Last Updated:
January 11, 2023

Click here to submit your article
Monthly archive August, 2021

L&T Wins Suit against Infringers.

Larsen & Toubro Ltd. L&T Wins Suit against Infringers. In the recent case of Larsen & Toubro Ltd & another v/s Radheshyam Singh & another, a District Court in New Delhi restrained the defendant from using the marks which were deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s trademark since it amounted to infringement. The main suer was Larsen & Toubro Ltd an international technology, engineering, manufacturing, and construction company that had been using the marks Larsen & Toubro, L&T, LT. the marks are registered under the Trademarks law. This marl was presented artistically through a unique and orginal combination of font style Read More
Views : 246

Collector Of Customs vs Titan Watches

1. Order-in-Appeal No. 50/91, dated 4-3-1991 setting aside the Order-in-Original dated 11-5-1990 elapsed the Assistant Collector of Customs, metropolis is challenged by the Department. 2. Respondent, engaged within the manufacture of watches, foreign a consignment of watch elements and conferred Bill of Entry dated 11-5-1990, Invoice and alternative documents and wanted clearance at the assessable price indicated in this. The consignment consisted of Crystals, Gaskets, ‘O’ Rings. Assistant Collector increased the worth of Crystals of 2 models from Japanese Yen twenty-two to Japanese Yen twenty-eight per unit and Japanese Yen thirty per unit severally. Respondent paid duty consequently and cleared Read More
Views : 227

Manjeet Singh Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr

This case concerned the hire purchase of a used truck by the appellant. Vehicle insurance was provided by the respondent’s insurance company. During one of his trips, a passenger asked him to stop and give him a lift. As soon as he stopped the truck, the passenger attacked the driver and fled with it. A police report was filed, and the respondent finance company was notified. The insurance company, however, rejected the claim for violation of the contract. He sought compensation from the District Consumer Disputes Forum, State Commission, and National Commission. The cases were rejected by each. Last but Read More
Views : 1388

Askari Mirza v. Bibi Jai Kishori

A criminal prosecution was instituted against a person and fearing the result of prosecution, he entered into an agreement in consideration of the other party abandoning the prosecution. It was held that the threat of criminal prosecution is not per se an act forbidden by the Indian Penal Code. Hence, consent is valid. Basic information: Coercion: Coercion is the act or process of persuading someone forcefully to do something that they do not want to do. Section 15 in the Indian Contract Act 1872 defines coercion as committing or threatening to commit or carry out any act forbidden by the Read More
Views : 2626

Case Study of James Dyson vs Hoover -M2020

Case Study of James Dyson vs Hoover James Dyson is the founder of Dyson Limited which design and manufacture home appliances and Hoover is also company which manufacture home appliance Dyson Limited was successful because of the use of bagless vacuum clear which uses two cyclones . In one, small particles are removed, while in the other, larger items are collected. Apparently, bitter rival Hoover has stolen this patented technology. Before Dyson, no one in the field had ever considered selling bagless vacuum cleaners. Alberto Bertali, director of Hoover European Appliance Group, says the Triple Vortex recirculates dusty air between Read More
Views : 452

Arvind Mills vs Commissioner of Income Tax

1. Revenue has filed this appeal challenging the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal for short) dated 31st March, 2009. In response to the notice issued, learned counsel Mr. Ranjan appeared on behalf of respondent assessee. 2. Counsel for both the sides made detailed submissions. With their consent such arguments were treated to be for final disposal of the Appeal. 3. The appeal arises in the following factual background:– 3.1 The respondent assessee had lodged its claim of interest under Section 244A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act, for short) towards the tax paid which was Read More
Views : 201

Nirma Ltd & Nirma Chemical Works Ltd Vs Pawan Salt Suppliers

Add description for your Article from here. Nirma Ltd & Nirma Chemical Works Ltd Vs Pawan Salt Suppliers (The trademark infringement case) Nirma is a group of companies based in the city of Ahmedabad in Gujarat, India, that manufactures products ranging from detergents, soaps, cement, cosmetics, salt, soda ash, LAB and injectables. Nirma Shudh Salt is a iodized salt product which Nirma Ltd has been selling for years now. 17 years ago, Nirma Ltd had filed a case against Rajasthan-based salt company Pawan Salt Suppliers for Trademark Infringement. Reason for filing the case- Nirma Ltd claimed that Pawan Salt Suppliers Read More
Views : 180

Boloram Bordoloi vs Lakhimi Gaolia Bank

In this case, a manager of Lakhimi Gaolia Bank was accused of misappropriating funds by disbursing loans irregularly to (a) units without a store or business; (b) members of the same family receiving several loans, and so on.  The disciplinary authority had initially decided to apply a punishment of compulsory retirement based on the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and had sent a show cause notice to the manager, to which he answered that “due to work pressure some operational breaches have happened.” Furthermore, if the bank suffers a loss as a result of his error, he is Read More
Views : 176


Manasi Kamble (FCRIMS) 1. Rachana Khatri & Anr. (Respondents) on 19.03.2018 filed application against members of Appellant Company-Maxzimaa Pharmaceuticals Private Limited (1st Respondent in the Company Petition) under Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013. Their grievances were divided into two categories. The first is her removal as a Director of the Company (Appellant) without her consent, and the second is her syphoning of the Company’s business. 2. On the 13th of January, 2017, the National Company Law Tribunal (hereafter referred to as the Tribunal) issued an interim order directing the parties to maintain the status Quo with Read More
Views : 169

White and Case

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the AO’s addition by holding that the payment made to ‘White & Case,’ the consultancy firm, is not in the nature of FTS, but failing to appreciate that Article 15(1) of the Indo-UK Treaty only applies to payments to individuals and does not apply to partnership firms. In addition, they failed to recognise that such payments would be protected under Article 13 of the Treaty as a charge for technical services. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred Read More
Views : 199