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

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.