The court held that the business was a joint venture and not the sole proprietary concern of the Appellant No. 1. There is no document in writing to prove partnership. Accounts had not been demanded by the plaintiffs or the defendant no. 3 for a long..
In the case of Mukesh Kumar v. the State of Rajasthan, a petition was filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner against the order dated 20.08.2018 passed by the trial court, whereby, the application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 ..
The High Court held that the Grandsons would have been liable to pay maintenance to grandmother under Sections 22(1) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, provided that their father had not been alive and not capable of paying maintenan..
Rule 38 of BCCI Rules was examined and it was held that it only stipulated the creation of a committee and not a Commissioner to inquire concerning the procedure for conducting proceedings in case of misconduct, hence the appointment of commissioner ..
Following the order of the High court, it was held that the family transferred the mortgage interest in trust to the charity for valuable consideration within the meaning of s. 9-A(10)(ii)(b) of the Act and the mortgage deed was not liable to be scal..
The Court however chose to examine the issue of ITT alone. The Union of India supported the petition. Among the others who intervened in this case, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board and the Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind argued that the Court did not have..
In its judgement, the Supreme Court held that the Exception 2 to Section 375 of the IPC (in so far as it relates to a girl child below 18 years) was liable to be struck down as it was violative of Article 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India as..
The present judgment is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India in the field of copyright law.The case is concerned with a copyright infringement suit against the movie New Delhi made by Mohan Sehgal in 1954...
Until the 1994 amendment, no performers right were available to the performer under the Copyright Act, 1957. The only reason why the performance of a performer was not protected under the copyright Act was that it was not a ‘work’ within the definiti..
The Hon’ble Court observed that according to section 2(d) of the Indian Contract Act (1872), it is clear that in a valid contract the consideration need not flow from the promisee only. It could flow from any other person who is not a party to such c..
The court unanimously held that Dunlop Tyres Ltd. Could not claim for damages in this case. It observed that firstly, only a party to the contract can file a claim. Secondly, there was no consideration flowing from Dunlop to Selfridge hence there was..
The court dismissed the Petition and held that a person shall be entitled for an admission as per qualification in each and every test held by authority in institute...
Rule 38 of BCCI Rules was examined and it was held that it only stipulated the creation of a committee and not a Commissioner to inquire concerning the procedure for conducting proceedings in case of misconduct, hence the appointment of commissioner ..
It is concluded from the present judgment that slogans used in advertising are prima facie not protectable under the Copyright law. However, they may be protected under the law of passing off...
The court held that appellant received training for about nine months and during that time period the information regarding the special processes and machinery of collaborators had been learned by him.Soon the Rajasthan Company started producing tyre..
The court held that the restraint may not be greater than necessary to protect the employer, nor unduly harsh and oppressive to the employee. The court held that even on their part the word ‘leaves’ in clause 10 of the agreement is capable of another..
It is most heartening, most refreshing and most comforting to note that the Telangana High Court has on May 20, 2020 in a latest, landmark and extremely laudable judgment titled Ganta Jai Kumar Vs State of Telangana Rep. by Chief Secretary and others..
The CAS held that Standard of proof of how the prohibited substance entered the athletes’ system couldn’t be established by either Kaur or Murmu. Hence the order of the Indian Anti-DopingDisciplinary Panel is set aside and both Kaur and Murmu are ban..
The CAS ruled that the appeal filed by Ms Dutee Chand on 26 September 2014 against the decision of AFI declaring Ms Chand not eligible to compete under the IAAF’s Hyperandrogenism Regulationsispartially upheld. The suspended these Regulations for a p..
The court held that the object of grant of maintenance is to afford a subsistence allowance to the wife, who is not able to maintain herself, then the award normally should be from the date of the application. For the court to award maintenance from ..
© 2024 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
