Hyderabad: Justice T. Vinod Kumar of the Telangana High Court took on file a writ plea filed by a family member of a victim of Maoist violence seeking compassionate appointment. Musku Jithendar filed the writ petition challenging the rejection of application for compassionate appointment. It is the case of the petitioner that his father Musku Kalingam, an agriculturist, was murdered by extremists suspecting him to be a police informer. He contended that the government had in 1996 introduced a scheme of compassionate appointment to one dependent family member of the victim killed by extremists. The counsel appearing for the petitioner, Baglekar Akash Kumar, contended that the earlier representations seeking compassionate appointment qua scheme introduced in 1996 resulted in rejection on the ground that as on the date of his father’s demise, the petitioner was not enough for employment. Akash argued that such action of the authorities was contrary to the catena of judgments and is arbitrary. The judge required the Warangal district collector to file its counter by the next date of hearing.
HC seeks papers on temple land grab
A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court permitted the petitioner in a PIL to produce further documents in furtherance to the contention that temple lands are being encroached. The panel, comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J. Anil Kumar, was dealing with a PIL filed by Balaji Rathi complaining of inaction of the state government against the illegal excavation of rocks and non-removal of the illegal residential and commercial structures. He also complained that the state failed to take action against the Rangareddy district registrar and sub-registrar of Gandipet in registering the property in Survey no. 126 of Narsingi village in spite of the same being government land and being declared as prohibited property. However, implead applications were filed by private individuals claiming ownership of the surrounding land. The petitioner pointed out that while it is true that part of the land could have been privately purchased, larger extents of temple land are sought to be grabbed and the same requires to be protected. The panel accordingly granted time to petitioner to file evidence in furtherance of the claim.
HC hears trademark infringement case
Justice Sree Sudha of the Telangana High Court heard inconclusively claims of ‘infringement’ and ‘passing off’ of the name Kritunga in the context of a chain of restaurants. The judge was hearing an appeal filed by Jagavis Kritunga bar and restaurant, challenging an interim order granted by the VI additional district judge Kukatpally. Kritunga restaurants and franchises LLP and another filed a suit seeking infringement of its trademark and alleging passing off by the defendant. Senior counsel Ashok Ram Kumar, appearing for the respondent, pointed out to the court in detail the nuances of terms infringement and passing off. Infringement, he said, is of registered trademark in contrast to passing off which is based on the concept of the prior user. Ram Kumar pointed out how Mandra Usha Reddy and others have been owners of the registered trademarks since 2022. He chronicled in detail the litigation between the parties in Bangalore. He pointed out that his clients have an order restraining the appellant from using the expression Kritunga. He also referred to two suits filed for infringement and passing off by the appellant, which were also dismissed on preliminary objections. The VI additional district judge Kukatpally granted an injunction restarting the appellant from using the expression Kritunga pending further orders. It is aggrieved by the said injunction that the present appeal is filed. The judge will again hear the matter next week.
