Gujarat Bottling Co. v Coca Cola Co.

Grant of Injunctions by the court is an extraordinary remedy, granted to ex debito justitiae i.e. to meet the ends of justice. Thus this particular remedy is being granted very cautiously by the court.

Engineering Analysis Centre for Excellence Pvt Ltd. v CIT

Whether whilst paying for software, a user (person) buys a copy of software or simply buys a license to use the same. Although prima facie the issue might seem trivial but has far-reaching implications, if it were a sale of the software, the user would be free to use the software in any manner as the user may please, including distributing the copies of the same, but if were only to be a license, the terms and conditions of the license would govern their relationship. It has been standard practice all around us, whichever software one might be using, that only a limited license to use the software is being granted to the user. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in recent judgment recognized the End User License Agreement also popularly known as EULA.

PUCL v Union of India

Is “Encounter” legal?
Though the police officer must take all possible steps to apprehend the accused (“criminal”) and bring them before the appropriate platform to award punishment to the accused (“criminal”). But whilst doing so whether they are entitled to cause the death of the accused? If yes, what is the test for the same, and what are the safeguards put in place to ensure, that this power is no abused? The Hon’ble Supreme Court expressed its views in regards with the same, in this landmark judgment.

Shiv Shankar Singh v State of Bihar

Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the Magistrate to take cognizance of an offence based on the complaint. It is recourse available to the complainant (private citizen) in addition to Section 154 of the CrPC. In this landmark judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court deliberates on certain practical problems that might arise concerning the filing of a complaint under section 200 of the CrPC.

Bundy v Jackson

Passive Tolerance cannot be equated to consent, especially in a scenario where there is the lingering fear of consequences arising from any action that may be taken. It may be argued that in such scenarios presence of fear may even vitiate the consent.

Munshi Ram v Banwari Lal

Whether parties can enter a compromise after an Arbitration award has been passed?
The Hon’ble Supreme Court had an opportunity to deliberate on the issue in this particular landmark judgment and held that it was not open for the court to pass a decree on such terms, and therefore such compromise was unacceptable.

Kapil Agarwal v Sanjay Sharma

Supreme Court on the inherent power of Courts to quash the FIR, in order to prevent abuse of due process of law.

Common Cause v Union of India

The Supreme Court, in this case, noted that there was a need for the Court to lay down guidelines to check misuse of public funds by the government for political advertising.

State of Bombay v Bombay Hospital Mazdoor Sabha

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has in a number of cases evolved various guiding principles to determine whether an undertaking is analogous to trade or business. In this landmark judgment following observations were made.

Gaya Prasad v Bhagat Singh

Legal rights and Legal procedures have been created for the convenience of people at large, but few try to surpass the same and abuse the legal procedures. Even in various criminal complaints, it can be seen that not only the person has lodged an FIR on flimsy grounds, but also made an active effort to make sure that the other person is convicted on non-existant grounds. A conundrum arises in such situations when the prosecution takes place in the name of the state, whether the person can be held liable for malicious prosecution or abuse of the legal procedures. The Privy Council clarified the position in this regard in this landmark judgment.