Citations 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 338 to 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 355NOMINAL INDEXMS. NEETU NAGAR v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 338Alliance of Digital India Foundation v. Competition Commission of India and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 339Sanjay Mehra vs Sharad Mehra & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 340MANOJ KRISHAN AHUJA v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del)...
Citations 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 338 to 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 355
NOMINAL INDEX
MS. NEETU NAGAR v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 338
Alliance of Digital India Foundation v. Competition Commission of India and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 339
Sanjay Mehra vs Sharad Mehra & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 340
MANOJ KRISHAN AHUJA v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 341
Daiichi Sankyo Company Limited vs Malvinder Mohan Singh and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 342
PROUD SECURITIES AND CREDITS PRIVATE LIMITED v. URRSHILA KERKAR & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 343
ANUSHKA SHARMA (MINOR) THROUGH HER NEXT FRIEND AND NATURAL FATHER, SH. JITENDER KUMAR SHARMA v. CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION (CBSE) AND ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 344
DIGITAL COLLECTIBLES PTE LTD AND ORS. v. GALACTUS FUNWARE TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 345
MRS X v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 346
LOKESH CHUGH v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 347
RED CHILLIES ENTERTAINMENTS PVT LTD v. ASHOK KUMAR/JOHN DOE & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 348
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTATION v. S K GHOSH & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 349
BURGER KING COMPANY LLC v. VIRENDRA KUMAR GUPTA & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 350
SWARARAJ @ RAJ SHRIKANT THAKERAY & ANR. v. STATE & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 351
GDN v. GNCTD 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 352
JASMINE SHAH v. DIRECTOR (PLANNING) GNCTD 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 353
JASMINE SHAH v. DIRECTOR (PLANNING) GNCTD 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 353 Tehri Hydro Development Corporation India Limited vs M/s C. E. C. Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 354
RAHUL MEHRA v. UNION OF INDIA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 355
Judgments/Orders
Title: MS. NEETU NAGAR v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 338
Observing that there is no All India Judicial Service for judges, the Delhi High Court has observed that a judicial officer has to complete the prescribed eligibility criteria of service specified in the feeder grade of a particular State judicial service.
A division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Saurabh Banerjee dismissed a plea of Neetu Nagar, a civil judge who voluntarily resigned from Haryana Civil Services in 2018 and joined Delhi Judicial Services after clearing the examination.
Title: Alliance of Digital India Foundation v. Competition Commission of India and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 339
The Delhi High Court directed the Competition Commission of India to take up the applications moved by an alliance of start-ups against Google’s new in-app user choice billing policy, and consider the same on or before April 26.
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela pronounced the order on the plea moved by Alliance of Digital India Foundation, against the new policy. The plea had also sought direction on the tech giant to keep the same in abeyance till the issue is adjudicated by Competition Commission of India.
Also Read: Proceedings Before Competition Commission Of India Won’t Be Invalidated Due To Vacancy Or Defect In Its Constitution: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Sanjay Mehra vs Sharad Mehra & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 340
The Delhi High Court has ruled that once there is an arbitration agreement governing the parties, the matter must be referred for arbitration unless there is a “chalk and cheese” case of non-arbitrability.
The bench of Justice Jyoti Singh was dealing with an application filed under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) in a suit for infringement of Intellectual Property rights (IPR).
Title: MANOJ KRISHAN AHUJA v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 341
The Delhi High Court has passed a slew of directions for effective implementation of the Pre-conception & Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994, observing that there is a need for a “safe womb for female foetus.”
Observing that the enactment has to be implemented with greater care and utilised by those who are affected, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said:
“Sex-determination based abortion is a powerful method of perpetuating gender inequalities. The restriction of access to foetal sex information is directly related to the problem of misogyny, which affects women of all socioeconomic backgrounds not only in this country but globally as well. The purpose of controlling knowledge of sex or gender is to protect expectant women and their unborn child. Despite the fact that sex-selective abortion may not be immediately apparent in the present act, its primary objective is to address this issue.”
Case Title: Daiichi Sankyo Company Limited vs Malvinder Mohan Singh and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 342
The Delhi High Court has allowed Daiichi Sankyo to withdraw over Rs. 20.5 crores lying with the Registrar General of the High Court, which was transmitted pursuant to the Supreme Court’s 2022 order in the contempt proceedings initiated against the directors of Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited (IHFL) and Indiabulls Ventures Limited (IVL) for flouting the Supreme Court’s restraint orders in relation to the shareholding of Fortis Healthcare Holdings Private Limited (FHHPL) in Fortis Healthcare Limited (FHL).
The contempt proceedings had arisen out of the application filed by Daiichi in the execution petition pertaining to a 2016 foreign arbitral award passed in its favour in the arbitral proceedings initiated against the respondents, including the former promoters of FHL- Malvinder and Shivinder Mohan Singh. The award debtors were jointly and severally held liable to pay to Daiichi a sum aggregating to more than Rs. 4000 crores.
Title: PROUD SECURITIES AND CREDITS PRIVATE LIMITED v. URRSHILA KERKAR & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 343
The Delhi High Court has ordered to refund court fee to a plaintiff in a commercial suit after interim moratorium was imposed on the defendants by National Company Law Tribunal in Mumbai under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
Expanding the scope of section 16 of Court Fees Act, 1870, Justice Yashwant Varma said:
“The Court notes that once personal insolvency has commenced in terms of Section 95, the interim moratorium would come into play immediately upon the institution of those proceedings. In terms of the commencement of proceedings under the IBC, the plaintiff would now have the solitary remedy of filing a claim and participate in the collective statutory settlement process that would ensue against the defendants. Since the same would also relate to a settlement of claims, it would appear to fall within the scope of Section 16.”
Title: ANUSHKA SHARMA (MINOR) THROUGH HER NEXT FRIEND AND NATURAL FATHER, SH. JITENDER KUMAR SHARMA v. CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION (CBSE) AND ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 344
The Delhi High Court has said that re-evaluation of answer scripts in examinations cannot be claimed as a matter of right and that it is always subject to the Rules laid down by the concerned examining authority.
Justice Mini Pushkarna dismissed a plea moved by a moved by student seeking directions for Central Board of Secondary Examination to re-evaluate and rectify her mathematics subject answer book for Class X board examination, 2018.
Title: DIGITAL COLLECTIBLES PTE LTD AND ORS. v. GALACTUS FUNWARE TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 345
The Delhi High Court has observed that the use of celebrity names or images for art, satire, news or music would be permissible as a facet of the right of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of Constitution of India and would not infringe the celebrity’s right of publicity.
Observing that the right of publicity cannot be seen as an absolute right in India in the absence of a specific legislation, Justice Amit Bansal said:
“Intellectual property rights, such as trademarks, copyrights and patents, that have a statutory basis in India, are also not absolute rights. The extent of these rights is defined by the statute and the statute itself provides defences or exemptions. Even in jurisdictions where right to publicity is recognized as a statutory right, such as the U.S., the statute itself provides exemptions or defences.”
Title: MRS X v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 346
The Delhi High Court has issued a slew of directions to the Union Government, Delhi Police and social media intermediaries to deal with cases concerning dissemination of content relating to “non-consensual intimate images” on the internet and to ensure that they are dealt in a manner that minimizes the victim’s trauma and resolves the problem expeditiously.
Observing that the “internet never forgets,” Justice Subramonium Prasad said that once such content is uploaded on the internet, it becomes exceptionally difficult to control its spread.
Title: LOKESH CHUGH v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 347
The Delhi High Court has set aside the decision of the Delhi University debarring PhD Scholar and National Secretary of NSUI Lokesh Chugh from taking examination for a period of one year over his alleged involvement in screening of a recent BBC documentary on Prime Minister Narendra Modi and latter's alleged role in the 2002 Gujarat riots.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav quashed the decision for “violation of natural justice” and restored Chugh’s admission in the varsity.
“The court is unable to sustain the impugned order dated March 10, 2023. Impugned order is set aside. The admission of the petitioner is restored. Necessary consequences will follow," the court said.
Title: RED CHILLIES ENTERTAINMENTS PVT LTD v. ASHOK KUMAR/JOHN DOE & ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 348
The Delhi High Court has restrained various rogue websites and internet service providers from copying, streaming or displaying any stills or clips related to the upcoming movie Jawan without proper license.
The film starring bollywood actor Shah Rukh Khan is set to be released on June 02.
Justice C Hari Shankar passed the interim order in favour of Red Chillies Entertainments Private Limited in its suit filed against the rogue websites and other defendant platforms seeking to restrain them from committing any infringement in relation to its copyright in the film.
Title: CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTATION v. S K GHOSH & ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 349
The Delhi High Court has said that public insult and disrespect by way of a publicly available judicial order has tremendous impact on an individual’s self-esteem and reputation in the society and judicial restrain must be exercised by courts in passing such strictures.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma made the observation while expunging the remarks made by a trial court against working of officials of the Central Bureau of Investigation. The trial court had also imposed costs of Rs. 16,000 on CBI for failure to submit draft questions and incriminating evidence due to which recording of statement of accused persons under section 313 of Cr.P.C. was getting delayed.
Title: BURGER KING COMPANY LLC v. VIRENDRA KUMAR GUPTA & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 350
Refusing to cancel the mark “Burger King” registered in favour of multi-national fast food chain Burger King, the Delhi High Court has stayed the operation of a registered trademark “Burger King Family Restaurant” observing that it is likely to create confusion in market.
Justice Amit Bansal stayed the operation of the mark registered in favour of a restaurant till final adjudication of the rectification petition moved by Burger King.
Passing another order, the court dismissed various rectification petitions filed by Vijender Kumar, owner of Burger King Family Restaurant, seeking cancellation or removal of several marks registered in favour of Burger King from the Register of Trade Marks.
Title: SWARARAJ @ RAJ SHRIKANT THAKERAY & ANR. v. STATE & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 351
Observing that religion and faith are not as fragile as human beings, the Delhi High Court observed that religious feelings and sentiments cannot be so fragile to be hurt or provoked by a speech of an individual.
“…I am of the view that India is a country which is unique due to various religions, faiths and languages which co exist with side by side. Its unity lies in this coexistence. Religious feelings and religious sentiments cannot be so fragile as to be hurt or provoked by a speech of an individual,” Justice Jasmeet Singh said.
The court added that faith and religion “are more resilient” and cannot be hurt or provoked by views or instigation by an individual.
Title: GDN v. GNCTD
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 352
The Delhi High Court has allowed a minor rape victim from Nepal to undergo medical termination of pregnancy with 27 weeks of gestational period.
“Accordingly in view of the fact that though the child and family are Nepalese citizens, this court directs that the termination of pregnancy is effected to as soon as possible by the doctors at LNJP hospital,” Justice Prathiba M Singh ordered.
The court was hearing a plea moved by the victim’s mother seeking direction to allow termination of pregnancy of her minor daughter. It was the mother’s case that her daughter was subjected to a brutal gang rape in Nepal in October last year when she and her husband were working in Delhi.
Delhi High Court Stays Order To Evict Jasmine Shah From Government Accommodation
Title: JASMINE SHAH v. DIRECTOR (PLANNING) GNCTD
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 353
The Delhi High Court has stayed a recent order asking Jasmine Shah to vacate the government accommodation. The Aam Aadmi Party leader was removed from the post of Vice Chairperson of Dialogue and Development Commission of Delhi last year.
Justice Prathiba M Singh stayed the operation of the order passed on April 25 by the Public Works Department, which also said that Shah be treated as an “unauthorised occupant.”
The court was hearing Shah’s application to restrain the authorities from giving effect to the eviction order, filed in the pending plea challenging his removal from the post.
Case Title: Tehri Hydro Development Corporation India Limited vs M/s C. E. C. Limited
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 354
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that the agreement between the parties has primacy over the powers of the Arbitral Tribunal to grant pre-award interest under Section 31(7)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act).
The bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh held that since the Agreement between the parties specifically provided that no interest shall be granted on the accrued amount under the contract, the same took away the power of the Arbitrator to deviate and grant his own rate of interest.
Case Title: RAHUL MEHRA v. UNION OF INDIA
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 355
The Delhi High Court has included two sportspersons in the Committee constituted for overseeing the disbursement of funds released by Union Government to various Sports Federations, to ensure that the funds go only for betterment and training of sportsmen in the upcoming Asian Games to be held in China from September 23 to October 08.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad appointed shooter Abhinav Bindra and field hockey player MM Somaya as members of the Committee which earlier consisted of Secretary of Department of Sports; Director General of Sports Authority of India and the Joint Secretary of Department of Sports.
The bench clarified that the funds will not be spent on the office bearers of the National Sports Federations who are not concerned with the sports persons.