More than a week after she was found dead in a swamp near a major highway on the outskirts of Mumbai, the police have made no arrests for the murder of 23-year-old Esther Anuhya, enraging women’s rights activists and her family.

Her body was decomposed and partly burnt so it was tough to identify her. It took a ring to establish that she was the young woman reported missing by her family in Vijayawada.

Esther moved to Mumbai a year ago to work with software giant TCS.

The last time she spoke to her father was on January 4 after she boarded a train to Mumbai after spending Christmas at home. She reassured him that she would call him again after settling into the hostel in Mumbai where she lived. Her father, Jonathon Anuhya, says he reported her missing the next day because there was no news from her.

Mr. Anuhya alleges that the Railway Police ignored his pleas for two days to launch a search for his daughter. So he asked the Vijayawada police to help him.

“I don’t wish to compare, but sometimes we need to compare and tell everybody that we are orphans in Bombay,” the victim’s uncle said.

Her cellphone records led her family to the swamp where she was found dead. Injuries suggest that she was sexually assaulted, but a detailed post-mortem report has yet to be finalized.

The Mumbai police says that other passengers who travelled with Esther claim they saw her disembarking from the train at the Kurla station.

The police suspects that she was abducted by a group of taxi or auto drivers waiting to find customers at the station.

A laptop she was carrying remains missing. Her cellphone was recovered near her body.

Actor and Director Pooja Bhatt who was part of a protest against the brutal crime told NDTV, “They kept insisting that it was a case of rape, possibly abduction and murder and unfortunately their worst fears were proved right. So, I think somewhere we need to tell or ask our state machinery that if you were there to protect us, are you doing enough?”

A top Finance Ministry official favoured free ATM services as existing now, saying if they are priced, customers could flock to bank counters which is more expensive than running the money dispensing machines.

Stating that no banks have so far approached the government seeking approval to raise ATM fees, financial services Secretary Rajiv Takru said a final decision will have to be taken by the Reserve Bank in this regard.

“As far as I am concerned I would very much like ATM services to be free. If banks make the services expensive then customers will probably end up at the bank windows. A teller service is far more expensive than ATM service,” said Takru.

He also called for a re-look at orders of some state governments asking banks to have round-the-clock security at ATMs.

However, admitting that ATM services should be sustainable, he said banks will have to look at the economics of this and encourage customers to use ATMs more is one of the ways to make them profitable.
Notably, after an attack on a Corporation Bank employee at an ATM in Bangalore last November, many states want round-the-clock security at all the ATMs.

Banks’ umbrella body IBA met last month and calculated that this will incur an additional Rs 40,000 per ATM per month and will push this vertical of banks into more losses.

The IBA has asked RBI to cap the number of free transactions to five per month across any ATM network from the current practice of giving them unlimited transactions at own bank ATMs and five at other bank ATMs. From sixth transaction onwards, the banks charge a customer Rs 20 per transaction.

Banks net-off the transactions at the back-end and pay Rs 15 plus taxes for every transaction, which is the interchange fees.

Following this, the National Payments Corporation, which is the national body handling the payment switch system, convened a meeting of banks last week and formed a committee of six banks to offer suggestions around cost management and charges for use of the ubiquitous machines.

The members of the panel are State Bank of India, Bank of Baroda, Punjab National Bank, ICICI Bank, Axis Bank and HDFC Bank, and will submit their report in a month.

Holding that it was a case of an infringement of copyright and passing off goods in someone else’s name, the Bombay High Court has restrained M/s Jubilant Agri & Consumer Products Ltd from using the registered trademarks of M/s Pidilite Industries Ltd.

The order was passed on January 13 by Justice S J Kathawala on a suit filed by Pidilite Industries Ltd seeking to restrain Jubilant Agri and Consumer Products Ltd from using its registered trademark as its own.

The infringement alleged by the plaintiff (Pidilite) related to three registered trademarks (two word marks “Fevicol Marine’ and one label mark showing two elephants pulling an object in opposite directions).

According to Pidilite, the defendant company, by using the mark ‘JIVANJOR MARINE PLUS’ was infringing upon its (Pidilite’s) registered mark and was also guilty of passing off their goods as that of the Plaintiff.

Jubilant Agri & Consumer Products Ltd contended that the Pidilite’s mark is ‘FEVICOL MARINE’ and their (Jubilant’s) mark is ‘IVANJOR MARINE PLUS’ and that both the Plaintiff and the Defendant are using the word ‘MARINE’ in a descriptive manner.

The main defence of the Defendant was that the word ‘MARINE’ is inherently descriptive, is devoid of any distinctive character, is incapable of being registered as trademark and, therefore, cannot be claimed to be a trademark of the plaintiff even though it formed part of the registered trademark/label mark ‘FEVICOL MARINE’.

“Upon perusal of all the three registered marks, I am prima facie satisfied that the word ‘MARINE’ forms a prominent and essential part or feature of all the three registered trademarks set out in the plaintiff’s suit”, said the Judge.

The court held that the defendant had tried to take advantage of the reputation of the plaintiff not only by the use of the mark ‘MARINE’/’MARINE PLUS’ but also by the use of the copied impugned label and hence cannot be allowed to rely upon the alleged use of the mark ‘MARINE’ on other grounds.