Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The Delhi High Court held that the use of mark “AIVVA” by Aivva Enterprises (P) Ltd. was phonetically similar to the mark “AIWA” of Aiwa Co. Ltd. and thus, caused confusion in the market. Therefore, the Court confirmed ex-parte ad interim injunction in favour of the mark “AIWA” in a trade mark infringement suit.

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Grant of injunction in favour of the plaintiff company would cause irreparable injury to the Artist which cannot be compensated in monetary terms as he would be forced to continue with the contract of personal service even though mutual trust has been lost between parties.

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Whether or not an employee should be permitted to retire in accordance with the Scheme in the event that the Scheme itself provides for retirement to become effective upon completion of the notice period. The VRS that was implemented by the Department is, in essence, an expression of the Department’s aim to prune the overstaffed positions.

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The Court, while exercising powers under Section 11 of the Act, can refuse to refer the parties to arbitration only where “it is manifestly and ex facie certain that the arbitration agreement is nonexistent, invalid or the disputes are non-arbitrable, though the nature and facet of non-arbitrability would, to some extent, determine the level and nature of judicial scrutiny.”

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Detaining Authority gravely erred in relying upon the illegible documents which is equivalent to non-placement of translated-RUDs in a language which the detenu understands, which consequently vitiates the ‘subjective satisfaction’ arrived at by the Detaining Authority.

Siddharth Rao
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh observed that the entire saga of the series of appointments, absorption and promotion of Siddharth Rao, Secretary of Delhi Legislative Assembly, is tainted with irregularities and illegalities, de-hors the rules or due process of law, without approval by the competent authority and hence vitiated.

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Section 9 of CPC is also symbolised as the gateway to the civil Courts as it envisages not only the inherent powers of the Civil Courts to entertain any suit of a civil nature, but also the inherent rights of the disgruntled yet hopeful litigants to approach the civil Courts with a huge expectation that they will get justice from this forum, which would adjudicate upon their infracted legal rights and will invoke the legal machinery to protect and vindicate such rights.

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The case involves illegal international telephone exchange setup was found in Chawri Bazar, Old Delhi run by one Zulifiqar Ali alias Raja by using new era software-driven technology for routing calls from foreign countries like USA, UAE, Canada, Australia, etc. to India via illegal route of internet by passing the legal international and national call gateways of India.

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The three tests of sound, sight and meaning are now well accepted for determining the similarity between competing marks and, similarity in any of the three aspects – visual impression, verbal sound, and meaning – may be sufficient to result in confusion. The question of similarity and the likelihood of confusion between two competing marks is determined on the basis of their overall commercial impression.

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The present petition is filed by a doctor, an ophthalmologist due to the unavailability of any procedural provision or mechanism for the registration / receipt of a complaint regarding cognizable offences declared under the NDPS Act with the Narcotics Control Bureau

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

While exercising the power conferred by Section 11 of the Act, the Court ceases to be a Court of Record and the review or reopening of proceedings which is sought is not with respect to any power exercised by the Court under Section 11 on merits but on account of the evident factual mistake in that order.