LAW MANTRA     (Think Beyond Others)
  • SC
    Case Brief: Amar Singh v Union of India and Ors.

    FACTS: The Petitioner learnt from the information provided by various sources that the Government of India and the Government of National Capital Region of Delhi, being pressurized by the Respondent No. 7, Indian National Congress, had been intercepting the Petitioner’s conversation on phone, monitoring them and recording them. And hence this writ petition has been

    Read more
  • SC
    Case Brief: Manisha Tyagi v. Deepak Kumar 2010 (2) SCR 554

    Deciding Authority: Supreme Court of India Name of the Judges: Justice V.S. Sirpurkar, Justice Surinder Singh Nijjar Date of Judgement: February 10, 2010 Facts of the Case: The marriage between the parties took place as per Hindu rites at New Delhi on 17.11.1991. For a short period after the marriage, the couple stayed at Meerut

    Read more
  • SC
    Case Brief: Manish Goel v. Rohini Goel 2010 (2) SCR 414

    Deciding Authority: Supreme Court of India Name of the Judges: Justice Aftab Alam, Justice B.S. Chauhan Date of Judgement: February 5, 2010 Facts of the Case: The husband, the petitioner, possessed the qualifications of CA, CS and ICWA, while the respondent-wife was a Doctor by profession. The parties got married on 23rd July, 2008 in

    Read more
  • SC
    Case Brief: Rameshwari Devi and Ors. v Nirmala Devi and Ors.

    FACTS This case involved the dispute of a 40 year old disputed property, wherein the Appellants had continuously filed frivolous appeals before the courts even after the matter had been decided. The original owner filed a suit in 1992 against Appellants, his younger brothers, for mandatory injunction to remove them from suit property and for

    Read more
  • index
    Case Brief: Carlsberg India Pvt. Ltd. v Radico Khaitan Ltd.

    FACTS The plaintiff, Radico Khaitan Ltd., had argued for a proprietary interest in the mark ‘8 PM’. It claimed that the numeral ‘8’ is an essential, distinguishing and identifying feature of its mark in relation to the font size and the colour with which the numeral ‘8’ is printed. The defendant, Carlsberg India Pvt. Ltd.,

    Read more