Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Court also upheld the validity of the termination notice issued by the NHIDCL and refused to interfere with its actions against the construction company.
Delhi High Court observed that it cannot lose sight of the fact that alleged offence was committed with a child victim of tender age who got frightened by the threats extended to him by the accused as well as by the alleged act of the accused and it is not expected that a child of such a tender age would behave like an adult by raising the alarm promptly.
The petitioner is a journalist having specialization in investigative, business, and human-interest news features, has exposed Coal Scam in 2011 and Airport scandal in Delhi, and received various awards from time to time.
Additional Solicitor General submitted that Ms. Ravneet Kaur, an IAS officer was appointed as Chairman, Competition Commission of India by the Selection Panel.
The stipulations contained in Clause 25 of the Agreement must consequently be read down and understood to mean that at least one or more of the members of the Arbitral Tribunal must possess the qualifications as prescribed in Clause 25.
Delhi High Court observed that if the petitioner raped the victim forcibly in the month of February 2019 then it is difficult to digest that she would accompany the petitioner to Chandigarh in the last days of February to attend Celebrity Cricket League and meet the celebrities.
A person who is residing in South India does not know the geography of Delhi and if recruited as civil defence volunteer, and in case of emergency he will get lost in Delhi instead of reaching to the place where emergency has occurred
The screenplay of the film is entirely the work of Satyajit Ray. ‘Nayak’ was also entirely the directorial effort of Satyajit Ray. The plaintiff, RD Bansal is merely the producer of the film.
The impugned judgment was based on an undertaking agreed between the parties wherein Cinema Ventures were to pay the default amount, failing which the right to walk, take over and run the cinema hall will be owned by Dart Properties Private Limited.
Delhi High Court observed that on perusal of all the necessary rules and regulations, the statutory provisions do provide a robust mechanism to safeguard the interest of investors and by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the interest of investors is not at all protected.
So long as others do not use the mark, or any similar mark, the Delhi High Court opined that a finding of non-distinctiveness can ordinarily not be returned as, howsoever innocuous a mark may appear to be, if it is used only by one person, it would, in plain etymological terms, be distinctive.
Delhi High Court observed that an inadequately drafted agreement will be one that fails to include essential elements such as the name of all the relevant parties, the terms outlining the conditions of settlement, and the consequences in the event of non-compliance or breach.
A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from all High Courts this week.
India has long hoped to become an arbitration hub and providing time bound mechanisms for resolving disputes will certainly be a feather in the cap. Introducing Section 29A by way of amendment is therefore intentioned to ensure that the disputes in arbitration are adjudicated in a time-bound manner.
Permitting the CBI to pick up one aspect of the investigation and file a piece-meal chargesheet with respect to the same and consequently, defeating the right of the applicant to default bail, goes against the mandate of Article 21.
The Court granted interim relief to the homebuyers viewing the interim protection granted by the Delhi High Court vide order dated 25-05-2022.
Delhi High Court observed that it would be reading too much into the impugned advertisement, in my opinion, to extract, from it, anything derogatory or deprecating regarding Dettol.
Under section 3(a) of Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940, Raughan-E-Badam Shireen/ Badani Shireen is mentioned as Unani Medicine in the authoritative book of First Schedule of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
Delhi High Court observed that repeated petitions seeking to interdict the proceedings before Lokpal would defeat the very purpose of the legislation.
Delhi High Court observed that the defendant has used the infringing mark ‘BETNOL’, which is identical to the plaintiff’s mark ‘BETNESOL’ with the intent to springboard its business by drawing association with the plaintiff and its trademark to ride on the goodwill and reputation of the mark of the plaintiff.