Bombay High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“If BCI’s rule making power under Section 49(d) of Advocates Act, 1961 is given a restrictive meaning, the same will be contrary to object and purpose of Section 7(1)(h),(i),(l), and (m), which is enacted with the objective to empower BCI to promote legal education and to lay down standards of education.”

Continue reading
Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

In a situation where rights available to persons with disabilities under the 2016 Act or the Rules 2017 or under any other measure involving the service-related issues are found to have been infringed or violated, the provisions of the 2016 Act will have to be given effect to.

Continue reading
Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The unauthorized actions of Defendant 1, including the creation and operation of fraudulent WhatsApp/Telegram groups, websites and mobile apps, have given rise to substantial confusion, leading individuals to falsely believe that the impugned groups and website are affiliated with plaintiff.

Continue reading
punjab and haryana high court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“No material has been brought on record to even prima facie indicate that the accused had reported or published the imputation concerning the complainant to harm his reputation or knowing or having reason to believe that it would cause harm to his reputation.”

Continue reading
Madras High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“The Judiciary must recognize its pivotal role in restoring confidence among minorities, acting as a guardian of the rights that were pledged to them, thus reinforcing the very essence of India’s democratic ethos and its dedication to unity in diversity.”

Continue reading
Allahabad High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“Any compromise or settlement with respect to the offence of rape, against the honour of a woman, which shakes the very core of her life and tantamounts to a serious blow to her supreme honour, offending both, her esteem and dignity, is not acceptable to this Court.”

Continue reading
Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Despite Respondent 1’s endeavour to create distinctions, it is crystal clear that the marks are confusingly/deceptively similar to the petitioner’s registered trade mark. Such use of a similar mark would invariably mislead consumers and members into believing that the goods under the impugned mark were sourced from the petitioner.

Continue reading