Introduction The judgement delivered by the Delhi High Court on 22 May 2026 in the…

Introduction The intersection of language, commerce, and intellectual property often gives rise to disputes of…

Fortune Marketing Private Limited v. Gujarat Pesticides & Ors.: Delhi High Court Reinforces Copyright and…

Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) and DVD Technology Dispute Introduction Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) occupy a…

Introduction The judgment delivered by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in M/s…

Introduction Patent law in India gives those who believe a patent has been wrongly granted…

Introduction The judgement delivered by the Bombay High Court in Marico Limited vs. Minolta Natural…

Introduction The decision of the High Court of Delhi in Dabur India Limited v. Emami…

Introduction The decision delivered by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Mr…

Introduction The decision of the Delhi High Court in Neurocentria Inc. v. Deputy Controller of…

Introduction The Calcutta High Court has highlighted the principle of estoppel in interim injunction matters.…

Introduction In a clear and practical ruling on territorial jurisdiction in intellectual property disputes, the…

Introduction The Right to Information Act, 2005, aims to promote transparency while balancing the duties…

Delhi High Court Clarifies Scope Of Regional Director’s Power Under Section 16 Of Companies Act…

Introduction The judgement delivered by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Firoz A…

Indiamart Inter Mesh Limited Vs OpenAI Inc. and Ors.: Calcutta High Court’s Landmark AI Governance…

Introduction In this judgment concerning patent opposition proceedings in the agrochemical sector, the Delhi High…

Introduction The decision of the High Court of Karnataka in Mr Santosh Kumar R.S. vs…

Introduction The judgment delivered by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Bharat Bhogilal…

The Delhi High Court in Baldev Singh v. Godran Rubber Plastic Industries, 1999 SCC OnLine Del 329, held that although amendments of pleadings should generally be liberally allowed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, courts cannot permit amendments that introduce a completely inconsistent case or seek to withdraw clear admissions previously made in pleadings and related proceedings. The Court observed that judicial admissions carry substantial value and can only be withdrawn upon satisfactory explanation of inadvertent mistake. Since the plaintiff sought to alter the foundation of the suit by introducing a contradictory plea of prior user after previously denying such use, the amendment application was dismissed with costs.