Answer1) Vijay Malaya is right because kingfisher airlines and Vijay Malaya are two

separate entities.
Since loan was taken against the company and Mr. Malaya was just
the managing director of kingfisher airlines, so banks cannot ask the loans to be
repaid by Mr. Malaya as the separate entity concept says that we should
always separately record the transactions of a business and its owners. Otherwise,
there is a considerable risk that the transactions of the two will become
intermingled. According to the principle of accounting a company is an entity which
is separate from the promoters. Under Company ACT of 2013, it is clearly stated
that a company has an independence existence from the promoters of the company.
Further, the liability of the promoter is only restricted to the shareholding in the
company. The promoter is not personally liable for make up for the losses made by
the company. A separate legal entity or SLE refers to a type of legal entity with
detached accountability. A business can be set up as an SLE to legally separate it
from the individual or owner, such as a limited liability company or a corporation. If
a business is a separate legal entity, it means it has some of the same rights in law
as a person. It is, for example, able to enter contracts. A company is a separate
legal entity from its owners (shareholders) and can, for example, be sued, and enter
into contracts in the name of the company, not the shareholders. Banks can take up
properties which have been mortgaged to them by an individual in return for the
loan but bank cannot appropriate Vijay Malayas assets for the defaults made by
Kingfisher unless he has given personal guarantee for the loans.

Answer 2) The use by Britannia of a deceptively similar packaging for an identical

product constitutes infringement of the original artistic work in the unique product
packaging/label of ITC under Section 51 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The illegal act of
Britannia constitutes misrepresentation and unfair competition and is likely to dilute
the distinct character of ITCs brand as according to this act
(a)when any person, without a license granted by the owner of the copyright or the
Registrar of Copyrights under this Act or in contravention of the conditions of a
license so granted or of any condition imposed by a competent authority under this
Act
(I) does anything, the exclusive right to do which is by this Act conferred upon the
owner of the copyright
(ii) permits for profit any place to be used for the communication of the work to the
public where such communication constitutes an infringement of the copyright in
the work, unless he was not aware and had no reasonable ground for believing that
such communication to the public would be an infringement of copyright
(iii) permits for profit any place to be used for the communication of the work to the
public where such communication constitutes an infringement of the copyright in

the work, unless he was not aware and had no reasonable ground for believing that
such communication to the public would be an infringement of copyright
(b) when any person
(I) makes for sale or hire, or sells or lets for hire, or by way of trade displays or
offers for sale or hire
(ii) distributes either for the purpose of trade or to such an extent as to affect
prejudicially the owner of the copyright
(iii) by way of trade exhibits in public
(iv) imports into India, any infringing copies of the work
So according to this act itc was right is suing Britannia.

Answer 3) The North-Western Railway, Jaipur case violates the Section 3(3)(d) of the
Competition Act, 2002 (Act). It was stated that all three approved firms had been
quoting less than Rs 300 per sq. m in the tenders floated by NWR and other railway
zones before and in the calendar year 2013. However, from June 2014 onwards the
rates were increased by all three firms substantially.
1. From the cost-break-up and the statements of the it was found
that the pricing of the Product to the Indian Railways was not
based on costing and expected profit margins. The Product was being
supplied to the Railways at a loss.
2.

It was found out that the bid price quoted across various railway zones in the
corresponding period had quoted in similar price range in other railway zones
(other than NWR) and tender bids were in similar price band across all zones.

3. It was found that the justification given for the quantity, number of rolls, size
of rolls, distance, etc., was reasonable in view of business dynamics. Taking
into account various factors during the course of investigation, concluded
that during the course of the investigation, no evidence was found which
could substantiate the allegation of anti-competitive conduct of the OPs in
violation of Section 3(3) (a) or Section 3(3) (d) of the Act.
It can be concluded that the CCI agreed with the finding of the DG that only select
tenders had been chosen by the Informant for assessing the rates quoted by the
OPs.
While there is no direct evidence to show meeting of minds, there is
also no circumstantial evidence that indicates collusion amongst the three Ops
and it was concluded that the allegation of violation of Section 3(3)(d) of the Act
could not be proved.