Delhi High Court
The Centre in its plea negated the need for same-sex marriages. With respect to the Navtej Singh judgement, they stated that “only made a limited declaration to decriminalize a particular human behavior, which was a penal offence under S.377 IPC. The said declaration was neither intended to nor did, in fact, legitimize the conduct in question.”
The plea has been filed by Advocate Manashwy Jha. It is an appeal to the high court to not proceed with the physical hearing that is scheduled to start on March 15th, 2021. The plea stated that the Court should wait till the advocates and court officers are vaccinated before resuming physical hearings.
[COVID-19] Delhi High Court Suspends The Usage Of Breath Analyzer Test At The Airports To Safeguard The Interest Of The ATCs
Breath Analyzer Tests at Airport The present petition was filed in the High Court of Delhi to seek a temporary suspension of the Breath Analyzer Test (BAT) keeping in view the recent outbreak of COVID-19. The Petition was filed by...
Facts Times Now have filed a complaint against the Arnab Goswami for misusing the intellectual property of Ties Now. Arnab Goswami’s Republic TV had broadcasted a super-exclusive program on Sunanda Pushkar’s murder case. The Times Now, who was his previous...
The government will spend around Rs. 1000 Crore for the new parliament building, right in the center of India’s capital.
In the recent past, our government has come up with three different ordinances related to agriculture which has infuriated the farmers of our nation.
Sony Pictures Networks India Private Limited is looking to hire an Associate with 3-5 years of PQE from Media and Entertainment Industry, preferably with...
Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Hereinafter “Act”) lays down the basis for setting aside arbitral awards made in domestic and foreign arbitrations held in India. Though international awards cannot be contested in India, the compliance of such awards in India may be validly challenged by the award debtor on the grounds set out in Section 48 of the Act. The grounds set under both these sections are almost similar, one of the grounds being that the arbitral award is found contrary to the “public policy of India”. The question of the constituent elements of “public policy” have been discussed in a number of cases, however, in a recent case of Vijay Karia & Ors. V. Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi Srl & Ors, the SC drew attention to this point viz-a-viz foreign award.