The Hon’ble Court observed that according to section 2(d) of the Indian Contract Act (1872), it is clear that in a valid contract the consideration need not flow from the promisee only. It could flow from any other person who is not a party to such c
The court unanimously held that Dunlop Tyres Ltd. Could not claim for damages in this case. It observed that firstly, only a party to the contract can file a claim. Secondly, there was no consideration flowing from Dunlop to Selfridge hence there was
The court dismissed the Petition and held that a person shall be entitled for an admission as per qualification in each and every test held by authority in institute.
Rule 38 of BCCI Rules was examined and it was held that it only stipulated the creation of a committee and not a Commissioner to inquire concerning the procedure for conducting proceedings in case of misconduct, hence the appointment of commissioner
It is concluded from the present judgment that slogans used in advertising are prima facie not protectable under the Copyright law. However, they may be protected under the law of passing off.
The court held that appellant received training for about nine months and during that time period the information regarding the special processes and machinery of collaborators had been learned by him.Soon the Rajasthan Company started producing tyre
The court held that the restraint may not be greater than necessary to protect the employer, nor unduly harsh and oppressive to the employee. The court held that even on their part the word ‘leaves’ in clause 10 of the agreement is capable of another
It is most heartening, most refreshing and most comforting to note that the Telangana High Court has on May 20, 2020 in a latest, landmark and extremely laudable judgment titled Ganta Jai Kumar Vs State of Telangana Rep. by Chief Secretary and others
The CAS held that Standard of proof of how the prohibited substance entered the athletes’ system couldn’t be established by either Kaur or Murmu. Hence the order of the Indian Anti-DopingDisciplinary Panel is set aside and both Kaur and Murmu are ban
The CAS ruled that the appeal filed by Ms Dutee Chand on 26 September 2014 against the decision of AFI declaring Ms Chand not eligible to compete under the IAAF’s Hyperandrogenism Regulationsispartially upheld. The suspended these Regulations for a p
