Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Delhi High Court ruled that the mandatory 30-day notice period under the Special Marriage Act cannot be relaxed merely because one of the parties is required to join employment abroad, emphasising that courts cannot bypass express statutory requirements.
With 2.2 million candidates appearing in the re-examination and unlawful channels reappearing within minutes of every takedown, the Court held that narrower measures had been exhausted and that Telegram’s own CEO’s public admission of “backdating scams” and “hundreds of removed channels” constituted a concession that rendered the platform-wide block legally sustainable.
Delhi High Court ruled that a daughter-in-law cannot continue occupying her sister-in-law’s property merely because she resided there with her husband. Once the husband’s permissive right ended, she had no independent right to remain in possession.
In a Section 9 plea under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Court holds that the Heads of Terms constitutes a prima facie binding commercial arrangement warranting interim protection, leaving questions of enforceability and entitlement to specific performance to the arbitral tribunal.
Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva was elevated to the Supreme Court in June 2026 and has previously served as Chief Justice of MP High Court.
The Court held that welfare of the child remains the paramount consideration, but such welfare must be assessed after considering all relevant facts and circumstances rather than through a summary determination based on affidavits.
The Delhi High Court while allowing a rectification petition filed by Renee Cosmetics (P) Ltd held that the mark “GLASS SKIN” is descriptive of skincare products and directed cancellation of its trade mark registration, finding it hit by Section 9(1)(b), Trade Marks Act, 1999.
The Delhi High Court, in a criminal contempt petition under Article 215, held that freedom of speech does not protect scandalous and unsubstantiated allegations of corruption and criminality against a sitting Judge, as such publications undermine the administration of justice.
Delhi High Court held that ‘Ocean Pearl’ remained the dominant feature of the impugned mark ‘Prestige Ocean Pearl’ and granted an ex parte injunction restraining its use in connection with a luxury real estate project. The parties have also been referred to mediation.
The Court held that date of birth dispute must first be resolved under Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 before seeking correction in CBSE records.
The plaintiffs filed suit for damages on account of defamation, insults and derogatory remarks placed by the defendants on the social media.
Delhi High Court restrained the use of “MakeMyIndiaTrip”, holding that the addition of the word “India” did not sufficiently distinguish the mark from “MakeMyTrip”.
The Court held that Rule 111, Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 grants the benefit of child care leave to an employee of a recognised private school, whether aided or unaided, at par with such employees working in a corresponding status in a government school.
Delhi High Court granted interim protection to actor Naga Chaitanya against the unauthorised use of his name, image, voice and likeness in deepfakes, AI-generated content, pornographic material and unauthorised merchandise.
The Court, however, noted that considering the seminal importance and significance of the issues raised in it, it required a little more research and appreciation of law to decide these issues, which are relevant not only for these proceedings, but also in any other criminal proceedings.
Delhi High Court dismissed an intra-court appeal against an order issuing contempt notice and deferring an Order 39 Rule 4 CPC plea, refusing to condone 105 days’ delay and holding the order not appealable.
In a 144-page ruling on 35+ petitions, Justice Sachin Datta held that the right to be forgotten is a constitutional right under Article 21, allowing acquitted persons, discharged accused, matrimonial dispute parties and sexual offence victims to seek de-indexing of judicial records from name-based search results globally, while declining relief for convicted persons, public figures, and cases involving ongoing public interest.
The Court found that the present matter is not one where wholly illicit pharmaceutical drug had been recovered from a person lacking lawful authority to possess them.
The Court directed the SDM to liaise with police authorities to trace the whereabouts of the employers and directed the Delhi police to “pro-actively investigate and take all necessary measures” for tracing them and facilitating recovery proceedings.
Delhi High Court while setting aside a foreign travel restriction imposed on the accused held that a Magistrate cannot alter bail conditions years after granting bail by calling it a clarification.