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.

By admin_lawsdelhi Jul 31, 2020

This content is restricted to site members.

By admin_lawsdelhi

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

Evidence By Way Of Affidavit Not Mandatory When Documentary Evidence Sufficient For Determining Well-Known Status Of Trademark

DIRECT TAXATION MUNICIPAL LAWS

DB – services rendered by advocates are professional activities, and, therefore, they cannot be levied with taxes under the “commercial establishment” category

ACCIDENT COMPENSATION RAILWAYS

Inquest proceedings were conducted around 8:55 am on 05.01.2017, which mentions the recovery of a journey ticket dated 04.01.2017 — Mere delay in noticing and reporting the incident by a third party ought to have been appreciated in light of the fact that the incident statedly took place in the month of January – Matter remanded to tribunal for grant of compensation

C P C EVIDENCE ACT

DB – Defamation — Nowhere in the pleadings or in the evidence did the appellant or its witnesses state that the amounts were not due — Respondent’s assertion of there being outstanding amounts which had not been paid by the appellant Company cannot be termed to be false or per se defamatory.