Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthi of Madras High Court came down heavily on a defaulter, Rohit Rabindra Nath, promoter of Alectrona Energy, for his “totally unconcerned” attitude towards his default. Calling it an “unconscionable feature”, the judge said Nath’s attitude was “akin to an ascetic’s aloofness to worldly affairs”. Alectrona Energy, of which Nath is Managing Director, owes KEB Hana Bank ₹60.61 crore.

Noting that “the arguments (of Nath) are advanced without even remotely touching the debt or repayment”, Justice Chakravarthi said, “We find that the attitude of the petitioner to wriggle out of liability is writ-large from the proceedings.”

The bank had petitioned the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II in Chennai, initiating insolvency proceedings against Nath, who is a personal guarantor of the unsecured part of the loan. Nath approached the court, saying the case could only be heard by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). He had also approached the Supreme Court, in vain, against a government notification pertaining to personal guarantees.

Justice Chakravarthi not only declined to transfer the case to NCLT, but also directed Nath to pay the bank ₹1 lakh towards costs.

Dettol did not wash

The High Court of Delhi has held that an advertisement of Wipro Enterprises Ltd extolling the virtues of Santoor Hand Wash did not denigrate Dettol, a rival product made by Reckitt Benckiser.

The ad shows a lady using the Santoor product and her little daughter praising her soft hands after that. The mother then replaces a bottle labelled “ordinary hand wash” on her shelf with Santoor handwash.

The “ordinary hand wash” is recognisable as Dettol, believes its manufacturer, Reckitt Benckiser. The verdict notes that “Mr Sibal, learned Senior Counsel for the defendants, frankly acknowledges that the product intended to be shown was indeed the plaintiff’s Dettol Hand Wash.”

However, the plaintiff, Reckitt Benckiser, lost the case because the judge felt that “no prima facie case is made out to injunct the broadcasting or display of the impugned advertisement”.

Justice Hari Shankar said: “It is not the intent of the advertiser which matters, but the effect of the advertisement on the viewer. What matters more is what the advertisement conveys, not what it seeks to convey. An advertisement cannot be injuncted as disparaging merely on the ground that it was intended to be disparaging if the advertisement, seen as a whole by a reasonable and right thinking consumer, does not convey an impression that disparages the rival product.”