Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Delhi High Court directed the petition to be treated as a representation to the Chief Secretary, Government, State (NCT of Delhi).
“The petitioner having participated in the impugned tender process is entitled to know the reasons for the disqualification of its bid and not providing these answers is contrary to the requirement of transparency.”
The Delhi High Court stated that the period of sentence served by a convict is only one of the several factors that are to be taken into consideration while adjudicating an application seeking suspension of sentence.
“A thin line of distinction exists between defamation and public criticism and an onerous task lies with the Courts to maintain this delicate balance between the competing claims and rights.”
The Delhi High Court said that the petitioner had no prima facie right, title, and interest in the allotted units, and a case was not made out to restrain the respondents from creating any third-party interest.
The Court dismissed an application for granting interim injunction as similarity of name cannot be the sole criteria, especially because it was a mythological character on which admittedly various works, movies and books are already available.
Several members of Aam Aadmi Party including members of various other opposition parties made an audio and video recording of Court proceedings which had been circulated on various social media platforms.
The Court noted Arbitration agreement specifying an even number of arbitrators cannot be a ground to render the arbitration agreement invalid. Appointed a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) petition.
A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from all High Courts this week.
The Delhi High Court said that the dynamic nature of the digital landscape necessitates that court orders are not static but evolve in tandem with technological advancements and challenges posed by the virtual domain.
Delhi High Court made it clear that no further extension of time shall be granted with respect to the masjid and madarsa since the property is required for public purposes.
It is imperative that a meeting be convened amongst all the stakeholders, i.e., Dean Student’s Welfare, Delhi University, Dean Faculty of Law and others to assess the facilities provided to the students with regard to the water coolers/provision for purified drinking water as well as the other infrastructural facilities including the availability of Wi-Fi services.
In the present case, the notice has not been sent to the complete address which results in incomplete service of notice.
Key issues under scrutiny include whether the properties attributed to this formulation of specific strain of Bifidobacterium longum are sufficiently distinct from prior art to merit patent protection and whether the claimed synergistic effects of the formulation demonstrate a significant technical advancement.
The Delhi High Court said that the impact of terrorist activities on society is profound and far-reaching, as these crimes can sow fear and insecurity among communities, as well as disrupt social harmony.
The non-disclosure of the petition under Section 9 of the A&C Act in another matter cannot be termed as a case of egregious fraud, which would disentitle the appellant from pursuing its petition under Section 9 of the A&C Act
“Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 states a financial creditor, either by itself or jointly, with other financial creditors, or any other person on behalf of the financial creditor, may file an application for initiating corporate insolvency resolution process against a corporate debtor before the Adjudicating Authority when a default has occurred.”
Based on the detailed comparison and the combined teachings along with examples of common general knowledge, it is established that the claimed invention lacks an inventive step. The features of portability, comprehensive monitoring, and anomaly detection are either disclosed in or can be inferred from the prior arts.
The Court was satisfied that plaintiff 1 — Domino’s IP Holder LLC had made out a prima facie case for grant of an ex-parte ad interim injunction, as they were likely to suffer irreparable harm in case the injunction was not granted.
The Court quashed the notice of reassessment issued on 31-3-2023 as it surpassed the ten-year block as prescribed u/S first provision to Section of 148(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.