Hyderabad: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court strongly disapproved the absence of bureaucrat Navin Mittal in a contempt case. The panel, comprising Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili and Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao, was dealing with a contempt petition filed by one S. Narender. Earlier the court upheld the order of a single judge granting liberty to the state government to acquire lands at Yapral village, Malkajgiri, under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and dismissed the appeal filed by the state with exemplary cost of `one lakh and said “This Court has seen many examples where private individuals have grabbed government land, but this one is a classic example of a case where the government is grabbing land of a private individual. The matter has been adjudicated way back in 2001 and has attained finality from the Supreme Court. In spite of the aforesaid fact, the state government has not taken recourse to the land acquisition proceedings under the Act of 1894….” When the additional advocate general stated before the court that a committee was constituted for the implementation of the orders of the apex court qua the controversy, Justice Shavili wondered how a committee could review or revise the verdict of the constitutional courts. At one stage the panel insisted on the presence of senior IAS officer Mittal in the court in the afternoon session. The additional advocate general saved the day for the senior bureaucrat by pleading that his absence was in view of the impending general elections. The panel pointed out that the matter was liberally adjourned at the request of the state from April 2023, the panel repeatedly quizzed the additional advocate general if the government required one year after filing the contempt case to implement its orders, in fact, the very constitution of such a ‘committee’ gives the impression that the government was making an effort to adjudicate an order already made final by the apex court. After some consistent efforts by the additional advocate general, the panel agreed to hear the matter after the summer vacation.
Hearing of infringement claims remains inconclusive
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.
Centre urged to renew passport of Etala
Justice C.V. Bhasker Reddy of the Telangana High Court directed the Union Government to renew the passport of BJP’s candidate for the Lo Sabha elections Etala Rajendar. His journey outside the country would, however, be hemmed in by conditions imposed by the courts. The judge was dealing with a writ plea filed by the BJP leader challenging the action of the regional passport officer [RPO] in not renewing his passport on the grounds of pending criminal cases. The petitioner argued that such an action of the authority was contrary to the provisions of the Passports Act 1967, The RPO, while rejecting the renewal application, reasoned that there are about 15 criminal cases pending against the applicant and hence no renewal can be done. The petitioner pointed out that the offenses, under the guise of which he was being denied renewal of his passport, were all related to alleged election-related offences. The judge required the petitioner to deposit his passport in the court of the concerned judicial first-class magistrate. He would also seek leave of the court if and when he desires to travel abroad.
