Last Updated:
March 8, 2023

Click here to submit your article
Constitutional Law
Per Page :

Ashutosh Dubey Vs Netflix

ASHUTOSH DUBEY VS NETFLIX, INC. This was the case were the plaintiff who is an advocate by profession filed a suit against an injunction against Netflix, the defendants for the further streaming of the episodes of a web series called hasmukh which aired on Netflix. The main issue in the case was regarding the defamation, caused due to some derogatory remarks made by the protagonist in a web-series known as “hasmukh”. The Delhi High Court dismissed an application filed by a lawyer, seeking an injunction against Netflix for streaming online content which was derogatory about the legal fraternity. The lawyer Read More
0 Views : 105

A.C. Thirumalaraj Versus Aditya Birla Nuevo Ltd.

Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd had filed a suit against liberty Agencies a Partnership Firm and it’s Partners in the City Civil Court Banglore. Where they contented for a specific performance of the agreement and an alternative for damage expenses and losses amounting to Rs. 20,12,44,398 if the agreement was breached. Further they even seeked to sought for temporary stay restraining the defendants from leasing, sun leasing and also to stop any business activities in the said property which was mentioned in the said agreement between both the parties. The parties had entered into an agreement on 02.03.2005 where the agreement Read More
0 Views : 90

Impact of CSR on Businesses

Author : Misbah Pathan The objective of the study: The objective of this research is to understand the various positive and negative impacts of CSR on business firms. Introduction The term CSR was coined by Bowen in 1953 which he described as “the set of moral and personal obligations that the employer must follow considering the exercise of policy decisions or courses of action in terms of objectives and values desired by society. A detailed classification is provided which suggests the following groups, the government, environmental organizations, NGO professionals’ critics or experts, and others in general the citizen locals, or Read More
0 Views : 123

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 : 218

A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, 1950

Submitted by: Abhishek Buradagunta (2001) FCRIMS (2020-22) After the judgement of AK Gopalan v State of Madras case, courts in India started approaching the Fundamental Rights of citizens and non-citizens in a wider and comprehensive manner, and not in a restrictive manner. AK Gopalan was a communist leader and was detained under the Preventive Detention Act 1950 in Madras Jail. He challenged the validity of the Act on the ground that it was violating the freedom of movement under Article 19 (1) (d) and personal liberty under Article 21 through writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. The supreme Read More
0 Views : 215

Amar Nath Sehgal vs Union of India

Case – Amar Nath Sehgal vs Union of India, Plaintiff – Amar Nath Sehgal, Defendant – Union of India, Court – Delhi High Court, Judge – Justice Pradeep Nandrajog. In the year 1957, the Union of India commissioned Amar Nath Sehgal to design a mural in the lobby of Vigyan Bhavan, Delhi. The mural was completed in the year 1962 which was approved by Jawaharlal Nehru, the first prime minister of India. In 1979, during the renovation process of Vigyan Bhavan, the mural was vandalized and the remnants were put into the store room. As soon as the sculptor came Read More
0 Views : 146

Ramsgate Victoria Hotel v Montefiore

Facts – In this case law, the defendant, Mr. Montefiore wanted to buy shares in the complainant’s hotel (Ramsgate Victoria Hotel). As part of his offer, he said that he wanted to buy shares of the hotel at a certain price from the complainant. Approximately six months after the offer was made, the complainant accepted the offer. By this time, however, the value of the shares had declined, and Mr. Montefiore no longer had any interest in buying them. The defendant did not formally revoke the offer, but he did not proceed with the sale. The Complainant brought an action Read More
0 Views : 170