List of Current Affairs

Source: Himachal Pradesh High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the Justice Rakesh Kainthla stated that trial courts must not deviate from the quantity-based sentencing framework prescribed under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), as the Legislature and Central Government have already accounted for the severity of the substance's impact while framing the law. 

• The Himachal Pradesh High Court held this in the matter of Saurabh Bhatnagar v. State of H.P. (2025). 

What was the Background of Saurabh Bhatnagar v. State of H.P.(2025) Case? 

• On 15^th May 2018, a police patrol team comprising SI/SHO Kulwant Singh, ASI Kuldeep Singh, HC Abnesh Kumar, and HC Vinod Patial was traveling towards Paraur village in Himachal Pradesh in their official vehicle driven by Constable Ankush Kumar. 
• At approximately 11:20 AM, the officers noticed a suspicious vehicle bearing registration number HP-40B-6000 approaching from Paraur direction with a flag rod installed. 
• When the police signaled the vehicle to stop, the driver accelerated and sped away towards Arla, raising suspicions among the officers. 
• The police team pursued the vehicle and requested HC Vikas Arora to intercept it near Sangam Palace, Arla, with Manoj Chaudhary and Rajeev Kumar serving as independent witnesses. 
• Upon stopping the vehicle, the police identified the driver as Saurabh Bhatnagar and the passenger as Abhishek Gupta. 
• During the search of the vehicle, officers discovered two stick-shaped rolls wrapped with black tape bearing star patterns hidden in the driver's seat cover. 
• Three additional sticks wrapped with yellow star tape and green-black star tape were found concealed in the front seat cover. 
• When officers removed the tape wrapping, they discovered translucent packets tied with knots containing what appeared to be heroin. 
• The substance was weighed using a scale brought to the scene by Constable Malkiyat Singh, revealing a total quantity of approximately 50 grams of heroin. 
• The police sealed the recovered substance in a cloth parcel with eight impressions of seal 'FO' and filled NCB-1 Form in triplicate. 
• The vehicle and its keys were seized following proper procedural protocols. 
• HC Vikas Arora issued a separate challan for unauthorized installation of the flag rod and photographed the entire proceedings. 
• An FIR was registered at Police Station Bhawarna, and SI Kulwant Singh conducted the investigation. 
• The case property was deposited in the Malkhana through proper chain of custody. 
• Samples were sent to FSL Junga for analysis, which confirmed the substance as Diacetylmorphine (heroin). 
• The prosecution examined eighteen witnesses during the trial proceedings. 
• The independent witnesses Manoj Chaudhary and Rajeev Kumar did not support the prosecution's case, having turned hostile. 
• The trial court found the testimonies of official witnesses to be corroborative and reliable despite the hostile independent witnesses. 
• Co-accused Abhishek Gupta was acquitted due to lack of evidence establishing his knowledge or conscious possession of the contraband. 
• Saurabh Bhatnagar, being the driver and son of the vehicle owner, was found guilty of conscious possession under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). 
• The trial court sentenced Saurabh Bhatnagar to eight years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹1,00,000, with an additional six months of simple imprisonment in default of fine payment. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that minor contradictions in police testimonies and omissions by some police witnesses to mention recovery were immaterial, citing precedents in Chet Ram v. State of H.P. and Budh Ram v. State of H.P. (2020) that such inconsistencies do not undermine the prosecution's case. 
• The Court clarified that the acquittal of co-accused Abhishek Gupta was based on absence of evidence establishing his knowledge of the contraband, while appellant Saurabh Bhatnagar, being the driver and vehicle owner's son, was found in conscious possession of the heroin. 
• The Court observed that 49 grams of heroin constituted "intermediate quantity" under Central Government notifications (5 grams being small quantity and 250 grams commercial quantity), attracting punishment up to 10 years under Section 21(b) of the NDPS Act. 
• Emphasizing the principle of proportionality in sentencing as established in Uggarsain v. State of Haryana (2023), the Court held that trial courts must adhere to the quantity-based sentencing framework prescribed by the Central Government without deviation unless exceptional circumstances exist. 
• The Court noted that while the trial court considered heroin's severe societal impact, the Central Government and Legislature had already factored this consideration while prescribing quantity-based punishments and sentencing ranges for intermediate quantities. 
• Applying proportionality principles, the Court determined that the appropriate sentence for 49 grams of heroin should be two years rigorous imprisonment and ₹20,000 fine, finding the trial court's sentence of eight years and ₹1,00,000 fine excessive and disproportionate to the quantity of offence. 
• The appeal was partly allowed with judicial intervention to ensure adherence to the prescribed NDPS Act sentencing framework, reducing the sentence from eight years to two years imprisonment and fine from ₹1,00,000 to ₹20,000. 

What is the Principle of Proportionality? 

• The Doctrine of Proportionality is a legal principle in Administrative Law that requires a rational connection between the intended outcome and the means employed to achieve it. 
• It is a legal rule that balances government actions' means and outcomes, ensuring that governments use suitable methods aligned with their goals. 
• The principle mandates that actions must be rational, fair, and reasonable, with courts rejecting arbitrary or biased governmental actions. 
• It forms part of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, preventing arbitrary government actions and ensuring procedural fairness. 
• The doctrine ensures fair decisions by balancing government goals with individual rights while assessing whether government actions cause undue harm. 
• Courts examine both the correctness of procedure and the fairness of punishment while retaining the Executive's decision-making authority. 
• In criminal sentencing, the principle requires that punishment be proportionate to the gravity of the offence, considering factors like nature of crime, manner of commission, and circumstances involved. 
• The doctrine originated in European Administrative Law and has evolved from the Wednesbury Principle of reasonableness, subjecting decisions to higher scrutiny than mere reasonableness tests. 
• Under this principle, decisions must not only be reasonable but must also strike a proper balance between the benefits and drawbacks of the outcome achieved. 
• Administrative tribunals review actions under this doctrine before courts intervene, ensuring a structured approach to judicial review of governmental decisions. 

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, Justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma has held that the CBEC Circular dated 17th September 2010 must be applied retrospectively as it merely clarified existing notifications and did not introduce a new fiscal regime. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of M/S Suraj Impex (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. (2025). 

What was the Background of M/S Suraj Impex (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. (2025) Case? 

• M/s Suraj Impex (India) Pvt. Ltd., a merchant exporter primarily engaged in export of Soyabean Meal (SBM), claimed entitlement to duty drawbacks at All-Industry Rate (AIR) of 1% under various Customs Notifications issued between 2006-2010. 
• The company regularly received the benefit of 1% AIR duty drawback until 2008, when the Director General of Central Excise, Indore formed an opinion that manufacturers/exporters were not entitled to AIR drawback if they had already availed rebate of central excise duty under Rule 18 or Rule 19(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 
• Following this interpretation, the customs authorities withheld release of duty drawback to the appellant and other similarly placed merchant exporters, despite the notifications clearly stating that drawback was available irrespective of whether CENVAT facility was availed or not. 
• The exporters approached the Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) through representations, arguing that the drawback on SBM export was the customs component while the benefit under Rule 18 and Rule 19(2) pertained to central excise portion, which were distinct in nature. 
• In response to these representations, CBEC issued Clarificatory Circular No. 35/2010-Cus dated 17th September 2010, stating that AIR duty drawback towards customs portion as well as excise duty benefit under Central Excise Rules shall be available simultaneously. 
• However, when the appellant approached the Commissioner (Customs) Kandla seeking disbursement of AIR Duty Drawback for the period prior to 17.09.2010, the benefit was denied on grounds that the circular had prospective effect only from 20.09.2010. 
• The CBEC (Drawback Division) also reiterated that Notification No. 84/2010-Customs dated 17.09.2010 was effective from 20.09.2010 and being clear in its prospective nature, retrospective applicability did not arise. 
• Aggrieved by this denial, the appellant filed Writ Petition No. 2576/2012 before the Madhya Pradesh High Court seeking declaration that Circular No. 35/2010-Cus dated 17.09.2010 had retrospective effect. 
• The High Court dismissed the writ petition holding that the notification was not merely clarificatory but was prospective in nature as it clearly mentioned effectiveness from 20.09.2010 and subsequently dismissed the review petition as well. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court observed that substance of the circular must be examined rather than merely its form, noting that the CBEC Circular No. 35/2010-Cus was clarificatory and benevolent in nature, issued in response to representations from exporters who were being denied the 1% drawback despite previous notifications clearly stating availability irrespective of CENVAT availment. 
• The Court found that having regard to the concerned Circular vis-à-vis previous notifications, no new right or benefit came to be created, but the actual scope of benefit accruing to merchant exporters was explained and settled once and for all, merely clarifying that 1% customs duty drawback was available to SBM merchants despite having availed CENVAT. 
• Being explanatory in nature, the Court held that the Circular could not be construed as adoption of a fresh fiscal regime for rebate of customs duty intended to affect vested rights or impose new burdens upon the Department, as it was passed to resolve ambiguity regarding meaning and threshold of previous notifications. 
• The Court observed that the CBEC Circular read in conjunction with previous notifications already in operation did not confer prospective benefit on antecedent facts, but established the scope of benefit introduced vide the first Notification No. 81/2006, and for this reason, operation of such provision could only be retrospective in nature to give effect to the objective of CBEC notifications. 
• The Court noted that retrospectivity of a statute is to be tested on the anvil of doctrine of "fairness", stating that when benefit to one person does not inflict undue burden on another, purposive construction can be given retrospective effect, and courts need not entertain objections to operation of clarificatory provisions unless they are arbitrary, vexatious or constitute parallel mechanism making operation unfair. 

What are the Central Excise Rules, 2002? 

Central Excise Rules, 2002 

• Legal Framework: Statutory rules made under Central Excise Act, 1944, effective from 1st March 2002, governing central excise duty administration across India. 
• Purpose: Provides procedural framework for levy, assessment, collection of central excise duty on manufactured/produced excisable goods. 
• Administrative Structure: Establishes Central Excise Officers' appointment and jurisdiction for enforcement and administration of excise laws. 

Rule 18 - Rebate of Duty 

• Export Rebate: The Central Government may grant rebate of duty paid on exported goods or materials used in their manufacture through notification. 
• Scope: Covers both direct duty on exported goods and indirect duty on raw materials/inputs used in manufacturing. 
• Conditional Benefit: Subject to conditions, limitations and procedures specified in government notifications. 

Rule 19(2) - Export without Payment of Duty 

• Duty-Free Material Removal: Permits removal of materials without duty payment from factory/warehouse for manufacturing export goods. 
• Prior Approval: Requires approval from Principal Commissioner/Commissioner of Central Excise. 
• Conditional Facility: Subject to conditions, safeguards and procedures notified by Central Board of Excise and Customs. 

Source: Delhi High Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur held that for infringement the mark may be used in any other relation whatsoever to such goods.   

• The Delhi High Court held this in the case of KRB Enterprises & Ors v. M/s KRBL Limited (2025). 

What was the Background of KRB Enterprises & Ors v. M/s KRBL Limited (2025) Case?   

• Appellant No. 1, M/s KRB Enterprises, is a partnership firm comprising Mr. Basant Kumar Jindal, Mr. Krishan Jindal, and Mr. Sanjay Jindal. 
• Appellant No. 2, M/s KRB Rice Mills Private Limited, is a company registered under the Companies Act, 2013. 
• Appellant No. 3, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Jindal, is the proprietor of M/s Jindal Traders. 
• The appellants are engaged in the business of manufacturing, trading, and marketing food products like rice, coffee, and sugar, which fall under Class 30 for trademark registration under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (TM Act). 
• The case concerns an alleged trademark infringement by the appellants of the respondent's mark: “KRBL LIMITED ALONG WITH DEVICE PADDY FORMING THE SHAPE OF DIAMOND”. 
• The respondent, KRBL Ltd., is engaged in the business of manufacturing, processing, marketing, selling, and exporting food products like rice, quinoa, chia seeds, and flax seeds. 
• KRBL Ltd. was originally incorporated in 1993 as Khushi Ram Bihari Lal Ltd. and renamed KRBL Ltd. in 2000, since when it has used the KRBL trademark. 
• The respondent claims registration of its trademark under Nos. 1352767 and 3664458, and the artistic elements of the mark are registered under the Indian Copyright Act, 1957. 
• The respondent asserts that the mark KRBL is an essential part of its corporate identity and group companies and is widely used on its website and domain name. 
• The respondent provided sales figures from 2000 to 2021, indicating significant revenue and continuous use of the mark. 
• The respondent discovered the appellants' use of the mark KRB in 2016 via trademark applications (Nos. 2492500 and 2492501) and opposed them. 
• In May 2022, the respondent found rice being sold online using the impugned KRB mark, which led to further investigation. 
• The respondent found that Appellant No. 3 applied for the mark under No. 4438483 in 2020, claiming usage from 2017; this application was objected to by the Registrar. 
• The respondent also discovered that Appellant No. 2 was incorporated in July 2021, and its directors were partners in Appellant No. 1. 
• The respondent filed a suit alleging trademark infringement, passing off, copyright violation, and unfair competition, claiming irreparable harm to its goodwill and reputation. 
• The appellants, in their defense, claimed honest and bona fide adoption of the KRB mark since 2009, asserting it represents family initials. 
• They submitted their annual sales figures from 2012 to 2022, indicating continuous use and significant turnover under the KRB mark. 
• The appellants stated that they have been purchasing rice from the respondent since 2014, indicating the respondent was aware of their existence and thus has acquiesced to their usage. 
• The appellants also highlighted that the respondent’s application (No. 3664458) includes a condition that the mark must be used as a whole, implying no exclusive right over “KRBL” alone. 
• The appellants claimed that the respondent abandoned a prior application (No. 941861), and therefore cannot assert exclusive rights over the mark. 
• A fourth party, M/s New KRB Foods, was also named in the suit but had not been served summons. The appellants claimed no association with this entity. 
• The District Judge granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the appellants and others from using the KRB mark or any deceptively similar mark, based on alleged trademark and copyright infringement. 
• The appellants have filed the present appeal against the ad-interim injunction order. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• Limited Scope of Appellate Interference: The appellate court reiterated that it would interfere with a discretionary order under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) only if the trial court exercised its discretion arbitrarily, capriciously, or perversely, or ignored settled legal principles. 
• Test for Perversity: The Supreme Court in Ramakant Ambalal Choksi v. Harish Ambalal Choksi (2024) clarified that a finding is perverse only if it stems from a complete misreading of evidence or is based solely on conjecture or surmise, not merely because a different conclusion could have been drawn. 
• Trademark Use and Recognition: The Respondent, KRBL Ltd., has been using the mark "KRBL" since 2000 and owns domain name rights as well as trademark registrations, including in Class 35. The court held that even use of a corporate name can qualify as the use of a trademark. 
• Manner of Use of Trademark: It is not necessary for the mark to appear physically on the goods; use in relation to goods or in advertisements also constitutes valid trademark used under Section 2(2)(c) of the TM Act. 
• Trademark Infringement Analysis: Despite the Respondent's main trademarks being "India Gate" and "Unity", the court found the use of "KRBL" as a mark to be valid and protectable. The similarity between the Appellants’ mark "KRB" and the Respondent’s mark "KRBL" was held to be deceptively similar. 
• Effect of Withdrawal and Reapplication of Trademark: The Respondent’s brief withdrawal of its Class-30 trademark registration due to erroneous legal advice, followed by immediate reapplication, did not amount to abandonment of rights in the mark. 
• Rejection of Acquiescence Argument: The Appellant’s plea of acquiescence was rejected because the Respondent acted promptly upon becoming aware of actual use of the impugned mark in 2022, despite opposing the Appellant’s registration in 2016. 
• No Evidence of Encouragement or Consent: The court held that the Respondent had not encouraged or induced the Appellants to use the impugned mark, and prior invoices did not demonstrate trademark use or endorsement. 
• Prima Facie Case of Infringement and Passing Off: The court found that the marks are deceptively similar, the goods are identical, the Appellants’ use is not bona fide, and the Respondent has not abandoned or acquiesced the use, establishing a prima facie case of infringement and passing off. 
• Injunction Justified: The court held that the Respondent is likely to suffer grave and irreparable injury if interim relief is not granted, and that the balance of convenience lies in favour of the Respondent, justifying the grant of an ad interim injunction.

What is the ‘Use of Mark’ under the Trademark Act? 

• Section 2 (1) (m) of TM Act defines ‘mark’ as: 
  • Mark includes a  
    • device, brand, heading, label, ticket, name, signature, word, letter, numeral, shape of goods, packaging or combination of colours  
    • or any combination thereof. 
• Section 2 (1) (zb) defines trade mark as: 
  • A trademark means a mark that can be represented graphically and is capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one person from those of others. 
  • It may include the shape of goods, their packaging, and combinations of colours. 
  • A mark is used in relation to goods or services to indicate a connection in the course of trade between the goods or services and the person who has the right as the proprietor to use the mark. 
  • In the context of other provisions of the Trade Marks Act, a trade mark includes a mark used or proposed to be used to indicate a trade connection with a person who has the right to use the mark, either as a proprietor or as a permitted user, whether or not the identity of that person is revealed. 
  • The definition also includes a certification trademark and a collective mark. 
  • In relation to Chapter XII (excluding section 107), a trademark refers to a registered trademark or a mark in the process of being registered. 
• Section 2 (2) (c) of the Trademark Act defines ‘use of mark’ as: 
  • The use of a mark in relation to goods refers to the use of the mark upon the goods or in any physical or any other relation whatsoever to those goods. 
  • The use of a mark in relation to services refers to the use of the mark as part of any statement about the availability, provision, or performance of those services.