Tirupati temple body issues legal notice to vendors for misuse of GI tag for laddu
The legal communication emphasised that the Tirupati Laddu is prepared solely within the Tirumala temple premises under TTD's strict supervision, following a traditional and sanctified method. Unauthorised use not only breaches legal protections but also diminishes the spiritual value of this revered prasadam, notice.In response, PushMyCart acknowledged the notice and suspended the infringing listings while conducting a legal review. Several other vendors have also voluntarily removed their listings after receiving TTD's warnings.Executive Officer of the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, J Shymala Rao, said, The Tirupati Laddu is not just a product, but a sacred prasadam with deep spiritual and cultural value. We are committed to taking all necessary legal steps to prevent its misuse and to protect the trust of crores of devotees worldwide.'advertisementThis action marks one of the first times in India that a temple prasadam protected under GI law has been defended through formal legal channels, including on international platforms.GI tag is a mark of regional specialty that signifies that a product originates from a specific geographic location and possesses qualities, characteristics, or reputation due to its origin.
IN THIS STORY#Andhra Pradesh
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
31 minutes ago
- Time of India
Ex-BJP MP Gopal Shetty among 2 acquitted by Mumbai court in 20-year-old police assault case as witness turns hostile
Mumbai: With the purported victim claiming that the push might have been unintentional due to the accused being in a hurry, a sessions court recently acquitted former BJP MP Gopal Shetty (71) and party functionary Ganesh Khankar (52) over two decades after they were accused of storming into a police station and attacking a constable. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now It was alleged that their reaction came after Kasturba Marg police booked Netaji Shinde, a BJP worker from Borivli (E), under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities (MPDA) Act. The constable turned hostile in court and did not support the prosecution's case. "From overall evidence on record, it appears that both accused visited Kasturba Marg police station at midnight, possibly with the intention of assisting or supporting their party activist, Netaji Shinde, who was detained under the MPDA Act," additional sessions judge Satyanarayan R Navander said. He added that the only witness who partly supported the prosecution case was the constable, and even his testimony was contradictory, vague, and substantially weakened during cross-examination. "No independent or neutral witnesses were examined, and no other officer supported the allegations despite being named in the FIR. The investigating officer himself did not corroborate the allegations. In light of this, a serious doubt arises regarding the prosecution's case," the judge said. The prosecution had alleged that on Sept 10, 2004, at 12.45am, Shetty and Khankar allegedly pushed aside constable Udesh Mohite, forcibly entered Kasturba Marg police station, hurled abuses, and threatened him. They reportedly entered the detection room and abused the cops and threatened police sub-inspector Radheshyam Sharma before leaving. A crucial point in the trial was the deposition of Mohite. While he admitted that one of the accused used insulting words after entering the police station, he denied lodging any complaint against them and claimed to be unaware of what transpired after they entered. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now During examination by the prosecution, he admitted that the accused pushed him and hurled abuses, and that he lodged a complaint. However, during cross-examination by the defence, he stated he could not confirm if it was intentional or accidental. He also did not specify the exact abusive words used. The judge found his testimony to be "extremely weak and unreliable". "Only after being confronted with leading questions did he admit to being pushed and abused, but those allegations are vague and unsupported. The further admissions given by him during the defence cross-examination weaken the prosecution's case even more," the judge said. Sharma deposed that he carried out the investigations and filed the chargesheet. However, he did not state that he personally witnessed the incident or corroborate the allegations in the FIR about him being insulted or intimidated. The case initially proceeded before the Mazgaon magistrate's court, which framed charges against the accused on Jan 30, 2025, and recorded prosecution witness evidence. However, the JMFC lacked jurisdiction to try the offence under Section 353 of the IPC, which was made exclusively triable by the sessions court via a state amendment. Consequently, the matter was committed to the sessions court on June 21. Fresh charges were framed against the accused by the sessions court on July 19, to which both pleaded not guilty. The prosecution opted to rely on the evidence already recorded before the JMFC, and the defence raised no objection.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Registrar can't alter birth certificates relating to disputed paternity, rules Kerala high court
Kochi: High court has held that the registrar of births and deaths in local bodies cannot make corrections in birth certificates relating to disputed paternity, as such matters require a full-fledged trial, adjudication and judicial imprimatur. The bench of Justice C S Dias further clarified that the circular issued by local self-govt department on Dec 16, 2015, mandates that if the father's name is to be changed in the birth records, a DNA test report, an agreement attested before a notary public and an order from a competent court must be produced. HC was considering a petition by a divorced man challenging the correction made in his son's birth certificate, by which his name had been replaced with that of his ex-wife's present partner. The petitioner alleged that the registrar of Payyannur municipality had made the change without issuing notice to him or affording him an opportunity of being heard. According to the petition, the petitioner had married the woman in May 2010, and she gave birth to a child in March 2011. Post-delivery, she went to her paternal home with the child for recuperation. Later, in April 2011, she went missing along with the child. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Up to 70% off | Libas Purple Days Sale Libas Undo On a habeas corpus petition filed by the petitioner, the woman appeared and stated that she desired to live with her lover. In Dec 2011, their marriage was dissolved by mutual consent. Thereafter, the woman and her partner filed a joint application before the municipality registrar to change the father's name in her son's birth certificate, producing certain documentary evidence. Based on this, the registrar altered the entry, prompting the petitioner to move HC. Upon examining the matter, HC noted that, as per Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, a child born during the subsistence of a valid marriage, or within 280 days after its dissolution, is presumed to be the legitimate offspring of the husband, unless it is proved that the spouses had no access to each other during the relevant period. In the present case, it was an admitted fact that the child was born during the subsistence of the marriage, and there was no admission by the parties or declaration by a competent court that the petitioner was not, conclusively, the legitimate father of the child. HC further held that under the Act and the Rules governing corrections to the register of births and deaths, the registrar is empowered to correct or cancel an entry only in cases of clerical or formal errors, or where the entry has been fraudulently or improperly made. Such corrections are to be made by a marginal note, without altering the original entry. Disputed questions of paternity fall outside the scope of the registrar's powers. Quashing the altered birth certificate, HC directed the registrar to reconsider the matter after hearing all parties.
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Every SC/ST complaint must lead to registration of FIR without any preliminary inquiry, orders Madras High Court
In a significant verdict, the Madras High Court has held the police cannot conduct preliminary inquiry on receipt of complaints disclosing cognisable offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act of 1989 and that the law enforcing agency should straightaway register First Information Reports (FIRs) against the suspects. Justice P. Velmiurugan highlighted that Section 18A(1)(a), introduced by way of an amendment in 2018, of the Act categorically states that no preliminary inquiry would be required for registration of FIR against any person. 'The legislative intent is to ensure immediate and unfiltered registration of complaints alleging caste based atrocities, without procedural obstructions or administrative discretion,' he said. The judge agreed with advocate R. Thirumoorthy that the police often do not follow the legal mandate. Therefore, he directed the Director General of Police/Head of Police Force (DGP/HoPF) to communicate a copy of his order to all Commissioners as well as Superintendents of Police in the State in order to avoid infraction of the legal requirement as far as SC/ST cases were concerned. The judge said, in several cases, he had been coming across instances of preliminary inquiries being conducted in SC/ST cases and such inquiries being conducted by officers below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) though Rule 7(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995, mandates investigation in SC/ST cases to be conducted by police officers not below the rank of DSP. Stating procedural lapses should not recur in the future, the judge made it clear investigation in SC/ST cases must be completed and final reports/charge sheets must be filed before the special courts within 60 days, from the date of registration of FIR, as mandated under Rule 7(2) of the 1994 Rules. He insisted upon time bound filing of final reports in all cases booked under the SC/ST Act. Justice Velmurugan also ordered that judicial magistrates could not take cognisance of private complaints seeking a direction to the police to register FIRs under the SC/ST Act and that such complaints must be forwarded to the special courts constituted under Section 14 of the Act. He pointed out that the judicial magistrates lacked the jurisdiction to take cognisance of such private complaints. The orders were passed on a petition filed by Muniraj, a disabled person belonging to a Scheduled Caste. He had filed a private complaint before a judicial magistrate in Krishnagiri district and obtained a direction to the Hosur Town police in August 2024 to inquire into his complaint against a few individuals who were reportedly attempting to usurp his immovable property and had also abused him using caste slurs. He had approached the High Court accusing the Hosur Town Police Station Inspector of not having inquired into his complaint properly despite a judicial direction. However, after holding that the direction issued by the judicial magistrate was not valid in the eye of law, Justice Velmurugan directed the Krishnagiri Superintendent of Police to ensure that a FIR was registered based on the petitioner's complaint. The judge also said, the Superintendent of Police could conduct the investigation either by himself or entrust it to an officer not below the rank of DSP who, in turn, must file a final report within 60 days.
