Citations 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 656 to 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 681NOMINAL INDEXBharatiya Pratiraksha Mazdoor Sangh vs Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 656 NATIONAL PROJECTS CONSTRUCTIONS CORPORATION LTD v. M/S INTERSTATE CONSTRUCTION 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 657 VIVEK KUMAR & ORS. v. STATE & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 658 FOODLINK F AND B HOLDINGS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. WOW MOMO FOODS...
Citations 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 656 to 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 681
NOMINAL INDEX
Bharatiya Pratiraksha Mazdoor Sangh vs Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 656
NATIONAL PROJECTS CONSTRUCTIONS CORPORATION LTD v. M/S INTERSTATE CONSTRUCTION 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 657
VIVEK KUMAR & ORS. v. STATE & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 658
FOODLINK F AND B HOLDINGS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. WOW MOMO FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 659
Jaiprakash Associates Limited v. MSEFC 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 660
DISTRICT MAGISTRATE WEST DISTRICT THROUGH NEHA BANSAL v. JOSAN DIAGNOTICS CENTRE & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 661
SUPER CASSETTES INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED vs GOLDMINES TELEFILMS PRIVATE LIMITED 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 662
DR. REDDYS LABORATORIES LIMITED & ANR. v. THE CONTROLLER OF PATENTS & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 663
SUN PARMA LABORATORIES LTD. v. MYLAN LABORATORIES LIMITED & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 664
RAKESH v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHII & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 665
SARTAJ @ALLAHARAKHA v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 666
RAVI MANCHANDA TRADING AS SEEMA ENGINEERING WORKS v. THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 667
PCIT Versus M/S Eltek Sgs Pvt. Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 668
ANURAG GOEL v. CHHAVI AGARWAL 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 669
NABAL THAKUR (IN J.C.) v. THE STATE 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 670
Landmark Property Development and Company Limited & ORS. vs Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Limited & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 671
ISHWAR SINGH DAHIYA v. STATE OF NCT DELHI AND ORS and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 672
ARJUN KAMTI v. THE STATE OF GNCT OF DELHI THROUGH SHO & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 673
Gannon Dunkerley and Co Ltd v. Zillion Infraprojects Pvt Ltd, OMP(COMM) 234 of 2023 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 674
GOOGLE LLC v. DRS LOGISTICS (P) LTD. & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 675
PARVIN JUNEJA v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 676
MANKIND PHARMA LIMITED v. NOVAKIND BIO SCIENCES PRIVATE LIMITED 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 677
Mrs. Vinnu Goel v. Mr. Santosh Goes and Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 678
NHAI v. M/S. T.K. TOLL PRIVATE LIMITED 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 679
DR J THULASEEDHARA KURUP v. APPOINTMENTS COMMITTEE OF THE CABINET THROUGH ITS SECRETARY & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 680
DEPTT.OF HEALTH, GOVT.OF NCT OF DELHI v. KAMLA MEHNDIRATTA & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 681
Case Title: Bharatiya Pratiraksha Mazdoor Sangh vs Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 656
The Delhi High Court has dismissed the writ petition challenging the Central Government’s decision to convert the Ordnance Factories Board (OFB) from a government department into seven public sector companies.
The bench comprising Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula said the corporatisation of OFB was a policy decision of the Government of India taken in national interest keeping in view the defence requirements of the country, and therefore, no case of interference was made out.
Case Details: NATIONAL PROJECTS CONSTRUCTIONS CORPORATION LTD v. M/S INTERSTATE CONSTRUCTION
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 657
The Delhi High Court has held that the arbitrator cannot add the amount of pre-reference interest to the principal amount while determining pendente lite interest as the same would amount to levying interest on a compounded basis. It held that the principal amount has to remain static throughout.
The bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Dharmesh Sharma held that Section 31(7)(a) of the A&C Act provides only for two periods of interest payable under the Act i.e., from the cause of action till the date of the award and from the date of the award till the payment is made. Further, it held that the distinction between pre-reference and pendente lite interest has vanished and is inapplicable to arbitrations governed by the Act of 1996.
Title: VIVEK KUMAR & ORS. v. STATE & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 658
The Delhi High Court has taken serious objection against the drafting of settlement agreements in matrimonial cases by mediation centres on “printed proforma.”
“This court while dealing with petitions of matrimonial quashing often comes across the settlement agreements being drafted by the Mediation Centres which are on a printed proforma. This court takes serious objection to it,” Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma said.
The court added that the settlements on printed proforma sometimes gives an impression that there is no application of mind and the settlement deed has been drafted mechanically.
Title: FOODLINK F AND B HOLDINGS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. WOW MOMO FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 659
The Delhi High Court has temporarily restrained fast food chain WOW! Momo from using the mark “WOW China Bistro” in a trademark infringement suit filed by an entity that has been operating various restaurants under its registered mark “China Bistro.”
Justice C Hari Shankar however clarified that WOW! Momo would be entitled to use the mark “WOW! CHINA” or “WOW! CHINA LIVE CHINESE” logo.
The court observed that when compared as wholes, the two individual marks in question are deceptively similar as their textual components, which constitute their essential and distinctive features, are deceptively similar to each other.
Case details: Jaiprakash Associates Limited v. MSEFC
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 660
The Delhi High Court has held that an issue whether an agreement is in the nature of works contract and the consequent issue of applicability of MSMED Act to such contracts is to be decided by the arbitrator.
The bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra and Justice Saurabh Banerjee dismissed an LPA against the orders of a single judge bench holding that the single bench had correctly referred the issue to be decided by the arbitrator as the court cannot go into the said determination at the stage of appointment of arbitrator or in a writ petition. It further held that that mere nomenclature of the agreement is not material to determine its nature.
Title: DISTRICT MAGISTRATE WEST DISTRICT THROUGH NEHA BANSAL v. JOSAN DIAGNOTICS CENTRE & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 661
The Delhi High Court has observed that courts should prioritize the purpose and objective of Pre-Conception and-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994, while adjudicating the applications seeking condonation of delay in cases pertaining to the enactment.
“The primary intent of PC&PNDT Act is to safeguard the rights of the unborn girl child and promote gender equality by curbing the misuse of diagnostic techniques for sex determination. Therefore, while deciding applications seeking condonation of delay, Courts should prioritize the Act's underlying purpose over technicalities,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said.
Case Title: SUPER CASSETTES INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED vs GOLDMINES TELEFILMS PRIVATE LIMITED
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 662
The Delhi High Court has directed the production house Goldmines Telefilms to not upload songs from 14 Bollywood movies on YouTube after T-Series filed a suit for permanent injunction claiming copyright over the same.
T-Series said that it owns prior assignment deeds in respect of the audio-visual works and the cinematograph films for the songs from movies like Guru and Vaastav, and that Goldmines does not have rights to authorise uploading of the songs on YouTube.
Title: DR. REDDYS LABORATORIES LIMITED & ANR. v. THE CONTROLLER OF PATENTS & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 663
The Delhi High Court has ruled that a revocation petition under Section 64 of the Patents Act is not a suit within the meaning of Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Section 64 of the Patents Act provides various grounds for revocation of patents. On the other hand, section 10 of CPC deals with stay of a suit — it states that no court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title where such suit is pending in India.
Title: SUN PARMA LABORATORIES LTD. v. MYLAN LABORATORIES LIMITED & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 664
The Delhi High Court has awarded costs of Rs. 5 lakh to pharma company Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited in a trademark infringement suit filed by it over its registered mark “Oxiplat”, which is named after one of its drug preparations.
The mark ‘Oxiplat’ was coined by Sun Pharmaceuticals in 2001. Since then, it has been used for medicinal preparations consisting of Oxaliplatin, a drug which is used in treatment of cancer of colon and rectum.
Title: RAKESH v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHII & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 665
The Delhi High Court has observed that the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, is a gender-neutral legislation and that it is insensitive to argue that the law is being misused.
While dealing with a POCSO case where the accused submitted that the enactment is a gender-based law and therefore is being misused, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said:
“To say the least, POCSO Act is not gender based and is neutral as far as victim children are concerned. Moreover, to argue that the legislation is being misused and using the language such as “as the complainant by keeping a gun on her minor daughter’s shoulder had implicated the applicant in the present case so as to coerce him to re-pay a friendly loan that he had taken from her husband” (as mentioned in the petition) have been found to be most insensitive by this court."
.Title: SARTAJ @ALLAHARAKHA v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 666
The Delhi High Court has issued a slew of directions to the authorities for ensuring protection of mental and emotional health of the prisoners, observing that while imprisonment restricts the right to liberty, it does not restrict the human rights of convicts.
“It is time to ensure that a convict who leaves the correction home/prison is restored to the society as a law abiding citizen who has repented his past conduct. This can be achieved only if the mental health issues of the convicts in prisons are recognized and attended to, rejecting the notion that this view is too idealistic,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed.
The court directed that in case a convict shows signs of mental health issues which are reflected through the behaviour, the administration concerned should bring it to the notice of psychiatrist posted in the prison.
Title: RAVI MANCHANDA TRADING AS SEEMA ENGINEERING WORKS v. THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 667
Taking exception to a “blank order” passed by a Senior Examiner of Trade Marks, the Delhi High Court recently said that it is no longer surprised at the kind of orders passed by the Registry of Trade Marks or Controller General of Patents.
“This Court never ceases to be surprised at the kind of the orders which come before it, from the office of the Registry of Trade Marks/Controller General of Patents. The present case is, in fact, sui generis,” Justice C Hari Shankar said in an order passed on August 03.
Case Title: PCIT Versus M/S Eltek Sgs Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 668
The Delhi High Court has held that depreciation is allowable on goodwill arising in a scheme of amalgamation even though no actual cash payment was made for the acquisition of goodwill.
The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma has observed that sections 49 and 55(2) deal with ‘capital gains’ arising on the sale of goodwill and not with respect to depreciation on goodwill. Section 47, in express terms, excludes the transfer of capital assets in a scheme of amalgamation from the purview of capital gains.
Title: ANURAG GOEL v. CHHAVI AGARWAL
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 669
The Delhi High Court has held a wife guilty of contempt of court for wilfully violating a settlement agreement with her husband and disobeying the undertaking to abide by the same given to the family court.
Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,000 on the wife and also sentenced her to one month of simple imprisonment, considering that she “deliberately, wilfully, intentionally and defiantly” disobeyed the undertaking despite various opportunities were granted to her, “only with an intent to enhance her financial settlement with the husband.”
“This Court therefore, imposes a fine of ₹ 2,000/- on the Respondent. This Court further sentences the Respondent to simple imprisonment for a term of one (1) month. In case of default of payment of fine, the Respondent shall further undergo 15 days of simple imprisonment,” the court said.
Title: NABAL THAKUR (IN J.C.) v. THE STATE
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 670
The Delhi High Court has issued various guidelines to be followed by the doctors and the Delhi Police while dealing with cases of medical termination of pregnancy of victims of rape.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma directed that where an order for medical termination of pregnancy has been passed, the Delhi Police’s Investigating Officers must produce the victim before the concerned hospital for conducting the procedure within 24 hours, even in cases where the gestation period of the pregnancy is less than 20 weeks.
The court also directed the Delhi Government’s Department of Health and Family Welfare and Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to ensure that the existing guidelines or Standard Operating Procedure for conducting examination of the victims of sexual assault are circulated in all the hospitals in the national capital.
Case Title: Landmark Property Development and Company Limited & ORS. vs Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Limited & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 671
The Delhi High Court has directed release of over Rs. 16 Crores deposited with the court Registry, in favour of the Landmark Group in the execution petition filed by it seeking enforcement of the arbitral award passed against the Ansal Group.
In 2018, an Arbitral Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs. 46.01 Crores in favour of the Landmark Group against the Ansals in a dispute between the two business groups.
Vide order dated 05.01.2022, the Delhi High Court in the execution petition filed by Landmark, had directed Ansals to deposit the entire principal amount of Rs. 46.01 Crores awarded by the arbitrator, along with an additional amount of Rs. 34 Crores. Ansals were directed to deposit the amounts as a condition for vacating the stay order that had been passed in relation to their immovable properties.
Title: ISHWAR SINGH DAHIYA v. STATE OF NCT DELHI AND ORS and other connected matters
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 672
The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Police to continue taking steps to restrain the sale of banned Chinese manjha in the national capital during the Independence day season.
"It is directed that Delhi Police shall continue to take steps to restrain the sale of Chinese manjha in Delhi even during the forthcoming Independence Day period, which is the kite-flying season,” Justice Prathiba M Singh said in an order passed on August 08.
While hearing a bunch of pleas highlighting the menace of manufacturing and sale Chinese manjha for kite flying in Delhi, the court perused the status report filed by the Delhi Police indicating the steps taken to stop the sale of Chinese manjha in the national capital.
Title: ARJUN KAMTI v. THE STATE OF GNCT OF DELHI THROUGH SHO & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 673
The Delhi High Court has quashed a rape and POCSO case against a man after he and the victim consensually got married and the complainant father said that he had filed the FIR out of anger and misunderstanding. It was alleged that the accused kidnapped the girl and took her out from her father’s guardianship.
The accused and the victim, who expressed her desired to live with him, got married with each other. They also became parents of two children.
Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain quashed the proceedings in the case after noting that the victim stated that she was leading a happy married life with the accused and the complainant father also took a stand that he was not interested in the continuing the case.
Case Title: Gannon Dunkerley and Co Ltd v. Zillion Infraprojects Pvt Ltd, OMP(COMM) 234 of 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 674
The Delhi High Court has held that a contractor cannot deny payments to the ‘Sub-contractor’ merely on the ground that the contract is on back-to-back basis and it has not received the payments from the main employer.
Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri held that ordinarily in back-to-back contracts, the payments due to a ‘Sub-contractor’ is subject to the payment by employer to the Contractor. However, this mechanism is to be followed only during the currency of the contract and once the parties are in a dispute, Contractor cannot defer payments in perpetuity on the ground of the pendency of payments, when it has not otherwise disputed the correctness of the bills.
Title: GOOGLE LLC v. DRS LOGISTICS (P) LTD. & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 675
The Delhi High Court has ruled that Google is not entitled to the safe harbour protection under the Information Technology Act, 2000, as well as from the liability of trademark infringement where it uses a trademark as a keyword in its Ads Programme.
“It is difficult to accept that Google is entitled to exemption under Section 79 of the IT Act from the liability of infringement of trademarks by its use of the trademarks as keywords in the Ads Programme. It can hardly be accepted that Google can encourage and permit use of the trademarks as keywords and in effect sell its usage and yet claim the said data as belonging to third parties to avail an exemption under Section 79(1) of the IT Act,” a division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan said.
The bench noted that while Google did not permit use of trademarks as keywords prior to 2004, it amended its policy thereafter for increasing the revenue and introduced the tool which actively searches the most effective terms including well known trademarks as keywords.
Case Title: PARVIN JUNEJA v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 676
The Delhi High Court has permitted an accused in a money laundering case to travel abroad for admission of his son, observing that a person should not be denied such “special moments of small pleasures in life” even if he is accused and facing trial.
"Admission of a child whether in school or in a college/University is a moment the parent and the child cherish forever. It is a feeling of togetherness as well as support by the mere presence with each other, which is expected by each child and parent while achieving such a milestone. Even if a person is an accused and is facing trial, he should not ordinarily be denied these special moments of small pleasures in life," Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed.
‘Mankind’ And ‘Novakind’ Marks Confusing When Used For Pharmaceutical Preparations: Delhi High Court
Case Title: MANKIND PHARMA LIMITED v. NOVAKIND BIO SCIENCES PRIVATE LIMITED
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 677
Observing that the marks “Novakind” and “Mankind” are confusing when used for pharmaceutical preparations, the Delhi High Court has made absolute the interim injunction order against an entity manufacturing medicines using the suffix “Kind” till final disposal of a trademark infringement suit filed by Mankind Pharma.
“The “KIND” suffix not being endemic to pharmaceutical preparations, there is every likelihood of a customer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection, who chances across the defendant‟s “NOVAKIND” product, to believe it to be one of the KIND family of the marks belonging to the plaintiff,” Justice C Hari Shankar observed.
Case Title: Mrs. Vinnu Goel v. Mr. Santosh Goes and Ors
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 678
The Delhi High Court has held that all the members of the families would be bound by the terms and conditions of a settlement agreement executed between the heads of the two branches of families if they have signed the said agreement that pertains to the properties owned by them.
Justice Navin Chawla held that a party appending its signature of an MoU is bound by the terms and conditions of such an agreement, including the arbitration agreement. It held that a party cannot escape the agreement merely on the ground that it was not expressly made a party under the agreement.
Case Title: NHAI v. M/S. T.K. TOLL PRIVATE LIMITED
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 679
The Delhi High Court has held that a supplementary agreement executed by a contractor whereby it agrees to forego of its claims cannot preclude him from claiming damages against the employer if the execution of such agreement was a pre-condition to the issuance of PCC necessary for collection of toll taxes in BOT contracts.
Justice Yogesh Khanna held that a party would be acting under economic duress or coercion if it has to execute a supplementary agreement foregoing all its claims against the employer as a pre-condition for the issuance of PCC, ergo, it would not be a bar to contractor later claiming damages for the losses suffered by it.
Title: DR J THULASEEDHARA KURUP v. APPOINTMENTS COMMITTEE OF THE CABINET THROUGH ITS SECRETARY & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 680
The Delhi High Court has upheld a January 2019 decision of the Union Ministry’s Department of Personnel and Training rejecting the proposal for appointment of Dr. J Thulaseedhara Kurup as the director of National School of Drama.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh observed that were adequate reasons for the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet for not accepting the proposal for consideration of Kurup’s candidature for the post.
“Hence, considering the entirety of the matter, the facts, circumstances, submissions, objections, the contents of the impugned order and, most importantly, the contents of the original files as placed before this Court by Ms. Anjana, Under Secretary, Ministry of Culture, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 29th January 2022. There were adequate reasons for the ACC for not accepting the proposal for consideration of the petitioner’s candidature for the post of Director at respondent no. 3/NSD,” the court observed.
Title: DEPTT.OF HEALTH, GOVT.OF NCT OF DELHI v. KAMLA MEHNDIRATTA & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 681
The Delhi High Court has observed that condonation of delay is an exception which should not be used as per convenience of the Government departments.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh added that courts must not treat Government agencies differently while deciding the applications for condonation of delay and that the Government is under “special obligation” to ensure that their duties are properly performed.
While pulling up the Delhi Government’s health department for filing an application seeking condonation of delay of 651 days in filing the application for restoration of a petition which was dismissed in default in May 2017, the court said:
“The petitioner though a State Department having numerous resources at its disposal, has still been unable to file the application of restoration in a timely manner. It is a well settled principle that the Government is under a special obligation to perform duties with diligence and commitment. The condonation of delay is an exception which should not be used as per convenience of the Government Departments.”