Skip to main content

Important Delhi High Court Judgments April 2019

Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Section 29 - Infringement of registered trademarks - the Plaintiff is the registered owner of the Trademark "LOUIS VUITTON", the "LV" logo and the "Toile Monogram" pattern - the Defendants have infringed the trademark of the Plaintiff and committed the tort of passing off - the suit is decreed in favour of the Plaintiff. Sanjeev Narula, J. Louis Vuitton Malletier v. Iqbal Singh, C.S. (COMM) No. 607 of 2018 03-04-2019

Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 - Section 71 - The objective of PMLA being distinct from the purpose of RDBA, SARFAESI Act and Insolvency Code, the latter three legislations do not prevail over the former. - The PMLA has the overriding effect over other existing laws in the matter of dealing with "money-laundering" and "proceeds of crime" relating thereto. R.K. Gauba, J. Deputy Director Directorate  of Enforcement Delhi v. Axis Bank, Crl.A. No. 143 of 2018 02-04-2019



Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XV - Disposal of the Suit at the First Hearing - Surely, the appellant would be within its right to challenge the validity of a registered instrument i.e conveyance deed but that shall be in an appropriate proceedings and not in proceedings where he has not challenged the conveyance deed. Rajendra Menon (CJI) & V. Kameswar Rao, J. Rajat Sud v. J.P. Sud, F.A.O. (OS) NO. 66 of 2018 01-04-2019

Arms Act, 1959 - Section 25 - 'Conscious Possession' - the expression 'possession' refers to possession backed with the requisite mental element, that is, 'conscious possession'. Mere custody without the awareness of the nature of such possession does not constitute an offence under the Act - 'Conscious possession' of any fire arm / ammunition is a necessary ingredient of the statutory offence, entailing strict liability on the offender. Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, J. Davinder Singh Dhindsa v. State (N.C.T of Delhi), W.P. (Crl) No. 344 of 2019 01-04-2019

Popular posts from this blog

500+ Supreme Court of India Judgments on Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 with Head Notes & Citations

1. Mallamma (dead) By Lrs. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. [07-04-2014] 

Whether Plaint can be Rejected only against one of the Defendant(s) [SC JUDGMENT]

The Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 7 Rule 11 (d) – Rejection of Plaint - Relief of reject the plaint only against one of the defendant(s) – Held, Such a relief “cannot be entertained” in exercise of power under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC - the relief of rejection of plaint in exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC cannot be pursued only in respect of one of the defendant(s) - the plaint has to be rejected as a whole or not at all, in exercise of power Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of CPC - the plaint as presented must proceed as a whole or can be rejected as a whole but not in part.

When Magistrate may Dispense with Personal Attendance of Accused [SC Judgment] | First Law

Criminal Procedure Code, 1972 - Ss. 205 & 317 - Magistrate may dispense with personal attendance of accused - Provision for inquiries and trial being held in the absence of accused in certain cases - Discussed.