Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The present case is a classic example of frivolous and vexatious litigation, where this Court encounters incoherent and confusing stories in the name of facts and absurd reliefs. Filing such cases as the present one is doubtlessly not only frivolous and vexatious, but annoying and such a litigant must be subject to some kind of sanction.
Delhi High Court observed that the working of the Defendant’s ‘Present and Record’ feature when compared with the Claims would demonstrate that almost all the same steps therein are present in the Defendant’s product, thus, prima facie, establishing infringement.
Delhi High Court directed MEA to prominently post and make accessible the SOP and Guidelines on its website, if not already available, within one week from the date of the order.
“A party that has made an assertion that its mark is dissimilar to a cited mark and obtains a registration based on that assertion, is not to be entitled to obtain an interim injunction against the proprietor of the cited mark, on the ground that the mark is deceptively similar.”
Delhi High Court observed that evidence placed on record lends credence to the fact that the applicant was not merely the paper director but was a director who was actively involved in the working of the SBFL.
The Will was executed by the testator, Late Raja Bahadur Sardar Singh of Khetri in the presence of two attesting witnesses, thus, complying with Section 63 of the Succession Act, 1925.
“For a service to be categorized as a technical service, it has to be concerned with applied science, i.e., using scientific knowledge for practical applications, or industrial science concerning, relating to, or derived from industry.”
“The Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 is a special Act and by virtue of Section 120 of the said Act, the same has been given an overriding effect with respect to any other law for the time being in force.”
The present case is an example where substantial liability has sought to be fastened on one of the contracting parties based on specious paper calculations. It cannot be overemphasized that arbitral tribunals must exercise due care and caution while dealing with such claims.
The concession agreement is neither a statute, nor is it a law which protects the national interests of this nation and a mere failure of the arbitral tribunal to consider an argument on the same would not render the arbitral award in contravention of the fundamental policy of Indian law.
“Private unaided schools are also amenable to Writ Jurisdiction as they carry out public function discharged by the State under Article 12 of the Constitution.“
Delhi High Court observed that when assessed, by the maxim generalia specialibus non derogant or by the maxim lex posterior derogat priori, the Patents Act must prevail over the Competition Act on the issue of exercise of rights by a patentee under the Patents Act.
“It is intriguing as to why a reputed company such as the defendant company, Wipro Enterprises would launch its product, also pertaining to female reproductive hygiene, almost 22 years later, using the identical trade mark as that of the plaintiffs, Himalaya Wellness Co.”
A challenge to an Award on the grounds of violation of “public policy” or “fundamental policy of Indian law” would be liable to be countenanced provided it is established that its enforcement would run contrary to well-established legal tenets which brook of no exception.
The Resolution dated 12-07-2023 is a reiteration of the Collegium’s proposal dated 05-7-2023 wherein they had recommended transfer of Justice Manoj Bajaj, Justice D.K. Singh and Justice Gaurang Kanth.
“The rights ventilated in the plaint, that is, the right to privacy, the right to publicity and the personality rights which vested in Sushant Singh Rajput, were not heritable. They died with his death. The said rights, therefore, did not survive for espousal by the plaintiff.”
Delhi High Court observed that at the stage of bail, the mini trial is totally prohibited. However, the record amply indicates that Leena Paulse was involved in the organized crime syndicate. It is unbelievable that such huge amount of money were coming in her account and she was accepting the same only as a dutiful wife.
The Court directed the SHO, Tilak Marg to issue warrants of arrest against Veer Singh and shall also get the Look Out circular issued against him as he was not willing to comply with the orders of this Court.
Delhi High Court remarked that the present case is an example of the Registrar not insisting on the compliance of the Act, the Rules and the Regulations from the applicant.
Delhi High Court observed that the MSMED Act, 2006 has been enacted for the purpose of extending benefits to Suppliers, who are registered under the Act as Micro or Small Enterprises, it does not contemplate the reverse obligation i.e. claims relating to the amount recoverable from the Suppliers under the MSMED Act, 2006.