Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
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.
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.