Delhi High Court Weekly Round Up: April 25 To May 1, 2022

CITATIONS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 361 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 387

NOMINAL INDEX

Title: RAZIA BEGUM v. COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 361

Case Title: COSCO INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. v. JAGAT SINGH DUGAR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 362

Case Title: SUSHIL ARORA v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 363

Case Title: SAURABH BHARDWAJ v. DELHI POLICE & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 364

Case Title: GOVERNMENT E MARKETPLACE v. UNILEX CONSULTANTS & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 365

Case Title: ANIL KUMAR SETH v. LALIT KUMAR SETH AND ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 366

Case Title: SH. DINESH SHARMA v. MRS. KRISHNA KAINTH 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 367

Case Title: Religare Finvest Ltd v. Asian Satellite Broadcast Pvt. Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 369

Case Title: SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD. AND ANR. v. KINETIC LIFESCIENCE (OPC) P. LTD. AND ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 369

Case Title: THE BRITISH SCHOOL SOCIETY v. SANJAY GANDHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 370

Case Title: ALKA GHALOT v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 371

Case Title: DUMPALA MEENAVATHI AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 372

Case Title: NAVIN SONI v. MUNISH SONI & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 373

Case Title: JITENDRA KUMAR GARG v. MANJU GARG 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 374

Case Title: Jan Sewa Welfare Society v. Union of India & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 375

Case Title: Jindal Realty Limited versus National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 376

CaseTitle: GOVT. OF WEST BENGAL v. ARSH VERMA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 377

Case Title: Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited Versus PCIT 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 378

Case Title: Hunch Circle Pvt. Ltd. v. Futuretimes Technology India Pvt. Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 379

Case Title: TARUN PREET SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 380

Case Title: DEEPAK v. RAMESH SETHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 381

Case Title: BHARTI ANAND v. SUSHANT ANAND AND ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 382

Case Title: SHADAB v. STATE 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 383

Case Title: MAKEMYTRIP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. BOOKING.COM B. V. & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 384

Case Title: NEETA BHARDWAJ & ORS. v. KAMLESH SHARMA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 385

Case Title: RAMESH KUMAR BANGA v. KAILASH MAKKAR AND ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 386

1. "Police Authorities Of Three States Simply Dragging Their Feet": Delhi High Court Hands Over Investigation Of Missing Man To CBI

Title: RAZIA BEGUM v. COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 361

The Delhi High Court has handed over investigation of a missing man, a truck driver, to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) observing that police authorities of three States including Rajasthan, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh were "simply dragging their feet."

Justice Pratibha M Singh was dealing with a plea filed by Razia Begum, widowed mother of the missing truck driver namely Mohd. Parvez who was missing for months. The truck was spotted for the last time on 19th February 2018, when the CCTV captured its movement in Shahjahanpur, District Bhiwadi, Rajasthan.

In the meantime, considering the financial status of the Petitioner whose son was missing, the Court directed that a sum of Rs.3 lakhs is released in her favour as interim compensation.

2. Filing Written Statement In Prescribed Time Without Affidavit Of Admission/ Denial Of Documents Not 'Non-Est' Filing: Delhi High Court

Case Title: COSCO INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. v. JAGAT SINGH DUGAR

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 362

The Delhi High Court has observed that the filing of a written statement within the prescribed time but without an accompanying affidavit of admission or denial of documents, does not amount to non-est filing since it cannot be said that nothing was filed at all.

Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani further added that the same would however amount to a defect, that is required to be cured after it is brought to the attention of the party by the Registry.

"Chapter VII Rule 3 only bars taking on record a written statement that is filed without an accompanying affidavit of admission/denial of documents. Filing of the written statement and it being taken on record are two separate and distinct matters," the Court said.

The Court was dealing with an appeal filed under Chapter II Rule 5 of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 read with sec. 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, seeking setting aside of order dated 23.10.2020 passed by the Joint Registrar, declining to take the defendant's written statement on record.

3. Delhi High Court Dismisses Challenge To Notification Conferring Powers Of Special Courts Under Prevention Of Corruption Act To Officers Of DHJS

Case Title: SUSHIL ARORA v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 363

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea challenging the notification conferring powers of Presiding Officer of the Designated Court and Special Court constituted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, to each and every Officer of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service (DHJS) in pursuance of the transfer or posting orders made by the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court.

The impugned notification dated September 15, 2010 issued by the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi conferred the said power to be exercisable by each of such officer of the DHJS with effect from the date of assumption of charge of the post of Presiding Officer or Judge of the Designated Court or Special Court.

A bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla observed that it is entirely for the High Court, headed by the Chief Justice to decide on the aspect of transfer and posting of the Officers of the Judicial Service of the State.

4. 'We Are Not Satisfied With Your Bandobast': High Court Directs Delhi Police Commissioner To Look Into Security Lapse At CM Residence

Case Title: SAURABH BHARDWAJ v. DELHI POLICE & ANR

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 364

The Delhi High Court has expressed dissatisfaction at the report filed by the Delhi Police with respect to the security arrangement made outside Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's residence, which was attacked by an "unruly mob" on March 30.

" This kind of incident happening at residence of a constitutional functionary is very disturbing state of affairs. What kind of bandobast did you have? You need to look into your functioning. It could have been anybody, any Minister, Judge," the Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla observed at the outset.

It has therefore directed the Commissioner of Delhi Police to look into the aforesaid lapse and inquire into: firstly, whether bandobast was adequate; secondly, the reasons for failure of arrangements; and thirdly, fix responsibility for the admitted lapse.

5. Nominative Fair Use Permissible If It Does Not Depict Sponsorship By Trademark Owner & Use Is "Reasonably Necessary": Delhi High Court

Case Title: GOVERNMENT E MARKETPLACE v. UNILEX CONSULTANTS & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 365

The Delhi High Court has observed that the nominative fair use is permissible in so far as the use is such that it does not depict sponsorship by the trademark owner and the use is "reasonably necessary".

Normative use refers to use of another's trademark to identify one's own goods or services. This defence has following three requirements: First, the product or services in question must be one not readily identifiable without use of the trademark; second, only so much of the mark or marks may be used as is reasonably necessary to identify the product or service; and third, the user must do nothing that would, in conjunction with the mark, suggest sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark holder.

Justice Pratibha M Singh was dealing with a suit filed by Government E Marketplace (GeM), a National Public Procurement portal and end to end online marketplace from where both Central and State Government Ministries or Departments, CPSUs and SPSUs effect the procurement of goods and services. The mark used by the Plaintiff is 'GeM' along with the logo.

6. High Court's Supervisory Jurisdiction Over Orders Passed Under Order 39 Rules 1&2 Restricted, Can Be Exercised In Case Of Palpable Error: Delhi HC

Case Title: ANIL KUMAR SETH v. LALIT KUMAR SETH AND ANR

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 366

The Delhi High Court has observed that the scope of interference by the High Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India would be even more restricted with an order passed by the court below under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

"If, therefore, the courts below are functioning in a manner which calls for correction in the exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction vested in the court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the court would interfere; else, the court would hold its hands," Justice C Hari Shankar observed.

On the question of whether to grant, or not to grant, injunctive relief under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, is discretionary, the Court said that there is no right that inheres, in any party, to interim injunction under Order XXXIX.

7. Order XII Rule 6 CPC | Judgment On Admission Can Be Passed If Defence Set Up By Party Is So Weak That It Is Impossible To Succeed: Delhi HC

Case Title: SH. DINESH SHARMA v. MRS. KRISHNA KAINTH

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 367

The Delhi High Court recently affirmed a judgment on admission, passed by the court below in exercise of its discretionary powers under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC, on the ground that the defence set up was such as to make it impossible for the party to succeed.

In this regard, Justice V Kameswar Rao observed,

" Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC can also be invoked when the objections raised against rendering a judgment are such, which goes to the root of the matter or whether the objections are inconsequential, making it impossible for the party to succeed, even if entertained. "

The Court was dealing with an appeal challenging the judgment and preliminary decree passed by the Trial Court on admission under Order 12 Rule 6 in a Civil Suit concerning a suit property.

8. Insufficiency Of The Stamp Duty On The Arbitration Agreement Is A Jurisdictional Issue Under Section 16 Of The A&C Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Religare Finvest Ltd v. Asian Satellite Broadcast Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 368

The High Court of Delhi has held that the sufficiency of the stamp duty on the arbitration agreement is a jurisdictional issue under Section 16 of the A&C Act.

The Single Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula has held that an objection as to the deficiency in the stamp duty shall be decided as a preliminary issue since the inadequately stamped arbitration agreement can neither be taken in evidence nor can be acted upon, therefore, the tribunal should direct the parties to first get the agreement sufficiently stamped before adjudicating rights and obligations under the agreement.

The Court reiterated that when an insufficiently stamped instrument is presented before the arbitrator, he shall impound the same and direct the parties to pay the requisite stamp duty.

9. [I-Site v. Eye Site] "Phonetic Identity" An Important Index To Test Deception: Delhi High Court Grants Relief To Sun Pharma

Case Title: SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD. AND ANR. v. KINETIC LIFESCIENCE (OPC) P. LTD. AND ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 369

The Delhi High Court has observed that the phonetic identity or similarity is an important index of similarity or deceptive similarity of one mark against the other competing mark and that the tests of phonetic, visual and structural similarity or identity are disjunctive and not conjunctive.

Justice Jyoti Singh was dealing with a suit for permanent injunction filed by Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited concerning it's trademark, prominently displayed on the website www.sunpharma.com. The plaintiffs are involved in the manufacturing of speciality pharmaceuticals and active pharmaceutical ingredients since the year 1983, having 45 manufacturing sites in 6 continents and 10 world class research centres with over 30,000 strong multi-cultural work force from over 50 different nationalities.

10. 'The British School': Delhi High Court Directs Sanjay Gandhi Educational Society To Change Name Of 4 Schools Infringing Trademark

Case Title: THE BRITISH SCHOOL SOCIETY v. SANJAY GANDHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 370

While dealing with a trademark infringement suit filed by the British School Society over the mark 'The British School', the Delhi High Court has directed changing of names of four schools run by Sanjay Gandhi Educational Society, purportedly using identical name.

Justice Pratibha M Singh directed the defendants to change the name of their schools w.e.f. 1st May, 2022 and apply to the CBSE, with whom they are presently affiliated.

"The process shall be undertaken in an expeditious manner so that no inconvenience is caused to the students studying in the schools of the Defendants. Certificates, prizes, medals, etc. to be given to the students presently studying in Defendants' schools shall be issued in the name of 'The British School' only till the end of academic year 2021-2022 and not beyond that," the Court added.

11. "No Clear Prohibition In Law, Not For Court To Guide Policy": Delhi HC Dismisses Plea To Remove Election Symbols From Ballot Papers In MCD Polls

Case Title: ALKA GHALOT v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 371

The Delhi High Court has recently dismissed a plea seeking to remove election symbols from the ballot paper, including the Electronic Voting Machine for the city's Municipal Corporation polls.

A bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla observed thus:

"Though the level of literacy has increased in the State of Delhi, and the presence of a photographs of the candidates on the EVM may also aid in empowering the illiterate to properly exercise their right of franchise in favour of the candidate of their choice, in our view, the election symbols still play an important part in the election process in the country. In our view, in the absence of a clear prohibition, it is not for this Court to guide the policy or frame a law in this regard."

Noting that Article 243ZA of the Constitution of India vests the power and duty to conduct elections to the Municipalities on the State Election Commission and that the State Legislature has been empowered to make provisions with respect to all matters relating to elections to the Municipalities, the Court was of the view that it is for these institutions to decide the Rules for conduct of a free and fair election to the Municipality, including use of election symbols.

12. Delhi High Court Constitutes Committee To Monitor Situation In Ashram Housing Women In 'Animal-Like' Conditions, Retd. IPS Kiran Bedi To Supervise

Case Title: DUMPALA MEENAVATHI AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 372

The Delhi High Court has constituted a Committee, to be led by a District Judge, to keep a close watch and monitor the situation at Adhyatmik Vidyalaya, a spiritual ashram in Rohini led by absconding self-styled godman Virendra Dev Dixit. The ashram is said to confine over 100 women in "animal-like" conditions.

The Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla observed that women and children are a vulnerable class and therefore, some vigilance is required to keep a check on the functioning of these institutions.

13. Absence Of Rule Of Law Propels A Country Towards Inevitable Ruin, Duty Of Court To Take Strict View Of Non-Compliance Of Judicial Orders: Delhi HC

Case Title: NAVIN SONI v. MUNISH SONI & ORS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 373

Observing that the absence of rule of law or the presence of utter disregard for the rule of law propels a country towards inevitable ruin, the Delhi High Court has said that it is the duty of the Court to take a strict view when there is non-compliance of judicial orders.

Justice Subramonium Prasad added that the Courts should not hesitate in wielding the sword of contempt when grappling with a situation pertaining to wilful disobedience.

"The process of due course of administration of justice must remain unimpaired. Attempts to circumvent or undermine judicial decisions need to be viewed seriously in order to ensure that the functioning of our country is unhindered, especially during turbulent times. It is only the rule of law which not only cements the civilised functioning of a country, but also drives a country towards progress and development," the Court observed.

14. S.125 CrPC | Husband Having Sufficient Means Obligated To Maintain Wife & Children, Can't Shirk Away Familial Responsibility: Delhi High Court

Case Title: JITENDRA KUMAR GARG v. MANJU GARG

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 374

The Delhi High Court has observed that Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure entails that if the husband has sufficient means, he is obligated to maintain his wife and children, and not shirk away from his moral and familial responsibilities.

Justice Subramonium Prasad also said that the provision was enacted to ensure that women and children are provided maintenance by the husband so as to protect them from a life of potential vagrancy and destitution.

"The Supreme Court has consistently upheld that the conceptualisation of Section 125 was meant to ameliorate the financial suffering of a woman who had left her matrimonial home; it is a means to secure the woman's sustenance, along with that of the children, if any. The statutory provision entails that if the husband has sufficient means, he is obligated to maintain his wife and children, and not shirk away from his moral and familial responsibilities," the Court observed.

15. 'Will They Hang On Strings?': Delhi High Court Refuses To Entertain 'General PIL' For Removal Of Police Booths From Footpaths

Case Title: Jan Sewa Welfare Society v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 375

The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a public interest litigation, seeking removal of police booths allegedly built on footpaths meant for public use.

A Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla observed that it is open to the Petitioner to raise grievance against any particular booth which is causing obstruction to public movement. However, it is not inclined to pass a general direction in this regard.

The development ensued in a PIL filed by a NGO namely 'Jan Sewa Welfare Society', claiming that construction of police booths on footpaths/ roads by Delhi Police has resulted in grave inconvenience to the general public.

16. If Principles Of Natural Justice Are Violated, Writ Remedy Is Available Despite Statutory Appeal: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Jindal Realty Limited versus National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 376

The Delhi High Court has quashed an assessment order passed by the revenue department without issuing a prior show cause notice and draft assessment order to the assessee. The High Court has ruled that the assessment order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice as well as the mandatory procedure prescribed under the "Faceless Assessment Scheme" under the Income Tax Act.

The Bench, consisting of Justices Manmohan and Dinesh Kumar Sharma, held that when there is a violation of the principles of natural justice, the availability of an appellate remedy does not bar the maintainability of a writ petition.

17. Child Bearing Age Of All India Service Officers Should Not Be Prejudiced By Non-Grant Of Relieving Order: Delhi High Court

CaseTitle: GOVT. OF WEST BENGAL v. ARSH VERMA & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 377

The Delhi High Court has observed that child-bearing age for the young couple should not be irretrievably prejudiced by the non-grant of a relieving order for the All India Service officers.

A division bench comprising of Justice Najmi Waziri and Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma observed:

"….the right to a healthy family life, to start a family and the right to parenthood have to be respected while balancing the careers and duties of the officers concerned. Time and tide wait for none. Child-bearing age for the young couple should not be irretrievably prejudiced by the non- grant of a relieving order for the officers to start their family."

18. Delhi High Court Stays Reopening of Income Tax Assessment Keeping In View The Credentials Of BHEL

Case Title: Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited Versus PCIT

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 378

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma has stayed the reopening of income tax assessments, keeping in view the credentials of Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL).

BHEL, the petitioner, has challenged the order issued under Section 148A(d) and the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act of 1961 for the Assessment Year 2018–19.

Section 148 of the Income Tax Act deals with the issuance of a notice if any income has escaped recomputation or assessment.

19. Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause Overrides The Seat Clause In An Arbitration Agreement: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Hunch Circle Pvt. Ltd. v. Futuretimes Technology India Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 379

The High Court of Delhi has given primacy to an exclusive jurisdiction clause over the seat clause in an arbitration agreement. The Court held that when a clause confers exclusive jurisdiction on a court other than the seat court, then only the court on which exclusive jurisdiction is conferred shall decide all the applications arising out of the arbitration agreement.

The Agreement between the parties stipulated that the courts, at the place where the main premised of the petitioner is located which admittedly is in Gurgaon, shall have the exclusive jurisdiction to deal with applications for interim measures and the enforcement of arbitral award. It further designated New Delhi as the seat of arbitration.

20. "Injury Due To State Action Considered At Higher Standard": Delhi High Court Grants ₹15L Compensation To Victim Of 1997 CP Shootout

Case Title: TARUN PREET SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 380

The Delhi High Court has granted compensation of Rs. 15 lakhs to a victim of Connaught Place shootout which took place on 31st March 1997. The man was grievously injured and continued to carry shrapnel in his body.

The Court observed that the injury caused due to the state action where the police officials were convicted of criminal offences needs to be considered at "higher standard" as compared to ordinary cases of negligence and inaction.

Justice Pratibha M Singh clarified that the order was being passed in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case as the incident was not an ordinary incident.

21. Right To Lead Evidence Pivotal To Fair Trial, Court Should Not Be Hyper Technical In Granting Opportunity: Delhi High Court

Case Title: DEEPAK v. RAMESH SETHI

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 381

Observing that the right to lead evidence is pivotal to a fair trial and partakes of the character of natural justice and fair play, the Delhi High Court has said that the Court should not be hyper-technical, in the matter of granting opportunity to lead evidence and the like.

Justice C Hari Shankar observed thus:

"The right to lead evidence is pivotal to a fair trial and partakes of the character of natural justice and fair play. No doubt, where a party is unconscionably indolent, the Court may put its foot down and close the right of the party to lead evidence; else, as adversarial litigations are meant to be tried after allowing the parties to an adequate opportunity to place their respective stands on record, the Court should not be hyper-technical, in the matter of granting opportunity to lead evidence and the like."

22. DV Act | Visits Of Sundry Family Members To Matrimonial Home Without Permanency Would Not Render Them As Members Of Shared Household: Delhi HC

Case Title: BHARTI ANAND v. SUSHANT ANAND AND ORS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 382

The Delhi High Court has observed that the visits of sundry family members to the matrimonial home, without permanency or the intention to treat the premises as shared household, would not render them as members of the "shared household" under Domestic Violence Act.

Justice Prateek Jalan observed thus:

"Just as the woman living fleetingly or casually at different places, would not convert those places into a "shared household", the visits of sundry family members to the matrimonial home, without permanency or the intention to treat the premises as shared household, would not render them as members of the "shared household"."

The Court was dealing with a plea filed by a wife challenging an order of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court to the extent that summons in her complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 were not issued to the respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

23. Parole | Humanist Approach Needs To Be Taken To Encourage Offenders To Demonstrate Commitment To Society: Delhi High Court

Case Title: SHADAB v. STATE

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 383

The Delhi High Court has observed that while granting parole, a humanist approach needs to be taken affording convicts an opportunity to resolve their personal and family issues and to encourage offenders to demonstrate a commitment in relation to the society.

Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta also added that that parole is a relief granted by the State which goes a long way for redemption and rehabilitation of such prisoners and that they are ultimately aimed for the good of the society and, therefore, are in public interest.

The Court was dealing with a plea seeking directions on the State to release the petitioner on parole for a period of three months. The petitioner was a life convict serving sentence in a murder case.

The petitioner had undergone incarceration for about 10 years and 10 months in actual without remission and had also earned remission of about 01 year 07 months and 11 days as on May 5, 2020.

24. Use Of Registered Mark By Competitors As Keyword In Google Ads Program Prima Facie Infringement Under Trademarks Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: MAKEMYTRIP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. BOOKING.COM B. V. & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 384

The Delhi High Court recently granted injunction in favour of Make My Trip while observing that use of its registered mark by competitors even as metatags is an infringement under Trademarks Act and that third party bidding on trademarks as sponsored keywords for use by internet search engines can constitute misrepresentation.

The observation was given by Justice Prathiba M. Singh,

"In view of the facts, orders and legal position as discussed above, this Court is prima facie of the opinion that the use of the Plaintiff's registered mark 'MakeMyTrip' on the Google Ads Program as a keyword would amount to trademark infringement. The same would be detrimental to the Plaintiff's monetary interest as also to the brand equity of the Plaintiff's mark. To allow competitors such as www.booking.com and even Google to encash upon the reputation of the Plaintiff's mark for their own monetary advantage is not permissible in the opinion of the Court."

25. Kalkaji Temple Redevelopment: Delhi High Court Directs Erection Of Boundary Wall To Prevent Encroachments By Vendors, Unauthorised Occupants

Case Title: NEETA BHARDWAJ & ORS. v. KAMLESH SHARMA

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 385

Observing that the entire process of redevelopment of the Kalkaji temple would be severely jeopardized if encroachments happen on a daily basis either by vendors or any other unauthorized occupants, the Delhi High Court has directed erection of boundary wall surrounding the temple premises in order to prevent such encroachments.

Justice Pratibha M Singh was dealing with a bunch of pleas concerning the aspect of maintenance and redevelopment of city's Kalkaji temple

Noting the concerns expressed about continuous encroachment into the Kalkaji Mandir premises, as also into the land which was adjacent to the Mandir area, the Court said:

"….it is deemed appropriate to secure the entire land surrounding the Kalkaji Mandir premises, being used for the activities of the Mandir, by erection of a barricade or a boundary wall for safeguarding the entire land."

26. Executing Court Can't Go Behind Decree & Give Relief To Judgment Debtor That Was Expressly Denied To Him: Delhi High Court Reiterates

Case Title: RAMESH KUMAR BANGA v. KAILASH MAKKAR AND ANR

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 386

The Delhi High Court has reiterated that the executing Court cannot go behind the decree that is to be executed and give relief to the judgment debtor that was expressly denied to him.

Justice Subramonium Prasad was dealing with a revision petition challenging the order dated 04.04.2022 passed by the Additional Rent Controller whereby the objection petition filed by the Petitioner under sec. 25 of the Delhi Rent Control Act against the eviction order passed as well as an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the objection petition, was dismissed.

A suit for eviction was filed by the Respondents regarding a property claiming themselves to be the owners of the said property which they purchased from the previous owners by way of sale deed dated 09.09.1987.

27. The Arbitral Tribunal Cannot Reduce The Liquidated Damages On 'Guess Work': Delhi High Court

Case Title: Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. v. M/s Cobra Instalaciones Y. Services S.A. & M/s Shyam Indus Power Solution Pvt. Ltd. (JV)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 387

The High Court of Delhi has held the arbitral tribunal cannot reduce the liquidated damages on 'guesswork' if it finds that it is genuine pre-estimated damages and it is not possible to quantify the damages.

The Single Bench of Justice Bakhru held that once the arbitrator finds that the employer has suffered substantial losses due to the fault of the contractor and the contract provides for liquidated damages which were genuine pre-estimate of the loss as the quantification of the claim is not possible, then the arbitrator cannot reduce the amount of the damages on guesswork.

The court partially set aside the award on the ground that the arbitrator has taken inconsistent views regarding the imposition of liquidated damages and made guesswork without there being any material on record to make an educated guess as to the quantum of damages payable.