Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Court held that for the purpose of Section 9(1)(a), Trade Marks Act, 1999, the statutory inquiry is whether the applied mark possesses distinctive character and is capable of distinguishing the applicant’s goods from those of others. The Act does not prescribe uniqueness as a condition for registration.
The allegations in the FIR, even if accepted in their entirety, do not disclose the commission of any offence, nor does the material collected during the investigation cure that deficiency. The continuation of such a prosecution, more than six years after the incident, would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court, warranting the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC.
The newly constituted court at Rouse Avenue Courts will exclusively hear offences under the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 and connected offences.
Delhi High Court held that an EWS student may be required to repeat Class V under Section 16 of the RTE Act where repeated academic support fails to ensure foundational learning, while directing the school to continue all EWS entitlements.
The Commission said that, in the absence of any restraint order from the Delhi High Court, there was no basis to halt the execution proceedings and directed that the matter continue in accordance with law.
Delhi High Court dismissed a Section 34 challenge after holding that an Arbitral Tribunal rightly refused to rely on a letter exchanged between the respondent and DFCCIL in separate arbitral proceedings. The Court ruled that permitting reliance on such material would undermine the statutory confidentiality regime under Section 42-A, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The Court grants bail to the accused amid prolonged incarceration, defective investigation and uncertain identification of the accused.
The Court by order dated 20 July 2026, had directed the production of all relevant pathological reports and medical records under concerning Sonam Wangchuk, before proceeding in plea seeking his transfer to Medanta Hospital,
The Court observed that a wrong committed by the parents of the petitioner cannot be attributed to the petitioner, who was aged just about four years at the time of his admission and is still a minor.
The appellant approached the Court seeking a direction permitting her husband, Sonam Wangchuk, to be shifted from Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, to Medanta Hospital, Gurugram, or any other medical facility of his choice.
The Delhi High Court directed preservation of CCTV footage, an independent medical examination, and detailed reports from jail authorities after a Tihar inmate alleged custodial assault by the Head Warden, denial of medical treatment, and demand for illegal protection money.
Delhi High Court held that a trade mark need not be formally declared as “well-known” to claim protection under Section 11(2), Trade Marks Act, 1999, and that ZARA, being entitled to protection as a well-known mark, could oppose registration of the deceptively similar mark ZORA.
The Court held that no violation of bodily autonomy was found where medical care was limited to consented oral treatment despite the patient’s critical health condition marked by dangerously low sugar, sodium and potassium levels.
The parties have been directed to appear before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre on 17 July 2026, while the appeal has been listed before the Division Bench on 21 August 2026 to report the outcome of the mediation proceedings.
The protest stemmed from systemic examination irregularities surrounding national-level exams, most notably recent NEET-UG medical entrance exam paper leak.
The Court stated that since all anticipated vacancies up to 1 December 2025 had already been included in the earlier recruitment process, the respondents were under no obligation to conduct a separate examination in 2025.
Delhi High Court observes that NSE is a recognised stock exchange performing vital public functions, not an ordinary commercial venture. But whether its MD & CEO, by virtue of that office, qualifies as a “public servant” under Section 2(c)(viii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is a mixed question of fact and law that must be determined on evidence at trial.
Delhi High Court dismissed a passport DOB correction plea, holding that territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 depends on where the cause of action arises, not the location of the MEA.
Delhi High Court held that the cancellation of the respondent’s candidature was not in accordance with law and concurred with the Tribunal’s finding that the rejection of her claim for PwD reservation was unsustainable. Accordingly, the Court upheld the Tribunal’s order setting aside the cancellation and granting consequential reliefs to the respondent.
The Court held that bail considerations must balance the accused’s right to personal liberty with the right to life and safety of the public, particularly where the accused is alleged to have played a central role in a heinous terrorist conspiracy.