SC bars coercive action against old Delhi-NCR vehicles
(You can now subscribe to our
(You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday barred any coercive action by authorities in Delhi-NCR against owners of 10-year-old diesel passenger vehicles and 15-year-old petrol vehicles , offering relief to their owners.A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice BR Gavai and justices Vinod K Chandran and NV Anjaria also sought responses from the Centre and other stakeholders on the Delhi government 's application seeking lifting of the current blanket ban on such vehicles in Delhi-NCR.Challenging the ban, the Delhi government said the restrictions lack scientific backing and a blanket age-based ban is outdated, pointing to Bharat Stage VI (BS VI) emission norms introduced in April 2020, which cut particulate matter emissions by up to 80% and nitrogen oxides by 70% compared to against BS IV vehicles.It separately also sought review of the apex court's 2018 order that banned 10-year-old diesel and 15-year-old petrol vehicles in Delhi-NCR. "If the 2018 order continues, roadworthy, non-polluting BS-VI vehicles may be forced off the roads in a few years without scientific justification," it stated in its review petition.Terming the ban "arbitrary", Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Delhi government, said the ban must be stayed otherwise police officials would have to start seizing such vehicles.He said those who owned vehicles for personal use were required to sell them after the mandated period, but the same vehicle could be used for commercial activity even after 10 and 15 years for diesel and petrol vehicles, respectively.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
41 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
SC dissolves marriage, orders man to pay ₹1.25 crore alimony to wife
New Delhi, The Supreme Court on Thursday dissolved the marriage between an estranged couple and directed the man to pay ₹1.25 crore as permanent alimony to the estranged wife. SC dissolves marriage, orders man to pay ₹ 1.25 crore alimony to wife A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said the couple was living separately since 2010 and the man had remarried in March 2017. "We see no purpose in continuing the legal relationship between the parties. The marriage has irretrievably broken down," the bench said. The verdict came on an appeal filed by the man against an August 2018 order of the Madras High Court which allowed the woman's plea and set aside the decree of divorce granted by a family court in October 2016. The top court, however, said, "It is evident that there is no possibility of reconciliation between the parties. They have been living separately since 2010, for nearly 15 years. There is no vestige of matrimonial relationship between them, and neither party has shown any inclination to resolve their differences." Finding it a fit case to grant divorce, the bench invoked its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution. The top court also found it proper to award a one-time lump sum as permanent alimony to the woman and their son. It was brought to the court's attention that the man had not provided financial support during the years of the legal battle. "We direct the appellant to pay a sum of ₹1.25 crore as permanent alimony and all other claims of the wife would stand satisfied," it said. The bench said a decree should be drawn upon furnishing of proof before the apex court registry that the payment has been made. The amount was directed to be paid in five equal quarterly instalments of ₹25 lakhs each. "It is further directed that in the event of any default in payment of any instalment, this order shall stand recalled, and any amount already paid by the appellant-husband shall stand forfeited," the bench said. The top court noted the marriage between the parties was solemnised in February 2009 and shortly thereafter, they relocated to the US where the husband was employed. It said the man instituted a divorce petition in September 2012 seeking dissolution of marriage on the grounds of alleged cruelty and adultery. The bench noted a family court in October 2016 granted a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty while the allegation of adultery was not proved. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Supreme Court junks Pernod Ricard's plea against 'London Pride' whisky trademark
The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected liquor major Pernod Ricard India's plea to block the sale of " London Pride " whisky, saying the brand name and packaging were not deceptively similar to its own flagship labels, " Blenders Pride " and " Imperial Blue ." Independence Day 2025 Before Trump, British used tariffs to kill Indian textile Bank of Azad Hind: When Netaji gave India its own currency Swadeshi 2.0: India is no longer just a market, it's a maker A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan upheld decisions of the Madhya Pradesh High Court and the Indore Commercial Court which refused to grant the French-owned spirits company an interim injunction against Indore-based manufacturer Karanveer Singh Chhabra. The issue was whether Pernod Ricard India was entitled to an order restraining Chhabra from using the impugned trademark, get-up, and trade dress, including the packaging of 'LONDON PRIDE' on the ground that such use amounts to infringement its registered trademarks, such as " 'BLENDERS PRIDE', 'IMPERIAL BLUE', and 'SEAGRAM'S". by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like No annual fees for life UnionBank Credit Card Apply Now "It is a settled principle of trademark law that deceptive similarity does not necessitate exact imitation. What is material is the likelihood of confusion or association in the minds of consumers arising from an overall resemblance between the competing marks. The applicable standard is that of an average consumer with imperfect recollection," it said. Applying the settled legal standards, including the anti-dissection rule, the overall similarity test, and the perspective of an average consumer, the bench said it prima facie did not find any deceptive similarity between the competing marks that would give rise to confusion. Live Events "The marks - 'BLENDERS PRIDE' and 'LONDON PRIDE' - are clearly not identical. Though the products are similar, the branding, packaging, and trade dress of each are materially distinct. The commercial court and high court have rightly held that the term 'PRIDE' is publici juris, and commonly used in the liquor industry. The dominant components - 'BLENDERS', 'IMPERIAL BLUE', and 'LONDON' - are entirely different both visually and phonetically, producing distinct overall impressions," it said. The courts below also correctly observed the products in question are premium and ultra-premium whiskies, targeted at a discerning consumer base, it added. "Such consumers are likely to exercise greater care in their purchase decisions. The distinct trade dress and packaging reduce any likelihood of confusion. The shared use of the laudatory word 'PRIDE', in isolation, cannot form the basis for injunctive relief," it said. "The appellants' attempt to combine elements from two distinct marks -'BLENDERS PRIDE' and 'IMPERIAL BLUE' - to challenge the respondent's mark 'LONDON PRIDE', constitutes a hybrid and untenable pleading. Each mark must be assessed independently, and cherry-picking generic or unregistered features from multiple marks to fabricate a composite case of infringement is not legally sustainable," it said. While dismissing the appeal, it asked the local commercial court to proceed with the trial and dispose of the suit on merits, in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observations made by this court or by the courts below, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The verdict came on a plea of liquor major Pernod Ricard India Pvt Ltd, which manufactures and sells 'Blenders Pride' and 'Imperial Blue' whisky, against 2023 verdict of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Pernod Ricard moved the high court against an order passed by commercial court, Indore, which rejected their application for issuance of temporary injunction. It told the high court that they have registered trade mark in respect of "Blenders Pride" and "Imperial Blue" and also have such registered trade mark in respect of Seagram's which is their house mark and appears on their products sold under various brands. It alleged JK Enterprises has imitated their trade mark and is manufacturing and selling its whisky under the trade mark "London Pride" but the high court dismissed its plea. Writing a 97-page verdict, Justice Mahadevan said trademark law protects overall consumer impressions rather than dissected components of a brand name. It said the dominant parts of the marks, "Blenders," "Imperial Blue," and "London", were entirely different in sight, sound, and meaning. The bench also found that the bottle shapes, label designs, and packaging styles were distinct enough to avoid confusion among consumers. It said term "Pride" is 'publici juris', (common to the trade) and appears in numerous registered liquor trademarks in India.
News18
an hour ago
- News18
SC junks Pernod Ricard's plea against ‘London Pride' whisky trademark
New Delhi, Aug 14 (PTI) The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected liquor major Pernod Ricard India's plea to block the sale of 'London Pride" whisky, saying the brand name and packaging were not deceptively similar to its own flagship labels, 'Blenders Pride" and 'Imperial Blue." A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan upheld decisions of the Madhya Pradesh High Court and the Indore Commercial Court which refused to grant the French-owned spirits company an interim injunction against Indore-based manufacturer Karanveer Singh Chhabra. The issue was whether Pernod Ricard India was entitled to an order restraining Chhabra from using the impugned trademark, get-up, and trade dress, including the packaging of 'LONDON PRIDE' on the ground that such use amounts to infringement its registered trademarks, such as ' 'BLENDERS PRIDE', 'IMPERIAL BLUE', and 'SEAGRAM'S". 'It is a settled principle of trademark law that deceptive similarity does not necessitate exact imitation. What is material is the likelihood of confusion or association in the minds of consumers arising from an overall resemblance between the competing marks. The applicable standard is that of an average consumer with imperfect recollection," it said. Applying the settled legal standards, including the anti-dissection rule, the overall similarity test, and the perspective of an average consumer, the bench said it prima facie did not find any deceptive similarity between the competing marks that would give rise to confusion. 'The marks – 'BLENDERS PRIDE' and 'LONDON PRIDE' – are clearly not identical. Though the products are similar, the branding, packaging, and trade dress of each are materially distinct. The commercial court and high court have rightly held that the term 'PRIDE' is publici juris, and commonly used in the liquor industry. The dominant components – 'BLENDERS', 'IMPERIAL BLUE', and 'LONDON' – are entirely different both visually and phonetically, producing distinct overall impressions," it said. The courts below also correctly observed the products in question are premium and ultra-premium whiskies, targeted at a discerning consumer base, it added. 'Such consumers are likely to exercise greater care in their purchase distinct trade dress and packaging reduce any likelihood of confusion. The shared use of the laudatory word 'PRIDE', in isolation, cannot form the basis for injunctive relief," it said. 'The appellants' attempt to combine elements from two distinct marks –'BLENDERS PRIDE' and 'IMPERIAL BLUE' – to challenge the respondent's mark 'LONDON PRIDE', constitutes a hybrid and untenable pleading. Each mark must be assessed independently, and cherry-picking generic or unregistered features from multiple marks to fabricate a composite case of infringement is not legally sustainable," it said. While dismissing the appeal, it asked the local commercial court to proceed with the trial and dispose of the suit on merits, in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observations made by this court or by the courts below, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The verdict came on a plea of liquor major Pernod Ricard India Pvt Ltd, which manufactures and sells 'Blenders Pride' and 'Imperial Blue' whisky, against 2023 verdict of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Pernod Ricard moved the high court against an order passed by commercial court, Indore, which rejected their application for issuance of temporary injunction. It told the high court that they have registered trade mark in respect of 'Blenders Pride" and 'Imperial Blue" and also have such registered trade mark in respect of Seagram's which is their house mark and appears on their products sold under various brands. It alleged JK Enterprises has imitated their trade mark and is manufacturing and selling its whisky under the trade mark 'London Pride" but the high court dismissed its plea. Writing a 97-page verdict, Justice Mahadevan said trademark law protects overall consumer impressions rather than dissected components of a brand name. It said the dominant parts of the marks, 'Blenders," 'Imperial Blue," and 'London", were entirely different in sight, sound, and meaning. The bench also found that the bottle shapes, label designs, and packaging styles were distinct enough to avoid confusion among consumers. It said term 'Pride" is 'publici juris', (common to the trade) and appears in numerous registered liquor trademarks in India. PTI SJK SJK AMK AMK (This story has not been edited by News18 staff and is published from a syndicated news agency feed - PTI) view comments First Published: August 14, 2025, 20:30 IST News agency-feeds SC junks Pernod Ricard's plea against 'London Pride' whisky trademark Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
