Judicial InterpretationThe key judicial interpretation, found in paragraphs 26-28, clarifies that a plaintiff claiming trademark infringement must actually use their registered trademark. The Court emphasized that there is no express or implied bar for civil courts to consider challenges to trademark validity at the interlocutory stage.Court's ViewThe Bombay High Court [more ...]
Judicial InterpretationThe key judicial interpretation, found in paragraphs 8-9, clarifies that when a party invites the court to decide under Section 34(1) of the Karnataka Stamp Act, they cannot later express willingness to exercise the option under Section 37(2) of the Act. The Court emphasized that in such cases, Section [more ...]
Judicial InterpretationThe key judicial interpretation, found in paragraphs 15-19, clarifies that the Execution Court, being the court of first instance, has jurisdiction to deal with applications under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, even when the decree was passed by an appellate court. This interpretation is based on [more ...]
Judicial InterpretationThe key judicial interpretation, found in paragraphs 21-21.8, outlines the steps to be followed under Sections 33, 34, 35, 37, and 39 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957. The Court clarifies that the option to have the document sent to the Deputy Commissioner for collecting deficit stamp duty and [more ...]
Key Judicial Interpretation:The court held that minor inconsistencies in eyewitness testimonies do not discredit their overall credibility if the testimonies are largely consistent and corroborated by other evidence. The court...
The Court held that dismissing the case at a preliminary stage would undermine the integrity of ongoing investigations and judicial processes, particularly in complex fraud cases involving public assets (para 8).
Know your rights. Share this page to help others understand the law!
The Court held that the legislative intent of Section 236(1) of the IBC was to incorporate the provisions of Special Courts from the Companies Act as they existed at the time of the IBC’s enactment, making amendments to the Companies Act post-enactment of the IBC irrelevant for the purposes of IBC (paras 42-44).
Know your rights. Share this page to help others understand the law!
Key Judicial Interpretation:The court held that minor inconsistencies in eyewitness testimonies do not discredit their overall credibility if the testimonies are largely consistent and corroborated by other evidence. The court emphasized the principles from Rammi v. State of M.P. and Tahsildar Singh v. State of U.P. on witness credibility and...
The Court held that dismissing the case at a preliminary stage would undermine the integrity of ongoing investigations and judicial processes, particularly in complex fraud cases involving public assets (para 8).
Know your rights. Share this page to help others understand the law!
The Court held that the legislative intent of Section 236(1) of the IBC was to incorporate the provisions of Special Courts from the Companies Act as they existed at the time of the IBC’s enactment, making amendments to the Companies Act post-enactment of the IBC irrelevant for the purposes of IBC (paras 42-44).
Know your rights. Share this page to help others understand the law!
The Court held that the High Court erred in dismissing the petition to quash the second FIR. It clarified that the complaint at Udaipur was not prior in time to the complaint at Hisar and both FIRs had similar allegations, indicating abuse of the legal process (paras 8-10).
Know your rights. Share this page to help others understand the law!
Judicial InterpretationThe key judicial interpretation, found in paragraphs 26-28, clarifies that a plaintiff claiming trademark infringement must actually use their...
Judicial InterpretationThe key judicial interpretation, found in paragraphs 15-19, clarifies that the Execution Court, being the court of first instance,...
