info@gstindia.biz | +91-9876512345
GST INDIA Biz
GSTIndia.biz — Case Law
Latest GST Case Law and Judgements
S.No Name Date of Order Subject Actions
101Vishwa Mitter vs. O. P. Poddar and Others, 30-09-1983Competency of a complainant to file a criminal complaint under Sections 78 and 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 read with Section 420 IPC, and whether a Magistrate can refuse to take cognizance on the ground that the complainant is not the View Download

The appellant, Vishwa Mitter, was a dealer in beedies and the constituted attorney of M/s Mangalore Ganesh Beedies Works, the registered owner of certain trademarks. He filed a criminal complaint before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate alleging that the respondents had infringed registered trademarks by selling inferior quality beedies in deceptively similar wrappers, thereby committing offences under Sections 78 and 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 and Section 420 IPC.Initially, the Magistrate issued process after preliminary inquiry. However, on revision, the High Court quashed the order on a technical ground and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. Upon rehearing, the Magistrate dismissed the complaint holding that the complainant, being only a dealer and not the registered trademark owner, was not competent to file the complaint. The revision petition filed against this dismissal was rejected in limine by the High Court. The matter then reached the Supreme Court by way of special leave.The principal question before the Supreme Court was whether a Magistrate can decline to take cognizance of an offence on the sole ground that the complainant is not the registered owner of the trademark, and whether any statutory provision restricted the right to file such complaint only to the registered proprietor.Court Observations and DecisionThe Supreme Court examined Sections 4 and 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It observed that Section 190 empowers a Magistrate to take cognizance of any offence upon receiving a complaint of facts constituting such offence, without prescribing any qualification for the complainant. The Court held that, generally, anyone can set the criminal law in motion unless there is a specific statutory provision to the contrary.The Court further noted that under Section 4(2) CrPC, offences under other laws are to be dealt with according to the CrPC unless a special statute provides otherwise. It examined Section 89 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, which restricts cognizance for offences under Sections 81, 82, and 83 to complaints made by the Registrar or authorized officer. However, no such restriction exists for offences under Sections 78 and 79. Therefore, there was no statutory bar preventing the appellant from filing the complaint.The Court also observed that even in the absence of specific statutory qualification, a person having a subsisting interest in the protection of a registered trademark cannot be said to lack standing. The appellant, being both a dealer in the concerned products and a constituted attorney of the registered proprietor, had sufficient interest.The Supreme Court held that the Magistrate erred in dismissing the complaint solely on the ground of lack of competency and that the High Court was also wrong in dismissing the revision petition in limine.The appeal was allowed. The orders of the Magistrate dated 20 February 1980 and of the High Court dated 4 November 1980 were set aside. The matter was remanded to the Magistrate to proceed further in accordance with law in light of the Court’s observations.Cases ReferredThe judgment does not record reliance on any specific prior decided cases. The Court referred to statutory provisions including:Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 4, 190, 195, 198, 199Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 – Sections 78, 79, 81, 82, 83, 89Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 – Section 20Companies Act, 1956 – Section 621 

Vishwa Mitter vs. O. P. Poddar and Others, 30-09-1983
Competency of a complainant to file a criminal complaint under Sections 78 and 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 read with Section 420 IPC, and whether a Magistrate can refuse to take cognizance on the ground that the complainant is not the

The appellant, Vishwa Mitter, was a dealer in beedies and the constituted attorney of M/s Mangalore Ganesh Beedies Works, the registered owner of certain trademarks. He filed a criminal complaint before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate alleging that the respondents had infringed registered trademarks by selling inferior quality beedies in deceptively similar wrappers, thereby committing offences under Sections 78 and 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 and Section 420 IPC.Initially, the Magistrate issued process after preliminary inquiry. However, on revision, the High Court quashed the order on a technical ground and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. Upon rehearing, the Magistrate dismissed the complaint holding that the complainant, being only a dealer and not the registered trademark owner, was not competent to file the complaint. The revision petition filed against this dismissal was rejected in limine by the High Court. The matter then reached the Supreme Court by way of special leave.The principal question before the Supreme Court was whether a Magistrate can decline to take cognizance of an offence on the sole ground that the complainant is not the registered owner of the trademark, and whether any statutory provision restricted the right to file such complaint only to the registered proprietor.Court Observations and DecisionThe Supreme Court examined Sections 4 and 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It observed that Section 190 empowers a Magistrate to take cognizance of any offence upon receiving a complaint of facts constituting such offence, without prescribing any qualification for the complainant. The Court held that, generally, anyone can set the criminal law in motion unless there is a specific statutory provision to the contrary.The Court further noted that under Section 4(2) CrPC, offences under other laws are to be dealt with according to the CrPC unless a special statute provides otherwise. It examined Section 89 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, which restricts cognizance for offences under Sections 81, 82, and 83 to complaints made by the Registrar or authorized officer. However, no such restriction exists for offences under Sections 78 and 79. Therefore, there was no statutory bar preventing the appellant from filing the complaint.The Court also observed that even in the absence of specific statutory qualification, a person having a subsisting interest in the protection of a registered trademark cannot be said to lack standing. The appellant, being both a dealer in the concerned products and a constituted attorney of the registered proprietor, had sufficient interest.The Supreme Court held that the Magistrate erred in dismissing the complaint solely on the ground of lack of competency and that the High Court was also wrong in dismissing the revision petition in limine.The appeal was allowed. The orders of the Magistrate dated 20 February 1980 and of the High Court dated 4 November 1980 were set aside. The matter was remanded to the Magistrate to proceed further in accordance with law in light of the Court’s observations.Cases ReferredThe judgment does not record reliance on any specific prior decided cases. The Court referred to statutory provisions including:Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 4, 190, 195, 198, 199Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 – Sections 78, 79, 81, 82, 83, 89Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 – Section 20Companies Act, 1956 – Section 621 

View Download
102Hoosein Kasam Dada (India) Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh 23-02-1953Whether amendment imposing pre-deposit condition for appeal applies retrospectively and affects vested right of appeal View Download

Facts :The assessee filed a sales tax return in 1947 and assessment proceedings were initiated under the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947. During pendency, Section 22(1) was amended in 1949 requiring full payment of assessed tax as a condition for admitting an appeal. After assessment in 1950, the assessee filed an appeal without depositing tax. Authorities rejected the appeal applying the amended provision, and the High Court upheld the rejection.Court Decision:The Supreme Court held that the right of appeal is a substantive and vested right accruing when proceedings are initiated. The amendment imposing a pre-deposit condition materially restricted this right and was not merely procedural. Since the amendment did not expressly or by necessary implication operate retrospectively, it could not apply to proceedings initiated prior to the amendment. The Court directed that the appeal be admitted without requiring deposit of tax.Cases Referred:Colonial Sugar Refining Co. Ltd. v. IrvingNana bin Aba v. Sheku bin AnduDelhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. v. Income-tax CommissionerKirpa Singh v. Rasaldar Ajaipal SinghSardar Ali v. DalimuddinBadruddin Abdul Rahim v. Sitaram Vinayak ApteIn re Vasudeva SamiarRam Singha v. Shankar DayalRadhakisan v. ShridharGordhan Das v. Governor-General in CouncilNagendra Nath Bose v. Mon Mohan Singha RoyJanardan Reddy v. StateGanpat Rai v. Agarwal Chamber of Commerce Ltd.

Hoosein Kasam Dada (India) Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh 23-02-1953
Whether amendment imposing pre-deposit condition for appeal applies retrospectively and affects vested right of appeal

Facts :The assessee filed a sales tax return in 1947 and assessment proceedings were initiated under the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947. During pendency, Section 22(1) was amended in 1949 requiring full payment of assessed tax as a condition for admitting an appeal. After assessment in 1950, the assessee filed an appeal without depositing tax. Authorities rejected the appeal applying the amended provision, and the High Court upheld the rejection.Court Decision:The Supreme Court held that the right of appeal is a substantive and vested right accruing when proceedings are initiated. The amendment imposing a pre-deposit condition materially restricted this right and was not merely procedural. Since the amendment did not expressly or by necessary implication operate retrospectively, it could not apply to proceedings initiated prior to the amendment. The Court directed that the appeal be admitted without requiring deposit of tax.Cases Referred:Colonial Sugar Refining Co. Ltd. v. IrvingNana bin Aba v. Sheku bin AnduDelhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. v. Income-tax CommissionerKirpa Singh v. Rasaldar Ajaipal SinghSardar Ali v. DalimuddinBadruddin Abdul Rahim v. Sitaram Vinayak ApteIn re Vasudeva SamiarRam Singha v. Shankar DayalRadhakisan v. ShridharGordhan Das v. Governor-General in CouncilNagendra Nath Bose v. Mon Mohan Singha RoyJanardan Reddy v. StateGanpat Rai v. Agarwal Chamber of Commerce Ltd.

View Download
Total: 102 case laws