Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
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.
The Delhi High Court held that once a patent application is deemed withdrawn for failure to meet statutory timelines for national phase entry and filing Request for Examination, it cannot be revived through a belated amendment of priority date under Form 13
The Court examined the scope of Section 29-A, Representation of the People Act, 1951 and reaffirmed the limited circumstances in which deregistration is legally permissible.
The Delhi High Court granted interim relief to LinkedIn India and its Directors by staying ROC penalty orders passed for alleged non-compliance with SBO disclosure norms under Sections 89 and 90, Companies Act, 2013.
The Court condemned Wrestling Federation of India’s “National Embarrassment” remark against Vinesh Phogat with regards to 2024 Paris Olympic Games mishap, which had led to her disqualification.
The Delhi High Court acquitted a man convicted under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC, holding that the prosecutrix voluntarily accompanied and married the accused and that her minority was not conclusively established.
The Court warned that permitting reopening of quashing orders on the basis of subsequent matrimonial disputes would fundamentally defeat the object underlying exercise of jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS.
Delhi High Court set aside an assessment order passed under Sections 143(3) and 144-B, Income-tax Act after finding violation of principles of natural justice, holding that the assessing officer failed to communicate the status of the assessee’s adjournment request and ignored the reply filed by the assessee.
Prima facie, it appears to be a case of civil liability where husband purchased the car in his wife’s name, did not pay cost thereof and subsequently, when the car was returned, the civil suit filed by the complainant de facto was withdrawn.