Corporate Law Judgements

In an action for infringement when the defendant’s trademark is identical with the plaintiff’s mark, the court will not enquire whether the infringement is such as is likely to deceive or cause confusion. But where the alleged infringement consists o

When a transport corporation hires a motor vehicle for use from its registered owner, the third-party insurance coverage will also be deemed to be transferred along with the vehicle, reiterated the Supreme Court in a recent decision. The person who i

The Madras High held that the aggrieved person cannot file claim petitions both under the Motor Vehicles Act ,1988 as well as the Workmen Compensation Act,1923 in respect of the very same accident. The court also held that previous decisions of vario

This appeal arises from a decision rendered by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ("NCDRC") on 19 September 2018. The NCDRC partly allowed the appeal filed by the insurer against a decision of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Co

The Supreme Court of India has passed the verdict on an appeal of Vodafone by which the Company had challenged the order of NCDRC (National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) by which it had firmed the view of State Consumer Disputes Redressal C

The Adjudicating Authority, the National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench (NCLT), on January 21, 2019 approved MSL's resolution plan, which among other things involved an upfront payment of Rs 477 crores. While approving the resolution plan, the

The Supreme Court of India in the matter of Sandoz Private Limited v. Union of India [Civil Appeal No. 3358 of 2020 dated January 4, 2020] upheld the decision of the Bombay High Court that Export Oriented Unit ("EOU") is not entitled to claim refund

The Hon'ble Supreme Court ("SC") in the matter of Dayle De'Souza v. Government of India [SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. 3913 OF 2020 dated October 29, 2021], held that a person cannot be prosecuted and punished merely because of their status or po

In Shriraj Investment and Finance Ltd. & Ors. and Casper Consumer Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Anr. [W.P.(CRL) 1823/2020, & W.P.(CRL) 1414/2021 dated September 14, 2021], Shriraj Investment Pvt. Ltd. ("the Petitioner No. 1") and Casper C

Madras High Court in Greenwood (Greenwood Owners Association v. UOI), the RWAs are required to pay GST only on the differential amount collected from the member where the charges exceed Rs. 7,500.