DIRECT TAXATION If Principles Of Natural Justice Are Violated, Writ Remedy Is Available Despite Statutory Appeal April 27, 2022 admin_lawsdelhi
JUDGEMENTS Judgements added on 21.10.2021 – (1). ARB. P. 573/2020 M/S POOJA INFOTECH PVT. LTD. & ORS. ….. Petitioners versus M/S PRABHUPREM INFOTECH PVT. LTD. & ORS. (2) ARB.P. 164/2021 ISGEC HEAVY ENGINEERING LTD ….. Petitioner versus INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED ….. Respondent -Total judgements 1,04,284 October 23, 2021October 23, 2021 admin_lawsdelhi
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY Dr Reddy’s Laboratories (DRL) against the makers of a feature film called ‘Haathi Mere Saathi’ HELD “registration of the trade mark in one class cannot, by itself, give [DRL] an unrestricted right or monopoly over the letters D, R and L, when used in that order.” April 21, 2021April 21, 2021 admin_lawsdelhi
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ZYCLEAR, sued Uniza over their apprehended use of the trade mark ZACLEAR . Gujarat based companies slugging in Delhi HC . Rejection of plaint motion moved by Uniza against Cadila, dismissed April 20, 2021 admin_lawsdelhi
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY Where the [Claimant] has made sufficiently long use of a particularly distinctive device mark, a special obligation is cast on the competitor to avoid confusion. April 20, 2021April 20, 2021 admin_lawsdelhi
Cr P C Petition u/s 482 Crpc – Legality of the Interim Order passed Magistrate continuing custody of three minor children with the Respondent (Husband), with visitation rights to Petitioner (wife), HELD alternate remedy of a Statutory Appeal under 29 DV Act available. Dismissed DOD 20.7.202 April 17, 2021April 20, 2021 admin_lawsdelhi
ACCIDENT Widow’s right to claim compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act for the death of her husband in a motor vehicle accident will not abate on her re-marriage. April 10, 2021April 10, 2021 admin_lawsdelhi
Cr P C Supreme Court issues notice and orders status quo on Delhi High Court’s order granting bail to Shivinder Singh August 1, 2020 admin_lawsdelhi
Cr P C ISHRAT JAHAN case: HELD Public Prosecutor had moved an application, for extension of time to file chargesheet, after going through the whole matrix of the case and after satisfying himself as per the law as enumerated in the second limb of Section 43(D)(2)(b) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. Ld trial Judge also after going through the facts and circumstances and mandate of provisions of law of the Act mentioned and after recording his satisfaction had passed impugned order. Therefore, Court is of view that there is no illegality or perversity in the said order. July 31, 2020August 3, 2020 admin_lawsdelhi
Cr P C Petitioner and respondent No.2 have amicably settled their disputes as petitioner and respondent no.2 are real brothers. Per the fact that petitioner is real brother of respondent no.2 (complainant), this Court is inclined to quash FIR July 31, 2020 admin_lawsdelhi
