Citations 2022 [LiveLaw (Del) 1022 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1049]NOMINAL INDEXMR SANJAY CHADHA TRADING AS M/S EVEREADY TOOLS EMPORIUM v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1022Sorin Group Italia S.R.L. v. Neeraj Garg 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1023FRANKFINN AVIATION SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED vs TATA SIA AIRLINES LTD. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1024DELHI ROZI ROTI ADHIKAR ABHIYAN v. RAJESH AHUJA...
Citations 2022 [LiveLaw (Del) 1022 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1049]
NOMINAL INDEX
MR SANJAY CHADHA TRADING AS M/S EVEREADY TOOLS EMPORIUM v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1022
Sorin Group Italia S.R.L. v. Neeraj Garg 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1023
FRANKFINN AVIATION SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED vs TATA SIA AIRLINES LTD. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1024
DELHI ROZI ROTI ADHIKAR ABHIYAN v. RAJESH AHUJA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1025
Commissioner Of Income Tax Versus Daikin Shri Ram Aircon Pvt Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1026
Medeor Hospital Ltd. Versus PCIT 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1027
DR RAVI M NAIR & ANR. vs UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1028
GUJARAT COOPERATIVE MILK MARKETING FEDERATION LTD & ANR. v. MARUTI METALS & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1029
DR. ZAFARUL ISLAM KHAN v. GOVT. OF NCT DELHI & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1030
KMA Caterers v. Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation (IRCTC) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1031
Gangotri Enterprises Ltd. v. General Manager Northern Railways 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1032
BRIJ MOHAN SEHGAL v. PANKAJ SANGHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1033
SUNIL KUMAR PANDEY AND ANR v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1034
ANIL KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1035
Samata Party v. ECI & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1036
Saurabh Bhardwaj v. Delhi Police & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1037
Vinod Kumar v. State and other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1038
SUMIT DAGAR v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1039
FDC LIMITED v. NILRISE PHARMACEUTICALS PVT. LTD. AND ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1040
Babu Khan vs Union Of India & Anr 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1041
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL v. UOI & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1042
Sotkon SP SLU v. Western Imaginary Transcon Private Limited and Others 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1043
M/S. M.M. TRADERS v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1044
Srishtii Infra Housing Pvt. Ltd. Versus PCIT 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1045
Consolidated Construction Consortium Limited v. SDMC 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1046
M/s Sequoia Fitness and Sports Technology Pvt. Ltd. versus GD Goenka Pvt. Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1047
Commissioner of Income Tax versus Somnath Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1048
SUJATA CHAUDHRI v. SWARUPA GHOSH 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1049
Title: MR SANJAY CHADHA TRADING AS M/S EVEREADY TOOLS EMPORIUM v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1022
The Delhi High Court has ruled that apart from the primary function of identifying the source of goods, a trademark has an investment function as well, which is to preserve the investments made by a proprietor of a trademark in publicity and building up its reputation.
A division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan said the trademark, thus, acquires a value that can be estimated in monetary terms. Although intangible, the court added, trademark is a valuable asset.
"The use of a trademark by other persons, which is identical or similar to the senior mark, would inevitably result in dilution of the senior mark and adversely affect its value," the court said.
Case Title: Sorin Group Italia S.R.L. v. Neeraj Garg
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1023
The High Court of Delhi has held that while exercising powers under Section 45 of the A&C Act, the Court can conduct a preliminary inquiry to decide whether the dispute in question is arbitrable or not and to decide whether it falls within the scope of the agreement.
The bench of Justice Amit Bansal held that a dispute falling within the 'excepted matters' cannot be referred to arbitration as the intention of parties in keeping certain disputes outside the scope of arbitration must be given effect to.
The Court held that two commercial entities entering into an agreement and providing for different method of dispute resolution for different disputes may result in an anomalous situation where two disputes arising out of the same agreement would be decided by different forums, however, the choice of the parties is to be given supremacy and only disputes contemplated under the arbitration clause can be referred to arbitration and no other.
Title: FRANKFINN AVIATION SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED vs TATA SIA AIRLINES LTD.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1024
Vacating its ex parte ad interim injunction against Tata Sia Airlines-owned Vistara's promotional campaign 'Fly Higher', the Delhi High Court has said the term 'Fly High' is common to the aviation sector.
The airline had introduced the advertising campaign in 2018 as an extension of its tagline 'Fly The New Feeling'.
On January 21 this year, the court granted an ad interim injunction in favour of a training institute in its suit seeking permanent and mandatory injunction against Tata Sia Airlines. The Frankfinn Aviation Services Private Limited in the suit accused the airline of infringing its registered trademark 'Fly High' which it uses as a tagline for its institute where people are trained in the fields of aviation, hospitality, travel and customer care management.
Hearing Tata's application seeking vacation of the January 21 order, Justice Jyoti Singh considered the question whether registration of the trademark Fly High by Frankfinn Aviation Services can prevent Tata Sia Airlines from using Fly Higher in light of its defence that it was not using the term as a trademark.
Title: DELHI ROZI ROTI ADHIKAR ABHIYAN v. RAJESH AHUJA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1025
The Delhi High Court has said that the "lack of speed" in implementing a judicial order would not be sufficient for a court to take contempt action against the authorities on the ground of "deliberate and wilful disobedience" under Contempt of Courts Act.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad made the observation while dismissing a plea filed by Delhi Rozi Roti Adhikar Abhiyan for initiation of contempt proceedings for non compliance of an interim order passed in 2017 in respect of expediting the implementation of National Food Security Act, 2013 (NFSA).
Observing that proper disbursal of adequate nourishment is an important welfare function of the State, the Court said that it "hopes and trusts" that the Delhi government will implement the Act in its true letter and spirit.
5. Delhi High Court Allows Depreciation Claim To Daikin For Goodwill On Exclusive Business Rights
Case Title: Commissioner Of Income Tax Versus Daikin Shri Ram Aircon Pvt Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1026
The Delhi High Court while ruling in favour of the Daikin Shri Ram Aircon Pvt. Ltd. has held that the business rights acquired for valuable consideration constitute an intangible asset within the meaning of Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act and depreciation is allowable.
The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has observed that the department has not disputed the exclusive nature of rights, payment of consideration and the same being of an enduring nature since it spanned for 20 years. The capitalisation of the business rights as an intangible asset has been correctly upheld by the appellate authorities. Therefore, the Assessee was entitled to claim depreciation.
6. Admission of Appeals As A Condition Precedent To Be Eligible For Settlement Under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme Is Contrary To Law: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Medeor Hospital Ltd. Versus PCIT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1027
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) FAQ No. 59 of Circular No.21/2020 dated December 4, 2020, which contemplates admission of appeal before the filing of declaration as a condition precedent for the appeal to be treated as pending and eligible for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme (VSV Act) is contrary to law.
The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has observed that Section 10 of the VSV Act gives power to the CBDT to issue directions, yet Section 10 is similar to Section 119 of the Act, 1961. Consequently, the CBDT under Section 10 of the VSV Act cannot issue circulars adverse to the assessee.
7. Homoeopathy Effective But Expert Bodies Like ICMR Best Judge Of Medical Protocol In Pandemic: Delhi High Court
Title: DR RAVI M NAIR & ANR. vs UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1028
Dismissing a public interest litigation seeking directions for permitting homoeopathic treatment of mild COVID-19 cases, the Delhi High Court Tuesday said expert bodies like Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) are the best judge to decide and accord approval in respect of medical protocol.
"It is not for the Courts to comment upon the medical protocols and the guidelines framed on the subject which are, in fact, issued after great research on the subject," the division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad said.
Observing that COVID-19 infections have almost come to an end, the court said it does not find any reason to allow the relief prayed for by two homeopathic physicians, seeking directions for allowing treatment of mild COVID-19 cases with Homeopathic medicines alone and for severe cases to critical cases, as add-on therapy with allopathic medicine in hospitals, if desired by the patient.
8. Delhi High Court Orders Delisting Of Cookware With 'Amul' Name From Online Platforms
Title: GUJARAT COOPERATIVE MILK MARKETING FEDERATION LTD & ANR. v. MARUTI METALS & ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1029
The Delhi High Court has ordered delisting of the cookware, being sold by a businessman under 'Amul' name, from the e-commerce platforms in a trademark infringement suit filed by the manufacturers of popular dairy brand Amul.
Justice Pratibha M Singh directed Maruti Metals, the cookware and pressure cooker manufacturer, to write to the e-commerce platforms selling its products for removal of its listings.
The suit was filed by Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Limited and Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers' Union Limited seeking permanent injunction against Maruti Metals from manufacturing and selling its products under their well known trademark 'AMUL', claiming that the same was deceptively similar to their registered trademark, which is in use for milk and other products since 1958.
9. Increase In Salary Of Statutory Body's Office Bearers A Policy Decision, Courts Should Not Interfere Unless Manifestly Arbitrary: Delhi High Court
Title: DR. ZAFARUL ISLAM KHAN v. GOVT. OF NCT DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1030
The Delhi High Court has observed that increase in salaries of office bearers of a Commission is a policy decision of the State and the courts should refrain from interfering with the same unless it is found to be manifestly arbitrary or unreasonable.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad made the observation while dismissing an appeal filed by Dr. Zafarul Islam Khan, former Chairman of Delhi Minorities Commission (DMC), for retrospective implementation of a notification dated 09.06.2021 regarding increase in salary and allowances of the Chairperson and office bearers of the DMC. A single bench had earlier dismissed his petition.
10. Arbitration Proceedings Against IRCTC; Delhi High Court Rejects Unilateral Appointment Of Arbitrator
Case Title: KMA Caterers v. Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation (IRCTC)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1031
The High Court of Delhi has held that the designation of Zonal Offices as the 'venue' of arbitration would not make it the 'seat' of arbitration when the meaningful dealings related to the contract happened at the Headquarters of a party.
The bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna held that venue would not become the seat when the tender documents, the process of award of tender, licence fees, signature and execution of the agreement and the jurisdiction of Court all happens to be on a place other than the venue.
The Court further held that the procedure for appointing the sole arbitrator from the panel of arbitrators maintained by the Employer would be hit by Section 12(5) of the Act.
11. A Party Cannot Be Made To Nominate Its Arbitrator From A Narrow Panel Of 4 Arbitrators Consisting Of Retired Officers Of The Other Party: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Gangotri Enterprises Ltd. v. General Manager Northern Railways
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1032
The High Court of Delhi has held that a panel of arbitrator with only four names to choose from does not satisfy the concept of neutrality of arbitrators. It held that a narrow panel comprising of retired employees of a party creates a reasonable apprehension of bias and partiality.
The bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna held that the contractor cannot be made to choose its nominee arbitrator from a panel of only four names and that too when the final choice of appointing its nominee arbitrator is vested on the Employer.
The Court held that an arbitrator clause, whereby the contractor is made to choose two names from a panel of four arbitrators and the final authority of choosing the nominee arbitrator from the two names given is vested on the employer, is invalid in law. It further held that the names on the panel should not be the employees or ex-employees of one of the parties.
12. Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking Action Against Former Director Prosecution, Says Transfer Orders Won't Attract Criminal Consequences
Title: BRIJ MOHAN SEHGAL v. PANKAJ SANGHI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1033
The Delhi High Court has observed that the competent authority's decision to order transfers and postings of employees would not attract criminal consequences under the Indian Penal Code.
"The transfers and postings even if thought to be arbitrary by the Competent Authority would not attract criminal consequences under Sections 166, 405 or Section 409 of IPC. An arbitrary act may not necessarily amount to a criminal offence punishable under Indian Penal Code," said the court.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma made the observations in her judgment upholding the orders passed by an Additional Sessions Judge and Metropolitan Magistrate in a complaint case filed by Brij Mohan Sehgal, a Public Prosecutor in Delhi's Directorate of Prosecution against former Director of Prosecution, Pankaj Sanghi.
13. 'Unfortunate Trend': Delhi High Court Expresses Concern Over Builders Resorting To Dilatory Tactics, Defrauding Homebuyers
Title: SUNIL KUMAR PANDEY AND ANR v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1034
Highlighting the issued faced by various homebuyers in the country, the Delhi High Court on Tuesday said that it is an "unfortunate trend" that builders often resort to dilatory tactics, defraud homebuyers by selling units to multiple individuals, delay the execution of projects, and execute projects without requisite sanctions.
"Invariably most of such builders also undergo insolvency. The greatest loss is incurred by innocent homebuyers who are not only forced to embroil themselves in litigation but are also divested of their hard-earned savings," said the division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad.
14. 'Cannot Claim Protection For Supplying False Information': Delhi High Court Rejects BSF Constable's Plea Against Dismissal For Non-Disclosure Of FIR
Title: ANIL KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1035
The Delhi High Court has upheld a dismissal order passed against a man, who was appointed as a constable in the Border Security Force (BSF), over "non-disclosure and wrong disclosure" of an FIR registered against him when he was a minor.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Saurabh Banerjee said the petitioner had been giving false information since the very beginning — when he filled the form at the time of applying for the post in BSF, when he was yet to commence his training and thereafter once again when he gave a reply to the show cause notice after joining.
The court said it finds it extremely hard to believe that he was unaware of the FIR or the proceedings emanating therefrom as he certainly would have been a party to those at every stage.
15. Delhi High Court Dismisses Samata Party's Appeal Against Allotment of 'Flaming Torch' To Uddhav Thackeray's Shiv Sena
Title: Samata Party v. ECI & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1036
The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by Samata Party challenging a single judge order which last month rejected its plea against allotment of flaming torch symbol to Uddhav Thackeray's Shiv Sena by Election Commission of India (ECI) for the Andheri East bypoll in Maharashtra.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad dismissed the plea after hearing the counsel appearing for Samata Party as well as the ECI.
16. Delhi High Court Closes PIL On Vandalism Outside CM Kejriwal's Residence, Directs Police To Ensure Implementation Of Security Measures
Case Title: Saurabh Bhardwaj v. Delhi Police & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1037
The Delhi High Court has disposed of a public interest litigation filed by Aam Aadmi Party MLA Saurabh Bhardwaj seeking an SIT investigation into the incident of attack and vandalism outside the official residence of Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal on March 30.
Bhardwaj had alleged that the violence was done by "goons of the Bharatiya Janata Party" under the garb of protest.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad was informed by Bhardwaj's counsel that the grievances raised in the plea stand satisfied in view of the assurances given by the Delhi Police in various status reports submitted before the court.
17. Delhi High Court Upholds Life Sentence Of Three Men Who Raped Minor In 2011, Rejects Prayer For Remission
Title: Vinod Kumar v. State and other connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1038
The Delhi High Court has upheld the conviction and life sentence awarded to three men for raping a minor girl in 2011. The class X student, who was first raped by a relative, was subsequently raped by two strangers, who had offered her help when she was walking on road after escaping from her relative's house.
A division bench of Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Anish Dayal dismissed the appeals filed by the three men, who were convicted on December 15, 2018 and were awarded life sentences.
While one of the convicts (relative of the minor girl) was convicted under Sections 366, 376 and 34 of Indian Penal Code, the other two persons were convicted under Sections 366, 376(2)(g) and 34 of the Code.
18. Employer's Right To Utilize Employee's Services On Promotion Can't Be Curtailed By General Guidelines On Routine Transfers: Delhi High Court
Title: SUMIT DAGAR v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1039
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the right of an employer to utilize the services of an employee upon promotion cannot be curtailed by general guidelines issued for regulating annual or routine transfers.
Justice Rekha Palli also accepted the argument that even if the transfer of an employee, who is in a transferable job, is in violation of executive guidelines, court must not normally interfere with such transfer unless a ground of mala fide is made out.
The court made the observations while dismissing a plea filed by one Sumit Dagar who had joined the Airport Authority of India (AAI) on July 18, 2011 as a Junior Executive (Air Traffic Control). He was holding a post of Assistant Manager before his promotion in July this year.
19. Test For Comparing Trademarks Of Medicinal Products Far Stricter As Any Confusion Would Result In Public Injury: Delhi High Court
Title: FDC LIMITED v. NILRISE PHARMACEUTICALS PVT. LTD. AND ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1040
The Delhi High Court has said that the test for comparison of two trademarks related to medicinal products needs to be far stricter than the one applied to other goods, as any confusion in the same would result in public injury.
Justice Navin Chawla made the observation while granting ad interim injunction in favour of FDC Limited, a pharmaceutical company, in its trademark infringement suit against Nilrise Pharmaceutical Limited, seeking protection of its registered mark "ZIPOD".
20. Each Individual With Paranoid Schizophrenia Has To Be Dealt With Differently: Delhi High Court, Sets Aside Compulsory Retirement Of RPSF Constable
Title: Babu Khan vs Union Of India & Anr
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1041
Directing the authorities to reinstate a Constable of Railway Protection Special Force who was compulsorily retired in 2014, the Delhi High Court on Thursday said people with Paranoid Schizophrenia by and large are neither harmful to people nor a threat to the society.
The division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Saurabh Banerjee said each individual suffering from the illness has to be dealt with differently "just like each doctor prescribes different medicines to different patients suffering from similar disease(s)".
"But, yes, they may, in a fit of rage, be a danger for some time. Those again depend upon the conditions, situations and surroundings prevalent then and most of all the gravity of the illness involved and may not, by and large, be present in all cases," said the court.
21. Are Philatelic Exhibits Like Postage Stamps 'Antiquities' Under Antiquities And Art Treasures Act? Delhi High Court Answers
Title: AJAY KUMAR MITTAL v. UOI & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1042
The Delhi High Court has held that philatelic exhibits of postage stamps, fiscal stamps, envelopes, stamp papers and other such documents, are "antiquities" within the meaning of the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972.
Noting that philately is a hobby of the "discerning connoisseur" who appreciates the intrinsic value of vintage stamps and other such documents, Justice C Hari Shankar observed that such exhibits are articles, objects or things of historical interest within the meaning of section 2(1)(a)(I)(iv) of the Act.
The said provision defines antiquity as any article, object or thing of historical interest.
"In fact, though a select group of collectors may take the trouble to collect such exhibits, their inherent and intrinsic historical value far transcends the covers of the albums that such collectors may maintain. They are, therefore, ex facie ―antiquities within the meaning of Section 2(1) (a)(I)(iv)," the court said.
22. Patent Infringement: Delhi High Court Says Garbage Bins Installed In Gujarat's Gandhinagar In Violation Of Interim Injunction
Case Title: Sotkon SP SLU v. Western Imaginary Transcon Private Limited and Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1043
The Delhi High Court has said that a Mumbai-based company is prima facie guilty of contempt for continuing to supply garbage bins to Gandhinagar Municipal Corporation, in violation of an interim injunction granted by it last year in favour of Sotkon, an international waste management company.
Hearing a patent infringement suit filed by Sotkon last year, the court in the interim order had restrained the defendant Western Imaginary Transcon Private Limited from infringing Sotkon's registered patent, after the global company had argued that the Mumbai-based company misused the photographs of its products, drawings and illustrations from the its brochure and also copied the technical specifications of its products while submitting a bid in response to a tender notice floated by the Gandhinagar municipal body in 2020 for installation of smart underground bins.
23. Consumers Must Know Whether Fruit Or Vegetable Ripened Artificially: Delhi High Court Asks FSSAI To Frame Guidelines
Title: M/S. M.M. TRADERS v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1044
The Delhi High Court has asked the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) to consider framing a regime whereby fruits and vegetables which are ripened artificially by using ethylene gas or other artificial ripeners should have a "necessary indication" placed on it.
A division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju asked the FSSAI to draw up a broad framework which takes into account all kinds of artificial ripeners so that the consumer is made aware of the fact that the fruit or vegetable has been ripened artificially.
The counsel representing FSSAI told the court that the matter will be deliberated upon and the guidelines will be placed before the court.
24. Delhi High Court Condones Delay In Payments Under VSV Due To Covid and Death Of Managing Director
Case Title: Srishtii Infra Housing Pvt. Ltd. Versus PCIT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1045
The Delhi High Court, while exercising its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has condoned the delay in payments under Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas (VSV) due to COVID and the death of the managing director of the company.
The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has observed that the power to condone the delay with regard to delay in payment is not vested with the departmental authorities, yet this Court, under its inherent powers in extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can pass any order necessary to remedy the injustice.
25. Use Of Word 'Mediation' In Arbitration Clause Is Immaterial, Clause Does Not Lose Its Character : Delhi High Court
Case Title: Consolidated Construction Consortium Limited v. SDMC
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1046
The Delhi High Court has held that nomenclature of an arbitration clause is immaterial when all the elements are present.
The bench of Justice Prateek Jalan held that an arbitration clause would not loose its character merely because the word 'mediation' has been used as its nomenclature. It held that, in construction of a contractual clause, the Court should be guided by the substance of the agreement between the parties rather than by the nomenclature employed. The Court expounded on the essential elements of an arbitration clause.
26. Arbitration Agreement "Exists" Only When It Is Enforceable In Law And Meets The Statutory Requirements Of A&C Act And Contract Act: Delhi High Court
Case Title: M/s Sequoia Fitness and Sports Technology Pvt. Ltd. versus GD Goenka Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1047
The Delhi High Court has ruled that a mere exchange of communication is not sufficient to show that the parties are at ad idem with respect to an arbitration agreement, when none of the correspondence exchanged between the parties made any reference to an agreement containing an arbitration clause.
The Single bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao observed that the petitioner had failed to show any positive act of the opposite party, depicting acceptance of the terms of the agreement containing an arbitration clause.
27. Expenses Towards Advertisement, Brokerage And Commission, Incurred By A Real Estate Developer; Deductible As Revenue Expenditure: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Commissioner of Income Tax versus Somnath Buildtech Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1048
The Delhi High Court has ruled that advertisement expenses, Software Developing Charges, and expenses towards brokerage and commission, incurred by a real estate developer, are in the nature of general administration cost and selling cost, as classified by the Guidance Note issued by the ICAI. Thus, they qualify for deduction as revenue expenditure.
The bench of Justices Manmohan and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora observed that the dispute involving the year of deduction, which was sought to be postponed by the revenue department, was revenue neutral, having no tax affect and that it did not put the revenue department at any disadvantageous position.
28. 'Higher Standards Of Probity Expected From IPR Lawyers': Delhi High Court Restrains Kolkata Law Firm From Using Identical Logo
Title: SUJATA CHAUDHRI v. SWARUPA GHOSH
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1049
The Delhi High Court has said that there is a duty cast upon the legal professionals, particularly Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) lawyers, to ensure that they do not imitate or adopt a name or logo already used by others offering similar services.
"This Court is of the opinion that higher standards of probity would be expected, from lawyers and legal professionals especially IPR lawyers, inasmuch as there is a duty cast upon them to ensure that they do not imitate or adopt a name or logo which is already in existence or in use by another person or entity, offering similar services," Justice Pratibha M Singh said.
The court made the observations in its interim order in a suit filed by a Delhi-based IP lawyer Sujata Chaudhri, the proprietor and founder of a IP law firm Sujata Chaudhri IP Attorneys. Chaudhri has sued Swarupa Ghosh, a Kolkata-based lawyer, for adopting an almost identical logo for her chamber.