Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Court held that “as any husband, the petitioner owes a legal debt to maintain any wife like the respondent”.
The Court noted that the Draft Electoral Roll itself demonstrated inclusion of homeless persons and that persons affected by demolition could seek enrolment through Form 6.
Holding that maternity protection is not exhausted upon grant of maternity leave and payment of benefits, the Delhi High Court held that a woman returning from maternity leave entitled to same or equivalent post and directed the Union Government to frame safeguards for post-maternity reintegration within six months.
In light of material placed before the Court, it restored the appellant’s opportunity to contest the suit by setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree qua him under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC
The Court held that where such actual use is not proved even on a preponderance of probabilities, the harsher semester-wide penalty cannot be sustained.
The instant petition sought regulatory measures for children’s social-media access, including age restrictions, content filtering, privacy safeguards and verification mechanisms.
The Court held that whether there has been a “failure to act” must be determined by examining the circumstances as a whole and whether a reasonable time had elapsed for performance of the agreed appointment procedure.
Delhi High Court directs respondents to decide representation concerning constitution of the National Nursing and Midwifery Commission within two months
The Court observed that “the very purpose of the LLM 3-year course is to enable students to continue practice before the Courts while simultaneously pursuing their Masters program”.
Delhi High Court emphasised that redevelopment of these non-conforming industrial areas was essential not only for providing proper infrastructure but also for eliminating waterlogging and preventing untreated sewage from entering the Yamuna.
Delhi High Court issued summons in Saurav Das’s suit, allowed amendment substituting Defendant 4 with Good Morning India (P) Ltd., and directed the defendants to file their reply to the interim injunction plea within 10 days.
The petitioner had been leading a nationwide awareness campaign concerning the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026 (2026 UGC Regulations).
“Both Article 19 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantee fundamental rights to each of such parties in the form of their respective right to freedom and also their respective right to life and liberty.”
Delhi High Court noted that the conduct of the husband in pursuing a petition under Sections 13(1A) and 13(1)(ib) of the HMA, without making any sincere effort to resume cohabitation and by frustrating the wife’s attempts to execute the decree for restitution of conjugal rights, clearly demonstrated that his sole objective was to secure a decree of dissolution of marriage under the said provisions, without any genuine intention of restoring the matrimonial relationship.
Delhi High Court prima facie held that a Prohibitory Order under Section 36, Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, ought not to have been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing, and accordingly stayed the Impugned Order against DABUR.
The Court asserted that continued incarceration of the applicants had to be balanced against their fundamental right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Delhi HC in Janhvi Kapoor’s personality rights case declines blanket injunction against 6884 URLs, but directs takedown of 552 URLs containing ex facie pornographic content.
Delhi High Court acknowledged that delay in trial is a relevant consideration while deciding an application for bail. However, such delay cannot be considered in isolation.
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.