Pfizer Products Inc. v. Rajesh Chopra, 2006 SCC OnLine Del observed, threat of selling offending goods in Delhi would itself confer jurisdiction to Courts in Delhi to entertain a suit claiming injunction. Exphar SA v. Eupharma Laboratories Ltd., (2004) 3 SCC 688 held, where an issue of territorial jurisdiction is raised, plaints need to be […]Read more "Dhola Maaru v. Dhola Tharu"
Amitabh Bachchan alleges violation of his ‘publicity rights as a celebrity’ as has also been recognized by this Court in Titan Industries Ltd. v. Ramkumar Jewellers, 2012 SCC OnLine Del 2382. It cannot seriously be disputed, Amitabh Bachchan is a well-known personality and is also represented in various advertisements. Amitabh Bachchan is aggrieved by unauthorized […]Read more "The Case of Mr. Amitabh Bachchan"
Manish Kumar v. Union of India, (2021) 5 SCC 1 has exhaustively referred to case law, on reasonable classification under Article 14, to observe, Article 14 frowns upon what constitutes hostile discrimination but does not bar classification which is reasonable. To answer whether a classification is reasonable, one must look beyond the classification to the […]Read more "The Revival of Ray LXXXIX"
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., subsequent proprietor of the trade mark ‘FORZEST’, prayed for grant of an ad-interim injunction restraining DWD Pharmaceuticals Ltd. from using the mark ‘FOLZEST’. DWD Pharmaceuticals asserted, Sun Pharmaceutical obtained above ad-interim ex-parte injunction by concealing various material facts. DWD Pharmaceuticals is a registered proprietor of ‘ZEST Family of Marks’ since 1983. […]Read more "Family of Marks"
October, 1980 – Abdul Rahman Antulay set up Indira Gandhi Pratibha Pratisthan Trust which had Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as Trustees. It was a prayer, Court should issue a Writ of Quo Warranto declaring Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 disqualified from continuing to hold office. _____ This constitutional action stands in a class by […]Read more "Indira Jaising"
In Banchhanidhi Rath v. State of Orissa, (1972) 4 SCC 781 this Court declared, if a right is claimed in terms of a contract such a right cannot be enforced in a Writ Petition. In Har Shankar v. Dy. Excise and Taxation Commr., (1975) 1 SCC 737 a Constitution Bench of this Court observed, Writ […]Read more "Writ Jurisdiction in Contractual Arena II / The Revival of Ray LXXXVIII"
The crime is heinous. Its execution was vicious and cruel, by any stretch of imagination. The entire crime was calculated and ruthless. Our adjudication is restricted to, whether Shubam Sangra was a juvenile on date of commission of offence. The ratio discernible is, credibility and acceptability of documents would depend on facts and circumstances. We […]Read more "Claim of Juvenility IV"
The enactment of The Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021 resulted in abolishing of Intellectual Property Appellate Board. All matters pending before IPAB stood transferred to High Courts. High Courts having territorial jurisdiction in respect of Revocation Petitions under Section 64 have to be determined on basis of where cause of action arises. The cause of action […]Read more "Section 64 of The Patents Act, 1970 II"
An insurance contract by its very nature mandates disclosure of all ‘material facts’ by both parties. Manmohan Nanda v. United Insurance, (2022) 4 SCC 582 summarizes same. A contract meant to cover a shop situated in a basement had an exclusion clause which specified, the contract did not cover the basement. Tata AIG General Insurance […]Read more "The Doctrine of Blue Pencil"
Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 55 of 2019 As laid down by this Court, just as equals cannot be treated unequally, unequals also cannot be treated equally. Treating economically weaker sections of citizens as a separate class would be a reasonable classification and could not be termed as an […]Read more "Compensatory Discrimination / The Revival of Ray LXXXVII"
Windsurfing International Inc. v. Tabur Marine Ltd.,  RPC 59; England and Wales Court of Appeals in Pozzoli Spa v. BDMO SA,  EWHC 1398 (Ch); F Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v. Cipla Ltd., 2016 (65) PTC 1 (DEL); Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company v. BDR Pharmaceuticals International Pvt. Ltd., (2020) SCC OnLine Del 1700; […]Read more "Simplicity in Invention"
Mumbai witnessed mob frenzy, violence, communal tension and riots from 06.12.1992 to 10.12.1992 and from 06.01.1993 to 20.01.1993. When citizens of Mumbai were about to breathe a sigh of relief, there were serial bomb blasts on 12.03.1993. The meaning of ‘ethnic’ according to Merriam-Webster Dictionary is, “of or relating to large groups of people […]Read more "Ethnic"
Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India, (2014) 3 SCC 1 quoted in Ajay Kumar Pal v. Union of India, (2015) 2 SCC 478 had laid down, undue long delay in execution of Death Sentence would entitle prayer of commutation of Death Sentence to Life Imprisonment. First and foremost, time taken cannot be called or termed […]Read more "Review of Death Penalty XXXII"
Court convicted the contemnor for having committed civil and criminal contempt. It had become evident, the contemnor has, in his well-calculated and deliberate scheme of things, given assurances and undertakings to mislead Courts in India, including this Court, when he had no intention to comply or abide by any of his assurances. Acts would demonstrate, […]Read more "Contempt Jurisdiction X"
Plaintiff’s grievance, pithily placed, is, Defendant has in a brazen and blatant manner copied Plaintiff’s registered trademark: ‘FLY HIGH’. Plaintiff has no exclusive right to use the word ‘HIGH’ which, as brought out by Defendant, is a fact concealed by Plaintiff. Defendant is right in stating, ‘FLY HIGHER’ is only used in conjunction with its […]Read more "Fly High, Higher"
As discussed, right to privacy is not inheritable by heirs of deceased. Plaintiffs may have been successful if their personal right to privacy was in any way being infringed by making of this movie. But, unfortunately, no such circumstance has been pleaded by Plaintiffs. It is asserted, Plaintiffs are entitled to be left alone, to […]Read more "Faraaz"
Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills, (1979) 2 SCC 409 was authored by Bhagwati J for a Two-Judge Bench. Within 2 years, Kailasam J for a Two-Judge Bench in Jit Ram Shiv Kumar, (1981) 1 SCC 11 found fault in Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills and held, observations made were not in tune with Judgments of Constitution Benches […]Read more "Promissory Estoppel X"
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Bench at Lucknow confirmed Death Sentence. He shall be set at liberty forthwith. The case on hand is one of circumstantial evidence as there was no eye witness. That we have ruled out circumstances relating to i) making of an extra-judicial confession and ii) discovery of the weapon of […]Read more "Review of Death Penalty XXXI"
The ‘essential religious practices’ of followers of Sikh faith cannot be made basis of wearing of Hijab/Headscarf by believers of Islamic faith. _____ Secularism is more than a passive attitude of religious tolerance. It is a positive concept of equal treatment of all religions. Equality before law cannot be breached by State on basis of […]Read more "Referred to Larger Bench XXXII: Hijab II"
Learned Single Judge has dealt with arguments and contentions raised by SOOTHE and has rightly reached a prima facie conclusion, DABUR’s mark does not infringe SOOTHE’s trademark and DABUR is not passing off its goods as those of SOOTHE. As rightly argued by DABUR and decided by Learned Single Judge, ‘SUPER’ is descriptive and laudatory. […]Read more "Vibhu Bakhru & Amit Mahajan JJ"