Citations 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 145 to 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 160NOMINAL INDEXSUNIL PODAR v. THE NATIONAL TRUST FOR WELFARE OF PERSON WITH AUTISM, CEREBRAL PALSY, MENTAL RETARDATION AND MULTIPLE DISABILITIES AND ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 145University of Delhi versus M/s Kalra Electricals 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 146HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd versus Bindu Paswan & Anr 2023 LiveLaw (Del)...
Citations 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 145 to 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 160
NOMINAL INDEX
SUNIL PODAR v. THE NATIONAL TRUST FOR WELFARE OF PERSON WITH AUTISM, CEREBRAL PALSY, MENTAL RETARDATION AND MULTIPLE DISABILITIES AND ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 145
University of Delhi versus M/s Kalra Electricals 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 146
HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd versus Bindu Paswan & Anr 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 147
HERMES INTERNATIONAL & ANR. v. CRIMZON FASHION ACCESSORIES PRIVATE LIMITED 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 148
SANDEEP SINGH DESWAL v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 149
DABUR INDIA LIMITED v. ASHOK KUMAR AND ORS and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 150
KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LLC v. THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 151
ELSEVIER LTD. AND ORS. v. ALEXANDRA ELBAKYAN AND ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 152
DB v. RB 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 153
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 154
Milan Saini v. Kamal Kumar & Anr. and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 155
Ghanshyam Pandey versus Union of India & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 156
Jindal Exports and Imports Pvt Ltd vs. Director General of Foreign Trade & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 157
VED YADAV v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 158
Master Arnesh Shaw v. Union of India & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 159
Sunil Kumar Chandra versus M/s Spire Techpark Pvt Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 160
Title: SUNIL PODAR v. THE NATIONAL TRUST FOR WELFARE OF PERSON WITH AUTISM, CEREBRAL PALSY, MENTAL RETARDATION AND MULTIPLE DISABILITIES AND ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 145
The Delhi High Court has observed that a foreign national cannot claim a vested or constitutional right to be appointed as guardian of a person with disabilities.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Yashwant Varma was hearing a plea moved by a father whose adopted son has "severe mental retardation" with disability certified to be 90% disability.
He challenged the validity of Rule 17(1)(iii)(a) of National Trust for Welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities Rules, 2001 and Regulation 12(1)(i) of Board of Trust Regulations, 2012. The provisions allow only Indian citizens to be guardian of a person. The petitioner and his son are citizens of the USA but hold Overseas Citizenship of India cards.
Case Title: University of Delhi versus M/s Kalra Electricals
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 146
The Delhi High Court has ruled that information and clarification sought by the Arbitral Tribunal on matters and dispute arising under other contracts, which do not form a part of the arbitral reference, will not alone make them the subject of arbitral proceedings.
The bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani remarked that the letter issued by the Arbitrator, seeking information and clarification as to whether payments were released to the claimant under other contracts, which were not inter-related with the contract under consideration, was neither a direction nor an order made by the Arbitrator, and it was merely an effort to seek clarification on certain matters.
Case Title: HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd versus Bindu Paswan & Anr
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 147
The Delhi High Court has set aside the award passed by a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) where it had refused to grant recovery rights to the Insurance Company against the driver/owner of a two-wheeler involved in an accident.
While rejecting the insurance company's argument that it is not liable to pay anything as the rider was not holding a valid licence to drive the two-wheeler, the MACT had said that a male person who is competent to drive a Light Motor Vehicle cannot be expected to be incompetent in driving a two-wheeler.
Delhi High Court Declares Hermes International’s ‘H’ Mark As Well-Known Trademark
Title: HERMES INTERNATIONAL & ANR. v. CRIMZON FASHION ACCESSORIES PRIVATE LIMITED
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 148
The Delhi High Court has declared the stylized mark - “H” - of Hermes International, a french luxury brand, as a well-known trademark within the meaning of section 2(1)(zg) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
Justice C Hari Shankar observed that the criteria mentioned under section 11 (6) and (7) of the Act was satisfied in the matter to justify declaration of the mark as a well-known trade mark.
Title: SANDEEP SINGH DESWAL v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 149
The Delhi High Court has observed that mere suspicion of an accused not returning to India, when the liberty granted to travel abroad has never been misused on earlier occasions, cannot be a basis to deny permission to travel abroad.
Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar said that the issuance of a look out circular (LOC) is a coercive measure “aimed at ensuring that an accused appears before the investigating agency or a court of law.”
Case Title: DABUR INDIA LIMITED v. ASHOK KUMAR AND ORS and other connected matters
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 150
The Delhi High Court has directed the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology and Department of Telecommunications to take action in accordance with Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 against domain name registrars (DNRs) who are not complying with the Rules.
Justice Prathiba M Singh observed that stringent steps are required to be taken in order to “curb the menace of illegal domain name registrations” having marks and names of well-known business houses. The bench particularly called for action against those DNRs which have not appointed grievance officers or have failed to implement orders of courts and authorities in India.
Title: KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LLC v. THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 151
The Delhi High Court has said though American fast food restaurant chain Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) has no exclusive right on the word “Chicken”, the trademark registry can consider its application for registration of mark “Chicken Zinger” in Class 29.
Justice Sanjeev Narula was hearing an appeal moved by Kentucky Fried Chicken International Holdings challenging an order dated December 24, 2018, and Statement of Grounds of decision passed by Senior Examiner of Trademarks, refusing its application for registration of the mark “CHICKEN ZINGER.”
Title: ELSEVIER LTD. AND ORS. v. ALEXANDRA ELBAKYAN AND ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 152
The Delhi High Court has dismissed the application of Alexandra Elbakyan, founder of shadow library website Sci Hub, seeking rejection of plaint filed by publishing houses Elsevier, Wiley and American Chemical Society in a copyright infringement suit against her.
The suit has been filed by major publishing houses Elsevier, Wiley India, Wiley Periodicals and American Chemical Society against online repositories Sci-Hub and Libgen. The publishers have said the websites indulge in online piracy by making their literary work available to the public for free.
Title: DB v. RB
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 153
While upholding dissolution of a couple’s marriage on the ground of cruelty, the Delhi High Court has observed that repeated use of derogatory and humiliating words by the wife against husband and his family amounts to cruelty.
The court said every person is entitled to live with dignity and honour, and no one can be expected to live with constant abuse being hurled upon him.
Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 154
The Delhi High Court has directed its Registrar General to deposit the amount paid by news organisations as fine for disclosing the Kathua rape victim's name, with the Victim Compensation Fund maintained by Jammu & Kashmir State Legal Services Authority for disbursement of the same to the victims or family of deceased victims of sexual violence.
The high court in 2018 had taken suo motu note of the media reportage of the rape case and noticed that the name of the victim was widely reported by the journalists. The manner in which the incident was reported in contrary to Section 23 of the POCSO Act as well as Section 228A, said the court in its latest order.
Delhi High Court Imposes One Rupee Cost On Litigant For Filing Frivolous Applications
Title: Milan Saini v. Kamal Kumar & Anr. and other connected matters
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 155
The Delhi High Court has imposed a symbolic fine of One Rupee on an applicant for filing frivolous applications to seek action against a petitioner and his Special Power of Attorney-holder for alleged perjury.
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani said the allegations contained in the applications are so completely bereft of a factual basis or merit, no further judicial time or ink need be wasted on them.
Case Title: Ghanshyam Pandey versus Union of India & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 156
The Delhi High Court has refused to quash a Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against the former CEO, Director and Auditor of Shilpi Cable Technologies, in connection with Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO)'s ongoing probe against the company for allegedly siphoning off money through its foreign entities.
Justice Prathiba M. Singh said that though LOCs impinge upon the individual’s right to travel, which is recognised as a fundamental right, the rights and interests of the investing public would also be a relevant consideration which cannot be ignored.
Case Title: Jindal Exports and Imports Pvt Ltd vs. Director General of Foreign Trade & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 157
The Delhi High Court has ruled that a notification issued under Section 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (FTDR Act), which empowers the Central Government to formulate and announce the foreign trade policy, cannot be applied retrospectively by the Central Government.
The bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh held that once a notification issued under Section 5 of the FTDR Act is quashed by the Court, the same cannot be relied upon by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) to refuse Advance Authorization to an importer seeking import of certain goods, on the ground that the importer was not a party to the said proceedings before the Court.
Case Title: VED YADAV v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 158
The Delhi High Court has issued a slew of guidelines for cases where an inmate or convict sustains work related injuries in prison, observing that there is no monitoring or remedial mechanism available to address such cases.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that when there is no employee or employer relationship between prisoners and jail authorities, such inmates must be provided protection and remedies for work related injuries as the Constitutional vision does not permit any citizen to be left remediless for availing compensation for injuries even as a prisoner.
Case Title: Master Arnesh Shaw v. Union of India & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 159
The Delhi High Court has directed Union of India to immediately release Rs. 5 crores to All India Institute Of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) to ensure that treatment of children with rare diseases, where it has already commenced, is not stopped due to lack of funds.
Justice Prathiba M Singh directed the fund to be released within two weeks and that its expenditure shall be maintained by AIIMS under direct supervision of the doctor heading its Rare Diseases Committee.
Case Title: Sunil Kumar Chandra versus M/s Spire Techpark Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 160
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that where there is any inconsistency between the two clauses of a same instrument/document, the former clause shall prevail over the latter one.
The bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh was dealing with the petitions filed under Section 11 and 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act).