Long possession of property does not entitle to protection from dispossession

Sep
1
2017


The Delhi High Court in Krishan Lal vs. Union of India and Ors. decided on08.08.2017 following the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Behram Tejani and Others v.




Provisions of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code regarding time are not mandatory

May
11
2017


NCLT in the matter of J K Jute Mills Company Limited Vs Surendera Trading Company; Company Appeal (AT) No. 9 of 2017 compared the prescription of time limit prescribed under Section 7, 9 and 10 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code with provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC.




Court auction sale cannot be set aside just for asking

May
11
2017


The Supreme Court Chilamkurti Bala Subrahmanyam
vs. Samanthapudi Vijaya Lakshmi; Civil Appeal No. 5988 of 2007 has held that for setting aside a court auction sale a charge of fraud or material irregularity under Order 21 Rule 90 must be specifically made with sufficient particulars.  Before a sale can be set aside merely establishing a material irregularity or fraud will not do.



Tags: 

Parties by an Agreement can confer jurisdiction upon a Court in Arbitration matters

May
2
2017


Supreme Court in the matter of Indus Mobile Vs. Datawind Innovations; Civil appeal no. 5370-5371/2017 in a landmark judgment has modified the understanding of law with regard to jurisdiction of Court. Age old law that parties cannot confer jurisdiction on a Court by an agreement between the parties is no longer applicable to arbitration proceedings.




What is "sufficient cause" in terms of order 37 Rule 4 CPC #indianlaws

Feb
13
2017


Bombay High Court in the matter titled as Purnendu Shekhar Mal Jain Vs. ACG Associated Capsules Private Limited in Appeal (L) no. 98 of 2016 decided on 1st Feb, 2017 held that the words "special circumstances" in Order XXXVII Rule 4 CPC for setting aside ex-parte decree is different from expression "sufficent cause" an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC. The expression "special circumstances" is not defined in the Civil Procedure Code nor is it capable of any precise definition by the court because problems of human beings are so varied and complex.




Importer of product cannot claim to be proprietor of label mark belonging to Exporter

Dec
1
2014


In order to claim the proprietory right on the trade mark of the exporter, the importer has to show that the mark has become inextricably connected with him in the eyes of the public. 




Compromise decree to be challenged in the same suit and not a subsequent suit

Dec
1
2014


An agreement or compromise should not be deemed to be lawful if the same is void or voidable under Indian Contract Act, 1872.








© 2010-15