Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Delhi High Court extended the scope of Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 by holding that the cases in which suit is stayed due to imposition of moratorium would fall within the ambit of Section 16.
The Delhi High Court holds that there is no requirement in law to implead the victim to any criminal proceedings, whether instituted by the State or by the accused. The Court further directed the Registry to ensure that anonymity of the victims is strictly maintained.
Delhi Court observed that in the absence of any evidence to link the accused persons with contraband recovered in Australia, the bar of section 37 NDPS Act stands lifted.
Delhi High Court observed that every child is entitled to be treated with honour and respect whether he/she is a child of a celebrity or a commoner.
Legislature has deliberately used the words “acquire”, “possess” and “use” in the same Section 3(3) of the Arms Act having different connotations, to be construed in a manner to give effect to each word to further the purpose of the legislation i.e., to reduce the number of firearms that could be possessed by an individual.
The onus lies on the prosecution to prove that the sample of the contraband seized during investigation proceedings is the same which was forwarded to CFSL for examination and that there is no tampering of the same.
In Aashirward Films v. Union of India, (2007) 6 SCC 624, Supreme Court laid down that a taxing statute for the reasons of functional expediency and even otherwise, can pick and choose to tax some; so long as the classification is reasonable.
Delhi High Court observed that it is not necessary that an advertisement must expressly and clearly mention the competitor’s product, it would be impermissible if the disparaged product is likely to be identified as that of a rival.
The Supreme Court Collegium Resolution was passed dated 12-04-2023.
The Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre, known as Samadhan organized the Inaugral Session of National Conference on “Mediation: At the
The Delhi High Court observed that Cinema Ventures Private Limited, the defaulting entity, neither filed the undertaking as assured to the court nor made any payment but rather continued to be in the possession of the property.
The Delhi High Court held that Pan masala, gutka or any other form of chewing tobacco is meant for human consumption will fall under the ambit of Section 3(1)(j) of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.
The Delhi High Court reprimanded the contention of the applicant stating that since the complainant was a lawyer and was, thus, well aware about nuances of writing a complaint and had, therefore, twisted the facts and police had lodged a false complaint against the applicant. It was opined that a person’s profession of being an advocate cannot be held against him.
The amendment in Section 153-C of the Income Tax, 1961 was brought and the words “belongs or belong to” were substituted by the words “pertains or pertain to” after a ruling by Delhi High Court in Pepsico India Holdings Private Limited v. ACIT, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 4155.
The Delhi High Court directed the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting along with other relevant Ministries to hold the consultation with film producers, OTT platforms operating in India, television broadcasters, association of theater owners, organizations consisting of disabled persons, distributors of films and any other stakeholders it may consider appropriate.
The Delhi High Court stated that the Constitution of India conferred a large gamut of rights upon Indian citizens and there existed a smaller bouquet of rights which were also recognised and conferred in respect of non-citizens.
The Delhi High Court held that “the petition was a mala fide attempt to throw mud on the reputation of the incumbent and is a gross abuse of process.”
Delhi High Court observed that in absence of any cogent, supervening circumstances necessitating cancellation of bail of the respondent/accused, the Court cannot merely cancel the bail so granted.
Delhi High Court noted that the applicant was working at Justdial in December 2016 as a Relationship Manager and was actively involved in supplying data to his co-accused persons and his link with the said co-accused persons.