Mediation Despite Urgent Interim Relief Sought in Intellectual Property Law Cases
by Rudrajyoti Nath Ray†
CPC
Whether a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal constituted under MV Act, 1988 is a Court subordinate to the High Court within the meaning of S. 115 of CPC? Allahabad High Court answers
The view of the Full Bench in Kamla Yadav case, that a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal constituted under the Act is a Court subordinate to the High Court within the meaning of Section 115 of the Code, does not require reconsideration.
Allahabad High Court holds revision order defective for admitting without condoning the delay
The Court, not doubting the bona fides of the District Judge, maintained the legal position of Section 5 stating that revision order was a defective one without condoning the delay. There may be instances where the interest of justice may demand Court’s interference to avoid frustration of proceedings due to technicalities, however, in the present instance nothing restrained the District Judge from deciding Section 5 application.
Madras High Court |Jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot be exercised as a measure of self-imposed restriction by-passing statutory remedies under D.V. Act
Madras High Court: The full bench of P.N. Prakash, Teekaa Raman and A.D Jagadish Chandira, JJ. held that the jurisdiction
Madras High Court restrains several cable and internet service providers from broadcasting FIFA World Cup, 2022; Grants interim injunction in favour of Viacom 18
Madras High Court: In an application filed by Viacom 18 praying for restraining several cable and internet service providers involved
Delhi High Court grants ex-parte ad-interim injunction to American Eagle against Ektarfa Garments in a trademark and copyright infringement suit
Delhi High Court: In a case where application was filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section
2022 SCC Vol. 9 Part 2
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — S. 31(7) and Ss. 17, 21, 23(3), 24(1), 25, 26, 29 and 85(2)(a) —
Limitation can be a preliminary issue under Or. 14, R. 2(2)(b) CPC if the question can be decided on admitted facts: Supreme Court
Supreme Court: Principal question before the Division Bench of Ajay Rastogi and C.T. Ravikumar*, JJ., for contemplation was whether the
Court’s power under Section 9 A&C Act, 1996 wider than CPC; Technicalities of CPC cannot prevent it from securing the ends of justice: SC
Supreme Court: The Division Bench of Indira Banerjee* and A.S. Bopanna, JJ., contemplated the scope of Section 9 of Arbitration
Explained| Order 6 Rule 17 CPC: Doctrine of dominus litus for amendment of plaint
Supreme Court: The Division Bench of M.R. Shah* and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ., explained the legal propositions governing Order 6 Rule
CPC Order XV Rule 5| Mere denial of landlord-tenant relationship doesn’t grant tenant a holiday from duty to pay rent/damages: SC
Supreme Court: The Division Bench of Dinesh Maheshwari* and Aniruddha Bose, JJ., held that in cases disclosing deliberate defiance and elective non-performance
Madhya Pradesh High Court | ‘Violation of individual privacy’; Request for DNA test denied in property dispute
Madhya Pradesh High Court: G.S. Ahluwalia, J. dismissed a petition which was filed against the order passed by Twelfth Civil
When does a Will becomes a suspicious document? Madhya Pradesh High Court answers
Madhya Pradesh High Court: Dwarka Dhish Bansal, J., while dismissing a second appeal held that in presence of prior execution
When can Courts dispense off with the requirement of notice u/s. 80, CPC? J&K and Ladakh HC elucidate
Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court: While deciding the instant appeal wherein substantial questions of law were raised vis-a-vis SectionS 80,
Judiciary’s Robe of Activism in ADR Matters
by Soumyaa Sharma†
Calcutta High Court| Order XLI, Rule 5(1) of the CPC grants the court discretion to stay the execution of a decree for ‘sufficient cause’; Award by arbitral tribunal upheld
Calcutta High Court: Shekhar B. Saraf, J. upheld the award granted by the Arbitral Tribunal holding that the award holder
MP HC | Application under S. 151 of CPC maintainable despite the fact that order allowing the application under Or. 7 R. 11 of CPC is appealable; Trial Court directed to restore civil suit
Madhya Pradesh High Court: Dwarka Dhish Bansal, J. allowed a civil revision under Section 115 of CPC against the order rejecting application
Clarification vis-à-vis substantial alteration of commercial agreement; SC considers legality of retrospective application of modifications in agreement
Supreme Court: The Division Bench comprising of Ajay Rastogi* and Abhay S. Oka, JJ., held that a modification changing tariff for inadvertent
Megh HC | Lower Courts to deal with entire process expeditiously after receipt of the application under S. 151 read with Or. 20 R. 6-A CPC
Meghalaya High Court: H.S. Thangkhiew, J. while hearing a revision application allowed the same and directed the lower court to deal with