Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
‘The Adjudicating Authority alone has the jurisdiction to regulate the conduct of CoC and finally adjudicate upon the resolution plan through powers of judicial review while ensuring that CoC functions as per the role and responsibilities delineated under IBC.’
Usage of trade mark ‘BURJNOIDA’ was allowed because the residential project had been in construction for the last ten years.
DSGMC cannot be allowed to take shield of Rule 47 of Delhi Education Rules to claim that burden of re-employment and payment of salaries of surplus teachers and non-teaching staff upon closure of school. The question of absorption only arises when the closure of the school is done in accordance with law, which requires full justification and prior approval of the Director as per Rule 46.
Looking at the punishments awarded to the co-delinquents for same incidents/transactions and acts of connivance and testing the impugned action on the anvil of Article 14 as well as keeping in mind the long and unblemished spell of service of the respondent, save and except, the Single Judge was inclined to convert the punishment from ‘dismissal’ to one of ‘compulsory retirement’.
The Supreme Court Collegium on 11-7-2024 recommended the name of Justice Manmohan as the next Chief Justice of the High Court of Delhi and the recommendation was confirmed on 21-9-2024.
While the impugned orders are elaborate and explicitly cite specific provisions and clauses of the Haj Policy, 2023, which the petitioners were found to be violating, the show cause notices do not refer to any violations of the Haj Policy, 2023, attributable to the petitioners.
The Central Board for Direct Taxes was also directed to take necessary steps for rectifying the software as the issue may not be resolved by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer.
‘The person at whose instance a Bank Guarantee has been issued by the bank is not a party to it and is merely a benefactor from whose account the payment would be realized.’
‘The wife was a victim of domestic violence because she had been subjected to physical as well as mental abuse from her husband and no woman can tolerate that her husband is cohabiting with another lady.’
Justice Rajiv Shakdher’s elevation was recommended by the Collegium on 11-7-2024 and his appointment was finally confirmed by the Law Ministry on 21-9-2024.
In nutshell, when the petitioner could not find his place in selection list, he knocked the doors of the Court alleging mala fide at the hands of respondents, which cannot be permitted.
‘This issue is symptomatic of a larger urban planning failure, where colonies were developed without foresight for parking facilities, causing residents to park in the streets.’
by Vasanth Rajasekaran* and Harshvardhan Korada**
‘NCT of Delhi is giving reservation to one category and denying the same to another, which is sheer discrimination and cannot be permitted.’
A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from all High Courts this week.
No plausible explanation was provided by the defendants as to why the trade mark ‘AMUL’ was adopted. No written statement was filed on behalf of the defendants. The conduct of the defendants highlighted their mala fide and dishonesty in adopting the same mark, as that of the plaintiffs’.
The trade mark ‘MONSTER’ had been adopted by Monster Energy Co. in 2002 in the United States of America.
Although the offence of ‘aggravated sexual assault’ was not mentioned in the compensation scheme, the Court referred to the offence of ‘unnatural sexual assault’ to determine the quantum of compensation.
A mother is sought to be prosecuted for delay in reporting of sexual offences on a child by her own husband, despite the fact that the mother herself was allegedly subject to severe abuse, sexual and otherwise, in her matrimonial home.
It is not necessary for a registered owner of a trademark to proceed against all entities using similar marks in order to proceed against any one of them. There may be a myriad reasons why a proprietor of a registered trademark may refrain from proceeding against entities that it considers are using infringing marks.