Citations 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 917 to 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1039NOMINAL INDEXPCIT Versus Pepsico India Holding Pvt. Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 917 ADITYA N PRASAD v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 918 DOMINOS IP HOLDER LLC & ANR. v. MS DOMINICK PIZZA & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 919 SUBHASHINI RATAN & ORS. vs LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY SECRETARIAT NCT OF DELHI & ORS....
Citations 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 917 to 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1039
NOMINAL INDEX
PCIT Versus Pepsico India Holding Pvt. Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 917
ADITYA N PRASAD v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 918
DOMINOS IP HOLDER LLC & ANR. v. MS DOMINICK PIZZA & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 919
SUBHASHINI RATAN & ORS. vs LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY SECRETARIAT NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 920
DIVYAM AGGARWAL v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR m2023 LiveLaw (Del) 921
Shelly Oberoi v. Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 922
Abhishek SIngh v. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 923
Sudershan Kumar Bhayana (Deceased) v. Vinod Seth (Deceased) 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 924
Harshita Gandhi v. Nimit Gandhi 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 925
SHRI RAMLEELA COMMITTE JANAKPURI & ANR. v. RISHU KANT SHARMA & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 926
TARUN NARANG v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) AND ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 927
Pankaj Kumar Sharma v. GNCTD & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 928
PRASHANT REDDY T v. CPIO, UNIQUE IDENTIFICATION AUTHORITY OF INDIA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 929
STAR INDIA PVT LTD & ANR. v. YODESISERIAL.SU & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 930
AAKASH GOEL v. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE DELHI GOVT and other connected matter 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 931
X v. Y 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 932
FRESH FRUIT FLOWERS AND VEGETABLES TRADERS ASSOCIATION v. DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 933
FIRASAT HUSSAIN v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 934
BRIJ MOHAN v. CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 935
Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi & Ors. Versus M/S Indian Trade Promotion Org. & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 937
SIMPLOT INDIA LLC v. HIMALAYA FOOD INTERNATIONAL LIMITED 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 938
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. v. AMIT LODHA & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 939
SAURABH SHUKLA v. INDIRA GANDHI NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 940
ANUBHAV KHAJURIA AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH MINISTRY OF FISHERIES, ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND DAIRYING 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 941
TATA SONS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. v. PURO WELLNESS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 942
IRCON INTERNATIONAL LIMITED V. DMRC 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 943
Shambhu Synthetics Pvt. Ltd Versus Commissioner Of Customs 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 944
NEELAM KUMARI v. THE UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 945
Dr Akash Bhattacharya v. Delhi Disaster Management Authority through Chairperson Lt. Governor & Anr 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 946
HUMANS OF BOMBAY STORIES PVT. LTD. v. POI SOCIAL MEDIA PVT. LTD. & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 947
X v. Y 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 948
MATA PRASAD AND ORS v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 949
State v. Ariz Khan 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 950
IOCL v. Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 951
M/S Asian Hotels Ltd. Versus CIT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 952
BSNL v. Vihaan Networks Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 953
IOCL v. Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 954
BSNL v. Vihaan Networks Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 955
Zakir Hussain v. Sunshine Agrisystem Pvt Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 956
MASTER ADITYA VIKRAM KANSAGRA & ANR. v. PERRY KANSAGARA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 957
TIBRA COLLECTION v. FASHNEAR TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 958
ACG AIRCRAFT LEASING IRELAND LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 959
PRABIR PURKAYASTHA v. STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. and other connected matter 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 960
Ajay Sagar Versus Principal Commissioner Of Customs (Import) 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 961
PCIT Versus M/S. Azure Retreat Pvt Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 962
MR. GUANGWEN KUANG @ ANDREW v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 963
Dr. Vivek Jain v. PrepLadder Pvt Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 964
BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED v. AMAR BISCUIT PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 965
GLAXO GROUP LIMITED v. PRECADO HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 966
Taleda Square Pvt Ltd v. Rail Land Development Authority 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 967
M/s SVK Infrastructures v. Delhi Tourism and Transportation Development Corporation Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 968
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND v. KENDRIYA VIDVALAYA SANGTHAN & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 969
Centre for Policy Research v. Union of India & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 970
X v. Y 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 971
S v. State & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 972
TV TODAY NETWORK LIMITED v. CAPITAL TV AND ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 973
AYUR UNITED CARE LLP v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 974
MRS. D & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 975
PCIT Versus Hellmann Worldwide Logistics India Pvt. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 976
Raghav Chadha v. Rajya Sabha Secretariat 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 977
Vimal Agro Products P. Ltd. v. Capital Foods P. Ltd. & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 978
Amit Sharma v. State 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 979
Japan Patent Office v. Ms. A2Z Glass and Glazing Co. & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 980
DR RAVIKANT CHAUHAN & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. & Other Connected Matter 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 981
Nayati Healthcare and Research NCR Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. through its Authorized Representative Sh. Satish Kumar Narula & Ors. v. Union of India Ministry of Home Affairs through its Standing Counsel & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 982
Berger Paints India Ltd Versus Commissioner Of Trade And Taxes 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 983
Red Bull AG v. Rohidas Popat Kapadnis & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 984
Hulm Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Fantasy Sports MyFab11 Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 985
X v. Y 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 986
AMIT SAHNI v. HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 987
KARAN S THUKRAL v. THE DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 988
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EMPOWERMENT & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 989
Viacom18 Media Private Limited v. BiggBos.Live & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 990
Adarsh Kanojia v. Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 991
ASHISH MITTAL v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 992
Directorate of Enforcement v. Sh. Dev Inder Bhalla 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 993
New Balance Athletics Inc. v. Salman Khan & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 994
CIT Versus Deloitte Touche Tohmastu 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 995
Sinogas Management Pte Ltd Versus DCIT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 996
MRS B. v. THE UNION OF INDIA & ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 997
SAMEER MAHANDRU v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 998
Jan Seva Welfare Society (Reg.) v. Union of India and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 999
M/S MEX SWITCHGEARS PVT. LTD. 9TH KILOMETER, MEX ESTATE, PATHANKOT ROAD, JALANDHAR v. VIKRAM SURI TRADING AS M/S ARMEX AUTO INDUSTRIES 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1000
Ajit Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1001
Himalaya Wellness Company & Ors. v. Abony Healthcare Limited through its Directors & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1002
Sopariwala Exports & Ors. v. Ashraf V 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1003
INDIAMART Intermesh Limited v. Mr. Sameer Samim Khan & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1004
SANJAY SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1005
PINKI IRANI v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1006
Modicare Limited v. Maa Adishakti Multi Trade Enterprises & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1007
ISHWAR SINGH DAHIYA v. STATE OF NCT DELHI AND ORS and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1008
INTER IKEA SYSTEMS BV v. QUESS CORP LIMITED 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1009
Puma SE v. Ashok Kumar 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1010
FSN E-COMMERCE VENTURES LTD & ANR. v. PINTU KUMAR YADAV & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1011
ASFIVE AGRO PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1012
Dr. P. V. Vijayaraghavan & Ors v. Nityam Software Solution Pvt. Ltd. & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1013
MB POWER (MADHYA PRADESH) LTD. v. OMBUDSMAN, RESERVE BANK OF INDIA & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1014
SANGEETA WAHI v UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1015
Strix Ltd v. Maharaja Appliances Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1016
Dr. Neena Raizada v. Medical Council of India through its Secretary & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1017
Wills John v. Delhi Development Authority 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1018
The Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Taxation)-1, Delhi Versus M/S Bio-Rad Laboratories (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1019
KAVI VAIDWAN & ORS. v. DELHI SKILL AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP UNIVERSITY & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1020
PHONOGRAPHIC PERFORMANCE LIMITED v. GOLA SIZZLERS PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1021
X v. Y 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1022
Vodafone Idea Limited Versus Union Of India & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1023
MISSION SAVE CONSTITUTION v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1024
SMT. DEEPALI & ANR. v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1025
SUNSHINE TEAHOUSE PVT LTD v. GREY MANTRA SOLUTIONS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1026
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL FEDERATION OF INDIA & ANR. v. THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1027
Sakshi Rathore and Ors v. Union of India and Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1028
Syngenta Limited v. Controller of Patents and Designs 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1029
WONDER BRICKS Versus PCIT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1030
Mehra Jewel Palace Pvt Ltd Vs Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1031
TTK PRESTIGE LTD v. ARJUN RAM & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1032
Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Dreamz11 and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1033
MD NEMAT ALI AND ANOTHER v. THE STATE AND OTHERS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1034
WOW MOMO FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED v. FRANCHISEBYTE 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1035
X v. Y 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1036
Rajeev Nambiar and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1037
YUVRAJ FRANCIS v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1038
Court on its own motion v. Naresh Sharma 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1039
Case Title: PCIT Versus Pepsico India Holding Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 917
The Delhi High Court has allowed the deduction for the employee’s contribution towards the provident fund as the due date fell on a national holiday.
The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that since the due date fell on a date that was a national holiday, the deposit could have been made by the respondent or assessee only on the date that followed the national holiday.
Display 'Environmental Cost' Of Projects At Construction Sites: Delhi High Court To Centre
Title: ADITYA N PRASAD v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 918
The Delhi High Court has directed the Union Government to ensure that the environmental cost of all projects, including the number of trees that are felled and location of compensatory plantation, is displayed at the construction sites.
Justice Subramonium Prasad said that an officer not less than the rank of Joint Secretary in the Union Ministry of Urban Development should be made responsible to ensure compliance of the direction.
Title: DOMINOS IP HOLDER LLC & ANR. v. MS DOMINICK PIZZA & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 919
The Delhi High Court has observed that where the trademarks in a suit pertain to food items or eateries where food items are served, a “higher degree of care and caution” is to be observed.
Observing that running an eating house using a mark which is deceptively similar to a reputed mark does not speak well for the enterprise concerned, Justice C Hari Shankar said:
“The intent to capitalise on the reputation of a known and established brand, by using a mark which is deceptively similar to the mark used by the brand, can, in a given case, give rise to a legitimate apprehension of quality compromise by the imitator. Courts have, therefore, to be vigilant in ensuring that, where the marks relate to consumable items or to enterprises such as hotels, restaurants and eating houses where consumable items are served to customers, such imitative attempts are not allowed to go unchecked.”
Delhi High Court Vacates Stay On Termination Of Delhi Assembly Fellows
Case Title: SUBHASHINI RATAN & ORS. vs LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY SECRETARIAT NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 920
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday vacated its interim order staying the decision of the Delhi Legislative Assembly Secretariat disengaging the services of Fellows and Associate Fellows under the Delhi Assembly Research Centre Fellowship Programme.
Justice Subramonium Prasad noted that the Supreme Court in July had refused to stay the operation of the letter issued by Delhi Government’s Services Department directing the disengagement of the Fellows and Associate Fellows.
Case Title: DIVYAM AGGARWAL v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 921
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition seeking prohibition on the display of anti-tobacco health spots containing “graphic or gross images” during films in cinemas, TV or OTT platforms.
Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that the graphic description given in the Government issued advertisements are meant to be “eye-openers for the people” to not use tobacco and tobacco products and therefore, is in public interest.
Delhi Mayor Shelly Oberoi Gets Political Clearance To Travel Abroad; High Court Disposes Plea
Title: Shelly Oberoi v. Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 922
Delhi Mayor Shelly Oberoi informed the Delhi High Court that she has been granted political clearance by the Union Government for her visit to Brisbane to attend a conference.
Noting that the grievance no longer survives, Justice Subramonium Prasad disposed of the plea upon being informed of the clearance.
Oberoi had sought permission to attend the 2023 Asia Pacific Cities Summit and Mayor's Forum in Brisbane. The event is scheduled to take place between October 11 and 13.
Title: Abhishek SIngh v. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 923
While dismissing a plea moved by a candidate who appeared in Delhi Judicial Higher Services Preliminary examination 2023, the Delhi High Court has said that there is no requirement that a question asked in the exam must refer to the statute on which it is based.
A division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan said that it is sufficient that the question contains clues so as to enable an examinee to select the correct option.
Award On Damages Cannot Be Sustained Just On Penalty Clause In Agreement: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Sudershan Kumar Bhayana (Deceased) v. Vinod Seth (Deceased)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 924
The Delhi High Court has held that an award of damages based on no evidence of loss cannot be sustained on the basis of a penalty clause in the agreement.
The bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan held that mere presence of a clause providing for liquidated damages does not dispense with the requirement of proof of loss from a party claiming damages.
Title: Harshita Gandhi v. Nimit Gandhi
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 925
The Delhi High Court has expressed regret to a retired Principal and Sessions Judge who was appointed by it as a local commissioner in a matrimonial dispute for the agony caused to her during the appointment.
Justice Navin Chawla observed that the wife was making a mockery of the court system by first seeking substitution of the Local Commissioner initially appointed by the family court and later making allegations against the substitute Local Commissioner appointed by the High Court as well.
Case Title: SHRI RAMLEELA COMMITTE JANAKPURI & ANR. v. RISHU KANT SHARMA & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 926
The Delhi High Court on Thursday permitted hosting of Dussehra Mela in the District Park, Janakpuri while directing the organizers to ensure that no damage or harm be done to the ground’s green cover or trees already in existence.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna permitted Shri Ram Leela Committee, Janakpuri to host the Dussehra or Ramleela celebrations on the ground for the current year from today till October 30.
Court-Monitored Probe Is A Significant Measure, Can’t Be Employed Routinely: Delhi High Court
Title: TARUN NARANG v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) AND ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 927
The Delhi High Court has observed that a court-monitored investigation is a significant measure which is invoked in cases of “palpable sense of governmental neglect or oversight” and should not be employed routinely or without just cause.
“We must preserve its weight for situations where the state appears either ignorant or non-cognizant of issues. Resorting to such an investigation without substantial reasoning could inadvertently diminish its efficacy,” a division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula said.
Title: Pankaj Kumar Sharma v. GNCTD & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 928
The Delhi High Court has ordered compensation of Rs. 50,000 to a man who was illegally detained for about “half an hour” in a Delhi Police’s lockup “for no rhyme or reason” and said that a meaningful message must be sent to the authorities that police officers cannot be law unto themselves.
Justice Subramonium Prasad directed that the compensation amount be recovered from salaries of two erring Sub-Inspectors of Badarpur Police Station who brought the man and placed him in the lockup.
Title: PRASHANT REDDY T v. CPIO, UNIQUE IDENTIFICATION AUTHORITY OF INDIA
Citation:2023 LiveLaw (Del) 929
The Delhi High Court has ruled that details of the agreements entered into between the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) with external organisations engaged in handling the grievance redressal mechanism of the statutory body can be provided under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Justice Subramonium Prasad added that the details pertaining to non-disclosure agreements entered into with the personnel and individuals who will be covered under the said agreement will however be exempted.
Title: STAR INDIA PVT LTD & ANR. v. YODESISERIAL.SU & ORS
Citation:2023 LiveLaw (Del) 930
The Delhi High Court has permanently restrained 50 rogue websites from illegally streaming various television shows, TV series and movies broadcasted on OTT platform Disney plus Hotstar.
Justice C Hari Shankar observed that prima facie, exclusive rights to stream or telecast the content contained in the 26 shows and films vests in the platform and not others.
The court was hearing a suit moved by Star India Private Limited and Disney Plus Hotstar against the rogue websites alleging that they were engaged in piracy of their copyrighted content.
Title: AAKASH GOEL v. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE DELHI GOVT and other connected matter
Citation:2023 LiveLaw (Del) 931
The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government to conduct an exhaustive review of the existing cap on the beneficiaries under the Old Age Assistance Rules, 2009, taking into account the contemporary socio-economic conditions and the emerging needs of the elderly population.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula also directed the government to relook at the eligibility criteria of annual family income of Rs. 1 lakh per annum which is one of the eligibility conditions for the applicants to receive the financial aid under the Rules.
Case Title: X v. Y
Citation:2023 LiveLaw (Del) 932
The Delhi High Court has observed that for a married couple to be deprived of the conjugal relationship and of each other’s company is an act of extreme cruelty.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna upheld a family court order granting divorce to a husband under Section 13 (1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956, on the ground of cruelty by wife.
Title: FRESH FRUIT FLOWERS AND VEGETABLES TRADERS ASSOCIATION v. DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE & ANR.
Citation:2023 LiveLaw (Del) 933
The Delhi High Court has upheld a notification issued by the Union Government’s Directorate General of Foreign Trade in 2020 prohibiting importation of a variety of cut flowers into India through all airports, except Chennai airport.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula said that the notification does not arbitrarily discriminates against flower traders in the Delhi-NCR region but rather aims to fortify the nation’s bio-security.
Title: FIRASAT HUSSAIN v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 934
The Delhi High Court has suggested the Parliament’s Select Committee to make changes in Section 438 of the new CrPC[BNSS] (akin to Section 437A of Code of 1973) pertaining to the requirement of furnishing of personal bond with surety by an accused on his acquittal.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna suggested the Select Committee to replace the word “shall” with “may” and replace the word “bail or bail bond” with “personal bond with or without surety.”
Title: BRIJ MOHAN v. CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION & ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 935
The Delhi High Court has observed that the enquiry report of the Central Bureau of Investigation regarding investigation in a case is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(h) of the Right to Information Act.
“Section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act specifically exempts such information which will impede the process of investigation revealing a copy of the entire report of the CBI. Further, if such information falls in the hands of other offenders, it will certainly impede an ongoing investigation process,” Justice Subramonium Prasad said.
Case Title: Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi & Ors. Versus M/S Indian Trade Promotion Org. & Ors
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 937
The Delhi High Court has quashed the order of the Financial Commissioner exempting the Indian Trade Promotion Organization from entertainment tax on trade fairs.
The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma has observed that entry to the Pragati Maidan is regulated and the visitors are allowed entry on payment of an admission fee. Once they are inside the complex, they can visit not only stalls or pavilions with regard to trade and commerce, but they could also access movies, exhibitions, plays, and fashion shows inside the complex besides enjoying meals and refreshments, which may or may not be free.
Case Title: SIMPLOT INDIA LLC v. HIMALAYA FOOD INTERNATIONAL LIMITED
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 938
The Delhi High Court is set to examine whether the enforcement of a foreign arbitration award can be denied due to the non-stamping of the arbitration agreement.
Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri has issued notice on a plea seeking to raise objection to the enforcement of the Singapore seated foreign arbitration award under Section 48 of the A&C Act.
Delhi High Court Sets Aside Order Transferring IPS Officer Amit Lodha’s Case From CAT Patna To Delhi
Title: STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. v. AMIT LODHA & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 939
The Delhi High Court has set aside an order transferring the case concerning disciplinary proceedings initiated against 1998-batch Bihar cadre IPS officer Amit Lodha from Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna to the national capital.
A division bench of Justice V Kameswar Rao and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta allowed Bihar Government’s pleas and quashed the order passed by the Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in March transferring an original application filed by Lodha, that was pending before the Patna bench, to the Principal Bench at New Delhi.
Title: SAURABH SHUKLA v. INDIRA GANDHI NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 940
The Delhi High Court has observed that it would be unwise to allow expansion of “offshore study centres” which are running without necessary approvals from the authorities as it could flourish a market of substandard education and deprive countless individuals from seeking quality education.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav said that an “untrammelled proliferation” of such study centres would lead to “devaluation of academic credentials.”
Title: ANUBHAV KHAJURIA AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH MINISTRY OF FISHERIES, ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND DAIRYING
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 941
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the exclusion of individual veterinarians from the animal birth control programme under Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023, is not unjust or arbitrary.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula said that the Rules do not outrightly prohibit veterinarian participation, instead, they advocate for a “formalized and structured approach” via the mechanism of “Project Recognition” from the Animal Welfare Board of India.
Title: TATA SONS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. v. PURO WELLNESS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 942
The Delhi High Court has refused to injunct circulation of a TV commercial aired by Puro about its pink color rock salt in a suit filed by Tata alleging commercial disparagement of its white salt.
While dismissing Tata’s interim application in the suit, Justice C Hari Shankar said that Tata failed to make out any prima facie case justifying interference with continued broadcasting of the commercial.
Case Title: IRCON INTERNATIONAL LIMITED V. DMRC
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 943
The Delhi High Court has held that no compensation can be awarded for the prolongation of the contract if the contractor did not reserve its right to such compensation at the time of the seeking Extension of Time (EOT).
Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri's bench upheld the Arbitral Tribunal's interpretation. They ruled that the Tribunal's decision, which denied the prolongation cost due to the Contractor's failure to reserve this right during the EOT request, and because the EOT was granted without financial implications, is a plausible view which does not warrant intervention by the Court using its powers under Section 34 of the A&C Act.
Case Title: Shambhu Synthetics Pvt. Ltd Versus Commissioner Of Customs
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 944
The Delhi High Court has held that the appellate authority has no power to allow the appeal to be presented beyond the period of 30 days.
The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Singh Enterprises vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur & Ors., in which it was held that the legislature intended the appellate authority to entertain the appeal by condoning delay only up to 30 days after the expiry of 60 days, which is the normal period for preferring an appeal. Therefore, there is a complete exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Case Title: NEELAM KUMARI v. THE UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 945
The Delhi High Court has observed that maternity rights are not something that are based on a statute but they stand to be an integral part of a woman’s identity.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh said that denial of such rights stand in the way of a woman who chooses to bring a life into the world and thus, violates her fundamental right to life.
Title: Dr Akash Bhattacharya v. Delhi Disaster Management Authority through Chairperson Lt. Governor & Anr
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 946
Observing that the affected people have been shifted back to their homes, the Delhi High Court recently closed a public interest litigation seeking immediate measures like free ration, medical assistance, sanitary provisions and other essentials in the Yamuna flood relief camps in the national capital.
“We note that, at present, the relief camps have been wound up and the flood affected people have been shifted back to their homes,” a division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula said.
Case Title: HUMANS OF BOMBAY STORIES PVT. LTD. v. POI SOCIAL MEDIA PVT. LTD. & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 947
The Delhi High Court has said that storytelling platforms Humans of Bombay and People of India cannot use each other’s copyrighted work but added that there can be no copyright claim for individual's private photos which are sent to either platforms.
Justice Prathiba M Singh decreed the suit filed by Humans of Bombay against People of India alleging copyright infringement of its content.
Wife’s Claim For Separate Residence Under ‘Justified Circumstances’ Not Cruelty: Delhi High Court
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 948
The Delhi High Court has observed that a wife’s claim for separate residence under “justified circumstances” cannot be term as an act of cruelty to the husband.
“There may be myriad situations such as differences with the in-laws, her own work commitments or difference of opinion which may make her demand for separate accommodation justified for survival of the marriage. Where there exist certain justifiable reasons, claim for a separate residence per se cannot be termed as an act of cruelty,” a division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said.
Title: MATA PRASAD AND ORS v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 949
The Delhi High Court has said that the policy mandating obtaining of licence to work as photographers in Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) protected monuments has been notified “in larger public interest” to regulate the quality and conduct of photographers for the benefit of visitors and tourist.
A division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna upheld the Clause 2.7 of “The Policy for Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) Photographers to perform within Centrally Protected Monuments” notified by the government agency on May 24, 2017.
Title: State v. Ariz Khan
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 950
The Delhi High Court has refused to confirm the death penalty awarded to Ariz Khan, who was convicted by a trial court in the 2008 Batla house encounter case in which Delhi Police’s inspector Mohan Chand Sharma was killed.
division bench of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Amit Sharma however upheld the trial court order convicting Khan in the case and commuted the sentence of death penalty to rigorous imprisonment for life.
Case IOCL v. Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India Limited
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 951
The Delhi High Court has held that any claim that has been settled under the resolution plan, even though at a nominal value of Rs. 1 only, would become non-arbitrable once the resolution plan is approved by CoC and affirmed by the adjudicating authority under the IBC.
Case Title: M/S Asian Hotels Ltd. Versus CIT
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 952
The Delhi High Court has allowed the income tax deduction to Hyatt Regency towards repair, renovation, refurbishment, and consultancy expenses as revenue expenditure.
The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju has observed that ITAT rightly mentioned that if the owner of a building that is used for business incurs expenditure in the nature of current repairs and the assessee is not able to claim expenses for current repairs under Section 30(a)(ii), it could still claim deduction under Section 37(1).
Case Title: BSNL v. Vihaan Networks Limited
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 953
The Delhi High Court has held that absence of a contract would not deprive the contractor from a reasonable remuneration for the work performed.
Justice Sachin Datta held that the principle of quantum meruit is enshrined under Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act which demands that a party which has done work and incurred expenses at the instance of another party must be reimbursed notwithstanding the lack of a contract between them.
No Fresh Adjudication Can Take Place For Any Claim That Was Made Part Of Resolution Plan: Delhi HC
Case IOCL v. Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India Limited
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 954
The Delhi High Court has held that once a resolution plan is approved by the CoC and the adjudicating authority, it results in the extinguishment of all the existing claims that any party may have against the corporate debtor and no fresh adjudication can take place for any claim that was made part of the resolution plan.
Case Title: BSNL v. Vihaan Networks Limited
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 955
The Delhi High Court has held that A party is liable to be compensated for the costs of preparatory work carried out at the instance of the employer even when the final purchase order is not issued in its favour.
Case Title: Zakir Hussain v. Sunshine Agrisystem Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 956
The Delhi High Court has held that the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Cold Storages Act, 1976 does not exclude the remedy of arbitration.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that the bar to arbitration or civil jurisdiction by necessary implication would apply only when the alternative remedy is a Complete Code in itself or provides a special statutory right or protection that the civil court or arbitral tribunal may not be able to grant.
Title: MASTER ADITYA VIKRAM KANSAGRA & ANR. v. PERRY KANSAGARA
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 957
The Delhi High Court has held that the maintenance proceedings under Section 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, are not suits and the “ad valorem” court fee is not liable to be paid in such cases.
A division bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vikas Mahajan observed that imposition of a condition on a wife or a child who have been neglected and do not have sufficient means to maintain themselves to pay the ad valorem court fees calculated on ten times the amount claimed for one year would be “discriminatory, unreasonable and onerous.”
Title: TIBRA COLLECTION v. FASHNEAR TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 958
The Delhi High Court has observed that there is an obligation on e-commerce platforms to ensure that complete details of the sellers are available on the website for awareness of the consumers.
“There is also an obligation upon the E-Commerce platform to ensure that the complete details of the sellers are available on the platform so that the consumer is aware of the sellers from whom the product has been purchased and the entity, who is listing the product,” Justice Prathiba M Singh observed.
Delhi High Court Directs Go Air To Provide Access To Aircraft Documents To Lessors
Title: ACG AIRCRAFT LEASING IRELAND LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. and other connected matters
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 959
The Delhi High Court has directed the resolution professional of the crisis hit airline Go Air to provide access to documents in relation to the leased aircrafts to various lessors.
Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju also permitted the lessors to contract a “24 hour security service” for all the aircrafts, which are lying parked at various airports, at their own expense.
Case Title: PRABIR PURKAYASTHA v. STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. and other connected matter
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 960
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the Supreme Court’s judgment in Pankaj Bansal case, directing ED to inform grounds of arrest in writing to the accused, cannot be said to be squarely applicable to a case arising under UAPA.
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela held that under UAPA, the grounds of arrest need to be informed to the arrestee within 24 hours of such arrest, however furnishing of such grounds in written are not mandated under the enactment.
Case Title: Ajay Sagar Versus Principal Commissioner Of Customs (Import)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 961
The Delhi High Court, while dismissing the petition seeking directions for waiver of the pre-deposit requirement as placed in terms of Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962, noted that the case of the petitioner does not fall under the category of rare and exceptional cases.
The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma has observed that the petitioner was complicit and actively involved in the evasion of duty and the intent of these parties to mis-declare imports while acting in concert.
Case Title: PCIT Versus M/S. Azure Retreat Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 962
The Delhi High Court has held that the travelling expenses were incurred by the directors for business purposes of the company.
The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia noted that there was no information brought on record by the AO that could prove that these expenses were of a personal nature; therefore, the assessing officer was not justified in disallowing the travel expenses.
Delhi High Court Upholds Chinese National’s ED Remand Of Three Days In Vivo Money Laundering Case
Title: MR. GUANGWEN KUANG @ ANDREW v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 963
The Delhi High Court has upheld a trial court order remanding a Chinese national to three days of Enforcement Directorate’s custody in a money laundering case registered against smartphone manufacturer Vivo.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that the trial court order takes into account the mandate of compliance of provisions of Section 19 and 45 of the PMLA.
Case Title: Dr. Vivek Jain v. PrepLadder Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 964
The Delhi High Court has held that a Court exercising powers under Section 9 of the A&C Act to secure the amount in dispute or for ordering attachment before award draws sustenance broadly from the principles of Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of CPC.
Title: BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED v. AMAR BISCUIT PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 965
The Delhi High Court has restrained a manufacturer from selling its biscuits under the mark “Good Time” or “Good Time Butter Cookies” or any other mark which is deceptively similar to Britannia’s Good Day biscuits.
Justice Prathiba M Singh passed the order in favour of Britannia considering that it is a well reputed brand selling “Good Day Butter Cookies” “since such a long time” as also other products under the said trade mark and trade dress.
Title: GLAXO GROUP LIMITED v. PRECADO HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 966
The Delhi High Court has observed that the level of tolerance allowable for confusion among consumers is “very low” in pharmaceutical products which cannot be easily condoned.
Justice Prathiba M Singh was dealing with a suit filed by Glaxo Group Limited seeking protection of the packaging and trade dress of its product name “Aufmentin” used for pharmaceutical and medicinal preparations.
Case Title: Taleda Square Pvt Ltd v. Rail Land Development Authority
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 967
The Delhi High Court has held that an arbitration clause wherein one of the contracting party has the power to appoint the 2/3rd members of the arbitral tribunal and compels the other party to choose its nominee arbitrator from a narrow panel of only 5 names is not enforceable in law.
Case Title: M/s SVK Infrastructures v. Delhi Tourism and Transportation Development Corporation Ltd
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 968
The Delhi High Court has held that no stamp duty is payable on an instrument which is executed by, or on behalf of or in favour the government.
The bench of Justice Rekha Palli held that the recent judgment by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in N.N. Global would have no application to an agreement executed by or on behalf or in favour of the government. It held that the Court exercising powers under Section 11 of the A&C Act would not refuse to appoint arbitrator once it ascertained that instrument falls within the exception created by the stamps act for government.
Title: NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND v. KENDRIYA VIDVALAYA SANGTHAN & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 969
The Delhi High Court has directed the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) to conduct an audit of the total number of vacancies and prepare a “vacancy based roster” for recruitment of persons with disabilities within three months.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula said that the exercise be done as per Rule 11 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2016.
Case Title: Centre for Policy Research v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 970
The Delhi High Court has allowed a plea moved by India’s leading think-tank Centre for Policy Research (CPR) seeking permission to utilise 25% of “unutilized funds” in the fixed deposits towards the payment of salaries of its employees.
Justice Subramonium Prasad allowed the application moved by CPR in the petition against the suspension of its licence under Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA) by the Union Government on February 27.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 971
The Delhi High Court has observed that where both the spouses are equally qualified and earning equally, interim maintenance cannot be granted to the wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said that the object of Section 24 is to ensure that during the matrimonial proceedings under the enactment, either party should not be handicapped and suffer any financial disability to litigate only because of paucity of source of income.
Title: S v. State & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 972
The Delhi High Court has pulled up a trial court in the national capital for discharging an accused in a rape case on the basis of the results of polygraph test conducted on the victim.
Calling it erroneous, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that the result of polygraph test at best could have been considered as part of the investigation and tested during the trial on the touchstone of testimonies of the prosecutrix and other witnesses, since such result by itself is not a piece of independent evidence.
Title: TV TODAY NETWORK LIMITED v. CAPITAL TV AND ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 973
The Delhi High Court has restrained Capital TV news channel from using “To The Point”, “Halla Bol”, “Special Report”, “Black & White” and “Kismat Connection” in a trademark infringement suit filed by TV Today Network which runs India Today and Aaj Tak news channels.
Justice Prathiba M Singh clarified that the individual words by themselves, which are part of the common parlance in Hindi and English language, could be used in a different manner or in conjunction with other combinations in a way that Capital TV’s programs of are clearly differentiable from TV Today’s programmes.
Writ Petitions Against Orders Passed By IPAB Must Be Decided By Single Judge: Delhi High Court
Title: AYUR UNITED CARE LLP v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. and other connected matters
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 974
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the writ petitions challenging the orders passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) before its abolition in 2021 would have to be heard and decided by a single judge and not a division bench.
Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021 abolished various Tribunals including India's Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) and assigned their functions to the country's Commercial Courts and High Courts.
Title: MRS. D & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 975
The Delhi High Court has prima facie observed that individuals who have already undergone Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) process prima facie cannot be disqualified due to the age bar prescribed for intending couples under the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula said that Section 4(iii)(c)(I) of the 2021 Act, which imposes an age restriction in respect of intending parents, cannot be applied retrospectively.
Case Title: PCIT Versus Hellmann Worldwide Logistics India Pvt.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 976
The Delhi High Court has held that the appellate authorities are not precluded from adopting a method different from that adopted by the assessee in the transfer pricing report.
The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that the ultimate aim of the transfer pricing exercise is to determine an accurate value of the arms length price for the purpose of taxation.
Title: Raghav Chadha v. Rajya Sabha Secretariat
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 977
The Delhi High Court has allowed the appeal moved by Aam Aadmi Party MP Raghav Chadha challenging the trial court order which granted nod and paved way for the Rajya Sabha Secretariat to evict him from a government bungalow.
“Accordingly the appeal is allowed, holding : (a) that there was no requirement for the appellant/plaintiff to file the application under section 80 CPC, or to comply with that provision; and therefore the application under section 80 CPC is disposed-of as infructuous,” Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani said.
It directed Chadha to present the plaint before the trial court within three days and has further asked the trial court to proceed with the matter by deciding the AAP leader’s application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC.
Delhi High Court Refuses To Stay Ching’s Trade Mark Registration For “Schezwan Chutney”
Case Title: Vimal Agro Products P. Ltd. v. Capital Foods P. Ltd. & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 978
In a rectification petition filed by Vimal Agro Products seeking cancellation of Ching's Secret owner Capital Foods' registered trade mark “SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY”, the Delhi High Court refused to grant stay over the impugned registration.
The order was passed by Justice Pratibha M. Singh, while noting that a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Capital Foods Private Limited v. Radiant Indus Chem Pvt. Ltd., has prima facie held the mark “SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY” to have acquired secondary significance. It was also observed that an issue of jurisdiction arising in the matter needed to be considered first.
Case Title: Amit Sharma v. State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 979
Financial trap-laying scam conducted through online channels erodes the public's confidence in online financial transactions and strike at the heart of the nation's financial stability, the Delhi High Court has observed.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma thus refused anticipatory bail to an accused in an online financial scam case.
Case Title: Japan Patent Office v. Ms. A2Z Glass and Glazing Co. & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 980
The Delhi High Court has restrained Indian company ‘A2Z Glass and Glazing Co.’ and its two sister concerns from using Japan Patent Office’s mark/logo (or any mark identical or similar thereto) as well as the mark ‘JPO PLATINUM’ in respect of any product or service, with immediate effect.
The judgment came to be passed by Justice Prathiba M. Singh in an application filed by the Japanese governmental agency under Order 39 Rules 1&2 CPC, alleging imitation of its logo by the Defendant-Indian companies for manufacture and sale of tools and kits.
Title: DR RAVIKANT CHAUHAN & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. & Other Connected Matter
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 981
The Delhi High Court has observed that the notification issued by the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, barring use of donor gametes for an intending couple wanting to undergo surrogacy, prima facie violates the basic rights of a married infertile couple to parenthood by denying them access to legally and medically regulated procedures and services.
“Further, the Impugned Notification does not disclose any rational justification, basis or intelligible criteria for discriminating between citizens based on their ability to produce gametes for the purpose of availing Surrogacy services,” a division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula said.
Case Title: Nayati Healthcare and Research NCR Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. through its Authorized Representative Sh. Satish Kumar Narula & Ors. v. Union of India Ministry of Home Affairs through its Standing Counsel & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 982
The Delhi High Court has quashed an ECIR and proceedings arising therefrom, observing that the predicate offence had already been quashed and the order to that effect had attained finality.
Delhi High Court Upholds Sales Tax Demand Against Berger Paints On Stock Variations
Case Title: Berger Paints India Ltd Versus Commissioner Of Trade And Taxes
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 983
The Delhi High Court has upheld the sales tax demand against Berger Paints on stock variations.
The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma has observed that the discrepancies in the sales figures as well as the physical stock were not explained by the appellant.
The assessing authority took a fair, just, and reasonable view of the matter in proceeding to carry out a best judgment assessment by enhancing sales by 10% of the net Goods Transport Operator (GTO) after deducting the stock transfer figure of GTO, and accordingly, the levy of tax with interest cannot be unpalatable or an unconscionable exercise of powers.
Delhi High Court Decrees Red Bull’s Suit, Protects Its Signature Silver And Blue Color Combination
Case Title: Red Bull AG v. Rohidas Popat Kapadnis & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 984
The Delhi High Court has decreed Red Bull’s suit against an entity’s adoption of identical silver and blue colour combination for energy drinks.
The suit was filed against Defendants ‘Rohidas Popat Kapadnis’ and ‘Blue Marine Bottling Company’, alleging that they were manufacturing and marketing an energy drink under the name ‘SEVEN HOURS’ bearing Red Bull’s trade mark color combination. Reportedly, these products were being sold on e-commerce platforms and promoted on social media.
Case Title: Hulm Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Fantasy Sports MyFab11 Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 985
The Delhi High Court has allowed an application filed under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC by the owner of fantasy sports app MYFAB11 (defendants) for vacation of the ex-parte ad-interim injunction granted earlier in favour of the Plaintiffs.
After a meticulous analysis of judicial precedents, Justice Jyoti Singh emphasized that copyright protects the expression of ideas, not the ideas themselves. Originality is a key criterion for copyright protection, meaning that the work should originate from the author.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 986
The Delhi High Court has ruled that once there is a legal bar on the performance of second marriage when either spouse of the parties are living, the consent of such parties cannot confer validity to the second marriage.
Noting that both the parties should not have a living spouse according to Section 5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, a division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said:
“In case, there is a violation of this condition, the marriage is void in terms of Section 11 of HMA, 1955. Once there is a legal bar to the performance of the second marriage, the consent of the parties cannot confer the validity to a marriage held in violation of the condition specified in Section 5(i) of HMA, 1955.”
Title: AMIT SAHNI v. HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 987
The Delhi High Court has directed its administration to ensure that all the Commercial Courts in the national capital are made fully functional as and when the infrastructure and judges are available for such courts.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula disposed of a PIL moved by Advocate Amit Sahni seeking setting up of the Commercial Courts in terms of a 2021 decision taken by the Delhi Government’s cabinet for creation of 22 Commercial Courts and 42 additional posts of judges.
Case Title: KARAN S THUKRAL v. THE DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE & ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 988
The Delhi High Court has directed all the District Judges in the national capital to ensure that after disposal of a case, its records are immediately transmitted to the record room.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula was dealing with a public interest litigation concerning the lack of standardised procedure for the acknowledgment of pleadings, documents and applications filed in the district courts of Delhi.
Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EMPOWERMENT & ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 989
The Delhi High Court has issued a slew of directions to increase awareness and publicity of the existing schemes for welfare of prisoners and their families.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula observed that ensuring that convicts, undertrials and their dependents are aware of and can access benefits designed for their welfare will be crucial in their rehabilitation and social reintegration.
Delhi High Court Orders Blocking Of Websites Illegally Streaming Popular Reality Show ‘Bigg Boss’
Case Title: Viacom18 Media Private Limited v. BiggBos.Live & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 990
The Delhi High Court has granted an ex-parte injunction against illegal streaming of reality show ‘Bigg Boss’. The order came to be passed in an application filed under Order 39 Rules 1&2 CPC by leading broadcaster-Viacom18.
Notably, ‘Big Boss’ is being produced and broadcasted in India since 2008. It is based on a Dutch show ‘Big Brother’, rights of which are owned by M/s Endemol Shine IP BV. M/s Endemol is stated to have given rights of the show’s format to Viacom18, which broadcasts the show on television channels Colors and Colors Kannada as well as its OTT platform ‘JioCinema’.
Intelligence Bureau Exempt From Rigours Of RTI Act: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Adarsh Kanojia v. Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 991
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the Intelligence Bureau (IB) stands exempted from rigours of RTI Act by virtue of Section 24 (Act not to apply to certain organizations) thereof.
The issue had arisen when the Appellant appeared for Assistant Central Intelligence Officer Grade-II Examination conducted by IB in 2017, but his name did not appear in the list of successful candidates. Some irregularities with respect to the exam were reported in newspapers. The same led the Appellant to file an RTI application seeking information regarding marks, certified copy of his OMR sheet and a model answer key.
ED’s Power To Issue Summons Under Section 50 PMLA Does Not Include Power To Arrest: Delhi High Court
Title: ASHISH MITTAL v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 992
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the power of the Enforcement Directorate to issue summons to a person under Section 50 of PMLA does not include the power to arrest.
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani said that the power to arrest is “conspicuously absent” in section 50 of the PMLA which empowers ED officers to arrest any person, subject to satisfying the conditions mentioned therein.
Case Title: Directorate of Enforcement v. Sh. Dev Inder Bhalla
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 993
The Delhi High Court has upheld order of the Special Court refusing police remand of Dev Inder Bhalla, an accused in the money laundering case registered in connection with Indian government’s aircraft deal with M/s Embraer, Brazil.
Bhalla is the Director of Singapore-based M/s Interdev Aviation Services Pvt. Ltd. Allegations against him are that he helped launder proceeds of crime generated from procurement of defense deal by M/s Embraer upon payment of bribe to Indian officials.
Case Title: New Balance Athletics Inc. v. Salman Khan & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 994
The Delhi High Court recently decreed a suit in favour of New Balance Athletics Inc., holding that dealing in counterfeit goods was sufficient to constitute infringement/passing off.
The suit had been filed by the plaintiff as proprietor of registered marks ‘NEW BALANCE’ and ‘NB’, under which it was selling footwear and readymade clothing in over 120 countries, including India.
Subscription Fee Received By Deloitte Exempted From Tax On Principle Of Mutuality: Delhi High Court
Case Title: CIT Versus Deloitte Touche Tohmastu
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 995
The Delhi High Court has held that subscription fees received by Deloitte are exempted from tax on the principle of mutuality.
The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that the expression “mutuality” flows from the expression “mutual”, which indicates reciprocity of arrangement in which the concerned parties have reciprocal rights or understanding or arrangement to abide by the mandate of the group for benefit of other members.
Case Title: Sinogas Management Pte Ltd Versus DCIT
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 996
The Delhi High Court has held that non-adherence to the mandatory requirement of passing a draft assessment order invalidates the final assessment order.
The Bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula have observed that the omission to pass a draft assessment order is not merely a procedural oversight but a substantive lapse, which renders the subsequent order devoid of jurisdiction.
Delhi High Court Permits Woman Living Separately From Husband To Terminate 23 Weeks Pregnancy
Title: MRS B. v. THE UNION OF INDIA & ANR
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 997
The Delhi High Court has permitted a woman living separately from her husband and desirous of taking divorce to terminate her 23 weeks pregnancy.
Justice Subramonium Prasad took note of the opinion given by the medical board of All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) stating that the foetus was normal and that it is safe to terminate the pregnancy.
This was after the court had directed AIIMS to constitute a medical board to examine the woman’s condition and to consider if it would be safe for her to undergo the medical termination of pregnancy.
Title: SAMEER MAHANDRU v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 998
The Delhi High Court has denied regular bail to businessman Sameer Mahendru on medical grounds in the money laundering case related to the implementation of previous liquor policy in national capital.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that Mahendru is not suffering from any life threatening condition or sickness or infirmity involving danger to his life and for which treatment cannot be provided to him in jail.
Delhi High Court Calls For Complaint Reporting System For Public Toilets, Issues Directions
Title: Jan Seva Welfare Society (Reg.) v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 999
The Delhi High Court has called for implementation of a complaint reporting system for public toilets for ensuring that such conveniences are maintained with proper sanitation standards.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula directed the city civic authorities to prominently display, at conspicuous location at the toilet facility, the name and contact numbers of the agency or contractor responsible for its operation and maintenance.
Title: M/S MEX SWITCHGEARS PVT. LTD. 9TH KILOMETER, MEX ESTATE, PATHANKOT ROAD, JALANDHAR v. VIKRAM SURI TRADING AS M/S ARMEX AUTO INDUSTRIES
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1000
The Delhi High Court has held that where an applicant or opponent provides an e-mail ID, on which official communication are sent by the Registry of Trade Marks, in the application or notice of opposition constitutes an “address for service” within the meaning of Section 143 of the Trade Marks Act.
Justice C Hari Shankar added that the Registry of Trade Marks is at liberty to effect service of documents by e-mail only where the party being served has provided an e-mail ID in the application or notice of opposition.
Case Title: Ajit Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1001
The Delhi High Court has declined a judicial officer’s prayer for expunging/deleting remarks allegedly made against him in a judgment passed by the High Court.
Pithily put, writ petitions were initially filed by an SHO, seeking inter-alia deletion of remarks allegedly made against him by the then ASJ (applicant) in a common order dated September 6, 2022.
The said petitions were allowed by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma on November 22, 2022, observing that unwarranted remarks had been made by the applicant (judicial officer) against the petitioner (SHO).
Case Title: Himalaya Wellness Company & Ors. v. Abony Healthcare Limited through its Directors & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1002
The Delhi High Court has granted a permanent injunction in favor of Himalaya Wellness Company, while decreeing a suit against defendants’ adoption of its trademarks and trade dress.
The plaintiffs had approached the court against defendants’ use of trade names “LIV.55 DS”, “LIVA 55” and “LIV. 999” for liver tonic similar to theirs, which was being marketed using a trade dress also deceptively similar to the plaintiffs’.
Case Title: Sopariwala Exports & Ors. v. Ashraf V
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1003
The Delhi High Court has decreed renowned tobacco exporter-Sopariwala’s trademark suit, holding that the defendant had a clear intent to adopt a mark deceptively similar to Sopariwala’s and to pass off its own products as the latter’s.
The plaintiffs are registered proprietor/licensees of trademark “AFZAL” (word and device), under which tobacco is exported and sold in India. They also hold a copyright in their trade dress and have been recognised as a ‘Star Export House’ by GoI.
Case Title: INDIAMART Intermesh Limited v. Mr. Sameer Samim Khan & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1004
Justice C. Hari Shankar of the Delhi High Court recently granted a permanent injunction in favour of Plaintiff-INDIAMART, which had filed a suit seeking restraining of defendant No.1 from using its trademark (or any deceptively similar mark) as well as logos.
The plaintiff pled that it was the holder of various valid and subsisting trademarks as well as domain names comprising “INDIAMART”. As such, defendant No.1’s adoption of “INDIAMART” was a clear case of infringement and passing off.
Title: SANJAY SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1005
While dismissing Aam Aadmi Party MP Sanjay Singh’s plea challenging his arrest and remand in money laundering case, the Delhi High Court has said that the Enforcement Directorate cannot be expected to work as magicians and that it will take time to investigate a case and reach to the truth.
“Even if the investigating agency/ED is premier investigating agency, they cannot be expected to work as magicians and even if with the aid of technology and best investigative skills at their best are to be applied, it will still take time to investigate the case and try to reach the truth,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said.
Title: PINKI IRANI v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1006
The Delhi High Court has granted bail to Pinky Irani, a close aide of alleged conman Sukesh Chandrasekhar, in connection with the Rs. 200 crore extortion case.
Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma said there was nothing on the record regarding the criminal antecedents of Irani. The court also noted that she is a woman of 52 years who has been in custody since November 30 last year.
Case Title: Modicare Limited v. Maa Adishakti Multi Trade Enterprises & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1007
The Delhi High Court recently decreed a suit filed by Modicare Limited against 4 defendants for identically copying their product names and adopting deceptively similar trade dress.
Modicare Ltd. is a part of India’s leading conglomerate K.K. Modi Group which includes ventures like 24Seven Convenience Stores. It manufactures, markets and sells various FMCG products, including food processing products, nutraceuticals and health care products.
Title: ISHWAR SINGH DAHIYA v. STATE OF NCT DELHI AND ORS and other connected matters
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1008
The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Police to continue its monitoring and regular registration of cases to avoid injuries or deaths due to the sale of banned Chinese manjha in the national capital.
Justice Prathiba M Singh was hearing a bunch of pleas highlighting the menace of manufacturing and sale Chinese manjha for kite flying in Delhi.
Title: INTER IKEA SYSTEMS BV v. QUESS CORP LIMITED
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1009
The Delhi High Court has said that commercial courts can permit recording of cross-examination of overseas or outstation witnesses, who cannot travel due to any reason, through video conferencing after following the prescribed procedure, if the reason is found to be genuine and bona fide.
“This would ensure that cross-examination of witnesses is not conducted in a never ending manner and such witnesses are not inconvenienced, especially, if they are to travel from foreign countries,” Justice Prathiba M Singh said.
Delhi High Court Grants Protection To PUMA’s ‘Leaping Cat’ Mark, Awards Rs. 10 Lakh Damages
Case Title: Puma SE v. Ashok Kumar
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1010
The Delhi High Court has decreed a suit in favour of Puma SE, holding that the defendant’s large-scale and brazen manufacturing of footwear bearing plaintiff’s 'leaping cat' mark/logo called for an injunction.
Plaintiff-Puma SE, a German company dealing in footwear, apparel, accessories, etc., had filed the suit seeking injunction against defendant/Ashok Kumar, alleging that the latter was engaged in manufacturing and sale of counterfeit “PUMA” products.
Title: FSN E-COMMERCE VENTURES LTD & ANR. v. PINTU KUMAR YADAV & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1011
The Delhi High Court has restrained owner of an online website selling makeup and skincare products from using the mark “Oykaa” or any other mark similar or identical to “Nykaa” which is an e-commerce company which sells beauty, wellness and fashion products.
Justice Prathiba M Singh directed that the website www.oykaa.com and other online listings shall also be taken down immediately.
Title: ASFIVE AGRO PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. and other connected matters
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1012
The Delhi High Court has quashed a trade notice issued by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade restricting the eligibility for securing allocation of quota for export of broken rice only to those exporters who had exported it to Senegal, Gambia and Indonesia in the three preceding financial years.
A division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan said that the Union Government failed to produce any material to establish any rational nexus between restricting the export quota to rice exporters that had exported it during the three financial years preceding the prohibition and the object of ensuring capacity and quality.
Case Title: Dr. P. V. Vijayaraghavan & Ors v. Nityam Software Solution Pvt. Ltd. & Ors
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1013
Taking a view that there had been serious and material irregularities in the conduct of 2020 elections of the Indian Orthopaedic Association (IOA), the Delhi High Court yesterday appointed Mr. Justice (Retd.) J.R. Midha (former Delhi High Court judge) as Administrator to inter-alia conduct IOA’s affairs till the Executive Committee was re-constituted pursuant to elections in November, 2023.
The judgement came to be passed in a suit filed by plaintiffs, aggrieved by the manner in which IOA’s 2020 elections were conducted to elect office bearers as well as a venue for hosting IOACON 2023 (an annual conference of members/orthopaedic doctors).
Title: MB POWER (MADHYA PRADESH) LTD. v. OMBUDSMAN, RESERVE BANK OF INDIA & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1014
The Delhi High Court has rebuked the RBI Ombudsman for passing an unreasoned order, observing that the Reserve Bank- Integrated Ombudsman Scheme, 2021, under which the official is appointed, cannot be reduced to a “tantalizing promise.”
“The RBI Ombudsman, appointed by the RBI, is a person who understands the business of banking, the practices involved therein, the duties of the bank and the possible infirmities in the system. It is, therefore, observed that the Ombudsman is entrusted to carry out quasi-judicial functions with utmost diligence in accordance with the extant regulations,” Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav said.
Title: SANGEETA WAHI v UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1015
The Delhi High Court has directed the Union Government, Director General of Health Services and Medical Superintendent of Safdarjung Hospital to release Rs.50 lakhs in favour of widow of a security guard who died on duty during COVID-19 pandemic while being deployed in the government hospital.
Justice Subramonium Prasad said that the widow is entitled to the benefit of “Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Package: Insurance scheme for health workers fighting COVID-19" announced by the Union Government and that it cannot take a “narrow and pedantic stand” that the Scheme would not apply to the deceased as he was not deployed for the care of Covid-19 patients.
Case Title: Strix Ltd v. Maharaja Appliances Limited
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1016
The Delhi High Court recently decreed a suit against Maharaja Appliances Limited, holding that it had infringed the plaintiff’s registered patent for “Liquid Heating Vessel”.
Initially, plaintiff-Strix Ltd., a manufacturer and seller of temperature control systems as well as cordless interfaces for water boiling appliances (like kettles), had filed the suit seeking permanent injunction against defendant for infringing its patent i.e. IN 192511/95 for “Liquid heating Vessels” (suit patent).
Case Title: Dr. Neena Raizada v. Medical Council of India through its Secretary & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1017
In a challenge brought against improper issuance of medical certificate by 2 doctors, the Delhi High Court recently held that removing their names from the rolls of Medical Council of India’s register (MCI rolls) was not the only punishment that could be given.
Interpreting Regulations 7.7 and 8.2 of the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002, Justice Subramonium Prasad said that removal of a doctor’s name from MCI rolls for issuing improper certificate was only one of the possible punishments, but not the only.
Case Title: Wills John v. Delhi Development Authority
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1018
The Delhi High Court recently quashed DDA’s cancellation order w.r.t. a flat allotted in 1996 and directed that the same be handed over to the allottee’s son (petitioner).
While deciding in favour of the petitioner, Justice Jasmeet Singh held that the Authority’s cancellation of the allotment was in violation of principles of natural justice, as no show-cause/termination notice in advance had been served.
IT And Admin Services By Singapore Entity To Its Affiliate In India Can’t Be FTS: Delhi High Court
Case Title: The Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Taxation)-1, Delhi Versus M/S Bio-Rad Laboratories (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1019
The Delhi High Court has held that information technology and other administrative services provided by the respondent or assessee to its affiliate in India could be construed as fees for technical services (FTS).
The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that services offered by the respondent or assessee to its Indian affiliates did not come within the purview of FTS, as reflected in Article 12(4)(b) of the Indo-Singapore DTAA, and concluded that they did not fulfil the criteria of the “make available” principle.
Title: KAVI VAIDWAN & ORS. v. DELHI SKILL AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP UNIVERSITY & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1020
The Delhi High Court has observed that it is regrettable that the candidates appearing for competitive examinations have to resort to malpractices and tampering in order to succeed, as a result of which innocent and sincere students become victims of their colleagues’ disorderly conduct.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh said that such situations do not leave the State or its agencies with any other option but to cancel the examination altogether.
Title: PHONOGRAPHIC PERFORMANCE LIMITED v. GOLA SIZZLERS PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. and other connected matters
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1021
The Delhi High Court has temporarily restrained Sandoz and Gola Sizzlers from playing the sound recordings of Phonographic Performance Limited in the latter’s suit alleging copyright infringement by the two food outlets.
Justice C Hari Shankar observed that a case for grant of ex-parte ad-interim injunction is made out against the two food outlets.
The court also bound another food outlet Tim Hortons by the statement made by its counsel that it is not playing, nor would play, any of the sound recordings forming part of Phonographic Performance Limited’s repertoire, without a license.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1022
The Delhi High Court has said that merely because the wife is holding a graduation degree, it cannot be presumed that she is intentionally not working solely with an intent to claim interim maintenance from the husband, particularly when she was never employed in the past.
While refusing to reduce interim maintenance granted to a wife, a division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said:
“ There is no denial that the wife is a graduate having a degree, but she has never been gainfully employed. No inference can be drawn that merely because the wife is holding a degree of graduation, she must be compelled to work. It can also not be presumed that she is intentionally not working solely with an intent to claim interim maintenance from the husband.”
Case Title: Vodafone Idea Limited Versus Union Of India & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1023
The Delhi High Court has directed the department to refund IGST on telecommunication services rendered by Vodafone Idea to foreign telecom operators (FTO).
The Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has observed that the predecessor of the petitioner (Vodafone India Ltd.) had prevailed before the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal on the question of whether the services qualified for export services.
Title: MISSION SAVE CONSTITUTION v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1024
The Delhi High Court has refused to grant permission to an organization to hold a public meeting (All India Muslim Mahapanchayat) at the Ramlila Ground on October 29.
Justice Subramonium Prasad upheld the Delhi Police’s decision which revoked the permission granted to the organization for holding the meeting, observing that it cannot be held to be arbitrary. It was the police’s stand that the proposed event was "communal".
The petition was moved by Mission Save Constitution, an organization which is found by Advocate Mehmood Pracha. It claims to work for creating awareness among the masses, especially the depressed classes, about their constitutional rights.
Title: SMT. DEEPALI & ANR. v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1025
While granting police protection to a couple who got married against the wishes of their parents, the Delhi High Court has said that where the parties are major, their right to marry a person of choice is protected under the Constitution of India and even their family members cannot object to such relationship.
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed that the couple’s right to marry cannot be diluted in any manner and that the State is under a constitutional obligation to provide protection to its citizens.
Title: SUNSHINE TEAHOUSE PVT LTD v. GREY MANTRA SOLUTIONS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1026
The Delhi High Court has restrained a flavoured tea brand, selling its products under the brand name “Teacurry” and “Just Vedic”, from making any fresh manufacture under the trade dress and packaging of the tea café “Chaayos.”
Regarding the products that have already been manufactured under Chaayos’ packaging, Justice Prathiba M Singh directed the flavoured tea manufacturer to place on record the details of the inventory along with the monetary value.
Title: INDEPENDENT SCHOOL FEDERATION OF INDIA & ANR. v. THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1027
The Delhi High Court has recently dismissed a petition challenging the appointment of Senior IAS officer Nidhi Chibber as the chairman of Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) by way of a “bureaucratic reshuffle.”
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh rejected the plea moved by Independent School Federation of India alleging that Chibber did not fulfil the requisite terms and conditions for appointment to the position of CBSE Chairman.
Case Title: Sakshi Rathore and Ors v. Union of India and Ors
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1028
The Delhi High Court recently refused to entertain an appeal challenging “last minute” notification of the Director General, Armed Forces Medical Services (AFMS) preventing candidates from participating in subsequent rounds of counselling, should they commence attendance at an institution or be allotted seats by the Medical Counselling Committee in the third round of counselling.
Case Title: Syngenta Limited v. Controller of Patents and Designs
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1029
While answering a reference, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices Yashwant Varma and Dharmesh Sharma recently overruled the judgment passed by a Single Bench in Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH v. The Controller of Patents.
The decision came to be rendered in the context of Section 16 of the Patents Act, 1970. This provision allows filing of a further (divisional) application w.r.t. an invention disclosed in the specifications of a preceding patent application, suo motu or consequent to an objection raised by the Controller.
Case Title: WONDER BRICKS Versus PCIT
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1030
The Delhi High Court has quashed the assessment order passed before the time to file a reply to the show cause notice expired.
The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that the show cause notice was issued on March 31, 2023, giving time to the petitioner or assessee to file its reply by May 5, 2023 (15:49 hours). The impugned order was passed on April 13, 2023.
Case Title: Mehra Jewel Palace Pvt Ltd Vs Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1031
The Delhi High Court has granted the assessee an opportunity to adduce appropriate evidence—documentary or otherwise—before the Assessing Officer in order to establish its claim regarding educational qualification, experience, work profile, and in particular the duties discharged by the concerned persons to justify the claim of the appellant or assessee qua payment of salary to the persons concerned.
The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that as per the provision under Section 40A(2)(a) of the Income Tax Act, before recording disallowance, the Assessing Officer has to form an opinion. The opinion has to have regard to, inter alia, the legitimate needs of the business, the benefit derived, or even the fair payment outgoing for services rendered.
Title: TTK PRESTIGE LTD v. ARJUN RAM & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1032
The Delhi High Court has temporarily restrained two manufacturers from selling or advertising “Paristone” pressure cookers bearing a design which is prima facie identical and infringes that of “Prestige” Svachh range of pressure cookers.
Justice C Hari Shankar also restrained the manufacturers from using the trade dress “Paristone” for its mark which is almost identical to the trade dress used by Prestige.
Dream11 vs. Dreamz11: Delhi High Court Grants Trademark Protection To Dream11 Owner
Case Title: Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Dreamz11 and Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1033
The Delhi High Court recently decreed a suit brought by owner of fantasy sports app ‘Dream11’, observing that the contesting defendants (defendant Nos. 1 and 2) had a “clear and transparent intent” to imitate the plaintiffs.
Given the similarities between the competing marks, the fact that they were being used for identical services, and the likelihood of confusion in the minds of consumers, Justice C. Hari Shankar held that a case of infringement u/s 29(2)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 was clearly made out.
Title: MD NEMAT ALI AND ANOTHER v. THE STATE AND OTHERS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1034
The Delhi High Court has observed that when two consenting adults willingly choose to marry each other, there is nothing left for anybody to interfere in their lives, underscoring that Article 21 of the Constitution of India includes the right to exercise personal choices.
“Article 21 of The Constitution of India gives Protection of Life and Personal Liberty to all persons whereby it is the inherent right of every individual to exercise personal choices, especially in matters relating to marriage,” Justice Saurabh Banerjee observed.
Delhi High Court Restrains ‘FranchiseByte’ From Publishing YouTube Videos Using ‘WOW! MOMO’ Mark
Title: WOW MOMO FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED v. FRANCHISEBYTE
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1035
The Delhi High Court has recently restrained FranchiseByte, a website providing franchises for various Indian start-ups, from advertising or publishing videos using “WOW! MOMO” trademark.
Justice C Hari Shankar also directed the website to take down all videos relating to WOW! MOMO from its YouTube channel.
Trivial Irritations, Loss Of Trust Between Married Couple Not Mental Cruelty: Delhi High Court
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1036
The Delhi High Court has said that trivial irritations and loss of trust between a married couple cannot be confused with mental cruelty.
A division bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Manoj Jain also observed that denial of sex can be considered a form of mental cruelty where it is found to be persistent, intentional and for a considerable period of time.
Case Title: Rajeev Nambiar and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1037
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices Sanjeev Sachdeva and Manoj Jain recently rejected a claim for pro rata pension raised by discharged Indian Air Force personnel, noting that they were let go on having been found “unsuitable for retention”.
Title: YUVRAJ FRANCIS v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1038
The Delhi High Court has called for rigorous enforcement of existing prohibitions relating to the movement of slow-moving vehicles on expressways, within the territorial confines of the national capital.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula said that regular monitoring and prompt corrective actions should be taken where deviations from the prescribed norms are observed.
Case Title: Court on its own motion v. Naresh Sharma
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1039
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday sentenced a litigant to six months in jail who demanded that death penalty be imposed on a sitting judge who dismissed his pleas.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Shailender Kaur observed that Naresh Sharma, the litigant against whom criminal contempt proceedings were initiated in August, has no repentance for his conduct and actions.