Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Court passed no further orders considering the information provided in the Status Report and the measures taken by the authorities concerned towards the implementation of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017.
The traffic authorities are the best judges to decide the issue of regulation of traffic in the city and the Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot sit over as an Appellate Authority over the decisions taken by the traffic authorities for regulating the movement of traffic in the city.
“Rejection of the disability contained the reason that the petitioner is suffering with Locomotor Disability which is a physical disability and the same is assessed as zero per cent, so no certificate is provided to the petitioner with respect to the disability suffered by him.”
“The Delhi Government is directed to ensure that the necessary systems and cloud service is made available to all the Sub-Registrars’ offices so that the documents can be preserved without a situation as arose in the present case being repeated.”
The main grievance of the plaintiff is that defendant 2 has by adopting a trade dress for its BERKINS brand range of shoes which is nearly identical to the plaintiff’s RS-X range of shoes, sought to pass off its products as those of the plaintiff.
Indian Railway’s has failed to substantiate its grounds for setting aside the impugned Arbitral Award that the impugned award suffers from patent illegality and the findings therein are perverse and would shock the conscience of this Court.
“The comparison of the defendant’s and the plaintiffs’ marks will show that the defendant has not merely copied one mark or packaging but has deliberately adopted a series of marks, in packaging with almost identical colour combinations.”
“Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and the State Government are directed to ensure that in all educational institutions, the statutory provisions governing the field under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 are followed and 5% reservation is provided to specially abled persons.”
“The matter will next be listed on 16-08-2023, to decide whether the plaintiff’s registered trade marks 
, 
and 
, are “well-known” trade marks within the meaning of Section 2(1)(zg) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.”
The Marriage Registration Authority submitted that in view of the advancement in the technology in Artificial Intelligence, the possibility of somebody impersonating Petitioner cannot be ruled out.
By Tarun Jain†
Cite as: 2023 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 66
“It is palpably clear that the language of the purported arbitration clause must evidence an unambiguous, explicit and unequivocal intention to refer the disputes to arbitration, leaving no room for doubt that parties chose arbitration as their only mode of resolution of disputes.”
An advisory dated 31-03-2017, issued by the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Legal Metrology Division, states that loose garments which are sold would not constitute a ‘pre-packaged commodity’ in terms of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009.
by Shruti Sabharwal† and Ujval Mohan††
Cite as: 2023 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 65
The term “BHAIYAJI” is a word of common use in certain states of India, including Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, and which literally translates into the word “brother” and is therefore, of a non-distinctive character.
“The Tribunal provided reasons for the findings delivered, and there was no perversity apparent on the face of the record or which goes to the root of the matter. Therefore, the impugned Award could not be said to be patently illegal.”
“During the said period of trial, there is no occasion for the applicant to keep him languishing behind the bars, as it would serve no purpose especially in view of the aforesaid and as it is a trite law that no person is presumed guilty until proven otherwise.”
The present contempt proceedings are pending adjudication since 2006 and all the alleged Contemnors have expressed their deep remorse and have stated that they have the utmost respect for the institution of judiciary and that it was never their intention to cause any distress or to do anything that could be construed as undermining the majesty and dignity of the Court of Law.
Supreme Court said that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused had either any intention of causing the death of the deceased or the intention of causing such bodily injury to the deceased which was likely to cause his death.
“The Tribunal apparently failed to appreciate that the calculations made by the respondents overlooked proviso (b) to Rule 6 as well as Rule 8 of the Central Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981 and commutation value expressed as number of years of purchase, prejudicial to the petitioner cannot be applied.”