Delhi HC upheld the compensation awarded under Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 by Commissioner and have upheld that a person whose employment is of a casual nature and is employed other than for the purposes of the employer’s trade or business comes within the meaning of employee as defined in Section 2(1)(dd) of Employees Compensation Act.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission observed that in the insurance matters Surveyor’s Report is not the final word and it is not binding upon the insured or insurer. It was also upheld that when the Company certified while issuing the policy that there is a first class construction, then the plea of pre-existing defect in the structure of the insured building cannot be taken into consideration.
Delhi HC granted permanent injunction and compensation to the plaintiff as the triple identity test of identical/deceptively similar trademarks, identical services and trade channels stands satisfied and use of the impugned trademarks/domain name by Defendant constitutes infringement of the Plaintiffs registered trademarks in present facts of the case.
Delhi High Court while dismissing the appeal on the plea of trademark infringement have observed that the particular word (Vasundhara) in dispute in this case is a common name in India and an exclusive right to use the same cannot be granted to the plaintiff and he does not enjoy the monopoly for use of the said word (Vasundhara).
Honble Supreme Court enhanced the compensation under Motor Vehicles Act by holding that deceased was a skilled labour under Kerala Fair Wages Act i.e. State Act and notional income have to be determined on basis of the said Act.
HC observed that SARFAESI Act is a code in itself and remedy provided under Section 17 is an expeditious and effective remedy available to an aggrieved person. The SARFAESI Act under Section 17 provides for an efficacious and efficient remedy to adjudicate the grievances of a borrower and the DRT has the power to determine whether the actions of an ARC are in compliance with the SARFAESI Act.
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court while providing relief to the Appellants have observed that any untoward incident i.e. injury or death caused during travelling in Trains have to be compensated by the Railways and the plea of negligence of the victim as a contributing factor will not fall under the proviso to Section 124-A of the Railways Act.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission observed that Educational matters do not come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and therefore Educational Institute would also not fall within the purview of it.
In present facts of the case, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission have observed that contract of insurance is a contract of indemnity and, therefore, there is no question of commercial purpose in obtaining insurance coverage. Therefore, the complaint against Insurance Company is maintainable.
In present facts of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 3,31,000/- by the AO, while considering the fact that the family members of the assessee were earning (but were below taxable limits), and the deposits made were from the past savings and earnings of the entire family which were pooled together.
