The Delhi High Court has restrained over 30 parties from unauthorised use of intellectual property related to the 1994 film Andaz Apna Apna, including its characters, dialogues, and registered trademarks.

The Court protected character names such as Teja, Crime Master Gogo, Amar and Prem. Vinay Pictures, represented by Shanti Vinaykumar Sinha, alleged unauthorised commercial use via T-shirts, mugs, posters, domain names, and social media. 

The Court found a prima facie case and granted an ex parte interim injunction. 

The Court directed platforms like Google, Flipkart, Etsy, and Meesho to remove infringing content and share seller details, while also blocking infringing domains and AI-generated content.

The Delhi High Court has affirmed that any person in India may legally import goods from abroad bearing a registered trademark and sell them, subject to full disclosure that the goods are second-hand and not covered by the original manufacturer’s warranty.

The ruling came in a case filed by Western Digital Technologies against the resale of its hard drives. The defendant claimed that it had legally purchased the goods from the Original Equipment Manufacturer, and a 2012 CBEC circular permitting parallel imports.

Relying on Kapil Wadhwa and Daichi, the Court upheld that such imports are permitted under Section 30 of the Trade Marks Act if proper disclosure is made to consumers.

The Supreme Court has declined to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Advocate Narendra Kumar Goswami, which sought the formation of a court-monitored expert panel to draft a model law regulating AI-generated deepfakes.

The petitioner highlighted the circulation of deepfake videos featuring Colonel Sofiya Qureshi, who had led media briefings on Operation Sindoor.

Acknowledging the seriousness of the issue, the bench noted that similar matters are already under consideration by the Delhi High Court.

The Court advised the petitioner to approach the High Court, granting him liberty to seek impleadment and present his suggestions in the ongoing proceedings.

The Supreme Court has acquitted a man sentenced to death penalty for the 2013 rape and murder of a three-year-old in Thane, Maharashtra, citing lack of credible evidence.

The court observed that the prosecution’s case, based on circumstantial evidence, was found unreliable &  inconsistent and with serious investigative lapses.

The Court found the last-seen theory, extra-judicial confession, and forensic soil evidence unreliable.

The Court criticised the investigation as biased. Considering the chain of evidence broken, the Court ordered the man’s immediate release after he had spent 12 years in jail.

The Supreme Court dismissed a plea seeking formal guidelines on the recusal of judges, stating that the decision to recuse lies solely with the concerned judge. The Court clarified that Article 142 cannot be used to frame such guidelines.

The petition arose after a Karnataka High Court judge recused from a case, prompting calls for transparency and consistency. 

The Court emphasised that recusals are subjective and judges may or may not disclose reasons.

Petitioners were allowed to approach the Chief Justice of the High Court for listing the pending matter.

The Delhi High Court has strongly criticised DPS Dwarka for expelling 32 students over unpaid fees without prior notice.

Justice Sachin Datta questioned the school's actions, asking, "Do you get a sadistic pleasure?" The court highlighted the absence of mandatory notices under Rule 35(4) of the Delhi School Education Rules.

Parents alleged that the school employed bouncers to block students' entry, deliberately avoided encashing fee cheques, and subjected students to public shaming. In one case, a girl was reportedly denied menstrual assistance due to unpaid fees.

The Delhi government has directed the school to readmit the students and cease any form of harassment. The matter is scheduled for further hearing on Monday. 

The Bar Council of India (BCI) has urged the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) to reconsider their decision not to host a farewell for retiring Justice Bela M Trivedi.

BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra called the move not only a break from tradition but also send a discouraging message to the judiciary and legal community. The CJI and Justice AG Masih also criticised the move. 

Justice Trivedi, appointed to the Supreme Court in 2021, had her last working day on May 16, though she officially retires in June.

Mishra praised Justice Trivedi’s integrity and called for a farewell to honour her judicial service and uphold legal traditions.

The Jharkhand High Court struck down Section 22-A of the Registration Act, introduced via Bihar Amendment Act 6 of 1991 and adopted by Jharkhand, which allowed the state to invalidate registrations on vague "public policy" grounds. 

Citing the Supreme Court’s 2005 Basant Nahata judgment, the court ruled the provision unconstitutional for violating Articles 14 and 246, stressing that interpreting "public policy" lies with the judiciary, not the executive.

The 2015 notification issued under this provision was also quashed.

All actions taken by Sub-Registrars under this rule now stand void, granting relief to the petitioners, including Chotanagpur Diocesan Trust Association (CNDTA). 

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has notified the Determination of Cost of Production Regulations, 2025, to curb predatory pricing and deep discounting in e-commerce and quick-commerce sectors.

The regulations introduce a case-by-case cost assessment model, replacing fixed benchmarks. This aims to provide a more robust framework for evaluating whether companies are engaging in abusive pricing tactics. 

Additionally, companies can challenge cost assessments through independent experts, at their own cost.

Predatory pricing is prohibited under Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002, and the new rules align with global best practices to strengthen enforcement in fast-evolving markets.

The rules were notified in the Official Gazette and effective from 6th May. 

The Supreme Court held that arbitral awards under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, cannot be annulled solely on jurisdictional grounds if such objections were not raised during the arbitration proceedings.

In this case, MP Road Development Corporation challenged an arbitral award under Section 34, arguing that the matter should have been adjudicated under the MP Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983. 

MP Road Development Corporation had contested an award post-facto under Section 34, which the High Court accepted.

The Supreme Court reversed it. Citing the L.G. Chaudhary (II) precedent, the Court ruled that once proceedings or awards are concluded, failure to raise objections under Section 16 bars annulment based on jurisdiction.

 However, such awards must be executed per the MP Act.

The Supreme Court has urged the Centre and States to urgently establish more exclusive POCSO courts to address the growing pendency of child sexual assault cases, particularly in Tamil Nadu, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Odisha, and Maharashtra.

Delays are undermining the Act’s strict timelines. The Court also emphasised the need for trained support staff, child-friendly infrastructure, and timely filing of charge sheets.

The Court highlighted gaps in forensic labs, legal aid, and victim compensation.

While noting partial compliance with its 2019 directions, it closed the suo motu case with strong advisories to ensure speedier and more sensitive handling of such cases.

A Delhi court has restrained Bengaluru-based Fox Mandal & Associates from using the trademark ‘FoxMandal’ and the domain www.foxmandal.in, citing prima facie infringement and passing off under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

The court held that the mark is phonetically and visually similar to the established law firm FoxMandal, potentially misleading clients.

The plaintiffs, including Managing Partner Somabrata Mandal, alleged that the defendants, Shuvabrata Mandal, his brothers, misused the goodwill of the original firm after a split. 

The court emphasized that an unwary consumer could be deceived into availing of services under the infringing mark. The matter will next be heard on August 21, 2024.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has directed the Indore Bar Association to issue general guidelines advising lawyers against filing affidavits verifying facts on behalf of their clients.

The Court noted that advocates are not competent to affirm facts concerning incidents they were not witnesses to, and deprecated the practice of supporting applications such as those seeking suspension of sentence with an advocate's sworn affidavits. 

The Registry has been instructed not to accept such applications in the future.

Dismissing the current application supported by an advocate’s affidavit, the Court emphasized the importance of factual verification by the concerned parties themselves. 

The Bombay High Court has formed a new three-judge bench to hear petitions concerning the Maratha reservation issue. 

These petitions challenge the constitutional validity of the Maharashtra State Reservation for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes Act, 2024, which grants a 10% quota in education and public jobs. 

The new bench replaces the earlier one following the transfer of the then Chief Justice and will now examine the 2024 Act, which is based on the MSBCC report citing “exceptional circumstances” to exceed the 50% reservation cap set by the Supreme Court in the 1992 Indra Sawhney judgment.

The next hearing in the matter is expected soon, as NEET-related concerns remain pending.