A very happy World IP Day to our readers! As the IPL frenzy returns, so does the battle for consumer attention, this time fought as much through witty notifications and real-time campaigns as on the cricket field, and raising familiar questions about the legality and limits of ambush marketing. In this post, Anooja Padhee and
... Continue Reading.Call for Papers: National Capital Law Journal (NCLJ), Vol. XXIII (2024) | Law Centre II, University of Delhi
National Capital Law Journal is a blind peer-reviewed Journal published annually by the Law Centre II, University of Delhi, Delhi since 1996 with the objective of promoting academic research and fostering debate on contemporary legal issues in India. It is not restricted to any particular field of law, and includes legal as well as policy
... Continue Reading.Goa Judicial Services Examination | Syllabus, Eligibility and Exam Pattern
The Goa Judicial Services Examination is conducted under the supervision of the High Court of Bombay at Goa for the recruitment of Civil Judge Junior Division (CJJD) and Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC). It is one of the most competitive state judiciary exams, offering an opportunity to enter the judicial services in Goa. Eligibility Criteria
... Continue Reading.Can Legal Representatives Challenge an Arbitral Award Under Article 227? Supreme Court Clarifies
The Supreme Court of India, in its recent judgment in V.K. John v. S. Mukanchand Bothra and HUF (Died), represented by LRs. & Others (2026 INSC 393), clarified that a challenge to an arbitral award by legal representatives must be pursued under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court made it
... Continue Reading.Absence of Full Trial Makes Foreign Judgment Unenforceable in India: Supreme Court
In a significant ruling on the enforcement of foreign judgments, the Supreme Court of India in Messer Griesheim GmbH v. Goyal MG Gases Pvt. Ltd. (2026) has reaffirmed that a foreign judgment rendered without a full and fair trial, particularly in summary proceedings where triable issues exist, cannot be enforced in India under Section 13
... Continue Reading.Arbitration Clause Not Binding If It Uses ‘Can’: Supreme Court Clarifies Law
The Supreme Court of India, in a significant 2026 judgment, has clarified an important aspect of arbitration law, whether the use of permissive language like “can” in a dispute resolution clause creates a binding arbitration agreement. The ruling in Nagreeeka Indcon Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Cargocare Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd. (2026 INSC 384) reinforces a
... Continue Reading.It’s the time to Pisco: Delhi HC Dismisses Peru’s GI Hopes Again!
“A Tale of Two Countries”. That is how the Delhi HC Division Bench (“DB”) described the judgment dated 18th March 2026 in the Appeal by the Embassy of Peru against the July 2025 Pisco decision by Justice Mini Pushkarna. Extensively covered on our blog previously, in travelling through the IPAB and the Delhi HC, the
... Continue Reading.PREMATURE REJECTION, DENIED JUSTICE: REVISITING ORDER VII RULE 11
INTRODUCTION In M/s. Marg Limited v. Sushil Lalwani & Ors. (decided on 21 April 2026), the Supreme Court of India, speaking through Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, examined the scope of rejection of Plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Judgment arose from an Order of
... Continue Reading.IBC MECHANISM NOT SUBSTITUTE FOR DECREE EXECUTION OR RECOVERY PROCEEDINGS
INTRODUCTION The Supreme Court in Anjani Technoplast Ltd. v. Shubh Gautam, 2026 INSC 410, on April 23, 2026, comprising of a Division Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe. clarifying whether a decree-holder can invoke insolvency proceedings as a substitute for execution of a civil court decree. BRIEF FACTS The Respondent, a
... Continue Reading.MAINTENANCE FOR CHILD CANNOT BE DEMANDED FROM A MAN IF A DNA TEST SHOWS HE IS NOT THE FATHER
INTRODUCTION In Nikhat Parveen @ Khusboo Khatoon v. Rafique @ Shillu, 2026 INSC 399, decided on 21 April 2026, the Supreme Court of India, comprising of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh observed a crucial principle related to whether a child born during marriage could claim maintenance when a DNA test negated
... Continue Reading.