Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Delhi High Court upheld an arbitral award holding that deduction towards Minimum Guaranteed CENVAT Credit (MGCC) shortfall was impermissible in the absence of an express contractual clause. The Court also ruled that limitation commenced from the date of actual deduction from final invoices and not from a prior notice contemplating such deduction.
The Court held that deduction for shortfall in Minimum Guaranteed CENVAT Credit (MGCC) could not be made from the net contract value, as such an interpretation would effectively result in a double deduction unsupported by the contract terms.
Delhi High Court granted interim protection from arrest in an anticipatory bail plea arising out of a transaction involving unlisted NSE shares, observing that the MoU prima facie supported the applicant’s defence and that the e-mail describing the company as “seller” was insufficient to justify custodial action.
“The entire exercise appeared aimed at achieving indirectly, through public pressure and social media campaigns, what could not be achieved directly through judicial proceedings and legal arguments before the Court — that this particular matter pertaining to discharge of respondents in the 2022 Delhi Excise Policy — be not heard by this Court.”
The respondents submitted that “the rehabilitation and relocation of the jhuggi dwellers has become essential due to the highly sensitive and strategic location of the area. The JJ clusters lie in a protected zone, immediately next to an operational Air Force Station.”
“What After Us?”: Delhi High Court Chief Justice Calls for Community-Owned Future for Adults with Autism & Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities
“In view of the interest of environmental protection and the area being ecologically sensitive, all types of commercial/religious activities for any purpose whatsoever shall be restricted from the said area.”
Delhi High Court refused interim injunction against the OTT release of Dhurandhar: The Revenge in a copyright dispute over the remixed “Tirchi Topiwale” song from Tridev, holding that suppression of material facts and prolonged inaction disentitled the plaintiff from equitable relief.
The Delhi High Court upheld the eviction of a widow and her son from the in-laws’ property under the Senior Citizens Act, holding that shared household rights under the Domestic Violence Act do not create proprietary rights and cannot override senior citizens’ right to peaceful residence.
“When the institution of the judiciary and this Court was put on trial, it became the duty of this Court, at that moment, to stand up for itself and the institution”
Delhi High Court held that a second wife cannot seek impleadment in maintenance proceedings under Section 125 CrPC between the husband, first wife, and children, observing that such proceedings are limited in scope and impleadment would unnecessarily widen the lis.
The Court ordered removal of identical “ALPHARD” registrations, recognising Toyota’s trans-border reputation and spillover goodwill in India.
The Court noted that attribution of non-existent propositions to Supreme Court precedents, if established, would be a matter of serious concern.
The High Court interpreted Note (2) to Rule 1212 and Note (1) to Rule 1224, Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, holding that “ordinarily” denotes restriction, not prohibition.
“The parties shall be at liberty to take all remedies available in law for requiring the other spouse to place on record the affidavit as mandated under Rajnesh v. Neha, (2020) 2 SCC 324.”
The Court held that path from the proved fact of transfer of Rs 75,000 to the conclusion of bribery remains unexplained.
Delhi High Court held in view of the subsequent enactment of the National Sports Governance Act, 2025, the issue raised with regard to non-compliance of the Sports Code, 2011 has become academic and ordered fresh elections and appointed Administrator.
The Court ruled that requirement is non-discriminatory and rejects candidate’s plea for relaxation despite COVID-related delay in obtaining license.
The Court noted that mechanical police objections without substantive reasoning cannot be a valid ground to deny parole.
“An applicant cannot be permitted to reap the benefit of an illegality, as any such registration would be nothing but the fruits of a poisonous tree.”