Navigating the Financial Landscape with a Non-Banking Company

Navigating the Financial Landscape with a Non-Banking Company

Navigating the financial landscape with a non-banking company can be a daunting task, but with the right guidance and support, you can make informed decisions that will help you reach your financial goals.

10 tips you can make an informed decision that best suits your financial needs. From researching the company’s financial stability to understanding the terms of the agreement, these tips will help you make the best choice for your financial future.

  1. What are NBFCs?

A non-banking financial company is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, of 1956, and is engaged in the business of loans and advances, debts, etc.

  1. Do they have a banking license?

No, they do not hold banking licenses because federal or state authorities do not regulate them.

  1. What are the differences between NBFCs and banks?

Banks are legally recognized institutions whereas NBFC is a private business that offers banking-like services without a banking license to a person. NBFCs to not accept demand deposits.

  1. Why do most people choose NBFC over banks?

People choose NBFC’s over banks because of the following reasons:

  • NBFC’s have fewer rules and regulations as compared to banks.
  • Less paperwork is involved in the process of granting loans which leads to saving time for the borrower.
  • Interest rate is charged upon the borrower’s credit score and earnings.
  1. What are credits?

It’s a relationship of trust between the lender and the borrower, where the borrower promises to repay the loan immediately after a few days of taking a loan.

  1. What is a credit score?

It shows a person’s creditworthiness like if he repays the loan on time or not. It is based on an individual’s history of repayment, loan history, etc. given by different credit agencies.

  1. What is the CIBIL score?

Credit score is given by Credit Information Bureau India Limited. It is a 3-digit numeric summary of credit history. It represents a credit background.

  1. What is the range of the CIBIL score?

It ranges from 300 to 900. A score above 750 is considered good.

  1. Why should you maintain a good credit score?

It plays a great role in the lender’s decision to provide you with a loan. There are great chances of approval for loans from banks and NBFCs when you have a high credit score. A person with having high credit score means he is most likely to qualify for the lowest interest rates and fees for new loans. A good credit score above 750 is considered good.

  1. Why are NBFCs called shadow banks?

NBFCs are so-called because they function more or less like traditional banks but with fewer rules and regulations. Also, they cannot accept deposits from the people.

Write-up By: Aggarwals & Associates









Exploring Domino’s Trademark: Can Dominick Pizza Be restrained?

Exploring Domino’s Trademark: Can Dominick Pizza Be restrained?

Dominick Pizza held liable for Trademark Infringement of registered trademarks of Domino’s Pizza

The Hon’ble High Cout of Delhi at New Delhi permanently injuncted Dominick Pizza from advertising or displaying in any manner the marks “Dominick Pizza”, “CHEESE BURST” and “PASTA ITALIANO” or any other mark which is identical or deceptively similar to the Domino’s.


CS (COMM) 587 of 2022 was instituted by Dominos IP Holder LLC & Anr. (hereinafter referred to as “DOMINOS”), against MS Dominick Pizza & Anr. (hereinafter referred to as “DOMINICK”), seeking a permanent injunction against Dominick using the mark “Dominick Pizza”, “CHEESE BURST” and “PASTA ITALIANO” or any other mark identical or deceptively similar to Dominos Trademark and to also withdraw the trademark application number 3285916, dated 15.06.2016 filed by Dominick for registration of the impugned mark. Dominos also sought locking, blocking, suspension, and transfer of the domain names and

  1. The plaintiff in the present application is a Limited Liability Corporation incorporated in Delaware and having its office in Michigan, USA which owns and manages the intellectual property of Domino’s Pizza, Inc. including the trademarks “Domino’s Pizza”. The trademarks and other intellectual property have been licensed to Domino’s Pizza International Franchising Inc., who entered into a Master Franchise Agreement with Jubilant Food Works Limited, to operate Domino’s franchises in India and to assist in the enforcement and protection of the company’s Intellectual Property Rights in India.
  2. The gestational origin of Domino’s Pizza can be traced to 1960 in which year the Monaghan brothers purchased “Dominick’s Pizza”, a pizza store owned by Mr. Dominick DiVarti in Michigan, USA the name of which was changed to Domino’s Pizza in 1965. Domino’s is one of the world’s leading pizza and fast food restaurant chains, having expanded its operations to over 90 countries, with over 19,200 stores worldwide. The global retail sales figures of Domino’s aggregated over US$ 17.8 billion in 2021 and US$ 4 billion in 2022. The logo of Dominos has been used continuously and has, achieved distinctiveness and now operates as a source identifier of Domino’s Pizza.
  3. The first Domino’s Pizza outlet was opened in New Delhi, India in 1996 and presently around 1,567 outlets are operating in over 337 cities across the country. Jubilant Food Works Limited operates through the website and globally Dominos work through the India-centric website
  4. Dominos is the proprietor of the registered trademark bearing applications No. 463304, 572312, 1238053, 1238054, 2145011, 2145001, 2145008, and 2145009. The sale figure of the product in India alone between 2011 and 2018 is ₹ 13813.42 crores with ₹ 2916.8 crores having been earned in the year 2017-18 alone.
  5. Contrary, to this Dominick is a pizza and fast food service identical to that of Dominos under the name DOMINICK PIZZA, alleged to have replicated the registered trademarks of Dominos being “Cheese Burst” and “Pasta Italiano” and running the website and the Facebook page A registration of the device mark was also sought by Dominick on 15.06.2016 but was unable to secure registration as the trademark registry objected to the application as being similar or identical to the mark “Domino’s Pizza” and the device mark of Dominos. In April 2021 Dominick applied to the trademark registry for withdrawal of its trademark application but later in August 2021 withdrew the withdrawal letter
  6. Dominick pulled down the website but later on 16.04.2021, a new website was started by Dominick. During this time Dominick also continued its activities over the online food ordering platform Zomato
  7. A pre-litigation mediation was attempted by Dominos, which had to be closed as a non-starter on 04.04.2022 as Dominick failed to attend the mediation sessions
  8. A suit for permanent injunction was filed by Dominos concerning which summons was issued on 29.08.2022, on which date an ex parte ad interim order, restraining Dominick from using, depicting, or displaying, in any manner, whatsoever, the marks “Dominick Pizza”, “Cheese Burst” and “Pasta Italiano” as well as any other identical or confusingly/deceptively similar marks, was passed. GoDaddy, being the Domain Name Registrar of and was also directed to block/suspend the said domain names
  9. Subsequently, GoDaddy, the Domain Name Registrar of Dominick appeared before the Court and stated that it had complied with the direction to block/suspend the domain names and and was willing to transfer the said domain names to Dominos.
  10. Dominick, despite service, never chose to file any written statement, and its right to file a written statement was closed on 02.02.2023
  11. On 15.02.2023, the interim order dated 29.08.2023 was made absolute pending disposal of the suit. The affidavit in evidence dated 11.08.2023 was subsequently been filed by Dominos, reiterating, in extenso and verbatim, the contents of the plant
  1. An order for permanent injunction restraining the use of marks “Dominick Pizza” or any other effect which is identical or deceptively similar to the Dominos registered trademarks as amounting to infringement of the trademarks, specifically as registered under Trade Mark application numbers – 463304, 572312, 1238053, 1238054, 2145011, 2145001, 2145008 and 2145009.
  2. An order for permanent injunction restraining the use of marks “Dominick Pizza”, or any other mark which is identical or deceptively similar to the Dominos trademark “Domino’s Pizza”, as well as “Cheese Burst”, “PASTA ITALIANO”, to cause confusion or deception leading to passing off.
  3. An order for permanent injunction restraining the use of marks “Dominick Pizza” or any other mark which is identical or deceptively similar to Dominos trademark “Domino’s Pizza”, as well as “Cheese Burst”, “PASTA ITALIANO”, to cause dilution or to tarnish Dominos trademark and packaging
  4. An order for delivery-up to Dominos, of all infringing products, packaging, signage, menu cards and advertising material, labels, stationery articles,and all other infringing documentation bearing the impugned marks “Dominick Pizza”, or any other mark which is identical or deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s trademark “Domino’s Pizza”, as well as “Cheese Burst”, “PASTA ITALIANO” or any other deceptively similar trademark for destruction/erasure of the same
  5. An order like directions to Dominick to withdraw the trademark application number 3285916, dated 15.06.2016 for the impugned mark
  6. An order like directions to Dominick to lock, block, suspend, and transfer the domain names and and during the pendency of the suit to inform Dominos when the aforesaid domain names are set to expire.
  7. An order for a rendition of accounts of profits earned by Dominick by the use of the impugned trademarks “Dominick Pizza”, or any other mark which is identical or deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs’ trademark “Domino’s Pizza”, as well as “Cheese Burst”, “PASTA ITALIANO” or any other deceptively similar trademark for destruction/erasure of the same
  8. An order for damages of Rs. 2,00,01,000 to be paid to Dominos

The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi while relying on a catena of judgments analysed as follows:

  1. In the case of device marks, containing textual matter, where the textual matter constitutes a prominent part of the rival device marks, and the textual matter of the defendant’s mark is confusingly or deceptively similar to the textual matter of the plaintiff’s mark, infringement has necessarily to be held to have taken place. The obvious reason is that the mythical customer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection, through whose imaginary eyes the existence or non-existence of infringement has to be discerned, would remember the textual material in the marks in preference to their visual appearance. That apart, it is a matter of common knowledge that the visual appearance of device marks does not remain constant, and changes from time to time.
  2. The textual material in the rival “CHEESE BURST” and “PASTA ITLAIANO” is identical, between the Dominos and Dominick, who uses the very same phrase as is used by Dominos, i.e. “CHEESE BURST” and “PASTA ITLAIANO”. The mere fact that, visually, the two marks may be dissimilar, cannot, therefore, detract from the infringing nature of the defendant’s marks.
  3. Section 29(2) of the Trade Marks Act sets out the circumstances in which infringement would take place, where the rival marks are either identical or similar to each other, and are used in respect of goods or services which are identical or similar. Clause (a) applies where the rival marks are identical and cover goods or services that are similar to each other, clause (b) applies where the rival trademarks are similar, but not identical, and cover goods or services that are identical or similar, and clause (c) covers cases where the rival marks and goods and services covered thereby are identical.
  4. The phonetic similarity between “Domino’s” and “Dominick’s”, in conjunction with the similarity in the logos used by the Dominos and Dominick, and the fact that they are providing identical goods and services under the respective marks, render the marks deceptively similar to each other and make out a case of likelihood of confusion between the two marks. “Domino’s Pizza” and “Dominick’s Pizza” appear, to be ex facie deceptively similar to each other. If a customer visits a “Domino’s Pizza” outlet on one occasion and, sometime later, visits a “Dominick’s Pizza” outlet, the likelihood of confusion is bound to exist. This likelihood would be exacerbated by how Dominick has chosen to represent its logo, in a square format using lettering similar to that used by the plaintiffs.
  5. The aspect of whether the use of the defendant’s mark is or is not likely to confuse essentially a matter which rests with the subjective discretion of the Court, and is not an aspect which is to be decided based on evidence of customers.
  6. The intent of Dominick to imitate Dominos is apparent as the marks “CHEESE BURST” and “PASTA ITALIANO” replicate the corresponding marks of Dominos. The mark is a throwback to the original predecessor “DOMINICK’s PIZZA” mark of the Dominos, which was adopted by the Monaghan Brothers. The intention of luring the public into believing an association between Dominick and Dominos was evident.
  1. A decree of permanent injunction was made restraining Dominick, its proprietors, partners, directors, officers, servants, agents franchisees, and all others acting for and on its behalf from advertising, selling, offering for sale marketing, etc. any product, packaging, menu cards and advertising material, labels, stationery articles, website or any other documentation using, depicting, displaying in any manner whatsoever, the marks “Dominick Pizza”, “CHEESE BURST” and “PASTA ITALIANO” or any other mark which is identical or deceptively similar to Dominos registered trademarks.
  2. Dominick was directed forthwith to withdraw Application number 3285916 dated 15.06.2016, submitted to the Trade Marks Registry, whereby it has sought to register the mark and in the event of failure the Registry of Trademarks is directed to treat the application as withdrawn and to pass orders appropriately
  3. Dominick was directed to transfer, immediately, the domain names and to Dominos
  4. Dominos was entitled to actual costs and Dominick was made liable to pay, ₹ 6,57,564.20 being the actual costs incurred by Dominos in the present litigation which is to be paid within four weeks from the date of uploading of the judgment.


The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi at the time of pronouncement of judgment dated 26.09.2023 in CS(COMM) 587 of 2022 observed that where the marks in question pertain to food items, or eateries where food items are dispensed and served, a somewhat higher degree of care and caution is expected to be observed. Running an eating house using a mark that is deceptively similar to a reputed mark does not speak well for the enterprise concerned. The intent to capitalize on the reputation of a known and established brand, by using a mark that is deceptively similar to the mark used by the brand, can, in a given case, give rise to a legitimate apprehension of quality compromise by the imitator. Courts have, therefore, to be vigilant in ensuring that, where the marks relate to consumable items or to enterprises such as hotels, restaurants, and eating houses where consumable items are served to customers, such imitative attempts are not allowed to go unchecked.

Judgment reviewed by: Kavya Kapoor, Legal Intern at Aggarwals & Associates

Pharmaceutical Company’s Non-Liability for Adverse Vaccination Reactions

Pharmaceutical Company’s Non-Liability for Adverse Vaccination Reactions

Can Pharmaceutical Companies Be Held Liable For Not Mentioning Adverse Reactions Of Vaccination?


CASE: Prakash Bang v. Glaxo Smithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd Anr. (CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6791 OF 2013)


  • In order to achieve immunity against contracting Hepatitis B, on 10.08.1998, the appellant approached his family physician Dr. Satyajit Pathak for administering the repeat dose of the vaccine Engerix-B, but after four days of being vaccinated, he felt severe pain in his left shoulder at the site of the injection and while moving his shoulder. The skin at the place where he was injected was found shiny with a bit of erythema.
  • He took analgesics under medical advice and visited an orthopedic surgeon, underwent certain radiological tests but no orthopedic abnormality was detected. He was examined by Neuro-physician and the nerve conduction test was carried out. During the process, he found out that the pain was due to ‘myositis’ which is a condition occurring as an adverse reaction due to the administration of Engerix-B, manufactured by the pharmaceutical company.
  • The appellant filed a complaint before the NCDRC claiming compensation of Rs,90,20,557 from the pharmaceutical company. It was observed by NCDRC that if the drug of that particular batch had any such defect or deficiency, the reaction should have been common for other members also as they also took the same. Also, the reported frequency has a minimal incidence i.e. 0.02 per million doses. The muscle biopsy was never sent to the pharmaceutical company. Various examinations/ tests conducted by the pharmaceutical company found that all the values had passed the requisite standard and the drug of that lot suffered from no defect of any kind.


  • Firstly, whether the conclusion as recorded by the NCDRC is erroneous or perverse so as to call for interference, and whether there is sufficient evidence to establish that the appellant in fact had suffered ‘myositis’ and if so whether the cause for same was the vaccination Engerix-B being administered?
  • Secondly, whether the non-mentioning of ‘myositis’ being suffered as an adverse reaction in the literature accompanying the injection or on the ‘vial’ amounts to ‘deficiency of service’, more particularly when the adverse reaction is minimal only to the extent of 0.02 in one million?

The burden was on the appellant, particularly in a circumstance when all the family members had been administered the same vaccination from the same source and the appellant himself did not have any difficulty when the first two doses were administered.

  • On the first aspect, the court held that the affidavit of the family doctor ‘Dr. Satyajit Pathak’, stated only about administering the vaccine and the fact of the shoulder pain, and also there was no affidavit containing the medical research of the doctors who had subsequently treated the appellant. In the absence of such medical evidence, it becomes difficult for the court to arrive at a conclusion.
  • It was also held that the initial burden to be discharged by the appellant has not been discharged to substantiate the allegation which was made in the complaint. Also, the muscle biopsy not being furnished despite being asked to do so by the respondent pharmaceutical company should be held adversely against the appellant.
  • On the second aspect, The Supreme Court while relying on, Jacob Punnen and Another vs. United India Insurance Company Limited, observed that the said family doctor also owed a duty to his patient and if he had prescribed the said drug it was incumbent on him to know more details about the vaccination before prescribing or administering the same, and ideally, he ought to have been a party-respondent to the proceedings rather than filing his affidavit.
  • Also, The assumption of the appellant that he has suffered ‘myositis’ and the cause for the same was the Engerix-B vaccine has not been established with the minimal required evidence to conclude in favor of the complainant.

Even muscle biopsy which was required by the pharmaceutical company was not furnished so as to enable the pharmaceutical company to make an ultimate decision in the matter. Therefore, considering all the aspects, the court held that NCDRC has not committed any error so as to call for interference with the impugned order


  • The Honourable Supreme Court to arrive at a conclusion considered the relevant observation in the order of the NCRDC which explained that it is difficult to establish a relationship between such adverse reaction and the vaccine as it could be calculated to a minimal incidence i.e., 0.02% only. It also said that had the vaccine had any defect or deficiency, the reaction must also be caused to other family members.
  • Also, the drug has passed all the examination and requisite standards required to be used as a vaccine and was made available in the market after certification therefore, it can’t have any such adverse reactions that the complainant had allegedly suffered.
  • The appellant also failed to produce any documentary evidence other than the affidavit filed by the doctor that can indicate the very basic issue of the purchase of the vaccine and the same being administered by the pharmaceutical company.
  • The Apex court said that the non-mentioning of ‘myositis’ being suffered as an adverse reaction in the literature on the ‘vial’ did not amount to “a deficiency of service” on the part of a pharmaceutical company- Glaxo SmithKline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. as the affidavit of the manufacturer indicated that the detailed procedure was followed in the certification of the drug.
  • Further, it was found by the court that the muscle biopsy was not furnished by the complainant despite being asked to do so by the pharmaceutical company, and thus the same was held adversely against the former.
  • Thus, the Supreme Court upheld the order of the NCRDC and dismissed the plea.

The complainant has miserably failed to establish his case in regard to either any defect in the drug in question or any negligence amounting to deficiency in service on the part of the pharmaceutical company which is the manufacturer of the drug. In that view, the complaint filed by the appellant was dismissed by the NCDRC. 

Judgment reviewed by: Advitiya Malhotra and Siddhi Porwal, Legal Intern at Aggarwals & AssociatesMohali

Maternity Benefits Can Extend Even Beyond Contractual Term: Supreme Court of India

Maternity Benefits Can Extend Even Beyond Contractual Term: Supreme Court of India

“Fulfil the entitlement criteria specified in section 5(2) of the Maternity Benefits Act and get eligible for full Maternity benefits even beyond the contractual term”.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India upheld the above statement in a three-judge bench. Case: Dr. Kavita Yadav v The Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Department & Ors (Civil appeal No. 5010/2023) on 17th August 2023.


  • The appellant is a pathology doctor and was appointed as the senior resident (pathology) on a contractual basis in Janakpuri Super Specialty Hospital, under the government of NCT Delhi. The appellant’s contract was dated to end on 12th June 2017 as per the conditions of the contract.
  • However, she applied for maternity benefits from 1 June 2017 under the Maternity Benefit Act 1961. Eventually, the employer stated that she would only get 11 days of maternity leave, since her employment period is going to expire on 12th June 2017 and it cannot extend beyond the employment period.
  • The appellant challenged the action of the employer and filed a complaint in the central administrative tribunal and eventually in the high court; however, her claim for the same was rejected by both the court, on the same grounds as stated by the employer.


  • Whether the maternity benefits as contemplated in Section 5(2) of the Maternity Benefits Act, 1961 apply to a woman appointed on contract if the period for which she claims such benefits overshoots the contractual period?
  • If the period of employment is as per the conditions of the contract, can there be a notional extension of the period of employment?


  • The Hon’ble Supreme Court relied on several judgments. It opined that continuation of maternity benefits in the statute itself, where the benefits would survive beyond the cessation of the period of employment.
  • In the case of the municipal corporation of Delhi v. female workers (muster role) & Anr.’ the point of argument was highlighted. It revealed the fact that regular women employees were extended the benefits of the act, but, not to those women workers who were employed on a contractual basis.
  • The judgment emphasized Article 39 and more specifically 42 which fall in the ambit of directive principles of state policy and state that, a woman employee at the time of employment shall not be compelled to do hard labor. Also, the judges declared that we did not find anything credible in the act which states that only regular women employees are eligible for maternity benefits.
  • The Hon’ble Supreme Court opined that the high court erred in holding that the appellant was not eligible for maternity benefits after 11 June 2023.
  • The factual analysis of the provision led to the conclusion that after fulfillment of section 5(2) of the act, a woman employee is eligible for full maternity benefits even after these benefits exceed her period of employment.
  • The main crux of the entire judgment was, that if the employee fulfills the eligible criteria for availing maternity benefits, i.e. she completes 80 days of employment, she will be eligible to avail of the maternity benefits even if such benefits exceed the duration of her contract.
  • The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the high court and the decision of the tribunal invalidated thereof.


  • We know that maternity benefits are a fundamental and integral part of the identity and dignity of a woman who chooses to bear a child. Thus the apex court gave a fabulous judgement about the rights of the contractual women employees.
  • The benefits should be given on a timely basis and the discrimination based on permanent and contractual employment shall be curbed as much as possible, considering the development of female strata of the society and the economy at large.


Judgment reviewed by: Ajit Ranadive, Legal Intern at Aggarwals & Associates, Mohali




The Thrill of Online Gaming: A Comprehensive Guide

The Thrill of Online Gaming: A Comprehensive Guide

In this article, we will be catering the critical legal aspects related to online gaming in India. We will be talking the recent legal developments that are shaping the landscape aswell.


  • Online gaming is the playing of games via online mode with friends, family, or any known member.
  • The players have to pay a monthly or annual subscription fee to play the online games on the internet platform. The gaming experience involves users playing in groups offering a multi-user experience.
  • The multi-users can chat or talk to each other and play to win gaming battles.
  • Currently, there are various Online portals available to provide a smart user interface for such players. They are providing them with a hassle-free gaming experience.


  • As per the Indian Government, Online games mean “game that is offered on the Internet and is accessible by a user through a computer resource or an intermediary”.
  • The gaming experience dealing with wagering and betting falls out of the ambit of online gaming.
  • As per the Minister of State for Electronics in India, online gaming is permissible games involving real money. Also, they do not harm the users and make them addicted to the online gaming experience.
  • They do not involve wagering or are not involved in betting.


Online games in India typically fall under two primary legal categories:

  1. Games of skill- Games of skill is involving a substantial element of skill and strategy, are exempted from anti-gambling laws.
  2. Games of chance- Games of opportunity is primarily relying on luck, are often subjected to gambling regulations.
  • The distinction between these categories plays a pivotal role in determining the applicability of gambling laws.
  • In recent years, online poker and fantasy sports platforms have gained significant attention and faced legal challenges.
  • The legal status of these platforms hinges on the determination of whether they constitute games of skill or games of chance. The courts have generally leaned towards classifying poker as a game of skill due to its strategic nature, while fantasy sports platforms argue that participant knowledge and decision-making make their offerings games of skill as well.
  • The legal battle surrounding these classifications reached a milestone in the XYZ v. ABC case, wherein the High Court upheld the type of poker as a game of skill. This ruling established a precedent for other courts to follow, providing a level of legitimacy to the online poker industry.


  • Online gaming is rapidly growing in India and has led to an efflux in legal considerations surrounding this dynamic industry.
  • As players immerse themselves in virtual worlds, legal frameworks are being scrutinized to ensure a balance between entertainment, consumer protection, and regulatory compliance.
  • The Indian Ministry of Electronics and IT (MeitY) is trying to regularise this part of the virtual world from the players being tricked or harmed by the addiction or from being scammed.
  • The MeitY has introduced certain rules and regulations to scrutinize the virtual online gaming world.
  • Such scrutiny will be with the help of the Self Regulatory Organisations (SRO’s).
  • The SRO’s will be approving the games to operate in India in accordance with the rules introduced by the Indian Ministry of Electronics and IT (MeitY).
  • The Self Regulatory Organisations  will be providing betting-free, harm-free games, and wager-free online games for online gaming users. Such rules have been brought into the picture by amending the IT rules of 2021.


  • The taxation of online gaming in India is a complex matter.
  • Income generated by players through gaming activities may be subject to income tax, while gaming platforms are also subject to various tax implications.
  • Furthermore, foreign investment in the Indian gaming industry is subject to the Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) policy of the country. Recent amendments to the FDI policy have allowed for increased foreign investment in the sector, fueling its growth.


  • The advertising and endorsement of online gaming platforms have also garnered legal attention.
  • The Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) has issued guidelines that require gaming advertisements to be transparent and not mislead consumers.
  • Celebrity endorsements of gaming platforms is facing scrutiny, leading to a closer examination of whether such endorsements violate any ethical or legal standards.


  • The distinction between online gambling and skill games is a subject of contention in recent years.
  • While games of skill has gained acceptance as legal activities, the line between skill and chance can sometimes be blurred. This has led to debates over whether certain card games or betting activities should be treated as skill-based games or gambling.
  • The XYZ Bill is currently under consideration in Parliament. It is seeking to establish a regulatory framework to address these ambiguities and provide clarity on the legal status of various online gaming activities.


  • The legal landscape of online gaming in India is rapidly driven by technological advancements, changing consumer behaviors, and legal challenges.
  • As the industry is struggling with questions of skill versus chance, consumer protection, taxation, and advertising.
  • It is imperative for both players and stakeholders to stay informed about the latest legal developments.
  • Recent rulings, such as the XYZ v. ABC case, has provided an essential guidance, but the journey toward a comprehensive regulatory framework is ongoing.
  • In this dynamic environment, players, gaming platforms, and regulators must collaborate to strike a balance.
  • It should be fostering  innovation, ensuring consumer safety, and upholding legal standards.
  • As online gaming is becoming an increasingly integral part of Indian leisure and entertainment, a clear and comprehensive legal framework will play a pivotal role in shaping the future of this vibrant industry.

By: Advocate Riti GuptaAssociate Lawyer at Aggarwals & AssociatesMohali



Mitigating Risks: Safeguards for an Employers to Minimize Liability

Mitigating Risks: Safeguards for an Employers to Minimize Liability

“The two most important things to remember in business are: to be aware of the consequential impact on ecology, and a caring relationship between employer and employee.”  – HH. DALAI LAMA


An Employer is a person or organization that hires an individual, known as an employee, to perform work or services in exchange for compensation, such as a salary or wages. The employee is typically responsible for performing the work or services agreed upon and following the employer’s policies and procedures. The employer-employee relationship is a legal and contractual one, and the employer is responsible for providing the necessary tools, equipment, and working conditions. An employer will only be able to safeguard himself by setting some rules, and policies and signing agreements with an employee in which he/she drafts the point which is beneficial or helpful for both employer and the employee.

The worker has been defined under Section 2(L) of the Factories Act, 1948 as “WORKER” means a person employed directly or by or through any agency (including a contractor), whether for remuneration or not in any manufacturing process, or in cleaning any part of the machinery or premises used for a manufacturing process, or in any other kind of work incidental to, or connected with the manufacturing process, or the subject of the manufacturing process but does not include any member of the Armed Forces of the Union.

In accordance with the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 “WORKMAN” means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute but does not include a person of Army, Navy and Air force; employees of police service; employees of administrative and managerial capacity and person of supervisory capacity who draws Rs1600/- per month.

The Role of an Employer in a Company/Organisation:

  1. What role does an Employer play in hiring?

Hiring involves the process of reviewing the applications and selecting the right candidate. It involves a range of activities, including job analysis, job posting, candidate screening, interviewing, and offering the job. There are several laws in India that cover the hiring of the employees such as the Industrial Disputes Act, of 1947, and the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, of 1970. The employer is statutorily authorised under these laws to hire the workers/employees on a contractual/permanent basis.

The Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, provides the right to hire the employee on a contract basis u/s 2(b) “a workman shall be deemed to be employed as “contract labour” in or in connection with the work of an establishment when he is hired in or in connection with such work by or through a contractor, with or without the knowledge of the principal employer”. The employers have the rights under the Industrial Dispute Act, of 1947 to hire workmen (including apprentices) for manual skilled or unskilled, sales promotion, operational, clerical or supervisory work or any work for the promotion of sales for hire or reward but do not include the persons of the Air Force, Army or Navy; police service or who is eligible to draw the salary of Rs1600/-.

The main right of the employer is to hire or fire, if the employee fulfils the necessary criteria of recruitment on the basis of qualification, type of job etc. employer can hire that employee. If any such existing employee is an underperforming employer has the right to fire such employee. As per Contract Act and Contract Labour Act, the employer can hire the worker for particular work and after the employee has the duty to leave the job. The employer has certain rights upon the employee such as the employee shall not leave the job during the probation period/committed period and the agreement enforceable by law between employer and employee bind the employee to join on a specific date as per the offer letter. Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India provides the Right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business to all citizens, for that any person who does business has the right to hire the employee for that business.

2. Is it mandatory to maintain non-disclosure and confidentiality for the employer and employee during the course of service?

The employee during his service is required to maintain secrecy for the employer’s organisation. As not only the employer is dealing with client information and trade secrets but the said information is also accessible to employees especially senior and middle management of an organization. The employee has the duty to use the client’s sensitive information and the company’s trade secrets to fulfill the obligations of their job and to protect this information from leaking to a third party. This duty goes beyond the course of employment and continues even after the employee has left the job. An employer can make his employee bound by the NDA even after his services have been discontinued by the organization for the period mentioned in the agreement signed between employer and employee in this regard. If the employer and employee have signed the NDA, despite that employee violating it by revealing the confidential information, the employee can be sued by the employer and can become liable for paying the damages and compensation and a temporary or permanent injunction can be passed against him. The Right to privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which lays down our fundamental rights. This was affirmed by a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy vs Union of India in its historic judgement of 2017 wherein they declared ‘the right to privacy’ as an integral part of Part III of the Constitution of India. So the Supreme Court itself recognised that privacy is an integral part.

The employer can safeguard himself by signing an NDA with an employee for confidentiality to be maintained, then as per Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act, the employee is liable to pay the compensation for the breach of the contract.  The employer who has the electronic records for his organisation in the computers and laptops, has got all rights to secure his data and nobody can breach the secured data without the permission of an employer otherwise it amounts to be a punishable offence under the Information Technology Act, 2000.

3. What is the role of an Employer in accepting the resignation of an employee?

An employer has the right to receive a resignation notice from an employee before he/she is inclined to leave the company. The employee has to serve a notice period before resigning so that the employer has sufficient time to hire a replacement. The notice period generally ranges from 1 week to 1 month depending upon the company’s HR policy. If the employee resigns without serving a notice period, the employer can send a legal notice to the employee, with the help of the best labour lawyers.

However, one thing that is to be kept in consideration is that if the employment agreement does not prescribe for any notice period to be served by the employee then the employee is not bound to serve the notice. Further certain employment agreements which contain that an employee has to serve a notice period also provide for an option that if the employee does not wish to serve the notice period or is unable to serve the notice period then the salary of an employee in lieu of notice period is to be paid by the employee. If the employee doesn’t pay the compensation in lieu of the salary for not serving the notice period, the employee becomes liable and the employer can recover it by remedy of civil suit for recovery of the amount.

When a party terminates the contract on the basis of termination of convenience without giving any proper reason then the court might direct for performance on the part of their contract. The court can direct the performance of contracts under the Specific Performance Act, of 1963.

However, when the termination clause allows termination by convenience without giving any notice such termination is termed as a ‘determinable’(the term determinable is referred to here as in situation of an employee due to certain circumstances discontinue the employment than on the direction of the court under this section he/she shall perform certain part of the job/period of the job which shall fulfil the employers convenience like the job/project which is left undone and causing the loss to the employer) contract under Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

4. What role an employer has in framing the Employee leave policy?

Employer rights in India entitle an employer with the right to be notified before the employer takes a leave from office. The employer also has the right to reject or approve the leave application of an employee. An employer can reject the leave application if the employee remains absent persistently from the office, fails to perform their duties or take leaves without any substantial reason.

He/she has the right to deduct the employee’s salary for every unpaid leave taken, and even terminate the employment if an employee remains absent from office without prior notification.

The employer has the right to form the contract with an employee before the appointment and in that contract, a clause of leave, holidays and office timings need to be specified clearly in accordance with the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947; Factories Act, 1948 and Shop and Establishment Act of States.

An employer can safeguard himself by initiating legal action with the help of labour advocates, against an employee who violates any of these rights. The employer–employee agreement should entail the leave policy. The leave policy clause in the agreement shall mention how many leaves in the month an employee is entitled to take.

If the employee takes more than such leaves as mentioned in the agreement, then it shall be considered as disobedience to the agreement and the employer can right away fire the employee and the employee cannot raise its objection to such action of the employer against him because its violation to the clause of the agreement. The employer in another case can also file a civil suit in court under Section 73 of the Contract Act for the breach and can claim damages.

5. Can the Employer draft a work policy? 

Employer rights in India also entitle the employer and grant him/her the right to draft and implement a work/ HR policy according to the company’s requirements. An employer can define the code of conduct for employees, working hours, timings, leave policy, salary policy, conditions for termination and resignation, harassment policy and grievance redressal policy in the working policy. The HR policies of the company can be drafted with the assistance of employment Advocates.

All employees have an obligation to adhere to the provisions mentioned in this company manual, and the employer has the right to terminate the employment of an employee who fails to follow the provisions of this policy.  The policies made by the employer should be in compliance with the employment and labour law applicable to a particular kind of organization.

Article 19 (1) (g) guarantees that all citizens shall have the Right to practice any profession, or to carry on occupation, trade or business. The employer has the right to maintain the welfare of its organisation or business if the same is violated or there is any probability that the employee may cause harm or has caused harm to the smooth running of peaceful running of the organisation, then the employer can take action against the employee.

Where the employee threatens the employer or any other person in respect of the reputation or property of any person in the organisation which he is not legally bound to do the employer can register the complaint against the employee under section – 503(Criminal Intimidation) of the IPC,1860.

Where the employee by word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman by uttering any word makes any sound or exhibits any object or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, in an organisation shall be punished under section 509 of the IPC, 1860. If the employee performs any obscene songs or language shall be punishable u/s 294 of the IPC.

Where the employee in a state of intoxication, appears on the office premises and his act is causing annoyance to the staff of that organisation, the employer can register a police complaint for misconduct in public by a drunken person under section 510 of the IPC.

6. What role an Employer plays in the wages and salaries of an employee?

According to the Code on Wages, 2019

The employer has the right to fix the wage period for employees either as daily or weekly or fortnightly or monthly subject to the condition that no wage period in respect of any employee shall be more than a month

An employee shall be disqualified from receiving bonus under this Code, if he is dismissed from service for–– (a) fraud; or (b) riotous or violent behaviour while on the premises of the establishment; or (c) theft, misappropriation or sabotage of any property of the establishment; or (d) conviction for sexual harassment.

The employer can make deductions from the wages of the employee in many cases such as any advance payment made to the employee, fines imposed, absence from duty, house accommodation provided by employer, any loan granted to the employee etc.

According to section 21 of this code, a deduction for damage or loss shall not exceed the amount of the damage or loss caused to the employer by negligence or default of the employee.


The employer and employee are the major two concerns of an association where, the employer plays a role in hiring, making policies, assigning duties, and utmost prior to paying wages. On the other hand, the role of an employee is also major and his work starts from the day he is being hired by the employer. The role to be played by an employee has to be in cooperation with what has been asked or expected by an employer or an organisation.

These days as per the Labour Law not only the employee gets the safeguard it is employer also who can be safeguarded from the harassment of an employee. As it seems easier to sit on the chair of an Employer and plays a vital role but at the same time it is difficult to maintain the relation, equation and balance of all to run the company/organisation.

It is better for the employer to safeguard himself by having strong contracts and agreements with employees prior to and during employment. The new Labour Codes have subsumed the earlier labour laws irrespective of vanishing the labour rights but raising the employer privileges.

By Advocate Ashutosh Saklani, Associate Lawyer at Aggarwals & Associates, Mohali