Your search for ‘Vaish Associates Advocates’ returned 933 results

Has Google finally conceded its alleged anti-competitive conduct in India? Or it is a mere delaying tactic to pacify India's furious Antitrust regulatory regime, which seems to be bent upon teaching Google a lesson or two ...

Despite the fact, the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 came into force on 19.05.1988 (hereinafter referred as "1988 Act") in India, even at that time the concept of benami transaction was not alien in India.

A clarification has been inserted which states that an internal auditor can either be an individual, a partnership firm or a body corporate.

Writ jurisdictions of high courts has been invoked by parties to resolve the moot issues repeatedly in India.

The universally acceptable legal position is that once there is an arbitration clause in an agreement, the same shall be referred to arbitration.

According to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), trade secrets are intellectual property rights on confidential information which may be sold or licensed.

The Supreme Court of India in the case of IDBI Trusteeship Services Limited vs. Hubtown Limited set aside a Bombay High Court ruling which had garnered quite a lot of attention among the foreign investors and in the legal circles.

It is necessary to refer the relevant provisions under the Copyright Act, 1957, relating to the sound recordings, as provided under the Copyright Act, 1957...

We are pleased to share with you our newsletter on the latest GST and Customs Developments. The newsletter covers recent judgments and regulatory updates in the GST and Customs space in India.

Under the Indian laws, any power of attorney executed outside India needs authentication, as it is a requirement that a power of attorney has to be executed in the presence of certain designated officers.

According to section 2(f) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 Probate refers to a copy of the will that is certified by the seal of a court of competent jurisdiction.

The High Court of Delhi, in its judgment dated December 15, 2022 in the matter of Brilltech Engineers Private Limited v. Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Private Limited [Arb. P. 790 / 2020], has held that invocation of proceedings under ...

The NCLT in the matter of Synergies- Dooray Automotive Limited and in the matter of Ms. Mamta Binani vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited and Others approved...

The issue, i.e. whether property acquired by the person from the proceeds derived from an offence before the inclusion of such offence in the schedule of scheduled offence under...

In an era where intellectual property infringement is no longer merely about, copying products but also their designs, packaging, artistic works, and significant marketing materials, the Delhi High Court's decision in Koninklijke Philips N.V. & Anr. v. Amazestore & Ors. CS(COMM) 737/2016 & CS(COMM) 1170/2016 stands as a notable case in Indian intellectual Property law.

Intellectual property law is fundamentally a tightrope act. On one side, the legal framework must aggressively shield the exclusive rights of creators and innovators secure the commercial dividends of their labor. On the other side, the law must prevent the monopolization of ideas from stifling follow-on innovation and legitimate commerce.To maintain this delicate equilibrium, India’s Copyright Act, 1957 , equips rightsholders with two distinct arsenals.

The Indian Medical Device industry has shown remarkable variation in its synthesis of demand and supply.