Last Updated:
October 27, 2021

Click here to submit your article
Legal Issues
Per Page :

You have five sub categories

Manojit Saha v. Big Bazar

The Complainant’s argument is that on June 16, 2019 (Sunday), the Complainant went to the Big Bazar in Agartala and purchased a pair of Jeans pants for Rs.499.50/-, which was a 50% discount from the original price. He was also forced to buy one paper bag for Rs.10/-. The complainant noticed that the bag’s MRP of Rs. 10/- was not mentioned anywhere. According to the Complainant, the Big Bazar exploited the bag as a medium of advertisement by printing a caption on it FBB, which invites unfair trade practises and a lack of service on the part of the O.P. Read More
1 Views : 88

Rbl Bank Ltd vs M/S NUCOR WIRES LTD

This application is filed pursuant to Sections 446 (1) & (2) and 537 of the Companies Act, 1956, r/w Rules 6 & 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, requesting that the official liquidator disburse Rs.8,00,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Crores Only) on an ad hoc interim basis. According to the petition, properties of the company in liquidation are in the possession of the official liquidator pursuant to the winding up order, and the applicant herein, as the sole first charge-holder, has been incurring expenses on the security for preservation and protection of the company in liquidation’s assets, both movable and immovable, Read More
1 Views : 109

Axis Bank vs Punjab National Bank & Anr on 20 March, 2015

The Original Application (OA) No. 108/2004 below Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 had been instituted before the Debts Recovery assembly on 22.11.2004 by Punjab National bank (the first respondent) impleading the Axis Bank (the petitioner) and one mister Dinesh Arora (the second respondent) as the defendants No. 1 and 2 of for recovery of ₹13,10,044/- and also pendente lite and future interest @ 14.75% every annum. The OA was allowed by the DRT by final order passed on 30.01.2013 in favour of the applier Punjab National bank (PNB) that the Read More
0 Views : 40

Axis Bank vs Punjab National Bank & Anr on 20 March, 2015

The Original Application (OA) No. 108/2004 below Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 had been instituted before the Debts Recovery assembly on 22.11.2004 by Punjab National bank (the first respondent) impleading the Axis Bank (the petitioner) and one mister Dinesh Arora (the second respondent) as the defendants No. 1 and 2 of for recovery of ₹13,10,044/- and also pendente lite and future interest @ 14.75% every annum. The OA was allowed by the DRT by final order passed on 30.01.2013 in favour of the applier Punjab National bank (PNB) that the Read More
0 Views : 40

Adidas-Salomon Ag And Ors. vs Jagdish Grover on 22 February, 2005

Amruta Shirole. Adidas-Salomon Ag And Ors. vs Jagdish Grover on 22 February, 2005. 1. This suit for cease and desist order restraining infringement of trade mark and duplicate rights, passing off, damages, rendition of accounts and delivery up etc., was filed by the plaintiffs alleging that they’re the proprietors of the trade mark ‘adidas’ that is getting used since 1949 for the assembly and sale of shoes, track suits, T-shirts, shorts, polo shirts, socks, caps radiocarpal joint bands, sun glasses, luggage and numerous alternative accessories and instrumentality utilized in sports. This trade mark has nonheritable international trade name and goodwill Read More
0 Views : 22

Axis Bank vs Punjab National Bank & Anr on 20 March, 2015

The Original Application (OA) No. 108/2004 below Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 had been instituted before the Debts Recovery assembly on 22.11.2004 by Punjab National bank (the first respondent) impleading the Axis Bank (the petitioner) and one mister Dinesh Arora (the second respondent) as the defendants No. 1 and 2 of for recovery of ₹13,10,044/- and also pendente lite and future interest @ 14.75% every annum. The OA was allowed by the DRT by final order passed on 30.01.2013 in favour of the applier Punjab National bank (PNB) that the Read More
0 Views : 20

Arch Comic Pvt Ltd vs Purple Creations

Case Law: Arch Comic Publications Inc vs Purple Creations Pvt Ltd. And Ors. on 10 September, 2010. The Appellant, Arch Comic Publications Inc had filed a suit claiming for injunction, infringement of trademark, damages, against the Respondents, Purple Creations Pvt Ltd claiming to be engaged in the field of printed matter, paper articles, newspapers, periodicals, books, comic magazines, cartoons strips, vanity sets, nail tips ,story books, films and a variety of license products like: glassware, lipstick, body mist, clothing items such as Tshirts, polo shirts, night shirts and in particular clothing for children, beach towels, hats etc. According to the Read More
1 Views : 85

Shree Cement Ltd. vs Power Grid Corporation Ltd. And … on 28 April, 1998

By this order we are disposing of an application No. 273 of 1996, filed by Shree Cement Limited in C. P. No. 3/111/94-CLB against Power Grid Corporation Limited and others. This application seeks to restore and revive the proceedings in C. P. No. 3/111 of 1994, which petition stood disposed of by us vide our order dated October 17, 1994. It is necessary for us to recapitulate the background of this application in order to understand and appreciate the prayers in this application for restoration and revival of the above said company petition. The petitioner-company, Shree Cement restricted purchased on Read More
0 Views : 29

Adidas-Salomon Ag And Ors. vs Jagdish Grover on 22 February, 2005

Adidas-Salomon Ag And Ors. vs Jagdish Grover on 22 February, 2005 1.This suit for cease and desist order restraining infringement of trade mark and duplicate rights, passing off, damages, rendition of accounts and delivery up etc., was filed by the plaintiffs alleging that they’re the proprietors of the trade mark ‘adidas’ that is getting used since 1949 for the assembly and sale of shoes, track suits, T-shirts, shorts, polo shirts, socks, caps radiocarpal joint bands, sun glasses, luggage and numerous alternative accessories and instrumentality utilized in sports. This trade mark has nonheritable international trade name and goodwill and therefore the Read More
0 Views : 30

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 : 29