Supreme Court of India Judgements

46855 Judgements hosted as on 02/09/2025 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Corporate

Corporate

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA…….” clear that all questions with regard to the validity of a Trade Mark is required to be decided by the Registrar or the High Court under the 1958 Act or by the Registrar or the IPAB under the 1999 Act and not by the Civil Court. The Civil Court, infact, is not empowered by the Act to decide the said question.”

Aug 11, 2019 sclaw

(2017) AIR(SCW) 5619 : (2017) AIR(SC) 5619 : (2018) 1 ApexCourtJudgments(SC) 543 : (2018) 1 BCR 324 : (2017) 12 JT 577 : (2017) 4 LawHerald(SC) 2838 : (2018) 4…

Corporate

Insolvency—Winding up petition—Cases where the BIFR has forwarded an opinion to the High Court to wind up a company under Section 20 of the SIC Act, all such cases, are not to be transferred to NCLT. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, S.238–Transfer of Petition-Winding up petition—Cases where the BIFR has forwarded an opinion to

Mar 24, 2019 sclaw

2019(1) Law Herald (SC) 220 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 2060 (2019) 1 RCR(Civil) 358 : (2018) 15 Scale 836 : (2019) 151 SCL 196 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before…

Corporate

Infringement of Trademark-Passing of-Division Bench of High Court held that substitution of letter ‘T’ for letter ‘O’ would create confusion on the ground of deceptive similarity—Reputation of plaintiffs Trademark has been established and there is likelihood of its damage—Findings of Division bench upheld

Feb 17, 2019 sclaw

2018(4) Law Herald (SC) 3198 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 1929 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.F. Nariman Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Indu Malhotra Civil Appeal No. 9844…

Corporate

Theft of electricity by a company–Prosecution of directors of company– It was obligatory on the part of the complainant not only to make requisite averments in the complaint petition but also to prove that any of the Directors who had been prosecuted for alleged commission of the aforementioned offence was incharge of and was otherwise responsible for the conduct or the affairs of the Company– Conviction set aside

Jan 26, 2019 sclaw

2009(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 314 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before  The Hon’ble Mr. Justice  S.B. Sinha The Hon’ble Mr. Justice  Cyriac Joseph Criminal Appeal No. 1962 of 2008…

You missed

Consumer

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 25 — Enforcement of orders — Pre-2002 amendment and post-2019 Act, all orders could be enforced as decrees. The period between 15.03.2003 to 20.07.2020 saw an anomaly where only interim orders (and monetary recovery) were clearly enforceable under Section 25, leaving final non-monetary orders in a gap. Interpretation of Statutes — Casus omissus — Court can fill gaps in legislation using interpretative tools like purposive construction when literal interpretation leads to absurdity or defeats the object of the Act, especially for remedial legislation like the Consumer Act.

Sep 2, 2025 sclaw
Service

Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 14, 39(d) and 43 — Equal pay for equal work — Contractual Assistant Professors performing identical duties as regularly appointed or ad-hoc Assistant Professors are entitled to the minimum pay scale of Assistant Professors.

Sep 2, 2025 sclaw
State Laws

Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 — Chapter I-A — Slum Rehabilitation Schemes — Preferential right of landowner to redevelop — Section 3B(4)(e) and Section 13(1) confer a preferential right on the landowner to redevelop a Slum Rehabilitation Area (SR Area) — SRA can undertake redevelopment only if the landowner fails to come forward with a scheme within a reasonable time

Sep 2, 2025 sclaw
State Laws

Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 — Sections 3C, 13, 14 — Waiver of preferential right — Waiver of landowner’s preferential right to redevelop requires clear and overt communication by the owner of intention not to exercise the right — Mere inaction or delay, particularly when the owner has consistently shown intent to redevelop, does not constitute waiver, especially if no invitation for redevelopment was issued.

Sep 2, 2025 sclaw