Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Delhi HC holds that UAPA accused are not entitled to default bail after 90 days, ruling that Section 43-D(2) permits detention up to 180 days even after BNSS replaced CrPC
Delhi High Court held that an advocate acting as an Insolvency Professional is liable to pay GST under the forward charge mechanism and cannot claim the reverse charge benefit available to advocates rendering legal services.
Since ESIC’s cancellation rested solely on a mistaken reading of ex-serviceman eligibility, the Court held the entire cancellation collapsed once that ground was found untenable.
Delhi HC refused regular bail to Sushil Kumar, holding that hostile witnesses and the deposition of Ashok Dhankad did not amount to a genuine change in circumstances
Delhi High Court stayed an FIR registration order, observing that a simple breach of contract cannot be forcefully converted into a criminal action.
Delhi High Court expressed surprise that, despite the repeated dismissal of the accused’s anticipatory bail applications, including by the Supreme Court, the local police appeared to have taken no steps to arrest him. The Court observed that such inaction conveyed an impression that the accused was being helped and that “there is something more that meets the eye”.
Delhi High Court granted interim relief to Salman Khan by restraining the dissemination of the teaser and promotional material of “Kala Hiran — The Battle For Legacy”. The Court held that the teaser and related social media posts prima facie commercially exploited the actor’s personality rights and caused irreparable harm to his reputation.
The Court directed the Jail Superintendent to preserve and produce within 1 week the CCTV footage relating to another alleged incident dated 27 June 2026 involving the appellant.
The Court expressed serious concern over the Income Tax Department’s failure to release seized cash and jewellery even after adjustment of the tax demand and completion of requisite formalities, observing that such prolonged inaction reflected red-tapism and high-handedness on the part of the authorities.
The Delhi High Court restrained unauthorised use of Yuvraj Singh’s name, image, voice and likeness, including through AI-generated content, deepfakes and commercial exploitation.
The present application arose because the earlier order did not expressly refer to 39 short videos and 5 English-language videos that were mentioned in Para 10 of the plaint, although according to Isha Foundation these videos formed part of the original cause of action and contained content substantially identical to the impugned videos already directed to be taken down.
Delhi High Court granted interim protection to “ZEPTO” trade marks, restraining the defendants from using “ZEPTO FINANCE” and other deceptively similar marks.
Delhi High Court ruled that a caste-based insult under Section 3(1)(x), SC/ST Act must occur in a place within public view. Finding this essential ingredient absent, it set aside the charge and remanded the case for consideration under the IPC.
Delhi High Court held that OpenAI’s use of ANI’s works for training ChatGPT’s LLMs is prima facie protected under fair dealing provisions of the Copyright Act and declined interim injunction.
This is India’s first judicial ruling to consider the application of copyright law and the fair dealing exception under the Copyright Act 1957, in context of the training and operation of artificial intelligence systems, including large language models (LLMs).
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.