THE INTERRELATIONSHIP OF IPR AND COMPETITION LAW
Urvashi
September 26, 2021
Citation 2014 SCC 4 427 Introduction “I lost my childhood that day. I stopped going to school and lost all my friends. People stared at me and mocked me. Neighbors and relatives blamed me, and said I must have done
This was a case which came before the Kerala High Court on the question of maintability of a petition under Section 543[1] of the Companies Act,1956[2] alleging misfeasance against the Official Liquidator. FACTS OF THE CASE In this case, the
The article discusses the scope of term “consumer” for the purpose of self-employment with the help of the case of Madan Kumar Singh through Legal Representative v. district Magistrate, Sultanpur and Ors
This Case establishes the point that acting as the director of any corporation does not make one liable for unforeseen mistakes or mistakes made while acting in the best interest of the firm. If a person undertakes an action believing it to be in the best interests of the firm, after exercising due diligence the action cannot be recorded as misrepresentation or breach of trust.
The article examines “domain names” as intellectual property and their protection in India through judicial pronouncements and under the trademark law as well as internationally through a dispute resolution system. Introduction Technological advancement has created a parallel cyber world to
The Learned Judge in this case, adopted a broader approach while interrelating the definition than that has been done in the previous cases, thereby opining that advice by a person that the other Directors of the company are accustomed to follow, is a sufficient basis to find someone to be a shadow director.
If for fraudulent and dishonest purposes the privilege of corporate veil is used, such persons can be made personally liable for the debts of the company. Even when a person uses this for concealing his own criminal activities, the court will break through the corporate shell and apply the principle of what is known as “lifting or piercing through the corporate veil.”
In this case it was held that as per the company’s articles of association, it may pass a special resolution to reduce its share capital or any premium account in any way and subject to any incident authorized and consent required by law.
In this the Court has stated that Regulation 30A of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 is not mandatory instead it is directory for the simple reason that it will be based on the facts of a given case, an application for withdrawal shall be allowed in exceptional cases even after issue of invitation of interest under Regulation 36A.
Bench Justice P.N. Bhagwati Justice R.S. Pathak Parties Petitioner- Sheela Barse Respondent- Secretary, Children Aid Society & Others Introduction “True freedom requires the rule of law and justice and a judicial system in which the rights of some are not
