Latest news with #RamBabu
Hans India
23-07-2025
- General
- Hans India
TGEC hosts consultative workshop to reimagine remedial education
Hyderabad: The Telangana Education Commission (TGEC) organized a consultative workshop on 'Remedial Teaching in School Education'. The workshop drew participation from academic experts, civil society leaders, and grassroots educators who converged to chart a strategic path for remedial interventions across the state. Chairperson of the Commission, Akunuri Murali, opened the session by voicing concern over foundational learning gaps that are eroding students' self-worth and long-term potential. He highlighted systemic issues such as multi-grade classrooms and insufficient early learning support in Anganwadis, calling for a robust overhaul of the teaching-learning ecosystem. Ram Babu, State Lead of Pratham (Telangana), presented insights from two decades of ASER data, revealing enduring deficits in basic competencies. He advocated for Telangana to adopt successful 'Teaching at the Right Level' (TaRL) models used in other states. R. Venkat Reddy of the MV Foundation emphasized the importance of learning diversity and child rights, stressing the need for inclusive, learner-centered classrooms. He emphasized that every child has the potential to understand if they are provided with the right environment. Dr. Shikha Takker from Mahindra University cautioned against quick-fix approaches, urging research-driven remedial practices that build strong mathematical foundations. Dr. Mythili Sastry, also from Mahindra University, questioned the time-bound nature of remediation, advocating instead for continuous, year-round support backed by empowered school leadership. NGO Pustaka showcased the effectiveness of reading sessions and storybooks in bridging learning gaps. A teacher from Khammam shared tangible success from short-term intensive interventions, emphasizing differentiated instruction and emotional connection with students. A recurring recommendation was to institutionalize remedial teaching through welfare hostels and deploy dedicated tutors year-round to guarantee consistent support. The workshop concluded with a collective agreement: remedial education must be embedded as a core element in the education system, not as a temporary solution. This shift, participants affirmed, is key to achieving inclusive, equitable, and sustained learning for all children in Telangana. Commission members Prof. P.L.V. Rao and Dr. Charakonda Venkatesh also attended the workshop, reaffirming the Commission's commitment to systemic educational reform.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
15-07-2025
- Business
- Business Standard
Companies affected in IPR cases can press criminal charges as 'victim': SC
The Supreme Court has held that a company can be called a 'victim'' under the Code of Criminal Procedure and it can file an appeal against an acquittal order in criminal cases, including violations of intellectual property rights (IPRs). This means that corporate entities affected by violations of such rights could pursue criminal proceedings as the victim. A Bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra was hearing a plea by Asian Paints, which had suffered losses due to the accused allegedly selling counterfeit paints. Asian Paints moved the apex court against the Rajasthan High Court judgment dismissing its appeal against the acquittal of Ram Babu, who was allegedly found selling counterfeit paints under the brand name 'Asian Paints'. The High Court had dismissed the appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC, reasoning that an agent of Asian Paints and not the company was the 'complainant' and therefore the latter couldn't file an appeal against the acquittal. The Supreme Court, while disagreeing with this reasoning, questioned whether the appellant would fall under the definition of 'victim' in terms of Section 2(wa) read with the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC, or whether Section 378 of the CrPC would prevail in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The proviso to Section 372 grants victims the right to appeal against acquittal of the accused, conviction for a lesser offence, and inadequate compensation. If the court orders insufficient compensation for the victim, the victim can appeal. The apex court Bench held it was clear that 'Section 2(wa) of the CrPC has thoughtfully accorded an expansive understanding to the term 'victim' and not a narrow and restrictive meaning'. 'In the present case, there cannot be any two opinions that ultimately, it is the Appellant who has suffered due to the counterfeit/fake products being sold/attempted to be sold as having been manufactured by the Appellant. The Appellant would suffer financial loss and reputational injury if such products would be bought by the public under the mistaken belief that the same belonged to the Appellant's brand,' the judgment said. Asian Paints, a manufacturer in the paints industry for over 73 years, had engaged IPR consultancy firm M/s Solution to track and take action against counterfeiters. During a market investigation in February 2016, the firm had found counterfeit products resembling Asian Paints' trademarks at the shop Ganpati Traders in Tunga, Rajasthan, owned by Ram Babu. After police inspection, 12 buckets of allegedly fake paint were seized. The trial court acquitted Ram Babu, after which Asian Paints challenged the order in the High Court. The High Court dismissed Asian Paints' appeal.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
15-07-2025
- Business
- Business Standard
Firms affected by IPR violations could press criminal charges as victim: SC
The Supreme Court has ruled that a company can be called a 'victim' under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and file an appeal against an acquittal order in criminal cases, including intellectual property rights (IPR) violations. This means that corporate entities affected by IPR violations could now pursue criminal proceedings as the victim. A bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Prashant Kumar Mishra was hearing a plea by Asian Paints, which had suffered losses due to the accused selling counterfeit paints. Asian Paints moved the apex court against the Rajasthan High Court's judgment dismissing its appeal against the acquittal of one Ram Babu, who was allegedly found selling counterfeit paint products under the brand name. The High Court had dismissed the appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC, reasoning that an agent of Asian Paints, and not the company, was the "complainant", and therefore the company could not file an appeal against the acquittal. The Supreme Court, while disagreeing with this reasoning, questioned whether the appellant would fall under the definition of 'victim' in terms of Section 2(wa) read with the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC, or whether Section 378 of the CrPC would prevail in the present case. ALSO READ: The proviso to Section 372 grants victims the right to appeal against acquittal of the accused, conviction for a lesser offence, or inadequate compensation. If the court orders insufficient compensation for the victim, the victim can appeal. The apex court bench held that 'Section 2(wa) of the CrPC has thoughtfully accorded an expansive understanding to the term 'victim' and not a narrow and restrictive meaning.' 'In the present case, there cannot be any two opinions that ultimately, it is the Appellant who has suffered due to the counterfeit/fake products being sold or attempted to be sold as having been manufactured by the Appellant. The Appellant would suffer financial loss and reputational injury if such products were bought by the public under the mistaken belief that they belonged to the Appellant's brand,' the apex court judgment said. Asian Paints, a manufacturer in the paint industry for over 73 years, had engaged an IPR consultancy firm, M/s Solution, to track and take action against counterfeiters. During a market investigation in February 2016, the firm found counterfeit products resembling Asian Paints' trademarks at the shop of "Ganpati Traders" in Tunga, Rajasthan, owned by the accused Ram Babu. After a police inspection, 12 buckets of allegedly fake paint were seized. The trial court acquitted Ram Babu, after which Asian Paints challenged the decision in the High Court. The High Court dismissed Asian Paints' appeal, prompting the company to move the Supreme Court. Advocate Ajay Singh and his team from Singh Law Chambers represented Asian Paints (petitioner), while Advocate Thakur Sumit and others appeared for the respondents.
Time of India
14-07-2025
- Business
- Time of India
IPR violation: Supreme Court upholds Asian Paints right to appeal as 'victim'
The Supreme Court on Monday ruled a company can be called a victim under the Code of Criminal Procedure and file an appeal against an acquittal order in criminal cases including intellectual property rights ( IPR ) violations. A bench comprising Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Prashant Kumar Mishra, therefore, allowed the appeal of Asian Paints and set aside the verdict of the Rajasthan High Court, which dismissed its appeal against the acquittal of one Ram Babu, who was allegedly found selling counterfeit paint products under the brand name. "A neat question of law of significance is raised herein, namely, as to whether the appellant would fall under the definition of 'victim' in terms of Section 2(wa) read with the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC or whether Section 378 of the CrPC would prevail in the facts and circumstances of the present case," Justice Amanullah in the judgement said. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like How Retirees Can Potentially Minimize RMD Taxes SmartAsset Learn More Undo Clearing the legal position, the verdict pointed out corporate entities affected by intellectual property rights violations could pursue criminal proceedings as the victim. Asian Paints, a leading manufacturer in the paint industry for over 73 years, engaged an IPR consultancy firm, M/s Solution, to track and take action against counterfeiters. Live Events During a market investigation in February 2016, the IPR consultancy firm found counterfeit products resembling Asian Paints' trademarks at the shop of "Ganpati Traders" at Tunga in Rajasthan. It was owned by accused Ram Babu. Following a police inspection, 12 buckets of allegedly fake paints were seized. However, after the trial and a subsequent appeal, the trial court acquitted Ram Babu. Asian Paints challenged the acquittal, but the high court dismissed its appeal, saying only the original complainant and not the aggrieved company could file such an appeal. The top court said the term "victim" under Section 2(wa) of the CrPC includes any person, natural or juristic, who suffers loss or injury due to the alleged offence. Asian Paints, as the entity whose brand and reputation were harmed, squarely fits this definition, it said. "In the present case, there cannot be any two opinions, that ultimately, it is the Appellant who has suffered due to the counterfeit/fake products being sold/attempted to be sold as having been manufactured by the Appellant. The Appellant would suffer financial loss and reputational injury if such products would be bought by the public under the mistaken belief that the same belonged to the Appellant's brand," it said. The order continued, "We are constrained to observe that the finding of the High Court that the Appellant could not have maintained the appeal before it would amount to completely negating the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC..." It is clear that the right to appeal accrues on the "victim" from the instance of a court acquitting the accused, the top court added.
News18
30-06-2025
- News18
How Is Compensation Determined In Road Accident Cases?
Last Updated: In road accidents, Rs 5 lakh is paid if the vehicle is identified; Rs 2 lakh is paid for hit-and-run cases The compensation amount in road accident cases hinges on whether the vehicle involved is present at the scene. If the vehicle is identified and there is compelling evidence, the insurance company or vehicle owner is required to provide a minimum compensation of Rs 5 lakh to the deceased's family. What Happens In Hit-And-Run Cases? In situations where the vehicle flees the scene and cannot be traced, known as 'hit-and-run' cases, the Transport Department's scheme stipulates a maximum compensation of Rs 2 lakh. According to Ram Babu, the District Transport Officer (DTO) of Rohtas district of Bihar, in hit-and-run cases, where the driver absconds and the vehicle remains unidentified, the dependents of the deceased receive Rs 2 lakh, and a maximum of Rs 50,000 is allotted for injuries. To date, compensation has been awarded in 225 hit-and-run cases in Rohtas district. How Is Compensation Processed When Vehicle Is Seized? If the vehicle is identified and seized by the police after an accident, the compensation process is managed by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal. In this instance, the victims file a claim in court, and the insurance company or vehicle owner provides a minimum compensation of Rs 5 lakh to the deceased's relatives. Motor Vehicle Claims Tribunal In Rohtas district, the Motor Vehicle Claims Tribunal is situated in Dehri, where these cases are adjudicated by a retired judge. Previously, individuals had to travel to Patna for such hearings. Now, motor accident cases from the entire Shahabad division are resolved in Dehri, which has significantly eased the burden on the affected families. So far, compensation has been awarded in four cases through this tribunal. First Published:
