Citations 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 969 to 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1016NOMINAL INDEXNATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND v. KENDRIYA VIDVALAYA SANGTHAN & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 969Centre for Policy Research v. Union of India & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 970X v. Y 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 971S v. State & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 972TV TODAY NETWORK LIMITED v. CAPITAL TV AND ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del)...
Citations 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 969 to 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1016
NOMINAL INDEX
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
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).