ONE PERSON COMPANY UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 2013 Definition of One Person Company (“OPC”) Section 2(62) of the Companies Act, 2013 (“Act”) defines OPC as a company which has only one person as a member. Legal Nature of OPC OPC can be registered only as a private company which means that all the provisions applicable to… Read More ONE PERSON COMPANY UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 2013
Havells India Ltd. & Anr. v. Amritanshu Khaitan & Ors. 2015 (62) PTC 64 [Del] Brief Facts: Defendants released the below mentioned advertisement. In the said advertisement, the Defendant compared Eveready LED Bulb with Havells LED Bulb. Plaintiffs filed a Suit for Disparagement against the Plaintiff. Along with the suit, the Plaintiffs also filed an… Read More Havells India Ltd. & Anr. v. Amritanshu Khaitan & Ors.
V And S Vin Spirit Ab v. Kullu Valley Mineral Water Co. 2005 (30) PTC 47 (Del) Brief Facts: Plaintiff was using the mark ‘ABSOLUT’ for Vodka Defendant started to use Kullu Valley Mineral Water Absolute for Water and Soda. Plaintiff filed the present suit against the Defendant for Infringement of Trade Mark and Passing… Read More V And S Vin Spirit Ab v. Kullu Valley Mineral Water Co.
M/s. P.C. Mallappa & Co v. McDonald’s Corporation 1999 PTC 9 Karnataka Brief Facts: Plaintiff, McDonald’s Corporation, claimed to have a World Wide Reputation in its ‘M’ Logo. Plaintiff was in the business of restaurants and fast foods. Plaintiff had recently opened a Bangalore Office. Plaintiff came to know that Defendant is using its logo… Read More M/s. P.C. Mallappa & Co v. McDonald’s Corporation
P.K. Sen v. Exxon Mobile Corporation and Ors. 2017 (69) PTC 271 [Del][DB] Plaintiff No. 1 was a company incorporated in USA with no office in India. It was the registered proprietor of the mark EXXON in India. Plaintiff No. 2 Company was Plaintiffs’ wholly owned subsidiary in India. Plaintiff No. 2 carried on… Read More P.K. Sen v. Exxon Mobile Corporation and Ors.
Sunil Mittal & Anr. v. Darzi on Call CS(Comm) No. 1381/2016 19th April, 2017 In October, 2016, Plaintiff, Mr Sunil Mittal and Darzi (India) LLP, registered proprietor of the trademark “THE DARZI, THE SUIT PEOPLE 1981” (Label Mark), instituted a suit against the Defendant, M/s Darzi on Call, for injunction restraining the Defendant from using… Read More Sunil Mittal & Anr. v. Darzi on Call
Cipla Limited v. Novartis AG and Ors. 2017 (70) PTC 80 (Del) Respondents (Novartis AG and Ors.) filed a suit for permanent injunction seeking to restrain the Appellant (Cipla Ltd.) from infringing its Patent. Along with the suit, Respondents had also filed an application for interim relief of temporary injunction during the pendency of the… Read More Cipla Limited v. Novartis AG and Ors.
CIPLA Limited v. CIPLA Industries Private Limited and Ors. 2017 (69) PTC 425 (Bom) Full Bench A Learned Single Judge of the High Court of Bombay vide order dated 26th April, 2016 expressed the view that decision of the Division Bench of Bombay High Court in the case of Raymond Limited v. Raymond Pharmaceuticals Pvt.… Read More CIPLA Limited v. CIPLA Industries Private Limited and Ors.
Financial strength of a company, though relevant, cannot be the sole factor to determine dominant position of an enterprise. Providing free services cannot by itself raise competition concerns unless the same is offered by a dominant enterprise and is shown to be tainted with an anti-competitive objective of excluding competition/ competitors.… Read More Shanmugam vs. Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd.
In order to initiate corporate insolvency resolution process against a corporate debtor, an operational creditor must obtain a certificate from the Financial Institution maintaining its account, confirming that that there is no payment of an unpaid operational debt by the Corporate Debtor.… Read More Smart Timing Steel Ltd. vs. National Steel and Agro Industries Ltd.
Limitation Act, 1963, applies to the proceedings or appeals before the NCLT and its Appellate Tribunal as Section 433 of the Companies Act has not been amended under eleventh schedule of IBC.… Read More Deem – Tech Limited vs. R.L. Steel & Energy Limited
Citation: 2011 LLR 867 Decided on: 24.03.2011 Court: High Court of Madhya Pradesh Facts The Petitioner-company was remitting the provident fund contribution of eligible employees in accordance with the Employees’ Provident Fund Act, 1952 (‘Act’) and the Scheme and it was deducting provident fund contribution on two components of salary, i.e., Basic + VDA (dearness… Read More Surya Roshni Ltd. vs. Employees Provident Fund and Anr.
Somi Conveyor Beltings Ltd. & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. [W.P.(C) 1416/2016] Together with Premier Rubber Mills vs. Union of India & Ors. [W.P.(C) 1969/2016] Decided on: April 11, 2017 Court: High Court of Delhi Facts In this case, Petitioners’ request for inspection of records and supply of certified copies of documents was… Read More Somi Conveyor Beltings Ltd. & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.