Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Delhi High Court said that while trade mark registration offers statutory benefits, it does not obliterate prior common law rights established through actual use and accrued goodwill in the market.
The petitioner presented a screenshot of WhatsApp conversations to show that the full complaint and annexures were not received until 31-01-2023, despite the summons being served on 23-12-2022.
The Court observed that no new material has been found by the Revenue which would warrant reopening the assessment. A reading of the notices will crystallize the fact that it has been issued merely based on a change of opinion.
A quick recap of TMT cases passed by the Supreme Court and High Courts in the month of June 2024 along with some top stories on PM Modi Fake video, Rajat Sharma Defamation case and much more.
“Persons who indulge in forgery and fabrication, especially, in respect of documentary evidence which relied upon heavily that too in order to obtain an ex-parte inunction cannot be allowed to go scot-free.”
The Delhi High Court said that the directions sought were not only beyond but also contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court.
Take a quick recap of the updates on criminal law from all the High Courts.
The appellant alleged that the Prime Minister, Home Minister and Minister of Communications have taken false oaths of allegiance to the Constitution of India, and they had attempted an antinational act of terrorism by attempting to kill the appellant as pilot-in-command of flight AI 459 on 08-07-2018.
In cases of sexual assault and POCSO cases, wherever, the court is called upon to determine the age of victim based on “bone age ossification report”, the upper age given in “reference range” be considered as age of the victim.
“It is necessary to draw a distinction between a person’s financial affairs being open to public scrutiny, by requiring disclosure or clarification through legitimate means, which may not amount to defamation; and a person being subjected to vilification and to baseless and false ignominy, by asking tendentious questions laced with innuendo.”
The Delhi High Court stated that a prima facie case of money laundering under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was made against K. Kavitha based on the material placed on record.
The Court stated that certificate under Section 65-B of the IEA was a matter of procedure and by not allowing the same to be taken on record amounts to taking a hyper technical view which was against the settled preposition of law.
“It is immaterial if the term or directions in a decree is contrary to law. The Executing Court cannot go behind the same, and has to give effect to the decree.”
The Court noted that the respondent merely seeks to summon the record, which was not in his possession but was in the possession of the petitioner, which right cannot be denied to him.
“The impugned order passed by the Delhi High Court adequately protects the interests of the Federation as all the appointments have been made subject to the outcome of the pending Writ Petition”
The Court stated that once the resolution plan was approved by the COC, it should be binding on all the stakeholders. Thus, the successful resolution applicant starts running the business of the corporate debtor on a fresh slate.
In cases where a search is conducted after 31-03-2021, the first proviso to Section 153C (1) would have to be construed and tested as regards the date when the Assessing Officer decides to initiate action against the non-searched entity.
The petitioner is an Indian businessman and erstwhile billionaire with Fortis Healthcare, Religare, and Ranbaxy Laboratories, seeking permission to go abroad to attend the graduation ceremony of his two sons one on 01-07-2024 at Durham University and the other on 02-09-2024 at University College London.
The Delhi High Court said that a huge pressure cannot be the only reason to deny Aam Aadmi Party its right to be allotted an accommodation for setting up its party office.
The writ petitions were filed by Associated Broadcasting Company Private Limited, who broadcasts the TV9 Telugu channel, against a Multi System Operator (MSO) and service provider under TRAI Act, 1997 alleging that the operator disconnected its channel without issuing the required disconnection notice.