2020 SCC Vol. 7 Part 3
Arbitration Act, 1940 — Ss. 30 and 39 — Grounds for setting aside award: In this case, there was no allegation of
Arbitration Act, 1940 — Ss. 30 and 39 — Grounds for setting aside award: In this case, there was no allegation of
Madras High Court: G.R. Swaminathan, J., observed that, What the government does must inspire the confidence of the people. Every time a
Chhattisgarh High Court: Sanjay K Agrawal J., dismissed the petition being devoid of merits. The facts of the case are such that
Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB): The Bench of Justice Manmohan Singh (Chairman) and Lakshmidevi Somanath (Technical Member, Trademarks) and Makyam Vijay Kumar
Himachal Pradesh High Court: Ajay Mohan Goel J., while allowing the present petition, set aside the orders of the preceding authority holding
Madras High Court: The Division Bench of N. Kirubakaran and B. Pugalendhi, JJ., while addressing the instant matter ordered an Interim direction directing
Kerala High Court: V.G. Arun J., while disallowing the present petition of transfer, observed, “When the question is one of transfer of
Delhi High Court: Vibhu Bakhru, J., addressed a matter wherein the question was considered whether an application under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code,
“…where a boy and a girl are major and they are living with their free will, then, nobody including their parents has the authority to interfere with their living together.”
Himachal Pradesh High Court: Vivek Thakur J., while allowing the present petition, made an elaborated discussion over conditions for granting benefit of
Chattisgarh High Court: A Division Bench of P. R. Ramchandra Menon and Parth Prateem Sahu JJ., allowed the appeal partly and modified
Delhi High Court: Vibhu Bakhru, J., observed that If an HIV positive person is aware of their condition and has unprotected sex, the
Kerala High Court: Shircy V. J., while allowing the present petition against the original petition filed in the family court, reiterated, “In
Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of A.S. Chandurkar and N.B. Suryawanshi, JJ., determined the factors in regard to grant of custody of
Karnataka High Court: Ashok G. Nijagannavar, J., allowed the appeal and enhanced the compensation in light of the “pay and recover” principle.
Orissa High Court: P.K. Tripathy, J., decoded the meaning of the terms ‘slave and ‘slavery’ in the context of Forced labour. Petitioners in
Himachal Pradesh High Court: L. Narayana Swamy CJ., while exercising its powers under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996,
Karnataka High Court: A Division Bench of S. Sujatha and Sachin Shankar Magadam JJ., disposed off the petition due to the limitation
Allahabad High Court: The Division Bench of Naheed Ara Moonis and Vivek Varma, JJ., reiterated the law laid down by the Supreme Court