Blogs And Articles

By the team of Prime Legal
Calcutta High Court held that when documentary evidence is available the oral testimony of witness is not sufficient to rebut its probative value.
Calcutta High Court held that when documentary evidence is available the oral testimony of witness is not sufficient to rebut its probative value.
January 4, 2024by Primelegal Team

Case Title: Minati Bhadra & Ors. Vs Dilip Kr. Bhadra & Ors. Case No: S.A. 406 of 2016 Decided on: 19th October, 2023 CORAM: Hon’ble Justi

Registered Proprietor can be treated as an entity independent of Authorised User under GI Act, 1999 for obtaining or continuing with the GI tag of any good concerned: M.P. High Court at Indore bench
Registered Proprietor can be treated as an entity independent of Authorised User under GI Act, 1999 for obtaining or continuing with the GI tag of any good concerned: M.P. High Court at Indore bench
January 3, 2024by Primelegal Team

Case Title: Scotch Whisky Association v. J.K. Enterprises and ors. Case No: Misc. Petition No. 4543 of 2021 Decided on: 18th December, 2023 CORAM:

Declined bail application due to severity of the crime without commenting on the merits of the case:  M.P. High Court
Declined bail application due to severity of the crime without commenting on the merits of the case: M.P. High Court
January 3, 2024by Primelegal Team

Case Title: Devraj Dangi v. State of Madhya Pradesh Case No: Misc. Criminal Case No. 51860 of 2023 Decided on: 6th December, 2023 CORAM: THE HON’

Rajasthan High court grants immunity to the respondents under section 270 AA of Income Tax Act as the Petitioner Company didn’t fulfill the conditions under Sub Section (3) of Section 270 AA.
Rajasthan High court grants immunity to the respondents under section 270 AA of Income Tax Act as the Petitioner Company didn’t fulfill the conditions under Sub Section (3) of Section 270 AA.
January 3, 2024by Primelegal Team

  Case Title: G R Infra projects Limited vs Assistant Commissioner Of… Case No: D.B Civil Writ Petition No. 5594/2023 Decided on:  2 Ja

The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench highlighted the importance of principles of justice: emphasizing the importance of proper service of notice.
The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench highlighted the importance of principles of justice: emphasizing the importance of proper service of notice.
January 3, 2024by Primelegal Team

  Case Title: Rakesh Kumar Jain v Zulfkar Ali Case No: FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. – 172 of 2022 Decided on: 22nd December, 2023 CORAM: THE HON

“Writ petition generally does not lie against a charge-sheet unless issued by an incompetent authority” States Rajasthan High Court.
“Writ petition generally does not lie against a charge-sheet unless issued by an incompetent authority” States Rajasthan High Court.
January 3, 2024by Primelegal Team

Case Title: Laxman Singh Gurjar V. Rajasthan SRTC. And Ors. Case No: S.B Civil Writ Petition NO. 6611/2011                    

The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench highlighted the importance of the Uttar Pradesh Victim Compensation Scheme 2014.
The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench highlighted the importance of the Uttar Pradesh Victim Compensation Scheme 2014.
January 3, 2024by Primelegal Team

Case Title: Sri Ramesh Alias Mehandi Hasan v State of U.P. And 3 Ors Case No: MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. – 5804 of 2023 Decided on: 16th Decem

The Madras High Court upheld the Family Court’s decision to dismiss the husband’s appeal for marriage dissolution based on mental cruelty, desertion, and suppression of material facts.
The Madras High Court upheld the Family Court’s decision to dismiss the husband’s appeal for marriage dissolution based on mental cruelty, desertion, and suppression of material facts.
January 3, 2024by Primelegal Team

Case Title: ABC v XYZ Case No: C.M.A(MD)No.724 of 2021 Decided on: 22nd December, 2023 CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN AND THE HO

The Madras High Court highlighted the assessee’s eligibility for benefits under Section 279(1A) of the Income Tax Act, given the penalty reduction from 300% to 100% of the disputed amount.
The Madras High Court highlighted the assessee’s eligibility for benefits under Section 279(1A) of the Income Tax Act, given the penalty reduction from 300% to 100% of the disputed amount.
January 3, 2024by Primelegal Team

Case Title: The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Versus K.M.Mammen Case No.: W.A. No.1767 of 2022 and C.M.P. No.12970 of 2022 Decided on: 11th

January 3, 2024by Primelegal Team

Calcutta High Court Backs Contractor: Mehrotra Buildcon Obtains Right to Choose Sole Arbitrator Against Railway   Case Title: M/s. Mehrotra Buildc