Delhi High Court restrained Respondents from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, importing, exporting or in any manner dealing with products infringing the Subject Design under the Designs Act, 2000 for the main reason that a mere trade variant which is a combination of known designs would not be entitled to protection under the provisions of the Designs Act
Gujarat High Court held that the activity of dairy business cannot be construed as agricultural activity under Section 36 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Andhra Pradesh High Court observed that the law does not compel a man to do things which he cannot possibly perform and it was held that Rule 89 of CGST Rules, 2017, deals with a procedure for claiming refund, but requiring them to produce shipping bills, as proof of export cannot be made applicable to electricity, as it is impossible to produce shipping bill for export of electricity, since the Custom Law does not refer to electricity and shipping bill is a Customs document.
Bengal Secretariat Cooperative Land Mortgage Bank and Housing Society Ltd Vs Aloke Kumar (Supreme Court of India) Conclusion: Hon’ble Supreme Court while allowing the appeal observed that Resolutions passed by General Body of the Society is supreme and the member of a Society has no independent right qua the Society and it is the Society […]
The National Commission modified the Order of State Commission by reducing the rate of interest from 12% to 9% in the matter of delayed possession of Apartment and further it was held that since the compensation in the form of interest @9% p.a. has already been awarded, the Complainant shall not be entitled for any other compensation.
Honble Gujarat High Court held that the date of filing of the application by the petitioner on common portal would be liable to be treated as date of filing claim for refund to the satisfaction of requirement of Section 54 of the CGST Act and Rule 89 of the CGST Rules. The procedure evolved in Circular dated 15.11.2017 cannot operate as delimiting condition on the applicability of statutory provisions.
Supreme Court observed that National Commission ought not to have gone beyond the grounds of repudiation of the claim and the matter was remanded to the State Commission for taking a decision afresh on the claim of the appellants on the grounds which formed the basis of repudiation and determine as to whether at the material point of time there was sufficient balance to cover the claim on account of declaration made as regards loss suffered by the appellants.
Supreme Court after applying the law laid down in Judgment of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v Pranay Sethi have reassessed the amount pertaining to compensation and have enhanced the compensation under the head loss of dependency but have deducted the compensation under the head loss of consortium.
J&K HC while dismissing the writ petition observed that there was an alternative remedy provided under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act and the issue raised by the petitioner is a disputed question of fact that cannot adjudicated upon in the writ petition.
Delhi HC granted permanent injunction to INTEL on the ground that the lis no longer exists between the parties and the Defendants were willing to suffer permanent injunction in terms of the prayer clause 37(i) & (ii) of the plaint, which was pertaining to prevent defendants to use the word INTEL as their trademark and trade name.
