Last Updated:
September 15, 2021

Click here to submit your article
Civil Law
Per Page :

Reservation is a necessity or a burden for India

Reservation is a necessity or a burden for India Survey conducted by – Swaraj Bhattacharya Sanket Nair Menon Divya Gopakumar ITM Executive MBA Batch 1 (2015-2017) INTRODUCTION: The caste based reservation in India is a never ending debate with no realistic outcomes till date. Objective of introducing the reservation system ages ago was to uplift the conditions of less privileged strata of the society and ensure that the minorities are not discriminated. There is little evidence if the reservation system has performed well and made a relevant difference or contribution towards the economic growth of India as a developing country. Read More
3 Views : 7599

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
0 Views : 30

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
0 Views : 38

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
0 Views : 47

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
0 Views : 19

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
0 Views : 30


– Mahima Thomas(M2023) – FCRIMS In a landmark judgment by Bombay High court on 9th November, 2001 comprising of justice D.P Mohapatra and Justice Shivaraj Patil passed an order restraining a paper manufacturing company employing a deceptively similar name ‘Mahendra and Mahendra’ to the company giant Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Plaintiff – Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd Defendant – Mahendra and Mahendra Paper Mills As stated by Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd; in August 1996, the corporate came to grasp about the existence of a corporation named Mahendra and Mahendra paper mills after it stumbled on a prospectus in respect of the Read More
0 Views : 33

State Bank Of India And Others vs K. L. Tripathi vs on 4 October, 1983

From the Judgment and Order dated the 2nd February 1978 of the High Court of Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ No. 1724 of 1976. R.K. Garg and Pramod Swaroop with him for the Appellant. P.R. Mridul, O.C. Mathur, S. Sukumaran, Miss. Meera Mathur for M/s. J.B. Dadachanji & Co. for the Respondents. S.S. Sharma for State Bank of India. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. Shri K.L.Tripathi, the appellant herein joined the State Bank of India in 1955. At the relevant time, he was working as Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Deoria. It is Read More
0 Views : 38

Ambuja Cements Ltd VS State of H.P and Ors on 18 July, 2005

These appeals are connected and, therefore, are taken up together for discarding. Civil Appeal No. 2641 and 2642 of 2000 relate to respondent- Ambuja Cement Ltd. Civil Appeal No.3744-46 of 2000 relate to respondent-Associated Cement Ltd. The common query so far as the appeals are concerned linking the subject in the appeals relates to one issue i.e. liability to pay purchase tax on the royalty paid by the respondents. As other issues are involved in Ambuja’s cases, the factual scenario in Civil Appeal No.2641-2642 of 2000 needs to be noted in some detail. Serial Name of the Category of Total Read More
0 Views : 13

M/S. Morepen Laboratories Ltd. vs T.S. Geetha

The grievance was filed against the M/S. Morepen Laboratories Ltd alleging deficiency in commission in their failure to pay the maturity price of the deposited amount to the complainant. It had been alleged that the complainant deposited Rs. 25,000/- on 11/4/2002 with the M/s. Morepen Laboratories restricted with an Agreement to induce the maturity price of Rs. 35,128/- on 11.4.2005, however they didn’t disbursed the aforesaid. Hence the grievance was filed claiming Rs. 36,900/- with interest and compensation of Rs. 50,000/- complainant filed proof in support of the claim. On an appreciation of the proof on record the Forum below Read More
0 Views : 24