Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
L.Victoria Gowri, J
Veerasekar – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu Represented By, The Inspector of Police, IPREC Trichy Police Station – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's challenge to seizure order due to lack of trademark authority. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments on lawful possession and supplier details. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court analyzed authority, procedural compliance, and economic loss prevention. (Para 5) |
| 4. impugned order set aside based on defective seizure. (Para 7) |
| 5. order for interim release with conditions established. (Para 8) |
ORDER
Factual Matrix:-
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that he is a middleman who lawfully purchased the rice from suppliers (e.g., Mahendra Rice Traders), as evidenced by invoices and bank receipts. The defacto complainant’s company lacks locus standi and Trademark No. 4109657 is registered in the name of Sri Chakravarti Manchukonda, not the company. No instrument of assignment or power of attorney accompanied the FIR and no mens rea exists. The petitioner neither manufactured nor branded the rice and the supplier invoices show other unregistered brands. The police failed to interrogate suppliers or preserve chain of custody. The entire proceeding is an abuse of process, intended to harass him. Rice being perishable, its prolonged detention in police custody causes
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
