Intellectual property management in Start-ups: An Evolving Indian Prospective
Mayukh Mandal
November 30, 2020
This write-up examines the copyright infringement claim made by t-series against ROPOSO in the light of the right of an intermediary and the concept of Safe Harbour Protection. It also analyses the liability of an intermediary with the help of conflicting decisions.
The concept of shadow director was discussed in detail in this case. A shadow director was differentiated from a de facto director and other kinds of directors in this case. The judges stated the rules to identify a shadow director or a de jure director.
Introduction The present case deals with the constitutionality validity of the Special courts Bill, 1978 which was referred to the Supreme Court under Article 143 of the Indian Constitution. Facts of the Case On August 1, 1978 the President of
Introduction: The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (“IBC”) intends to consolidate and amend the laws relating to reorganization and insolvency resolution of corporate firms. This Code replaced the erstwhile Part VII of the Companies Act, 1956 (“1956 Act”), under which Sections 433(e)
Introduction The Indian judiciary has quoted the old legal principle “Ubi jus Ibi Remedium” which means “Where there is a right, there is a remedy.” To deal with the case, the judicial forum must have jurisdiction. As a result, the
This case[1] deals with the challenge of the order passed by the Company Law Board where the appellant’s petition which was filed under Section 113(3)[2] of the Companies Act, 1956[3] got dismissed. FACTS OF THE CASE The appellant was a
INTRODUCTION The case deals with the subject of Insolvency Code, 2016. The idea of ‘Related Party Transactions’, for example exchanges went into by a corporate element with its connected gatherings, and the treatment of such exchanges is a definitely managed
Specialists who draft these shareholders’ agreement (SHAs) should consider the enforceability of these speculator rights when relocating from other undeniably more all around created PE markets which, subsequently, might be an outright rebel under Indian law.
This piece would attempt to carefully peruse the facts of the case, the contentions and submissions raised during the trial as well as the appropriateness of judgment given in respect of statute. It would also contain factual opinions and legal recourse to the duty of registrars of companies and how it relates to the case in question.
Petitioner: Lalithamba Bai Respondent: Harrisons Malyalam Citation: (1988) 63 Comp Cas 662 Decided in: Kerala High Court Before: Varghese Kalliath, J. INTRODUCTION The Companies Act isolates the definition of the term “members” into three classes. As indicated by Sec. 41
