Another One Bites the Dust – NCLAT Ousts CCI’s Jurisdiction in Patent Matters

The NCLAT’s decision in Swapan Dey v. CCI marks the latest turn in the growing reluctance to let the CCI probe allegations of anti-competitive conduct stemming from the enforcement of patent rights. Yet, as Vasundra Koul points out, intellectual property and competition law are explicitly linked. Explaining the interplay between the Competition Act and the

... Continue Reading.

Atomberg v. Eureka Forbes : Section 106 Steps Out of the Shadows

In Atomberg v. Eureka Forbes, the Supreme Court clarified a small but significant corner of Indian patent law. The Court recognised that suits against groundless threats of infringement have their own independent footing under Section 106 of the Patents Act – and aren’t automatically overridden by an infringement action. Hafsah Azhar Ansari breaks down the Court’s

... Continue Reading.

SUPREME COURT SETTLES THE LAW: HIGH COURTS CAN QUASH DV COMPLAINTS UNDER SECTION 12 USING INHERENT POWERS UNDER CRPC / BNSS

SUPREME COURT SETTLES THE LAW: HIGH COURTS CAN QUASH DV COMPLAINTS UNDER SECTION 12 USING INHERENT POWERS UNDER CRPC / BNSS In a landmark Judgment delivered on May 19, 2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that High Courts are empowered to quash proceedings initiated under Section 12(1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence

... Continue Reading.

SUPREME COURT RULES THAT STATE HAS THE POWER TO LEVY DEMANDS UNDER THE MINES AND MINERALS (DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATION) ACT, 1957

SUPREME COURT RULES THAT STATE HAS THE POWER TO LEVY DEMANDS UNDER THE MINES AND MINERALS (DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATION) ACT, 1957 INTRODUCTION In Chandra Bhan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.12314 of 2024) (decided by the Supreme Court of India on 23rd May 2025 relating to the question of levy of

... Continue Reading.