Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
It is only after the efforts of reconciliation and settlement fails, the videoconferencing can be resorted on the joint application filed by the parties or the memorandum of consent by both the parties, husband and wife, for such videoconferencing, in the discretion of the Court, if the Court considers it appropriate.
Section 72 of the Consumer Protection Act penalties are intended for parties responsible for complying with a Commission’s order and as the petitioner was not involved in the transaction or compliance, the proceedings against them were without basis.
Usage of trade mark ‘BURJNOIDA’ was allowed because the residential project had been in construction for the last ten years.
In the case at hand, no settlement was arrived at between the parties and the matter was disposed of in the Lok Adalat by exercising the power under Section 256 of CrPC.
“The conduct of the litigants to keep the dispute alive for mala fide reasons has the tendency of keeping the docket of the Courts heavy to the detriment of other litigants whose cases have been pending for years together.”
The Calcutta High Court, in a previous order, requested the parties to consider resolving the dispute by blurring out or removing fruit juice packets deceptively similar to Dabur’s ‘Real’ fruit juice from the impugned video.
The NCLT directed the Resolution Professional to hand over control of Syska LED Lights Pvt. Ltd. back to the Corporate Debtor, if it had been taken over.
Delhi High Court issued a mandatory reminder, rather than a gentle reminder that it is essential to emphasise that in cases involving offences of serious nature, particularly those falling under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, no form of mediation is permissible.
by Amrut Anil Joshi† and Anand Ratnakar Pai††
“One has to appreciate and imagine the trauma, stress, the agony of the child, who was only three years of age, that she would have gone through after being kidnapped by the kidnappers from the lawful guardianship of her parents.”
“No party shall oppose each other’s marks or object to the same, in any manner, so long as the same are in compliance with the terms of this settlement.”
“There is no prohibition to effect a partition otherwise than through an instrument in writing by duly complying with the requirement of law.”
The Delhi High Court observed that Cinema Ventures Private Limited, the defaulting entity, neither filed the undertaking as assured to the court nor made any payment but rather continued to be in the possession of the property.
The Karnataka High Court strictly admonished the petitioner for abusing every jurisdiction of law but refused to impose exemplary costs as the same would only increase the agony of the petitioner, whose marriage was annulled albeit with consent.
Delhi High Court: In a suit filed by Super Cassettes Industries Private Limited, seeking permanent injunction restraining infringement, passing off,
Bombay High Court: In a case filed for quashing of the charges registered against Binoy Kodiyeri (petitioner), son of CPM’s
Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court: While deciding the instant petition wherein the Court was faced with the issue
Delhi High Court: In a suit filed by Nikhil Chawla (‘plaintiff’) for its brand COOK STUDIO in the nature of threat application
Delhi High Court: In a case pending for 5 years before Court, the parties finally reached compromise and sought quashing
Delhi High Court: In a case relating to two marks being ‘Theobroma’ (‘defendant’) and Theos (‘plaintiff’), based out of Bombay and Delhi