Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Court upholds search under S. 67(2), Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, subject to protection of privileged and third-party confidential material.
Delhi High Court directed Bombay Shaving Company to take down its Switch4 advertisement after finding its portrayal of Court proceedings objectionable and later rejected the amended advertisement proposed by the Company in Gillette’s disparagement suit.
Delhi High Court held that the mere fact that the petitioner’s business is located in Delhi, or that FSSAI is situated in Delhi, would not confer territorial jurisdiction upon this Court when the impugned action has been initiated by the Maharashtra authorities and no substantial part of the cause of action has arisen within Delhi.
The Court found that repeated opportunities were afforded to the petitioner to appear before the Disciplinary Committee and place her case. However, she had chosen not to avail the first three opportunities and had instead raised objections concerning disclosure of the Committee’s composition.
The Court specifically requested the Delhi High Court to “monitor the case at short intervals”.
The case reinforces that, in the absence of a clear stipulation to the contrary in a recruitment advertisement, an EWS certificate pertaining to the financial year preceding the year of application cannot be rejected merely on a technical ground, particularly where the candidate otherwise satisfies the eligibility requirements and possesses the requisite certificate.
Taking note of the assurance given by the MCD, Union of India and Delhi Police that all possible steps were being taken and the rescue operation was being conducted in full swing, the Court expressed the hope that the efforts would be doubled so that human lives could be saved.
Delhi High Court granted regular bail to a woman accused in a murder case, taking note of her prolonged incarceration, lack of a specific role in the offence, absence of CDR material placing her at the crime scene and her status as a woman and mother of 3 minor children.
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).