3,987 results found

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (‘NCLAT') has on July 2, 2019 held that the properties of a corporate debtor which are attached by the Director of Enforcement.

The absence of policy whereby registered owners of trade mark are entitled to register its mark with ICANN on payment of fee with the stipulation that in case any person seeks to register a domain name consisting of the registered mark, no objection would be required to be obtained from the owner of the registered mark

The principles involved in award of damages in intellectual property (IP) litigation in India have seen much evolution in the recent past.

India-Pakistan showdowns, whether in sports or political relations, are always newsworthy. This time there was a change in the battleground and the reason for the showdown was the claim over ‘BASMATI' rice as...

A Writ Petition has been filed before the Delhi High Court, challenging the grant of patent for Gilead's megahit anti Hepatitis-C virus drug, sofobuvir which is known commercially everywhere as "Sovaldi".

The information available at the Trademark Registry records is for the public to know about the marks that are registered and it is the general presumption, that the information so made available is true and correct...

In this Lexpresso special, we unpack the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in M. Rajendran & Ors vs. KPK Oils and Proteins India Pvt Ltd & Ors, which redefines a borrower's right to redeem mortgaged property...

Senior Advocate Arvind P. Datar analyzes the Safari Retreat judgment and shares insights on the interpretation of taxation laws in conversation with Advocate Vinay Shraff.

In this episode of Podcast Bites powered by IndiaLaw LLP, host Shreya Shukla discusses the Kerala High Court’s judgment in Greeny Tomy and Others v. State of Kerala and Others, decided on 21 May 2026.

By a recent judgement, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India ("SC") has observed that the failure of a developer to obtain occupancy certificate is a deficiency in service under Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Can a foreign court decree be executed in India while parallel proceedings are ongoing abroad? This episode breaks down the Delhi High Court judgment in BNP Paribas Suisse SA v. Ashok Kumar Goel & Ors.

The High Court held that the expression "the dispute" under Section 43(4) of the A&C Act must be construed purposively, and that the concept of similarity of dispute applies even to a part of the dispute forming subject matter of an earlier arbitral proceeding

The High Court of Delhi, through its judgment dated 16.06.2026 in Smt. Khatiza Begam v. Ms. Salma Khan , dismissed a Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”), by relying on the settled law that the jurisdiction of the Second Appellate Court is confined to cases involving a substantial question of law and cannot be invoked for reappreciation of evidence or factual findings.

The High Court of Delhi, through its judgment dated 15.06.2026 in NBCC India Limited v. GNC Infra LLP & Anr., allowed a petition challenging an order directing NBCC India Limited to deposit the suit amount before the Trial Court, holding that a garnishee order cannot be passed unless there exists a crystallised or admitted liability of the garnishee towards the judgment-debtor.

The High Court of Delhi, by way of its judgment dated 25.03.2026, in the matter of Smt. Bindu Sharma v. Kapil Sud & Anr.

The High Court held that while the executive is competent to prescribe cut-off dates, such classification must satisfy the twin tests under Article 14 of the Constitution. It was further observed that since the Circular created an artificial classification having no rational or nexus with its object of mitigating hardship, it is arbitrary, discriminatory and unconstitutional. Accordingly, the Hon’ble High Court struck down the Clause B of the Circular.

The High Court of Karnataka, through its judgment dated 15.06.2026 in Sri. Shivakumar C.L. v. State Information Commissioner & Anr. , dismissed a writ petition challenging the Karnataka Information Commission’s orders imposing penalty under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (“RTI Act”).