Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“Once the infringing goods were available for sale, the tort of infringement, which predicates use of the infringed mark, or a mark which is deceptively similar thereto, for trade, stood committed.”
“An unqualified application of Section 19… would defeat the object of the provision, and open the door to forum shopping, libel tourism, and luxury litigation.”
“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.”
“For deciding jurisdiction, it is not sufficient to establish whether a person maintains an account in a particular bank. It is necessary to also ascertain the specific branch of the bank in which he maintains the account to completely and unambiguously decide the said question”.
“Umang Singhar has failed to establish that a legal right claimed by him has prima facie been infringed or is threatened to be infringed by the respondents within the territorial limits of this Bench.”
Rather than exercising its jurisdiction, P.S. Adarsh Nagar proceeded to register a Zero FIR and transferred the matter to the police in Noida. Such action indicates a failure on part of the police authorities concerned to adhere to their statutory responsibility under Section 1541 of the CrPC.
by Hiresh Choudhary* and Surbhi Sharma**
The Court said that while the appellant claimed to be a target of high-frequency microwave radiation, he had not provided any evidence to substantiate these claims, nor had he identified those allegedly targeting him.
The NCDRC noted that Reliance General Insurance did not take the issue of territorial jurisdiction before SCDRC; therefore, SCDRC basing its decision on the same, was bad in law.
Under Section 24 (1) of the Code, the High Court or District Court may at any stage withdraw any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending in any court subordinate to it; and transfer the same for trial or disposal to any court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same.
When the Court suggested it was not inclined to entertain the writ petition due to territorial jurisdiction, the petitioner’s counsel sought permission to withdraw the petitions. The Court granted this request, allowing the petitioner to take appropriate legal steps.
“The compliance of provision under Section 202 of the CrPC, 1973, is compulsory and unavoidable for a Magistrate before issuance of summons in case of alleged offender who resides outside his territorial jurisdiction.”
Since anticipatory bail as well as transit anticipatory bail are intrinsically linked to personal liberty under Article 21 of Constitution, it would be necessary to give a constitutional imprimatur to the evolving provision of transit anticipatory bail.
“Considering the undisputed status of wife’s residency in Australia, the provisions of Section 19 of the Act would not come to her rescue.”
Madras High Court upheld the right of the UGC to impose Regulation for territorial jurisdiction referring to the primacy given to the UGC under the UGC Act, 1956, as well as Entry 66 of List 1 of the 7th Schedule.
Explaining the scope of the territorial jurisdiction of Special Court under the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002, the bench of V Ramasubramanian and JB Pardiwala, JJ also held that the trial of the scheduled offence should follow the trial of the offence of money-laundering and not vice versa.
Mere expression “place of arbitration” cannot be the basis to determine the intention of the parties that they have intended that place as the “Seat of Arbitration”
“Questioning the honesty of a person is the worst form of accusation and the same can have a serious detrimental effect on the reputation of a person. It would harm the reputation of any person, and especially an advocate, in the estimation of the right-thinking members of society. There is no doubt that such a statement is per se defamatory.”
Delhi High Court: In a petition filed by Jaideep Singh (’Petitioner’) for quashing of FIR registered by Shaildendra Singh (‘Respondent
