Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Personal jewellery which is not found to have been acquired on an overseas trip and was always a used personal effect of the passenger would not be subject to the monetary prescriptions incorporated in Rules 3 and 4 of Baggage Rules, 2016.
It is submitted that Plaintiff 1 is a ‘celebrity’ and has a valid and enforceable personality right. He satisfies the dual test of personality rights, viz. having a valid and enforceable personality right on account of being a well-known reputed personality and the same is clearly identifiable in the infringing content uploaded by Defendants 1-8 and 13 on their social media accounts.
‘The Banking Ombudsman overlooked the key aspects of the matter and completely misdirected itself in law.’
It is not the petitioner’s case that he was not supplied with the grounds of arrest at the time of the arrest and prior to the remand being sought. The remand application was detailed, and contained, effectively the same set of facts as were stated in the grounds of arrest.
Justice Vibhu Bakhru enrolled as an Advocate with Bar Council of Delhi in September 1990 and was appointed as Additional Judge of High Court of Delhi on 17-4-2013 and became a Permanent Judge on 18-3-2015.
Justice Manmohan’s elevation to the Supreme Court was recommended by the Supreme Court Collegium on 28-11-2024.
“The video recorded by Defendant 1 is extremely offensive, sexually explicit, foul and filthy utterances were made in the said video by Defendant 1 against the plaintiffs, which per se shocks the conscience of the court.”
The Delhi High Court has deferred the designation of 67 Advocates as Senior.
Following a meticulous assessment of the qualifications, integrity, capabilities and giving due consideration to a range of factors, the President appointed Justice Satish Chandra Sharma as Judge of the Supreme Court of India on 09-11-2023.
The Court inferred that the minimum compensation amount that was set out for the victim was contradictory to the intended purpose of providing adequate rehabilitation and care to acid attack victims.
In the present case, highly qualified and experienced medical doctors were to render an opinion as to whether the appellant is eligible to complete the MBBS Course, even if the appellant was to only become a teacher. That opinion had been rendered in detail.
Justice Manmohan was appointed as Chief Justice of Delhi High Court on 21-9-2024 and took oath of office on 29-9-2024.
In cases involving Section 376 IPC or the POCSO Act, Courts must exercise caution while quashing FIRs, as these offences impact societal interests. However, Delhi High Court acknowledged the unique circumstances where the petitioner and the prosecutrix, now married with children, had reached a settlement, balancing societal concerns with the realities of the parties’ lives.
From his leadership roles during his student days to his significant contributions as an advocate and judge, Justice Suresh Kumar Kait’s journey serves as an inspiration for aspiring legal professionals, especially those from humble beginnings.
Delhi High Court held that the defendants have taken unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Louis Vuitton’s trade mark and deceived unwary consumers by dishonestly adopting Louis Vuitton’s registered marks.
The Court strictly pointed out that the High Court could not have used a judgment on the judicial side to advise individual Judicial Officers. That can only be done on the administrative side in an appropriate case.
The appellants are technologically savvy persons who have made use of their educational qualifications to promote terrorism and incite offensive activities against the country. Such cases would have to be dealt with differently than cases involving innocent persons, who may have been pulled into crime without their knowledge.
Delhi High Court affirmed that Explanation-II of Section 44(1)(b) of the PMLA applies retrospectively
The RSS member relied on exception 10 to Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 which elaborates that conveying a caution in good faith is not defamation.
‘It is no longer res integra that to determine an application under Order VII Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code, it is only averments made in the plaint that can be considered.’