Delhi High Court Weekly Round Up: June 20 To June 26, 2022

NOMINAL INDEX

Citations 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 578 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 593

Case Title: A-ONE REALTORS PVT.LTD. v. ENERGY EFFICIENCY SERVICES LTD. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 578

Case Title: SAJID KHAN v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 579

Case Title: AMAZON SELLER SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. v. AMAZONBUYS.IN & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 580

Case Title: Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 581

Case Title: SAMRIDDHI KHANDELWAL v. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FASHION TECHNOLOGY 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 582

Case Title: ANISH SINGH THAKUR v. THROUGH ANUBHAV GUPTA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 583

Title: M/S K.B.G. ENGINEERS v. DELHI TOURISM AND TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 584

Case Title: HAVELLS INDIA LIMITED v. PANASONIC LIFE SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT LTD & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 585

Case Title: Ernst & Young, US LLP Versus ACIT 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 586

Case Title: VINDHYA GURUKUL COLLEGE & ANR. v. NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 587

Case Title: SWASTIKA GHOSH v. TABLE TENNIS FEDERATION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 588

Case Title: BABA RAHIM ALI SHAH & ANR. v. SH. ATUL KUMAR GARG 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 589

Case Title: INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS PRIVATE LIMITED v. INTRA LIFE PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 590

Case Title: HEETICH MARKETING-UND VERTRIEBS GMBH & CO. KG., & ANR v. GUPTA STORE 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 591

Case Title: DR. MAHENDRA SINGH RANA v. ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 592

Case Title: Shubham Thakral Vs ITO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 593

1. Plaintiff Not Entitled For Refund Of Court Fees If Parties Are Referred For Arbitration: Delhi High Court

Case Title: A-ONE REALTORS PVT.LTD. v. ENERGY EFFICIENCY SERVICES LTD.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 578

The Delhi High Court has observed that a plaintiff cannot be entitled for refund of court fees in the event of an application under sec. 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act being allowed and the parties being referred for arbitration.

Justice Amit Bansal reiterated that a litigant is not entitled to refund of court fees in case of rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC where the plaint does not disclose a cause of action.

"On the same analogy, the plaintiff cannot be entitled for refund of court fees in the event of an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act being allowed and the parties being referred for arbitration. The rationale being that the plaintiff has invoked a wrong remedy of filing the suit when it should have invoked the arbitration proceedings," the Court observed.

2. Role Of Accused & Their Position In Relation To Incident & Victim Is Of Utmost Importance In Deciding Case Of "Parity": Delhi High Court

Case Title: SAJID KHAN v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 579

The Delhi High Court has observed that in deciding the case of parity, the role attributed to the accused, their position in relation to the incident and to the victim is of utmost importance.

Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta denied bail to one Sajid Khan accused in an FIR registered under sec. 392, 397, 411 and 34 of Indian Penal Code along with sec. 25 and 27 of Arms Act.

It was the case of the prosecution that in April last year, a PCR call was received regarding robbery at gunpoint. During investigation, the complainant informed that while he was present in the office at about 10 AM, 3 boys entered into the office and robbed an amount of Rs.9,98,170 from Mannapuram Finance Ltd. with the help of gun and knife and thereafter fled from the spot.

3. "Causing Financial Loss To Public": Delhi High Court Restrains Rogue Websites From Using "Amazon" Trademark

Case Title: AMAZON SELLER SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. v. AMAZONBUYS.IN & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 580

The Delhi High Court has granted ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of online marketplace Amazon by restraining various vogue websites from using its trademark 'AMAZON'.

Justice Jyoti Singh restrained websites namely https://amazonbuys.com, its Facebook page by the name of Amazon Franchise' and https://estoreamazon.in.

The Court was dealing with a suit filed by Amazon Sellers Services Private Limited and its affiliate arguing that its copyright subsisted in its Website and Domain Name i.e., amazon.in as well as in the overall 'look and feel' of the website 'www.amazon.in'.

4. Delhi High Court Grants Time To DMRC For Payment Of Outstanding Amount Of Arbitral Award To DAMEPL Till August 5

Case Title: Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 581

The Delhi High Court has granted time to Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) to ensure payment of the outstanding decreetal amount to Reliance Infrastructure-promoted Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt Ltd (DAMEPL) on or before August 5.

The development came in connection with the plea filed by DAMEPL seeking enforcement of the arbitration award dated May 11, 2017.

The High Court on March 10 had directed DMRC to pay the entire decreetal amount of over Rs 4,600 crore along with interest in two equal instalments in two months. The said order was upheld by the Supreme Court on May 5.

DAMEPL had then approached the High Court claiming that despite the direction of payment of the awarded amount, DMRC had paid only a sum of Rs. 166.44 crores to DAMEPL on March 14, 2022, and had not paid any amount thereafter.

5. 'Momentary Lapse, Can't Affect Future Perversely': Delhi HC Grants Relief To NIFT Aspirant Who Inadvertently Disclosed Identity In Entrance Exam

Case Title: SAMRIDDHI KHANDELWAL v. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FASHION TECHNOLOGY

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 582

The Delhi High Court has observed that a momentary lapse on the part of the candidate must not be met with such a severe punitive action which would cause grave and irreparable prejudice and affect the candidate's future perversely.

Justice Sanjeev Narula granted relief to a candidate namely Samriddhi Khandelwal by directing National Institute of Fashion Technology (NIFT) to allow her to join the counselling on the basis of her results of the online invigilated or remote proctored NIFT Entrance Exam, 2022.

The said Exam was divided into two parts – a written exam which was held on 06th February and a Situation Test which was to be held from 2nd April 2022 onwards.

6. Delhi High Court Restrains Youtube Channel "Bear & Bulls Capitals" From Posting Defamatory Material Against "Booming Bulls Academy"

Case Title: ANISH SINGH THAKUR v. THROUGH ANUBHAV GUPTA

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 583

The Delhi High Court has restrained a YouTube channel "Bear & Bulls Capitals" from posting any defamatory or derogatory material against another channel "Booming Bulls Academy", in any manner on any media platform till November 28th, 2022.

Justice Amit Bansal was dealing with a suit filed by Anish Singh Thakur, the proprietor of "Booming Bulls Academy" which runs an academy that gives training on how to trade in the share market. The plaintiff had a channel on YouTube where the training videos are posted.

It was the case of the plaintiff that the defendant Anubhav Gupta also ran a channel on YouTube in the name "Bear & Bulls Capitals", which was its competitor.

7. Delhi High Court Appoints Ex-SC Judge Madan Lokur As Arbitrator In Dispute Between Construction Firm & DTTDC

Title: M/S K.B.G. ENGINEERS v. DELHI TOURISM AND TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 584

The Delhi High Court has appointed former Supreme Court Judge, Justice Madan B. Lokur as sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes between a partnership firm namely M/S K.B.G. Engineers and Delhi Tourism and Transportation Development Corporation Ltd (DTTDC) from five different tenders for construction and renovation work in relation to various projects.

Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani was of the view that there was a valid and subsisting arbitration agreement between the parties and that none of the disputes sought to be raised by the firm were ex-facie non-arbitrable.

The petitioner firm had approached the High Court by way of filing five petitions under sec. 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996 seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes in question.

8. Plea Of 'Passing-Off' Can't Be Negated Solely On Ground That Plaintiff Had Asserted Trademark Rights In Registered Designs: Delhi High Court

Case Title: HAVELLS INDIA LIMITED v. PANASONIC LIFE SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT LTD & ANR.

Citation: Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 585

The Delhi High Court has held that a plea of passing-off cannot be negated solely on the ground that the Plaintiff had asserted trademark rights in the registered designs. A composite suit seeking action in respect of both design infringement and passing off is maintainable.

A single judge bench comprising Justice Jyoti Singh observed that while it is trite that asserting trademark rights in registered designs makes the designs vulnerable, however, where the elements of the design are used as a larger trade dress get-up, presentation through its packaging etc., the passing off claim shall lie.

9. Right To File Objection To SCN Can't Be Denied Due To One Day Delay: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Ernst & Young, US LLP Versus ACIT

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 586

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora ruled that the right to file an objection to the Show Cause Notice cannot be denied owing to a one-day delay.

The petitioner has challenged the order passed under Section 148A (d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the notice passed under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act.

The petitioner was given time till April 8, 2022, to reply to the show cause notice dated March 30, 2022. The order under Section 148A(d) was issued without taking the petitioner's request for adjournment or detailed response to the Show Cause notice into account.The order proceeded on the basis that the petitioner did not file any reply to the show cause notice.

10. Practice Of Filing Representations In An Attempt To Extend Cause Of Action To Overcome Delay Should Be Discouraged: Delhi High Court

Case Title: VINDHYA GURUKUL COLLEGE & ANR. v. NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 587

The Delhi High Court has observed that the practice of filing representations, in an attempt to extend the cause of action as a ground to overcome the delay, should be discouraged.

Justice Sanjeev Narula made the observation while dismissing a petition filed by Vindhya Gurukul College against the decision taken by Northern Regional Committee of NCTE in its 266th meeting wherein it was granted recognition for only 50 seats (one basic unit) of B.Ed. course, as opposed to the original decision taken in an earlier meeting wherein recognition was granted with an annual intake of 100 seats (two basic units).

The Petitioners had thus sought a direction to restore the recognition in terms of the original decision dated 20th May, 2016 or in the alternative, a direction to the Respondents to decide it's representations.

11. No Arbitrariness: Delhi High Court Dismisses Pleas By TT Players Swastika Ghosh & Manush Shah Challenging Their Exclusion From CWG 2022

Case Title: SWASTIKA GHOSH v. TABLE TENNIS FEDERATION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 588

The Delhi High Court has dismissed the pleas filed by table tennis players Swastika Ghosh and Manush Shah seeking their inclusion in the list of 4 selected players for the men's and women's team for the Commonwealth Games 2022.

It was the case of the petitioners that their names were not included in the final selection list by the Selection Committee and the Committee of Administrator despite fulfilling the selection criteria as laid down by the federation.

Taking note of the fact that the Committee of Administrator had weighed different factors, Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma refused to interfere in the same while in exercise of its power of judicial review

12. Rent Controller Cannot Call Upon Landlord To Carry Out Repairs Of Tenanted Premises Under Delhi Rent Control Act: High Court

Case Title: BABA RAHIM ALI SHAH & ANR. v. SH. ATUL KUMAR GARG

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 589

The Delhi High Court has observed that there is no provision in the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 whereby the Rent Controller can call upon the landlord to carry out repairs of the tenanted premises.

Justice C Hari Shankar added that the Rent Controller may permit the tenant to carry out repairs under sec. 44(3) if, after receipt of notice from the tenant in that regard, the landlord fails to repair the premises. The expenses may then be deducted from the rent payable to the landlord or be recovered from the landlord.

The Court thus dismissed a plea challenging an order dated 26th May, 2022 passed by the Additional District Judge whereby an application under sec. 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with sec. 50 and 44 of the Delhi Rent Control Act filed by the petitioners (landlord), as the defendants in the civil suit, was dismissed.

13. Delhi High Court Permanently Restrains Pharmaceutical Products Manufacturers From Using LOOZOUT Trademark, Imposes Rs. 2 Lakhs Cost

Case Title: INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS PRIVATE LIMITED v. INTRA LIFE PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 590

The Delhi High Court has permanently restrained two manufacturers of the pharmaceutical products from manufacturing, selling, advertising and promoting the products using the trademark 'LOOZOUT', which was deceptively similar to the registered trademark 'LOOZ'. 

Justice Jyoti Singh also restrained the manufacturers from manufacturing and selling products under any other mark which was identical or deceptively similar to 'LOOZ' or its variants so as to amount to infringement or passing off.

The suit was filed by Intas Pharmaceuticals Private Limited regarding trademark infringement by three defendants. While the suit was settled qua defendant no. 1, there was no appearance on behalf of the two manufacturers, who were defendant no. 2 and 3.

14. Delhi High Court Permanently Restrains Retail Store From Selling Any Counterfeit Product Under 'Hettich' Trademark & Logo

Case Title: HEETICH MARKETING-UND VERTRIEBS GMBH & CO. KG., & ANR v. GUPTA STORE

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 591

The Delhi High Court has restrained a retail store from selling any counterfeit product or any other related goods under the trademark and trade name HETTICH and HETTICH Logo.

Justice Jyoti Singh was dealing with a suit filed by Heettich Marketing-Und Vertriebs Gmbh & Co. against a retail store namely Gupta Store seeking to restrain it from infringing the trademarks 'HETTICH' and its logo.

It was the case of the Plaintiffs that the trade name and trademark HETTICH owes its origin to its founding father, way back in the year 1888. The Plaintiffs were a part of diversified group of companies, having operations in multiple countries across the world and engaged in manufacturing, marketing and selling furniture, fittings, door hinges, runners, etc., which had led to the said mark becoming distinctive of their products and immense goodwill.

15. Letting Seat In Super-Speciality Course Go Vacant Won't Serve Anyone's Interest: Delhi High Court Grants Relief To Doctor Seeking Admission In AIIMS

Case Title: DR. MAHENDRA SINGH RANA v. ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 592

The Delhi High Court has directed All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) to admit a doctor in its specialised course, namely M. Ch. Minimal Access Surgery & General Surgery, in the next academic session, commencing from July, 2022.

Justice Sanjeev Narula was of the view that justice would be served in allowing the doctor to join the said course and that to allow the seat to remain vacant for a super-speciality course would serve the interests of none.

"If a doctor, like the Petitioner, undergoes training for such a course, it would only prove a valuable addition to the healthcare system. This weighs heavily with the Court for granting the relief as prayed for," the Court said.

16. Just 3 Days' Time Granted To Respond To The Income Tax Notice: Delhi High Court Remands The Matter Back To Assessing Officer After Setting Aside

Case Title: Shubham Thakral Vs ITO

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 593

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has remanded the matter back to the assessing officer as just 3 days' time was granted to respond to the income tax notice.

The petitioner/assessee has assailed the notice issued under Section 148A (b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the order passed under Section 148A (d) for the Assessment Year 2018–19.

The assessee contended that only three days' time was granted to the assessee to respond, as against the mandatory statutory period of at least seven days. Despite the fact that the annexure attached to the notice gave the petitioner eight days to respond, the e-filing submission portal was closed earlier, in violation of Section 148A (b) of the Income Tax Act.