“Developing any disease during the continuation of marriage is not within the control of any spouse. In such a situation, the other spouse has a marital duty to co-operate and bear with it and help the other spouse.”
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.
The Delhi High Court held that the use of mark “AIVVA” by Aivva Enterprises (P) Ltd. was phonetically similar to the mark “AIWA” of Aiwa Co. Ltd. and thus, caused confusion in the market. Therefore, the Court confirmed ex-parte ad interim injunction in favour of the mark “AIWA” in a trade mark infringement suit.
The Delhi High Court granted permanent injunction to RPG Enterprises Ltd. for its mark ‘RPG’. Further, RPG Developers (P) Ltd. were restrained from offering/rendering any services using the impugned trade mark ‘RPG’ and/or ‘RPG DEVELOPERS’ and/or artistic work which was a colourable imitation of the plaintiff’s artistic work or any other trade mark/artistic work deceptively similar to the ‘RPG’ marks of the plaintiff. Additionally, Rs. 3 lakhs were awarded as damages to the plaintiff.
In the present case, Sukam Systems (P) Ltd. alleged infringement and passing of by Lithium Power Energy (P) Ltd. of its registered trade marks ‘Su-Kam’, ‘BIG conqueror Tubular Battery’ and ‘BIG Warrior Tubular Battery’.
Delhi High Court: In a case where Tata Sia Airlines Limited filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and
Delhi High Court: In a trade mark infringement case where the ex-parte ad-interim order of injunction was challenged, the Single
Delhi High Court: In a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using the mark ‘Shopibay’ which was similar
Delhi High Court: In a case where application was filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section
Delhi High Court: In a case filed by CROSSFIT gym (‘Plaintiff’) having CROSSFIT trademarks seeking permanent injunction against defendant gym using the
Delhi High Court: Dinesh Kumar Sharma J. granted an ex parte injunction to Voltas Limited restraining a website from using their registered
Tripura High Court: S.G. Chattopadhyay, J., decided on a petition which was filed by the petitioner challenging order passed by the Additional
Jharkhand High Court: Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J., set aside the order of conviction under Section 304A of IPC passed without hearing the
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT): Justice Bansi Lal Bhat and Balvinder Singh, Members (Judicial) held that the application filed by the appellant
Uttaranchal High Court: Lok Pal Singh, J. dismissed a writ petition where mandamus was sought to direct the Principal Judge of Family
Calcutta High Court: Tapabrata Chakraborty, J. dismissed a writ petition filed by the petitioner, Dr Kashninath Ghosh Hazra, under Article 226 of
Meghalaya High Court: This petition was filed before a Single Judge Bench comprising of Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, CJ, under Article 227 of