Esheria India Case Law
Sign in
India Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

India Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
0 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter India case law

Results update automatically as you type.

India decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Trade marks act, 1999

PERNOD RICARD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ANOTHER versus KARANVEER SINGH CHHABRA

On a prima facie holistic comparison applying the anti-dissection rule, dominant feature and average consumer tests, the respondent’s mark LONDON PRIDE and its trade dress do not exhibit deceptive similarity to the appellants’ registered marks BLENDERS PRIDE, IMPERIAL BLUE or SEAGRAM’S; the word PRIDE is a common laudatory term publici juris and appellants failed to show exclusive rights or acquired distinctiveness in that element or to establish a prima facie likelihood of confusion or irreparable harm warranting interim injunction; concurrent findings of the Commercial Court and High Court…

Source excerpt

  • Deceptive similarity
  • Anti-dissection rule
  • Dominant feature test
  • Average consumer test
  • Imperfect recollection
  • Interim injunction
Read case analysis
Criminal procedure

ASIAN PAINTS LIMITED versus RAM BABU & ANOTHER

The appellant-company is a 'victim' under Section 2(wa) CrPC and therefore entitled to prefer an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC; the proviso is a self-contained, standalone provision not circumscribed by Section 378, and the victim's right to appeal accrues when a court acquits the accused, with the appeal lying to the court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of the court that acquitted (thus where acquittal occurred in the First Appellate Court, the victim's appeal lies to the High Court). The High Court's holding that the appellant was not a vic…

Source excerpt

  • Victim
  • Appeal
  • Acquittal
  • Proviso to section 372 crpc
  • Section 378 crpc
  • Maintainability
Read case analysis
Intellectual property

CRYOGAS EQUIPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED versus INOX INDIA LIMITED AND OTHERS

The nature of Proprietary Engineering Drawings (artistic work under the Copyright Act or registrable 'design' under the Designs Act subject to s.15(2)) is a mixed question of law and fact that cannot be conclusively decided at the threshold on an Order VII Rule 11 CPC application; courts must apply a two-pronged approach (first characterise as artistic work or design, then apply the functional utility test to determine dominant purpose/registrability) and, where triable issues exist, order a trial rather than striking out the plaint.

Source excerpt

  • Section 15(2) of the copyright act, 1957
  • Section 2(d) of the designs act, 2000
  • Order vii rule 11 cpc
  • Functional utility test
  • Conceptual separability
  • Rejection of plaint
Read case analysis
Civil procedure

SHYAM SEL AND POWER LIMITED AND versus SHYAM STEEL INDUSTRIES LIMITED

The Single Judge's order of 2 April 2019, which granted the defendants time to file affidavit-in-opposition and adjourned consideration of an ad-interim injunction for three weeks while directing weekly sales accounts, did not possess the traits and trappings of finality and therefore was not a 'judgment' within Clause 15 of the Letters Patent; consequently the intra-court appeal to the Division Bench was not tenable. The Division Bench erred in deciding the interlocutory injunction on merits instead of remitting to the trial court and failed to apply or record consideration of the establishe…

Source excerpt

  • Temporary injunction
  • Letters patent appeal
  • Meaning of 'judgment'
  • Trade mark infringement
  • Passing off
  • Order xxxix rr.1-2 cpc
Read case analysis
Civil procedure

AJANTA LLP versus CASIO KEISANKI KABUSHIKI KAISHA D/B/A CASIO COMPUTER CO. LTD.

The Settlement Agreement was the product of detailed consultation, multiple exchanges over six months, and was approved by the mediator and then examined by the High Court; there was no allegation or evidence of fraud or misrepresentation and no patent or obvious mistake in the agreement or decree; correspondence between experienced counsel did not demonstrate ambiguity or misunderstanding; therefore the decree could not be modified under Section 151 CPC or proviso to Order 23 Rule 3 and the High Court judgment dismissing the application to rectify/modify the decree was correctly upheld.

Source excerpt

  • Consent decree
  • Settlement agreement
  • Rectification of judgment
  • Order 23 rule 3 cpc
  • Section 151 cpc
  • Design registration
Read case analysis
Trade marks act, 1999

RENAISSANCE HOTEL HOLDINGS INC. versus B. VIJAYA SAI AND OTHERS

The Supreme Court held that respondents' use of "SAI RENAISSANCE" was identical or phonetically and visually similar to the appellant's registered mark "RENAISSANCE" for goods/services in the same classes (Class 16 and Class 42), thereby falling under Section 29(2)(c) with the presumption in Section 29(3), and also attracting Sections 29(5) and 29(9); the High Court erred by applying Section 29(4)(c) and Section 30(1)(b) in isolation and failing to require both conditions of Section 30(1), so the trial court's injunction was maintained and High Court judgment was set aside.

Source excerpt

  • Trade mark infringement
  • Passing off
  • Use of trade mark as part of trade name
  • Limits on effect of registered trade mark
  • Statutory presumptions under s.29
Read case analysis
Civil procedure

SUDHIR KUMAR @ S. BALIYAN versus VINAY KUMAR G.B.

Order XI Rule 1 (as amended for commercial suits) applies, not Order VII Rule 14(3); invoices that were not in the plaintiff's possession at the time of filing and were produced within thirty days could be permitted, but other documents that were in the plaintiff's possession and not disclosed on the ground of being voluminous did not constitute reasonable cause for non-disclosure and leave to produce them was rightly refused.

Source excerpt

  • Order xi rule 1 (disclosure of documents)
  • Order vii rule 14(3)
  • Leave to file additional documents
  • Interim injunction
  • Reasonable cause for non-disclosure
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

IN RE: DISTRIBUTION OF ESSENTIAL SUPPLIES AND SERVICES DURING PANDEMIC versus .

The Court, exercising its Article 32 jurisdiction to facilitate a national dialogue, issued binding directions to the Union of India and States to protect life and equality under Articles 21 and 14: notably to rectify oxygen supply deficits to GNCTD immediately, create decentralised emergency buffer stocks of oxygen, prevent clampdowns on information and assistance on social media, mandate a national hospital admissions policy to prevent denial of care for lack of local residence/ID proof, and to revisit and report on vaccine, oxygen and essential drug availability and pricing within specifie…

Source excerpt

  • Oxygen supply and allocation
  • Hospital admission policy
  • Vaccine procurement and pricing
  • Compulsory licensing/government use of patents
  • Supply of essential drugs
  • Black marketing/enforcement
Read case analysis
Income tax

ENGINEERING ANALYSIS CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE PRIVATE LIMITED versus THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR.

Payments by resident Indian end-users or distributors to non-resident software manufacturers/suppliers for shrink-wrapped or otherwise distributed software sold/licensed under the EULAs/distribution agreements in the cases before the Court do not constitute 'royalty' under Article 12 of the relevant DTAAs (nor, on the DTAA-applicable analysis, give rise to income taxable in India) because the transactions do not transfer or grant rights in the copyright as required by the DTAA definition; consequently persons referred to in s.195 were not liable to deduct TDS in those cases; retrospective cla…

Source excerpt

  • Royalty
  • Tax deduction at source (tds)
  • S.195 of income tax act
  • Eula
  • Distribution agreements
  • Doctrine of first sale / principle of exhaustion
Read case analysis
Drugs and cosmetics

G H M/S GENENTECH INC. & ORS. versus DRUGS CONTROLLER GENERAL OF INDIA & ORS.

The Division Bench erred in upsetting the interim regime established by the Single Judge without analogously considering the appellants' interim applications as directed by this Court; accordingly the Division Bench order of 18.09.2019 was set aside and the Single Judge's interim order dated 25.04.2016 was made operational, with directions for expeditious disposal of the pending suit and limited participation of Reliance in government tenders pending final decision.

Source excerpt

  • Biosimilars
  • Interim injunction
  • Extended passing off
  • Regulatory approval
  • Labeling/inn
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

India decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.