Delhi High Court Weekly Roundup: March 28 To April 3, 2022

CITATIONS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 242 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 265

NOMINAL INDEX

MOHD ARIF & ORS. v. SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 242

PAWANDEEP SINGH v. THE REGISTRAR OF TRADEMARKS & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 243

HIMANI WALIA v. HEMANT WALIA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 244

LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER v. FUTURETIMES TECHNOLOGY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 245

Anand Kumar Pandey v. GNCTD 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 246

BHAGWAN SINGH v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 247

MOHAMMAD ASHFAQ HUSSAIN v. NIA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 248

ANI MEDIA PVT. LTD. v. VINAY G DAVID & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 249

ANJALI BHARDWAJ v. CPIO, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 250

PUJA AGGARWAL v. PRAVESH NARULA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 251

VANDANA VERMA v. ROOP SINGH & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 252

RUIA EXPORTS & ANR. v. MONEYWISE FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT.LTD & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 253

BURBERRY LTD v. ADITYA VERMA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 254

REENA PASWAN & ANR v. UOI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 255

Union of India v. Bahareh Bakshi 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 256

SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC SOUTH EAST ASIA (HQ) PTE LTD v. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE 3 (1)(2), NEW DELHI AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 257

MANKIND PHARMA LIMITED v. TATA MEDICAL AND DIAGNOSTICS LIMITED 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 258

Tata Teleservices Limited versus Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 259

RADICO KHAITAN LIMITED v. SARAO DISTILLERY (OPC) PVT. LTD. & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 260

DELHI WAQF BOARD Through its Chairman v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 261

Radhika Ashar v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 262

Ankur Gupta v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 263

JA Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Sithara Entertainment & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 264

Rakesh v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 265

ORDERS/JUDGMENTS

1. Party Claiming Private Right In Civil Suit Entitled To File Writ Petition Requiring Municipal Corporation To Discharge Its Duty: Delhi High Court

Case Title: MOHD ARIF & ORS. v. SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 242

The Delhi High Court has adjudicated an issue as to whether a petitioner who has filed a civil suit claiming certain private rights is disentitled to file a writ petition seeking a direction to the Municipal Corporation to carry out its duty.

Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva has observed that the power exercised by a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is for ensuring that the administrative authorities perform their duties and that the same is clearly distinct from a civil right that a private party may exercise against another private party.

The Court further observed that merely because the petitioner had filed a civil suit for partition claiming the relief for injunction and no interim order was granted, does not condone the illegal action of a private entity of carrying out illegal unauthorised construction contrary to municipal bye-laws and the Master Plan or preclude a High Court from exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution to ensure compliance of the municipal bye-laws as well as the Master Plan.

2. "Refusal Of Trademark Sans Hearing Contrary To Natural Justice": Delhi HC Asks Controller General To Devise Proper Mechanism For Show Cause Hearings

Case Title: PAWANDEEP SINGH v. THE REGISTRAR OF TRADEMARKS & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 243

Observing that refusal of a trademark without even affording an opportunity of hearing to the applicant would be contrary to the fundamental tenets of natural justice, the Delhi High Court has asked the Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks (CGPDTM) to devise a proper mechanism for holding show cause hearings.

Further noting that the Trademark Registry deals with lakhs of applications every year, Justice Pratibha M Singh opined that the utilization of a platform for virtual conference hearing wherein only three individuals are permitted to join at a time, would be grossly insufficient and an outdated mode of holding hearings.

3. Not Mandatory To Register Or Pay Stamp Duty On Family Settlements Arrived At Orally, Put Into Writing Only For Purpose Of Info: Delhi HC

Case Title: HIMANI WALIA v. HEMANT WALIA & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 244

The Delhi High Court has observed that there is no requirement to compulsorily register family settlements and to pay stamp duty for the same when such settlement is initially arrived at as an oral partition, however, later is put into writing for the purpose of information.

" The partition had been agreed upon between the parties by way of oral agreement with the intervention of their counsels. The memorandum of settlement does not itself partition the properties, but only records the same as an aid of memory ," Justice Pratibha M Singh observed.

The Court was dealing with an application in a partition suit seeking waiver of payment of stamp duty in respect of the assets inherited by the various parties from the estate in question.

4. Trademark Infringement: Delhi High Court Grants Permanent Injunction Against Now Banned 'Club Factory' Website In Suit By Louis Vuitton

Title: LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER v. FUTURETIMES TECHNOLOGY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 245

The Delhi High Court has granted permanent injunction against 'Club Factory', a China based portal which was banned by the Indian Government amid pandemic, in the trademark infringement suit filed by luxury brand 'Louis Vuitton'.

Justice Pratibha M Singh permanently restrained owners of website "www.clubfactory.com from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale directly or indirectly any goods including face masks etc., bearing the registered marks of Louis Vuitton on its portal or any other portal run by them.

The Court also directed the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) and Ministry of Electronic and Information Technology (MeiTY) to issue instructions to all internet service providers to block the website www.clubfactory.com so that the same is also not accessible through VPN or other platforms.

5. Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea Against Reopening Of Schools For Unvaccinated Children, Says No Data Suggesting They Are At High Risk Of Covid-19

Case Title: Anand Kumar Pandey v. GNCTD

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 246

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday dismissed a public interest litigation challenging the Delhi government's decision to resume physical classes for school-going children, from nursery to class 12th from April 1, 2022.

The Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla orally remarked,

"There has to be a balance. Children are losing much more by missing school...There are reports highlighting the psychological aspects on growth of children. They are not able to develop social, oral and inter-personal skills."

Schools in Delhi will resume functioning in offline mode at 100% capacity for all classes from April 1, 2022. As per the DDMA guidelines, schools will run only physical classes and no online classes will be held.

6. CPC Second Appeal | Can't Interfere With Orders Solely On Ground Of Sympathy, Substantial Question Of Law Must: Delhi High Court

Case Title: BHAGWAN SINGH v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 247

The Delhi High Court has observed that a High Court cannot interfere with an order in second appeal under sec. 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, solely on the ground of sympathy in the absence of any substantial question of law.

Sec. 100 of the CPC gives a procedural right of second appeal to either of the parties to a civil suit who had been adversely affected by the decree passed by a civil court. The second appeal lies to the High Court only if the court is satisfied that it involves a substantial question of law.

"Section 100 of the CPC permits the Court to interfere only if there is a substantial question of law, which arises from the orders of the courts below. Absence the existence of any SQL, the Section 100 Court cannot interfere with the order under challenge solely on the ground of sympathy," Justice C Hari Shankar observed.

7. Delhi High Court Refuses To Entertain PIL Seeking Probe Into Organizations Allegedly Siphoning Off Covid-19 Crowdfunds For Terrorist Activities

Title: MOHAMMAD ASHFAQ HUSSAIN v. NIA

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 248

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday refused to entertain a public interest litigation seeking probe into several foreign organizations that collected crowd funds under the garb of helping India amid the second wave of COVID-19 pandemic in April 2021 and allegedly siphoned off the same for funding terrorist activities.

The Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla observed that the government is cognizant of the issue and thus, no case is made out for judicial interference in the matter. It observed,

" Learned counsel the petitioner has herself tendered in Court communication received from Enforcement Directorate on 7 March 2022, requiring the petitioner to provide the relevant documents on the basis of which the petitioner has made the aforesaid claims. Counsel submits that the details have been provided to the ED. There is no reason for this court to assume that the Central government and its agencies are not alive to this problem, particularly when ED has sought the Petitioner's response."

8. Delhi High Court Grants Permanent Injunction Against 'ANINEWSINDIA' In Trademark Infringement Suit By News Agency 'ANI'

Case Title: ANI MEDIA PVT. LTD. v. VINAY G DAVID & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 249

The Delhi High Court has granted permanent injunction against 'ANINEWSINDIA' in a trademark infringement suit filed by news agency 'ANI'.

Justice Pratibha M Singh permanently injuncted the owners of ANINEWSINDIA from using the trademark 'ANI' or any other derivatives including the logo form, either with or without the word 'news' and 'India' as 'aninewsindia', 'aninews' or in any other manner on the internet or social media platform including Instagram and Facebook.

The suit was filed by ANI seeking protection of the registered trademark 'ANI' which was adopted by it in the year 1971. 

9. Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking Details Of SC Collegium's December 2018 Meeting

Case Title: ANJALI BHARDWAJ v. CPIO, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 250

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea challenging an order of Central Information Commission (CIC) denying information sought regarding the decisions taken by the Supreme Court Collegium in a meeting held on December 12, 2018.

Justice Yashwant Varma passed the order after reserving it earlier this week. The Court heard Advocate Prashant Bhushan appearing for the petitioner, activist Anjali Bhardwaj.

The Court noted that the disclosures made by the respondents seemed to indicate that no resolution with respect to the agenda items was drawn by members who constituted the Collegium on 12 December 2018.

The Court was thus of the view that there was no ground to doubt the disclosure made that no resolution was drawn and that no cogent material was placed on the record which convinced the Court to take a contrary view.

10. Stand Of Defendant Irrelevant When Court Is Dealing With Application Under Order VII Rule 11 Of CPC: Delhi High Court

Title: PUJA AGGARWAL v. PRAVESH NARULA

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 251

The Delhi High Court has observed that in a case where the Court is dealing with an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the stand of the defendant is irrelevant.

Adding that what is required to be looked into is the averments and documents filed alongwith the plaint, Justice Asha Menon observed thus:

"When the court is dealing with an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, it is required to look at the averments in the plaint and plaint alone. The documents filed alongwith the plaint can also be considered. However, the stand of the defendant is irrelevant."

11. Order 38 Rule 5 CPC | Suit Property Can't Be Attached Mechanically Or Merely For Asking Of Plaintiff: Delhi High Court

Case Title: VANDANA VERMA v. ROOP SINGH & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 252

The Delhi High Court has observed that the power under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of Code of Civil Procedure cannot be exercised by High Court mechanically or merely for the asking of plaintiff to the suit.

Justice Amit Bansal observed,

" provisions of Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the CPC have to be used sparingly and that the plaintiff has to satisfy the Court that the defendant is seeking to remove or dispose of whole or part of his property with the intention of obstructing or delaying the execution of the decree that may be passed against him. "

The Bench took note of the Supreme Court's judgment in Raman Tech. & Process Engg. Co. & Anr. Vs. Solanki Traders, (2008) 2 SCC 302, where it was held that purpose of Order 38 Rule 5 is not to convert an unsecured debt into a secured debt. Any attempt by a plaintiff to utilise the provisions of Order 38 Rule 5 as a leverage for coercing the defendant to settle the suit claim should be discouraged.

12. Party's Participation Insufficient To Infuse Life To Arbitral Proceedings If Award Is Void Due To Arbitrator's Ineligibility: Delhi HC Opines Prima Facie

Case Title: RUIA EXPORTS & ANR. v. MONEYWISE FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT.LTD & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 253

Expressing a prima facie opinion, the Delhi High Court has observed that the participation of any party is not sufficient to infuse life to arbitral proceedings if the award is void ab initio on the ground of ineligibility of an arbitrator.

Justice Vibhu Bakhru made the said observation while staying the enforcement of an arbitral award in the case of Ruia Exports & Another v. Moneywise Financial Services Private Limited & Others.

"Prima facie, if the award is void ab initio on the ground of ineligibility of an arbitrator, the participation of any party in the arbitral proceedings may not be sufficient to infuse life to the arbitral proceedings," the Court said.

13. No Call To Have Expert Witness To Testify To Use Of Identical Mark In Registered Trademark Infringement Or Passing Off Cases: Delhi High Court

Title: BURBERRY LTD v. ADITYA VERMA

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 254

The Delhi High Court has observed that in a case of infringement of registered Trade Marks or passing off, similarity of the marks used is to be considered and that there is no call to have an expert witness to testify to the use of an identical or similar Trade Mark.

Justice Asha Menon added that the emphasis is on the branding and not on the manufacture of the goods in question. It is the false branding that results in the product being counterfeit, the Court added.

The Court was dealing with a Regular First Appeal filed under sec. 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 & 2 CPC and Section 151 CPC by the plaintiff before the Trial Court. The appeal was filed against the judgment dated 7th November, 2019 wherein the suit was dismissed.

14. Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Eviction Of Chirag Paswan From Govt Bungalow

Case Title: REENA PASWAN & ANR v. UOI

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 255

The Delhi High Court has refused to interfere with the eviction of Lok Janshakti Party (LJP) MP Chirag Paswan from a government Bungalow situated in city's Janpath area which was originally allotted to his later father, Former Union Minister Ram Vilas Paswan.

Justice Yashwant Varma dismissed a petition filed by Reena Paswan, Chirag Paswan's mother.

"This is not your party headquarters," the Judge orally remarked at the outset.

The Directorate of Estates (DoE) had issued an eviction order last year. In August last year, the Central Government had issued an eviction notice to Chirag Paswan and other occupants of the government bungalow in question regarding vacation of the same.

15. 'Not Always Possible To Produce Indian Spouse For Processing OCI Card Application': Delhi High Court Upholds Single Judge's Order

Case Title: Union of India v. Bahareh Bakshi

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 256

The Delhi High Court has upheld an order passed by the single judge excusing an Iranian woman from producing her estranged Indian husband before the authorities for processing her OCI (Overseas Citizen of India) card application.

The single judge had held that presence of both spouses for the purpose of processing an OCI card application is not mandatory

Upholding this view, the Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla observed,

" Normally, the spouse would also appear for their interaction before the authorities. However, that may not be possible to secure in all cases, such as, where a matrimonial dispute has erupted between the parties. There could also be cases where the Indian spouse may die, or go missing. In such situations, it may not be possible for the applicant to produce their Indian spouse. "

16. Non Specification Of Penalty Provisions In Penalty Notice And Denial Of Immunity; Delhi High Court Holds That Assessee Is Eligible For Immunity, Says Tax Payer Should Be Incentivised.

Title: SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC SOUTH EAST ASIA (HQ) PTE LTD v. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE 3 (1)(2), NEW DELHI AND ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 257

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the action of income tax authorities denying the benefit of immunity from penalty under Section 270AA of Income Tax Act to the assessee on the ground that penalty was initiated under Section 270A for misreporting of income is arbitrary since the penalty notice issued by the authorities failed to specify the limb under which the penalty proceedings were initiated.

The Bench, consisting of Justices Manmohan and Dinesh Kumar Sharma, held that since the authorities had failed to specify whether action was taken against the assessee for "underreporting" or "misreporting" of income under Section 270A of the Act, the order of the income tax authorities denying immunity from imposition of penalty was erroneous and arbitrary.

17. Delhi High Court Refuses Interim Injunction In Trademark Infringement Suit By Mankind Pharma Against RTPCR Testing Kit 'OMISURE'

Case Title: MANKIND PHARMA LIMITED v. TATA MEDICAL AND DIAGNOSTICS LIMITED

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 258

The Delhi High Court has refused to pass an ad interim injunction against Tata Medical and Diagnostics Limited, manufacturer of 'OMISURE', an RTPCR kit used for detecting COVID-19 Omicron variant.

Justice Pratibha M Singh was dealing with a suit filed by Mankind Pharma Limited seeking permanent injunction for infringement of trademark. The Plaintiff claimed to be the 5th largest pharmaceutical company in India with a large range of medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations. The Plaintiff therefore sought protection of its registered trademark 'OMIPURE' which was adopted by the Plaintiff in the year 2007.

18. Disputed Tax Demand, Pre-Condition To Deposit 20 % Of The Disputed Tax For Stay Of Recovery Proceedings, Can Be Relaxed In Appropriate Cases: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Tata Teleservices Limited versus Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 259

The Delhi High Court has ruled that requirement of payment of twenty per cent of disputed tax demand is not a pre-requisite in all cases for putting recovery of demand in abeyance during the pendency of the first appeal.

The Bench, consisting of Justices Manmohan and Dinesh Kumar Sharma, held that the order of the income tax authority disposing of assessee's application for stay against recovery of disputed tax demand without considering the issues of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury to the assessee was a non-reasoned order.

19. Trademark Infringement: Delhi High Court Grants Interim Injunction In Favour Of "Magic Moments", Restrains Mark 'Evening Moment'

Case Title: RADICO KHAITAN LIMITED v. SARAO DISTILLERY (OPC) PVT. LTD. & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 260

The Delhi High Court has granted ad interim injunction in favour of manufacturer of "MAGIC MOMENTS" liquor in a trademark infringement suit over use of the mark 'EVENING MOMENT' as being deceptively similar to it's registered trademark for alcoholic beverages.

The suit was filed by Radico Khaitan Limited, one of the largest manufacturers and sellers of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) in India, having MAGIC MOMENTS as one of its leading products. The grievance in the present suit was that the Defendant No.1 was using the mark 'EVENING MOMENT' for whisky manufactured by it. The Defendant No.2 was the proprietor of the impugned trademark 'EVENING MOMENT'.

Justice Pratibha M Singh restrained Defendants from using the mark 'EVENING MOMENT' or any other mark consisting of the word 'MOMENT/MOMENTS' in respect of any alcoholic beverages manufactured, sold or offered by sale by them.

20. Delhi High Court Allows Reopening Of Five Floors Of Masjid In Nizamuddin Markaz During Ramzan

Case Title: DELHI WAQF BOARD Through its Chairman v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 261

The Delhi High Court has allowed reopening of five floors, including Ground floor as well as four floors, of the masjid premises in Nizamuddin Markaz for offering of prayers during Ramzan month.

Justice Jasmeet Singh also directed that the CCTV cameras be made functional at entry, exit and staircase area of each floor.

Public entry was banned at the Nizamuddin Markaz in the aftermath of Tablighi Jamaat members testing positive for Covid-19 in 2020. This comes in a plea filed by Delhi Waqf Board seeking to ease restrictions at the Nizamuddin Markaz, which has been locked since March 31, 2020.

The Court further directed that while namaaz and religious prayers shall be permitted in the Masjid during Ramzan, it clarified that no clarified that no Tablighi activities and lectures can take place.

21. "This Is Not End Of Life, Appear Next Year": Delhi High Court Refuses To Extend Internship Cut-Off Date For Ayush PG Entrance Test 2021

Case Title: Radhika Ashar v. Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 262

The Delhi High Court last week dismissed an appeal seeking to extend the cut-off date for completion of Internship towards determination of eligibility for All India Ayush Post-graduate Entrance Test, 2021.

" Appear next year. This is not the end of life," the Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla orally remarked while dismissing the appeal.

The prescribed cut-off date by which a candidate must have completed his/her compulsory one year rotational internship to appear in the examination is December 31, 2021. The Appellants herein claim to have completed their internships in January 2022.

22. 'Motivated Exercise At Behest Of Defaulting Borrowers': Delhi High Court Imposes 1L Cost On PIL Questioning Auction Sale Of Mortgaged Assets

Case Title: Ankur Gupta v. Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 263

The Delhi High court recently imposed Rs. 1 lakh as cost on a litigant for filing a frivolous PIL with the objective of obstructing the sale of a property that was mortgaged by the borrowers (two private developers) with a financial institution to secure their loan.

The Petitioner had sought action against the financial institution for allegedly sourcing huge amount of money to the illegal group of companies as financial favour. However, during the hearing, the Court noted that the petitioner questioned the manner in which the mortgaged asset was sold by the Financial Institution to recover the loan.

A similar challenge to the auction sale of the mortgaged asset at the behest of the borrowers had already failed, it was informed.

23. Delhi High Court Passes Injunction Order Against Sithara Entertainment &Ors.

Title: JA Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Sithara Entertainment & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 264

Commercial Suit was instituted before the Delhi High Court by JA Entertainment Pvt Ltd, against M/s. SitharaEntertainment and others. It was argued before the Court that in light of the Assignment of Hindi remake right in favour of JA Entertainment Pvt Ltd, by the original Malayalam film's producer the exclusivity to exploit the same would vest with JA Entertainment Pvt Ltd, alone and any attempt by M/s. Sithara Entertainment would infringe upon the copyright and commercial rights of JA Entertainment Pvt Ltd. The court was further informed that the nature of rights granted by Gold Coin Motion Picture Company in favor of M/s. SitharaEntertainment was only restricted to remake and dubbing of the original Malayalam film in Telugu language alone, hence, copyright vested in favour of M/s. Sithara Entertainmentwould be restricted in Telugu language. This contention was supported with the Madras High Court Division Bench case of Thiagarajan Kumararaja v.Capital Film Works (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

In view of the above facts and arguments the Hon'ble Justice Jyoti Singh of the Hon'ble Delh High Court was pleased to grant an Ex-parte Ad-interim injunction against Defendants till next date of the hearing for the Hindi dubbed version of the Telugu film titled "Bheemla Nayak" in the matter from releasing the same theatrically and/or on any platform or from distributing the same in any capacity. The matter is scheduled to be listed on 11th July 2022 before the Registrar and on 1stAugust 2022 before the Delhi High Court.

24. 'What Kind Of Matter Is This?': Delhi High Court Refuses To Hear Plea To Award 'Bharat Ratna' To Industrialist Ratan Tata

Case Title: Rakesh v. Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 265

The Delhi High Court has refused to hear a PIL seeking to award 'Bharat Ratna' to industrialist Ratan Tata. The plea sought the award citing Tata's invaluable service to the country and for leading an "unblemished life".

At the outset, the Division bench of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla made it clear that it is not for the Courts to decide as to who should be conferred the award.

" What kind of matter is this? Are we supposed to decide all this? You approach the government if you want. We can't interfere," the Bench orally said.

The PIL was filed by one Rakesh, claiming to be a social activist. He stated that Ratan Tata dedicated his whole life for the welfare of the country. In this regard, he highlighted how Tata has been a "great businessman" while also encouraging and investing with young entrepreneurs. The plea also highlighted his contributions during the Covid-19 pandemic.