The procurement of LNG may become onerous as had happened in August and December 2022 but no irreparable loss and injury would result to the ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel.
“The dissolution of partnership is one aspect and its effect on carrying on business by making different arrangements to defeat rights of a registered trade mark owner, is altogether a different thing”
Madras High Court said that the apprehension of Sangeetha Hotels that the public would be misled into believing that the respondent is nothing but old wine in a new bottle stands prima facie proved.
The success of any student is the result of his hard labour and the infinite efforts he puts into the goal he has set to achieve. Therefore, dragging a child in a litigation driven by commercial interest between two competing coaching institutions claiming credit for the success of a child is an insult to his endless efforts and cannot be permitted.
The Delhi High Court observed that merely because there was no express provision in the Code of Civil Procedure, it does not mean that in-camera proceedings cannot be allowed. Therefore, the Court held that in appropriate cases, the Court may under Section 151 of the Code pass any order for carrying out the proceedings in camera if warranted by the facts and circumstances of the case.
Madras High Court granted interim relief to Viacom 18, as it has made out a prima facie case on merits and the balance of convenience was also in its favour.
Fraud, as an exception to the rule of non-interference with encashment of bank guarantees, is not any fraud, but a fraud of an egregious nature, going to the root i.e., to the foundation of the bank guarantee and an established fraud. The entire case of the respondent fails to qualify for this.
Madras High Court: In an application filed by Viacom 18 praying for restraining several cable and internet service providers involved
Delhi High Court: In a suit filed for injunction by the Plaintiff restraining the Defendant from selling, offering for sale,
Delhi High Court: In a suit filed by Lieutenant Governor (LG) of Delhi (‘plaintiff’) seeking relief of permanent injunction and
Delhi High Court: In a case filed by producers’ (‘plaintiff') of the film ‘Brahmastra Part One: Shiva' seeking permanent injunction
Delhi High Court: Mini Pushkarna, J. granted ad interim injunction against Pawan Khera and others (‘defendants’) who allegedly organized a Press Conference
Delhi High Court: Asha Menon, J. denied relief sought by ‘TV Today Network’ ‘plaintiff ‘on allegations of copyright infringement, defamation and commercial
Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of Nitin Jamdar and C.V Bhadang, JJ., upheld the order of the District Court refusing to
Meghalaya High Court: H. S. Thangkhiew, J., dismissed a petition which was filed aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court by
Himachal Pradesh High Court: Vivek Singh Thakur, J. rejected bail and dismissed the petition. The facts of the case are that, the
Calcutta High Court: A Division Bench of I.P. Mukerji and Md. Nizamuddin, JJ., allowed an appeal filed against the order of the Single
Uttaranchal High Court: A writ petition was entertained by Manoj K. Tiwari, J. where the petitioner was aggrieved by the order passed
Rajasthan High Court: Sabina, J. dismissed the appeal on the ground that party will suffer an irreparable loss if the application was
Uttaranchal High Court: Lok Pal Singh, J. allowed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for quashing the