29 July 2025 Legal Updates

KERALA HC EXPANDS DEFINITION OF 'CHILDREN' UNDER SENIOR CITIZENS ACT, TO INCLUDE DAUGHTER-IN-LAW, ALLOWS MOTHER-IN-LAW TO LIVE IN SHARED HOUSE

(a) Case Title:

• Anila & Others v. Maintenance Tribunal and Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ottapalam & Another

(b) Court:

• High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam

(c) Date of Decision:

• July 16, 2025

(d) Bench:

• Hon'ble Mr. Justice Viju Abraham

Brief Facts

The case involves a conflict between two protective legislations: the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The first petitioner (Anila) is the daughter-in-law of the second respondent (Ramani). Anila had obtained a protection order under the Domestic Violence Act allowing her to reside peacefully in a shared household. Subsequently, Ramani filed a complaint under the Senior Citizens Act seeking permission to reside on the first floor of the same building. The Maintenance Tribunal granted this permission, which Anila challenged through this writ petition.

Key Legal Issues

• Whether orders under the Senior Citizens Act can override protection granted under the Domestic Violence Act?
• Whether proceedings under the Senior Citizens Act can be filed against a daughter-in-law (who doesn't fall within the statutory definition of "children" or "relative"?
• How to balance the rights of senior citizens and women facing domestic violence?

Court's Decision & Reasoning

Issue 1: Conflict Between Statutes

• The court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District and held that; The overriding effect of the Senior Citizens Act cannot preclude competing remedies under the Domestic Violence Act. Courts must appropriately balance reliefs when there are composite disputes. Since the building had separate floors with different entrances, both orders could coexist without conflict

Issue 2: Maintainability Against Daughter-in-law

• The court applied purposive interpretation and held; the definition of "children" in Section 2(a) uses the word "includes," which is expansive rather than restrictive. Following the Telangana High Court's decision in Deepika H. v. Maintenance Welfare of Parents and Others, daughter-in-law can be included within the definition when she is in possession of the senior citizen's property.
• The doctrine of casus omissus (supplying omissions in statutes) can be applied to achieve the intended purpose of the legislation. A narrow interpretation would defeat the very purpose of providing speedy and inexpensive remedies to senior citizens.

Issue 3: Balancing Rights

• The court noted that both parties belong to vulnerable sections of society deserving protection. The second respondent had regained ownership of the property through a civil court decree. Separate accommodation arrangements (ground floor vs. first floor) could address both parties' concerns. The petitioner could approach the appropriate court if there were violations of the domestic violence protection order

Key Legal Principles Established

• Purposive interpretation should be applied to beneficial legislation to achieve its intended objectives
• Competing protective statutes should be harmoniously interpreted rather than treated as mutually exclusive
• The definition of "children" in the Senior Citizens Act can be expansively interpreted to include daughter-in-law in appropriate circumstances
• Courts must balance the rights of different vulnerable groups when their interests conflict

DELHI HIGH COURT DECLARES 'NUTELLA' AS WELL-KNOWN TRADEMARK, SAYS IT IS RECOGNIZED ALL ACROSS THE GLOBE

(a) Case Title:

• Ferrero SpA & Ors. v. M.B. Enterprises

(b) Court:

• High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

(c) Date of Decision:

• July 28, 2025

(d) Bench:

• Hon'ble Mr. Justice Saurabh Banerjee

Key Facts

• The Plaintiffs were Ferrero SpA and others, part of the renowned Ferrero Group (makers of Ferrero Rocher, Nutella, Tic Tac, Kinder products) whereas the defendants were M.B. Enterprises, engaged in manufacturing counterfeit Nutella products.
• The case came to light when FDA officials conducted a raid at defendant's premises in Thane, Maharashtra, and seized 9,53,400 units of counterfeit Nutella and 4,00,000 units of packaging material.

Legal Issues

• Whether there was trademark Infringement under the Trade Marks Act, 1999?
• Whether unauthorized use of identical trademark and trade dress led to the offence of Passing Off ?
• Declaration of 'Nutella' as a well-known trademark under Section 2(zg)

Plaintiff's Case

Ferrero has been using 'NUTELLA' trademark since 1964 (first adopted the mark). It is the registered proprietor of 'NUTELLA' trademark in multiple classes since 1975. Its products are sold in over 170 countries globally and available in India since 2009. The defendant was manufacturing identical products with same packaging, labels, and trade dress without authorization. This posed health risks as counterfeit food products were being sold to consumers

Court's Analysis & Judgment

• Ex-parte Proceedings: Defendant failed to appear despite proper service, so the case proceeded ex-parte and plaintiff's averments were deemed admitted
• Trademark Infringement Established: Court found clear infringement as defendant used identical trademark, packaging, and trade dress without permission
• Higher Standard for Food Products: Court emphasized that greater care and caution must be exercised when dealing with trademarks for edible items, as deceptive similarity could have dangerous implications for public health
• Well-Known Trademark Declaration: Court declared 'NUTELLA' as a well-known trademark under Section 2(zg) based on: Continuous use since 1964, Valid registrations since 1975, 50 years of presence in Indian market, Substantial advertising expenditure (Rs. 3 crores, 7 crores, and 16 crores in FY 2020-21, 2021-22, and 2022-23 respectively), High sales figures (Rs. 233 crores, 145 crores, and 106 crores in respective years) and recognition by WIPO and International Trademark Association.

Relief Granted

• Permanent Injunction: Defendants were permanently restrained from manufacturing, selling, or dealing with counterfeit Nutella products
• Damages: Rs. 30,00,000 awarded to plaintiffs
• Costs: Rs. 2,00,000 to be paid to Delhi High Court Bar Association Welfare Fund
• Well-Known Trademark Status: 'NUTELLA' declared as well-known trademark

MERELY ATTENDING PFI SEMINARS & PHYSICAL TRAINING DOES NOT AMOUNT TO TERRORIST ACT UNDER UAPA: BOMBAY HIGH COURT

(a) Case Title:

• Sayyad Faisal Sayyad Khaleel & Another v. The State of Maharashtra

(b) Court:

• High Court of Judicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad

(c) Date of Decision:

• 7th July, 2025

(d) Bench:

• Justice Nitin B. Suryawanshi and Justice Sandipkumar C. More

Key Facts

The case involves three appellants who were members of the Popular Front of India (PFI) and were charged with various offenses under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), Indian Penal Code, and Arms Act. The FIR was registered on 21st September 2022, alleging that the appellants:

• Organized karate training sessions for Muslim youths
• Gave speeches claiming Muslims were being persecuted by the government
• Conducted arms and physical training camps
• Allegedly encouraged youth to fight against the Indian government with arms
• Possessed literature including documents titled "India 2047 towards rule of Islam in India"

The appellants were arrested on 22nd September 2022, while PFI was declared an unlawful organization only on 27th September 2022.

Legal Issues

• Whether the appellants could be charged under UAPA when PFI was not a banned organization at the time of the alleged offenses
• Whether mere participation in seminars and possession of literature constitutes terrorist activities under UAPA
• Whether the appellants were entitled to bail considering the prolonged incarceration without trial completion

Court's Decision

The High Court allowed the appeals and granted bail to all three appellants.

Key Legal Reasoning

1. Timing of PFI Ban

• The court noted that when the FIR was registered and appellants were arrested, PFI was not declared a terrorist organization under Section 2(m) of UAPA. The organization was banned only five days after their arrest.

2. Precedential Support

• The court relied on the Supreme Court decision in Athar Parwez vs. Union of India, which dealt with similar circumstances involving PFI members and established that mere membership in PFI (when it wasn't banned) doesn't constitute terrorist activity.

3. Lack of Overt Acts

Citing Vernon vs The State of Maharashtra, the court held that:

• Mere possession of literature doesn't constitute terrorist acts
• No evidence of actual terrorist activities or overt acts of violence
• Participation in seminars/camps alone doesn't amount to terrorism under UAPA

4. Prolonged Incarceration

• The appellants had been in jail for over 2 years and 8 months, while only 5 out of 145 prosecution witnesses had been examined, making trial completion unlikely in the near future.

5. Parity Principle

• A co-accused (Shaikh Umer) in the same case had already been granted bail by the Supreme Court, establishing grounds for parity.

Important Legal Principles

• Timing Matters in Criminal Law: Actions cannot be criminalized retrospectively - if an organization wasn't banned when alleged activities occurred, membership cannot be treated as unlawful.
• Distinction Between Thought and Action: Mere possession of literature or participation in meetings doesn't constitute criminal conspiracy or terrorist activity without proof of overt acts.
• Bail Jurisprudence: Long incarceration without likelihood of speedy trial violates Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty).
• UAPA Interpretation: Courts require concrete evidence of terrorist activities, not just inflammatory speeches or organizational membership.
• Parity in Bail Matters: Co-accused persons in similar circumstances should be treated equally regarding bail.