Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The petitioners raise a grievance as regards the respondent’s insistence on the production of a valid Health Trade Licence from the NDMC as a pre-condition for renewing the petitioner no.1’s Eating House License and Lodging License and the Excise License.
The mental trauma faced by patients and their families due to delays in insurance approvals is widely recognized. While this frustration may justify claims for compensation for mental harassment, it does not constitute a criminal offense.
The present case has once again brought to light, the distressing reality that victims of sexual assault, particularly those who are minors and come from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds, often remain unaware of the appropriate legal forum to approach, or the procedure to be followed, in cases involving termination of pregnancy resulting from sexual assault.
The grievance in the petition was that the Bar Council of India (BCI) had prohibited the petitioner from practicing law without following the required disciplinary procedure under the Advocates Act, 1961. The petitioner argued that the BCI’s order was issued without conducting a proper inquiry or providing an opportunity to present evidence, thereby violating principles of natural justice.
Any issue regarding non-payment/ deficit payment of fees cannot possibly serve as a justification for indulging in harassment of the students and/ or subject them to discrimination/ indignity within the school premises, as a device or means to recover any outstanding fees.
The Court observed that for the highest Court in the land to take a strict view regarding criminal antecedents of those who serve in its establishment can hardly be regarded as inappropriate or arbitrary.
By virtue of the prescription contained in para 6(ii) of the Delhi Eating House, Registration Regulations, 2023, unless and until the petitioner’s renewal application is declined, the petitioner’s operations cannot be precluded for want of an Eating House Registration Certificate/license.
In a situation where rights available to persons with disabilities under the 2016 Act or the Rules 2017 or under any other measure involving the service-related issues are found to have been infringed or violated, the provisions of the 2016 Act will have to be given effect to.
Defendant 1 is unknown person/persons, who have fraudulently engaged with different business entities to commit fraud, impersonation and are misleading the general public into believing that they are acting on behalf of the plaintiff.
The petitioner has filed a petition seeking directions for GNCTD to take necessary steps to ensure compliance with the directions issued by the Supreme Court of India and the Delhi High Court regarding live streaming and video recording of court proceedings.
The camouflaged and coercive manner in which service charge is being collected by the restaurant establishments itself shows the unlawful nature of the charge. This would clearly constitute an unfair trade practice under Section 2(47) of the CPA, 2019 as the collection of service charge materially misleads the consumer with respect to the price at which the food is being sold.
It is beyond cavil, on a plain reading of Rule 9B, that it applies squarely and exclusively to the judicial officers who have retired from the services of DHJS alone. It does not envisage any retired judicial officer of the HJS of a State other than Delhi.
The defendants are websites that are making the plaintiff’s series/show available to the public without procuring any valid license or authorization from the plaintiff. These defendants’ websites unlawfully provide access to infringing content free of charge, without requiring users to register. The availability of such content is monetized through advertisements displayed on these platforms.
In April 2022, while conducting a market survey, the plaintiff came across the defendant’s listing on the online trade directory of www.tradeindia.com selling butyl tubes of two-wheeler and four-wheeler vehicles under the infringing marks.
It is a settled position in law that when the arbitration agreement is silent on the aspect of ‘seat’, ‘venue’ or ‘place’ of arbitration, the determining factor will be where the cause of action arises as well as where the defendant/respondent actually or voluntarily resides or carries on their business.
One has to be conscious of the intersectionality of a girl child who has undergone trauma of sexual violence. Such a victim, on being summoned by court to depose and virtually relive the trauma, is bound to get jitters and consequences like loose motions and fever etc, caused by nervousness and agony.
The unauthorized use of the “LIV” element in a manner that does not materially differentiate the defendants’ mark from the plaintiffs’ well-established “Liv.52” mark amounts to a violation of the plaintiffs’ statutory rights.
Section 28 of Customs Act, by its very nature posits, in each set of facts and circumstances, the issuance of a SCN either under Section 28(1) or under Section 28(4) of the Act and not under both. Under the circumstances, we are unable to agree that the impugned SCN under section 28(4) of the Act post the issuance of the SCN under Section 28(1) could be termed a “Supplementary Notice”.
The plaintiff uses the mark ‘JANGEER’, whereas the mark of the defendant includes an ‘I’ in place of ‘EE’ and ‘D’ in place of ‘R’ i.e., ‘JANGID’. Apart from the difference in the spellings of the marks of the plaintiff and the defendant, the manner and style of writing is also completely different. The added features in the defendant’s mark make it quite distinct from the plaintiff’s mark.
“By selling counterfeit medical products, the defendants have not only inflicted substantial financial loss upon the plaintiff but have also misled the consumers who purchased these products under the false belief that they were genuine. Given the gravity of the infringement and the extent of harm caused, compensatory damages alone would be inadequate to compensate the plaintiff.”