Last Updated:
October 27, 2021

Click here to submit your article
Legal Issues
Per Page :

You have five sub categories

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 : 58

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 : 142

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 : 33

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
0 Views : 32

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
0 Views : 26

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 : 60


– 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 : 48

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 : 73

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 : 51

Parle Products Vs The Future Group

The plaintiff company is involved in the business of manufacture of fast-moving consumer goods (FMCGs). The company had also been selling biscuits under the following brands – “MONACO”, “KRACKJACK” and “HIDE & SEEK” – for which it had secured the statutory recognition of its trademarks under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The company had also designed its own distinct packaging for the three brands and over the years, large amounts of money had been spent in order to popularise these products with their respective trademarks and packaging. However, in the second week of September 2020, the plaintiffs noticed striking similarities Read More
0 Views : 38