Tag Archives: month

Awards must be challenged within the time limit: SC

The Supreme Court of India recently clarified that an application to set aside arbitral award must be made within the strict statutory timeline and this timeline cannot be extended thereafter by using the provision of “sufficient cause” under the Limitation Act, … Continue reading

Posted in Arbitration Conciliation Law, Consumer Law, Contract Law, FDI, General Law, International Law, mediation | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Prior permission not necessary for rectification of registered trademark: DHC

In an important ruling, the Delhi High Court clarified that prior permission of the Court is not necessary under Section 124(1)(b)(ii) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (“Act”) for rectification of a registered trademark during the pendency of a suit. … Continue reading

Posted in Intellectual Property Law, International Law, patent, patent law, plant varieties Act, Trade Law, trademark, traditional knowledge, TRIPS | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

One month period u/s 142 NI Act be reckoned by excluding date of cause of action: SC

In an important ruling, a large Bench of the Supreme Court of India clarified that while calculating the period of one month which is prescribed under Section 142(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act (“N.I. Act”), the period has to be … Continue reading

Posted in Negotiable Instruments Act | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment