RAD & Partners, Advocates, Law Firm.

29/12/2025

𝐀𝐩𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐃𝐢𝐬𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐝
𝐈𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐦 𝐈𝐧𝐣𝐮𝐧𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐃𝐞𝐧𝐢𝐞𝐝
Sweet words—especially when you appear for the Defendant !!
Yes.

The Hon'ble Delhi High Court, by judgment dated 24.12.2025, pronounced by Justice Mini Pushkarna, has refused interim protection in a patent infringement suit while deciding an application under Order ###IX Rules 1 & 2 CPC.

It was a long-drawn contest—evident from the detailed 80-page judgment—where interim protection was denied, notwithstanding the Defendant having earlier lost the pre-grant opposition, the Court accepting that a credible challenge on prior use and obviousness had been raised.

Thanks to the team led by Mr. Deepak Jain and supported briefed by Ms. Anoushka Singh, Ms. Dashampreet Kaur, Mr. Arsh Raina, Mr. Sajal Gupta and Mr. Devender Chauhan.

22/10/2021

02/01/2021

Introducing the new RAD & Partners brand design for online and offline communication. The new communication logo is an expression of our revised identity reiterating our principals of Fidelity, Truth & Integrity.

02/03/2019

NCLT disallows Restoration Application: Frowns upon Petitioners “nonchalant” adjournment/delay tactics.

Extensively argued by Mr. Deepak Jain, Advocate {LL.M (Comm’l Laws, P.U.) LL.M (I.E.L Warwick, U.K), PIL (Harvard)}.



Read more at:

Hon’ble Mr. R.Varadharajan and Hon’ble Mr. V.K.Subburaj of the Hon’ble National Company Law Tribunal at Delhi reprimanded the petitioner, Mr. Ajay Batra and others by disallowing the restoration application seeking rectification of the register of members of BHP Machines Ltd. Restoration appli...

31/07/2018

Hon’ble Delhi High Court issued notice in the Writ Petition filed by Mr Deepak Jain, Advocate (LL.M (I.E.L, Warwick, U.K), PIL (Harvard) against Securities Exchange Board of India & a public company (erstwhile listed on Delhi Stock Exchange and now on Dissemination Board of Bombay Stock Exchange)

That the matter filed by Mr. Deepak Jain, Advocate was against the Exit Offer given by the company. The said Exit Offer and the method was not as per the circulars issued by SEBI or as per the law. That even after a specific method was stated by SEBI, the company computed the Exit Offer contrary to the said guidelines.

The Hon’ble Delhi High Court after hearing the arguments addressed by Mr. Deepak Jain, Advocate issued notice to both SEBI as well as the company to file response to the Petition. The court also stated that the said Exit Offer shall be subject to the outcome of this Petition qua the Petitioner.

25/07/2018

That the Hon'ble National Company Law Tribunal Chandigarh disposed off a petition filed under Section 58 of the Company's Act 2013 by Mr Deepak Jain, Advocate (LL.M (I.E.L, Warwick, U.K), PIL (Harvard).

That Mr. Deepak Jain, Advocate filed the said petition against the public unlisted company who was time and again returning the shares raising frivolous and baseless objections for not transferring the same in the name of the Petitioner since 2008.

That Hon'ble NCLT, after hearing the arguments of Mr. Deepak Jain, Advocate directed the public unlisted company to transfer all the pending shares in the name of the Petitioner Company.

18/07/2018

The Appellate Tribunal under PMLA & PBPT while issuing the notice against ED, granted stay against the notice issued under Section 8(4)

The Appellate Tribunal under Prohibition of Money Laundering Act, 2002 & Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988 issued notice against the Directorate of Enforcement in the appeal filed by Mr. Deepak Jain, Advocate (LL.M (I.E.L, Warwick, U.K), PIL (Harvard).

Today while issuing the notice, the Appellate Tribunal granted status quo (stay) on all the immovable properties of the Appellant and also on Section 8 (4) Notice issued by the Directorate of Enforcement, after hearing the arguments of Mr. Deepak Jain, Advocate.

The Appellant had challenged the order of the Adjudicating Authority confirming the Provisional Attachment Order on the grounds including but not limited to, that the properties were no anyway related to _“Proceeds of Crime”_ & above all it was stated there was no evidence of any crime committed by the Appellant.

10/07/2018

Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal under PBPT, issued notice against the order passed by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority under PBPT.

The Ld. Adjudicating Authority had confirmed the PAO pertaining to a transaction running into Crores on the eve of demonitisation.

Mr Deepak Jain, Advocate (LL.M (I.E.L, Warwick, U.K), PIL (Harvard) argued the matter before the Appellate Tribunal under PBPT stating that the said attachment order is bad in law and is not in consonance to the provision of Section 26 of the PBPT, 1988 amongst many other grounds.

15/05/2018

*The Appellate Tribunal under PMLA & PBPT while issuing the notice against ED, granted status quo against the notice issued under Section 8(4)*

The Appellate Tribunal under Prohibition of Money Laundering Act, 2002 & Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988 issued notice against the Directorate of Enforcement in the appeal filed by Mr. Deepak Jain, Advocate (LL.M (I.E.L, Warwick, U.K), PIL (Harvard).

Today while issuing the notice, the Appellate Tribunal granted status quo (stay) on all the immovable properties of the Appellant and also on Section 8 (4) Notice issued by the Directorate of Enforcement, after hearing the arguments of Mr. Deepak Jain, Advocate.

The Appellant had challenged the order of the Adjudicating Authority confirming the Provisional Attachment Order on the grounds including but not limited to, that the properties were no anyway related to _“Proceeds of Crime”_ & above all it was stated there was no evidence of any crime committed by the Appellant.