India: Trials & Appeals & Compensation

The Delhi High Court’s May 13, 2025 decision in Abros Sports International Pvt. Ltd. v. Ashish Bansal & Ors. [2025 SCC OnLine Del 3410] has forced us to confront one of the most recurring questions in the Indian trade mark law: can the proprietor of one registered mark be sued for infringement by the proprietor of another registered mark?

Apple Inc. (Apple) has moved the Delhi High Court challenging how penalties are calculated under India's revamped competition law framework. The challenge stems from an ongoing antitrust investigation into Apple's App Store practices in India. Complaints from app developers, including Match Group, alleged that Apple's restrictions on in-app payments and distribution unfairly disadvantage competitors and developers

The Appellant instituted a suit bearing Suit No. 310 of 2014 ("said Suit"). before the Principal District Court, Chengalpet against the Respondents and Government authorities inter alia seeking declaratory relief, among others that, he is the legal owner of the suit property.

India follows a common law system where the civil court structure is defined and governed by the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (CPC). The hierarchy of civil courts begins with the civil judge (Junior division)/Munsiff courts followed by a civil judge (Senior Division), district courts at the district level. The supervisory jurisdiction over all district courts in a state vests with the High Court having jurisdiction over such state. At the pinnacle, is the Supreme court of India – which is the country’s highest constitutional court.

Argus Partners provides essential information about their office locations and legal practice guidelines. The firm outlines the regulatory framework governing legal advertising in India and establishes clear terms for website visitors regarding the nature of information provided and the absence of any attorney-client relationship through digital engagement.

In Parvinder Singh vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2026 INSC 519, the Supreme Court delivered an important ruling clarifying the scope and effect of the first proviso to Section 223(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), holding that an accused must be afforded an opportunity of hearing before cognizance is taken on a complaint and that non-compliance with such requirement renders the proceedings void ab initio even in money laundering matters.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in Dineshchand Surana v UCO Bank, 2026 INSC 579 acting through a Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan, examined the interplay between the moratorium provisions under Part III of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and proceedings for dishonour of cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

SC in Punjab State Power Corporation Limited v Talwandi Sabo Power Limited & Ors., 2026 INSC 515 , set aside the order of the APTEL and restored the penalty order of the Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission (PSERC) against Talwandi Sabo Power Limited (TSPL).

The Supreme Court of India, by its judgment dated 27 May 2026, allowed the appeal filed by Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC (Amazon) and set aside the orders of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) dated 13 June 2022 and the order of the Competition Commission of India (CCI) dated 17 December 2021.