662 results found

Transfer of cases relating to Matrimonial Disputes from a court situated in a particular state to a court situated in another state, can only be done by the way of Transfer Petition...

The High Court of Delhi, through its judgment dated 20.05.2026 in the matter of GAC Logistics Pvt. Ltd. v. Acer Logistics Pvt. Ltd., inter alia, held that under Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”), even if part of the cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of a court, such court would have jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

The CESTAT New Delhi examined whether Sections 27 and 27A of the Customs Act apply when an assessee seeks refund of amounts deposited under Supreme Court directions.

A prominent Indian court has recently addressed for the first time the issue of parallel imports of intellectual property (IP) under Indian law in favor of a non-Indian IP owner. The High Court of Delhi (an appellate court inferior only to the Supreme Court of India) has issued an injunction in favor of Samsung Electronics prohibiting the continued unauthorized importation and distribution by Indian businesses of ink cartridges and toners that Samsung had manufactured and sold in China, ruling t

It has become a well-settled principle that while adjudicating deceptive similarity of medicinal products, the yardsticks adopted by the Courts are stringent. The Supreme Court of India in Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., AIR 2001 SC 1952, laid down the general guidelines that are to be adopted while adjudicating deceptive similarity in medicinal products.

In the case of Sachdeva & Sons Industries Pvt. Ltd v Deputy Registrar of Trademarks, a miscellaneous petition was filed by the Respondent No.2/Petitioner, under Order 47 Rule 7(1) of the Civil Procedure Code(CPC) read with Section 161 of the CPC, seeking for dismissal of the appeal (filed by Sachdeva & Sons Industries Pvt. Ltd [appellant/respondent]).

The CESTAT Kolkata has ruled that Customs authorities cannot mechanically deny Certificate of Origin benefits from an overseas supplier simply due to non-cooperation during verification.

An interesting feature of the Indian legal system is the existence of voluntary agencies called Lok Adalats (Peoples' Courts).

In a recent decision, the Karnataka High Court considered whether a Judge, other than the Judge of a High Court, is empowered to delegate the duty of examining and impounding any instrument under Section 33 ...

The Hon`ble Supreme Court of India has now held that all the criminal matters relating to dishonour of cheques would only be entertained by the court where the cheque was dishonoured.

In a landmark judgment, the Bombay High Court has provided clarity on the rights of natural guardians to manage and sell joint family property on behalf of minor children.

The Government of Delhi vide it's notification dated September 24, 2019 has amended the Delhi Advocates' Welfare Fund Rules, 2001.

The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, provides that a Party may approach the Court for interim measures at any stage of the arbitral process.

The Hyderabad Bench of the GSTAT has ruled on whether an assessee must remit a 10% pre-deposit under Section 112(8) of the CGST Act for penalty-only appeals when the underlying order predates the October 2025 amendment introducing this requirement. Drawing on precedent from the Delhi High Court's interpretation of similar amendments to Section 107(6)...

It is well known that legislation which changes substantive rights is to be prospective in application so as not to punish acts which were lawful when performed.

In the case of Roma Mitra,W/o Dr. (Prof.) N.R Mitra (Appellant/Petitioner) v State of Bihar and Dr. (Mrs) Supata Bhattacharya (Respondent/Complainant); the Petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code(CPC) prayed for quashing of an order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, who had taken cognizance of offence under Sections 63,67 & 68 of the Copyright Act and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The Intellectual property Appellate Board (the Board) says NO.