Keeping Pace with Legal Change
Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind asked the Delhi High Court to ban a movie on the murder of Kanhaiya Lal called the Udaipur Files. They claim that the trailer of this film causes communal disharmony, biases a community and is against the certification parameters of movie industry which may affect the order of the general populace before the movie is released on July 11, 2025.
This paper will discuss the case of the Delhi High Court on national security over natural justice regarding the grant of security clearance in the aviation security in India. It outlines the recalling of Celebi clearances, the argument that appeals to the concept of procedural justice and the court pertaining to claims of both state security and opportunity of a fair hearing and rules in preference of national security in that particular case.
The article discusses the case law of the Delhi High Court on interim forms of arbitration: through the formation of the contract online, territorial jurisdiction and difficulty of awarding unliquidated damages. The electronic arbitration contracts were confirmed by the court, however, jurisdiction and security of unquantified claims were rejected, which points out some important legal provisions to apply in commercial conflicts.
In this post the case of the Delhi High Court handling the deception around the Patanjali Chyawanprash advertisement is analysed in view of its legal precedent related to false efficacy claims and disparagement. It goes into the pace of development of commercial speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian constitution, the landmark cases which outline its extent and restriction in advertising.
Delhi High Court decision on Dabur v Patanjali enlightened the Ayurvedic medicines with regard to advertising. It highlighted the need for tighter truthfulness on health products as the ads were considered by Patanjali as demeaning on Dabur Chyawanprash and other brands. The court also noted how misleading comparisons are not permissible and fair competition should be guarded against.
This article explains the case in the Delhi High Court between Kabushiki Kaisha Toyota Jidoshokki and LMW Limited on patent IN2447593. Toyota Jidoshokki claimed that LMW Spinpact machines had violated the patent rights of its invention entitled Fiber Bundle Concentrating Apparatus. The court denied the request for an injunction on the basis that the patent expires on May 24, 2025, which renders the technology publicly available.
In a high-value commercial contract dispute, the Delhi High Court analyzed the jurisdiction of a writ petition from Ambuj Hotel and Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. against IRCTC in respect of the wrongful demand of extra license fee for onboard catering. The contention revolves around the number of train coaches and contractual interpretation, raising important questions on promissory estoppel, jurisdiction, and the boundaries of Article 226 in commercial cases.
The Delhi High Court, on May 30, 2025, issued an interim injunction against firms making fake Volvo buses. Justice Amit Bansal’s ruling in Aktiebolaget Volvo & Ors v. Shri Ganesh Motor Body Repairs & Ors protects Volvo’s trademark and brand identity, curbing deceptive practices in the market.
The Delhi High Court is hearing a case where Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) alleges that RSPL Limited’s ‘Ghadi’ detergent advertisements disparage its ‘Surf Excel’ product. HUL claims RSPL uses similar packaging, terms like ‘XL Blue,’ and defamatory phrases. The court has ordered RSPL to remove specific derogatory phrases.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Titan Company Limited in a trademark infringement case against Lenskart Solutions Private Limited. Lenskart admitted to inadvertently using Titan’s “TITAN” and “FASTRACK” trademarks on its website and as metatags, and has since removed them. The suit was decreed after Lenskart stated it would not contest the matter.
