A mere differential treatment on its own cannot be termed as an anathema to Article 14. When there is a reasonable basis for a classification adopted by taking note of exigencies and diverse situations, Court is not expected to insist on absolute equality by taking a rigid and pedantic view as against a pragmatic one. […]
Read more "Unchartered Ocean of Policy Decision IV"While right to property is no longer a fundamental right [The Constitution (Forty Fourth Amendment) Act, 1978], right against deprivation of property, unless in accordance with procedure established by law, continues to be a constitutional right under Article 300-A. Nobody can be deprived of liberty or property without due process or authorization of law. The […]
Read more "Right to Property I"Plaintiff and Defendant manufacture and deal in, inter alia, high-end luxury jewellery. Where a website permits purchase of goods or services, for consideration, every Court having jurisdiction over places from which, by access to website, commercial transactions could be effected and concluded would, prima facie, have jurisdiction to deal with a case of trademark infringement. […]
Read more "Serpenti"T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal, (1977) 4 SCC 467; Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi, 1986 Supp SCC 315; Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Assistant Charity Commissioner, (2004) 3 SCC 137; Rajendra Bajoria v. Hemant Kumar Jalan, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 764. Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali, (2020) 7 SCC 366 had an occasion to consider various […]
Read more "The Drastic Power of Rejecting a Plaint V"A party should not be penalized for failing to adopt legal proceedings when facts or documents have been wilfully concealed from him. A party who had acted fraudulently should not be given benefit of limitation, running in its favor, by virtue of such frauds [Pallav Sheth v. Custodian, (2001) 7 SCC 549]. Section 17 of […]
Read more "Referred to Larger Bench XXVII: The Drastic Power of Rejecting a Plaint IV"
The Last Word 
You must be logged in to post a comment.