The Supreme Court held that BSF and other CAPF personnel can approach the Delhi High Court in service-related disputes even if the cause of action arose outside Delhi. The Court said jurisdiction exists because the Union Government and force headquarters are located in the national capital.
The NLU Consortium has appealed to the Delhi High Court against a ruling that required revising CLAT 2025 results due to errors identified in the exam questions. The court acknowledged mistakes in two questions and mandated corrections, while the Consortium argues this judicial intervention oversteps boundaries on academic matters. Both sides await further hearings.
The Supreme Court has issued notices to the Centre and other parties, including the Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU), regarding a plea related to the University Grants Commission’s authority over distance education programs. The UGC challenged a Madras High Court ruling that upheld its jurisdiction, leading to the current proceedings.
![[Swiggy vs. CCI] Karnataka HC Uncertain on Swiggy's Plea Against CCI Order](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/MicrosoftTeams-image-122.png?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
The Karnataka High Court on 23rd May, expressed uncertainty about its jurisdiction over Swiggy’s plea against a Competition Commission of India (CCI) directive. The court questioned if any part of the case’s cause of action took place in Karnataka, requesting additional clarity from Swiggy. The dispute centers on sharing confidential information with the CCI during an anti-competitive practice probe.
Delhi High Court examines a case regarding Google Ads’ impact on Indian advertisers’ arbitration rights. Startupwala demands reinstatement of ads disapproved by Google, citing Arbitration Act. NEW DELHI: Recently, The Delhi High Court examining a case involving Google’s advertising system and its potential impact on Indian advertisers’ ability to seek legal recourse domestically. A petition […]
Today(on 19th March),The Delhi High Court allowed a Ukrainian mother to return home with her son, rejecting the father’s guardianship petition. Emphasizing the child’s best interests, the court considered the wrongful act of bringing the child to India against a Ukrainian court order. Financial constraints and international legal standards also influenced the decision.