Mary Lavinia

Questions of fraud, forgery, and tampering require elaborate evidence as per the ruling of the Delhi High Court making it incapable of summary adjudication under Article 226 of the Constitution (Gaurav Jaiswal v. Union of India). Brief Facts:  The Petitioner was an IIT aspirant. He had appeared in the JEE

The Delhi HC opined that disclosure of the interest of information is necessary for the information sought under the RTI Act for establishing bonafide of the applicant. This was whenever information was sought under the Right To Information Act (Hari Kishan v. President Secretariat). Facts of the case The Petitioner

A notice had been issued by the Delhi HC in a PIL that sought regulation of online lending platforms (Dharanidhar Karimojji vs UOI). Brief Facts: The petitioner stated that online lending platforms exploited borrowers by charging interest as high as 365% per annum. They emphasized that a search on Google

Excerpt: The Central Government had told the Delhi High Court that it hadn’t issued any guidelines directing people to wear masks. This guideline was specifically about wearing a mask while travelling alone in a vehicle (Saurabh Sharma vs. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, East and Ors). Brief Facts: A Petition was filed by

Excerpt The Delhi High Court had quashed an FIR (First Information Report) registered against an engineering student. This was done under the Arms Act after he was found boarding a flight with 20 live cartridges, to Ahmedabad. (Adhiraj Singh Yadav vs State) Facts of the Case The Petitioner had to

Excerpt The Delhi High Court recently observed that litigation was similar to the dramas/shows on Over-The-Top (OTT) platforms. This observation followed the opportunity to watch content over OTT platforms by the judges. It specified stages of litigation resembling successive seasons of the dramas/shows (Alok Kumar Lodha vs Asian Hotels).  Brief

Fourteen NEET aspirants were allowed by the Delhi High Court to physically inspect their OMR sheets at the office of the National Testing Agency (NTA). This was pursuant to a Petition apprehending tampering with answer sheets.

The Delhi High Court issued the summons in a suit by the owner of Amul trademark, GCMMF. The video used Amul’s trademark while showing torture and cruelty to cows.

The Delhi High Court considered when an authority given to a particular functionary was exercised by the wrong functionary, and hence the resulting decision would be ultra vires and void.

The Delhi High Court states that victims were the forgotten people in the criminal justice delivery system, that Justice would be incomplete without adequate compensation to the victim.