Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
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.”
The Court granted interim protection to IRCTC, holding that tariff-linked revision of licence fee raises a prima facie case and warrants a stay on the arbitral findings impacting IRCTC’s policy framework.
The Court observed that the conduct of the accused, being a stranger, approaching the victim at night while she was returning from a common washroom, and catching hold of her hand without her consent, would certainly amount to use of criminal force.
Since the term of the Assembly had already expired and fresh elections w held in 2025, the election petition had become infructuous.
The Court clarified that at the present stage it was not conducting a final hearing, because if the petitioner was not provisionally permitted to appear in JEE Advanced 2026 to be conducted on 17 May 2026, the petition would become infructuous.
“The jurisprudential basis for the State being the prosecuting agency in criminal offences is to prevent a criminal prosecution from descending into an exercise in vengeance, where the victim goes baying-for-the-blood of the offender; and to maintain objectivity, neutrality, fairness and a sense of proportion in prosecution of an offender.”
The Court opined that it was not appropriate for the defendants to carry out any campaign, whether defamatory or otherwise, in Plaintiff 3’s name.
The Court directed that the petitioner’s husband action and his consent in opting for IVF treatment be treated to be sufficient compliance for the purposes of Section 22, ART Act.