Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“Karta’s liability for unsatisfied debts or dues of the HUF is personal and unlimited. The Karta’s contention that HUF was a separate entity or akin to a body corporate was rejected and it was clarified that this was only for limited purposes like taxation or at most where liability beyond even the Karta.”
“On losing merely the right of redemption, a borrower does not automatically lose ownership rights over the secured asset and that the ownership right is ultimately lost only upon issuance of sale certificate in accordance with Rule 9(6) of the SARFAESI Rules.”
“Where explanation for adoption of the mark is not honest and there are two different versions with different reasons and which reasons themselves are not proved, such explanation should be disregarded on the principle that things speaks for themselves.”
The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 cannot be used for summary property disputes.
“A party who approaches the court with unclean hands or by withholding material documents and/or information is disentitled to any reliefs from the court.”
“There is a preliminary objection raised by ESIC Corpn. as to the maintainability of the petition before the Bench on the ground that the petition should have been filed before the Single Judge or before the Bench having the assignment of Labour and Service Matters.”
“Naresh Goyal is aggrieved by his account being classified as “fraud” by the Bank of India. He has not been served with any order passed by the Bank classifying his accounts as “fraud”. It is therefore evident that the earlier classification of his account by the Bank as “fraud” is without any justification or reasons.”
“Under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, there is a requirement of consensus ad idem between the Parties with respect to the fundamental terms of the sale.”
Bombay High Court concluded that Naresh Ganpat Mhaske was not legally obligated to disclose a conviction for a criminal offence, especially when such conviction had not resulted in imprisonment for one year or more. Consequently, the Court found that the election petition did not disclose a valid cause of action.
The Shiv Sena leader, Sanjay Nirupam when served with the repeated intimations to appear in the Court, tore the said notice and returned it. The Court stated that such conduct showed that he had no respect for the proceedings before the Court.
Article published by Sprouts News on 18-8-2025 about Godrej Properties’ real estate project in Haryana, wherein the word “Fraud” was placed before its logo, was held to have been malicious insinuation of criminal conduct.
“The applicant was seeking monopoly over matters in which ex-facie no copyright subsisted to begin with, like common themes, ideas, unoriginal/stocks/scenes-a-faire matters, and other aspects directly flowing from such elements.”
“Sonu Nigam Singh’s actions could not be considered innocent, and the misrepresentation caused among members of the general public was not a matter of coincidence and thus his conduct was ex facie dishonest and reeked of mala fide.”
“Merely because the Central Board of Film Certification (‘CBFC’) certificate is obtained for the film, the same does not restrict the applicant’s right to take action against the film for violation of his rights.”
The rival marks are structurally, phonetically, and visually identical and/or deceptively similar when compared as a whole and the word ‘HIRECT’ is the important, prominent, and essential feature of the plaintiff’s registered mark.
The data can be misused for a variety of purposes including for the purpose of impersonating applicant- HDFC Life Insurance Co. Ltd., which will involve infringement of applicant’s registered trade mark and passing off.
Every trade mark registration is separate and independent and a disclaimer in one registration cannot be read or imported into another. In comparing marks as a whole, mere addition of a generic prefix by defendant will not negate the actionable similarity between the rival marks where defendants’ mark contains whole of applicant’s mark (particularly the distinctive/leading/memorable/essential feature).
Defendant’s dishonesty is evident as only after defendant received applicant’s cease-and-desist notice, it filed a trade mark application for the impugned mark “JHAMPA” on 05-09-2024, claiming use from 01-01-2024.
The adoption of plaintiffs’ trade marks and plaintiffs’ artistic works in relation to the impugned goods by defendants is dishonest.
The trade mark/label mark ‘Girnar’ surpasses the scope of merely encompassing products/services sold or rendered under the said trade mark and the recognition, reputation, and goodwill of plaintiff-Girnar Food & Beverages Pvt. Ltd. in its trade mark extended beyond any specific class of goods or services.