Delhi High Court directed Mankind Pharma Limited to run a modified advertisement i.e., original advertisement with the disclaimer that DMF is not mandated under Indian law and is not a quality norm for products in India.
Supreme Court commented that it did not aim at making the instant matter a debate on ‘Allopathy v. Ayurved’ but finding a realistic solution for the problem of misleading medical advertisements.
“An act of discrimination is not only a denial of promise of equal protection before the law. Rather, every act of exclusion is an assault on the dignity of a person. Instead of providing an equal space to grow, we have been compelling the persons with disabilities to prove, time and again, that they are capable of a lot more than we think.”
Delhi High Court observed that it is not necessary that an advertisement must expressly and clearly mention the competitor’s product, it would be impermissible if the disparaged product is likely to be identified as that of a rival.
The Tribunal observed that the act of filling in 2 applications for one and the same post in more than one Unit cannot be accepted to be an inadvertent or innocent act.
It is travesty of justice that an institution contributing for noble cause being that of running a charitable hospital on a public land and providing for sound research and treatment facilities has been made to suffer the rigors of cancellation of the Lease Deed and vacation of the property. Being a constitutional court and the conscience-keeper of the democracy, this Court cannot lend a blind eye when the ends of justice are being bulldozed in broad daylight.
School of Law, Lovely Professional University is organizing its “Gavelled”: 4th Moot Court Competition scheduled from November 10th to November 11th in
Allahabad High Court: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J. dismissed the writ petition which was filed praying to issue a mandamus commanding
Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai: The coram of Mridula Bhatkar (Chairperson) and Medha Gadgil (Member) (A) while dealing with an application
Allahabad High Court: The Division Bench of Rajesh Bindal, CJ. and J.J. Munir, J. dismissed an appeal which was filed against the
Bombay High Court: The petitioners challenged the order of a School Tribunal, whereby they were directed to reinstate the respondent/employee. Quashing the
Delhi High Court: The Division Bench of Manmohan and Dinesh Kumar Sharma, JJ., expressed that just because the scholarship advertisement was published
Calcutta High Court: Shekhar B. Saraf, J. decided on a petition which was filed seeking remedy against impugned advertisements disparaging the goodwill
Supreme Court: In the case where the bench of Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian*, JJ upheld NCLAT’s order of winding up of
Madhya Pradesh High Court: A Division Bench of Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava and Sheel Nagu, JJ., dismissed the instant petition, whereby the petitioners
Chattisgarh High Court: P. Sam Koshy J. allowed the petition and quashed the impugned order as it was bad in law. The
by Ankoosh Mehta*, Maitrayi Jain** and Anushka Shah***
Punjab and Haryana High Court: Amit Rawal. J. dismissed the writ petition where the language of the advertisement clearly indicated the instruction