Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Delhi High Court noted that there was a delay in forwarding the punishment inquiry to the Inspecting Judge, which contravened Rule 1273 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018.
The Delhi High Court says that being a government employee, the appellant cannot be permitted to be free by merely contending that the accounts, though in his name, were being managed by the co-accused.
Since the parties to disputes were closely related to each other and the dispute between parties was amicably settled, instead of imposing the costs upon the petitioner, he is directed to plant 30 saplings of trees.
The Court found it fit to grant a Dynamic+ injunction to keep up with the hydra-headed nature of the infringement actions of the websites.
“If the engines are not returned and properly serviced, TWC Aviation Capital Ltd. would suffer irreparable harm, as this could cause irreversible damage to the engines.”
The petitioner’s daughter is a child belonging to DG in the SC category within the meaning of Section 2(e) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (“the RTE Act”) and is, therefore, entitled to free, compulsory and elementary education till its completion under Section 12(c) of the RTE Act.
Delhi High Court stated that since the legislature in its wisdom has elected to impose this duty on the manufacturer and the pharmacist, we do not find any ground for issuing a direction as prayed for in this PIL as it would amount to judicial legislation.
“The aviation sector being a capital-intensive sector, the regulated free play given to the airlines to implement dynamic pricing of the fares for each flight appears to be in conformity with the norms followed worldwide and appears to be essential growth of the said sector.”
“It would be a travesty if the entitlement of the family members of the deceased scavenging workers is confined to Rs.10,00,000. The same would defeat the directions of the Supreme Court to enhance the compensation to Rs. 30,00,000/- on the basis that the previously fixed compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- was fixed far back in 1993 and was not an adequate compensation.”
The present case is one where there are special circumstances, for the Central Government to use the enabling powers, as contemplated under Section 5(4) for favorably considering grant of citizenship to the Petitioner.
Notwithstanding the abolition of IPAB and the power of rectification reverting to the High Court, a Trial Judge would have to stay in its hands once it is apprised of pendency of a rectification.
“It is well settled principle that unilateral appointment of Arbitrator is not permissible under the law”
The Court sought response from a content creator for a YouTube video titled “Jackie Shroff Is Savage (*) Jackie Shroff Thug Life” and viewed that restricting such creative expressions stifles freedom of expression, potentially deterring the public from exercising their right to free speech due to fear of legal repercussions.
by Rajat Pradhan* and Deepshikha Bhati**
A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from all High Courts this week.
“Petitioner appears to have taken a wrong end of law, aggrieved against adverse orders passed by the Judicial Officers of the District Courts as well as this Court and cannot be permitted to cross the red line, thereby making personal attack on the Judges which undermines the integrity of the Institution.”
The Delhi High Court opined that tendering authority has the power to determine the terms on which tender will be given, unless the terms are not arbitrary and discriminating, the Court cannot scrutinize them.
The Delhi High Court directed the respondents to consider releasing petitioner’s terminal benefits by taking into account the higher salary which he was drawing during the 14 years when he was working as a Research Officer.
It is wholly insufficient to proceed to make an addition on the basis that CBIC is an apex body and information provided by it cannot be doubted, without even analyzing such information.
“The Defendants have entirely imitated Plaintiff No. 1’s registered trademarks, replicating all aspects such as font of the letters, design of the logo, color scheme, size, style, and placement of letter and the taglines. Both the marks are also used for identical services.”