In this week’s review of Court Judgments, we look at Himachal Pradesh High Court’s decision that the complainant’s consent is not necessary to compound a case when he is duly compensated, Supreme court judgment regarding non applicability of benefit of lapse, Delhi High Court’s judgment in a trademark related case, NCLAT’s admission of Google’s appeal with the provision that 10% of fine is paid first and Karnataka High court’s judgment regarding liability of legal heir. Himachal Pradesh HC: Complainant’s consent not necessary for compounding case when he is duly compensated. Hearing a plea challenging a Sessions Court order, Justice Vivek Singh Thakur of Himachal Pradesh High Court held that a case registered under Negotiable Instrument Act can be compounded even in the absence of consent of the complainant, where the complainant is duly compensated. As per the details of the case, Rajinder Kumar vs. Pushpa Devi, the Sessions court has earlier convicted the petitioner under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act (NI Act) and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of four months and to pay fine of Rs. 50 thousand payable to the respondent (complainant) as compensation. As per the submission of the petitioner, the compensation amount was already deposited with the High Court registry. He has expressed the willingness to compound the case by making additional payment of 10% of awarded compensation. Reference was made to a Supreme Court judgement in Meters and Instruments Pvt Limited and another vs. Kanchan Mehta (2018) 1 SCC 560 with the contention that in case of NI Act, the case can be compounded even without the absence of consent of complainant, provided the complainant was duly compensated. The plea for compounding the case was refused by the complainant via the counsel. Justice Thakur, observed that as per provisions of Section 147 of Negotiable Instruments Act along with the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the high court is sufficiently empowered to compound the case even in the absence of consent of complainant, wherein the complainant is duly compensated. The court further pointed out the fact that the petitioner is 52% handicapped and has deposited in the Court 10% over and above the compensation. The court adjudged that the complainant has been compensated adequately and therefore, a substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him is not necessary. Supreme Court: Benefit of Lapse not available if delay in taking possession was due to pending litigation In the case Govt. of NCR of Delhi vs. Sunil Jain & Ors, Supreme Court held that the delay in taking possession of land because of a pending litigation does not entitle the original owner of the land the benefit of lapse under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. (RFCTLARR). This observation was made by the Supreme Court Bench comprising of Justice MR Shah and Justice CT Ravi Kumar, in a Civil Appeal, wherein the Government of NCT of Delhi had approached the top court feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment passed by High Court of Delhi. In that judgment, High court of Delhi allowed the writ petition preferred by the private respondents in the Civil appeal and held that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed under RFCTLARR Act. The appellant i.e., Government of Delhi put fort two arguments in the Supreme court. Reviewing the merits of the case, the Court held that the acquiring body was not able to take the possession due to pending litigation initiated by the landowner, and hence, the landowner cannot be permitted to take the benefit/advantage of the same. And hence cannot content to be entitled to benefit of lapse. It therefore stated that the judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable and needs to be set aside. The original writ petition filed by the petitioners regarding lapse of the acquisition stands lapsed. Delhi HC: Registration of Tread pattern nearly identical to ‘Suit pattern’ as a design would not disentitle it from being regarded as trademark. In the case, Apollo Tyres Limited vs. Pioneer Trading Corporation & Ors, Delhi High Court has ruled that registration of a tread pattern, which is nearly identical to the suit pattern, as a design would not ipso facto (by that very fact ) operate to disentitle it from being regarded as a ‘ trade mark’ as per Trade Marks Act, 1999. In the case, the argument before the court was whether Apollo Tyres Limited, which filed a suit against Pioneer Trading Corporation accusing it of violating a 2018 settlement agreement, deserves to be non-suited.