Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The accused was directed to be released on suspension of sentence after considering that the sentence awarded was for 3 years and he had already served 2/3rd of the same.
Plaintiffs submitted that being the ex-franchisee, Defendant 1 was clearly aware of the ownership and notoriety of the ‘MOTI MAHAL’, ‘MOTI MAHAL DELUX TANDOORI TRAIL’, ‘TANDOORI TRAIL’ and their formative marks as well as the goodwill and reputation enjoyed by the plaintiffs related to the said trade marks.
The Court expected the State to ensure adequate protection of the fundamental rights of Amandeep Singh Batra, including his right to life and liberty.
The Court directed for the CRPF personnel to be considered as having proceeded on voluntary retirement w.e.f. 30-06-2021.
Supreme Court noted that the appellant will remain dependent on another person for the rest of her life. Even though the physical age will increase, her mental age will be that of a child studying in the 2nd Standard. Effectively, while her body grows, she will remain a small baby.
‘Being careful while giving reasons to candidates for which they have not been appointed would help in avoiding such litigation which entails cost for candidates who may not be able to afford it.’
“Petitioner has established that that it was the prior registered proprietor and prior user of the mark ‘GANESH’ and its other formative marks since 1936. The adoption and use of the mark ‘GANESH HARA MATAR’ by Respondent 1, is likely to create confusion in the market.”
Personal jewellery which is not found to have been acquired on an overseas trip and was always a used personal effect of the passenger would not be subject to the monetary prescriptions incorporated in Rules 3 and 4 of Baggage Rules, 2016.
It is submitted that Plaintiff 1 is a ‘celebrity’ and has a valid and enforceable personality right. He satisfies the dual test of personality rights, viz. having a valid and enforceable personality right on account of being a well-known reputed personality and the same is clearly identifiable in the infringing content uploaded by Defendants 1-8 and 13 on their social media accounts.
‘The Banking Ombudsman overlooked the key aspects of the matter and completely misdirected itself in law.’
It is not the petitioner’s case that he was not supplied with the grounds of arrest at the time of the arrest and prior to the remand being sought. The remand application was detailed, and contained, effectively the same set of facts as were stated in the grounds of arrest.
Justice Vibhu Bakhru enrolled as an Advocate with Bar Council of Delhi in September 1990 and was appointed as Additional Judge of High Court of Delhi on 17-4-2013 and became a Permanent Judge on 18-3-2015.
Justice Manmohan’s elevation to the Supreme Court was recommended by the Supreme Court Collegium on 28-11-2024.
“The video recorded by Defendant 1 is extremely offensive, sexually explicit, foul and filthy utterances were made in the said video by Defendant 1 against the plaintiffs, which per se shocks the conscience of the court.”
The Delhi High Court has deferred the designation of 67 Advocates as Senior.
Following a meticulous assessment of the qualifications, integrity, capabilities and giving due consideration to a range of factors, the President appointed Justice Satish Chandra Sharma as Judge of the Supreme Court of India on 09-11-2023.
The Court inferred that the minimum compensation amount that was set out for the victim was contradictory to the intended purpose of providing adequate rehabilitation and care to acid attack victims.
In the present case, highly qualified and experienced medical doctors were to render an opinion as to whether the appellant is eligible to complete the MBBS Course, even if the appellant was to only become a teacher. That opinion had been rendered in detail.
Justice Manmohan was appointed as Chief Justice of Delhi High Court on 21-9-2024 and took oath of office on 29-9-2024.
In cases involving Section 376 IPC or the POCSO Act, Courts must exercise caution while quashing FIRs, as these offences impact societal interests. However, Delhi High Court acknowledged the unique circumstances where the petitioner and the prosecutrix, now married with children, had reached a settlement, balancing societal concerns with the realities of the parties’ lives.