National Human Rights Commission
Hot Off The PressNews

The incident happened when the victim onboard a bus was travelling to appear for his exam. He was dragged out of the bus by the perpetrators and assaulted with a sickle, severing his fingers from his left hand. Reportedly, the father of the victim who reportedly tried to intervene was also assaulted.

Continue reading
Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

It is a settled position in law that when the arbitration agreement is silent on the aspect of ‘seat’, ‘venue’ or ‘place’ of arbitration, the determining factor will be where the cause of action arises as well as where the defendant/respondent actually or voluntarily resides or carries on their business.

Continue reading
Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

One has to be conscious of the intersectionality of a girl child who has undergone trauma of sexual violence. Such a victim, on being summoned by court to depose and virtually relive the trauma, is bound to get jitters and consequences like loose motions and fever etc, caused by nervousness and agony.

Continue reading
Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The cause of action to file the present petition arose when respondent 1 failed to pay the balance amount to the petitioner by 31-12-2012 as per clause (vi) of the compromise agreement based on which the consent decree dated 01-06-2009 was passed.

Continue reading
Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The case of the prosecution is that the accused persons had noticed that one businessman is running business of exchange of old and soiled currency in Chandni Chowk and he used to return to his house daily with huge cash. The bail applicant along with his associates, then hatched a criminal conspiracy to rob and kill the said businessman.

Continue reading
Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Section 28 of Customs Act, by its very nature posits, in each set of facts and circumstances, the issuance of a SCN either under Section 28(1) or under Section 28(4) of the Act and not under both. Under the circumstances, we are unable to agree that the impugned SCN under section 28(4) of the Act post the issuance of the SCN under Section 28(1) could be termed a “Supplementary Notice”.

Continue reading
Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The grievance of the petitioner Bank is that notwithstanding the favourable order dated 29-06-2022, the adverse remarks recorded in the order dated 04-06-2022 continue to cause irreparable harm to the petitioner Bank’s reputation and interests.

Continue reading
Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The plaintiff uses the mark ‘JANGEER’, whereas the mark of the defendant includes an ‘I’ in place of ‘EE’ and ‘D’ in place of ‘R’ i.e., ‘JANGID’. Apart from the difference in the spellings of the marks of the plaintiff and the defendant, the manner and style of writing is also completely different. The added features in the defendant’s mark make it quite distinct from the plaintiff’s mark.

Continue reading
Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The Court observed that the involvement of the complainant remains a matter of judicial discretion rather than an enforceable entitlement, and the fundamental principle of juvenile justice i.e., ‘rehabilitation over retribution’ must remain paramount in any such determination.

Continue reading
Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“By selling counterfeit medical products, the defendants have not only inflicted substantial financial loss upon the plaintiff but have also misled the consumers who purchased these products under the false belief that they were genuine. Given the gravity of the infringement and the extent of harm caused, compensatory damages alone would be inadequate to compensate the plaintiff.”

Continue reading
Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The infringing materials found on the site of the defendant are counterfeit goods of the plaintiff’s products, affixed with the plaintiff’s registered marks. A clear indicative of the counterfeiting activity towards the plaintiff’s products, are the observations and photographs as attached by the Local Commissioner in its report.

Continue reading
Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

It is manifest that defendant 1 had direct knowledge of the plaintiffs’ RAMADA brand at the time of adoption of the impugned mark. The defendant’s justification for adopting the mark ‘RAMADA’ is an afterthought, and lacks bona fide intent, as it fails to provide any tenable rationale for its selection.

Continue reading
Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“In a large number of customs matters, the Counsels are either not appearing or appear without proper instructions. In cases of non-appearance, the Court is compelled to request Standing Counsels present in Court to accept notice. This reflects a clear lack of coordination between the Department and the learned panel of Standing Counsels. Such a practice is highly undesirable and leads to gross wastage of judicial time.”

Continue reading