14 June 2025 Legal Updates

S. 66 Railways Act | Railways Can Impose Penalty for Mis-declared Goods Even After Delivery: Supreme Court

(a) Case Title:

• Union of India v. M/s Kamakhya Transport Pvt. Ltd. and Others

(b) Court:

• Supreme Court of India

(c) Date of Decision:

• June 5, 2025

(d) Bench:

• Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

Key Facts:

• The Union of India (Railways) issued demand notices in 2011-2012 against several transport companies for alleged mis-declaration of goods during railway transportation. The companies paid these demands but later filed claims before the Railway Claims Tribunal seeking refunds, arguing that demand notices issued after delivery of goods were illegal under Sections 73 and 74 of the Railways Act, 1989.

Legal Journey:

• Railway Claims Tribunal (Guwahati): Allowed the refund claims and ordered repayment with 6% interest, totalling over ₹27 lakhs across four cases
• Gauhati High Court: Upheld the Tribunal's decision, ruling that penal charges must be raised before delivery of goods
• Supreme Court: Reversed both lower courts' decisions

Central Legal Issue:

• Whether railway authorities can raise demand notices for mis-declaration of goods after delivery has been completed.

Supreme Court's Analysis:

1. Key Distinction Made by SC:

• Lower courts wrongly treated this as an overloading case (governed by Section 73)
• This was actually a mis-declaration case (governed by Section 66)
• Analysis of Section 66: Section 66 deals with false statements about goods description. Unlike Section 73 (overloading), Section 66 doesn't specify timing restrictions. The section allows railway authorities to charge appropriate rates when goods are mis-declared. The legislative intent was to permit levy of charges at any stage, not just before delivery.
• Criticism of Previous Interpretation: The Court clarified that the Jagjit Cotton Textile case (relied upon by lower courts) was wrongly interpreted. That case merely suggested penal charges could be collected before delivery as one possible condition, not that it was mandatory.

2. Judgment:

• Allowed the Union of India's appeals and set aside the High Court's order. The Railway authorities can legitimately raise demand notices for mis-declaration even after delivery of goods

BOMBAY HIGH COURT UPHOLDS ORDER REFUSING TO DECLARE 'TIKTOK' AS WELL KNOWN TRADEMARK OWING TO ITS BAN IN INDIA

(a) Case Title:

• TikTok Limited v. The Registrar of Trade Marks Mumbai & Anr.

(b) Court:

• High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Commercial Division)

(c) Date of Decision:

• 10th June 2025

(d) Bench:

• Justice Manish Pitale

Facts:

• TikTok Limited filed a petition challenging an order dated 31st October 2023 by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks, who refused their application to include the registered trademark "TikTok" in the list of well-known marks under Rule 124 of the Trade Mark Rules 2017.
• TikTok is a social media video application launched worldwide in 2017, available in 155 markets and 75 languages by 2019. Despite having registration for the TikTok mark in India, the Government of India banned the application citing concerns over sovereignty, integrity, defense, security, and public order under the Information Technology Act.

Legal Issues:

• Whether the Assistant Registrar properly considered the statutory provisions under Section 11(6)-(9) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999
• Whether the ban on TikTok application by the Government of India was a relevant factor for refusing well-known mark status
• Whether the impugned order was passed without proper application of mind

Arguments:

1. Petitioner's Contentions:

• The order was passed without reasons and proper consideration of relevant provisions of law. The Assistant Registrar wrongly referred to Section 9 instead of Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act. Elaborate material was submitted to justify well-known mark status but the same was ignored. The ban was temporary and had been lifted on other similar applications. Section 11(9)(i) specifically states that non-use in India cannot be a condition for determining well-known mark status

2. Respondent's Contentions:

• Relevant material was considered while refusing the application. Factors under Section 11(6) are not exhaustive, and allow consideration of other relevant factors. The ban on TikTok was a justified consideration given constitutional provisions regarding sovereignty and integrity. The application correctly took into account the controversial nature and security concerns.

Court's Decision & Reasoning:

The Court dismissed the petition, holding that:

• Non-exhaustive nature of factors: Section 11(6) allows the Registrar to consider "any fact which he considers relevant" for determining well-known mark status, beyond the factors listed in clauses (i) to (v).
• Ban as relevant factor: The Government of India's ban on TikTok under the Information Technology Act, citing concerns over sovereignty, integrity, defense, security, and public order, constituted a relevant factor for consideration.
• Constitutional framework: All authorities must apply law within the broad constitutional framework, and the serious concerns leading to the ban (sovereignty, integrity, defense, public order) cannot be ignored.
• Continued ban: Since the ban on TikTok remains in effect and has not been set aside by any competent court or authority, the Registrar's decision was justified.
• Wrong section reference not fatal: While the Assistant Registrar incorrectly referred to Section 9 instead of Section 11, this procedural error alone was not sufficient to set aside the order.

Key Legal Principles:

• Well-known mark determination: The factors under Section 11(6) of the Trade Marks Act are illustrative, not exhaustive, giving the Registrar discretion to consider other relevant factors.
• Constitutional considerations: Trademark law must be applied within the constitutional framework, particularly regarding national security and public order.
• Government bans as relevant factors: Security-related government bans can constitute relevant considerations in trademark proceedings, even if the mark enjoys registration protection.
• Procedural vs. substantive errors: Incorrect legal citations do not automatically invalidate administrative decisions if the substantive reasoning is sound.