-v-marshall
11
Helen Wallia was travelling with another person from San Francisco to Hong
Kong.
Both in all had four bags when they checked in at San Francisco.
Initially tags were given for three bags only but upon insistence of Hellen
Wallia fourth tag was also given.
When the flight arrived at Hong Kong only three bags could be traced. Fourth
of which the tag was given later belonging to Hellen Wallia, could not be
traced.
She lodged complaint at Hong Kong with Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd. and
also at Mumbai in India. Correspondence that ensued between the parties,
Cathay Pacific offered in all US$ 640
Principle of Law
Thus the court not finding any merit in the complaint dismissed it
Impact on Business
Since the complaint of Hellen Wallia was not according to the Air Act it was
dismissed by the Court.
Similar Cases
References
http://www.admiraltylaw.com/grouped_summaries.php?topic=5
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/545147/
13