Words of common English usage, even when put together to form phrase of common English usage, cannot be registered as trade mark: Delhi High Court

In an application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, the Delhi High Court., observed that a trademark comprising commonly used English words cannot be exclusively appropriated by any one entity. The Court held that a registrant of such a mark must acknowledge the possibility of similar usage by others. It emphasized that generic or non-distinctive word combinations cannot be monopolized to the detriment of others' rights. Accordingly, the plaintiff's claim of exclusivity over the term “Institute of Directors” and its request to restrain the defendants from using “Directors Institute” were found to be prima facie untenable. The Court clarified that mere registration does not confer absolute rights, particularly when the mark lacks inherent distinctiveness. Consequently, no interim injunction was warranted in favor of the plaintiff.

Delhi High Court orders NBCC to pay homebuyer ₹76L for failure to give flat in Gurugram

The Delhi High Court has directed the National Buildings Construction Corporation (NBCC) to refund the entire sum of over ₹76 lakh deposited by a homebuyer in 2017 for a flat that was never delivered. Justice Subramonium Prasad emphasized that purchasing a home is a significant financial and emotional investment, and failure by builders to fulfill their commitments results in severe distress for homebuyers. The court ordered NBCC to return the amount within six weeks, along with 12% interest from January 30, 2021, until the payment date. Additionally, ₹5 lakh was awarded as compensation. Rejecting NBCC's objection of forum shopping, the court noted that the petitioner's repeated legal recourse stemmed from desperation. It criticized NBCC, a State entity under Article 12, for its reluctance to rehabilitate the petitioner. The judgment underscores the need for deterrent measures against such builder misconduct.

Delhi High Court Directs NBCC To Return Full Money, Orders ₹5 Lakh Compensation Towards Mental Agony

The Delhi High Court has ordered the National Buildings Construction Corporation (NBCC) to refund over ₹76 lakh to a homebuyer who paid for a flat in 2017 but never received it. Justice Subramonium Prasad highlighted that buying a home is both a financial and emotional commitment, and builders failing to deliver cause immense distress. The court directed NBCC to repay the full amount within six weeks, with 12% interest from January 30, 2021, until the settlement date. An additional ₹5 lakh was granted as compensation. Dismissing NBCC's forum shopping claim, the court acknowledged the petitioner's repeated legal efforts as a result of desperation. It also criticized NBCC, a State entity under Article 12, for failing to assist the petitioner, stressing the need for strict measures to prevent such misconduct.

Delhi High Court imposes fine on NBCC for causing homebuyer 'extreme mental agony'

The Delhi High Court has ruled that NBCC must refund a homebuyer over ₹76 lakh, an amount paid in 2017 for a flat that was never delivered. Justice Subramonium Prasad pointed out that purchasing a home involves significant financial and emotional stakes, and when builders default, it severely impacts buyers. The court mandated that NBCC return the sum within six weeks, applying 12% interest from January 30, 2021, until the payment is made. Additionally, ₹5 lakh was awarded as compensation. Dismissing NBCC's claim of forum shopping, the court recognized the petitioner's repeated legal actions as a sign of distress. It also rebuked NBCC, a State entity under Article 12, for failing to assist the petitioner, emphasizing the need for stronger deterrents against such builder malpractices.

EPF Dues and IBC: Navigating the Treatment of Interest and Damages in Liquidation

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) in Anuj Bajpai v. EPFO recently held that all EPF dues, including interest and damages, are excluded from the liquidation estate and must be paid with priority.The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) exempts provident fund, pension fund, and gratuity fund dues from the liquidation estate of a corporate debtor, ensuring they are not subject to distribution under Section 53. However, the classification of interest and damages under Sections 7-Q and 14-B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (EPF Act) has been a subject of judicial debate. While some National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) benches have ruled that these amounts form part of the liquidation estate, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) in Anuj Bajpai v. EPFO recently held that all EPF dues, including interest and damages, are excluded from the liquidation estate and must be paid with priority.

The NCLAT relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank v. Provident Fund Commissioner, which interpreted “any amount due from an employer” to include interest and damages. However, several NCLT benches have distinguished between principal dues, payable to employees, and damages, which are collected by EPFO. While the law currently favors exclusion of all EPF dues from liquidation, questions remain regarding the ultimate allocation of damages and whether they benefit employees directly or function as penalties.