Citations 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 377 to 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 400NOMINAL INDEXDharampal Satyapal Sons Private Limited vs Google L.L.C. & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 377AARSHI R KAPOOR & ANR v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR and other connected matter 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 378Virander Kumar Sharma Punj & Anr v. GNCTD & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 379INDEPENDENT THOUGHT v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR....
Citations 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 377 to 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 400
NOMINAL INDEX
Dharampal Satyapal Sons Private Limited vs Google L.L.C. & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 377
AARSHI R KAPOOR & ANR v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR and other connected matter 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 378
Virander Kumar Sharma Punj & Anr v. GNCTD & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 379
INDEPENDENT THOUGHT v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 380
Kismatun v. State 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 381
P. SARATH CHANDRA REDDY v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 382
SANJEEV KUMAR v. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 383
AMIT JAIN v. MAHAVIR INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 384
Nishant Khatri v. BCI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 385
MAHESH KUMAR v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 386
Manoj Tiwari v. Manish Sisodia & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 387
PepsiCo Inc. & Anr. vs Jagpin Breweries Limited & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 388
Union of India vs Reliance Industries Limited & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 389
SA v. MA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 390
X & Y v. Z 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 391
JAQUAR COMPANY PVT LTD v. VILLEROY BOCH AG & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 392
The Indian Hotels Company Limited vs Vivanta Hospitality Private Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 393
Uno Minda Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner Revenue Department 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 394
Azmat Ali Khan v. Union of India & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 395
SAKIB AHMED v. STATE NCT OF DELHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 396
PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH SECRETARY & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 397
RAMESH ABHISHEK v. LOKPAL OF INDIA & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 398
CHARANJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA v. UNION OF INDIA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 399
OPENTV INC v. THE CONTROLLER OF PATENTS AND DESIGNS AND ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 400
Case Title: Dharampal Satyapal Sons Private Limited vs Google L.L.C. & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 377
The Delhi High Court has directed Google to take down Youtube videos claiming that Indian spices contain cow urine and cow dung — while displaying images of 'Catch' products — in case they resurface on the video sharing platform. Google told the court that the impugned videos are no longer available for viewing.
Justice Sanjeev Narula said that the YouTube Channels - ‘TVR’ and ‘Views NNews’, maliciously uploaded the videos containing derogatory and untrue remarks against Indian spices, particularly those sold under the 'Catch' brand and deliberately attempted to defame and disparage its goods, by creating and uploading the said videos.
Title: AARSHI R KAPOOR & ANR v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR and other connected matter
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 378
The Delhi High Court has directed the Union of India to ensure strict compliance of law against unauthorised alteration or fitment of crash guards or bull bars in vehicles under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Section 52 of the Act states that no owner of a vehicle shall alter it in a manner that the particulars contained in the certificate of registration are at variance with those originally specified by the manufacturer.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed that there is already a mechanism in place for taking appropriate action against those persons who are violating the provision.
Delhi High Court Dismisses PIL Seeking Introduction Of Legal Studies As Separate Subject In Schools
Title: Virander Kumar Sharma Punj & Anr v. GNCTD & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 379
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation seeking introduction of legal studies compulsorily as an elective or optional subjects in all schools.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad said that the subject matter is purely in the domain of the government and that such direction cannot be issued by court.
Title: INDEPENDENT THOUGHT v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 380
The Delhi High Court has held that Section 19 read with Section 21 of the POCSO Act, which provide for mandatory reporting of the offences under the enactment, shall override the restrictions imposed under Section 198(1) read with Section 198(3) of Cr.P.C.
A division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Saurabh Banerjee also said that there is no distinct category within child victims of rape as those who are married and those who are not.
The bench, however, clarified that it has not dealt with the larger issue of “marital rape” of an adult woman.
Title: Kismatun v. State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 381
The Delhi High Court has ordered that statement of a man, who was one of five men who were forced to sing Vande Mataram during the 2020 North-East Delhi riots, be recorded before the concerned Magistrate under Section 164 of CrPC within one week.
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani said that Mohd. Wasim, who was a minor when the incident happened, be produced before the Magistrate for recording of his statement.
Title: P. SARATH CHANDRA REDDY v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 382
The Delhi High Court has granted regular bail on medical grounds to P Sarath Chandra Reddy in the money laundering case connected to the now-scrapped liquor policy of national capital, observing that a person who is sick or infirm has a right to have adequate and effective treatment.
Observing that right to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution of India includes right to live a healthy life, Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma said:
“Though jails and designated hospitals provide good basic treatment, but we cannot expect them to provide specialised treatment and monitoring as required in the present case. Last medical report of the petitioner dated 03.05.2023 shows that petitioner is in bad state and can be put into the category of sick/infirm.”
Title: SANJEEV KUMAR v. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 383
It is the duty of every judge to not only have a “sensitive heart” but also an “alert mind” while recording of witness statements and conducting trial in cases of sexual assault with children, the Delhi High Court has said.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed though the State and the administration can provide “necessary and modern infrastructure” to the judges, including vulnerable witness deposition complexes, “it cannot generate a sensitive heart of a judge.”
Title: AMIT JAIN v. MAHAVIR INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD & ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 384
The Delhi High Court has observed that the refusal to refund court fees in a lis which remained unadjudicated and expecting the litigant to pay it again would discourage the litigant from approaching the justice dispensation system.
“Such a form of docket exclusion would be highly counterproductive for any civilized society,” a division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kapthlia observed.
Consider Announcing AIBE Schedule Or Time Table In Advance Every Year: Delhi High Court To BCI
Title: Nishant Khatri v. BCI
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 385
The Delhi High Court has directed the Bar Council of India to consider announcing a pre-set schedule or time table for conduct of All India Bar Examination (AIBE) in advance every year.
Justice Prathiba M Singh observed that a pre-set schedule or an annual time table as part of the calendar every year would go a long way in assisting the candidates and to make requisite arrangements.
Title: MAHESH KUMAR v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 386
The Delhi High Court has said that “adolescent love” cannot be controlled by courts and judges have to be careful while rejecting or granting bail in such cases depending on facts and circumstances of each case.
Observing that teenagers who “try to imitate romantic culture of films and novels” remain unaware about the laws and age of consent, Justice Sawarana Kanta Sharma said:
“This Court also observes that the attitude towards early love relationships, especially adolescent love, has to be scrutinised in the backdrop of their real life situations to understand their actions in a given situation.”
Title: Manoj Tiwari v. Manish Sisodia & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 387
The Delhi High Court has stayed the trial court proceedings against BJP MP Manoj Tiwari in a defamation case filed by former deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia and ordered that no further steps be taken against him in the matter.
The defamation case was filed by Sisodia in 2019 against BJP leaders Manoj Tiwari, Hans Raj Hans, Manjinder Singh Sirsa, Parvesh Sahib Singh Verma, Harish Khurana and Vijender Gupta for allegedly making defamatory statements against him in connection with the alleged corruption of nearly Rs 2,000 crore in the building of classrooms in Delhi's government schools.
The trial court proceedings have already been stayed qua Sirsa, Hans, Verma and Khurana.
Case Title: PepsiCo Inc. & Anr. vs Jagpin Breweries Limited & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 388
The Delhi High Court has restrained a country-made liquor manufacturer from using the Mirinda mark, including its Hindi transliteration, while passing an interim injunction in favour of PepsiCo in a suit filed by the latter seeking permanent injunction against the infringement.
Justice Jyoti Singh rendered a prima facie finding that the adoption of the mark by Jagpin Breweries was dishonest.
Case Title: Union of India vs Reliance Industries Limited & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 389
The Delhi High Court bench comprising Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani has upheld the 2018 arbitral award passed in favour of Reliance Industries Limited (RIL) in an international commercial arbitration arising from a dispute between the conglomerate and the Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, Government of India, under a ‘Production Sharing Contract’ (PSC) executed in 2000, involving the exploration and extraction of natural gas in the Krishna-Godavari Basin.
Title: SA v. MA
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 390
The Delhi High Court has observed that a wife can seek production of evidence or documents to prove the charge of adultery levelled by her against the husband in a divorce petition before family court and same will be in consonance with section 14 of Family Courts Act.
“….when a wife seeks the help of the Court for procuring evidence which would go a long way to prove adultery on the part of her husband, the Court must step in; this would be in consonance with Section 14 of the Family Courts Act which gives a leeway to the Court to consider evidence which may be not admissible or relevant under the Indian Evidence Act,” Justice Rekha Palli said.
Title: X & Y v. Z
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 391
The Delhi High Court has directed preservation of guest register, booking invoices, CCTV footage of a hotel based in Goa and phone records of a husband, whose wife has sought divorce on the ground that he was living in adultery with another woman.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma clarified that the records will not be handed over to any of the parties but will be preserved by the concerned third persons and produced before the trial court only in case they are directed to do so at the appropriate stage of trial.
Title: JAQUAR COMPANY PVT LTD v. VILLEROY BOCH AG & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 392
The Delhi High Court has temporarily restrained a German-based company Villeroy & Boch from manufacturing sanitaryware and other bathroom fitting products under ‘Artis’ mark after Jaquar filed a suit alleging infringement of its trademark ‘Artize’.
Justice Sanjeev Narula observed that not granting interim injunction would gravely prejudice Jaquar and general public, who could be misled into purchasing the products assuming there is an association between the two companies, where none exists.
Case Title: The Indian Hotels Company Limited vs Vivanta Hospitality Private Limited
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 393
The Delhi High Court has permanently restrained a hospitality company from using “Vivanta” mark in a trademark infringement suit filed by Indian Hotels Company Limited, a part of TATA Group of Companies and registered proprietor of “Vivanta” trademark.
Justice Amit Bansal imposed costs of Rs. 6 lakhs on Vivanta Hospitality Private Limited and held that the company used the trademark “Vivanta” in its trade name “Vivanta Vacation Club” which was identical to the mark of the hotels run by the Tata Group.
Case Title: Uno Minda Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner Revenue Department
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 394
The Delhi High Court has directed Delhi Government’s Collector of Stamps to adjudicate the stamp duty payable on documents and communicate it to the concerned parties within 30 days till a specific entry is added in the Delhi Act, 2011 fixing a reasonable time limit for such adjudication.
Justice Prathiba M Singh said that if such adjudication duty involves any complexity or extraordinary circumstances, it can be extended for a maximum period of three months from the date of application.
Title: Azmat Ali Khan v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 395
The Delhi High Court has directed certain news channels including Sudarshan News and social media platforms like YouTube, Google and Twitter to block links of news reports accusing a Muslim man of forcefully converting a woman to Islam.
Justice Prathiba M Singh was hearing a plea moved by one Azmat Ali Khan seeking removal of news items and videos published on online platforms in respect of an FIR lodged against him on April 19 by a Delhi-based woman accusing him of forced religious conversion.
Title: SAKIB AHMED v. STATE NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 396
The Delhi High Court has asked the Delhi State Legal Services Authority to formulate a programme to educate students, potential vulnerable victims and teenagers about criminality of posting intimate content on social media platforms without consent of the person concerned.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma noted that in a large percentage of cases of sexual assault before the court, victims have alleged that inappropriate videos or photographs are made by one of the parties and minor girls are sexually abused under threat about posting them on social media.
Delhi High Court Stays Demolition Of Wazirabad Road Hanuman Temple, Seeks Status Report From Police
Title: PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH SECRETARY & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 397
The Delhi High Court has stayed the demolition of an old two-storey Hanuman temple situated at Loni road of city’s North-East region.
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela directed the authorities to not take any coercive action of removing the temple in terms of a letter issued by Public Works Department on May 03.
“In the meanwhile, no cocrcive action will be taken by any of the respondents (Government Authority) to remove the Hanuman Temple under the letter dated 03.05.2023 issued by PWD till the next date of hearing,” the court said while listing the matter for hearing on August 09.
Title: RAMESH ABHISHEK v. LOKPAL OF INDIA & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 398
The Delhi High Court has observed that interference in the proceedings pending before Lokpal of India, while exercising writ jurisdiction, ought to be avoided unless there is something palpably wrong or contrary to law.
Justice Prathiba M Singh added that repeated petitions seeking to interdict in the proceedings before the anti corruption body would defeat the purpose of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013.
Case Title: CHARANJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA v. UNION OF INDIA
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 399
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea seeking retrospective effect of section 23 of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 which provides certain circumstances in which transfer of property by an elderly person will be void.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad dismissed the plea moved by one Chiranjit Singh Ahluwalia challenging the validity of the provision by contending that its application is restricted only to the gifts of property made by a senior citizen after the commencement of the legislation and not before.
Title: OPENTV INC v. THE CONTROLLER OF PATENTS AND DESIGNS AND ANR
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 400
The Delhi High Court has observed that there is a need to re-look at Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970, in view of growing innovations. Section 3(k) states that a mathematical or business method or computer programe per se or algorithms will be excluded from patentability within the Patents Act.
Justice Prathiba M Singh took note of the 161st Report of the “Review of the Intellectual Property Rights Regime in India” presented by Parliamentary Standing Committee and said that a concern is expressed that a large number of inventions may be excluded from patentability in view of Section 3(k).