Latest news with #HarishVaidyanathanShankar
The Hindu
08-07-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
How long can a suspect be kept in jail, HC asks Delhi Police in 2020 riots case
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday questioned the Delhi Police as to how long accused persons can be kept in jail while remarking that five years have elapsed since the February 2020 riots, yet the arguments on the framing of charges have still not been concluded. A Bench of Justices Subramonium Prasad and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar made the remark while hearing the bail plea filed by Tasleem Ahmed, an accused charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act in the north-east Delhi riots 'larger conspiracy' case. 'Five years have gone by. Even arguments on the charge have not been completed. In matters like this, with 700 witnesses, how much time can a person be kept inside [jail]?' said the Bench. The court's remarks came after the accused's advocate, Mehmood Pracha, sought relief for his client on the grounds of parity in relation to the co-accused in the trial. 'He [Ahmed] was arrested on June 24, 2020... He has already spent five years,' Mr. Pracha argued, citing the examples of co-accused Devangana Kalita, Asif Iqbal Tanha and Natasha Narwal, who were granted bail in 2021 on the grounds of delay in the trial proceedings. Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad contended that the prosecution could not be blamed for the delay, as there were several occasions when the matter was adjourned on the request of accused persons. The hearing will resume on Wednesday. 'Larger conspiracy' case The 'larger conspiracy' case is among the many pertaining to the riots and is so named because the Delhi police have claimed that the communal violence was part of a 'deep-rooted conspiracy'. Key accused in the case include former Delhi councillor Tahir Hussain and student activists Umar Khalid and Khalid Saifi.
The Hindu
02-07-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Parliament security breach: Delhi HC grants bail to accused Neelam Azad, Mahesh Kumawat
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday (July 2, 2025) granted bail to two accused in the December 2023 Parliament security breach case. A bench of Justices Subramonium Prasad and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar granted relief to Neelam Azad and Mahesh Kumawat on a personal bond of ₹50,000 each and two sureties of the like amount. The Judge also directed them not to give interviews to media outlets or make social media posts related to the incident. The accused had challenged a trial court's order rejecting their bail plea. In a major security breach on the anniversary of the 2001 Parliament terror attack, accused Sagar Sharma and Manoranjan. D allegedly jumped into the Lok Sabha chamber from the public gallery during Zero Hour, released yellow gas from canisters and sloganeered before they were overpowered by some MPs. Around the same time, two other accused— Amol Shinde and Azad— allegedly sprayed coloured gas from canisters while shouting "tanashahi nahi chalegi (dictatorship won't work)" outside Parliament premises.
New Indian Express
02-07-2025
- Politics
- New Indian Express
Parliament security breach: Delhi HC grants bail to accused Neelam Azad, Mahesh Kumawat
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court on Wednesday granted bail to two accused in the December 2023 Parliament security breach case. A bench of Justices Subramonium Prasad and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar granted relief to Neelam Azad and Mahesh Kumawat on a personal bond of Rs 50,000 each and two sureties of the like amount. The judge also directed them not to give interviews to media outlets or make social media posts related to the incident. The accused had challenged a trial court's order rejecting their bail plea. In a major security breach on the anniversary of the 2001 Parliament terror attack, accused Sagar Sharma and Manoranjan D allegedly jumped into the Lok Sabha chamber from the public gallery during Zero Hour, released yellow gas from canisters and sloganeered before they were overpowered by some MPs. Around the same time, two other accused -- Amol Shinde and Azad -- allegedly sprayed coloured gas from canisters while shouting "tanashahi nahi chalegi (dictatorship won't work)" outside Parliament premises.
Deccan Herald
02-07-2025
- Deccan Herald
Parliament security breach: Delhi High Court grants bail to accused Neelam Azad, Mahesh Kumawat
A bench of Justices Subramonium Prasad and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar granted relief to Neelam Azad and Mahesh Kumawat on a personal bond of Rs 50,000 each and two sureties of the like amount.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
16-06-2025
- Business
- Business Standard
Impact on biz no valid reason to set aside injunction: HC on trademark row
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the adverse impact on business operations or plans to launch an IPO cannot be a valid reason to set aside an interim injunction in a trademark infringement dispute, LiveLaw reported. A division Bench comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar made this clear while hearing an appeal filed by Newgen IT Technologies. The company had challenged a district court order that restrained it from using the trademark 'Newgen', which was already in use by the respondent in the same business domain. 'In the present case, while the appellant has strenuously contended that the injunction has brought its business operations to a standstill and jeopardised its IPO plans, we are not persuaded by this line of argument,' the court held. 'The appellant cannot be permitted to continue deriving commercial benefit from a mark that, in our considered view, is similar to that of the respondent and clearly warrants restraint through injunctive relief.' Trademark dispute originated after business split The legal battle stems from a dispute between Newgen IT Technologies (the appellant) and VCARE InfoTech Solutions and Services (the respondent). Both companies operate in the field of software product development in India and had previously entered into a partnership agreement. After the agreement was terminated, the appellant adopted the name 'NewGen IT Technologies', prompting the respondent to approach the district court, alleging trademark infringement. The lower court found that the name adopted by the appellant was identical to that of the respondent and was likely to mislead or confuse consumers. Consequently, an ex-parte ad-interim injunction was issued against the appellant, the news report said. HC upholds finding of 'striking similarity' in marks In its appeal, Newgen IT Technologies argued that it had been using the mark 'NEWGEN IT' since 2017, both in India and internationally, and that the respondent had raised no objection until the dispute arose. However, the high court sided with the district court, agreeing that the two marks were 'strikingly similar' and that both companies operated in the same sector. 'Coupled with this is their association as partners under the Partnership Agreement. This similarity is capable of causing confusion in the minds of an average consumer, thereby justifying the grant of an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of the Respondent/Plaintiff,' the Bench observed. The court further noted that the appellant began using the term 'NEWGEN' around the time the partnership with the respondent ended. This timing, according to the Bench, raised serious doubts about the genuineness of the adoption, LiveLaw reported. As the judgment stated, the timing 'cannot be considered as a bona fide adoption". International use no defence without local reputation On the argument that the respondent had knowledge of the appellant's use of the mark in other jurisdictions, the court emphasised the territorial nature of trademark rights. 'It must be remembered that trademark protection is territorial in nature; the use of the mark in one jurisdiction does not ipso facto lead to the generation of goodwill or protection in the other jurisdiction,' the court held. It added that protection in another country can only be extended if there is demonstrated use or transborder reputation of the mark in that jurisdiction — criteria the appellant failed to meet, the news report said. Finding no merit in the arguments advanced by Newgen IT Technologies, the Delhi high court dismissed the appeal, allowing the interim injunction granted by the district court to remain in force.
