Last Updated:
May 14, 2022

Click here to submit your article
Posts tagged "FRICMS"

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
Views : 116

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
Views : 96

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
Views : 72


Siemens is a one of the largest electrical and electronics engineering companies in the world. Every year it employs 20000 people in UK. In addition, Siemens UK invested a huge amount of money on research and innovation. Therefore, for growth of their business, Siemens needs people with first class level of skill, knowledge and capability in engineering, IT, business and other relevant field. Siemens Company’s strategic planning includes workforce planning, that helps an organization to estimate its future workforce requirements and getting the right number of people, with the right skills, in the right place and at the right time. Read More
Views : 83

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
Views : 84

Jindal Stainless ltd.& Anr vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (State entry tax case)

Jindal Stainless ltd.& Anr vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (State entry tax case) Raised issues • whether or not the facility to impose the tax is that the sovereign right of the state. • whether or not the entry state could be a tax or a fee. • whether or not there was an immoderately high rate of tax. • whether or not there are any limitations in this regard within the Constitution. • whether or not the employment of expression “by virtue of any entry with reference to trade and commerce” showing in Article 303 are wide enough Read More
Views : 67

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
Views : 76

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
Views : 81

Post sale service of Apple

Apple pay Rs 35K to consumer During adjudication, Apple India responded to the notices and filed a written statement casting doubts on the Jena’s complaint. The Cuttack District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed Apple India and its service centre in Bhubaneswar to pay Rs 35,000 as compensation to an iPhone customer for manufacturing defects in the device. Santosh Jena, a local, said he had bought iPhone 7 (32 GB) from Apple Mobile Centre in Kendrapara on August 19, 2019. In July last year, he faced problems relating to the phone’s microphone, speaker, display and the battery. When he to Read More
Views : 74

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
Views : 53