Citations 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 619 to 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 640NOMINAL INDEXICICI BANK LIMITED v. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 619PAYPAL PAYMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED v. FINANCIAL INTELLIGENCE UNIT INDIA & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 620Ambience Developers and Infrastructure Pvt Ltd vs Zesty Foods 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 621SAMEER MAHANDRU v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2023...
Citations 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 619 to 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 640
NOMINAL INDEX
ICICI BANK LIMITED v. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 619
PAYPAL PAYMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED v. FINANCIAL INTELLIGENCE UNIT INDIA & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 620
Ambience Developers and Infrastructure Pvt Ltd vs Zesty Foods 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 621
SAMEER MAHANDRU v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 622
COTY GERMANY GMBH vs XERYUS RETAIL PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 623
DELHI WAQF BOARD v. UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 624
Satluj Vidyut Nigam Ltd v. Iaiprakash Hyundai Consortium 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 625
FSMA INDIA CHARITABLE TRUST v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 626
ST STEPHENS COLLEGE v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI AND ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 627
SECRETARY, FOOD AND BEVERAGE FOUNDATION SOCIETY REGD. v. DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION, GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 628
KUSH KALRA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 629
NJ v. AJ 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 630
Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Anr. versus Vijay Rajpal & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 631
SHAHEEN MALIK v. STATE OF GNCTD THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 632
TTK Prestige Ltd. vs Gupta Light House 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 633
NISHANT SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 634
VIJAY DARDA v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 635
SYNGENTA LIMITED v. CONTROLLER OF PATENTS AND DESIGNS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 636
RE: TO CONSIDER SUO MOTU CONTEMPT OF COURT v. PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE TIS HAZARI COURT LAWYERS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 637
ARG Outlier Media Private Limited vs HT Media Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 638
Vineet Saraf v Rural Electrification Corporation Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 639
Vinod Keni & Ors. vs Technology Development Board 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 640
Title: ICICI BANK LIMITED v. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 619
The Delhi High Court has observed that the proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 will remain unaffected by the orders passed under SEBI Act, 1992.
“….an interpretation of Section 35 and Section 37 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 would reveal that the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 are to be treated as a carve out to, and remain unaffected by, the orders passed under the SEBI Act, 1992,” Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav observed.
Title: PAYPAL PAYMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED v. FINANCIAL INTELLIGENCE UNIT INDIA & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 620
The Delhi High Court has held that payment platform PayPal is liable to be viewed as a “payment system operator” and consequently obliged to comply with reporting entity obligations as placed under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
Justice Yashwant Varma made the observation while quashing the monetary penalty imposed by Financial Intelligence Unit India on PayPal in December 2020 for having failed to comply with the reporting obligations as placed under the Prevention of Money Laundering (Maintenance of Records) Rules 2005.
The FIUI had held PayPal to be a reporting entity under the PMLA. However, it was the case of the payment platform that it was not a "payment system operator” as defined under PMLA and that it would be erroneous for FIUI to hold it to be a reporting entity.
Case Title: Ambience Developers and Infrastructure Pvt Ltd vs Zesty Foods
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 621
The Delhi High Court has ruled that a review of the court’s order allowing the petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), cannot be sought on the basis of the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in N.N. Global Mercantile (P) Ltd. vs Indo Unique Flame Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 495.
The respondent, Zesty Foods, sough a review of the High Court’s order dated 20.03.2023 where it had appointed a Sole Arbitrator, on the ground that the agreement executed between the parties containing the arbitration clause was not duly/sufficiently stamped. It thus sought a review on the basis of the subsequent decision of the Apex Court in N.N. Global Mercantile (2023).
Title: SAMEER MAHANDRU v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 622
The Delhi High Court has extended by six weeks the interim bail granted to businessman Sameer Mahendru on medical grounds in the money laundering case related to the implementation of previous liquor policy in national capital.
Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma extended the relief till September 04, subject to the terms and conditions of an earlier order passed by a vacation bench on June 12 granting six weeks of interim bail to Mahendru.
Case Title: COTY GERMANY GMBH vs XERYUS RETAIL PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 623
The Delhi High Court has permanently restrained two websites from selling perfume 'testers' bearing the trade name Calvin Klein or cK and imposed a cost of Rs 1,00,000 on them to be paid to Coty Germany, which has global authorised licensees of Calvin Klein perfumes.
Justice C. Hari Shankar passed the ex parte order in a suit for infringement and passing off filed by Coty Germany against Xeryus Retail Private Limited, that owns the web entity namely www.perfumery.co.in, and website www.unboxed.in.
Title: DELHI WAQF BOARD v. UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 624
The Delhi High Court has directed the Railways administration to not take any action pursuant to its notices affixed on two mosques in the national capital for removal of “unauthorized structures and encroachment” allegedly built on the railway land.
Justice Prateek Jalan directed the Union Government to take necessary instructions in the plea moved by Delhi Waqf Board challenging the two notices pasted on walls of Masjid Takia Babbar Shah and Bengali Market Mosque situated near Railway Bridge and Babar Road railway line respectively.
Arbitrator Can’t Decide Claims On Mathematical Derivations In Absence Of Evidence : Delhi High Court
Case Details: Satluj Vidyut Nigam Ltd v. Iaiprakash Hyundai Consrotium
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 625
The Delhi High Court has held that an arbitrator cannot decide the claims of a party based on mathematical calculation/derivations without any actual evidence supporting such claims by showing the actual amount incurred by the party claiming damages before the tribunal.
Justice Sachin Datta held that an arbitral award when it involves financial claims relying on novel mathematical derivations, lacking a solid basis in the pleadings and/or without substantial supporting evidence, can result in significant prejudice to the opposing party. Accordingly, the Court set aside the award as based on no-evidence at all.
Title: FSMA INDIA CHARITABLE TRUST v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 626
The Delhi High Court has directed the National Rare Diseases Committee, constituted by it, to hold deliberations with companies manufacturing and marketing medicines for Spinal Muscular Atrophy, a genetic rare disease, to explore the possibility of procuring the medicines at a reasonable price.
Justice Prathiba M Singh asked the Committee to look into a note submitted by Senior Advocate Anand Grover, who is representing a public charitable trust Cure SMA India, setting out the pricing of medicines for the genetic disease in India and other countries.
Title: ST STEPHENS COLLEGE v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI AND ANR
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 627
The Delhi High Court has permitted St. Stephen’s College to adopt 85% weightage for CUET score and 15% for the interview for admission of Christian minority candidates to undergraduate programmes.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad added that the varsity will adopt the marks secured in CUET alone as the sole eligibility criteria for admissions of non-minority candidates.
Title: SECRETARY, FOOD AND BEVERAGE FOUNDATION SOCIETY REGD. v. DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION, GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 628
The Delhi High Court has said that the persons indulging in supply of rotten chana in mid day meals given in government-aided schools cannot be permitted to continue to supply food items under the PM-POSHAN scheme.
Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that such incidents bring “bad name” to a noble cause that has been initiated by the Union Government which is to encourage children to attend schools.
Title: KUSH KALRA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 629
The Delhi High Court has directed the Union Government to ensure “highest standards” of safety and security at all railway stations across the country after conducting a periodic audit of the situation.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Saurabh Banerjee disposed of a public interest litigation moved by one Kush Kalra raising concerns in respect of safety measures at the railway stations in the country.
Title: NJ v. AJ
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 630
The Delhi High Court has observed that the act of an estranged wife taking recourse to law by initiating legal action and filing petitions will not amount to cruelty qua the husband.
“Merely because appellant (estranged wife) had taken recourse to law by initiating legal action before a court of law, it would not amount to cruelty. Taking recourse to law, cannot be, by any stretch of imagination, labeled as an instance of cruelty,” a division bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Manoj Jain said.
Case Title: Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Anr. versus Vijay Rajpal & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 631
Emphasizing on the importance of instilling efficiency and accountability in the administrative functioning of institutions like the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS), the Delhi High Court has said that educational institutions should have robust systems for the preservation of records.
Stressing on the need for better record-keeping, the court directed the KVS to adopt better practices such as digitization to ensure proper preservation of records.
The bench comprising Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula passed the order while setting aside a cost of Rs 2 Lakh imposed on KVS by a Single Judge for negligence in preservation and non-production of the Annual Confidential Report (ARC) of a teacher who was discharged from his services in a Kendriya Vidyalaya.
Title: SHAHEEN MALIK v. STATE OF GNCTD THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY & ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 632
While refusing to put a complete ban on the sale of acid in the national capital, the Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government to ensure proper implementation of existing laws and take swift action against those using it unlawfully. The court said a complete ban may inadvertently affect businesses and individuals who require it for lawful purposes
Acknowledging the threat posed by uncontrolled acid sales and the need for stringent measures to prevent acid attacks, a division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula said:
“Therefore, on the basis of material before us, we are of the opinion that an outright ban on the sale of acid may not be the most appropriate approach. Instead, we propose that the State must focus on stringent implementation of the existing rules and regulations governing the sale. By enforcing 2015 Rules with full rigor, the authorities can effectively regulate the sale of acid and prevent its misuse for criminal purposes. This approach would balance the concerns addressed by the Petitioner with the need for safeguarding the legitimate needs of various industries and individuals.”
Case Title: TTK Prestige Ltd. vs Gupta Light House
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 633
The Delhi High Court has found a Delhi-based manufacturer guilty of design piracy under Section 22(1) of the Designs Act, 2000 after finding the design of its pressure cookers imitative of Prestige’s “Pressure Handi Cookers”.
Justice C. Hari Shankar was hearing a suit for infringement of design filed by TTK Prestige Limited against the manufacturer Gupta Light House seeking a decree of permanent injunction and damages against the latter.
Title: NISHANT SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 634
The Delhi High Court has rejected a public interest litigation seeking to restrain alleged conman Sukesh Chandrashekhar, accused in a cheating case, from releasing the alleged derogatory letters from jail to media about actors Jacqueline Fernandez, Nora Fatehi and Chahatt Khanna.
The PIL was moved by Nishant Singh, a public servant calling himself as “one of the hard-core fans” of the three actors, alleging that Sukesh’s malicious efforts are intentional to outrage the modesty of India’s women artists and that he is “ruthless in dealing emotions.”
Delhi High Court Grants Interim Bail To Former Rajya Sabha MP Vijay Darda, Son In Coal Scam Case
Title: VIJAY DARDA v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 635
The Delhi High Court has granted interim bail to former Rajya Sabha MP Vijay Darda, his son Devender Darda and businessman Manoj Kumar Jayaswal who were recently convicted and sentenced to four years of imprisonment in a coal scam case.
Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma issued notice on the pleas moved by Dardas and Jayaswal against the trial court order convicting and sentencing them in the case.
Title: SYNGENTA LIMITED v. CONTROLLER OF PATENTS AND DESIGNS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 636
The Delhi High Court is set to examine a question as to whether the requirement of plurality of inventions in the parent patent application is necessary for a divisional application to be maintainable even where it is filed by the applicant suo moto and not on the basis of any objection raised by the Controller of Patents and Designs.
Justice C Hari Shankar referred the question to be decided by a division bench to be constituted by Chief Justice.
The court also framed the question that assuming if the such requirement in the parent application is necessary for a divisional application to be maintainable, does the plurality of inventions have to be reflected in the claims in the parent application or is it sufficient if the same is reflected in disclosures in complete specifications accompanying the claims in the parent application.
Title: RE: TO CONSIDER SUO MOTU CONTEMPT OF COURT v. PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE TIS HAZARI COURT LAWYERS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 637
The Delhi High Court has discharged 12 lawyers, including former Delhi High Court Bar Association President Rajiv Khosla and former Delhi Bar Association President Sanjeev Nasiar, in a suo motu criminal contempt case in connection with the violence at the Tis Hazari Court in 2006.
A full bench of Justice Siddharth Mridul, Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta observed that there was no substantial evidence to establish obstruction of justice, acts of manhandling, or destruction of property by the lawyers.
Therefore, it cannot be conclusively established that the act of protesting interfered with the administration of justice, the court said.
Case Title: ARG Outlier Media Private Limited vs HT Media Limited
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 638
The Delhi High Court has ruled that though in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s N.N. Global Mercantile Private Limited vs M/s Indo Unique Flame Ltd. & Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 495, an Agreement containing an arbitration clause which is not properly stamped, cannot be admitted in evidence.
However, once the Agreement has been admitted in evidence by the Arbitrator, who has passed an award by relying on the said Agreement, the award cannot be set aside on the ground that the Agreement was insufficiently/improperly stamped, the court said.
Case Title: Vineet Saraf v Rural Electrification Corporation Ltd.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 639
The Delhi High Court Bench has refused to issue a Writ of Prohibition to prevent the creditor from approaching the NCLT under Section 95 of IBC against the personal guarantor.
On the issue of whether a writ of prohibition can be issued to prevent creditor from approaching NCLT, the Bench opined that when an alternative remedy exists, then the Petitioner must prove, (i) that the proceedings or actions being taken are wholly without jurisdiction; and (ii) as to why the alternate forum must be deprived of an opportunity to decide upon its own jurisdiction.
Case Title: Vinod Keni & Ors. vs Technology Development Board
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 640
The Delhi High Court has said that in many NI Act cases, the petitioners, with malafide intention, and to prolong the litigation, raise false and frivolous pleas, and consider the high court as their only option.
"On this, the High Court is made to step into the shoes of the Metropolitan Magistrate and examine their defence first and exonerate them," the court said, adding that even petitioners with genuine defence, instead of following due procedure of law under the NI Act and the CrPC, and further by misreading of the provisions, follow the same approach.