Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The appellant filed an objection before the Executing Court to delete their name from the execution proceeding and to insert the name of Executive Engineer PWD, NH Division as Judgment debtor but the Executing Court disposed of objection on the ground that matter was already decided.
Section 142 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949 empowers the Collector to close a place where any intoxicant is sold but, the exercise of such power ought to be guided by Section 135-C of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
The Court opined that the authorities are fully authorized and are under a legal duty to execute the orders of High Court without any specific permission form or intervention of the Election Commission of India.
“A perusal of the impugned order shows that the arbitrator has yet not fully closed the issue and has decided to adjudicate on the issue after evidence is led on the same issue.”
“The trade marks POLO/RALPH LAUREN/POLO PLAYER DEVICE are liable to be recognized as ‘well-known’ marks as defined under Section 2(1)(zg) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.”
The Delhi High Court dismissed an application filed for “recall of earlier order” under Section 151 of CrPC and held that the settled things could not be permitted to be unsettled at the behest of a person who had not been careful enough with regard to his rights and claims.
Gauhati High Court: While deciding the instant appeal preferred by Ranjan Daimari and 9 others regarding their conviction and sentence
“The purpose of looking into the records of the lower fora in revision is principally to see whether any jurisdictional error or material irregularity has been committed, which has to be judged by seeing their orders in the light of the evidence and material placed before them i.e., the material which they were privy to when they passed their orders”
Supreme Court: In a trade mark infringement case where interlocutory injunction was sought during the pendency of the suit, the bench of
Supreme Court: In a case where the order was dictated in the court, but had not been signed, the 3-judge bench of
Delhi High Court: While stating the well-settled law that even when an appellate Court affirms the order of the Court below, it
Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): The Coram of Ashok Jindal (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) dismissed
Bar Council of India passed a resolution on 22-12-2019 appealing the people of the country to maintain peace and harmony. The Lawyers, the
Allahabad High Court: A Division Bench of Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal and Jaspreet Singh, JJ. dismissed the special appeal as it had no
Bombay High Court: V.M. Deshpande, J., quashed the trial court’s Judgment convicting the applicant herein for the offences punishable under Sections 279 (rash
Central Information Commission (CIC): A Bench comprising of Divya Prakash Sinha, Information Commissioner allowed an appeal and directed the CPIO to adequately
Delhi High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Jayant Nath, J. allowed an appeal filed against the previous order whereby the right
Madras High Court: Petitioner had approached this Court before a Single Judge Bench of Pushpa Sathyanarayana, J., with a prayer to block
Madras High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of N. Seshasayee, J., allowed an appeal on the ground that the respondent gave
Punjab and Haryana High Court: This appeal was preferred before a 2-Judge Bench of Rakesh Kumar and Anupinder Singh, JJ., against the