- Home
- Topics
- Services
- Constitutional law
- Submit Articles
- Lawyers
- Laws
- My Account
- Members
Tags
Categories
- Administrative Law
- Animal Laws
- Arbitration
- Army laws
- Aviation Law
- Bangladesh Laws
- Banking & Finance laws
- Canada Law
- Civil Law
- Company Law
- Competition Law
- Constitutional law
- Consumer laws
- Contract Laws
- Criminal Law
- Cyber Law
- Disability Laws
- Education Law
- Elderly Law
- Election Law
- Election Laws
- Employment Law
- Environmental Law
- Family Law
- Food and Drugs
- Foreign laws
- Human Rights
- Immigration Law
- Insurance laws
- Intellectual Property
- International law
- Jurisprudence
- Juvenile Law
- Labour Law
- Land Laws
- Laws
- Legal Profession
- Lok Adalat
- Maritime Law
- Media laws
- Medico Legal
- Minority Laws
- Miscellaneous Laws
- Personal Laws
- Politics
- Property laws
- Sports Law
- Supreme Court
- Tax laws
- Technology laws
- Third Gender
- Torts Law
- Traffic Laws
- UAE Laws
- Uncategorized
- United Kingdom
- Woman Law
- Mere Corporate Prefix Insufficient to Avoid Deceptive Similarity
- The Silent Sky: The Evolution and Proliferation of Drone-Borne IEDs (DBIEDs)
- New Vistas in IED Attacks: Emerging Tactics, Technologies, and Threat Horizons
- Copyright Punishment in India: Law, Reality and the Creator’s Struggle
- Medical Examination of Rape Victims: Legal Mandates and Judicial Safeguards
- Panchayati Raj System in India: Constitutional Framework, Structure, and Significance
- Mandatory Timelines in Trademark Opposition
- Manual Scavenging: A Challenge to India
Introduction The Supreme Court’s judgment in Lillu @ Rajesh & Another v. State of Haryana (AIR 2013 SC 1784)—decided by…
High Court of Delhi holds that writ petitions challenging pre-abolition orders of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) on trademark matters are to be heard by a Single Judge of the Intellectual Property Division (IPD), as per IPD Rules, 2021, unless falling under specific Division Bench exceptions in Delhi High Court Rules; rejects mandatory Division Bench listing, treating such petitions as original IPD proceedings for efficient adjudication post-IPAB dissolution.
The Delhi High Court held that the Commercial Courts (Amendment) Act, 2018, reducing the specified value for commercial disputes to Rs. 3 lakhs, applies prospectively only to suits filed on or after May 3, 2018, and does not permit retrospective transfers of pre-2018 suits under Section 15 of the 2015 Act, preserving vested rights and avoiding administrative burdens.
Introduction – The Legal Context of the Right to Education Act The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education…
Introduction Meaning And Role Of MSMEs “MSME” stands for “Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprise” which denotes enterprises engaged in the…
The Legal Responsibilities Of Landlords During Tenant Verification In Bangalore The legal responsibilities of landlords during tenant verification in Bangalore…
Introduction: Understanding the Complex Legal Framework of Waqf Property Ownership in India The question of “who owns Waqf property” is…
Constitutional Commitment to Human Rights in India India’s commitment to human rights is reflected in the Constitution, which provides a…
Introduction VVIPs—including heads of state, heads of government, senior ministers, monarchs, and other high-profile dignitaries—are not merely individuals; they are…
Constitutional Dilemma in the Delhi High Court Order The recent order of the Delhi High Court suspending the sentence of…
Subscribe to Updates
Get the latest Legal Updates from Legal Service India
India’s Oldest Independent Digital Legal Knowledge Platform
ISBN: 978-81-928510-0-6

