SangsLegal News A party unable to challenge an arbitral award under sections 34 A&C, cannot seek relief through Article 226:Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court ruled that a party unable to challenge an arbitral award under sections 34 A&C cannot seek relief through Article 226. It was emphasized that Article 226 of the Indian Constitution is an extraordinary remedy and should not be used if other legal remedies have not been exhausted.

SangsLegal News A Muslim wife who is legally wedded cannot engage in a live-in relationship with another man: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a protection plea filed by a married Muslim woman and her Hindu live-in partner stating that under Shariat Law, a Muslim wife who is legally wedded cannot engage in a live-in relationship with another replica handbags man, as this would be considered 'Zina' (fornication) and 'Haram' (forbidden act according to Allah).

SangsLegal News Caring for children is a full-time responsibility for a mother, husband cannot refuse to pay maintenance on the basis that the wife relies solely on the maintenance: Karnataka High Court

SangsLegal News If the property is not 'actually used' exclusively for trade or commerce, a dispute involving such property can not be classified as commercial dispute :Supreme court

The Supreme Court has recently held that, a dispute involving an immovable property is not automatically classified as a commercial dispute under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The property must be 'actually used' exclusively for trade or commerce for it to be considered as such.

SangsLegal News Copyright protection under the Copyright Act, 1957, does not apply to human behavior or actions : Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has recently ruled that the human behavior cannot be protected under copyright law. The court clarified that the right to privacy only covers the intrinsic part of an individual's personality, and does not extend to the mere existence of facts or events related to human conduct. This ruling emphasizes that copyright protection under the Copyright Act, 1957, does not apply to human behavior or actions.