In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble High Court observed that the substitution of Section 36 of the A&C Act with effect from 23.10.2015, the pendency of an application under Section 34 of the A&C Act is no longer a bar for enforcement of an arbitral award.
Delhi High Court held that high-powered body constituted by Government for appointment of top management posts in various Central Public Sector Enterprise cannot be said to have been acted illegally in preferring the Chartered Accountants over Cost Accountants for the post of Director (Finance).
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble High Court have given observations on the issue of unstamped arbitration agreement. It has been held that an arbitration agreement, which is unstamped, does not exist and an unstamped contract, containing an arbitration agreement, would not exist as it has no existence in law and it has been observed that such agreement would be impounded under Section 33 of the Stamp Act.
The Hon’ble High Court observed that for refusal of Registration under Section 11 of the Trademarks Act, it would have to be shown that the marks themselves are confusingly similar to each other, and that, owing to the similarity in the marks and the goods and services which they cover, there is a likelihood of confusion among the public, or a likelihood of the public believing the existence of an association between the marks.
he Honble High Court dismissed the Petition as the Petitioner was willing to continue with the Agreement and was willing to pay the charges for the same as agreed.
Delhi HC rules in favor of Jindal Stainless LTD in a tax dispute against DCIT. The court directs the release of excess tax adjustments, limited to 20% of disputed demands. Learn what this means for businesses facing similar tax disputes.
Petitioner has a separate GST registration. If any of DGGI authorities has found it necessary to investigate petitioner based on certain information, said investigation cannot be stopped or interdicted on account of investigation conducted with respect of any other entity.
Analyzing Delhi High Court’s decision in Dhruv Suri Vs ITO. The court has directed the appellant to file tax return pursuant to Section 148.
The Honble High Court while allowing the Petition observed that a trademark being deceptively similar would be hit under Section 11(1)(b) of the Trademark Act, 1999 which prohibits registration of a mark deceptively similar to a mark which is already on the register in respect of identical or similar goods.
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble High Court observed that the investigation report cannot be obtained under Section 212(13) of the Companies Act, 2013 if the Person seeking report is not concerned with the case in any manner or in other words, do not comply the mandate of Section 212(1)(a) to (d) of the Companies Act, 2013.
