Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
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.
‘The right to a fair hearing encompasses not only the opportunity to be heard but also the right to know the reasons for any adverse decision.’
The Court hoped that the Union would look into suitably amending the nomenclature of posts that are open to both males and females to make them gender-neutral.
The plaintiffs submitted that Defendant 1 is dishonestly using an identical and deceptively similar trade mark as that of the plaintiffs’, so that any ordinary consumer would be misled to believe that Defendant 1’s products are that of the plaintiffs or associated with or emanating from the plaintiffs.
‘As per initial statements of police witnesses, no specific act of incitement had been pointed out regarding Md. Haneef, which led to the registration of the original FIR.’