Last Updated:
May 30, 2020

Click here to submit your article
Legal Issues
Per Page :

You have five sub categories

LALCHAND OSWAL VS TATA MOTORS (Panchjanya Automobiles)

NAME: TEJAS RAUT ROLL NO. M1957 COLLEGE NAME: FR. C RODRIGUES INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES BATCH: 2019-21 TITLE: LALCHAND OSWAL VS TATA MOTORS (Panchjanya Automobiles) A Pune-based lawyer Mr Lalchand Oswal filed a case against Tata Motors in the consumer court for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices engaged in by the company. Mr Oswal had purchased a car in October 2018 and within a few days he realised that the engine had some manufacturing defect. He has alleged that the company had sold the car with inherent manufacturing defects and later ignored the issue which forced him to Read More
0 Views : 28

Pidilite Industries Ltd. And ANR Vs Vilas Nemichand Jain And ANR

Add descriptiDate of the case:24 November 2015 Outcome of the case: The Court was not convinced by the evidence submitted by the plaintiff and thus dismissed the plaintiff’s suit for passing off action against the defendant Case: The plaintiff in this case is a well known Company Pidilite [popular for Fevicol].They claimed that they had been using the mark ‘LEAK-GUARD’ since 1999 for their solvent cement as a liquid chemical. The defendants also claimed to have been using the mark ‘LEAK-GUARD’ for similar/identical products since 2005. The Plaintiff’s applied for registration of the Labelmark containing the words LEAK-GUARD in 2008 Read More
0 Views : 32

Amazon v. Rohit Reddy Chintha

Date of the case : May 4,2016 Outcome of the case: Holding Amazon guilty of deficiency in service, Bengaluru Rural and Urban Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has directed it to refund Rs 2,85,284 within a month Summary of the case: Rohit Reddy Chintha from Hitech city, Hyderabad, had placed an order for the gold coins on August 25, 2015 at Amazon Seller Service Private Limited located in Malleswaram with order No-171-7238017-9209918 and received the courier on October 2, 2015 under the impression that the courier contained the gold he ordered. He was shocked when he opened the package Read More
0 Views : 36

Domino’s Pizza v. Guillermo Robles, No. 18-1539.

Date of the case – 07-10-2019 Outcome – Supreme Court hands victory to the blind man who sues dominos pizza chain Summary of the case – The case was originally brought by a blind man named Guillermo Robles, who sued the pizza chain after he was unable to order food on Domino’s website and mobile app despite using screen-reading software. Facts of the lawsuit- ◦ Attorneys for Robles argued in court that the individuals with Disabilities Act requires businesses with physical locations to make their websites and other online platforms accessible to those with disabilities. ◦ A panel of the Read More
0 Views : 36

HINDUSTAN UNILEVER MERCURY POISONING CASE

NAME:HARDIK MHATRE ROLL NO:M1918 FCRIMS HINDUSTAN UNILEVER Kodaikanal mercury poisoning Kodaikanal mercury poisoning is a proven case of mercury contamination at the hill station of Kodaikanal by Hindustan Unilever in the process of making mercury thermometers for export around the world. The exposé of the environmental abuse led to the closure of the factory in 2001 and opened up a series of issues in India such as corporate liability, corporate accountability and corporate negligence. Mercury pollution in Kodaikanal The mercury contamination in Kodaikanal originated at a thermometer factory owned by Hindustan Unilever. Unilever acquired the thermometer factory from cosmetics maker Read More
0 Views : 16

Voltas LTD VS Haier Appliances India

Name : Vaibhavi Mahajan Roll No. : M1960 Voltas has filed a legal suit against Haier Appliances India, accusing China’s largest appliance maker of ambush marketing by running an advertisement campaign that allegedly spoofs a campaign of the Tata Group company, two senior industry executives said. The lawsuit, filed in the Delhi High Court, also names Haier’s advertisement agency, Mumbai based ZeroZero Creative Solutions and its partner Kumar Subramaniam as defendants. Voltas, the country’s largest air-conditioner maker, has challenged Haier’s television commercial as a “direct disparagement for brand Voltas”, as per the suit document reviewed by ET. It alleged that Read More
0 Views : 20

Maruti suzuki rits car

Add description for your Article from here JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) The petitioner/complainant purchased a Maruti Suzuki Ritz Car manufactured by Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. on 28.07.2009. The case of the complainant is that he had come across an advert Isement in newspaper declaring that the car gives an average of 1/./ kms per liter in petrol. Ihe car was purchased from the dealer of the Maruti Suzuki lndia Ltd. namely Sai Service Sta- tion Ltd. Alleging that the average given by the car was about 10-11 kms per liter, the complainant approached the con- cerned District Forum Read More
0 Views : 20

CASE STUDY – BY JOBIN ROBERT M1923 ,FCIRMS

JSW STEEL LTD vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE ,SALEM The appellants M/s. JSW Steel Ltd.took a loan of US $30 million from a Consortium of Financiers arranged by ICICI Bank.The appellants had paid the loan processing fee to ICICI Bank.The ICICI bank paid the service tax under the Banking and Financial Institution Service and recovered the same from the appellants.These transactions took place following an agreement between the appellants and the ICICI Bank dated 18-9-2006. The JSW Steel Ltd paid an arrangement fee of US $ 1.2 million to ICICI Bank. Though the loan arrangement fee was paid to ICICI Read More
0 Views : 19

SALOMON VS SALOMON Co Ltd [1897]

Name: Sujna Alva Roll no: M1954 College: Fr. C Rodrigues Institute of Management Studies, Vashi MMS- SEM II Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd [1897] The case of Salomon v Salomon revolves around Mr. Salomon, a businessman who incorporated his business; and given the requirements put forth in the Companies Act 1862 which require the presence of at least seven shareholders, he made his family members as business partners issuing one share to each of them (Keenan & Riches 2009). The business was bought at £39,000. Mr. Salomon held some 20,000 shares and since £10,000 was not paid for, Read More
0 Views : 35

SALOMON VS SALOMON Co Ltd [1897]

Name: Sujna Alva Roll No: M1954 College: Fr. C Rodrigues Institute of Management, Vashi. MMS SEM – II Sub: Legal Aspects of Business Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd [1897] The case of Salomon v Salomon revolves around Mr. Salomon, a businessman who incorporated his business; and given the requirements put forth in the Companies Act 1862 which require the presence of at least seven shareholders, he made his family members as business partners issuing one share to each of them (Keenan & Riches 2009).The business was bought at £39,000. Mr. Salomon held some 20,000 shares and since £10,000 Read More
0 Views : 29