The Supreme Court held that merely mentioning a caste name without intent to insult does not attract the SC/ST Act. It said allegations must show caste-based abuses or that the caste name was hurled as an abuse, in fact.
A Jodhpur businessman has alleged that he was defrauded of Rs.65 lakh by two men who claimed close links with Supreme Court and Rajasthan High Court judges, promising to influence verdicts in his favour using their connections. A businessman from Jodhpur has filed a police complaint, alleging he was defrauded of Rs.65 lakh by two […]
Today, On 7th February, The Supreme Court ruled that relatives of an accused cannot be implicated in domestic violence cases under Section 498A simply for not assisting the victim. The Court emphasized that complaints and charges must be specific against each accused family member. It stated that vague or general allegations are not sufficient for prosecution. This decision aims to prevent misuse of the law and ensure fairness in such cases.
During a defamation case against CM Atishi, the complainant’s counsel argued before Justice Vikas Mahajan that the special judge acted like a political analyst. He sought a stay on the judge’s remarks, claiming they unfairly portrayed Atishi as a whistleblower. The counsel contended that her statements were “per se” defamatory. The Delhi High Court was urged to intervene and review the observations.
OpenAI is currently battling a copyright lawsuit in India, arguing that Indian courts lack jurisdiction due to its US-based operations. This legal challenge comes after similar defenses by Telegram failed in past cases. The case highlights the growing scrutiny of US tech firms’ compliance with local laws in foreign markets. Legal experts suggest the case could still be heard in Indian courts, despite OpenAI’s jurisdiction claim.
Today, On 17th January, The Delhi High Court restrained DB Dixon Battery from using cricketer Shikhar Dhawan’s images for their promotional activities without authorization. The court ruled that the company’s actions violated Dhawan’s personality and publicity rights. This order emphasizes the importance of consent in using celebrity endorsements. Dhawan sought legal action to protect his image and reputation.