In the present case, the dispute arose for the aforementioned reason as it is the case of the Plaintiff that the adoption of the deceptively similar expression Magical Masala by the defendant in the year 2013 for marketing their noodles amounts to passing-off.
The word Magic is laudatory. It is incapable of being appropriated by the plaintiff. As such no person can claim any monopoly over the said word Magic or Magical or their derivative as they are common to the trade. Therefore, it is incapable of being monopolised by any trader.
The issue under consideration is whether the amount paid to the employees under the non-compete agreement is covered by the expression ‘salary/profits in lieu of salary’ or not? and If not then whether the TDS will be applicable or not?
The issue under consideration is whether ITAT was right in law in holding Section 50B i.e slump sale was not applicable in present case of assessee?
The issue under consideration is relating to the writ petition filed for seeking refund of pre-deposit of Service Tax alongwith interest. Question is whether petitioner will get the refund or not?
The Rajasthan High Court issued notice to Rajasthan RERA in a PIL, Civil Writ No. 6160/2020, challenging the order issued by the Authority on 13.05.2020. The Authority granted an across-the-board extension of 12 months to the real estate projects. However, it also implicitly granted extension for projects whose completion date had already expired before 19.3.2020. […]
Bhupendra Suryawanshi Vs Sai Traders (Madhya Pradesh) The proviso to Section 138, however, is all important and stipulates three distinct conditions precedent, which must be satisfied before the dishonour of a cheque can constitute an offence and become punishable. The first condition is that the cheque ought to have been presented to the bank within […]
The Court examined the contentions of the Petitioner that the Respondent had Bank Accounts and other moveable properties within the territorial jurisdiction of New Delhi along with the Administrative Office. Further, the Respondent submitted that the immovable property was on lease and not owned by the Respondent. However, the Court noted that the Respondent did not deny existence of moveable properties like Bank Accounts within the jurisdiction of the Court.
It is an admitted position that the impugned order dated 14.5.2020 is passed without hearing the petitioner and only on the short ground, the impugned order dated 14.5.2020 is hereby quashed and set aside and the authorities concerned shall pass a fresh order on merits without being influenced by the order impugned after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Once the accused was granted pardon by the Court and was made approver, the status of the accused changed from accused to witness/approver. However, if the approver, failed to comply with the conditions of order granting him pardon, he made him liable to be tried as accused subject to the conditions as laid down in Section 308 Cr PC.
