Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The question here is not about past wrongs, it is about the present failure to comply with a legally binding order. The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is explicit on this point, that those in charge of a company during non-compliance are accountable. By holding a directorial position during this period, the petitioner is naturally included in this responsibility.

Punjab and Haryana High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

No sufficient reason was mentioned by the petitioner for the delay in filing the written statement and apparently blunt excuse was provided that the representative of the petitioner fell ill and no instructions could be issued to the Advocate.

Bombay High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Although HSBC has initiated the proceedings before the Court in UAE, seeking orders to pay the amount under the facility letters and to obtain a decree, ARF SV 1 Sar-applicant is entitled to pursue the claim in execution in the Courts in India by filing the Execution Application.

MakeMyTrip Dialmytrip restrains deceptively similar
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“Balance of convenience lies in the plaintiff’s favour, considering that it is a well-known company in the travel business who has built its goodwill and reputation throughout the years, if an injunction is not granted it will lead to irreparable loss to the plaintiff.”

delhi high court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“The issuance of a direction to release such royalty sum would involve not only a conclusive and final adjudication on the petitioner’s right to receive such sum but also framing of an interim award and that cannot be said to fall within the ambit of Section 9 of the A&C Act.”

delhi high court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“In its zeal to ensure implementation of rule of law, the court cannot hold a person guilty of violation of its orders and proceed punitively against him merely because the circumstances give rise to a strong suspicion of the court’s order been disobeyed.”

delhi high court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“The decree holder was not required to await the outcome of the objections filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, however, if it did choose to remain under a self-imposed embargo, then it can’t demand interest.”