IndiGo’s mass flight cancellations have revived concerns over pilot fatigue regulations months after the Delhi High Court closed long-pending litigation on the issue.

The Court had disposed of petitions after the government confirmed the phased implementation of CAR 2024 and required airlines to submit their Flight Duty Time Limitation schemes to the DGCA.

However, stricter limits on night duty, reduced flight duty periods, and longer weekly rest under CAR 2024 created significant rostering and manpower challenges.

Delays led to cascading cancellations, prompting the DGCA to suspend the rules on December 5 to stabilise operations.

The Delhi High Court has held that virtual legal services rendered from Singapore by Clifford Chance cannot be taxed in India under the India–Singapore DTAA. 

The Bench ruled that the treaty does not recognise a “virtual service PE”, and taxation requires a physical presence or employees rendering services within India.

The Court also accepted that only 44 days involved actual client work, well below the 90-day threshold for a service PE, after excluding vacation, business development, and non-service days shown in detailed records.

Finding no nexus for taxation, the Court dismissed both appeals filed by the Income Tax Department

[Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation v. Clifford Chance Pte Ltd]

The Delhi High Court directed the Ministry of External Affairs to facilitate contact between actress Celina Jaitly and her brother, Major (Retd.) Vikrant Kumar Jaitly, who has been detained in the UAE.

The plea arose after Celina claimed she had not received updates despite approaching the Embassy and using the MADAD portal. The brother’s wife opposed the request, stating that he preferred not to contact her

The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to communicate with her brother and asked the MEA to ensure he is informed that he may reach out.

[Celina Jaitly v. Union of India]

A Delhi Court has imposed costs of ₹5,000 on BJP leader Suresh Nakhua after his counsel sought yet another adjournment in his defamation case against YouTuber Dhruv Rathee.

The court noted that despite repeated opportunities, Nakhua has continued to file defective affidavits, including one that was allegedly notarised before being signed. Earlier, the court had also summoned the notary who attested the faulty affidavit, though he has not appeared so far.

This was treated as the last and final opportunity for Nakhua to put his case in order. The Court will now hear arguments on Rathee’s plea under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on the maintainability of the suit.

The matter is next listed for March 11, 2026.

[Suresh Karamshi Nakhua v. Dhruv Rathee]

The Delhi High Court has upheld an order refusing to cancel a screw manufacturer's "HP" trademark, rejecting a challenge by the multinational technology brand HP.

The Court has dismissed an appeal by Ganraj Enterprises, a Maharashtra-based screw manufacturer that uses the mark “HP+”, against a 2022 order of the Registrar of Trade Marks refusing to cancel Land Mark Crafts Ltd.'s registration for the mark “HP” for identical goods.

The court found sufficient distinction between the hardware company's fasteners and the tech giant's electronic products, preventing consumer confusion in their respective markets.

The Delhi High Court sought the Centre’s response on a PIL challenging the appointment of over 650 lawyers as Central government counsel to appear before the Supreme Court.

The petitioner alleged that several appointees have not cleared the All India Bar Examination, raising concerns over their eligibility to practice in courts.

The plea further contended that the selection process lacked transparency and did not properly evaluate merit or experience. The Court directed the Additional Solicitor General to obtain instructions from the government and listed the matter for hearing on December 11.

The petitioner also sought quashing of the appointments and a fresh, merit-based selection process.

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday sought the Central government’s response to a petition challenging the lack of tribunals under the Industrial Relations (IR) Code, 2020.

The petition requested a stay on the notification appointing November 21, 2025, as the date for the Code’s enforcement.

The Court noted that the transition to the new regime requires functional tribunals to adjudicate industrial disputes, which have not yet been constituted. It asked the government to clarify how the Code can be implemented effectively without these tribunals. 

The matter is pending for further hearing.

[N A Sebastian & Anr v. Union of India]

The Delhi High Court refused to grant an interim injunction sought by Novo Nordisk, allowing Dr Reddy’s Laboratories to manufacture and export its version of the GLP-1 drug containing semaglutide.

The Court observed that Dr Reddy’s raised a credible challenge to Novo Nordisk’s patent claims, noting that the company had obtained two patents for minor variants of the same compound, amounting to “evergreening.”

The Court held that the species-specific patent was already claimed under a broader genus patent, and Novo Nordisk’s actions artificially extended its monopoly.

Dr Reddy’s is permitted to continue manufacturing the drug for export while the validity of the patent is examined.

[Novo Nordisk v. Dr Reddy’s Laboratories]

The Delhi High Court has sharply criticized a rule permitting hereditary allotment of lawyers' chambers, calling it "discrimination writ large" against newly enrolled advocates.

A Division Bench observed that such preferential allotment may violate Article 14 of the Constitution and questioned how family-based transfers could justify allowing someone to “jump the queue.”

The bench questioned the constitutionality of provisions allowing senior lawyers to transfer chamber rights to family members, potentially blocking access for junior practitioners in overcrowded court complexes. 

The Court has issued notice and sought replies within four weeks.

[First Generation Lawyers Association (FGLA) v. Bar Council of India & Ors.]

The Delhi High Court refused to entertain a PIL seeking a court-monitored oversight committee and a six-month deadline for completing the Red Fort blast trial.

A Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed that the trial has not even commenced yet, making any form of judicial monitoring premature. The Court also noted that the petitioner failed to show any violation of fundamental rights to justify invoking the PIL jurisdiction.

The Centre, represented by ASG Chetan Sharma, informed the Court that the investigation has already been transferred from the Delhi Police to the National Investigation Agency (NIA) and will proceed under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.

After the Bench made it clear that no directions would be issued, the petitioner withdrew the plea.

The Delhi High Court held that disputes arising from employment agreements cannot be treated as commercial disputes under Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

The Court observed that clauses such as confidentiality, non-compete, or intellectual property obligations do not transform an employment contract, fundamentally a personal service agreement, into a commercial arrangement.

It noted that allegations relating to breach of fiduciary duties, misuse of confidential information, statutory non-compliance, salary revisions, and post-resignation conduct arise from personal service obligations. 

The Court held that such matters fall within the jurisdiction of civil courts and dismissed the plea seeking rejection of the plaint.

[ARM Digital Media Pvt Ltd v. Ritesh Singh]

The Delhi High Court has held that the Lokpal cannot form a prima facie opinion on allegations of corruption without first granting the concerned public servant a hearing under Section 20(3) of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013.

The case concerned proceedings where the Lokpal had made substantive observations on the merits of the allegations and expressed that the matter warranted a “deeper probe”, even before hearing the petitioners.

Emphasising that the Lokpal’s investigative powers carry serious civil, reputational, and potential criminal consequences, the Bench held that these powers must be exercised strictly in accordance with the procedure established by Parliament.

It therefore quashed the impugned order and all consequential notices.

[Rajesh Kumar Singh & Ors. v. Lokpal of India]

Delhi High Court closed a copyright suit after Novex Communication stated it does not claim rights over sound recordings published before 1965.

Bignet Solutions had approached the Court seeking clarity on whether playing such songs at a private event required a licence.

The Court said the dispute no longer survived since Novex clearly confirmed that pre-1965 music falls outside its licensing scope. It was observed that no further adjudication was needed once the defendant clarified its stand.

The order provides certainty for organisers using old sound recordings for private events, affirming that no licence is required for pre-1965 songs.

[Bignet Solutions LLP v. Novex Communication Pvt Ltd]

A Delhi court has framed charges against Sushil Ansal for wrongfully securing a passport despite convictions existing against him in the preceding five years.

The Uphaar fire on June 13, 1997, during the screening of “Border,” killed 59 people and injured 100 after a blaze in the parking area spread through the building. Negligence was attributed to the Ansal brothers as escape routes were blocked by illegally fixed chairs.

Their convictions and subsequent orders evolved over the years, including a later conviction for evidence tampering, and the present case relates specifically to allegations that Sushil Ansal suppressed this history to obtain a passport.