Last Updated:
October 27, 2021

Click here to submit your article
Legal Issues
Per Page :

You have five sub categories

case study

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS COMPANY LTD. VS INCOME TAX OFFICER 1. The assesses has filed the appeals against the common order gone the CIT(A), for the asst. yrs. 1999-2000 to 2001-02, by that the learned CIT(A) has confirmed the orders passed beneath Section 201(1) of the Act and resultant levy of interest beneath Section 201(1A) of the Act. 2. the actual fact concerned within the gift case is that the assesses could be a branch of Samsung company Ltd., Korea, engaged within the development, manufacture and export of computer code to be used by its parent company, i.e., Samsung natural philosophy Co. Read More
0 Views : 36

Gaur Distributors vs Hathway Cable & Datacom Ltd.

Legal case fought by hathway on after serious allegation and non payment of dues by gaur distributors. LEGAL ASPECTS OF BUSINESS- PROJECT ON COMPANIES FACING LAW SUIT/ LEGAL CASE STARTING WITH ALPHABET OF THE STUDENT. Name- Hemant Sharma Roll no- M2018. Gaur Distributors vs Hathway Cable & Datacom Ltd. on 2 August, 2016 (IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI) DATE- 26th July, 2016 Petitioner—- GAUR DISTRIBUTORS Advocate- Sugriva Dubey. versus Respondent—- HATHWAY CABLE AND DATACOM LIMITED. Advocates- Mr.Navin Chawla, Adv. with Ms.Sonali Jaitley, Mr.Jaiyesh Bakhshi & Mr.Sachin Sharma, JUDGE- HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, 1. petitioner filed the above Read More
0 Views : 36

Garware Wall Ropes Ltd. v. AI. Chopra and Konkan Railway Corp. Ltd

Chapter 17 of the patent act states: USE OF INVENTIONS FOR PURPOSES OF GOVERNMENT AND ACQUISITION OF INVENTIONS BY CENTRAL GOVERNMENT This means that the government authority by itself or by appointing a third party agency can use the patent for the use of the government with the approval of the patentee paying him a royalty or any form of remuneration agreed between two parties. Section 47 states that the Government may import, make and use the patented inventions for its own use. The scope of this provision is narrow when compared with government use highlighted in Section 100, wherein Read More
0 Views : 41

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 : 21

TATA MOTORS FINANCE LTD. V. PAWAN KUMAR

Consumer complaint no: C/339/2017 Date of complaint: March 27,2017 Date of decision: March 8,2018 Consumer forum name: State consumer disputes redressal commission Haryana, Panchkula Complainant: Pawan Kumar Opposite party 1: Tata Motor Finance Limited (Earlier Tata Finance Limited), Pushpa Complex, Hisar, Haryana. Opposite party 2: Tata Motor Finance Limited (Earlier Tata Finance Limited), Bijjol Complex, First Floor, N.N. Purav Marg, Chembur, Mumbai -400071. Pawan Kumar purchased a vehicle No.HR19B-3331 from Telmos Automobiles Ltd., Hisar and it was financed by TATA finance on December 17th,2004.The vehicle was stolen on March 31,2006 and to which pawan kumar informed TATA finance of the Read More
0 Views : 56

FCRIMS Assigment Case

Name: Shraddha Satere Roll no: M2039 Sehgal School of Competition vs Dalbir Singh This case highlighted the importance of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 when it comes to consumer redress. The present case involves a student (respondent) who was denied a fee refund by his medical coaching facility (appellant). Facts The respondent enrolled in the appellant’s institute for two years of preparation for the medical entrance exams. Within six months, the respondent had paid the lump sum costs of Rs. 18,734 in two instalments. After a year, the respondent quit the institute in the middle, claiming that it wasn’t Read More
0 Views : 41

Hindustan Unilever Vs Amul

Amul aired 2 television advertisements that compared amul ice- cream with frozen desserts. The storyline of the ad is a young girl who shows get an ice-cream reward this leads to visual showing two cups one labelled amul and the other labelled frozen dessert(Mentioned as made up of vegetable oil) In the amul cup they show milk flowing in it whereas on the other cup thick, semi solid liquid resembling “Dalda” flowing in it. With this visual, the voiceover clarifies that Amul’s ice cream is made up of real milk and frozen dessert is made of Vanaspati. It also instructs Read More
0 Views : 51

Jubilant Food Works Limited Vs Union Of India

Jubilant Food Works Limited vs Union Of India A case was filed in Delhi High Court by Jubilant Food Works Limited Vs Union Of India on 2nd June 2021. The Jubilant Food Works Limited(Appellant) who operates Domino’s Pizza store in India have asked writ petition seeking appropriate direction to the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (Respondent 1) and the Department of Communications, Ministry of Communications (Respondent 2) to direct and inform intermediaries such as Telecom service providers, internet service providers, search engines to immediately remove or disable access to URL which was created by a hacker or an unknown Read More
0 Views : 71

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 : 36

Amul v/s Hindustan Unilever Limited

Amul v/s Hindustan Unilever Ltd By Annsy Johny M2007 Introduction The Anand District Milk Producers Union Ltd which is famously known as Amul had broadcasted a television advertisement on March 4, 2017 that contrasted its ice-creams from frozen desserts and belittled the frozen desserts category. Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) which is India’s largest Fast-Moving Consumer Goods Company (FMCG) and a leader in Frozen Desserts and Ice Cream category then filed a case in Bombay High Court on March 27, 2017 against Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation (GCMMF) that promotes Amul Ice cream. Facts of the Advertisement:- • The ad contained Read More
0 Views : 26