Search Results for "distinct proceedings"

3495 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 3495 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

Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Withdrawal of Approval for Engineering College Due to Unauthorized Relocation. AICTE's order upheld as petitioners shifted college without prior approval, violating statutory requirements under AICTE Act and University affiliation norms.

The petitioners, Parshvanath Charitable Trust and others, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging an order dated 7 Jan...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Upholds Externment Orders Under Maharashtra Police Act — Clarifies Conditions for Section 56(1)(a) and (b) and Requirement of Witness Fear. The court held that each clause has distinct requirements and the authority must apply mind to proportionality and natural justice.

The judgment concerns three criminal writ petitions challenging externment orders passed under Section 56(1)(a) and (b) of the Maharashtra Police Act,...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Application for Amendment in Commercial IP Suit Due to Delay and Lack of Due Diligence. Amendment After Commencement of Trial Not Allowed Under Order VI Rule 17 CPC as Plaintiffs Failed to Show They Could Not Have Raised the Matter Earlier.

The present Interim Application No. 752 of 2024 was filed by the original plaintiffs, Ramnish Verma and Finesse Fashions Pvt. Ltd., in a pending Comme...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses PIL Challenging BCCI's Amendment Excluding IPL and CLT20 from Conflict of Interest Regulations. The court held that the amendment was a valid policy decision by a private body and not subject to judicial review unless it violates statutory provisions or fundamental rights.

The petitioner, Cricket Association of Bihar, filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the amendment to Regulation 6.2.4 of the BCCI Regul...