Rulings
-
NCLAT states that agreement executed prior to incorporation of Company is not enforceable but company is regulated by its MOA & AOA
NCLAT upholds the order of NCLT; says agreement executed prior to incorporation of company cannot be enforced; orders Respondents to…
Read More » -
Emami wins protection for its mark “PANCHARISHTA”; HC holds that the mark is not generic.
HC grants injunction restraining the Defendant from using the word “PANCHARISHTA” as a trademark for medicinal preparations; says “PANCHARISHTA” is…
Read More » -
NCLAT states equal treatment given to ‘Operational Creditors’ & ‘Financial Creditors’ under Resolution plan, grants no relief to GAIL, BHEL & others
NCLAT dismisses appeals against CIRP approved by AA; says Resolution Plan is compliant and ensures that the interests of all…
Read More » -
HC directs Single Judge to hear application for interim injunction of APIGAT once again, refers legal principle reiterated in Dorab Cawasji Warden v Coomi Sorab
This appeal is filed by Bristol Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company (Plaintiff No. 1), Bristol-Myers Squibb India Private Limited…
Read More » -
NCLAT directs Kotak Mahindra Bank to file claims before liquidator, states u/s 35(j) of I&B Code liquidator is required to collate & settle the claim
NCLAT orders liquidator to collate and settle the claim(s) as empowered under Section 35 (j) of the I&B Code; says…
Read More » -
HC rules in favour of Dr Reddy’s Laboratories, denies injunction on Astrazeneca on the grounds that “TICAGRELOR” is a patented drug
HC vacates interim order and rules in favour of drug manufacturers; says grant of patent does not ipso facto entitle…
Read More » -
NCLAT states Sections 241-242 of Companies Act, 2013 cannot be invoked for settlement of disputes of a “Producer Company”
NCLAT sets side order of NCLT; says provisions of Companies Act, 2013 will not apply to Producer Companies as the…
Read More » -
HC declares VISTARA as a well-known mark, holds that use of similar mark in unrelated services can create confusion
Tata Sia Airlines Limited (Plaintiff) is the owner of VISTARA mark in India in classes 12, 39, 21, 25, 27…
Read More » -
NCLAT rejects the appeal on the ground of “existence of dispute”, refers Mobilox Innovations Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kirusa Software (P) Ltd
NCLAT rejects the appeals of Appellants and finds that there was an existing dispute between the parties prior to issue…
Read More » -
In counterfeit matter onus of conducting investigation is on Plaintiff, allows to withdraw the suit after paying damages, states HC
Me N Moms Private Limited(Plaintiff) has filed this suit seeking an injunction restraining infringement of trademark, passing off, misrepresentation, unfair…
Read More »