Judgment Analysis

This case has been analysed via IRAC method Civil Appeal No. 3351 of 2014 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 17115/2010) Court: Supreme Court of India Coram: Justice Sanjay Karol  Issues: Whether there are sufficient grounds that warrant interference with the concurrent findings of the fact, upholding the validity of a Will? Whether the Will has […]

Court: Delhi High Court Issue: Whether the phonetic similarity of AZIWOKE (product by Dr Reddys Laboratories Limited) and AZIWAKE (product by Smart Laboratories Pvt Ltd) amount to being “deceptively similar”? Whether a lawsuit can be filed without first exhausting the pre-institution mediation remedy mandated under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act. Rules: Section 23

Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 13066/2024) Issue:Whether the subsequent purchasers (Manjit Singh and Anr.) of the suit property were bona fide purchasers under Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963,and thus protected from the decree of specific performance in favor of the plaintiff (Darshana Devi). Rule: Section 19(b) of Specific Relief Act, 1963Specific performance of

Issue: The primary issue was whether a Muslim male in Maharashtra can register multiple marriages, including a third marriage, under The Maharashtra Regulation of Marriage Bureaus and Registration of Marriages Act, 1998, despite the Act’s general focus on a single marriage registration. Can the Registrar legally deny registration of the third marriage based on the

(Civil Appeal Nos. 9975-9976 of 2024) Parties : Appellant: A.B. Govardhan / Respondent: P. Ragothaman  Advocates on Record  : Mr. Narendra Kumar Counsel for the Appellant Mr. V. Prabhakar Counsel for the Respondent Hon’ble Judges/Bench : Ms. Justice Hima Kohli & Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah ISSUE The Supreme Court of India was tasked with the following

Issues: Can Vaibhav Motors be considered the owner of the offender vehicle, despite being a mere dealer of Hindustan Motors? Is Vaibhav Motors, along with Hindustan Motors, jointly responsible for compensating the victims of the accident? Do Clauses 3(b) and 4 of the Dealership Agreement formulated by Hindustan Motors help them escape the payment of

Name of the case: Ameya Arun Kulkarni Vs Isha Ameya Kulkarni[FCA No. 18 of 2024]  Parties: Appellant (Org. Respondent): Amey Arun KulkarniRespondent (Org. Petitioner): Isha Ameya Kulkarni Hon’ble Judges/Bench:  Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice SG Chapalgaonkar FACTS The case of Ameya Arun Kulkarni v. Isha Ameya Kulkarni centers on a marital dispute between the parties. The

ISSUE: The primary legal issue in this case is whether the applicant/wife is entitled to temporary custody of her minor female child, who was below five years of age at the relevant time, under Section 21 of the Domestic Violence Act (D.V. Act). RULE: The relevant legal provisions are: Section 21 of the Domestic Violence

ISSUE:  The issue in this case is whether the wife, Ruchi Majoo, is entitled to maintenance from her husband, Sanjeev Majoo. RULE: Wives who are unable to support themselves may receive maintenance payments under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in India. This clause aims to protect women from financial hardship and to

ISSUE:The primary issue in the case of Nachiket P Shirgaonkar versus Pandit Automotive is whether Pandit Automotive breached the contract by not delivering the vehicle as per the agreed terms, and if Nachiket P Shirgaonkar is entitled to remedies for this breach. Whether Pandit Automative was engaged in unfair trade practices and breached the consumer