Delhi High Court Monthly Digest: July 2022 [Citations 599 - 727]

1. Delhi High Court Asks Centre To Consider As Representation Concerning Plea For Changing 'VT' Sign Written On Indian Aircrafts

Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 599

The Delhi High Court has asked the Central Government to consider a representation regarding a plea for changing the Call Sign 'VT' (Victorian Territory and Viceroy Territory) written on Indian aircrafts.

A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad granted liberty to Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay appearing in person to approach the concerned Ministry by way of a representation and also directed the said Ministry for considering it in accordance with law in a reasonable period of time.

The plea argued that VT sign is a reflection of colonial rule and that India being a sovereign country cannot be a territory of the Viceroy. It also claimed that most of the countries which went through colonial servitude have got rid of such signs and launched their own code.

2. High Court Refuses To Entertain Plea To Regulate Production & Consumption Of Intoxicating Drinks In Delhi

Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 600

The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a petition moved by BJP leader and Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay seeking to prohibit or regulate the production, distribution and consumption of intoxicating drinks and drugs in the national capital.

Ashwini Upadhyay, who was appearing in person, stated before the Court that the liquor shops established in the city were near schools or hospitals or religious places and were established contrary to the provisions as contained under Delhi Excise Act, 2019 read with Delhi Excise Rules 2010.

At the outset, the Bench remarked "The statute is there and everyone has to follow the statute."

3. Lady Justice Is Blindfolded Only To Be Non-Partisan, Not To Be Blind To Mischief Or Fraud Played Out By Dishonest Litigants: Delhi High Court

Case Title: SH AWANEESH CHANDRA JHA v. ANIL PRASAD NANDA

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 601

"Lady Justice is blindfolded only so as to be non-partisan; but not to be blind to mischief, deception or fraud being played-out before it by dishonest litigants making a mockery of the judicial process," the Delhi High Court has observed.

Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani added that a Court is not a casino for a litigant to place a bet masquerading as a legal claim and to later withdraw from the proceedings if he finds he has a losing-hand.

The Court observed that no legal proceedings may be initiated by a litigant by way merely of a gamble as if placing a wager, from which the litigant may conveniently withdraw at any time, if matters are not going his way.

4. Anti-Corruption Branch Of Delhi Govt Can Investigate Corruption Allegations Against Delhi Police Officials: High Court

Case Title: JOHNSON JACOB v. STATE

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 602

The Delhi High Court recently rejected the argument set forth by an official of the Delhi Police that the corruption allegations levelled against him cannot be investigated by the Anti Corruption Branch of the Delhi government for the reason that the agency falls under the Ministry of Home Affairs.

In doing so, Justice Jasmeet Singh relied on Anil Kumar v. GNCT of Delhi where it was held that since the Delhi Police personnel serve the citizens in the national capital and the functions of the agency substantially and essentially relate to the affairs of Delhi, the Anti-Corruption Branch of Delhi government has the jurisdiction to entertain and act on a complaint under the Prevention of Corruption Act in respect of a Delhi Police officer, and to investigate and prosecute the crime.

5. Person Against Whom "LOC Of Intimation" Is Issued Can't Be Detained By Airport Authorities: Delhi High Court

Case Title: DHRUV TEWARI v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 603

The Delhi High Court has observed that when a look out circular (LOC) of intimation is issued against a person, the authorities at the airport or any other port cannot restrain or detain such person on the pretext that intimation of arrival or departure is required to be given to the originating agency.

Justice Mukta Gupta observed that such an action would indirectly serve as a detentive or preventive LOC. It added that it is well settled that what cannot be done directly, cannot be done indirectly.

6. Voluntary Statement Made Before The Revenue Authorities Cannot Substitute A Statutory Pre-Show Cause Consultation Notice: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Gulati Enterprises versus Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 604

The Delhi High Court has reiterated that a voluntary statement made before the revenue authorities cannot substitute a statutory pre-show cause consultation notice, as contemplated under Rule 142(1A) of the CGST Rules, 2017, as it stood before 15.10.2020.

The Division Bench of Justices Rajiv Shakdher and Tara Vitasta Ganju dismissed the contentions of the revenue department that because the petitioner's authorized representative gave a voluntary statement before the concerned officer, the need for issuing a pre-show cause consultation notice was waived.

7. Law Is Worth Tinsel If Underprivileged Can't Get Justice, Courts Need To Be Sensitized: Delhi High Court

Case Title: SAMARPAL & ORS v. UOI & ORS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 605

While granting relief to five jhuggi dwellers in the city, the Delhi High Court has observed that when the poor and deprived knock at the doors of the Court, it is required to be sensitive and sensitised in equal measure.

Justice C Hari Shankar further observed that the Court is required to remain alive to the fact that such litigants do not have access to exhaustive legal resources.

" Law, with all its legalese, is worth tinsel, if the underprivileged cannot get justice. At the end of the day, our preambular goal is not law, but justice with all its legalese, is worth tinsel, if the underprivileged cannot get justice."

8. CPC | Order VI Rule 17 Obligates Litigant To Make All Amendments Necessary For Determining Real Questions In Controversy: Delhi High Court

CASE TITLE: MR. VIJAY GUPTA v. MR. GAGNINDER KR. GANDHI & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 606

The Delhi High Court has held that Order VI Rule 17 of CPC casts an obligation on the litigant to carry out all such amendments as are necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy.

A single judge bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar observed that the use of word "shall" later in Order VI Rule 17 is mandatory in nature.

9. Filings Without Mandatory Documents Not Valid, Date Of Filing To Be Considered When Petition Is Re-Filed With All Materials: Delhi High Court

Case Title: IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD. v. REACON ENGINEERS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 607

The Delhi High Court has held that an initial filing unaccompanied with mandatorily required documents could not be considered as a valid filing. Thus, the first date of filing has to be considered the date on which the petition is re-filed with all valid documents.

In this case, the petition was filed against an Arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The respondent in the present dispute opposed the petition on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The respondent submitted that the petition was filed after the expiry of a period of three months from the date of receipt of the impugned award and the petitioner had not filed any application seeking condonation of delay.

10. If Essential Features Of The Registered Trademark Are Infringed, The Difference In Layout, Packaging, Etc Is Of No Consequence: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd v. Punam Devi, CS(COMM) 504 of 2019

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 608

The High Court of Delhi has held that in an action for infringement of a trademark once it is shown that essential features of the trademark are adopted by the defendant, the difference in layout, packaging etc. would be of no consequence.

The Single Bench of Justice Jyoti Singh was dealing with a suit for permanent injunction filed by Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. (Plaintiff) to restrain Punam Devi (Defendant) from using the trademark RANBAXY LABORATORIES.

The plaintiff is involved in the manufacturing of speciality pharmaceuticals since the year 1978. In 2014 they acquired all the assets along with intellectual property of Ranbaxy Laboratories along with its intellectual property including the trademark RANBAXY and RANBAXY LABORATORIES LIMITED.

11. Delhi High Court Injuncts A Party Indulged In Trafficking/Hoarding Of Trademarks, Imposes Cost Of 10 Lakhs

Case Title: OSRAM GMBH v. TEJMEET SINGH SETHI AND ANR. CS(COMM) 84 of 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 609

The High Court of Delhi has injuncted a party from using the mark 'OSRAM' on the ground that it indulged in the trafficking/hoarding of the trademarks.

The Single Bench of Justice Pratibha M. Singh held that it cannot turn a blind-eye to large scale illegality committed by the defendant who had admittedly filed 416 trademark applications and was not doing any genuine business under any of these marks.

The plaintiff filed a suit for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using the mark OSRAM.

The plaintiff claimed that it had adopted the mark 'OSRAM' in 1906 and the same was registered in the year 1946 under trademark no. 1112537 in Class 11 and the mark is still on the register in its name.

12. Disciplinary Proceedings Continuing Ad Infinitum Would Be Destructive Of Rule Of Law: Delhi High Court Grants Relief To CBIC Officer

Case Title: ANISH GUPTA v. UNION OF INDIA

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 610

The Delhi High Court has observed that allowing Disciplinary Proceedings to continue ad infinitum would not only be highly prejudicial to an individual but is also destructive of the Rule of Law.

A division bench comprising of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta was dealing with cross petitions filed by one Anish Gupta against the Union of India.

Gupta was serving as Officer on Special Duty (Legal at the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs), when he was suspended in August 2013. He was served with a Departmental Charge Sheet/ Memorandum of Charge pursuant to an incident of July, 2013. Admittedly, no criminal investigation or prosecution was ever initiated or contemplated against him.

13. Delhi High Court Expresses Concern Over "Disturbing Trend" Of Subordinate Courts Entertaining Bail Applications Despite Pendency Before Higher Courts

Case Title: SHIV LINGAM v. THE STATE AND ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 611

Calling it a "disturbing trend", the Delhi High Court has expressed concern over the practice of Trial Courts in entertaining the bail applications despite the pendency of the same before the higher courts.

Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta also noted that at times, the orders are mechanically passed without any substantial change of circumstances and in complete disregard to the observations or the factors which weighed with the higher court in declining the bail.

The Court also added that the consideration of bail application by subordinate court despite pendency of an application with the higher court or without consideration of grounds of rejection of earlier application by higher courts, may be an utter disregard to judicial discipline.

14. Axiomatic Delay Disentitles Party To Discretionary Relief U/A 226: Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Acquisition Proceedings After "62 Yrs"

Case Title: SH. NARDEV SONI AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 612

The Delhi High Court has observed that the axiomatic delay in approaching the court disentitles a party to discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

While dismissing a plea filed after an inordinate delay of 62 years in a land acquisition matter, a division bench comprising of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Gaurang Kanth further added that the Petitioners had accepted the enhanced compensation without reserving any right whatsoever and the law does not permit a person to approbate and reprobate at the same time.

15. High Court Directs Delhi Govt To Ensure Uninterrupted Supply Of Sanitary Napkins In Govt Schools

Case Title: Social Jurist v. GNCTD

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 613

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday directed the Delhi Government to ensure that there is uninterrupted supply of sanitary napkins to the girl students in government-aided schools under its Kishori Yojana.

A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad disposed of a public interest litigation preferred by NGO Social Jurist through Advocates Ashok Agarwal and Utkarsh Kumar, raising concern in respect of halting the scheme.

It was stated that the Department of Education of the Delhi Government had adopted a scheme namely Kishori Yojana scheme whereby the girl students were to be provided with sanitary napkins. However, since January 2021, the distribution of the same was stopped, putting the girls students to great discomfort.

16. Objection Regarding 'Excepted Matter' Would Be An After-Thought If It Was Not Raised Before The Arbitrator: Delhi High Court

Case Title: DSIIDC v. H.R. Builders, FAO(OS)(COMM) 77 of 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 614

The High Court of Delhi has held that the objection regarding the excepted matter would be an after-thought if the same was not raised before the arbitral tribunal.

The Division Bench of Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in J.G. Engineers v. UOI (2011) 5 SCC 758 to hold that only the question of determination of the quantum of compensation for delay is an excepted matter and the issue if the compensation is payable is an arbitrable matter.

17. Lack Of Clarity In Averments Not Ground To Dismiss An Application As Non-Maintainable: Delhi High Court

Case Title: VIJAY SWAROOP LAV v. MS NISHA RATHI & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 615

Observing that maintainability and clarity of averments in an application are two entirely different concepts, the Delhi High Court has observed that an application which may be unclear or wanting in requisite details, does not suffer from maintainability on that ground alone.

Justice C Hari Shankar was dealing with a plea challenging an order dated 24th March, 2022 passed by the Additional District Judge in a civil suit to the extent that it dismissed an application filed by one of the Defendants under Order XII Rule 6 read with Order VII Rule 11 read with Order I Rule 10 and sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

18. In Case Of Amendment To A Patent Specification, The Invention Before & After Amendment Need Not Be Identical: Delhi High Court

CASE TITLE: NIPPON A&L INC. v. THE CONTROLLER OF PATENTS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 616

The Delhi High Court has held that amendments to a patent specification or claims prior to grant ought to be construed more liberally than narrowly. It added that the only consideration that must be kept in mind is that the amended claims are not inconsistent with the earlier claims in the original specification.

A single judge bench comprising of Justice Pratibha M. Singh opined that an invention before and after amendment need not be identical in case of amendment before acceptance "so long as the invention is comprehended within the matter disclosed".

19. High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking Suspension Of Delhi Minister Satyendar Jain Amid ED Probe

Case Title: Dr Nand Kishore Garg v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 617

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation seeking suspension of Aam Aadmi Party minister Satyendar Jain who is under judicial custody in connection with a money laundering case being probed by the Enforcement Directorate.

A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad dismissed the plea moved by one Dr. Nand Kishore Garg, who has been the Member of Legislative Assembly of Delhi (thrice) from Trinagar constituency.

The petition also sought issuance of guidelines pertaining to resignation or suspension of the ministers if a minister is arrested beyond stipulated time period of 48 hours as per the practice being followed relating to the public servants in term of Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965.

20. High Court Refuses To Hear Plea Against Insufficient Stock Of "Popular & Niche Liquor Brands" In Delhi

Case Title: M/S Path2way HR Solutions v. GNCTD

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 618

The Delhi High Court on Thursday refused to hear a petition against non-availability of "popular and niche liquor brands" in the city.

The Petitioner, M/S Path2way HR Solutions, had approached the Court stating that even minimalistic brands like "Royal Stag" are not available with L1 licensees.

While refusing to hear the plea, single bench comprising Justice Yashwant Varma observed that popularity of a brand is a "subjective" concept and is not something for the courts to adjudicate. The Judge highlighted that the Delhi government's excise policy talks about uninterrupted supply of liquor, "not Black Label".

21. High Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Alleging Operation Of Illegal Slaughterhouses In Delhi

Case Title: Deepak Upadhyay v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 619

The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a petition seeking to ban the illegal slaughterhouses running in the Delhi NCR region.

A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad was of the view that the petitioner failed to give appropriate details about the said illegal slaughterhouses.

"You have not given one single example of any illegal slaughterhouse. You want us to do fishing and roving enquiry in entire Delhi. Where is the list of slaughterhouses?," the Chief Justice remarked orally.

22. POCSO Act Will Be Applicable To Minor Muslim Girl Who Has Attained Age Of Puberty: Delhi High Court

Title: IMRAN v. STATE OF DELHI THROUGH COMMISSIONER OF DELHI POLICE & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 620

The Delhi High Court has rejected a contention that according to Muslim law, since the victim has attained the age of puberty, the rigours of POCSO Act will not be applicable.

Justice Jasmeet Singh observed that the statement of object of the POCSO Act states that the Act is aimed to secure the tender age of the children and ensure they are not abused and their childhood and youth is protected against exploitation.

23. POCSO Act | Delhi High Court Asks Special Courts To Grant Interim Compensation To Child Victims Without Waiting For Them To Move An Application

Case Title: Umesh v. State (and other connected matters)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 621

The Delhi High Court has observed that Special Courts must, on their own, initiate action for grant of interim compensation to child victims at the earliest, without waiting for them to file an application for the same.

Justice Jasmeet Singh was dealing with a bunch of pleas wherein a predecessor bench had sought to streamline the process of supplying FIRs pertaining to commission of sexual offences to DSLSA, for the purposes of granting interim compensation to the victims.

The development came after the Court was apprised that when the applications are moved before the Special Court for interim compensation, it takes two to three hearings before any effective order is passed in the same.

24. Commercial Courts Act vs. CPC | Power To Condone Delay In Filing Written Statement In Commercial Suits Substantially Different: Delhi High Court

Case Title: 3M COMPANY v. MR. VIKAS SINHA & ANR

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 622

The Delhi High Court has observed that the Commercial Courts Act brings about a substantial change in the provisions relating to the period of filing of the written statement and the power of the Court to condone the delay in filing of the written statement as far as the commercial suits are concerned.

Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC prescribes that written statement has to be presented within thirty days from the date of service of summons, failing which, delay of not more than 90 days (from date of service of summons) may be condoned by the Court.

Section 16 of the Commercial Courts Act makes an amendment to the provision qua commercial suits of a specified value to provide that written statement has to be presented within thirty days from the date of service of summons failing which, delay of not more than 120 days (from date of service of summons) may be condoned by the Court.

25. High Court Cannot Control Day To Day Affairs Of Trial Court In Exercise Of Its Reversional Power: Delhi High Court

Case Title: NIKHIL GUPTA v. TANU GUPTA

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 623

The Delhi High Court has observed that a High Court, in exercise of its revisional power, cannot be seen as controlling the day to day affairs of the Trial Court.

The Court was dealing with a plea challenging an order dated 2nd May, 2022 whereby the Trial Court had rejected the request of the petitioner for appointment of Local Commissioner.

Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma was of the view that due to pendency of matters in the courts, the practice of appointing local commissioner for recording of evidence is being encouraged for the expeditious disposal of the matters.

26. NEET-UG 2021 | No Vested Right In Favour Of Candidates Erroneously Declared Successful Due To Technical Glitch: Delhi High Court

Case Title: HUDA ANSARI & ANR. v. JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 624

While refusing relief to three candidates in connection with NEET-UG examination 2021, the Delhi High Court observed that there is no right which stands vested in their favour as they had been erroneously declared "successful" due to a technological glitch.

Justice Sanjeev Narula observed thus:

"Therefore, the question that arises for consideration is whether a right stood vested in favour of the Petitioners, who were erroneously declared to be successful candidates on account of a technological glitch. The answer to this question has to be in negative, as no candidate can be permitted to take benefit of an inadvertent error."

27. Delhi High Court Directs Controller General's Office To Ensure Recommendations Are Duly Signed By Members Of Opposition Board Under Patents Act

Case Title: NOVO NORDISK A S v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 625

The Delhi High Court has directed the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (CGPDTM) to ensure that the recommendations are duly signed by the members of the Opposition Board under the Patents Act, 1970.

As per rule 56 of the Patents Rules, 2003, the Opposition Board shall conduct the examination of the notice of opposition along with documents filed and submit a report with reasons on each ground taken in the notice with its joint recommendation within three months.

Justice Pratibha M Singh added that in order to preserve the integrity of the recommendation of the Opposition Board, it is necessary to ensure that the names of the members constituting the Board are clearly reflected both on the cover page and on the final page where the members should append their signatures to the recommendation.

28. Advertising Campaign Can Be Protected Under Intellectual Property Law If It Has Become Distinctive, Threshold High: Delhi High Court

Case Title: BRIGHT LIFECARE PVT. LTD. v. VINI COSMETICS PVT. LTD. & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 626

The Delhi High Court has observed that an advertising campaign can be granted protection in law, if it signifies the source and has become distinctive of the party while adding that the threshold for establishing distinctiveness would however be quite high in such a case.

Justice Pratibha M Singh was of the view that while distinctive elements in advertising campaigns can be protected by the Court, unless and until there is enormous distinctiveness and likelihood of confusion or deception, the Court would not grant an injunction against an advertisement campaign, as the same may stultify creativity.

29. Merely Placing Sale Deed On Record Doesn't Absolve Party From Establishing Right To Claim Land Compensation When Possession Not Established: Delhi HC

Case Title: CITICAP HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS LTD v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 627

The Delhi High Court has observed that merely placing the Sale Deed on record will not absolve a party from its burden to establish its right to claim compensation in respect of a land when the fact of possession in its favour is not established from the documents available on record.

A division bench comprising of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Gaurang Kanth was dealing with a plea seeking a direction against the authorities to hand over or restore back the vacant and peaceful possession of a land. In the alternative, the Petitioner also sought a direction against the authorities to acquire the land in question under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition and Resettlement Act, 2013.

30. Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Election Of AAP MLA Ajay Dutt In 2020 Assembly Polls

Case Title: ROHITASH v. THE CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER OF DELHI AND ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 628

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition challenging the election of Aam Aadmi Party MLA Ajay Dutt in the 2020 Assembly elections, thereby seeking fresh elections from the said constituency.

Dutt had successfully contested the Assembly Elections of Delhi (Vidhan Sabha) 2020 from the Assembly Constituency – 48, Ambedkar Nagar (SC), held on February 8, 2020 as a candidate belonging to the Aam Aadami Party. He was declared as the elected candidate from the said constituency on February 11, 2020.

The plea alleged that Dutt had intentionally given false information in the election affidavit inasmuch as he had affirmed that there were no Government dues payable by him in respect of Government accommodation.

31. Additional Commercial Courts Will Be Functional Within Six Months, Efforts Underway To Make Infrastructure Available: Delhi High Court Told

Case Title: Amit Sahni v. GNCTD

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 629

The Delhi High Court has been told by its administrative side that additional commercial courts will be functional within six months in the national capital and that efforts were being made to ensure that requisite infrastructure is made available for the same.

Taking the statement on record, a division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad disposed of a PIL filed by Advocate Amit Sahni, seeking establishment of 42 Commercial Courts in the city, as notified by the Delhi government last year, to ensure speedy redressal of commercial cases.

32. Mere Fact That Both Prior & Subsequent User Are Registered Trademark Proprietors Irrelevant For Examining Who Generated Goodwill First: Delhi HC

Case Title: MRS. ANUGYA GUPTA v. MR. AJAY KUMAR & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 630

The Delhi High Court has reiterated that the mere fact that both the prior user and the subsequent user are registered proprietors is irrelevant for the purposes of examining who generated the goodwill first in the market and whether the latter user is causing misrepresentation in the course of trade and damaging the goodwill of the former user.

Justice Navin Chawla added that the action for passing off is premised on the right of the prior user generating goodwill and shall remain unaffected by any registration provided under the Trademarks Act.

33. Philips vs Syska | Mere Trade Variants Of Pre-Existing Designs Not Capable Of Registration: Delhi High Court

CASE TITLE: PHILIPS LIGHTING HOLDING B.V. v. JAI PRAKASH AGARWAL AND ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 631

The Delhi High Court has held that a design identical with or even materially similar to a pre-existing design should not be published or registered. A single judge bench of Justice Navin Chawla also held that mere trade variants of what is already in existence or what is common to the trade is not capable of being registered.

Briefly, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff, Philips Lighting Holding, filed two suits claiming rights in the design of what it refers to as a "T-Shaped LED Bulb‟. Referring to the products of the defendants (including Syska LED Lights), the counsel for plaintiff submitted that the same are infringing copies of its registered design and ought to be injuncted.

The plaintiff further submitted that the defendants (in both the suits) were also guilty of passing off their impugned products as that of the plaintiff's on account of a deceptively similar look, feel and trade dress of both the products.

34. [Order VII Rule 11 CPC] Quantum Of Damages Can Only Be Decided After Trial, Not Ground To Reject Plaint: Delhi High Court

Case Title: HEMA GUSAIN v. INDIA INTERNATIONAL CENTRE AND ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 632

The Delhi High Court has observed that a plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC on the basis that the quantum of damages claimed in it cannot be granted.

Justice Amit Bansal observed that quantum of damages to be awarded to the plaintiff can only be decided after the trial. Therefore, a trial would be necessary and so, the plaint cannot be rejected on the basis that the quantum of damages claimed in the plaint cannot be granted.

The bench also reiterated that there cannot be any partial rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. It added that either the plaint has to be rejected as a whole or there can be no rejection at all.

35. Patents Act | Non-Consideration Of Grounds In Rejecting Pre-Grant Opposition Constitutes Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice: Delhi High Court

CASE TITLE: BEST AGROLIFE LIMITED v. DEPUTY CONTROLLER OF PATENTS & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 633

In reference to the Patents Act, 1970, the Delhi High Court has held that non-consideration of grounds raised in a pre-grant opposition by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, per se constitutes violation of principles of natural justice.

The observation was made by a single judge bench of Justice Jyoti Singh, more particularly in reference to Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, which provides that mere discovery of a new form of a known substance which does not result in the enhancement of the known efficacy of that substance or the mere discovery of any new property or new use for a known substance or of the mere use of a known process, machine or apparatus is not an invention, unless such known process results in a new product or employs at least one new reactant.

36. Section 8 Application Should Be Filed Within Time Available For Filing Written Statement: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/S. SPML Infra Ltd. versus M/S. Trisquare Switchgears Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 634

The Delhi High Court has ruled that if a party fails to file an application under Section 8(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) for referring the parties to arbitration within the time available for filing the first statement on the substance of the dispute, which would include a written statement in the context of a suit, the party would forfeit its right to apply under Section 8(1) of the A&C Act.

The Division Bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan held that the amendment to Section 8 of the A&C Act by the 2015 Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act cannot be considered in isolation, in view of the fact that the Parliament has also enacted the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which came into force on the same date as the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015.

The Court observed that by virtue of the amendments made to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by the Commercial Courts Act, the Parliament has curtailed the outer time limit for filing a written statement in a commercial suit. The Court added that the said amendments were made to ensure expeditious adjudication of commercial disputes.

37. Trademark Infringement Suit By Meta: Delhi High Court Permanently Restrains Use Of 'Facebake', Other Facebook Formative Trademarks

Case Title: META PLATFORMS, INC. v. NOUFEL MALOL & ANR

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 635

In a trademark infringement suit filed by Meta (formerly known as Facebook), the Delhi High Court has permanently restrained the use of marks namely 'facebake' and 'facecake', Facebook marks, Facebook Visual Presentation and any other 'Facebook‟ formative trademarks of the social media giant.

Justice Navin Chawla also awarded nominal damages of Rs.50,000 in favour of Meta Platforms Inc. and against the defendants. The Court also directed the defendants to pay cost of the suit to Meta.

Meta moved the Court after being aggrieved over the adoption of the mark "Facebake" by the defendant no.1, namely Noufel Malol, which was allegedly mimicking the visual presentation by copying the colour scheme, font, commercial impression, and overall look and feel of Facebook, and thus was intentionally trading off the significant goodwill established in "Facebook‟ marks.

38. Delhi High Court Restrains Husband From Pursuing Matrimonial Case In Canada During Pendency Of Divorce Petition Filed By Wife In India

Case Title: DAMINI MANCHANDA v. AVINASH BHAMBHANI

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 636

The Delhi High Court has taken a serious view of a case wherein the Husband deliberately avoided service in the divorce proceedings filed by his wife in India, refused to appear before the Court here and filed a separate divorce case in Canadian Court.

Justice Amit Bansal passed an interim injunction against the husband restraining him from proceeding with the divorce suit filed by him before the Canadian Court.

39. Subrogation Deed Does Not Terminate The Right Of The Assured To Initiate Arbitration Against The Wrongdoer: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Fresenius Medical Care Dialysis Service India Pvt. Ltd. v. Kerry Indev Logistics Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 637

The Delhi High Court has held that arbitration can be invoked by the insured even after entering into a subrogation-cum-assignment agreement with an insurance company.

The Single Bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva held that subrogation does not put an end to the right of the assured to initiate legal proceedings against the wrongdoer, it merely allows the insurer to step into the shoes of the insured to recover the damages.

40. Delhi High Court Closes Pleas Seeking Dignified Burial/ Cremation Of Dead Bodies Amid COVID-19 Pandemic

Case Title: Pratyush Prasanna v. State NCT of Delhi and other connected matters

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 638

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday disposed of a batch of petitions filed amid the surge in cases relating to COVID-19, seeking directions for dignified burial or cremation of dead bodies.

A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad took note of the detailed status report filed by the local bodies, indicating the steps taken for increasing the number of crematoriums and burial grounds in the city.

The Court noted that as per the status report, while the pandemic like situation is not in existence anymore, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi has not received any complaint of any kind in respect of lack of facility to cremate or bury an individual.

41. Candidates Wearing Kara/ Kirpan Must Be Given Advance Notice To Reach Exam Centre One Hour Before Reporting Time: Delhi High Court Tells DSSSB

Case Title: Mrs. Manharleen Kaur v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 639

The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) to ensure that an adequate notice is given to candidates desirous of wearing a kara or kirpan, regarding the additional requirement for them to reach the examination centre one hour before the reporting time. The court directed that the notice must be given well in advance so that no undue hardship is caused to them.

Justice Rekha Palli directed thus while dealing with a plea challenging denial of entry to a Sikh woman, for an exam being conducted by DSSSB, for the reason of her wearing kara.

"It is expected that not only the DSSSB but all other recruiting agencies who conduct similar examinations will take appropriate steps in this regard well before the conduct of the examinations," the Court added.

42. 'Copyright Owners Have Right To Dub Cinema' : Delhi High Court Vacates Stay On Hindi Dub Of Telugu Movie "Bheemla Nayak"

CASE TITLE: JA ENTERTAINMENT PVT LTD v. MS SITHARA ENTERTAINMENT & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 640

The Delhi High Court recently vacated its earlier ex-parte injunction order against M/s Sithara Entertainment which barred it from releasing the Hindi-dubbed version of its Telugu remake of the Malayalam film "Ayyappanum Koshiyum". A single judge bench of Justice Jyoti Singh, while vacating the earlier order, held that the owners of copyright in a cinematographic work will have the right to both sub-title and dub their work.

"...by the operation of law, Defendant No. 1 in its own right as a copyright owner has a right to dub the Telugu film in any language including Hindi and Plaintiff cannot assert any right to restrain Defendant No. 1 from dubbing the Telugu film in Hindi", the Court observed.

The plaintiff JA Entertainment Pvt Ltd, in this suit, had sought for permanent injunction restraining defendants from dubbing the Telugu film "Bheemla Nayak" in Hindi as the plaintiffs have the right for Hindi remake of the Malayalam original.

43. [Matrimonial Disputes] Allowing Fabricated Omnibus Allegations Against Entire Family May Lead To Further Misuse Of Process Of Law: Delhi High Court

Case Title: ANIL KUMAR TALAN v. STATE (GOVERNMENT NCT OF DELHI)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 641

The Delhi High Court has observed that allowing fabricated allegations against the entire family in matrimonial disputes may lead to further misuse of process of law.

"If false implication by fabricated omnibus allegations against entire family in the course of matrimonial disputes and differences, is allowed, it may lead to further misuse of the process of law and assume serious proportions," Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta observed.

The Court made the observation while denying anticipatory bail to father of a married woman in an FIR registered under sec. 182, 192, 195, 203, 389, 420, 469, 470, 471, 500, 120B and 34 of IPC.

44. Central Govt Has Taken Steps To Bring De-Notified Nomadic Tribes Into Mainstream Of The Country: Delhi High Court

Case Title: SHRI SALEK CHAND JAIN v. MINISTRY OF SOCIAL JUSTICE AND ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 642

The Delhi High Court has observed that steps have been taken by the Central Government to bring the de-notified nomadic tribes into the mainstream of the Country.

A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad disposed of a public interest litigation seeking directions to make proper scheme and its implementation so that the each and every member of the de-notified nomadic and semi-nomadic tribes enjoy the fundamental rights guaranteed in the Constitution of India.

It was the case of the petitioner that the members of the de-notified Nomadic Tribes, Semi-Nomadic Tribes and Nomadic Tribes like Banjare, GadiaLuhar, Bawaria, Nat, Kalbelia, Bopa, Sikligar, Singiwal,Kuchbanda, Kalander etc. were being neglected and had not been properly brought into the mainstream.

45. [Disparity In Pay Scale] Classification Based On Mode Of Recruitment, Qualification & Merit Not Unreasonable: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Nishant Chawla v. TDSAT

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 643

The Delhi High Court has held that whereas the "Equal Pay for Equal Work" is a constitutional goal, however, there is no absolute application of the principle by default, within or across organisations/ departments.

A single bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh observed that organisations as well as the government have the liberty to set different pay scale, where they make a reasonable, valid and intelligible classification for employees placed at similar grades and work profiles.

"(There are) several considerations to be borne in mind while deciding the issue of parity between two posts, whether in the same organisation or across different organisations/ departments. There is definitely no mathematical application of the principle of parity and "Equal Pay for Equal Work" and it is the Courts of the country that have laid down various factors for deciding the question of parity amongst different designations," the bench observed.

46. [Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC] Recall Applications Can't Be Allowed Merely For Filling Lacuna In Cross-Examination: Delhi High Court

CASE TITLE: SMT. SHASHI SEHDEV v. SH. NARENDER KUMAR SHARMA

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 644

The Delhi High Court has held that recall applications under Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC cannot be allowed merely for filling lacuna in cross-examination by engaging a new counsel.

A single judge bench comprising of Justice C. Hari Shankar further held that the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Indian Constitution was intended to be used sparingly for keeping subordinate courts within bounds and not for correcting mere errors.

47. Start-Ups Can't Seek Relaxation Of Tender Conditions As A Matter Of Right, Especially In Field Of Healthcare: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Triveni Healthcure Private Ltd v. GNCTD

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 645

The Delhi High Court has held that a Start-up company cannot claim relaxation in tender processes as a matter of right, especially in certain fields like health care that require past experience and other qualifications.

While dismissing a writ petition filed by a start-up supplier against Delhi govt's Rajiv Gandhi Super Speciality Hospital, a division bench of Chief Justice SC Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad held,

"The executive instruction does not make it mandatory for any establishment to relax the condition in respect of turnover and prior experience/ EMD as the word "may" has been used in the policy Circular dated 10.03.2016."

The executive instruction was issued by the Centre in March 2016, titled 'Relaxation of Norms for Startups and Micro & Small Enterprises in Public Procurement on Prior Experience – Prior Turnover Criteria.'

48. S.7 Family Courts Act | Circumstances Arising Out Of Marital Relationship May Include Not Only Husband & Wife But Also Parents-In-Law: Delhi HC

Case Title: Avneet Kaur v. Sadhu Singh & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 646

The Delhi High Court has held that the words "circumstances arising out of marital relationship" used in reference to filing of suit for injunction under Clause (d) of the explanation to Section 7 (1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 would include not only the husband and wife but may also include the parents-in-law.

A single bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar made it clear that what is to be seen is not the relationship between the parties but whether the circumstances in which the suit is filed arose out of a matrimonial relationship.

If the answer to the aforesaid is in the affirmative, then the provision would apply and the Family Courts would have exclusive jurisdiction to deal with such applications for injunction.

49. Even If The Principal Agreement Is Non-Existent, The Arbitration Clause Would Still Apply: Delhi High Court

Case Title: National Research Development Corporation and Anr. versus Mak Controls and Systems Private Limited

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 647

The Delhi High Court has ruled that even if the principal agreement is non-existent, the arbitration clause contained therein would still apply.

The Single Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao observed that since the issue of limitation and arbitrability was not conclusive against the party, the issue was amenable to the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal.

The petitioner National Research Development Corporation and the respondent Mak Controls and Systems Private Limited entered into a 'Programme Aimed at Technological Self Reliance' Scheme (PATSER Agreement), for development of a GPS. Under the said PATSER Agreement, the respondent was provided financial assistance for the development of the GPS. In terms of the PATSER Agreement, a Royalty Agreement was also entered into between the parties, which provided for details regarding the payment obligations of the respondent.

50. Arbitration Clause Contained In A Tax Invoice Is Binding: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Swastik Pipe Ltd. versus Dimple Verma

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 648

The Delhi High Court has ruled that an arbitration clause contained in a tax invoice is binding between the parties.

Noting that the opposite party had earlier received similar tax invoices, against which it had made payments, the Single Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao ruled that the party could not disown the clear stipulation contained in the tax invoice with regard to any dispute being referred to arbitration.

Certain goods were purchased by the respondent Dimple Verma from the petitioner Swastik Pipe Ltd. on a running account basis. On the basis of tax invoices issued by the petitioner, part payments were subsequently made by the respondent. After the respondent failed to clear the dues, the petitioner invoked the arbitration clause contained in the terms and conditions of the tax invoice. The petitioner filed a petition before the Delhi High Court for appointment of a Sole Arbitrator.

51. [Order XXII Rule 3 CPC] Delay In Filing Application For Substitution Of Legal Heirs Must Be Sufficiently Explained: Delhi High Court

CASE TITLE- DLF HOMES RAJAPURA PVT. LTD v. LATE O.P. MEHTA & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 649

The Delhi High Court has held that applications under Order XXII Rule 3 of CPC for substitution of legal heirs, or under Order XXII Rule 9 of the Code for setting aside abatement of proceedings must be considered liberally. However, the delay in moving such applications must be sufficiently justified.

A single bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar further stated that any such delay must meet the threshold requirement which an application seeking condonation of delay is required to meet.

Briefly, the facts of the case are that a consumer case was preferred by the respondents against the petitioner herein before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC). The consumer case was filed as a joint consumer complaint, and was stated to have been preferred in a representative capacity for the benefit of entire class of persons having the same interest.

52. Duty Of Legal Services Authorities To Ensure That Opportunities To Secure Justice Are Not Denied To Any Individual For Any Reason: Delhi High Court

Case Title: ALOK TRIPATHI v. STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 650

The Delhi High Court has observed that it is the duty of legal services authorities to ensure that opportunities to secure justice are not denied to any individual for any reason whatsoever.

"The principal objective of these Legal Services Authorities is to provide free and efficient legal representation to those sections of the society that are unable to access the same on account of socio-economic," a division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad observed.

The Court was dealing with a public interest litigation filed by a lawyer on the panel of Delhi High Court Legal Service Committee (DHCLSC), seeking direction on the State to provide with the scanned copy or hard copy of the FIR, Chargesheet, evidence or other trial court records of the Under Trial Prisoners (UTPs) on a request or application made in that regard.

53. Document Admitted Or Denied By Witness During Cross Examination Cannot Be Returned, Has To Be Necessarily Placed On Court File: Delhi High Court

Case Title: BHAG SINGH GAMBHIR AND ORS v. RAMA ARORA

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 651

The Delhi High Court has observed that if a document produced during cross-examination of a witness is admitted or denied by the said witness, such a document cannot be returned and has to be necessarily placed on the Court file.

Justice Mini Pushkarna was dealing with an application filed on behalf of the plaintiffs in the civil suit under Section 151 of CPC for allowing them to place on record additional documents.

It was the case of the plaintiffs that during the recording of evidence of the defendant witness, the plaintiffs had presented the 'returned envelope' in front of the witness to verify those addresses. However, the Local Commissioner refused to entertain or put those envelopes on record.

54. Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea To Postpone NEET-UG 2022; Asks "How Can 15 Students Seek Rescheduling Of Exam?"

Title: Vishwanath Kumar & Ors. v. National Testing Agency & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 652

The Delhi High Court on Thursday dismissed a writ petition filed by 15 students seeking to postpone the NEET-UG 2022 exam to be held on July 17.

"This is totally a misconceived petition. It's just because these are students, the court will not be harsh. Had it been anyone else, this would have been dismissed with costs", a single bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula orally said while concluding the hearing.

"The pressure can only be eased by self study, not by the manner you are doing this. I wish the students all the best", Justice Narula said.

At the outset, the bench asked the petitioners why they are approaching the Court now, when the schedule of the exam was known in April 2022.

The petitioners' counsel submitted that the admit cards were only issued recently and that the petitioners had been pursuing representations before various authorities.

"How can 15 students ask for rescheduling of the exam? Such petitions should be discouraged", Justice Narula said.

55. Domain Name Registrars Must Create Mechanism For Trademark Owners To Seek Cancellation/ Transfer Of Objectionable Domain Names: Delhi High Court

Case Title: SNAPDEAL PRIVATE LIMITED v. GODADDYCOM LLC AND ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 653

The Delhi High Court has observed that the Domain Name Registrars (DNRs) must create a mechanism by which any trademark owner who has an objection to the registration granted to any domain name, can approach the said DNR and seek cancellation or transfer of the same.

Justice Pratibha M Singh added that the same ought to be fairly considered through the mechanism which ought to be independent and impartial, for eg., through an Ombudsman.

"If the cancellation/suspension/transfer as sought is not agreed to through the said mechanism, then the IP owner can avail of its remedies in accordance with law," the Court observed.

56. If Party Seeking Possession Of Immovable Property Is Aware About Sale In Favour Of A Third Party, It Must Implead The Latter As An Objector: Delhi HC

CASE TITLE: SARVINDER SINGH & ANR v. VIPUL TANDON

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 654

With respect to a decree for the possession of immovable property, the Delhi High Court has held that if the Decree Holders are aware of the sale in favour of the Objectors, they must implead the Objectors in the suit filed by them.

A single judge bench of Justice Amit Bansal observed,

"The manner in which the Decree Holders took possession of the properties from the Objectors was ex facie unlawful. The Decree Holders were aware of the sale in favour of the Objectors and also the possession of the Objectors in the aforesaid portions of the suit property. Despite this knowledge, the Decree Holders did not implead the Objectors in the suit filed by them. Even after the decree was passed, no legal notice was served on the Objectors to vacate the property, nor were they made parties in the execution proceedings and straightaway they were dispossessed from the portions of the suit property, of which they had been in a settled occupation for a long period of time."

57. Order XII Rule 6 CPC | Application For Judgment On Admission Can't Be Disposed Of In Laconic Fashion, Reasoning In Order Must: Delhi High Court

Case Title: NEHA SAINI AND ANR. v. RAGHUBIR SINGH AND ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 655

"An application under Order XII rule 6 cannot be disposed of in such a laconic fashion. There has to be some modicum of reasoning in the order, meeting the grounds in the application," the Delhi High Court has observed.

Order XII Rule 6 of Code of Civil Procedure states that where admissions of fact have been made either in the pleading or otherwise, whether orally or in writing, the Court may at any stage of the suit, either on the application of any party or of its own motion and without waiting for the determination of any other question between the parties, make such order or give such judgment as it may think fit, having regard to such admissions.

58. If Tender Conditions/ Award Of Contract Is In Public Interest, Court Can't Interfere Even If Procedural Aberration/ Error In Assessment Made Out: Delhi HC

Case Title: Delhi Electrical Contractor Welfare Association v. BSES Yamuna Power Limited & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 656

The Delhi High Court has reiterated that while exercising the power of judicial review in matters relating to tenders conditions or award of contracts, Courts must be slow in interfering with the decisions, unless they are perverse.

"If the decision relating to terms or award of contract is bona fide and in public interest, Courts shall not exercise its power of judicial review to interfere, even if a procedural aberration or error in assessment or prejudice to a tender is made out," a division bench comprising Chief Justice SC Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad held.

The observation comes in a writ petition filed by the Delhi Electrical Contractor Welfare Association seeking to quash the Notice Inviting Tenders (NITs) issued by BSES Yamuna Power Limited and BSES Rajdhani Power Limited for award of Electricity Distribution Network.

59. Can't Interfere With Discretionary Order Condoning Delay In Supervisory Jurisdiction U/Art 227 Unless There Is Total Non-Application Of Mind: Delhi HC

Case Title: Madan Lal Suryawanshi v. Tara Devi (now deceased through its LRs)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 657

The Delhi High Court has held that the supervisory jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution does not ordinarily warrant interference with the discretionary exercise of power by trial courts in condoning delay.

A single bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar observed,

" It is only where, therefore, there is complete non-application of mind in condoning delay which is inexorable, or where no reasons for condonation of delay are forthcoming in the order passed by the Court below, that an Article 227 Court would ordinarily interfere."

60. RTI Act | Right To 'Inspection Of Work' Of Any Public Authority U/S 2(j) Does Not Include 'Inspection Of Property': Delhi High Court

CASE TITLE: VEENA JOSHI v. CPIO,CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 658

The Delhi High Court has held that the words "inspection of work" under Section 2(j) of the Right To Information (RTI) Act, 2005 does not include "inspection of property" under its ambit.

Section 2(j) stipulates that right to information means the right to information accessible under the Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right to-- (i) inspection of work, documents, records; (ii) taking notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records; etc.

A single judge bench of Justice Yashwant Varma held that as such, the word "work" under the aforementioned Section is to be read in conjunction with the expressions "documents" and "records" and not property.

61. Prima Facie Case Alone Does Not Entitle A Party To Relief Under Section 17 Of The A&C Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Splendor Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. versus Rajesh Kumar Pasricha

Citation: Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 659

The Delhi High Court has ruled that a prima facie case alone does not entitle a party to relief under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) for interim measures.

The Single Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula observed that there were highly disputed questions of fact involved in the dispute relating to the interpretation of the agreement between the parties. Holding that the possible extent of the claim likely to be awarded to the claimant vide the arbitral award cannot be a foregone conclusion, the Court set aside the order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal directing the counter-claimant to secure a certain amount in an application filed under Section 17 of the A&C Act by the claimant for interim measures.

62. Unmarried Woman Pregnant Out Of Consensual Relationship Cannot Seek Termination Of Pregnancy After 20 Weeks: Delhi High Court

CASE TITLE: MS. X v. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 660

Refusing interim relief to a 25 year old unmarried woman seeking termination of her pregnancy of 23 weeks and 5 days, the Delhi High Court has observed that an unmarried woman, whose pregnancy arises out of a consensual relationship, is clearly not covered by any of the Clauses under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules, 2003.

The petitioner's pregnancy would complete 24 weeks on 18th of this month.

A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad observed thus:

"As of today, Rule 3B of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules, 2003, stands, and this Court, while exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, cannot go beyond the Statute. Granting interim relief now would amount to allowing the writ petition itself."

63. Courts Can't Enter Into Merits Of Selection Process Unless Selection Committee Has Been Malafide Or In Violation Of Statutory Rules: Delhi High Court

CASE TITLE: DILIP KUMAR v. THE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 661

The Delhi High Court has held that it is not within the domain of the Courts, sitting in judicial review, to enter into the merits of a selection process, a task which is the prerogative of and in the expert domain of a Selection Committee.

A division bench of Justices Sanjeev Sachdeva and Tushar Rao Gedela observed that it cannot act as an Appellate Authority and substitute its own opinion where the Competent Authority as well as the experts comprising the Search and Selection Committee, who are competent to decide the eligibility and suitability for a given post, have carried out the exercise in due compliance with the relevant statutes.

64. Police Officer Cannot Summon A Person For Investigation From Outside Territorial Limits Of His Station Or Adjoining Station: Delhi High Court

CASE TITLE: JAMSHED ADIL KHAN & ANR. v. UNION TERRITORY OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 662

The Delhi High Court has held that as per Section 160 CrPC, for the purposes of investigation, a police officer cannot summon a person situated outside the territorial limits of his police station or at most the territorial limits of his adjoining police station.

The provision empowers Police officers to require attendance of witnesses.

A single judge bench comprising of Justice Poonam A. Bamba observed, " From the plain reading of the sub-section (1) of Section 160 Cr.P.C, it is evident that for the purposes of investigation, a police officer can require attendance of a person situated within the limits of his own police station or that of the adjoining police station and not someone who is situated beyond the said territorial limits."

65. High Court Cannot Exercise Jurisdiction Under Article 227 To Monitor Progress Of Cases Before Fora Below: Delhi HC

Case Title: FIROZ AHMAD v. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, DELHI AND ORS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 663

The Delhi High Court has observed that the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised by High Courts to monitor the progress of cases before lower courts.

"It is not possible for this Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to monitor the progress of cases before the fora below," Justice C Hari Shankar observed.

The Court was dealing with a petition filed under Article 227 seeking a direction to the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to decide a case expeditiously, preferably on day-to-day basis and adjudicate the appeal on merits.

66. The Rejection Of An Application Under Section 34 Of The A&C Act Cannot Be Construed To Mean That The Court Has Concurred With The View Of The Arbitral Tribunal: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Glitter Overseas and Ors. v. MMTC Ltd.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 664

The Rejection Of An Application Under Section 34 Of The A&C Act Cannot Be Construed To Mean That The Court Has Concurred With The View Of The Arbitral Tribunal: Delhi High CourtThe High Court of Delhi has held that merely because the challenge to an arbitral award is dismissed by the Court exercising powers under Section 34 of the A&C Act would not mean that the court has concurred with the view of the arbitral tribunal.

The Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru the Court held that merely because a different view was taken in another arbitration and the challenge against the award was dismissed by the Court would not mean that the Court had concurred with the view of the tribunal. The decision of the Court not to interfere with the award cannot be held to be a binding precedent as the court has not decided the questions of law and facts on the merit of the case but merely dismissed the challenge because of the grounds under Section 34 were not met.

67. SpiceJet Mishaps: Delhi High Court Dismisses PIL Seeking To Stop Company's Flying Services, Says DGCA Competent To Take Action

Case Title: Rahul Bhardwaj v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 665

The Delhi High Court on Monday dismissed a public interest litigation raising safety concerns and seeking to stop flying services of Spice Jet Limited, in view of recent flight mishaps in the past two months.

A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad observed thus:

"The Aircraft Act provides for a very robust mechanism in respect of the aviation industry and this Court cannot stop an airline to operate in the Country based upon the averments made in the PIL."

Moved by Advocate Rahul Bhardwaj, the plea had referred to seven incidents, three in May, two in June and two in the month of July wherein many of the Spice Jet flights encountered mishaps.

68. Order 1 Rule 10 CPC | Plaintiff Being 'Dominus Litis' Can't Be Compelled To Fight A Person Against Whom He Does Not Claim Any Relief: Delhi High Court

CASE TITLE: KRANTI ARORA v. DIGJAM LTD & O.P. KHAITAN (HUF)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 666

The Delhi High Court has reiterated that the plaintiff in a suit, being 'dominus litis', cannot be compelled to fight against a person against whom he does not claim any relief.

A division bench of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Sudhir Kumar Jain observed,

"Dominus litis is the person to whom a suit belongs and is master of a suit and is having real interest in the decision of a case. The plaintiff being dominus litis cannot be compelled to fight against a person against whom he does not claim any relief. The plaintiff in a suit is required to identify the parties against whom he wants to implead as defendants and cannot be compelled to face litigation with the persons against whom he has no grievance."

69. MSc Nursing Admissions | AIIMS Can't Prescribe Eligibility Criteria That Nullifies Recognition Granted By Indian Nursing Council: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Chithra N & Ors. v. AIIMS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 667

The Delhi High Court has held that there is no rational basis behind the classification created by AIIMS among candidates aspiring for admission into its M.Sc. (Nursing) course, merely on the basis of the mode of learning their graduate course.

It noted that the degrees of candidates who have undertaken B.Sc. (Post Basic) through distance mode are recognized by UGC as well as the Indian Nursing Council (INC) and that they have the requisite eligibility qualification for seeking admission to M.Sc. (Nursing) at AIIMS.

It held that the AIIMS Act cannot be expanded to include the power to override or disregard the qualification recognized by INC.

70. Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea To Stop Jailed Legislators From Voting In Presidential Election 2022

Case Title: SATVIR SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 668

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition seeking deletion of names of the Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs) who are languishing in jail due to some pending cases or those decided against them so that they do not participate in the voting process for the Presidential Election 2022, scheduled for today.

While dismissing the plea, Justice Sanjeev Narula said that he will be passing an appropriate order later.

The plea was filed by one Satvir Singh, a 70 years old self employed carpenter, who had furnished a Nomination Form for conducting elections for the post of President. The same was however rejected by the Election Commission of India.

71. Delhi High Court Asks DGCA To Periodically Review Guidelines Concerning Wearing Of Face Masks In Flights

Case Title: Court on its own motion v. DGCA & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 669

The Delhi High Court has asked the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) to periodically review its guidelines concerning wearing of face masks in flights, while also adhering to the guidelines issued by the Government of India on COVID-19 protocols.

A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad disposed of an application filed by Bridging The Gap Foundation through Advocate Somnath Bharti seeking impleadment in a a suo moto case registered by the High Court following the experience of Justice C. Hari Shankar while taking an inland flight.

It was noticed that the norms are not being implemented on ground with the seriousness with which they are framed.

72. Delhi High Court Decrees Copyright Ownership Suit Filed By TV Music Composer Abhishek Ray Against Showtime Events

CASE TITLE: ABHISHEK RAY v. R. PAUL AND ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 670

The Delhi High Court has held that the original producer, lyricist and composer of a music album is entitled to a decree of declaration to that effect.

A single judge bench of Justice Pratibha Singh thus granted a decree of permanent injunction in favour of TV music composer Abhishek Ray, claiming rights over music album 'Kamasutra - Moods of Love'.

Ray had approached the High Court against Showtimes Events (India) Pvt. Ltd., run by defendants R. Paul and Michael Menezes.

Briefly, the facts of the case are that the Plaintiff was the original composer, lyricist, producer and author of various songs contained in the album 'Kamasutra- Moods of Love'. The defendants approached the Plaintiff and agreed to produce an international musical incorporating the music compositions contained in the plaintiff's album.

73. Bhushan Steel Case: Delhi High Courts Grant Bail To CA For Alleged Negligence In Stock Audit

Case Title: Sunil Bhatia Versus Serious Fraud Investigation Office

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 671

The Delhi High Court has granted bail to a chartered accountant for alleged negligence in stock audit.

The single judge bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has observed that the ex-promoters/directors and similarly situated chartered accountants have been granted bail, so there is no reason why the applicant should be treated any differently.

The applicant is a senior citizen and a chartered accountant by profession. The applicant has filed an application seeking a grant of bail.

The allegation against the applicant was that he was a chartered accountant and one of the partners at ASRN & Associates failed to perform his duty independently and diligently by not verifying the stock in transit. The applicant is accused of being in collusion with the office bearers of M/s Bhushan Steel Limited.

74. Denial Of Maintenance To Estranged Wife & Child Is Worst Offence From Humanitarian Perspective: Delhi High Court Imposes 20K Cost On Husband

Case Title: PRADEEP KUMAR v. SMT BHAWANA & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 672

"To deny maintenance to an estranged wife and child is the worst offence, even from a humanitarian perspective," the Delhi High Court has observed on Monday.

Justice Asha Menon made the observation while dismissing with a cost of Rs. 20,000 a petition filed by a husband challenging Trial Court order directing him to pay a sum of Rs.20,000 as a consolidated amount towards interim maintenance to the wife and child till the disposal of the matrimonial matter.

"The malafide intentions of an estranged husband is to depress his income as much as possible, for sadistic pleasure, of seeing the agony of someone, who has no choice, but to be dependent on him, may be dictated by egoistic propensity to also possibly teach his wife a lesson for not falling in line with whatever be his dictates. Matrimonial relationships can come to an end for a variety of reasons including ego clashes. It is time that there is a change in the attitude when litigation is filed by one spouse against the other," the Court observed.

75. Senior Citizen May Claim Right Of Exclusive Residence Even If 'Right' Or 'Interest' Is Lower Than An Exclusive Ownership Right: Delhi High Court

Case Title: MR. NEERAJ BHASIN v. DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, DELHI & ORS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 673

The Delhi High Court has observed that under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, a senior citizen may claim a right of exclusive residence even though he or she may only be able to establish a "right" or "interest" in such property, even if such right or interest be lower than an exclusive ownership right.

"Ultimately, the authorities under the Act are obliged to take into consideration the mental and physical well-being and security of the senior citizens and pass appropriate orders of protection bearing in mind the predominant purpose of the Act," Justice Yashwant Varma added.

76. Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Two Incarcerated For 7 Yrs Over Alleged Recovery Of 21 Kg 'Ganja'

Case Title: SARVAN KUMAR ALIAS KISHAN v. THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 674

The Delhi High Court has granted bail to two men who were incarcerated for about 7 years and 2 months for having been allegedly found in possession of 21 KGs of 'ganja'.

Justice Asha Menon noted that the minimum sentence prescribed for the offence was 10 years rigorous imprisonment whereas, both the men were incarcerated since 26th May, 2015 i.e. for 7 years and 2 months.

"A certain latitude is possible in the present case," the Court said while granting bail to Sarvan Kumar and Ranjeet Kumar in an FIR registered under sec. 20 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985.

77. Employee Not Entitled To Seek Permanency Or Regularisation Of Service If Continued On Ad Hoc Basis For Decades: Delhi High Court

Case Title: DESH DEEPAK SRIVASTAVA & ORS. v. DELHI HIGH COURT & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 675

The Delhi High Court has reiterated that an employee will not be entitled to seek permanency or regularization of service even if he has continued on ad hoc basis for decades.

"It is also settled law that even if a Scheme has been in operation for some decades or that the employee concerned has continued on ad hoc basis for decades, it would not entitle the employee to seek permanency or regularisation," Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan observed.

The Court was dealing with a plea concerning an advertisement issued by Delhi High Court dated My 25, 2011 inviting applications for filling up the positions of "System Officer" and "System Assistants" to be deployed in subordinate courts.

78. Coal Allocation Per Se Does Not Amount To "Proceeds Of Crime" Under PMLA: Delhi High Court

Case Title: PRAKASH INDUSTRIES LTD. & ANR. v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORECEMENT

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 676

Observing that the allocation of coal cannot be viewed as proceeds of crime per se, the Delhi High Court has observed that only the gains that may be obtained from criminal activity which are concealed or projected to be untainted can form the subject matter of the offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

Justice Yashwant Varma was of the view that it cannot be said that the allocation of coal is property as contemplated under the Act.

"It is pertinent to note that the Act essentially seeks to confiscate properties and assets that may be derived or obtained from criminal activity and which may then be concealed. It is thus evident that it is only gains that may have been obtained by the utilization of the allocation which could have possibly been viewed as proceeds of crime," the Court said.

The Court also observed that the commission of a predicate offense is the precipitate step for initiation of proceedings under the Act and that the offense of money laundering must be tried and established separately.

79. S.125 CrPC | Parties Often Don't Disclose Their Actual Income, Maintenance May Be Granted Considering Their Status & Lifestyle: Delhi High Court

Case Title: SANDEEP WALIA v. MONIKA UPPAL

Citation:2022 LiveLaw (Del) 677

The Delhi High Court has observed that in matrimonial disputes, it is seen that parties often don't disclose their actual income to the court, purportedly to avoid the liability of maintenance. Thus, it is open for the Court to determine maintenance based on their status and lifestyle.

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav observed,

" Even experience shows that actual income is normally not disclosed by the parties. Under such circumstances, it is always safe to come to a realistic conclusion considering the status of the parties and their lifestyle etc."

The observation was made wherein the husband had challenged an order of the Family Court West, partly allowing his wife's application under Section 125 CrPC and granting Rs.10,000 per month as maintenance.

80. Threshold For Extending Exclusive Rights To Shape Of A Product Quite High In Trademark Law: Delhi High Court

Case Title: KNITPRO INTERNATIONAL v. EXAMINER OF TRADE MARKS THROUGH REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS

Citation:2022 LiveLaw (Del) 678

The Delhi High Court has observed that in the law of trade marks, the threshold for extending exclusive rights to the shape of a product, is quite high.

"The shape by itself should immediately be identifiable with the source of the product. For trade mark registration of shape of a product, the same can only be granted if it has acquired a secondary meaning," Justice Pratibha M Singh added.

The Court was of the view that for trade mark registration of shape of a product, the same can only be granted if it has acquired a secondary meaning.

"Generally, the novel shape of a product which has aesthetic appeal is protectable under the law of designs, if the requisite conditions are satisfied. However, under the law of trade marks, the threshold for extending exclusive rights to the shape of a product, is quite high. The shape by itself should immediately be identifiable with the source of the product," it said.

81. S.125 CrPC | Object Of Maintenance Is To Compel Man To Perform Moral Obligation Which He Owes To Society Regarding Wife & Children: Delhi High Court

Case Title: VISHESH TANEJA v. REETA

Citation:2022 LiveLaw (Del) 679

The Delhi High Court has observed that the provision of Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure which provides for maintenance, is intended to fulfil a social purpose and that its object is to compel a man to perform the moral obligation which he owes to the society in respect of his wife and children.

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav was dealing with a plea filed by a husband against a Family Court order whereby an application under sec. 125(3) of Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent wife, was partly allowed.

The facts of the case are that the petitioner and respondent were husband and wife. After their marriage, matrimonial disputes crept up and they started living separately.

82. Delhi High Court Stays Ban On Levy of Service Charge by Restaurants on Food Bills

Title: National Restaurant Association v. Union Of India & Anr

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 680

Delhi High Court has stayed CCPA guidelines that prohibited hotels and restaurants from levying service charges on bills.

The said regulations instituted by the CCPA for the prevention of unfair trade practices and protection of customer interest state that-

"...Service charge is being levied in addition to the total price of the food items mentioned in the menu and applicable taxes, often in the guise of some other fee or charge. It may be mentioned that a component of service is inherent in the price of food and beverages offered by the restaurant or hotel. Pricing of the product thus covers both the goods and services component. There is no restriction on hotels or restaurants to set the prices at which they want to offer food or beverages to consumers. Thus, placing an order involves consent to pay the prices of food items displayed in the menu along with applicable taxes. Charging anything other than the said amount would amount to unfair trade practice under the Act."

83. CPC Contemplates Execution Of A Foreign Decree And Not An Order: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Shanghai Electric Group Co. Ltd. v. Reliance Infrastructure Ltd.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 681

The High Court of Delhi has held that remedy before the foreign arbitral tribunal would not be inefficacious when the bulk of the assets of a party are located in India as the interim order in a foreign-seated arbitration is not enforceable under the A&C Act.

The Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula also held that an interim award passed in arbitration with seat in India is enforceable under Section 17(2) of the Act, however, there is no provision in the Act for the enforcement of an interim order passed in a foreign seated arbitration, therefore, any meaningful interim relief related to assets located in India can only be granted by Indian Courts.

The Court also observed that an application for interim relief qua the assets located in India would not be efficacious before the seat court as well as its order can also not be directly enforced under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. It observed that CPC only contemplates execution of a foreign decree and not an order.

84. Application Under Section 9 Of The A&C Act For Pre-Award Relief Can Be Filed In A Court Where The Assets Of The Respondent Are Located: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Shanghai Electric Group Co. Ltd. v. Reliance Infrastructure Ltd.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 682

The High Court of Delhi has held that an application under Section 9 of the A&C Act for pre-award relief can also be filed before the Court where the assets of the respondent are located.

The Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula held that the Court for the purpose of Section 9 application in a foreign seated arbitration would be as provided under Section 47 of the A&C Act.

The Court held that not every disposal of an asset would justify the grant of interim measure. It further observed that financial condition alone cannot be the reason for attachment before the award.

85. Non Applicability Of Section 9 Of The A&C Act Can't Be Presumed If Parties Opted For Foreign-Seated Institutional Arbitration: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Shanghai Electric Group Co. Ltd. v. Reliance Infrastructure Ltd.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 683

The High Court of Delhi has held that merely because the parties have chosen a foreign-seated institutional arbitration under the UNCITRAL Law, they cannot be presumed to have entered into an agreement to exclude the applicability of Section 9 of the A&C Act as provided under the proviso to Section 2(2) of the A&C Act.

The Bench of Justice Sanjiv Narula held that the words "an agreement to the contrary" appearing under Section 2(2) cannot be presumed or interpreted on the mere assertion of a party but the same must be clearly borne out of the agreement between the parties.

86. Forcing Pregnancy Would Permanently Scar Her Psyche: Delhi High Court Permits Minor Rape Survivor To Terminate 26 Weeks Pregnancy

CASE TITLE: MS X THROUGH HER LEGAL GUARDIAN v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 684

The Delhi High Court has permitted a minor victim of sexual assault to terminate her pregnancy of 25 weeks and 6 days old pregnancy.

Justice Yashwant Varma, while noting that the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act deals with pregnancies which may only extend upto 24 weeks, highlighted that in exceptional situations, the Court could invoke its extraordinary powers to permit for such termination, even when the provisions of the Act, when strictly construed, may not sanction the same.

"This Court is of the firm opinion that if the petitioner was forced to go through with the pregnancy despite the same having been caused on account of the incident of sexual assault, it would permanently scar her psyche and cause grave and irreparable injury to her mental health. The Court cannot visualize a more egregious invasion of her right to life as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution."

87. Failure To File Income Tax Return | Prosecution U/S 276CC IT Act Not Permissible Without Previous Sanction Of Appropriate Authority: Delhi High Court

CASE TITLE: VIPUL AGGARWAL v. INCOME TAX OFFICE

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 685

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that a person cannot be prosecuted for the offence under Section 276-CC (Failure to furnish returns of income) of the Income Tax Act, except with the previous sanction of the Principal Commissioner/appropriate authority.

A single judge bench of Justice Asha Menon held,

" Since the law provides that without sanction u/s 278B of the IT Act, the Department cannot proceed against a person found liable to prosecute him for the offence under Section 276 CC of the IT Act, the present prosecution must fail qua the petitioner. In the absence of a specific sanction for prosecuting the petitioner, the learned ACMM could not have taken cognizance of the complaint against him and then framed charge against him. The edifice built without foundation must crumble. "

88. Reason Is The Soul Of Justice, Authority Exercising Judicial Or Administrative Powers Must Pass Speaking Order: Delhi High Court

Case Title: SMT USHA RANI & ANR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 686

Observing that reason is the soul of justice, the Delhi High Court has said that any order passed, whether in the exercise of judicial or administrative powers vested in the authority, must be speaking.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh further added that an order disposing of an application necessarily requires recording of reasons in support of the conclusions arrived at in the order and failure to give reasons tantamount to denial of justice.

"In fact, the insistence on recording of reasons is meant to further the principles of natural justice, and specifically for ensuring that justice must not only be done but it also be seen to be done... Recording of reasons also operates as a legitimate restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial or administrative power by any authority and as such is a facilitator of Rule of Law," the Court said.

89. Mere Extension Of Bank Guarantee Does Not  Itself Extend Claim Period : Delhi High Court

CASE TITLE: HARJI ENGINEERING WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED v. PUNJAB AND SIND BANK & ANR

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 687

The Delhi High Court has held that the invocation of a bank guarantee has to be done in accordance with the terms of the bank guarantee, or else, the invocation itself would be bad.

A single judge bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao further observed that where the terms of bank guarantee provide a period 90 days from the date of expiry of the defect liability period as provided in the contract, invocation of bank guarantee after expiry of such period is not permissible, merely on account of extension of bank guarantee.

90. High Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Seeking Clean & Hygienic Milk Supply To Delhiites As A Fundamental Right

Case Title: RITU GAUBA ADVOCATE v. HIS EXCELLENCY LT. GOVERNOR, DELHI & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 688

The Delhi High Court on Thursday refused to entertain a public interest litigation seeking clean and hygienic supply of milk to Delhiites as a fundamental right under Article 21 of Constitution of India.

A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad was apprised by counsel appearing for the petitioner that the cattle in the city were dying on roads and were feeding on polythenes.

The plea, which had sought directions on the Court to advise the LG as well as Commissioner of Police for ensuring clean supply of milk, had claimed that the abandoned and pathetic condition of cattle was affecting the health of city residents for the reason of cattle feeding on contaminated polythene food and sewage water.

91. Broadcaster Must Bear In Mind Minimum Precautions While Airing Content Which May Disturb Sensibilities Of Prudent Viewers: Delhi High Court

Case Title: TV TODAY NETWORK LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 689

The Delhi High Court has observed that a professional broadcaster is expected to bear in mind the minimum precautions which must be exercised while broadcasting content which may cause distress and disturb the sensibilities of an "ordinary and prudent viewer".

Justice Yashwant Varma made the observation while dismissing a plea filed by TV Today Network Limited challenging an order issued by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting in March this year imposing the penalty of warning under Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994.

The development related to a broadcast aired by the India Today channel in February last year showing an incident of an elephant being mercilessly beaten by its caretakers.

92. S.2(31) Companies Act 2013 Which Defines 'Deposit' Does Not Operate Retrospectively: Delhi High Court

CASE TITLE: NITIN REKHAN v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 690

The Delhi High Court has held that there cannot be retrospective application of Section 2(31) of the Companies Act, 2013 and the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 2014.

A single judge bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh held that for issues that had arisen with respect to a share purchase agreement in 2010, the Companies Act, 1956 and the Rules of 1975 shall be applicable.

Briefly, the facts of the case are that the Petitioner paid Rs. 40,00,000/- to the Directors of Respondent Company for issuance of shares in the said company. The Respondent failed to allot the shares as promised and returned the money to the Petitioners. It is alleged that the Respondent Company failed to repay the interest accrued on the amount in question as per Rule 17 of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 2014, which imposes a penal interest of 18% per annum on the deposits accepted by a private company from the public.

93. Judiciary Not Immune From Criticism But Action Must Be Taken When Based On Distorted Facts To Intentionally Lower Court's Dignity: Delhi High Court

Case Title: MS. M VICTIM v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH S.H.O. & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 691

While observing that Judiciary is not immune from criticism, the Delhi High Court has observed that such criticism cannot be based on distorted facts or gross misrepresentation of material averments to intentionally lower its dignity and respect.

Justice Jasmeet Singh, who was dealing with an appeal raising allegations against Trial Court and High Court judges, issued notice to the counsel appearing for the appellant to show cause why contempt proceedings be not initiated against him.

"There is a direct attack on the reputation and functioning of not only one Judge, but several Judges of this Court. This vilification of Judges can affect the administration of justice as it becomes a form of public mischief. An unwarranted attack on a Judge, citing and unscrupulous administration cannot be ignored by this Court," the Court said.

94. The Arbitrator Cannot Award A Lumpsum Amount As Against Specified Claims Without Adjudicating The Claims: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Kanti Bijlee Utpadan Nigam Ltd. v. Paltech Cooling Towers & Equipments Litd.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 692

The High Court of Delhi has held that an award wherein a lumpsum amount is awarded against the specified claims without adjudication of the claims is unsustainable.

The Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru held that an arbitral tribunal cannot award a lumpsum amount against specified claims of a party merely to meet the ends of justice.

The Court also held that an application under Section 34(4) of the A&C Act would not be allowed to clarify the amount of damages when the same is not based on any calculation.

The Court further held that an arbitral tribunal cannot also summarily reject the counter-claim of a party merely because they are belated as long as they are raised within the limitation period.

95. Definition Of "Public Authority" Under RTI Act Has No Application In Service Dispute: Delhi High Court

Case Title: RAKESH KUMAR SHARMA v. MOTHER DAIRY FRUIT & VEGETABLES PVT LTD

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 694

The Delhi High Court has observed that the definition of 'public authority' as contained under sec. 2(h) of Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 has no application in a service matter.

Justice C Hari Shankar was dealing with an application under sec. 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 moved in regular second appeal pending before it.

The application, moved by on Rakesh Kumar Sharma, sought initiation of criminal proceedings against Mother Dairy Fruit & Vegetables Private Limited, for committing perjury as per the averments made in its counter affidavit.

96. Explanation To Section 14A Of Income Tax Act Will Not Apply Retrospectively: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-2 versus M/s Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 695

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the Explanation to Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, added vide the Finance Act, 2022, cannot be presumed to be retrospective in nature since it is clarificatory in nature and alters the law as it stood earlier.

The Division Bench of Justices Manmohan and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora held that in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Sedco Forex International Drill. Inc. versus CIT (2005), the amendment to Section 14A, which is "for removal of doubts", cannot be presumed to be retrospective, even if such a language is used, since it alters and changes the law as it prevailed before.

97. No Section 40(a)(ia) Disallowance In Case Of Short Deduction Of TDS: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-I Versus Future First Info. Services Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 696

The Delhi High Court has held that no disallowance under Section 40 (a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act is called for in the case of a short deduction of TDS and the correct course of action would have been to invoke Section 201 of the Income Tax Act.

The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has observed that disallowance under section 40A(2)(b) has to be based on cogent material or reasoning by the Assessing Officer.

98. Merely Because Sexual Abuse Results In Tying Of Knot Between Victim & Accused Or Birth Of Child Does Not Mitigate Act Of Rape: Delhi High Court

Case Title: JAGBIR v. STATE (N.C.T. OF DELHI)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 697

The Delhi High Court has observed that merely because an act of sexual abuse results in tying of knot between the victim and the accused or in birth of a child, it does not mitigate the act of rape. It added that the consent of a minor is immaterial and inconsequential in law.

Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta also added that the act of claiming consent of the minor by accused, after luring such minor and entering into physical relationship, cannot be treated in a routine manner for the reason that rape is not only a crime against the victim but against the entire society which leaves little option for minor child "but to toe the line of the accused."

99. Lives Of Consenting Adults Living Together As Husband & Wife Cannot Be Interfered With By Third Parties, Their Families: Delhi High Court

Case Title: HINA & ANR. v. THE STATE & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 698

"Once two adults consent to live together as husband and wife there can be perceivably no interference in their lives from third parties, including their family," the Delhi High Court has recently observed.

Justice Tushar Rao Gedela further added that the State is under a Constitutional obligation to protect its citizens especially in cases where the marriage is solemnized between two consenting adults irrespective of the caste or community.

"The Constitutional Courts under our framework are empowered to pass orders to protect the citizens specially in the cases of the nature to which the present dispute pertains. Once two adults consent to live together as husband and wife there can be perceivably no interference in their lives from third parties, including their family. Our Constitution ensures it too. It is not only the duty of the State but also its machinery and the agencies which ensure law and order to ensure that no harm comes to the citizens of this country," the Court said.

100. Delhi High Court Closes Suit By Hotstar Against Rogue Websites Over Unauthorized Telecasting Of 'The Big Bull Film'

CASE TITLE: NOVI DIGITAL ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD. v. W1.123MOVIES11.COM & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 699

The Delhi High Court has disposed of a suit by Novi Digital Entertainment Pvt. Ltd., operating the online video streaming platform Hotstar, filed against various rogue websites apprehending illegal and unauthorized telecast of 'The Big Bull' film before its release last year.

While the movie was slated for theatrical release on 8th April, 2021, the suit was filed on 22nd March 2021 seeking an injunction blocking various rogue websites.

Justice Pratibha M Singh, who decreed the suit after observing that it has served the purpose, ordered thus:

"Considering the nature of the present suit that was intended to protect the Plaintiff's investment in the film 'The Big Bull' and to ensure that no unauthorised online telecast of the film takes place, the suit has served its purpose. All the rogue websites have been blocked and domain names have also been de-activated."

101. Commercial Courts (Amendment) Act, 2018 Cannot Be Applied Retrospectively: Delhi High Court

Title: SATYANARAIN KHANDELWAL v. PREM ARORA And other connected matters

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 700

The Delhi High Court has observed that the Commercial Courts (Amendment) Act, 2018 cannot be applied retrospectively.

A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad was of the view that it cannot be said that there is any lack of clarity or ambiguity in sec. 19 of the 2018 Amending Act which categorically states that its provisions will apply to cases relating to commercial disputes filed on or after the date of commencement of the Act, i.e. May 3, 2018.

102. Individual/Organization Seeking To Provide Legal Aid To Victim Can't Be Denied Meeting But They Shouldn't Create Law & Order Situation: Delhi HC

Case Title: UNITED SIKHS v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, DELHI POLICE & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 701

The Delhi High Court has observed that any individual or organization cannot be denied meeting with victim for providing necessary legal aid and assistance, if so required by the victim, to ensure delivery of justice and fair trial.

Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta added that the said proposition however comes with a caution that such meetings must not be used inappropriately for creating any "law and order" situation or arousing the emotions of a particular community in an adverse manner, thereby disturbing the public tranquillity or likely to cause breach of peace.

103. Delhi High Court Awards ₹30 Lakh Damages To Hungarian Company In Trademark Infringement Suit Over 'HELL' Energy Drink

CASE TITLE: HELL ENERGY MAGYARORSZAG KFT v. SHRI BRAHM SHAKTI PRINCE BEVERAGES PVT LTD & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 702

The Delhi High Court on Thursday decreed a trademark infringement suit in favour of Hungarian company seeking protection of its trademark 'HELL' used for energy drinks. The court also directed the Defendants to pay a sum of Rs.30 lakh to the Plaintiff as costs and damages.

The grievance of the Plaintiff was that the Defendants were using the mark 'HELLxxx' in respect of energy drinks. It was mentioned that a pervious suit was filed by the Plaintiff wherein the Court had granted an ex-parte ad interim order of injunction. Two Local Commissioners were also appointed in the said matter who seized large amounts of infringing products from the premises of the Defendants. The parties had, thereafter, settled their disputes and had entered into a settlement agreement.

104. Article 227 Confers Supervisory Jurisdiction, High Court Cannot Consider Such Submissions That Were Not Raised Before Court Below: Delhi HC

CASE TITLE: KUSHAL ANAND v. MANDHIR SACHDEVA

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 703

The Delhi High Court has reiterated that Article 227 of the Indian Constitution does not confer appellate jurisdiction on the High Court. An implicit corollary is that the manner of exercise of its jurisdiction by the court or forum below cannot be gauged on the basis of submissions which were never advanced before it.

A single judge bench of Justice Hari Shankar observed that the power conferred on the High Court by Article 227 is a power of superintendence and not a power of judicial review.

105. Subjecting Citizen To Police Scrutiny, Verification Of Personal Docs Without Any Reason Serious Invasion Of Right To Privacy: Delhi High Court

Title: JINDAL KUMAR v. THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 704

The Delhi High Court has observed that subjecting a citizen to police scrutiny including verification of personal documents for no good reason would entail a serious invasion of his right to privacy.

Justice Asha Menon made the observation while dealing with a plea filed by a complainant seeking directions on the Delhi Police to make enquiry for correct identification of private person, after both the parties indulged in a quarrel.

It was the case of the petitioner that the respondent in the kalandra proceedings was using different names and identities and therefore the police must fix his true identity.

The plea thus sought directions on the Delhi Police to make an enquiry in respect of Adhaar Cards, Voter Cards, Driving License and Pan Cards existing in the name of various names allegedly being used by the respondent individual.

106. Pre-Grant Opponent Cannot Be Kept In Dark About Developments In Examination Process Of Patent Application: Delhi High Court

CASE TITLE: NATCO PHARMA LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 705

The Delhi High Court has held that the proceedings in a pre-grant opposition and simultaneous examination of a patent application cannot result in a situation where the pre-grant opponent is kept in dark about the developments taking place in the examination process of a patent application.

A single judge bench of Justice Pratibha Singh observed,

"For example, when amendments are filed by the Applicant, an immediate decision ought to be taken on allowing or disallowing the amendment so that there is transparency and clarity as to what are the claims being considered by the Controller. A short and brief order should be passed in respect of the amendments which should be uploaded on the website of the Patent Office so that everyone concerned would know the decision on the amendment. In any event, if an amendment is being carried out during the pendency of a pre-grant opposition, the ruling on the amendment ought to be sent to the pre-grant opponent as well."

107. Tax payment Software Has To Be Tailor-Made According To The Legal Rights Of The Taxpayers: Delhi High Court

Title: Celerity Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Versus Dy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 73-1

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 706

The Delhi High Court has held that the tax payment software has to be tailor-made according to the needs, aspirations, and legal rights of the taxpayers and not that the taxpayers' legal rights have to be tailor-made in accordance with the software being used by the Tax Department.

The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has held that as the petitioners have paid the taxes, they should be given credit for the challans paid on Form 3 under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act (DTVSV Act). The order/communication rejecting credit of taxes deposited under the DTVSV on the hyper-technical ground that challans have been deposited under the minor head '200' instead of '400' is unfair, illegal, and contrary to the objective of enacting the DTVSV Act.

108. Compassionate Appointment Offered To Dependant Of Deceased Employee Is A Concession, Not A Right: Delhi High Court

CASE TITLE: MANJU DEVI v. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 707

The Delhi High Court has reiterated that an appointment on compassionate ground offered to the dependant of a deceased employee is a mere concession and not a right.

A single judge bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh observed,

" The whole object behind granting compassionate employment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. Appointment on compassionate ground offered to a dependant of a deceased employee is an exception to the said rule. It is a concession and not a right."

The petitioner in this case was the wife of an en employee of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd who passed away while in service due to a Road accident. Through the petition, the petitioner sought compassionate employment for her son under the Rule 7(b)(ii)/8A of the HPCL Employee's Superannuation Benefit Fund Scheme, as per which she was entitled to the benefits as her deceased husband would have received had he superannuated.

109. Outraging Modesty Of Woman: Delhi High Court Quashes FIR Based On Compromise With Condition That Accused Provide Computers In Two MCD Schools

Case Title: JAEWOO PARK v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 708

The Delhi High Court has quashed an FIR filed by a woman, working as a domestic servant in the Petitioner's house who is accused of outraging her modesty, following a compromise between the parties. However, it imposed a condition on the Petitioner to provide two fully functional computers each with printers in two schools run by Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD).

"I am of the view that the entire police machinery has been put in motion on account of the acts of commission & omission on behalf of the petitioner and useful time of the police has been invested. The State resources have been unnecessarily overburdened. Hence the petitioner must do some social good for the benefit of the society," Justice Jasmeet Singh observed.

110. NCTE Act | Service Of Show Cause Notice Vital For An Educational Institution, Affords Opportunity To Put Forth Their Stand Qua Alleged Deficiencies: Delhi HC

Case Title: AIREEN INSTITUTION OF EDUCATION v. NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 709

The Delhi High Court has observed that the service of show-cause notice is a vital communication for an institute as it affords an opportunity to them to put forth their stand qua the alleged deficiencies, failing which adverse consequences are bound to follow.

"This opportunity is thus, crucial for the institutes whose recognition and operation are at stake," Justice Sanjeev Narula added.

The Court was dealing with a plea challenging the decision of Western Regional Committee taken at its 322nd meeting held from 23rd to 24th November, 2020 whereby the recognition granted to Petitioner institute namely Aireen Institution of Education, for B.Ed. course was withdrawn.

111. Mere Regulation Of A Body By A Statute Does Not Mean That The Body Is Discharging 'Public Function': Delhi High Court

CASE TITLE: SUSHIL KUMAR v. CENTRAL REGISTRAR OF COOP SOCY AND ORS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 710

The Delhi High Court has reiterated that merely because a body is obligated to comply with various statutory requirements, that cannot be conclusive to answer the question of whether it is discharging a public function.

Justice Yashwant Varma observed,

"The fact that the cooperative society is registered under the Act or that the Byelaws or the procedure of elections owe their genesis to the Act and the Rules, would not be sufficient to hold that it would be amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the Court. This Court also bears in mind the principles enunciated by the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Vijay Behari Srivastava where it was pertinently observed that merely because the affairs of a society are controlled by the Registrar that would not make that body "State" as contemplated under Article 12 of the Constitution."

112. Sections 15 And 16 Of The MSMED Act Are Mandatory Provisions, Arbitrator Must Assign Reasons For Not Awarding Compound Interest: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd. v. Bhatia Engineering Company

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 711

The High Court of Delhi has affirmed the order of the lower Court by which it had set aside an arbitral award for not awarding interest in terms of Sections 15 and 16 which are mandatory provisions of the MSMED Act.

The bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan held that once the arbitrator has held that MSMED Act applies to the dispute between the parties, it must assign reasons for not awarding interest in terms of Sections 15 and 16 of the Act.

113. When The Main Relief Is Rejected By The Arbitral Tribunal, Which Included Interim Relief ,The Interim Relief Granted In Isolation Is Incorrect: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Orchid Infrastructure Developers (P) Ltd. versus Five Star Constructions Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 712

The Delhi High Court has ruled that when the main relief claimed by the claimant has been rejected by the Arbitral Tribunal, the Arbitral Tribunal cannot award an interim or ancillary amount, which is included under the same claim, in favour of the claimant.

The Single Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula held that when the main relief is rejected by the Arbitral Tribunal, axiomatically, the interim relief ought to be rejected as well.

The petitioner Orchid Infrastructure Developers (P) Ltd. awarded a contract to the respondent Five Star Constructions Pvt. Ltd. for construction of a certain property. After a dispute regarding the payment of dues for the work done by the respondent arose between the parties, the respondent invoked the Arbitration Clause and the Arbitral Tribunal was appointed.

The Arbitral Tribunal passed an award partly allowing the claim of the respondent and directed the petitioner to pay a certain sum of money to the respondent. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the Delhi High Court challenging the arbitral award.

114. Delay In Filing Appeal U/S 18 Of POSH Act Can Be Condoned U/S 5 Limitation Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: DB CORP LTD v. SHAILJA NAQVI & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 713

The Delhi High Court has observed that under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act/ SHW Act), a victim's delay in filing appeal against the inquiry report can be condoned if such a delay is properly explained.

Justice C Hari Shankar added that sec. 5 of the Limitation Act (which provides for extension of prescribed period in certain cases) would apply in respect of appeals which may be sought to be preferred under sec. 18 of the Sexual Harassment at Workplace Act.

"It would be completely antithetical and inimical to the very scope and purpose of the SHW Act, if a Court were to refuse to condone a delay of as little as 36 days in an alleged victim of sexual harassment preferring an appeal under Section 18 against the report of the inquiry committee. Such a delay – if properly explained – should, clearly, not stand in the way of the appeal of the alleged victim of sexual harassment being decided on merits, by the authority competent to do so," the Court observed.

115. Delhi High Court Directs DSIR To Issue Report Quantifying Expenditure On Scientific Research Incurred By The Assessee

Case Title: SRF Ltd. versus Union of India

Citation: Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 714

The Delhi High Court has directed the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR) to issue reports on the expenditure incurred by the assessee SRF Ltd. for the relevant assessment years in Form 3CL within six weeks.

The Division Bench of Justices Manmohan and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora observed that the DSIR is statutorily bound to issue the Form 3CL within 120 days in accordance with Rule 6(7A) (ba) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, certifying the expenditure incurred by the assessee on its in-house R&D units.

In terms of the guidelines issued by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR), requiring in-house Research and Development (R&D) units to have valid 'recognition', the petitioner- SRF Ltd.'s in-house R&D units were granted recognition.

116. GEMS v. JAMES BOND: Delhi High Court Permanently Injuncts Manufacturer From Using Cadbury's Trademark, Awards Over ₹15 Lakhs Cost

Case Title: MONDELEZ INDIA FOODS PVT. LTD. AND ANR. v. NEERAJ FOOD PRODUCTS

Citation: Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 715

The Delhi High Court has passed permanent and mandatory injunction against a manufacturer namely Neeraj Food Products for infringement of Cadbury's trademark 'GEMS' by using deceptively similar mark and packaging 'JAMES BOND' which was inspired by the character 'GEMS BOND', as used by Cadbury for promotion of their product.

Justice Pratibha M Singh also awarded actual cost of Rs.15,86,928 in favour of Cadbury, observing that it had spent a substantial amount of money towards litigation in a suit wherein interim injunction was operating since 2007, including court fee, counsels' fees and miscellaneous expenses. Rs. 10 lakhs were awarded in damages.

117. Delhi High Court Dismisses Appeal Seeking Details Of SC Collegium's December 2018 Meeting

Title: ANJALI BHARDWAJ v. CPIO, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 716

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday dismissed an appeal against the order passed by a Single Judge which had declined a plea seeking information regarding decisions taken by the Supreme Court Collegium in a meeting held on December 12, 2018.

A bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad was of the view that the observations of the single judge did not require any interference and thus the appeal was dismissed.

The Court had reserved the order last week after hearing Advocate Prashant Bhushan appearing for Appellant, activist Anjali Bhardwaj.

Justice Yashwant Varma, vide order dated March 30, 2022, dismissed the plea after noting that the disclosures made by the respondents seemed to indicate that no resolution with respect to the agenda items was drawn by members who constituted the Collegium on 12 December 2018.

118. Just Because Interlocutory Order Of Arbitral Tribunal Is Not Challengeable Under Section 34 Of A&C Act, Remedy Is Not Writ Under Article 226 And 227: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Easy Trip Planners Ltd. versus One97 Communications Ltd.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 717

The Delhi High Court has ruled that merely because an interlocutory order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal is not amenable to challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), the remedy under Article 226 and Article 227 of the Constitution of India would not be available against the said order.

The Single Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar held that a party can approach the Court against an interim order passed in the arbitral proceedings only if the order is appealable under Section 37 of the A&C Act; and that in all other cases, the party has to wait for the conclusion of the arbitral proceedings and the rendition of the arbitral award.

119. The Arbitrator Cannot Alter The Express Terms Of The Agreement Between The Parties By Applying The Business Efficacy Test: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Food Corporation of India v. Adani Agri Logistics Ltd. O.M.P. (COMM) 82 of 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 718

The High Court of Delhi has held that the arbitrator cannot alter the express terms of the agreement by applying the business efficacy test when there is no ambiguity as to the intention of the parties.

The Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru held that Penta Test as propounded by the Supreme Court in Nabha Power Ltd v. Punjab State Power Corp. Ltd. is only for the purpose of determining the intention when the terms of the agreement are not express or silent on an aspect, and would have no application when there is no ambiguity as to the contract between the parties.

The Court further held even if the tribunal is of the view that the arrangement between the parties is inequitable, it cannot alter the terms of the agreement to work out an equitable bargain between the parties.

120. Writ Of Mandamus Not A Remedy Against Private Wrongs, Court Cannot Interfere With Private Body's Internal Management: Delhi HC

Title: PRAKASH SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 719

Observing that the writ of mandamus is not a remedy against private wrongs, the Delhi High Court has observed that such a writ's scope is against the private authority which might be performing a public duty limited to the enforcement of such public duty.

Further adding that the Court cannot interfere with the internal management of a private body in a writ of mandamus, a division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad observed thus:

"It is well settled that a writ of mandamus lies only for the purpose of a public or statutory duty. Writs are issued for the performance of public duties. Though Article 226 of the Constitution of India is worded in such a way that a writ of mandamus could be issued even against a private authority but such private authority must be discharging a public function and the right sought to be enforced must be a public duty."

121. Jurisdiction Of Court While Issuing Writ Of 'Quo Warranto' Limited To Cases Where Person Holding Public Office Is Ineligible: Delhi High Court

CASE TITLE: MANOJ MISHRA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 720

The Delhi High Court has held that the jurisdiction of the Court while issuing a writ of quo warranto is limited to cases where the person holding public office did not meet with the eligibility criteria or when the appointment was contrary to the statutory rules.

The division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramoniam Prasad also noted that the Court cannot sit in judgement over the wisdom of the Government in the choice of person to be appointed so long as the person chosen is eligible for such appointment.

122. Order 18 Rule 1 CPC | Defendant May Be Asked To Lead Evidence First If Case Set Up By It Is Such That Proving It Would Decide All Issues In Suit: Delhi HC

CASE TITLE: SMT. POONAM BHANOT v. VIRENDER SHARMA & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 721

The Delhi High Court has held that the Court has the authority to give necessary directions under Order 18 Rule 1 CPC on the procedural aspect as regards which party will lead evidence first. The bench further noted that correction of a procedural order was an inherent power of the court and may be corrected ex debito justitiae to prevent the abuse of its process.

Justice Mini Pushkarna said,

" The unequivocal position that emerges is that if the defendants set up a case, which if decided, would decide the issues raised in the suit completely, then the defendants can be directed to lead evidence first under Order 18 Rule 1 CPC. "

123. Order Of Facilitation Council, After Termination Of Conciliation Under MSMED Act, Not Executable: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/S. Unicon Engineers versus M/S. Jindal Steel and Power Ltd.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 722

The Delhi High Court has ruled that an order passed by the Facilitation Council under Section 18 of the Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act) after the termination of conciliation proceedings, without taking the dispute up for arbitration or referring it to an institution or centre for arbitration, is a nullity and does not constitute an arbitral award. Therefore, the Court ruled that it cannot be enforced under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act).

The Single Bench of Justice Prateek Jalan reiterated that the proceedings for conciliation and arbitration cannot be clubbed.

124. Writ Jurisdiction To Be Exercised In Circumspection, Can't Displace Authority's Order By Merely Taking Another Opinion On Same Material: Delhi HC

Case Title: RAJENDER PRASAD PANT v. M/S EXCHANGE AGENCIES & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 723

The Delhi High Court has observed that the order passed by an authority cannot be displaced merely because High Court can take another opinion on the same material in writ jurisdiction.

Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma further added that although the writ jurisdiction conferred upon the High Court is wide, but the same has to be exercised in circumspection.

"This Court in its writ jurisdiction cannot re-appreciate the evidence," the Court said.

The Court was dealing with a petition challenging the impugned order dated 19th May, 2022, whereby the claim of the petitioner for payment of four months' salary w.e.f. 19th April, 2018 to 12th August, 2018 was rejected.

125. Decide On DCPCR's Recommendation To Ban Medically Unnecessary Sex-Selective Surgeries On Intersex Infants, Children: High Court To Delhi Govt

Case Title: Srishti Madurai Educational Research Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 724

The Delhi High Court has granted eight weeks time to the Delhi Government for taking appropriate decision on the recommendation given by Delhi Commission for Protection of Child Rights (DCPCR) to declare a ban on medically unnecessary, sex-selective surgeries on intersex infants and children except in cases of life-threatening situations.

A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad disposed of a PIL filed by Srishti Madurai Educational Research Foundation, an independent Trust, which sought guidelines specifying the conditions when medical surgery on intersex infants and children can be performed.

126. TV Today v. Newslaundry | Broadcaster Has Right To Fair Comment On Programmes Created By Others, Facet Of Free Speech Under Article 19: Delhi HC

Case Title: TV Today Network Pvt Ltd v. Newslaundry & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 725

While denying interim relief to TV Today Network in the defamation and copyright infringement suit filed by it against news portal Newslaundry, the Delhi High Court has observed that every broadcaster has the right of fair comment on current events and of criticism and review, including of the programmes created by others.

Justice Asha Menon further observed that the right to broadcast programmes would be included in the right to free speech and expression. However, it was added that a balance would have to be struck between the two rights, the right to free speech and right to reputation.

"The defendants No.1 to 9, in the present case, have however asserted another right and that is the unrestricted "right to comment". This right to comment on the content created by others is claimed by them as an exercise in public interest," the Court noted.

127. [Patents Act] Unity Or Plurality Of Inventions & Whether They Form Single Inventive Concept To Be Determined From Claims: Delhi High Court

Case Title: BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM INTERNATIONAL GMBH v. THE CONTROLLER OF PATENTS & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 726

The Delhi High Court has observed that under the law of patent, "unity of the invention" or "plurality of inventions" and whether they form a "single inventive concept" has to be gleaned from a reading of the claims.

Going through various provisions of the Patents Act, 1970, Justice Pratibha M Singh said:

"The complete specification also describes the procedures, processes, methods, including the best methods. But what is crucial to note, is the fact that the invention itself is defined in the claims. While such claims do have to be based on the disclosure in the specification, however even if a person does not read the complete specification and wishes to identify the invention, the place to look for it is in the 'Claims'."

"The Invention thus resides in the Claims. Accordingly, "unity of the invention"/ "plurality of inventions" and whether they form a "single inventive concept" has to be gleaned from a reading of the claims."

128. 'Matter Of Life & Death': Delhi High Court Dismisses Challenge To Minimum Percentile Criteria For NEET-PG Admissions

Case Title: DR. ABHINAV KUMAR & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 727

The Delhi High Court on Friday dismissed a plea challenging a regulation mandating minimum marks of 50th percentile in National Eligibility-Cum-Entrance Test (NEET) as a mandatory requirement for admission to postgraduate courses.

A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that there cannot be any compromise with the quality of doctors or specialists as it involves a risk to human lives.

"…this Court emphasizes that the lowering of the standards of medical education has the potential of wreaking havoc on society at large due to the risk that practice of medicine entails; it involves in its ambit the matter of life and death, and therefore, it would be unconscionable for this Court to interfere in the standards duly and diligently set by the governing authority," the Court added.