Author: kkslawoffices

The Competition Commission of India dismissed an abuse of dominance case against Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS) office, Dehradun. It was alleged that CGHS, Dehradun favoured one of the bidders and rejected the bid of the Informant on vague grounds, in a tender invited for appointment of Authorised Local Chemist for supply of allopathic medicines to CGHS Wellness Centres in Dehradun. However, CCI was of the opinion that the alleged conduct of selecting one of the bidders and rejecting the bid of the Informant cannot be termed as abusive within the meaning of Section 4 of the Competition Act.

The Madras High Court (Mad. HC) in an appeal filed by the wife, against the order of a lower Court granting divorce upon relying on the husband’s plea of mental cruelty, noted that the wife had filed petitions before the lower Court only to vindicate her matrimonial rights viz. property rights and the custody of her son. The Mad. HC, setting aside the order of the lower Court, held that “When the initiation of such proceedings is for the vindication of her rights, the said proceedings can never be considered to be a ground for mental cruelty.”

The Kerala High Court (KHC) allowed a writ petition filed by a student claiming she belongs to a Scheduled Tribe (ST), as her mother belongs to the ST, and therefore is entitled to all the benefits available to the ST & issuance of community certificate in that regards. The KHC observed that a child can be considered as belonging to Scheduled Caste or ST even if only one of the parents belongs to the same SC/ST community so long as they have suffered disability socially, economically, and educationally.

The Competition and Market Authority (CMA), United Kingdom, has initiated an in-depth inquiry into Adobe Inc.’s $20 Billion acquisition of Figma Inc. According to the CMA the deal “could mean less choice for designers of digital apps, websites, and other products” and further, would “lead to loss of important rivalry.” However, Adobe refused to offer any remedies to address CMA’s concerns.

The Supreme Court (SC) was dealing with an appeal filed by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) against the order of the Bombay High Court which has directed RBI to apply reservation for persons with disabilities (PwD) in matters related to promotion. RBI had denied such reservation on the ground that there was no provision for providing reservation on grounds of disabilities. SC denying RBI’s contention noted that such denial amounts to violation of Article 16 of the Constitution and albeit Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunity,….) Act, 1995 did not contain any express provision for reservation to PwD; however, mere absence of an express mandate for reservation in promotion for PwD did not absolve the Government from keeping reserved vacancies on promotional posts.

The Supreme Court (SC), while dealing with an order of Kerala High Court quashing investigation report submitted in relation to a road accident, has held that the correctness or otherwise of the investigation report submitted does not have much significance as the claim petitions filed by the dependants has to be decided on the merits. Thus SC in its judgment, allowing the appeal, opined that the claimants have to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities, and not on the basis of standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) dismissed an Information alleging abuse of dominance, through unfair and discriminatory conditions, by M/s. DLF Gayatri Developers (DLFGD) in relation to the sale of individual plots in its DLF Garden City Project, Mahbubnagar, Telangana. The Informant had alleged that certain clauses of the club agreement – absolute discretion of club management to terminate club membership; exorbitant club membership fees etc. – are unfair and discriminatory and bind the plot owners of the project. However, the CCI noted that in the relevant market of “provision of services for development and sale of residential plots in Mahabubnagar district in the State of Telangana,” there are several other real-estate developers like Girdhari Constructions, Ashoka Ventures etc. that offer comparable and similar amenities, thus no dominance of DLFGD can be established.

The Delhi High Court (DHC), dealing with the issue that if Competition Commission of India (CCI) has powers to investigate abuse of dominant position by a patentee when a patent is granted in India, has held that CCI cannot investigate the patentee abusing its dominant position, while exercising its patent rights, and this can only be done by the Controller of Patents. The DHC noted that Chapter XVI of the Patents Act, 1970 is a complete code on all issues pertaining to licensing conditions, abuse of status as a patentee, and relief that is to be granted; and that there is no scope of doubt that the Patents Act is the special statute, and not the Competition Act.

The Delhi High Court (DHC) has restrained Wipro from manufacturing, selling or advertising their female intimate wash or any other product under the mark ‘Evecare’ after a trademark infringement case was filed by Himalaya Co. DHC noted that the trademark was obtained by Himalaya in 1997, whereas Wipro launched its product in 2021. DHC while passing a restraining order against Wipro noted that the function of both the products is similar and that in today’s times, when most products are purchased online, the search on e-commerce platforms is usually done through the trademark and therefore, in such cases, the house mark would not be of much relevance.

The Supreme Court (SC) setting aside an order of the National Green Tribunal (NGT), passed based on reports submitted by an Expert Committee and without giving opportunity of being heard to the parties, noted that ‘official notice’ doctrine, according to which “although an authority can rely upon materials familiar to it in its expert capacity without the need formally to introduce them in evidence, nevertheless, the parties ought to be informed of materials so noticed and be given an opportunity to explain or rebut them,” applies to proceedings before NGT.