Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
It is clarified that this order does not amount to acquittal but is merely suspension of conviction in peculiar circumstances of the case including the long political career of appellant and his age.
Calcutta High Court acknowledged the concerns raised by the petitioner regarding the potential harm caused by the notification to the affected dog breeds.
“NewsClick’s plea of financial stringency based on its balance-sheet inspires no confidence as according to the Assessing Officer the accounts have not been properly maintained.”
“The trade marks POLO/RALPH LAUREN/POLO PLAYER DEVICE are liable to be recognized as ‘well-known’ marks as defined under Section 2(1)(zg) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.”
“The Supreme Court has declined to stay the Order dated 05-07-2023. Therefore, propriety demands that this Court ought not have passed any interim order which had the effect of staying the Order dated 05-07-2023 and other consequential orders.”
The Sabhapati (Chairperson) of the Panchayat Sthayee Samity is in custody due to a false criminal case and 6 other members are named in an FIR and are currently evading arrest.
Rahul Gandhi was sentenced to two years imprisonment for offence under Sections 499 and 500 of IPC for his ‘all thieves have Modi surname’ remark.
Calcutta High Court: Shekhar B. Saraf, J. upheld the award granted by the Arbitral Tribunal holding that the award holder
Supreme Court: After listing the Jahangirpuri demolition drive case for hearing on Thursday i.e. 21.04.2022, the 3-judge bench of NV Ramana, CJ
Supreme Court: Explaining the scope of Section 51 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the bench of MR Shah* and BV Nagarathna,
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) -The Coram of Justice Jarat Kumar Jain and Alok Srivastava, Technical Member while deciding an appeal
“Until further orders, there shall be an ad interim stay of the impugned order passed by the High Court.”
Supreme Court: Dealing with an important question as to the constitutional validity of the third proviso to Section 254(2A) of the Income
Jammu and Kashmir High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Dhiraj Singh Thakur J., dismissed the petition filed under Article 104 of
Supreme Court of Singapore: A Single Judge Bench of Choo Han Teck, J., dismissed appeals filed against the order of the Assistant
Supreme Court: A Bench comprising of Abhay Manohar Sapre and Uday U. Lalit, JJ. allowed an appeal filed against the order of
Supreme Court: The bench of Dr. A.K. Sikri and Ashok Bhushan, JJ, upholding the validity of Section 139AA of Income Tax Act,