Introduction: The Legal Framework for Challenging Government Actions In a democratic republic like India, the right to challenge government actions…

Introduction Helicopter travel is now a vital part of VVIP movement around the world. In countries with large distances, difficult…

Introduction: The Legal Context of Jurisdictional Boundaries and Parallel Proceedings The Indian legal system operates on a well-established hierarchy of…

Introduction – The Legal Framework of Disability Rights in India The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act)…

The digital age has brought unprecedented connectivity and opportunities, but it has also created new avenues for harassment and abuse.…

Introduction: Understanding the Doctrine Against Parallel Proceedings in Administrative Law The Indian legal system operates on a well-established principle of…

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…