- DMRC FAILS TO PAY DUE TO RELIANCE INFRA, DELHI HC SALARIES, O&M EXPENSES NOT TO BE ATTACHED – According to the Delhi High Court, if Delhi DMRC fails to pay Reliance Infra what is owed under the 2017 arbitral judgment, salaries and other Operation & Maintenance (O&M) expenditures won’t be attached.
DELHI AIRPORT METRO EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED vs DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD
- SC: PRIOR POSSESSION FACTS BECOME IMPORTANT IF PARTIES FAIL TO ESTABLISH TITLE – According to the Supreme Court, prior possession alone determines the right to possession of land in the assumed character of owner against everyone except the legitimate owner when facts at the relevant time indicate no title in either party.
Shivashankara vs HP Vedavyasa Char
- If the court applies a literal and plain interpretation of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, obtaining bail would be impossible. – When granting bail to an undertrial prisoner who had been detained under the NDPS Act seven years prior, the Supreme Court noted that a literal and plain interpretation of the conditions under Section 37 would effectively bar the issuance of bail and lead to punitive detention and unapproved preventive detention.
Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT of Delhi)
- SC: IF PASSED PRIOR TO THE FINAL DECISION IN THE PARTITION SUIT, PARTIES MAY SEEK BENEFIT OF THE AMENDED LAW. – According to the Supreme Court, a party that has benefited from a law that has been altered before the final decree processes in a partition matter may ask the trial court to take notice of the change and give it effect.
Prasanta Kumar Sahoo & Ors. v Charulata Sahu & Ors.
- P&H HC: REFUSING BAIL CANNOT JUSTLY BE DUE TO OTHER REGISTERED CASES – The Punjab and Haryana High Court noted that the simple filing of additional proceedings against the petitioner could not be viewed as the only relevant factor for refusing him release while granting bail to retired military members.
Kamal Singh vs. State of Haryana
- NO LEGAL ERROR IN THE ML-4 PROJECT’S ALIGNMENT/ACQUISITION PROCEDURES, BOM. HC – When rejecting a challenge to the alignment/acquisition of Mumbai’s Metro Line (ML) 4, the Bombay High Court stated that those involved attempted to impede and postpone a highly significant public project under the guise of upholding and protecting their private property rights.
Indo Nippon Chemical Co. Ltd v. Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority and Ors. with connected matter
- HC TO VIVO: SUBMIT A PLEA AGAINST THE FREEZING OF DEBT ACCOUNTS TO THE PMLA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL – Vivo India has been instructed by the Delhi High Court to file an appeal against the Enforcement Directorate’s decision to debit-freeze its bank accounts by contacting the PMLA Appellate Tribunal.
VIVO MOBILE INDIA PVT. LTD v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
- HC: IT IS REQUIRED TO ADAPTE FOREIGN JURISPRUDENCE ON STANDARD ESSENTIAL PATENT – The Delhi High Court has noted that because to India’s exceptionally low judge population ratio and the impossibility of a quick resolution of patent cases, international precedent on Standard Essential Patents (SEP) must be modified to reflect Indian realities.
INTEX TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) LTD versus TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET L M ERICSSON (PUBL)
Legal Disclaimer: The information contained in this blog post is for general information and educational purposes only. Nothing contained in this blog post should be construed as legal advice from The Aran Law Firm or the individual author, nor is it intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter.
