• 

  Rejection of plaint. If the Court finds the suit to be manifestly vexatious not disclosing any right to sue, it would be justified in exercising the power under Order VII Rule 11A CPC. Delhi High Court.

  • 08-July-2022
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Change of entries in property register by playing fraud. Such fraudulent entry can be set aside in a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Karnataka High Court.

  • 08-July-2022
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Employees’ Compensation Act. Once project agreement is proved, principal who paid compensation to workmen has a right to be indemnified from the contractor who has employed the workmen. Karnataka High Court.

  • 08-July-2022
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Amendment to Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 prescribing period of six months from the date of the accident to make claim petition does not apply to accidents occurred prior to 1.4.2022. Kerala High Court.

  • 07-July-2022
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Inordinate delay in making the motion for a writ is an adequate ground for refusing to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner. Delhi High Court reiterates.

  • 07-July-2022
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  ''Indian Premier League auction does not amount to International Human Sale''. Delhi High Court dismisses Public Interest Litigation with costs.

  • 06-July-2022
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Once the essential features of a registered trademark have been adopted by the defendant, the fact that the layout, packaging etc. are different is of no consequence, while this can be set up as a defence in an action for passing off. Delhi High Court.

  • 07-July-2022
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Application to set aside ex-parte decree. The amount of delay is not crucial but what is relevant is whether the petitioner has shown ‘sufficient cause’ for the delay and whether he was bona fide in prosecuting the suit. Telangana High Court.

  • 07-July-2022
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Once parties acknowledge existence of arbitration clause, Court can appoint arbitrator even if stamp duty is insufficiently paid. Karnataka High Court

  • 07-July-2022
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Cheque bounce case. Directors/Chairman of a company cannot claim that they are not privy to the transaction between the accused and the complainant when the complaint clearly narrates their role in the transaction. Karnataka High Court.

  • 05-July-2022
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Mahazar drawn contrary to Section 100 (4) Cr.P.C. is only irregular. Same cannot be termed as illegal if seizure can be proved upon search conducted. Karnataka High Court.

  • 06-July-2022
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Negotiable Instruments Act. Directors of a company cannot be held vicariously guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 when the company is not arrayed as an accused in the complaint. Karnataka High Court reiterates.

  • 06-July-2022
  • Daksha Legal