The Delhi High Court referred a copyright dispute between Trimurti Films and B62 Studios over a song in Dhurandhar 2 to mediation. Observing the issue was largely financial, the court directed parties to resolve royalty and compensation through mediation.
The Chhattisgarh High Court held that litigants should not suffer due to their lawyers’ negligence in conducting cases. Citing precedent, it emphasized that parties cannot be expected to monitor proceedings constantly and should not be penalised for counsel’s default.
The Delhi High Court dismissed Sanjay Bhandari’s appeal challenging his designation as a fugitive economic offender. Upholding the trial court order, Justice Neena Bansal Krishna rejected the plea, with a detailed judgment yet to be released.
The Delhi High Court restrained a forensic investigator from disclosing privileged information in a suit by Kochhar & Co. It found a prima facie case and ruled that allowing disclosure would cause irreparable harm, granting interim protection to the law firm.
The Kerala High Court appointed retired Justice VG Arun as chairperson of the Sabarimala master plan committee after a vacancy. The bench noted the committee’s functioning was affected due to absence of leadership following the former chairperson’s demise.
The Supreme Court held that distinct NDPS offences can attract separate punishments. However, when sentences run concurrently, fines must also be concurrent, preventing multiple fines for the same transaction and avoiding cumulative penalties.
A Delhi court granted bail to Sukesh Chandrasekhar in a money laundering case, citing excessive detention and violation of personal liberty. It held prolonged custody undermines speedy trial rights, ordering release on bond and sureties under strict conditions.
The Kerala High Court refused to stay release of a film allegedly based on the Venjaramoodu murder case, citing creative freedom. It held that apprehensions of trial influence and privacy harm were insufficient grounds to block the film’s release.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that a Muslim man’s second marriage during subsistence of the first does not constitute bigamy under Section 494 IPC. It ruled the provision is subject to Muslim personal law permitting multiple marriages under conditions.
The Delhi High Court rejected a plea seeking reservation for lawyers with under ten years’ practice in Bar Council of Delhi elections. It held that granting such relief would result in impermissible complete reservation, violating provisions of the Advocates Act.
