T. V. Venugopal v. Ushodaya Enterprises Ltd. & Anr. (2011) 4 SCC 85 Brief Facts: Ashika Incense Incorporated, a sole proprietor firm of Appellant was established in 1988 at Bangalore dealing in the manufacturing and selling of the incense stick. Appellant in the year 1993 had honestly and bona fidely adopted the trademark “Eenadu” which…
Nandhini Deluxe v. Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited 2018 (75) PTC 209 (SC) Brief Facts: Respondent, was using the trademark ‘NANDINI’ for milk and milk products from the year 1985. The Respondent had also registered the said mark in Classes 29 and 30. The Appellant adopted the mark ‘NANDHINI’ in 1989 and had a restaurant…
SEASON 1 EPISODE 3 – 27th September, 2020 “Aur Jahaan Tak Mhaari Beti Ka Sawaal Hai Wo To Trueford University Jaakar Rahegi, Nahi To Main Ghasiteram Todarmal Ko Par-Poto Nahi” – Champak Bansal, Angrezi Medium Introduction The above quoted dialogue could be loosely translated as “And so far as my daughter is concerned, she will…
2008 (37) PTC 1 (SC) Brief Facts: Respondent, had registered their designs for diamond shaped glass sheets under the Designs Act, 2000. The Respondent therefore acquired the sole right to manufacture and market the glass sheets in the design that was registered in its name. The designs that were formed on the glass sheets were…
Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba v. Tosiba Appliances and Ors. 2008 (37) PTC 394 (SC) Brief Facts: Appellant officially adopted the name Toshiba Corporation only in 1984, it had registered (and was using) the mark “TOSHIBA” in a number of countries (including India) way back in 1953. Since 1953, the Appellant had acquired about 35 trademark registrations…
Khoday Distilleries Limited (Khoday India Limited) v. The Scotch Whisky Association and Ors. 2008 (37) PTC 413 (SC) Brief Facts: Appellant manufactured whisky under the mark ‘Peter Scot’ since the year 1968. Respondents, an industry body of distillers, blenders and exporters of Scotch whisky, learnt about the Appellant’s trade mark application in 1974.[1] Respondents had…
Bayer Corporation v. Union of India & Ors. 2014 (60) PTC 277 (Bom) BRIEF FACTS: The Petitioner had filed the present petition[1] being aggrieved by the order of the Hon’ble Intellectual Property Appellate Board (hereinafter ‘IPAB’) dated 4th March, 2013 vide which IPAB upheld the order of the Controller of Patents dated 9th March, 2012…
Somi Conveyor Beltings Ltd. & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. [W.P.(C) 1416/2016] Together with Premier Rubber Mills vs. Union of India & Ors. [W.P.(C) 1969/2016] Decided on: April 11, 2017 Court: High Court of Delhi Facts In this case, Petitioners’ request for inspection of records and supply of certified copies of documents was…
Incentive bonus or production bonus and is excluded from the definition of basic wages under Section 2(b) of EPF Act and should not be considered for the purpose of provident fund contribution.
Whether conveyance allowance and special allowance can form part of basic wages for the purpose of determination of provident fund contribution.
Whether the payment of ‘Saturday Allowance/Special Allowance’ will form part of the basic wages and accordingly be counted for the provident fund contribution.
Citation: AIR 2008 SC 1951 Court: Supreme Court Decided on: 12.03.2008 Facts Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (“Commissioner“) ordered that the amount received on encashment of earned leave has to be considered for the purpose of calculation of “basic wage” under Section 2(b) of Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (“Act“). Accordingly, Respondent raised…