Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Supreme Court clarified that if there is any attempt by the parties to obstruct the revenue authorities or the local police from complying with our directions, suitable action will be taken against them.
The brand ‘Peter England’ was introduced in 1997 and later acquired by Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Ltd. in 2000.
The residents of Odwada village in Jalore district faced an anti-encroachment drive on a 35-acre piece of pasture land, following Court’s previous order directing removal of encroachments from the government pasture land.
“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”
This order will not stand in the way of the Committee constituted under the Chairmanship of Justice K.Kannan (Retd.) to enquire into the matter as per the terms of reference and there will also be no fetters on the law enforcing agency from proceeding with the investigation in accordance with law.
The Supreme Court considered subsequent development since 1994 as well as the Central Government’s stand while passing the instant order allowing Purse Siene Fishing, keeping the previous decisions of the Court open for deeper consideration.
The Delhi High Court ruled that the moratorium granted by the NCLAT, staying the institution of suits and proceedings against the Corporate Debtor, after the resolution process was initiated against it under Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013, was akin to an order of moratorium passed under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
Delhi High Court: In a case where Tata Sia Airlines Limited filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and
Supreme Court: The bench of MR Shah* and Krishna Murari, JJ has explained the scope of powers of a Commercial Court while
Supreme Court: The bench of Indira Banerjee* and AS Bopanna, JJ has held that an appeal does not lie to the Commercial
Madras High Court: In a case relating to a writ petition filed by Tamil Nadu electricity minister V. Senthil Balaji for issuance
by Siddharth R. Gupta† and Mayank Bansal††
Cite as: 2022 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 51
Supreme Court: The bench of MR Shah* and BV Nagarathna, JJ has held that in a case where on the date of
Chhattisgarh High Court: Goutam Bhaduri, J., allowed the petition and directed the vehicle to be released on certain conditions. The brief facts
Supreme Court: The bench of Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian*, JJ has held that an ad hoc payment made to the workers
Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of Milind N. Jadhav and S.J. Kathawalla, JJ., refused to grant any ad-interim order in favour
Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court: Sanjay Dhar, J., clarified the difference between Interim Award and Interim Order. The Bench stated,
Delhi High Court: Jayant Nath, J., did a comprehensive analysis of the matter involving trademark infringement. Legacy of Rajdhani Plaintiff had originally
Punjab and Haryana High Court: Arun Monga, J., had directed to maintain status quo and not to appoint anyone on the post
Karnataka High Court: P.S. Dinesh Kumar, J., rejects the petition seeking the writ of certiorari against the order of NCLT imposing heavy