In this week’s review of court judgments, we look at the judgment of the High Court of Kerala regarding the denial of a student loan on the basis of parents’ credit rating, the order of the High Court of Karnataka in a case relating to the process of adopting a child, Delhi High Court’s observation on eligibility to receive maintenance from in-laws and its order in a trademark infringement action.
Kerala HC: Low CIBIL score of co-borrowers is no reason to deny student loans
In the case of Kiran David v Deputy Managing Director, SBI, Justice N. Nagaresh of the Kerala High Court said that CIBIL scores of co-borrowers should not be criteria for denying student loans because many such conditions would run counter to the very purpose of granting such loans. loans. According to the details of the case, petitioner Kiran David has applied to the High Court of Kerala over the refusal of a student loan by the Director of State Bank of India citing that the co-plaintiffs i.e. say the parents, did not have the required CIBIL scores.
Lawyers representing the petitioner have argued that according to the RBI, an education loan is a futuristic loan and is intended to provide financial support to deserving or deserving students to pursue higher education. They referred to a previous case, Pranav SR v Branch Manager, SBI & Anr, in which it was observed that the unsatisfactory credit ratings of the applicant’s parents cannot be a criterion for loan denial since the applicant’s ability to repay after education should be the deciding factor.
However, the Respondents, ie the SBI, opposed this motion. They argued that, in accordance with SBI’s Educational Loan Policy, the loan would be issued jointly on behalf of the students and their parents/guardians, who are considered co-borrowers of the loan. Thus, the credit discipline of the parents also becomes a criterion. Various RBI circulars and SBI guidelines require that the borrower/co-borrower should not have an adverse credit history.
However, the Court was of the opinion that these circulars and directives are not relevant for the granting of student loans. The tribunal further pointed out that education is a priority sector because as per Reserve Bank of India Guidelines (Lending Objectives and Priority Sector Classification), 2020.
Therefore, the court granted the petition and ordered the Bank to reconsider the loan application and sanction the loan if it was eligible, disregarding the poor credit rating of the co-borrowers.
Delhi HC: Daughter-in-law can claim alimony from her father-in-law provided she inherited her husband’s estate
The Delhi High Court observed that the daughter-in-law can claim alimony from her father-in-law in case she has inherited property from her husband. This court made this observation in Laxmi & Anr v Shyam Pratap & Anr.
The bench consisting of Judge Mukta Gupta and Judge Neena Bansal Krishna rejected the plea filed by the appellant i.e. daughter-in-law and widowed granddaughter as they did not disclose any information regarding the property they inherited from the deceased husband, that is, the respondent’s son.
The first appellant married the respondents’ son in December 2011 and a daughter was born in October 2012. The husband died in December 2013, a position that the appellant and her daughter transferred to the parental home. After 4 years, she filed for maintenance claiming that she has no source of income to support her daughter while her stepfather is employed and has the means to support her.
The respondents, that is to say the appellant’s father-in-law and mother-in-law, argued that she had not returned all those years after she left for her father’s house and that she did not was entitled to no alimony under Section 19 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 as the deceased left no estate.
The family court denied the claim because the husband had left no estate on which alimony could be claimed. This was challenged in the High Court. The complaint lodged in the High Court by the petitioner was that he was entitled to claim maintenance from his stepfather and had been wrongfully refused maintenance by the Family Court. The Court observed that Article 22 of the above-mentioned law provided for the maintenance of dependents of the deceased by the heirs of the deceased. However, it was subject to the inheritance of an estate of the deceased by dependents.
In this case, the first defendant, that is to say the father-in-law, is deceased and the heirs, that is to say the appellant’s mother-in-law and sister-in-law, have not received from her husband any estate from which alimony could be claimed.
Karnataka HC: Adopting a child directly from biological parents is not an offense
A single judge bench of Judge Hemant Chadangoudar said it is not an offense if the child is adopted directly from their biological parents and is not punishable under the provisions of Section 80 of the 2015 Act on Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) (JJ Act).
In the case, Banu Begum without Khajasab alias Mehaboobsab and others against Karnataka Statethe prosecution alleged that the third defendant adopted the daughter born to defendants 1 and 2 without following the provisions or procedure prescribed by the JJ law and is therefore punishable under section 80 of the said law.
Article 80 D punishes the adoption of any child who is orphaned, abandoned or handed over without following the provisions mentioned in the JJ law. The Magistrate took cognizance of the charge and summoned the petitioners who appealed to the High Court.
The Petitioner stated that the child was allegedly adopted by the Defendant and is not an orphan, abandoned or surrendered child and therefore falls within the offenses punishable under Section 80 of the JJ Act. Consequently, the indictment filed against the applicants lacks substance. The High Court agreed with the petitioners and said that in the absence of a statement that the child is abandoned by the biological parents, the filing of an indictment is not substantial. The judge granted the motion filed by the two couples, that is to say the biological and adoptive parents, and canceled the proceedings against them.
Delhi HC: Awards Star Bucks 2 lakhs damages in trademark infringement lawsuit
The Delhi High Court has awarded Rs. 2 lakhs in damages and Rs. 9.6 lakhs in favor of Starbucks Corporation in a trademark infringement action. Starbucks brought a trademark infringement action for use of its trademark “Frappuccino” against “TeaQuilla, A Fashion Café”, ie the defendant. Through the lawsuit, he sought a permanent injunctive decree restraining the defendants from infringing his trademark. “frappuccino” as a standalone word or in conjunction with others as a prefix or suffix.
Starbucks, i.e. plaintiff used the mark “Frappuccino” for its popular cold drinks around the world in various flavors and the mark is registered in over 185 countries. Given the quality of the products under the brand and its international marketing activity, they have gained notoriety and notoriety. The defendant in the case operated a cafe under the name “Café TeaQuilla – A Fashion Café” and sold beverages under the names “Butter Scotch Frappuccino” and “Hazelnut Frappuccino” without permission, authorization or license from Starbucks . These products were visually similar to various Starbucks flavors and products using “Frappuccino”.
By an earlier order in September 2019, the court granted an interim injunction against the defendants. The court observed that the defendant is found guilty of infringement and can award fictitious damages accordingly. The Delhi High Court awarded damages in the amount of Rs. 2 lakhs in favor of Starbucks. He took note of the lawyers fee certificate comprising details of the costs incurred by Star for the lawyers and court costs which amounted to Rs. 9,60,100 and awarded this amount in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
The featured image: Revision of Court Judgments