Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Delhi High Court: While addressing a matter revolving around Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Subramonium Prasad, J., held that
Delhi High Court issues a circular that, it has come to notice that some of the Advocates/Litigants/Staff/Police & CRPF Personnel are still
In supersession of this Court’s notice No. 3435/G-11/Genl./DHC dated 18-11-2021, it is notified that the wearing of “Gowns” by Advocates practicing in
Delhi High Court: Yogesh Khanna, J., held that right of residence under Section 19 of the Domestic Violence Act is not an
President appoints 4 new Judges at Delhi High Court: Neena Bansal Krishna Dinesh Kumar Sharma Anoop Kumar Mendiratta Sudhir Kumar Jain Ministry
Delhi High Court: Expressing that the Family Court’s decision was based on optimism and hope rather than the actual factual matrix of
Delhi High Court: While expressing the object of PMLA Act Chandra Dhari Singh, J., expressed that, offence of money laundering is threefold
Delhi High Court: Stating that the manner in which Court records tampered was insidious and revealed a well-planned and methodical attempt to
Delhi High Court: Expressing that, Minor mistakes of inconsequential importance are insufficient to seek a review, Asha Menon, J., elaborated that, while
Delhi High Court: Chandra Dhari Singh, J., granted bail while referring to a catena of Supreme Court decisions with regard to the
Delhi High Court: Mukta Gupta, J., explained under what circumstances would Section 397 of penal Code, 1860 would be attracted. By the
Supreme Court Collegium has approved the proposal for the elevation of the following Judicial Officers as Judges in the Delhi High Court:
Delhi High Court: Prathiba M. Singh, J., while examining a case which was dismissed 30 years ago with regard to a workman’s
Delhi High Court: Chandra Dhari Singh, J., decided a maintenance case wherein the marital status of the parties was the crux of
Delhi High Court: Manoj Kumar Ohri, J., while discussing the scope of Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 with regard
Delhi High Court: Asha Menon, J., in a trademark infringement case, restrained the ‘Courtyard Holidays World Private Limited’ from using the impugned
Delhi High Court: Subramonium Prasad, J., expressed its anguish at how provisions such as Sections 354A/506 of Penal Code, 1860 are falsely
Delhi High Court: Prateek Jalan, J., expressed that, For the purposes of an order under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC,
Delhi High Court: Sanjeev Sachdeva, J., considered the issue of whether the insurance company would be liable to pay amount in a
Delhi High Court: Subramonium Prasad, J., addressed whether the magnitude of offence can be the only criterion for granting bail and further