NOMINAL INDEXCitations 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 513 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 542Case Title: SH JAGMOHAN KASHYAP v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 513 Case Title: JIVA INSTITUTE OF VEDIC SCIENCE & CULTURE AND ANR v. PUNEET CHHATWAL & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 514 Case Title: HEAD DIGITAL WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED v. TICTOK SKILL GAMES PVT LTD 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 515 Case...
NOMINAL INDEX
Citations 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 513 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 542
Case Title: SH JAGMOHAN KASHYAP v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 513
Case Title: JIVA INSTITUTE OF VEDIC SCIENCE & CULTURE AND ANR v. PUNEET CHHATWAL & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 514
Case Title: HEAD DIGITAL WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED v. TICTOK SKILL GAMES PVT LTD 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 515
Case Title: SH.PANNA LAL v. BHAGMAL KATARIA & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 516
Case Title: KARIM HOTEL PVT LTD versus KAREEM DHANANI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 517
Title: RAHUL MEHRA v. UNION OF INDIA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 518
Case Title: JUSTICE FOR ALL AND ANR v. VENKATESHWAR GLOBAL SCHOOL AND ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 519
Case Title: COLORBAR COSMETICS PRIVATE LIMITED v. FACES COSMETICS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 520
Case Title: Panipat Jalandhar National Highway 1 Tollway Pvt. Ltd. v. NHAI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 521
Case Title: ED v. Jacqueline Fernandez 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 522
Case Title: NEHA DEVI v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 523
Case Title: Shalen Bhardwaj v. Ministry of Home Affairs & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 524
Case Title: Gurjar Samaj Sarv Sangthan Sabha Ekta Samanya Samiti v. Union of India & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 525
Case Title: Himanshu Shekar v. Prabhat Shekhar 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 526
Case Title: CJDARCL LOGISTICS LTD. v. RITES LTD AND OTHERS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 527
Title: VIVEK KUMAR YADAV v. REGISTRAR GENERAL, DELHI HIGH COURT and other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 528
Case Title: BSES RAJDHANI POWER LIMITED & ANR. v. NORTHERN REGIONAL POWER COMMITTEE & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 529
Title: DR PRANNOY ROY & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 530
Case Title: SHEIKH ISHRAFIL v. STATE (NCT) OF DELHI & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 531
Case: National Seeds Corporation Ltd. v. National Agro Seeds Corporation 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 532
Title: SANJIT BAKSHI v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 533
Case Title: RAJESH KAPOOR v. OFFICE OF THE LD. PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 534
Case Title: SMT BABITA SHARMA & ANR. v. THE SHANKAR COOP. URBAN T/C SOCIETY 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 535
Case Title: Juki India Private Limited versus M/s Capital Apparels Technology Private Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 536
Case Title: VAIBHAV SAMPAT MORE v. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY THROUGH ITS CHIEF INVESTIGATION OFFICER 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 537
Case Title: RAHUL MEHRA v. UNION OF INDIA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 538
CaseTitle: ADITI BAKHT v. ABHISHEK AHUJA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 539
Case Title: SARITA BAKSHI v. STATE & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 540
Case Title: NEETA BHARDWAJ & ORS. v. KAMLESH SHARMA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 541
Case Title: ARSHAD AHMAD AND ORS v. STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 542
1. Right To Claim Maintenance Under Domestic Violence Act & U/S 125 CrPC Not Mutually Exclusive: Delhi High Court
Case Title: SH JAGMOHAN KASHYAP v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 513
The Delhi High Court has observed that the right to claim maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure are not mutually exclusive.
Justice Asha Menon was of the view that the aggrieved person can seek interim maintenance before the Magistrate while also seeking a permanent maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.
"The only caveat is that maintenance granted by one court will be factored in by the other court before granting or refusing maintenance," the Court said.
2. Party Alleging Contempt Can't Call Upon Court To Interpret Judicial Order Differently From The Manner In Which It Reads: Delhi High Court
Case Title: JIVA INSTITUTE OF VEDIC SCIENCE & CULTURE AND ANR v. PUNEET CHHATWAL & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 514
The Delhi High Court has observed that a party approaching the Court alleging contempt, cannot call upon the Court, in a contempt jurisdiction, to interpret the judicial order differently from the manner in which it reads and that only those directions which are plainly self-evident have to be taken into account to determine the violation or disobedience.
Justice Jyoti Singh was dealing with a plea alleging contempt of judicial orders passed in a trademark infringement case, thereby seeking direction to hold the respondents guilty of gross, deliberate and continuing contempt of the orders.
3. Use Of Competitor's Trademark As Keyword For Promoting Business On Search Engines/ App Store Violates Rights Of Trademark Owner: Delhi High Court
Case Title: HEAD DIGITAL WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED v. TICTOK SKILL GAMES PVT LTD
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 515
The Delhi High Court has observed that the use of keywords for promoting a business using competitor's trademark would be violative of the rights of the trademark owner.
Justice Pratibha M Singh was of the view that there would be no difference in the use of trade marks as a keyword on search engines as opposed to use as a keyword on App store searches.
"So long as the key words are being used for promoting a business, using a competitor's trade mark, the same would be violative of the rights of the trade mark owner," the Court said.
4. Restoration Applications Are To Be Dealt With Liberally, Right To Represent One's Cause Before Court Is A Fundamental Right: Delhi High Court
Case Title: SH.PANNA LAL v. BHAGMAL KATARIA & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 516
The Delhi High Court has observed that the restoration applications are to be dealt with liberally as the right to represent one's cause before a Court is a fundamental right.
Justice C Hari Shankar was dealing with a plea challenging an order passed by the Senior Civil Judge which had dismissed a restoration application filed by the petitioner.
The petitioner contended, in the restoration application, that on the date when he was absent for the hearing, the proceedings were taken up virtually and that he was unable to join the proceedings.
The Senior Civil Judge, in passing the impugned order, had proceeded solely on the ground that, as per the dates of physical hearing, notified by High Court, the matter was taken up on physical hearing on 30th October, 2021 when the petitioner was absent.
5. Karim's v. Kareem's: Delhi High Court Restrains Businessman From Infringing Trademark Of Old Delhi's Mughlai Food Outlet
Case Title: KARIM HOTEL PVT LTD versus KAREEM DHANANI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 517
Coming to the aid of Old Delhi's popular Mughlai food outlet "Karim's", the Delhi High Court has restrained Mumbai based businessman Kareem Dhanani from opening any further restaurants under deceptively similar marks, till August 8.
Justice Prathibha M. Singh further directed Dhanani to ensure that in the restaurants run by him or by his franchises, no representation is made to the customers that it is associated with the Karim's at Jama Masjid.
Title: RAHUL MEHRA v. UNION OF INDIA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 518
Observing that fairness and legitimacy need to imbue all governmental affairs, the Delhi High Court has observed that it is imperative that no further exemptions be granted to or lenience be shown to National Sports Federations who are not complying with the Government of India's National Sports Code, 2011.
A division bench comprising of Justice Najmi Waziri and Justice Vikas Mahajan added that no NSF or Sports Entity should be seen to be receiving benefits which are unjust.
7. Private Schools Must Fill Up Backlog EWS Seats In Next 5 Yrs: Delhi High Court
Case Title: JUSTICE FOR ALL AND ANR v. VENKATESHWAR GLOBAL SCHOOL AND ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 519
The Delhi High Court has asked the Delhi Government to make every endeavour to ensure that the backlog of unfilled EWS seats in private schools, both on private and government lands, is filled-up in the next five years in a phased manner; i.e., 20% of the vacancies each year, in addition to the mandated annual 25% intake.
A division bench comprising of Justice Najmi Waziri and Justice Vikas Mahajan further directed the Delhi Government to ensure that the 25% seats in the Economic Weaker Section (EWS) category students shall be filled up on the basis of declared sanctioned strength at the entry level, irrespective of the actual number of students admitted in the General category.
Case Title: COLORBAR COSMETICS PRIVATE LIMITED v. FACES COSMETICS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 520
The Delhi High Court has restrained a Canada based company Faces Cosmetics from selling and manufacturing its products under the mark 'Velvette Matte' in the trademark infringement suit filed by Colorbar Cosmetics.
Justice Pratibha M Singh granted ad interim ex parte injunction in favour of Colorbar Cosmetics Private Limited by restraining Faces Cosmetics India Private for manufacturing, selling and offering for sale cosmetics and other products under the mark 'VELVET MATTE' or any other mark identical or deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's mark VELVET MATTE, till September 19, the next date of hearing.
Case Title: Panipat Jalandhar National Highway 1 Tollway Pvt. Ltd. v. NHAI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 521
The High Court of Delhi has held that multiple arbitrations with regard to existing claims on same contract are to be avoided.
The Single Bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait held that permitting the parties to have multiple arbitrations for the adjudication of the existing disputes related to the same contract would entail multiple observations.
The Court further held that there is no absolute bar in terms of Entry 22 to the Vth Schedule against the appointment of the same person as the arbitrator in more than two arbitrations within a period of three years.
10. Delhi High Court Permits Actress Jacqueline Fernandez To Travel Abroad For IIFA Event
Case Title: ED v. Jacqueline Fernandez
Citation: Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 522
The Delhi High Court yesterday upheld a Trial Court order which had granted permission to Bollywood actress Jacqueline Fernandez to travel abroad to Abu Dhabi, UAE for IIFA Awards events. The development comes in backdrop of a money laundering case being probed by Enforcement Directorate involving alleged conman Sukesh Chandrasekhar.
Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain however modified a condition in the trial court order to the extent that the actress shall submit an FDR of Rs. 1 crore alongwith an undertaking that in the case she did not return to the country, the said FDR shall be forfeited in favor of the agency before the concerned Court alongwith surety of Rs. 1 crore.
Case Title: NEHA DEVI v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 523
The Delhi High Court has observed that insistence of spousal consent for organ donation would impinge upon the right of the wife to be in control of her own body.
Interpreting relevant provisions of Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Rules, 2014 as well as Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994, Justice Yashwant Varma further added that a spouse cannot be recognised in law to have a superior or supervening right to control a personal and conscious decision of the donor
Case Title: Shalen Bhardwaj v. Ministry of Home Affairs & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 524
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday directed the Delhi Police to take action against its officials who are found not following Covid-19 masking policy and violating Motor Vehicles Act by not wearing helmets while riding their vehicles.
A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Sachin Datta observed,
"Police officers are equally bound by directions issued by DDMA, as any other citizen. We are of the view that they should lead by example."
Case Title: Gurjar Samaj Sarv Sangthan Sabha Ekta Samanya Samiti v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 525
The Delhi High Court has disposed of a plea against Akshay Kumar starrer "Samrat Prithviraj" for allegedly depicting the ruler as a Rajput King. The plea claimed that Prithviraj Chauhan was a Gurjar King. The film is set to hit the theatres on June 3.
A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Sachin Datta closed the matter after counsel for Yash Raj Films made a categorical statement that the movie is absolutely neutral and does not refer to any caste, either Rajput or Gurjar.
Case Title: Himanshu Shekar v. Prabhat Shekhar
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 526
The High Court of Delhi has held that the embargo under Section 12(5) of the A&C Act would not apply to a distant relative of the parties.
The Single Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru held that in terms of Explanation 1 and Entry 9 to the Seventh Schedule r/w Section 12(5) only spouse, sibling, child, parent or life partner of a party would be ineligible to be appointed as an arbitrator.
The Court observed that the father-in-law of the niece of the parties cannot be held to be a close relative of the parties to attract the rigours of Section 12(5) of the A&C Act.
Case Title: CJDARCL LOGISTICS LTD. v. RITES LTD AND OTHERS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 527
The Delhi High Court today imposed a hefty cost of Rs. 12.5 crores on a private company namely SARR Freights Corporation, for concealing the information about its blacklisting in a tender matter and directed that the said cost shall be utilized for installation and operationalization of a smog tower before the advent of winter season in the city.
A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh directed that the amount of Rs. 12.5 crores shall be deposited by the company with the Registrar General of the High Court within 2 weeks.
The Court said that the smog tower shall be based on the same working and operational guidelines as the Connaught Place smog tower.
A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh directed that the amount of Rs. 12.5 crores shall be deposited by the company with the Registrar General of the High Court within 2 weeks.
Title: VIVEK KUMAR YADAV v. REGISTRAR GENERAL, DELHI HIGH COURT and other connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 528
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a bunch of pleas challenging the final answers keys of the Delhi Judicial Service Preliminary Examination, 2022, which was declared after considering the objections raised by various candidates.
A division bench comprising of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan dismissed four pleas filed the candidates who were unsuccessful in being shortlisted to appear for the Delhi Judicial Service Mains Examination as the marks secured by them in the preliminary examination fell short of the specified threshold.
Case Title: BSES RAJDHANI POWER LIMITED & ANR. v. NORTHERN REGIONAL POWER COMMITTEE & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 529
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday asked the Centre through Ministry of Power to examine the rival claims and consider the validity of the right of the States of Haryana as well as Delhi for continued allocation of Dadri-II power plant.
Justice Yashwant Varma also asked the Centre to explore avenues which may safeguard the interests and projected needs of the two States and take an appropriate decision based on a holistic examination of all the facts that may be placed before it.
Title: DR PRANNOY ROY & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 530
The Delhi High Court has allowed NDTV promoters Prannoy Roy and Radhika Roy to travel abroad between 1st to 30th August, 2022.
The development came in the backdrop of a Look Out Circulars (LOC) having been issued against the duo by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The LOC in turn was opened pursuant to the registration of two FIRs dated 2 June 2017 and 19 August 2019.
Accordingly, an application was filed by Prannoy Roy and Radhika Roy seeking permission from the Court to permit them to travel abroad from August 1 to 30, 2022.
Case Title: SHEIKH ISHRAFIL v. STATE (NCT) OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 531
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea filed by an accused in connection with the Jahangirpuri riots seeking directions on the city police not to harass him and his family members in the name of interrogation.
The plea was filed by one Sheikh Ishrafil, who is alleged by the prosecution to be one of the main conspirators and perpetrators of the entire incident, thereby adding that he was evading the process of law. His eldest son was sent to judicial custody, on allegations of being involved in the riots.
Case: National Seeds Corporation Ltd. v. National Agro Seeds Corporation
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 532
The High Court of Delhi has held that acknowledgment of an amount as due and payable under the ledger/statement of accounts, constitutes a fresh cause of action and extends the period of limitation.
The Division Bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Jasmeet Singh held that the period of limitation for an amount that is shown as outstanding in the book of accounts would get extended from the date of such acknowledgement in terms of Section 18 of the Limitation Act.
Title: SANJIT BAKSHI v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 533
The Delhi High Court has observed that taking of cognizance is a judicial function and that the judicial orders cannot be passed in a mechanical or cryptic manner.
Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain has added that at time of taking cognizance, a Magistrate is not required to consider the defence of the proposed accused or to evaluate the merits of the material collected during investigatio or to pass a detail order giving detailed reasons while taking cognizance. The Court added that the order taking cognizance should only reflect application of judicial mind.
Case Title: RAJESH KAPOOR v. OFFICE OF THE LD. PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 534
The Delhi High Court has upheld a circular stipulating that the city's district court employees can be allowed to visit a foreign country only during Summer Vacations, Winter Vacations, Public Holidays and in case of any exigency.
A single judge bench comprising of Justice V Kameswar Rao dismissed a plea challenging the order dated January 31, 2022 passed by the respondent, Office of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, whereby it had rejected the application of the petitioner, who held the post of Senior Personal Assistant in the Court of an Additional Sessions Judge at Rohini Courts.
Case Title: SMT BABITA SHARMA & ANR. v. THE SHANKAR COOP. URBAN T/C SOCIETY
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 535
The Delhi High Court has observed that there is no mandate, in law or otherwise, requiring the executing court to decide the application under Order XXI Rule 26 of Code of Civil Procedure for stay of execution proceedings, on the very first day.
Justice C Hari Shankar added that the Executing Court is entitled to call upon the Decree Holder to file a reply to the application before taking a decision thereon.
Case Title: Juki India Private Limited versus M/s Capital Apparels Technology Private Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 536
The Delhi High Court has ruled that where an MoU has been signed by the parties for settlement of dues arising under an agreement, arbitration can be sought for violation of the terms of the MoU, even if the MoU does not contain an Arbitration Clause.
The Single Bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani held that since the MoU was a part of the dispute covered by the Arbitration Clause contained in the agreement, the dispute between the parties could be referred to arbitration.
Case Title: VAIBHAV SAMPAT MORE v. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY THROUGH ITS CHIEF INVESTIGATION OFFICER
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 537
The Delhi High Court has held that mere smuggling of gold without any connection whatsoever to threatening economic security or monetary stability of India cannot be a terrorist act under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
A division bench comprising of Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Mini Pushkarna granted bail to nine accused persons who had approached the Court by way of filing an appeal challenging the Trial Court order denying bail to them in a matter involving offences under sec. 16, 18, 20 of the UAPA and under sec. 120B, 204, 409 and 471 of IPC.
Case Title: RAHUL MEHRA v. UNION OF INDIA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 538
The Delhi High Court on Friday directed the Centre to ensure that monies, patronage and other facilities to National Sports Federations will be resumed only when they comply with National Sports Code, 2011 and judicial orders.
A division bench comprising of Justice Najmi Waziri and Justice Vikas Mahajan added that the entire exercise of ensuring compliance is expected to be completed by the end of this month. However, in the interim, the Court said that the assistance provided to sportspersons through the Sports Authority of India will be ensured and wherever necessary, augmented.
CaseTitle: ADITI BAKHT v. ABHISHEK AHUJA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 539
The Delhi High Court has said that judges must not act in any manner which gives rise to slightest of doubt in the minds of lawyers and litigants as their conduct is noted and observed by the litigants.
Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma made the said observation while expressing displeasure over the conduct of a Family judge who had shared his personal mobile number with both the parties and admittedly met one of the parties in chamber, which had unnecessarily given a cause of reasonable apprehension of bias.
28. Amount Spent By A Man To Support His Divorced Sister Must Be Kept In Mind While Granting Maintenance To His Wife: Delhi High Court
Case Title: SARITA BAKSHI v. STATE & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 540
The Delhi High Court has observed that in India, a brother does not abandon his divorced sister and accordingly, the expenditure borne by him in supporting his sister must be taken into account while passing an order of maintenance in favour of his wife.
" There is no skepticism about the fact that the sister receives maintenance from her husband, but the brother cannot be a mute spectator to her misery if and when she needs his help. Some provision needs to be made in his list of expenditure to support her sibling...though while apportioning the income of the respondent, one portion of income of the respondent cannot be apportioned to the sister, some amount as expenditure on yearly basis has to be kept aside for the divorced sister as moral obligation of the respondent," Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed.
Case Title: NEETA BHARDWAJ & ORS. v. KAMLESH SHARMA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 541
Observing that the occupants of the dharamshalas and pujaris cannot claim a vested right to remain in city's Kalkaji Temple premises, the Delhi High Court has directed that such dharamshalas shall be vacated on or before 6th June, 2022.
Justice Pratibha M Singh, who was dealing with a bunch of pleas concerning redevelopment of the temple premises, added that in case of failure to comply with the direction, the concerned SHO shall take steps, in consultation with the Administrator, to evict the said pujaris and the dharamshala occupants.
Case Title: ARSHAD AHMAD AND ORS v. STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 542
The Delhi High Court has observed that in matrimonial offences, quashing of FIR is welcome as it shows that parties have decided to put an end to the lis as well as to the misery they undergo due to a matrimonial case pending between them.
"The fact that now-a-days Sections 376 and 354 of IPC are being used along with Section 498-A IPC, which later on are compromised and are brought to this Court for quashing, needs to be curbed," Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma further added.