The approach adopted by the Delhi High Court is much upholding the rightful procedures of the Court. The High Court of Delhi has pointed out the error in the cognizance of the Trial Court and has remanded the matter back to the Trial Court to make th
The Supreme Court of India, while deciding this case, remained consistent with its previous judgments.
The decision of the Court in the present case reiterated the settled position of law that the use of a deceptively similar mark would attract the provisions relating to Infringement or Passing-off, as the case demands.
The hotel-owner cannot contract out of liability for its negligence or that of its servants in respect of a vehicle of its guest in any circumstance. Once possession of the vehicle is handed to the hotel staff or valet, there is an implied contractua
The Court had taken the decision in a wise manner. However, as mentioned earlier, the status of the first wife should have been a bit clearer. Until the status was clear, the court should not have moved forward.
The approach adopted by the Supreme Court, though orthodox, is directed towards greater transperancy between service providers and consumers. Its stand ensured that the core principles of nondiscrimination and nonpredation - those that often get lost
The Trial Court is directed to proceed further with the trial of the criminal case, from the stage where it got struck due to the stay order of the High Court. The Trial Court may endeavour to dispose of the matter within a period of two months.
The court ordered the bakery, its agents and its employees to not use the mark -FACEBAKE- or any other mark which is anywhere similar to plaintiff-s mark.
In this case, the court reasonably laid down all the criteria/factors to be taken into consideration for determining matrimonial allowances, covering overlapping jurisdiction provided under various laws for payment of maintenance and interim maintena
It cannot be denied that if Arnab Goswami was able to step freely out of prison after 8 days, it is only and only because of the Bench of Justice Dr DY Chandrachud and Justice Indira Banerjee of Apex Court who were listening his interim bail plea alo
The single judge bench of Justice Sunil Thomas rejected the arguments of the petitioners and upheld the Constitutional validity of sections 29 and 30 of POCSO Act.
In a significant judgment titled VetIndia Pharmaceuticals Limited vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh in Civil Appeal No. 3647 of 2020 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 6319 of 2020) delivered as recently as on November 6, 2020, the Apex Court has set aside an i
The following judgement deals with the SC issuing guidelines for overlapping jurisdiction for payment of maintenance, interim maintenance, criteria for determining the quantum of maintenance and the date from which maintenance is awarded and enforcem
The Delhi High Court held that in the case of Kailash Gupta v. CBSE, 2020 SCC OnLine Ker 1590, "to have a name and to express the same in the manner he wishes, is a part of the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 (1) (a) as wel
Court was of the view that it was undoubtedly true that a Government servant holding transferable post and who has transfer liability across the State cannot lightly claim about such transfer.
Justice Nicol observed that undersection 2(4) of the Defamation Act 2013, truth is defence to a claim for libel. It is for a defendant to prove that the libel was substantially true. The burden of proof therefore rests on the defendant.
The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in this case granted bail to the accused man who was responsible for the victim minor girl's pregnancy on the condition that he should marry her when she becomes a major. The court took into account the victim g
In the 70-page detailed order passed on October 7, 2020, while granting bail to the actress Rhea Chakraborty, Justice Sarang V. Kotwal, at the Bombay High Court, has devoted more than one-third portion of his order to discuss the aspect of the case,
In a well-reasoned, well-analysed and well worded judgment titled Maheshwar Tigga vs State of Jharkhand in Criminal Appeal No. 635 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 393 of 2020) delivered just recently on September 28, 2020, a three Judge Benc
It is most reassuring, most refreshing and most remarkable to note that as recently as on September 28, 2020, the Supreme Court in a latest, landmark and laudable judgment titled Maheshwar Tigga vs State of Jharkhand in Criminal Appeal No. 635 of 2
Updated on : 30/11/2020 06:53:00