Skip to content


S.P.S. Jayam and Co. Vs. Nehrusadan and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Appeal No. 226 of 1975
Judge
Reported inAIR1977SC1621; 1977CriLJ1101; (1977)3SCC512; 1977(9)LC365(SC)
AppellantS.P.S. Jayam and Co.
RespondentNehrusadan and anr.
Excerpt:
criminal - dispute regarding labels - high court opined that there is vital difference between the two sets of labels - matter before supreme court - apex court opined that all the material with respects the label are similar in lay out and design and set aside the judgment of high court- appeal allowed. - [] the appellant filed a suit on a duly completed policy of fire insurance and an unstamped letter of cover in respect of the same kind of insurance, issued by the respondent, to recover from it the loss suffered as a result of the destruction of the insured goods by fire. the respondent admitted liability on the policy but with regard to the letter of cover it contended that the letter was not admissible evidence for want of stamp. held : per sarkar and shah jj. (i) a letter of.....y.v. chandrachud, j. 1. we have compared the disputed labels and are quite surprised to find that the high court thought that there is a 'vital difference' between the two sets of labels. far from there being any such difference, we find that in all material respects the labels are similar in lay-out and design. in any event, this was hardly a matter in which the high court, in the exercise of its revisional powers, should have interfered with the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the courts below that there was an imminent and real possibility of deception of an unwary purchaser on account of the similarity of the labels. 2. accordingly, we set aside the judgment of the high court and restore that of the sessions judge. madurai, dated april 26, 1972.
Judgment:

Y.V. Chandrachud, J.

1. We have compared the disputed labels and are quite surprised to find that the High Court thought that there is a 'vital difference' between the two sets of labels. Far from there being any such difference, we find that in all material respects the labels are similar in lay-out and design. In any event, this was hardly a matter in which the High Court, in the exercise of its revisional powers, should have interfered with the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the Courts below that there was an imminent and real possibility of deception of an unwary purchaser on account of the similarity of the labels.

2. Accordingly, we set aside the judgment of the High Court and restore that of the Sessions Judge. Madurai, dated April 26, 1972.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //