Judgment Analysis

Name of this Case -Borosil Glass Works v/s 0.P. Batra Interim Application Appeal No. 2754 of 1997, Suit Appeal No . 484 of 1995 Decided On, 13 January 1998 At, High Court of Delhi By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. KAPOOR For the Appearing Parties: Manmohan Singh, S.K. Bansal, Advocates. ISSUE Whether or not the […]

Name of the case-American Home Products Corporation v/s Private Limited and AnotherCivil Appeal No. 2159 of 1970Decided On,30 September 1985At,Supreme Court of IndiaBy, HON’BLE JUSTICE A. N. SEN AND HON’BLE JUSTICE D. P.MADON Published In1985 (2) Scale 933, 1985 (S3) SCR 264, 1986 (1) CCC 665, 1986 (1) SCC465, 1986 AIR (SC) 137 ISSUE –

Name of the Case – Ahmed Oomerbhoy v/s Gautam TankCS(OS) No.806 of 2005Decided On,20 December 2007At,High Court of DelhiBy, THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ANIL KUMARFor the Plaintiff: Praveen Anand, Advocate. For the Respondent: Ms.Pratibha M. Singh & M.K. Minglani, Advocates. Published In2008 (146) DLT 774, 2008 (2) AD (Del) 447, 2008 (36) PTC 193Judgment TextIA

Name of the Case – A. Kumar Milk Foods Pvt. Ltd. v/s Vikas Tyagi & Another  yagi & Another CS (OS) No. 1627 of 2011 Decided On, 04 September 2013 At, High Court of Delhi By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR For the Plaintiff: S.K. Bansal, Pankaj Kumar, Santosh Kumar, Ajay Amitabh, Advocates. For

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