man filed petition in NGO's name unauthorized
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“Clearly when an unauthorized person files a petition of this nature for taking action against unauthorized construction, the said conduct is not only deceitful, but also misuse and abuse of the process of law.”

reservation for transgender persons in public employment
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“The Parliament, though has enacted the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 and has also framed Rules thereunder, however, it appears that the welfare measures, which may be made pursuant to the statutory obligations cast on the Governments under the said Act, have also not been made.”

authorities not following Prison Rules
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“The State agencies, only show their defiance to the very objective of introducing provisions of Furlough/Parole and have no respect or care for the prisoners and their mental and physical health.”

eviction proceeding by landlord
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“With respect to the bona fide requirement of the landlord, the landlord was only to make out a legitimate case setting out the plausible reason which are not fanciful and unreasonable to establish a bona fide requirement of the subject premises.”

Prosecuting directors
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“Section 278B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 creates a deeming fiction whereby both the Company and every person in charge are deemed guilty of the offence. The legislative intent is clear that the Company must first be arraigned, only then can its officers be fastened with vicarious liability.”

WIPRO well-known trade mark
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“WIPRO has been expanding into various sectors since the 1980s and has obtained various registrations for the ‘WIPRO’ mark in various classes with the earliest registration in the year 1991.”

landlord not required to disclose exact use
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 is silent about any requirement of the landlord giving the details/ divulging anything qua the nature/ purpose/ disclosure of the proposed new business by the landlord.”

relinquishing property rights is not gift
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“The sisters executed the Relinquishment Deeds (‘RD’) to release their share in favour of their brother, and there was no economic consideration exchanged at the time of the execution. All the RDs were basically acknowledging the bequest made by the father in favour of his son.”

bail to Ajaz Khan over remarks on Harsh Beniwal's family
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The audience may be influenced by the material posted by social medial influencers and thus even if the content is deleted after being posted, it would reach a large set of audience, leading to republishing of the same and sparking a debate, which eventually affects the victim.

Delhi High Court's Amended Bail Application Rules
Legislation UpdatesRules & Regulations

Delhi Government has notified revised bail application rules requiring disclosure of prior criminal case involvement.

YouTuber restrained
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“The test reports and regulatory clearances from FSSAI and BIS prima facie establish compliance with standards for safety and quality of the Indospirit Beverages’ Product ‘BROCODE’.”

pre-arrest bail in digital fraud case
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“There were serious allegations of digital frauds where complex technological mechanisms were employed to defraud gullible victims.”

mechanical approach in process patent registration order
Case BriefsHigh Courts

An invention must show an inventive step over prior art. However, the Patents Act, 1970 lacks clear guidelines to assess this, leading Examiners to decide applications and oppositions in a rule of thumb manner, purely based on their subjective opinions. This is, clearly, a thoroughly legally unsatisfactory position.

Ravi Shankar Personality Rights
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“Defendant 1 is circulating fabricated videos of Ravi Shankar on Facebook and on other independent websites, utilizing advanced AI technologies, including ‘deepfake’ tools, to digitally impersonate the plaintiff’s voice, facial expressions, persona and likeness, thereby creating a false impression amongst the world at large that Ravi Shankar is personally speaking, endorsing or promoting the content therein.”

Tughlakabad Fort
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 was made by the legislature of the day expressing the solemn desire and wish of the people of the Country to preserve their heritage and historical ethos. The Tughlakabad Fort is one such ancient monument which is of national importance, and reflects our historical ethos and heritage and therefore, needs to be preserved.”

Barbie trade mark case
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“Since 2011, through campaigns like ‘You Can Be Anything’ and initiatives such as the Shero program and Fashionistas collections, Mattel has promoted inclusivity, diversity, and women’s empowerment. With a vibrant online presence, scholarly attention, and millions of fans worldwide, the trademark BARBIE has evolved into a multifaceted brand symbolizing imagination, aspiration, and inspiration for generations.”

Nagarjuna Personality Rights
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“The depiction of the Akkineni Nagarjuna in settings that are misleading, derogatory and inappropriate will inevitably have the effect of diluting the goodwill and reputation associated with him.”

protecting Mankind Pharma
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“The identity in the defendant’s marks is so close to Mankind’s trade marks that the two are indistinguishable. The infringing activities of the defendant is likely to cause confusion in the course of trade of Mankind leading to erosion of consumers’ trust.”

NDPS case
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The accused has undergone inordinate incarceration for 4 years and 3 months. Even otherwise, given the snail’s pace of the proceedings in the Trial Court, it may so happen that before the same concludes, the applicant may end up undergoing the entire sentence without being held guilty.

infringement registered trade mark
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“Where two persons may be registered proprietors of marks, which are identical or deceptively similar to each other, neither person would be allowed to interfere with the exclusive right of the other person to use the mark, though each of them would have a right of injunction against a third party, who may not be a registered proprietor of the mark.”