Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Satyam Infoway Ltd. v. Sifynet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. was the first case to be decided by the Supreme Court of India on the issue of domain name protection, and dealt with two businesses employing variations on the same mark ("Sify") in their respective domain names.
Novartis v. Union of India & Others is a landmark decision by a two-judge bench of the Indian Supreme Court on the issue of whether Novartis could patent Gleevec in India, and was the culmination of a seven-year-long litigation fought by Novartis. The Supreme Court upheld the Indian patent office's rejection of the patent application.
(case number: Writ Petition (Civil) 356 of 1977; case citation: AIR 1980 SC 1789) [1] is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India [2] that applied and evolved the basic structure doctrine of the Constitution of India. [3] In the Minerva Mills case, the Supreme Court provided key clarifications on the interpretation of the basic ...
S.P. Gupta v. Union of India [37] Established the Collegium system of the Indian Judicial System. 1993 Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India [38] Struck down the 99th Amendment of the Constitution of India and the proposal of the National Judicial Appointments Commission. 1998 In re Special reference 1 [39]
S. R. Bommai v. Union of India; Sarla Mudgal, & others. v. Union of India; Satyam Infoway Ltd. v. Sifynet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum; Shreya Singhal v. Union of India; Sonipat-Kharkhoda IMT land case; Stanislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh; State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan; Supriyo v. Union of India; Suresh ...
State of Karnataka, a 1992 Supreme Court of India case, occurred when the Government of Karnataka issued a notification that permitted the private medical colleges in the State of Karnataka to charge exorbitant tuition fees from the students admitted other than the "Government seat quota". Miss Mohini Jain, a medical aspirant student filed a ...
The ADM Jabalpur case was overruled on the doctrinal grounds concerning the rights by the Puttaswamy v. Union of India delivered by a nine judge, constitutional bench of the Supreme court. At the paragraph 119 of the majority opinion the Court had ruled: [4]
The Supreme Court has the jurisdiction to enforce the Fundamental Rights even against private bodies, and in case of any violation, award compensation as well to the affected individual. Exercise of jurisdiction by the Supreme Court can also be suo motu or on the basis of a public interest litigation .