Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The petitions raise a common grievance that a Movie titled as “2020 Delhi” of which a ‘trailer’ is accessible on social media, depicts a highly prejudicial and distorted account of the riots that took place in North-East Delhi in February, 2020, and thereby create a false and disruptive narrative having serious repercussions.

Miss Malini Entertainment
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The plaintiff was shocked to find that the defendant unilaterally uploaded a short video clip of the interview on Instagram without prior approval displaying the defendant’s logo, ‘Miss Malini,’ while deliberately obscuring the plaintiff’s ‘Mirchi®’ logo, violating the agreement on usage permissions.

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The petitioner made a tweet via his Twitter handle and made a post on his Facebook account regarding the presence of the ‘Shiva Linga’ like structure found in the Gyanvapi Mosque in Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh which reads as “Yadi yeh Shiv Ling hai to Lagta hai shayad Shiv ji ka bhi khatna kar diya gaya tha”

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The expression “plant and machinery” has been defined by the Explanation appearing in Section 17(5) of CGST Act to mean apparatus, equipment and machinery fixed to earth by foundation or structural support. However, it specifically excludes telecommunication towers from the ambit of the expression “plant and machinery”.

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Even though in a departmental inquiry, the standard of proof is preponderance of probability, the onus to establish the charges is on the department through the Presenting Officer and once the evidence is led, the IO is required to look into the evidence of the prosecution and the defence and come to a finding, after analysis and deliberations.

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

A statutory authority when faced with such a challenge would be obligated to prove that it was either impracticable to proceed or it was constricted by factors beyond its control which prevented it from moving with reasonable expedition.

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

It is the case of the petitioner that they have been using the mark “JACK DANIEL’S” since 1895 in respect of alcoholic beverages. The petitioner is the registered proprietor of various trademarks including “JACK DANIEL’S” and other formative parts.

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Special statutes have stringent conditions for grant of bail but they should not become means to detain the accused without there being any possibility of concluding the trial, expeditiously. Merely charging an accused person under the provisions of these special statutes should not become a punishment in itself which violates Article 21.

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The petitioner has been successful in obtaining employment with the CISF based on his own merit and qualification. In case the petitioner is not allowed to join, subject to the pendency of the criminal case, the petitioner may lose this opportunity for all times to come, and this loss would never be compensated.