Search Results for "Delay and acquiescence"

340 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 340 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Grants Injunction in Favor of Plaintiff in Trademark Infringement Suit Over STIMULIV vs STIMULET. Marks Held Deceptively Similar Despite Differences in Pharmaceutical Formulation and Therapeutic Use.

The dispute involves two pharmaceutical companies: Franco Indian Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd (Plaintiff) and Corona Remedies Pvt Ltd (Defendant). The Plai...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Dismisses Land Acquisition Compensation Appeals Due to Inordinate Delay of 21 Years. Petitioners Failed to Show Sufficient Cause for Condonation of Delay, Special Leave Petitions Dismissed as Barred by Limitation.

The case involves special leave petitions filed by original claimants (landowners) challenging a common judgment dated 2.4.1996 of the Allahabad High ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Landowners' Challenge to Acquisition for Waghur Project Due to Delay and Laches. Petitioners' acceptance of compensation without protest for nearly 20 years bars them from challenging the acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

The judgment concerns two writ petitions filed by landowners challenging the acquisition of their lands for the Waghur Project in Jalgaon, Maharashtra...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Passing Off Injunction in Pharmaceutical Trademark Dispute Due to Delay and Acquiescence. Similarity of marks alone insufficient for interim relief when defendant has used its registered mark for nearly a decade without evidence of confusion.

The plaintiff, Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd, filed a suit for trademark infringement and passing off against Wockhardt Ltd and Overseas African Remedie...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Petitioner's Challenge to Land Acquisition Due to 38-Year Delay and Laches. Consent terms entered by petitioner's father in 1966 binding on petitioner; possession taken in 1972; petition filed in 2010 without explanation.

The petitioner, Abhay V. Khinvasara, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the acquisition of land bearing ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Promoter's Appeal in RERA Case, Holding That Acceptance of Delayed Possession Without Protest Does Not Waive Right to Interest Under Section 18 of RERA. Statutory Right to Interest Under RERA Cannot Be Waived by Mere Acceptance of Possession Without a Clear Agreement.

The case involves a Second Appeal filed by CCI Projects Private Limited (the promoter) against an order of the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribu...