12 August 2025 Legal Updates

MOTOR ACCIDENTS | INSURER OF REGISTERED OWNER LIABLE IF VEHICLE'S REGISTRATION WAS NOT CHANGED AFTER TRANSFER: SUPREME COURT

(a) Case Title:

• Brij Bihari Gupta v. Manmet & Ors.

(b) Court:

• Supreme Court of India

(c) Date of Decision:

• August 08, 2025

(d) Bench:

• Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice N.V. Anjaria

Facts of the Case

This case arose from a motor vehicle accident involving a goods vehicle where multiple people died or were injured. The key factual dispute centred around:

• Vehicle Ownership: The goods vehicle was registered in one person's name but was being operated by another person (the appellant) under an agreement where possession was transferred but legal ownership remained unchanged.
• Passenger Status: The injured/deceased persons were small vendors (fish monger, vegetable hawker) who were traveling with their goods in the vehicle.
• Insurance Coverage: The vehicle had valid insurance, but the insurance company refused to pay compensation, arguing they had no liability.

Legal Issue

The Supreme Court addressed two main contentions raised by the insurance company to avoid liability:

1. Gratuitous Passenger Defense

• Insurance Company's Argument: The passengers were "gratuitous passengers" (free riders) and therefore not covered under third-party insurance.
• Court's Finding: The Court rejected this argument, holding that the passengers were not gratuitous as they were accompanying their own goods (fish, vegetables) for commercial purposes. Under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, insurance covers liability for death/injury to third parties, including owners of goods carried in the vehicle.

2. Transfer of Ownership Defense

• Insurance Company's Argument: Since the vehicle's possession had been transferred to another person through an agreement, the registered owner was no longer liable, and consequently, the insurer had no obligation.
• Court's Finding: The Court distinguished between "possession" and "ownership." The agreement showed:
  - Total consideration: Rs. 90,000
  - Amount paid: Rs. 80,000 (possession transferred)
  - Balance: Rs. 10,000 (registration transfer pending payment)
• Since the balance amount wasn't paid and registration wasn't transferred under Section 50 of the Motor Vehicles Act, legal ownership remained with the registered owner.

Key Legal Principles Established

• Ownership vs. Possession: Legal ownership under the Motor Vehicles Act requires proper registration transfer, not just possession transfer through private agreements.
• Gratuitous Passenger Test: Persons accompanying their own goods in commercial vehicles are not gratuitous passengers but are covered under third-party insurance.
• Insurance Liability: Insurance companies cannot escape liability when the registered owner remains legally responsible, regardless of possession arrangements.
• Selective Challenge Principle: The Court noted (though didn't decide on) the insurance company's "pick and choose" approach in challenging only 3 out of 11 claim petitions.

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and held that the insurance company must indemnify the compensation awarded. The registered owner remains liable for the accident.

STATEMENTS IN FIR FURNISHED BY ONE ACCUSED CANNOT BE USED AGAINST ANOTHER ACCUSED: SUPREME COURT

(a) Case Title:

• Narayan Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

(b) Court:

• Supreme Court of India

(c) Date of Decision:

• August 5, 2025

(d) Bench:

• J.B. Pardiwala, J. and R. Mahadevan, J.

Key Facts

The appellant (Narayan Yadav) himself lodged an FIR confessing to murdering Ram Babu Sharma. According to the FIR, during drinking at the deceased's house, the appellant showed a photo of his girlfriend. The deceased made an obscene remark asking the appellant to bring his girlfriend and leave her with him for one night. This led to a quarrel, and the appellant killed the deceased using a knife and wooden log

Trial Court convicted under Section 302 IPC (murder)

High Court reduced conviction to Section 304 Part I IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) by applying Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC

Legal Issues Examined

1. Admissibility of Confessional FIR

• Rule: A confessional FIR by an accused is inadmissible under Section 25 of Evidence Act (confession to police officer)
• Exception: Only non-confessional admissions under Section 21 Evidence Act are admissible
• Court's Finding: The FIR was clearly confessional and should not have been used as evidence

2. Expert Medical Evidence

• Rule: Medical expert evidence is only advisory, not conclusive
• Court's Finding: Conviction cannot be based solely on medical evidence; requires corroborating evidence

Application of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC

• Exception 4 has certain qualifying criteria- No premeditation, sudden fight in heat of passion, mutual combat (fight between equals), no undue advantage taken, no cruel or unusual manner.
• The Court in the present case concluded that exception 4 was incorrectly applied because the deceased was unarmed while the appellant used weapons. There was no mutual fight- the deceased was helpless. The Appellant took undue advantage of the deceased. If any exception at all could be applied, it should have been exception 1- grave and sudden provocation.

Supreme Court's Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant of all charges.

Key Legal Principles

Confessional statements to police are inadmissible under Section 25 Evidence Act

• Expert evidence is advisory only - cannot be sole basis for conviction
• Exception 4 to Section 300 requires mutual combat - both parties must be on equal footing
• Conduct under Section 8 Evidence Act cannot alone justify conviction in serious offenses
• Burden of proof in criminal cases - prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt

'PRIORITY OF USE' NO DEFENCE AGAINST TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT UNLESS IT PREDATES BOTH USE & REGISTRATION BY PLAINTIFF: DELHI HIGH COURT

(a) Case Title:

• Bodhisattva Charitable Trust and Ors. v. Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research

(b) Court:

• High Court of Delhi (Division Bench)

(c) Date of Decision:

• July 28, 2025

(d) Bench:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash Shukla

Facts

The Mayo Foundation (USA), owner of the famous Mayo Clinic, filed a trademark infringement suit against Bodhisattva Charitable Trust and related entities in India. The Indian entities were operating medical institutions using names like "Mayo Medical Centre," "Mayo Hospital," "Mayo Institute of Medical Sciences," and "Mayo School of Nursing."

Key Legal Issues

• Whether the Indian entities infringed Mayo Foundation's registered trademarks?
• Who had prior rights to use the "MAYO" mark?
• Whether Mayo Foundation had waived its rights by delay?
• Whether medical services were similar to registered trademark classes?

Arguments

1. Mayo Foundation's Position:

• Owned registered trademarks "MAYO" and "MAYO CLINIC" since 1992 (Class 16 - medical journals)
• Later registered "MAYO CLINIC" in Classes 41 (education) and 44 (medical services) in 2008
• Indian entities dishonestly adopted the mark, being aware of Mayo Clinic's reputation
• Issued cease and desist notice in 2014

2. Indian Entities' Defense:

• Started using "MAYO" mark since 1995, before Mayo's 2008 registrations in medical/education classes
• No likelihood of confusion as they served rural patients unfamiliar with Mayo Clinic USA
• "MAYO" is a common Indian name (reference to Mayo College, Ajmer)
• Mayo Foundation acquiesced by waiting 8 years after 2014 notice

Court's Decision

The Delhi High Court upheld the injunction against the Indian entities.

Key Legal Principles Established

1. Registration vs. Use Priority

• Registration of a trademark creates rights even without commercial use. Section 28(1) of Trade Marks Act grants exclusive rights upon registration. Non-use doesn't invalidate trademark unless removed under Section 47.

2. Allied and Cognate Services

• Medical services are allied to medical journals and printed matter. Services need not be identical if they are similar or related.

3. Acquiescence Defense

• Requires standing by while defendant builds business in ignorance. Cease and desist notice negates acquiescence. Section 33 applies only between registered trademark holders.

4. Section 34 Protection

• Saves prior users only if use predates both registration AND use by trademark owner. Secondly, "Whichever is earlier" test must be satisfied. The protection doesn't apply when registration precedes defendant's use.

5. Infringement Presumption

• Identical mark + identical services = presumed confusion (Section 29(2)(c))
• Injunction must follow infringement findings
• Dishonest adoption strengthens plaintiff's case