Delhi High Court Annual Digest 2023: Part II [Citations 401 - 800]

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGTATION v. KAPIL WADHAWAN & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 473

TARUN KUMAR & ANR. v. THE PRINCIPAL HAPPY HOURS SCHOOL & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 474

MADHURI JAIN GROVER & ANR. v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 475

RR v. THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 476

MS. BETTY RAME v. NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 477

Vikram Ruhal v. Delhi Police & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 478

M/S Mcdonalds India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Additional Commissioner 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 479

INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA v. THE COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 480

Kal Airways Pvt. Ltd vs M/s Spicejet Ltd. & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 481

Tomorrow Sales Agency Private Limited vs SBS Holdings, Inc. and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 482

MALVINDER MOHAN SINGH v. STATE NCT OF DELHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 483

Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Private Limited vs Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 484

SHAHNAZ KHATOON & ORS. v. GD GOENKA PUBLIC SCHOOL 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 485

AGFA NV & ANR. v. THE ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF PATENTS AND DESIGNS & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 486

DAG PRIVATE LIMITED V. RAVI SHANKAR INSTITUTE FOR MUSIC AND PERFORMING ARTS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 487

SK v. Union of India & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 488

INDIAN TOURIST TRANSPORTERS ASSOCIATION (REGD.) v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 489

NHAI v. Suresh Chandra 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 490

NUOVOPIGNONE INTERNATIONAL SRL v. CARGO MOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 491

Unique Décor (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Synchronized Supply Systems Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 492

MINOR K THROUGH BROTHER D v. STATE & ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 493

Manish Sisodia v. ED 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 494

SANJAY JAIN (IN JC) v. ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 495

MARICO LIMITED v. DABUR INDIA LIMITED 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 496

B.L. Kashyap and Sons Ltd v. MIST Avenue Pvt. Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 497

GA vs TA & Anr 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 498

SHRI PAN SINGH RAWAT v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 499

Indian Railway Catering & Tourism Corp. Ltd. v. M/s Goel & Goel, OMP(COMM) 299 of 2021 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 500

Atishi Marlena v. Union of India & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 501

Man Industries (India) Limited vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 502

AL TAWAF HAJJ AND UMRAH TRAVEL AND TOURISM v. UNION OF INDIA and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 503

SHARAFAT KHAN & ANOTHER v. NORTHERN RAILWAY & ANOTHER 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 504

Shivam Chaudhary & Ors. vs All India Council for Technical Education & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 505

Travelport International Operations Limited United Kingdom Versus Commissioner Of Income Tax International Taxation 3 N.Delhi & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 506

EUREKA FORBES LIMITED (FORMERLY FORBES ENVIRO SOLU v. FLIPKART INTERNET PRIVATE LIMITED AND ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 507

PANKAJ BANSAL v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT DELHI) & ANR. and other connected matter 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 508

SADANAND AND ANR. v. CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION AND ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 509

RS v. MB 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 510

MINOR VICTIM-V v. THE STATE & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 511

SAMEER MAHANDRU v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 512

FIITJEE LIMITED v. ALLEN EDUCATION AND MANAGEMENT SERVICES PVT. LTD & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 513

IBRAHIM PUTHANATHANI v. NIA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 514

Preeti Chandra v. ED 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 515

PROF DR SANJEEV BAGAI & ORS. v. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST) & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 516

Rishiraj Aluminium Private Limited Versus Goods And Service Tax Officer 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 517

Ohmi Industries Asia Private Limited Versus Assistant Commissioner 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 518

ALL RESIDENTS WELFARE SOCIETY (ARWS). v. CAELUM ARPIT BRAND TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 519

BADAM VERVA v. DELHI BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 520

MMTC Limited vs Aust Grain Exports Pty. Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 521

Sachin @ Joginder Singh v. State Govt Of NCT Of Delhi & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 522

DR SOHAIL MALIK v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 537

Harkirat Singh Sodhi v. Oram Foods Pvt Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 538

RAJNEESH BHASKAR GUPTA versus Reserve Bank of India & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 539

Aswini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 540

Manish Sisodia v. Enforcement Directorate 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 541

BUDHI SINGH v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 543

Viney Chaudhary v. Union Of India & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 544

SUDHIR GUPTA v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 545

DR. PRAMOD BATRA v. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 546

RAJINDER NISCHAL v. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 548

EX CT/GD OM PARKASH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 549

MAMTA RANI v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 550

SAP SE vs Swiss Auto Products and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 551

TV 18 BROADCAST LIMITED v. BENNETT, COLEMAN AND COMPANY LIMITED 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 552

NEETU SINGH v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 554

Microsoft Corporation vs Zoai Founder 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 555

PEMBROKE AIRCRAFT LEASING 11 LIMITED Vs. DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF CIVIL AVIATION & ORS. And other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 556

Sashi Kumar NagarJi & Ors. V. M/S Magnifico Minerals Pvt Ltd & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 557

Chaalak Shakti & Ors. v. GNCTD & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 558

MOHD. AMAAN MALIK v. State of NCT Delhi 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 560

SHRI CHARANJEET SINGH & ANR. v. SHRI HARVINDER SINGH & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 561

Rakesh Agrawal vs National Highway Authority of India and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 562

M/s Wave Geo-Services Pvt Ltd vs M/s Devi Engineering and Construction Pvt Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 563

KAMDHENU LTD v. THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 564

INOX AIR PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED v. MR. ARUN RATHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 565

M/s Abhijeet Angul Sambhalpur Toll Road Limited v. NHAI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 566

AMBUJ HOTELS & REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD. v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 567

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v. MSECF and Anr, W.P.(C) 13754 of 2019 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 568

X v. Y 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 599

RUPINDERJIT KAUR v. THE MANAGER, DHANPATMAL VIRMANI SR. SEC. SCHOOL AND ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 600

IDFC First Bank Limited v. Hitachi MGRM Net Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 601

PERNOD RICARD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 602

MANUDEV DAHIYA v. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH DG ITBP 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 603

NHAI v. IRB Pathankot Amritsar Toll Road Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 604

Sterlite Power Transmission Limited v. EPC Solutions LLP 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 605

M/S Goldy Engineering Works Versus Commissioner Of Central Excise 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 606

RXPRISM HEALTH SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. v. CANVA PTY LTD & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 607

Shrikant Prasad v. Union of India & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 608

CHAPTER 4 CORP vs DHANPREET SINGH TRADING AS M/S PUNJABI ADDA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 609

Suman Chadha v. SFIO 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 610

NARESH SHARMA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 611

RAJIV BOOLCHAND JAIN v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 612

NISHANT SINGHAL v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 613

The Commissioner Of Income Tax -4 Versus GE India Business Services Pvt. Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 614

ALOK KUMAR v. HARSH MANDER & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 615

MAJOR GENERAL M.S. AHLUWALIA v. M/S TEHELKA.COM & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 616

SUJEET AND ANR v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 617

National Highways Authority of India vs GVK Jaipur Expressway Private Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 618

ICICI BANK LIMITED v. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 619

PAYPAL PAYMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED v. FINANCIAL INTELLIGENCE UNIT INDIA & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 620

Ambience Developers and Infrastructure Pvt Ltd vs Zesty Foods 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 621

SAMEER MAHANDRU v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 622

COTY GERMANY GMBH vs XERYUS RETAIL PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 623

DELHI WAQF BOARD v. UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 624

Satluj Vidyut Nigam Ltd v. Iaiprakash Hyundai Consortium 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 625

FSMA INDIA CHARITABLE TRUST v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 626

ST STEPHENS COLLEGE v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI AND ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 627

SECRETARY, FOOD AND BEVERAGE FOUNDATION SOCIETY REGD. v. DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION, GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 628

KUSH KALRA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 629

NJ v. AJ 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 630

Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Anr. versus Vijay Rajpal & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 631

SHAHEEN MALIK v. STATE OF GNCTD THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 632

TTK Prestige Ltd. vs Gupta Light House 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 633

NISHANT SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 634

VIJAY DARDA v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 635

SYNGENTA LIMITED v. CONTROLLER OF PATENTS AND DESIGNS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 636

RE: TO CONSIDER SUO MOTU CONTEMPT OF COURT v. PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE TIS HAZARI COURT LAWYERS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 637

ARG Outlier Media Private Limited vs HT Media Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 638

Vineet Saraf v Rural Electrification Corporation Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 639

Vinod Keni & Ors. vs Technology Development Board 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 640

J. VINUTHA v. ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES - AIIMS & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 642

SpiceJet Limited vs Kal Airways Pvt Ltd & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 643

MONK ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 644

RAVINDER SINGH BHASIN v. KANWALJIT KAUR & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 645

B L Kashyap and Sons Ltd vs Emaar India Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 647

STATE (NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY) v. MOHD YASIN MALIK 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 648

VIVEKANANDA INSTITUTE OF PROFESSIONAL STUDIES v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 649

TEJASWI CHHATWAL & ORS. v. DR.B.R. AMBEDKAR UNIVERSITY DELHI AND ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 650

MOHD. YASIN PATEL ALIAS FALAHI v. STATE 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 652

PCIT Versus Maharani Enterprises 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 653

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd vs Director of Legal Metrology & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 654

MANMOHAN SINGH @ MONU v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 655

Bharatiya Pratiraksha Mazdoor Sangh vs Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 656

VIVEK KUMAR & ORS. v. STATE & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 658

FOODLINK F AND B HOLDINGS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. WOW MOMO FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 659

Jaiprakash Associates Limited v. MSEFC 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 660

DISTRICT MAGISTRATE WEST DISTRICT THROUGH NEHA BANSAL v. JOSAN DIAGNOTICS CENTRE & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 661

DR. REDDYS LABORATORIES LIMITED & ANR. v. THE CONTROLLER OF PATENTS & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 663

SUN PARMA LABORATORIES LTD. v. MYLAN LABORATORIES LIMITED & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 664

RAKESH v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHII & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 665

SARTAJ @ALLAHARAKHA v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 666

RAVI MANCHANDA TRADING AS SEEMA ENGINEERING WORKS v. THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 667

PCIT Versus M/S Eltek Sgs Pvt. Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 668

ANURAG GOEL v. CHHAVI AGARWAL 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 669

NABAL THAKUR (IN J.C.) v. THE STATE 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 670

Landmark Property Development and Company Limited & ORS. vs Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Limited & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 671

ISHWAR SINGH DAHIYA v. STATE OF NCT DELHI AND ORS and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 672

ARJUN KAMTI v. THE STATE OF GNCT OF DELHI THROUGH SHO & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 673

Gannon Dunkerley and Co Ltd v. Zillion Infraprojects Pvt Ltd, OMP(COMM) 234 of 2023 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 674

GOOGLE LLC v. DRS LOGISTICS (P) LTD. & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 675

PARVIN JUNEJA v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 676

MANKIND PHARMA LIMITED v. NOVAKIND BIO SCIENCES PRIVATE LIMITED 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 677

Mrs. Vinnu Goel v. Mr. Santosh Goes and Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 678

NHAI v. M/S. T.K. TOLL PRIVATE LIMITED 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 679

DR J THULASEEDHARA KURUP v. APPOINTMENTS COMMITTEE OF THE CABINET THROUGH ITS SECRETARY & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 680

DEPTT.OF HEALTH, GOVT.OF NCT OF DELHI v. KAMLA MEHNDIRATTA & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 681

Oxfam India Versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 682

RANJEET KUMAR YADAV v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 683

H&M Pvt. Ltd. vs Legal Metrology Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 684

SRI SATYA SAI UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY AND MEDICAL SCIENCES SEHORE v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 685

THE STATE v. MAIKALE RAM & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 686

Blackberry India Pvt Ltd. Versus The Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise And CGST Division 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 687

AKEBIA THERAPEUTICS INC. v. CONTROLLER GENERAL OF PATENTS, DESIGN, TRADEMARK AND GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS, & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 688

Diamond Entertainment Technologies Pvt Ltd & Ors. vs Religare Finvest Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 689

Reliance Infrastructure Limited v. Madhyanchal Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 690

HERO MOTOCORP LIMITED v. SHREE AMBA INDUSTRIES 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 691

PCIT Versus ARN Infrastructure Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 692

PCIT Versus Yakult Danone India Pvt. Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 693

LK v. OPM 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 694

NARENDER BHUTANI v. ANJALI BHUTANI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 695

MANOHAR LAL SHARMA v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (C.B.I) & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 696

SUN PHARMA LABORATORIES LTD. v. FINECURE PHARMACEUTICALS LTD& ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 697

Geeta Sharma vs Public Enterprises Selection Board & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 698

Emami Limited vs Dabur India Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 699

XYZ v. BHARAT PRAKASHAN (DELHI) LTD AND ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 700

Y.K. Goyal v. Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 701

R.K. KAPOOR v. NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 702

Steelman Telecom Limited v. Power Grid Corporation of India Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 703

RDB AND CO(HUF) v. HARPER COLLINS PUBLISHERS INDIA PVT. LTD. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 704

CONFERENCE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS (INDIA) (REGD.) v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. and other connected matter 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 705

CCL M A v. STATE (NCT) OF DELHI and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 706

COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. SOUTH MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 707

M/S Vikas Enterprises Versus Commissioner Of Central Tax (GST) 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 708

Deepak Khandelwal Proprietor Versus Commissioner Of CGST 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 709

Darpan Kohli Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 710

SUMAIYA JAN @ SOUMAYYA v. STATE NCT OF DELHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 711

M/s G.S. Express Pvt Ltd v. NTPC Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 712

ABHIJIT MISHRA v. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA & ANR and other connected matter 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 713

Rajani Kumari v. BCD 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 714

ABHISHEK @ LOVE & ORS. v. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 715

Government of NCT of Delhi v. R.S. Sharma Contractors Pvt Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 716

DGIT Versus The Indian Plywood Mfg. Co. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 717

VENUS WORLDWIDE ENTERTAINMENT PRIVATE LIMITED v. POPULAR ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK (PEN) PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 718

UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS LLC. AND ORS. v. DOTMOVIES.BABY AND ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 719

SAGAR v. THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT) 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 720

Sachin Arora v. State of GNCT of Delhi 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 721

STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI v. MOHD K. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 722

Raghav Bahl v. ED and other connected matter 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 723

NIDHI KAPOOR v. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER AND ADDITIONAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ORS. and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 724

STATE v. USHA DEVI & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 725

STATE v. HARIPAL and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 726

STATE v. DHEERAJ SHARMA & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 727

SMT. K.S. SUMI MOL v. SH. SURESH KUMAR E.K. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 728

SEEMA CHOPRA v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 729

Flipkart India Private Limited Versus Value Added Tax Officer 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 730

KARAN S THUKRAL v. THE DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 731

Spelndor Landbase Ltd v. Aparna Ashram Society 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 732

Girish Kumari Gupta v. UOI and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 733

NOVA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 734

Splendor Landbase Ltd v. Aparna Ashram Society 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 735

SJ v. S 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 736

KSG v. P 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 737

Nishkarsh Singh Patel vs National Medical Commission & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 738

NHAI v. Trichy Thanjavur Expressway Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 739

VASU BAJAJ v. RAKESH BAJAJ 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 740

PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS (PETA) INDIA v. THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 741

NHAI v. Trichy Thanjavur Expressway Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 742

ANNWESHA DEB v. DELHI STATE LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 743

SpiceJet Limited vs Kal Airways Pvt Ltd & Ors. and other connected matter 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 744

X v. Y 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 745

M/S.RSPL HEALTH PRIVATE LIMITED v. RECKITT AND COLMAN (OVERSEAS) HYGIENE HOME LIMITED & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 746

X v. Y 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 747

TIMES NOW NAVBHARAT v. NARESH BALIYAN 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 748

Shri Anil Kumar v. Election Commission of India & Anr 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 749

PCIT Versus M/S National Fertilizers Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 750

RAKESH KUMAR KALRA DEAF DIVAYANG v. STATE GOVT OF NCT DELHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 751

RAHUL v. STATE OF DELHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 752

Saurabh Shukla v. Max Bupa Insurance & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 753

Selishia Mohandas v. UOI & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 754

CHRISTIAN LOUBOUTIN SAS & ANR. v. M/S THE SHOE BOUTIQUE – SHUTIQ 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 755

M/S. Hanuman Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Additional Director General Directorate General Of GST 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 756

Aseem Aggarwal v. Ashi Kumar 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 757

ROYAL CHALLENGERS SPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED v. SUN PICTURES A DIVISION OF SUN TV NETWORK LTD.AND ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 758

RS v. AS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 759

Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports v. ERNST and YOUNG PVT LTD 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 760

VARUN BHATIA v. STATE AND ANOTHER 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 761

Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports v. ERNST and YOUNG PVT LTD 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 762

DELHI HIGH COURT LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 763

RAMADA INTERNATIONAL,INC v. LA-RAMADA WORLD PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 764

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. v. SHEETAL 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 765

Siddharth Mishra & Ors. v. UPSC 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 766

POOJA SINGH v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 767

Spelndor Landbase Ltd v. Aparna Ashram Society 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 768

RAMESH v. SMT. MEENAKSHI LEKHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 769

Rajeev Chhatwal Versus Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (East) 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 770

NATIONAL SEEDS CORPORATION LTD v. RAM AVTAR GUPTA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 771

J BALAJI v. THE HINDU NEW DELHI AND ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 772

DIXITA GOLWALA vs NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 773

ZAHIR ABDULLAH & ANR v. OMAR ABDULLAH and other connected matter 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 774

PRAFUL BILLORE & ANR. v. BAEROJGAR & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 775

MS. N v. STATE & ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 776

SHRI ANIL KUMAR v. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 777

SILVERMAPLE HEALTHCARE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS vs DR AJAY DUBEY & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 778

A v. S 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 780

Rekha Rani and Ors. v. State of NCT of Delhi 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 781

Liberty Footwear Company v. Liberty Shoes Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 782

Amit Guglani v. L&T Housing Finance 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 783

UNION OF INDIA v. VANSH SHARAD GUPTA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 784

Case Title: NHAI v. Suresh Chandra

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 490

The Delhi High Court has held that 'partial reduction in traffic' due to a remote event of flood is not a force majeure event.

Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri held that force majeure event contemplates a complete blockade of the road due to the floods and not mere reduction of the traffic on a particular road.

The Court set aside an arbitration award passed against NHAI on the ground that the interpretation adopted by the Arbitral Tribunal was contrary to the intent of the parties, therefore, the award would be vulnerable to challenge for being contrary to contractual provisions and would fall within the scope of Section 34(2)(b)(ii) of the Act.

A Consent Foreign Award Is Enforceable Under The New York Convention: Delhi High Court

Case Title: NUOVOPIGNONE INTERNATIONAL SRL v. CARGO MOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 491

The Delhi High Court has held that a consent foreign award is enforceable under the New York Convention/Part II of the A&C Act, 1996.

Justice Yashwant Varma held rejected the argument that consent arbitration award do not fall within the rubric of New York Convention. The Court rejected the argument that an award to be recognized under the Convention must be one based on adjudication as arbitration presupposes adjudication by the tribunal and any award incorporating the settlement agreement entered into by the parties during the pendency of the proceedings would not amount to an award.

Extension Of Period Of Agreement By Written Communications, No Novation, The Arbitration Clause Continues To Be Operative: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Unique Décor (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Synchronized Supply Systems Ltd.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 492

The Delhi High Court has held that if the parties have, by written communications, extended the period of agreement, the arbitration clause that was a part of the agreement continues to be operative.

The bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan has distinguished between the situations wherein an arbitration clause expires with the novation of the main agreement and when the arbitration clause continues to be operative when the original agreement is not superseded by any other agreement but extended by the parties through written communications.

Delhi High Court Orders Shifting Of 14-Yr-Old To Children's Home For Safe Delivery After Refusal To Undergo Medical Termination Of Pregnancy

Title: MINOR K THROUGH BROTHER D v. STATE & ANR

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 493

The Delhi High Court has recently ordered shifting of a 14-year-old pregnant minor to a children's home for girls for safe delivery of the child after she and her guardian brother refused to agree to medical termination of her pregnancy.

Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani was hearing a plea moved by the minor through her 22-year-old brother seeking medical termination of her 28 weeks old pregnancy.

The minor got pregnant as a result of physical relations between her and the accused in the FIR registered under sections 366A and 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

Liquor Policy: Delhi High Court Denies Interim Bail To Manish Sisodia In Money Laundering Case

Title: Manish Sisodia v. ED

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 494

The Delhi High Court has denied interim bail to Aam Aadmi Party leader and former Delhi Chief Minister Manish Sisodia in the money laundering case related to the implementation of previous liquor policy in national capital.

Sisodia had sought interim bail for a period of six weeks in view of the poor health condition of his wife.

The court observed that the allegations against Sisodia are extremely serious in nature and that it cannot forget the positions held by him.

Power To Grant Bail On Medical Grounds Under PMLA Discretionary, Must Be Exercised In Judicious Manner: Delhi High Court

Title: SANJAY JAIN (IN JC) v. ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 495

The Delhi High Court has observed that the power to grant bail on medical grounds under PMLA is discretionary in nature and must be exercised in a judicious manner after recording satisfaction that necessary circumstances exist warranting exercise of such a discretion.

“The liberty of a person who is accused or convicted of an offence can be curtailed according to procedure established by law. However, right to health is also recognized as an important facet of Article 21 of the Constitution. Merely because a person is an under trial or for that matter even a convict, lodged in jail, this facet of right to life cannot be curtailed. It remains an obligation of the state to provide adequate and effective medical treatment to every person lodged in jail, whether under trial or a convict,” Justice Vikas Mahajan observed.

Delhi High Court Restrains Dabur From Circulating WhatsApp Advertisement On 'Amla Hair Oil', Refuses Interim Injunction Against Print Ad

Title: MARICO LIMITED v. DABUR INDIA LIMITED

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 496

The Delhi High Court has recently restrained Indian multinational consumer goods company Dabur from circulating its WhatsApp advertisement on “Dabur Amla Hair Oil” featuring bollywood actor Deepika Padukone.

Justice Navin Chawla passed the order in a suit filed by Marico Limited alleging disparagement of the goodwill and reputation of its product “Nihar Natural Shanti Badam Amla Hair Oil” and registered “Nihar” trade marks.

Arbitration Clause In A Contract Perishes With Its Novation: Delhi High Court

Case Title: B.L. Kashyap and Sons Ltd v. MIST Avenue Pvt. Ltd

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 497

The Delhi High Court has held that an arbitration clause contained in an agreement would perish with its novation if the novated agreement does not contain any arbitration clause.

Justice Prateek Jalan held that the view taken by the arbitral tribunal regarding the non-arbitrability of the dispute due to the novation of the agreement that contained the arbitration clause is a plausible view based on the contractual interpretation of the terms of the agreement, therefore, does not call for any interference under Section 34 of the Act.

Whether Suit For Possession Filed By In-Laws Against Daughter-In-Law Will Be Exclusively Tried By Family Court? Delhi HC's Larger Bench To Decide

Case Title: GA vs TA & Anr

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 498

The Delhi High Court has referred the issue of whether a suit for possession or injunction filed by the in-laws against the daughter-in-law concerning the suit property of which they are the exclusive owners, is required to be exclusively tried by the Family Court established under the Family Courts Act, 1984, to a larger bench.

The single bench of Justice Navin Chawla made the larger bench reference while hearing a suit for Permanent Injunction filed by the plaintiff against her daughter-in-law, seeking to restrain the later from visiting or entering the suit property.

EPF Pension: Delhi High Court Restrains EPFO From Taking Coercive Steps On Basis Of Recovery Notices For Higher Pension

Title: SHRI PAN SINGH RAWAT v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. and other connected matters

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 499

The Delhi High Court recently restrained the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) from taking any coercive steps with respect to the notices issued to various pensioners by it for making recoveries of the differential amount on higher pension received by them from many years.

Justice Rekha Palli passed the interim order in the pleas moved by four pensioners who, after their superannuation from different organizations, were drawing higher pension beyond the ceiling limit based on the options sought by EPFO in 2018/19.

IRCTC Being A State Under A. 12 Is Bound By Its Affidavit Before Any Court Of Law, Cannot File A Contrary Affidavit To Defeat A Claim In Arbitration: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Indian Railway Catering & Tourism Corp. Ltd. v. M/s Goel & Goel, OMP(COMM) 299 of 2021

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 500

The Delhi High Court has held that IRCTC is a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and is bound by its affidavit before any court of law and it cannot file contrary affidavit before the arbitral tribunal to defeat a claim of the other party in arbitration.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna also held that an arbitration award cannot be challenged on the grounds of lack of evidence for award of damages when the parties agreed to not lead any evidence at all at the beginning of the arbitration.

Moreover, it reiterated that a plea of fact or law not taken before the tribunal cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time before the Court under Section 34 of the Act.

Political Clearance Granted To Atishi Marlena For Official Visit To UK: Union Govt To Delhi High Court

Case Title: Atishi Marlena v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 501

The Union Government informed the Delhi High Court that political clearance has been granted to Delhi's Education Minister Atishi Marlena for her official visit to the United Kingdom.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh disposed of Marlena's plea seeking direction on the Union of India to process all requisite clearances. She has been invited in her official capacity by Cambridge University to speak at a conference on “India at 100: Towards Becoming a Global Leader” to be held on June 15.

Plea That The Arbitrator Is De Jure Ineligible Can Be Raised As An Additional Ground To Challenge Award, Even Without Amendment Of S. 34 Petition: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Man Industries (India) Limited vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 502

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the plea that the Arbitrator is de jure ineligible to act as an Arbitrator is a plea of lack of jurisdiction. This plea can be allowed to be raised as an additional ground in a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), by way of an amendment and even without the same, the court has held.

Justice Navin Chawla made the observation while allowing the amendment application seeking to add an additional ground to challenge the arbitral award, even though the said application was filed much beyond the limitation period prescribed in Section 34(3) of the A&C Act. In its amendment application, the petitioner sought to raise the additional ground that the Arbitrator was de jure ineligible to act as such in view of Section 12(5) of the A&C Act.

Haj Pilgrimage Falls Within Ambit Of Religious Practice, Protected Under Article 25: Delhi High Court

Title: AL TAWAF HAJJ AND UMRAH TRAVEL AND TOURISM v. UNION OF INDIA and other connected matters

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 503

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the Haj pilgrimage falls within the ambit of religious practice and is protected under Article 25 of the Constitution of India.

“Haj Pilgrimage and the ceremonies involved therein fall within the ambit of a religious practice, which is protected by the Constitution of India. Religious freedoms are one of the most cherished rights guaranteed and enshrined under the Constitution in line with the vision of the founding fathers of the Modern Indian Republic. The religious freedom of the person is guaranteed by the Constitution of India under Article 25,” Justice Chandra Dhari Singh observed.

Delhi High Court Directs Northern Railway, Contractor To Pay Over ₹23 Lakh To Parents Of 12-Yr-Old Boy Who Died After Falling In Unprotected Pit

Title: SHARAFAT KHAN & ANOTHER v. NORTHERN RAILWAY & ANOTHER

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 504

The Delhi High Court has directed the Northern Railway and a contractor, who was engaged for construction work of a rainy well, to pay over Rs. 23 lakhs compensation to parents of a 12 years old boy who died after falling and drowning in the pit in 2013.

A division bench of Justice Najmi Waziri and Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain directed that the compensation be paid along with simple interest @ 6% from date of filing of the petition which was moved by the parents in 2019, till realization of compensation within three months.

AICTE Regulations 2007 Can't Be Forced On Universities To Compulsorily Provide For Admissions Through Lateral Entry: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Shivam Chaudhary & Ors. vs All India Council for Technical Education & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 505

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) Lateral Entry Regulations, 2007 cannot be construed to be mandatory in nature to mean that all institutions must grant admission through lateral entry.

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav made the observation in the judgment on a writ petition seeking a direction to Public Universities to provide admission through the lateral entry process to second year B.Tech. programme to diploma holders in engineering and technology, as per the 2007 Lateral Entry Regulations laid down by AICTE.

Delhi High Court Directs Dept. To Reconsider Travelport UK's Refund Adjustment

Case Title: Travelport International Operations Limited United Kingdom Versus Commissioner Of Income Tax International Taxation 3 N.Delhi & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 506

The Delhi High Court has directed the department to reconsider Travelport UK's refund adjustment on the basis of the contents of the writ petition.

The bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has set aside the department's action in adjusting a sum of Rs. 6,27,20,736 under Section 245 of the Income Tax Act and remanded the matter to the concerned authority to decide afresh, within a period of four weeks.

Delhi HC Restrains Various Entities From Selling Goods Bearing The Trade Marks “Aquaguard” Of Eureka Forbes Limited

Title: EUREKA FORBES LIMITED (FORMERLY FORBES ENVIRO SOLU v. FLIPKART INTERNET PRIVATE LIMITED AND ORS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 507

Grating relief to Eureka Forbes Limited, the Delhi High Court recently restrained several entities from selling counterfeit goods such as filters, spares and consumables bearing the trade marks “Aquaguard”, “Aquasfilter”, and “Active Copper Maxx” of Eureka Forbes Limited (EFL).

Justice Amit Bansal was of the opinion that a prima facie case has been made out on behalf of the EFL, and the balance of convenience is in their favour.

Justice Bansal further opined that irreparable harm would be caused not only to EFL, but also to the public at large if an ex-parte ad interim injunction is not granted in favour of EFL.

Discretion To Choose High Court Or Sessions Court For Moving Anticipatory Bail Can't Be Restricted By Narrow Interpretation: Delhi High Court

Plant 10 Trees, File Status Report With Photos Every Year For A Decade: Delhi High Court's Condition For Quashing FIR Related To Altercation

Assessment Order Cannot Be Directed Against Only One Of The Legal Heirs Of Deceased Assessee: Delhi High Court Sets Aside Rs. 10 Crores Demand

Victim Can Invoke PoSH Act When Sexually Harassed By Man Working In Department Other Than Her Own: Delhi High Court

Title: DR SOHAIL MALIK v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 537

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the scope of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 or PoSH Act is not limited to cases where a woman employee is sexually harassed by another employee working in her own office or department but also extends to cases where the delinquent employee is employed elsewhere.

Analyzing the statute and its objectives, a vacation bench of Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Manoj Jain observed:

“Each and every one of these objectives is, conspicuously, “harasser-neutral”. In an era in which – one has to say it, as one sees it every day even in the Court – women are equalling, if not outnumbering, men in professional achievements, there can be no compromise on any of these objectives.”

2019 Amendment To Section 29A Of The Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 Is Procedural In Nature; Applies To All Pending Arbitrations: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Harkirat Singh Sodhi v. Oram Foods Pvt Ltd

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 538

The Delhi High Court has held that 2019 Amendment to Section 29A of the A&C Act is procedural in nature and would apply to all arbitrations that were pending on the date of its coming into force. By way of the amendment, the time limit of 12 months for rendering an award was to be calculated from the date of the completion of proceedings and not from the date when the arbitrator entered reference as provided under the unamended Section.

The bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani extended the time period for rendering an arbitration award after considering the peculiar facts of the cases including the death of two arbitrators, recusal by the third arbitrator and the delay caused by the Covid-19 pandemic.

Delhi High Court Dismisses PIL Challenging RBI's Decision To Withdraw Rs 2,000 Currency Notes From Circulation

Title: RAJNEESH BHASKAR GUPTA versus Reserve Bank of India & Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 539

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation challenging the Reserve Bank of India's decision to withdraw Rs 2,000 notes from circulation.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad rejected the plea moved by advocate Rajneesh Bhaskar Gupta. The court observed that the RBI was well within its power to issue the Notification in question which is only a part of the “currency management system.”

Delhi High Court Dismisses PIL Demanding Complainants Be Asked About Willingness To Undergo Narco Analysis, Polygraph Test

Title: Aswini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 540

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation seeking directions on the Delhi Police to ask the complainants if they are willing to undergo scientific tests like Narco Analysis and Brain Mapping during the investigation to prove the allegations.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad rejected the plea moved by advocate and BJP leader Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay.

Dismissing the plea, the bench said that it is well settled that courts do not interfere with the investigation as investigation is purely the domain of investigating agency.

Delhi High Court Denies Bail To Manish Sisodia In Money Laundering Case

Title: Manish Sisodia v. Enforcement Directorate

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 541

The Delhi High Court has denied bail to Aam Aadmi Party leader and Delhi's former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia in the money laundering case related to the implementation of previous liquor policy in national capital.

Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma also denied bail to co-accused persons Hyderabad businessman Abhishek Boinpally, AAP's communications incharge Vijay Nair and General Manager of Pernod Ricard India Benoy Babu.

High Court Can Pass 'Pro-Tem Security' Order When Implementer Fails To Make Payments Over Use Of SEP Holder's Technology: Delhi High Court

Title: NOKIA TECHNOLOGIES OY v. GUANGDONG OPPO MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORP LTD & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 542

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the high courts have the power to pass “pro-tem security deposit” order where an implementer fails to make payments to a Standard Essential Patent (SEP) holder and continues to derive benefit by using its technology.

A pro-tem order is where the court, as a temporary arrangement, directs an implementer to make payments as security to safeguard the interests of a Standard Essential Patent holder, till the dispute between the parties is finally decided.

Only Supreme Court Can Grant Furlough Under Delhi Prison Rules When Convict's Appeal Is Pending There: Delhi High Court

Title: BUDHI SINGH v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI and other connected matters

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 543

The Delhi High Court has ruled that where a convict's appeal against the conviction is pending before the Supreme Court, a direction to grant furlough under Delhi Prison Rules has to be necessarily taken from the Apex Court.

Rules 1199 and 1200 of the Delhi Prison Rules deal with the grant of parole and furlough to prisoners. Note 2 to Rule 1224 states that, "if an appeal of a convict is pending before the High Court or the period for filing an appeal before the High Court has not expired, furlough will not be granted and it would be open to the convict to seek appropriate directions from the Court."

Army Quota: Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea Against Decision To Give Priority To Wards Of Ex-Servicemen Over Those Of Serving Personnel

Case Title: Viney Chaudhary v. Union Of India & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 544

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition challenging the decision to give higher priority to the wards of ex-servicemen than the wards of serving personnel under the Army quota of 5% for admission to various Colleges

According to the 2018 Union Government order, Priority VI is assigned to Wards of Ex-Servicemen and Priority VIII to Wards of Serving Personnel. Challenging the priority, the husband of a Lieutenant Colonel in the Indian Army argued that there is no intelligible differentia for placing the wards of serving personnel in a category below the wards of ex-servicemen.

Don't Destroy Natural Grass Of Football And Hockey Fields At Siri Fort Sports Complex For Artificial Turf: Delhi High Court

Title: SUDHIR GUPTA v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 545

The Delhi High Court recently ordered that the football and hockey fields at the Siri Fort Sports Complex having natural grass be not destroyed or altered to artificial turf.

“Siri Fort Sports Complex (SFSC) lies in the heart of South Delhi and the adjoining greenery needs to be protected at all cost, as the entire area is a green lung for the city. A park or a green area in the midst of a thickly populated residential area or commercial area is of a far greater value than a forest removed kilometres away from a human habitation,” Justice Najmi Waziri said in a judgement passed on June 30.

Baseless Targeting Of Doctors Seriously Prejudices Public Interest, Removal Of Name From Indian Medical Register Is Like Civil Death: Delhi High Court

Title: DR. PRAMOD BATRA v. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 546

Observing that baseless targeting of doctors is bound to “seriously prejudice” public interest, the Delhi High Court has said that striking off name of such a doctor from the Indian Medical Register “partakes character of a civil death” in view of the individual's professional career.

“While it is true that a medical professional is expected to possess a certain minimum standard of competence, failing which he has no justification for dispensing medical treatment, and that conduct which fall short of even that minimum medical standard, or display callous negligence to the welfare of a patient, has to be dealt with severely, it is equally true that the scalpel cannot be wielded by a shaking hand. Baseless targeting of doctors, unmindful of the consequences, is bound, in the ultimate eventuate, to seriously prejudice public interest,” Justice C Hari Shankar added.

'Can't Direct Governor To Act': Delhi High Court Rejects PIL Seeking Enactment Of 2015 Bill To Ban Screening For Nursery Admissions

Title: Social Jurist, A Civil Rights Group v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 547

The Delhi High Court has rejected as not maintainable a public interest litigation seeking expeditious finalization of the Delhi School Education (Amendment) Bill, 2015 which proposes to prohibit the screening procedure for admissions in nursery or pre-primary level in schools.

“In the considered opinion of this Court, even though the Bill has been passed by the House, it is always open to the Governor to agree or to send the Bill back to the House and this Court ought not to pass a writ of mandamus directing the Governor to act by passing a writ,” a division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad said.

'Publicity Interest Litigation': Delhi High Court Dismisses PIL Against Union Govt's Procedure For Empanelment Of Lawyers

Title: RAJINDER NISCHAL v. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 548

Calling it a “publicity interest litigation”, the Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea challenging the method of empanelment of advocates to represent the Union Government.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad rejected the public interest litigation moved by Advocate Rajinder Nischal.

It was the lawyer's case that the size of the panel to represent the Government of India is not fixed and that the Union Government does not invite applications for appointment or renewal of the panel.

Delhi High Court Upholds Dismissal Of CRPF Constable For Consumption Of Liquor On Duty, Pointing Loaded Carbine Towards Another Officer

Title: EX CT/GD OM PARKASH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 549

Observing that an officer of a force cannot be permitted to rebel the decisions of the competent authority, the Delhi High Court has upheld the dismissal of a former CRPF constable who was found a habitual offender for consuming liquor during duty hours and for misbehaving with a Sub-Inspector by directing a magazine-loaded carbine towards him in drunken state.

Observing that such an officer of the Force is expected to deal with it with patience and mind, a division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said:

“By pleading that since petitioner‟s leave was rejected, under tension and depression, he consumed liquor; petitioner has admitted before this Court that he is unable to handle the strain or stress, which is least expected from an officer of the Force. It is not only the medical condition wherein petitioner is found heavily drunk, the situation worsened with petitioner‟s pointing loaded carbine to another officer of the Force, which is a blunder on his part. The misconduct committed by the petitioner leaves no scope for leniency towards him.”

Traffic Authorities Best Judges On Traffic Regulation; Courts Do Not Run Country: Delhi High Court

Title: MAMTA RANI v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 550

The Delhi High Court has observed that the traffic authorities are the best judges to decide on the issue of traffic regulation in the national capital and that it cannot, under the writ jurisdiction, sit over their decisions.

“The traffic authorities are the best judges to decide the issue of regulation of traffic in the city and this Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not inclined to sit over as an Appellate Authority over the decisions taken by the traffic authorities for regulating the movement of traffic in the city,” a division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad said.

Whether Procedural Changes Introduced By 2017 Trademark Rules Apply Retrospectively To Proceedings Under 2002 Rules? Delhi HC Larger Bench To Decide

Case Title: SAP SE vs Swiss Auto Products and Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 551

The Delhi High Court has referred to the larger bench the issue of whether the rules dealing with procedural aspects, including those relating to the filing of evidence introduced by the Trademarks Rules, 2017, would apply retrospectively to proceedings initiated under the Trademarks Rules, 2002.

The bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula made the larger bench reference while dealing with the issue if the Registrar of Trademarks had rightly employed the 2002 Rules qua filing of evidence in the proceedings relating to the trademark application and opposition, while the Rules were in force.

No Likelihood Of Confusion Between News 18's 'Bhaiyaji Kahin' And Times Now Navbharat's 'Bhaiya Ji Superhit': Delhi High Court

Title: TV 18 BROADCAST LIMITED v. BENNETT, COLEMAN AND COMPANY LIMITED

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 552

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday observed that prima facie, there is no likelihood of confusion between News 18's “Bhaiyaji Kahin” and Times Now Navbharat's “Bhaiya Ji Superhit” television shows.

Justice Amit Bansal dismissed the interim injunction application moved by TV 18 Broadcast Limited, which is part of the Network18 group, in its suit against Bennett Coleman and Company Limited alleging infringement of its trademark “Bhaiyaji Kahin” which is the name of its Hindi news show.

Upholding Accused's Right To Effective Legal Assistance Can't Mean Ineffective Hearings To Prosecution: Delhi High Court

Title: ANTOSH v. STATE

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 553

Highlighting the importance of a fair trial, the Delhi High Court has observed that upholding the fundamental right of an accused to effective legal assistance cannot mean ineffective hearings or lack of opportunities to the prosecution.

“Prosecuting offenders to the full extent as law describes is a delicate task and cannot be performed without being awarded effective opportunity to prosecute and assist the Court to ensure smooth functioning of criminal justice system,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said.

Delhi High Court Directs NIC To Develop Software For Uploading Names Of Proclaimed Offenders On Online Portal

Case Title: NEETU SINGH v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 554

The Delhi High Court recently issued a slew of directions for implementing the project of uploading names and other details of proclaimed offenders and proclaimed persons on an online user-friendly portal.

Justice Talwant Singh, who retired last month, in the order dated May 25 directed the National Informatics Centre (NIC) to develop the necessary software and provide requisite infrastructure, web space and search facilities for the data, for implementing the project.

Arbitrator's Name In “Hall Of Fame” On Website, Claims Denial Of Maximum Number Of INDRP Complaints, A Justifiable Apprehension To His Neutrality: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Microsoft Corporation vs Zoai Founder

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 555

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the inclusion of the arbitrator's name in the “Hall of Fame” of a website created by him, based upon the fact that he had denied the maximum number of complaints under the “.IN Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy” (INDRP), gives rise to a justifiable apprehension as to his neutrality.

The court was dealing with a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), challenging the arbitral award passed by the Arbitrator under INDRP while adjudicating the claim for transfer of a disputed domain name.

Delhi High Court Permits Lessors To Carry Out Inspection, Interim Maintenance Of Aircrafts On Lease With Go First

Title: PEMBROKE AIRCRAFT LEASING 11 LIMITED Vs. DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF CIVIL AVIATION & ORS. And other connected matters

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 556

The Delhi High Court has permitted various lessors to carry out inspection and interim maintenance tasks of their aircrafts, which are currently on lease with crisis-hit Go First airline, twice a month until final disposal of their pleas to de-register their planes from the airline.

In the judgment on the applications moved by the lessors seeking interim relief in their petitions, Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju said: “There can also be no denial of the fact that the Aircrafts of the Petitioners are extremely valuable and highly sophisticated equipment and require regular maintenance for their preservation.

Wanton Arraignment Of Directors In Cheque Dishonour Cases, Without Reference To Their Role, Requires To Be Deprecated & Discouraged: Delhi High Court

Case Title- Sashi Kumar NagarJi & Ors. V. M/S Magnifico Minerals Pvt Ltd & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 557

Observing that the wanton arraignment of directors in the cheque dishonour cases, without reference to their role, amounts to an abuse of the salutary process of criminal law, the Delhi High Court has quashed the summoning orders against the directors of a company in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani said it appears to have become common for complainants to arraign all and sundry directors of a company as accused in a criminal complaint in relation to dishonour of cheques, with the evident intention of pressurising and arm-twisting a company into paying-up a claimed debt.

No Ambiguity In Rules Prescribing Colour Or Description Of Uniform For Drivers Of Auto Rickshaws And Taxis: Delhi High Court

Title: Chaalak Shakti & Ors. v. GNCTD & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 558

The Delhi High Court has upheld the validity of the Rules prescribing colour and description of uniform for drivers of auto rickshaws and taxis in the national capital, observing that there is no ambiguity in the same.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad upheld the validity of Rule 7 of the Delhi Motor Vehicle Rules, 1993, which prescribes that a auto rickshaw driver shall wear a khaki uniform with a name plate.

Establish Three Proposed Juvenile Justice Boards Within Two Years: High Court To Delhi Govt

Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 559

The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government to establish the three Juvenile Justice Boards proposed by it in the national capital within a period of two years.

Taking note of a recent status report filed by the city government in a suo moto case, a division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that Delhi is ready to lay foundation stone to set up an integrated complex for effective implementation of the Juvenile Justice Act comprising of various Juvenile Justice Institutions and statutory bodies for care and protection of children within a single premises.

Disturbing Pattern Emerging Where Accused Marries Rape Victim To Evade Criminal Charges, Abandons Her Once FIR Is Quashed: Delhi High Court

Case Title: MOHD. AMAAN MALIK v. State of NCT Delhi

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 560

The Delhi High Court has said that a disturbing pattern is emerging where in certain instances, the accused marries the rape victim to evade criminal charges and promptly abandons her once the FIR is quashed or bail is secured.

"Shockingly, numerous cases have come to light where the accused deceitfully enters into a marriage under the guise of willingness, particularly when the victim becomes pregnant as a result of the assault and subsequent DNA testing confirms the accused as the biological father, and even after solemnization of marriage and subsequent immunity from criminal prosecution, the accused heartlessly deserts the victim within a few months," said the court.

Anathema In This Age To Diminish Woman's Autonomous Status By Treating Her Merely As Husband's 'Adjunct': Delhi High Court On Property Rights Of Women

Title: SHRI CHARANJEET SINGH & ANR. v. SHRI HARVINDER SINGH & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 561

It is anathema in this day and age to diminish the autonomous status of a woman by treating her “merely as an adjunct to her husband”, least of all in relation to what the law recognises to be her absolute property, the Delhi High Court observed on Thursday.

Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani allowed an application moved by a wife under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking rejection of a plaint for a decree of permanent injunction to restrain her and her husband from creating any third-party rights in respect of a property situated in city's Rajouri Garden.

NHAI's Contracts With Toll Collectors Not Violative Of National Highways Act and 2008 Rules: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Rakesh Agrawal vs National Highway Authority of India and Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 562

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) can enter into contracts for the purpose of collecting fee on behalf of the Central Government under Section 7 of the National Highways Act, 1956.

The court said that the contracts which have been entered into by NHAI for the purpose of performing its functions to collect fee on behalf of the Central Government, cannot be said to be violative of Rule 7 of the National Highways Fees (Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules, 2008.

Plea That Claimant's Claim Cannot Stand In The Absence Of A Third Entity, Can Be Raised Before The Arbitral Tribunal: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/s Wave Geo-Services Pvt Ltd vs M/s Devi Engineering and Construction Pvt Ltd

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 563

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the plea that the claimant's claim cannot stand in the absence of a third entity in the arbitral proceedings, is an aspect touching upon the maintainability of the claim(s) sought to be raised before the Arbitral Tribunal. The court said that the said plea can be urged before a duly constituted Arbitration Tribunal and the same cannot preclude the claimant from seeking or invoking Arbitration in terms of the arbitration agreement executed between the parties.

The bench of Justice Sachin Datta made the observation while hearing a petition filed under Section 11(2) and (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) seeking appointment of a Sole Arbitrator.

Evidence By Way Of Affidavit Not Mandatory When Documentary Evidence Sufficient For Determining Well-Known Status Of Trademark: Delhi High Court

Title: KAMDHENU LTD v. THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 564

The Delhi High Court has held that when documentary evidence is sufficient for determining the well-known status of a trademark, the filing of evidence by way of affidavit is not mandatory.

Justice Prathiba M. Singh considered the question about the nature of the evidence, and the documents required to be filed by an applicant for determination as a well-known trademark under Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, read with Rule 124 of the Trade Mark Rules, 2017.

Civil Prisoners Eligible For Remission Under Delhi Prison Rules: Delhi High Court

Case Title: INOX AIR PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED v. MR. ARUN RATHI

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 565

The Delhi High Court has observed that civil prisoners are eligible for grant of ordinary remission under the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018.

“…a plain reading of the aforesaid Rules would show that while providing eligibility for remission in Rule 1175, the expression used is “convicted prisoner”. The expression is inclusive and does not distinguish between a convicted “civil prisoner” and a “criminal prisoner”,” Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri observed.

Order Of Arbitral Tribunal Refusing To Entertain Additional Counter-Claims Filed Without An Application Under Section 23 Is Not An 'Interim Award': Delhi High Court

Case Details: M/s Abhijeet Angul Sambhalpur Toll Road Limited v. NHAI

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 566

The Delhi High Court has held that an order of the arbitral tribunal refusing to entertain additional counter-claims filed without making any application under Section 23 of the Act is not an 'interim award', therefore, it cannot be challenged under Section 34 of the Act.

The bench of Justices Najmi Waziri and Sudhir Kumar Jain held that order of the tribunal refusing to entertain additional counter-claims filed without requisite permission/authority of the tribunal is not an interim award as it neither conclusively settle any issue between the parties so to have the res judicate effect nor foreclose the right of the aggrieved party to refile the counter-claims by seeking “authority” or permission on an application under section 23 of the Act.

Discharge Of Public Servant Due To Invalid Sanction Under PC Act Does Not Absolve Private Accused From Offence Under IPC: Delhi High Court

Title: AMBUJ HOTELS & REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD. v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION and other connected matters

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 567

The Delhi High Court has said that merely because sanction to prosecute a public servant under Prevention of Corruption Act is not granted, does not mean that the allegations of conspiracy or cheating by private accused persons under Indian Penal Code cannot stand trial.

“The matter of sanction qua public servant would have no effect upon allegations of conspiracy and alleged cheating by private accused and the only effect would be Section 120B IPC would now not be used to prosecute private individuals for the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Merely because the sanction is not granted does not mean the findings qua conspiracy/cheating cannot stand trial,” Justice Yogesh Khanna observed.

MSMED Act Would Not Be Applicable To CA Firms Appointed As 'Special Auditors' Under Section 142(2A) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961: Delhi High Court

Case Title: PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v. MSECF and Anr, W.P.(C) 13754 of 2019

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 568

The Delhi High Court has held that the provisions of MSMED Act, 2006 would not apply to a CA firm appointed as 'Special Auditor' under Section 142(2A) of the Income Tax Act (IT Act), 1961.

Justice Prathiba M. Singh held that MSMED Act no applicability in cases of CA firms appointed under Section 142(2A) of the IT Act for the purpose of carrying out special audit as there is no relationship of buyer and seller between the parties. Moreover, the assignment under Section 142(2A) is a statutory assignment and not a contractual relationship between the parties, therefore, despite their registration under the MSMED Act, a special audit firm cannot invoke the provisions of the Act against the IT department qua the amount payable for carrying out such audit.

MSEF Council Cannot Entertain Independent Claims At The Instance Of The Buyer Against The Supplier: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Uniseven Engineering and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd v. MSEF Council District (South) and Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 569

The Delhi High Court has held that the MSEF Council cannot entertain independent claims/reference filed at the instance of the buyer under the MSMED Act.

The bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh held that MSMED Act does not contemplate a scheme for the buyer approaching the facilitation council under Section 18 of the Act for recovering any monies from the seller. It is only the seller who can independently approach the facilitation council for adjudication upon its claims, but the buyer would have the right to make counter-claims, however, it cannot approach the facilitation council on its own.

Delhi High Court Upholds Revocation Of PepsiCo India's Registration For Potato Variety Used In Lay's Chips

Title: PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD. v. KAVITHA KURUGANTI

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 570

The Delhi High Court has upheld an order passed by the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers Rights Authority revoking Pepsico India's registration with respect to a potato variety used for making Lay's chips.

Justice Navin Chawla dismissed the appeal moved by PepsiCo India Holdings Private Limited challenging the Authority's order passed on December 03 last year on an application filed by Kavitha Kurungati, a farmers' rights activist.

Delhi High Court Sets Aside Order Cancelling Academic Ashok Swain's OCI Card, Asks Centre To Pass Fresh Order

Title: Ashow Swain v. Union of India & Ors

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 571

The Delhi High Court has set aside the order cancelling the Overseas Citizenship of India (OCI) card of academic and writer Ashok Swain.

“Apart from repeating the Section (under which the OCI card was cancelled) as a mantra, no reason is mentioned ... as to why the registration of the petitioner as OCI holder has been revoked,” Justice Subramonium Prasad.

Subsidy Received By Nestle India As Incentive To Establish Industrial Unit Is Capital Receipt: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs Nestle India Ltd

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 572

The Delhi High Court observed that the subsidy received by Nestle India, the assessee as incentive to establish industrial unit is Capital receipt and cannot be adjusted against block of assets.

“Since the subsidy in this case was not intended as a payment to meet, directly or indirectly, a part of the cost of the assets, no adjustment could have been ordered, as was directed by CIT(A). The Tribunal, on this score, in our view, reached the correct conclusion” the division bench of Justices Rajiv Shakdher and Girish Kathpalia observed.

Approach NCLT To Challenge DDCA's Meeting For Ratification Of Ombudsman's Appointment: Delhi High Court To DDCA Secretary

Title: SIDDHARTH SAHIB SINGH v. APEX COUNCIL OF DDCA

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 573

While refusing to entertain his writ petition, the Delhi High Court has said the Secretary of Delhi & District Cricket Association (DDCA) can approach the National Company Law Tribunal to challenge a notice issued by the cricket governing body's Apex Council for convening the Extra-Ordinary General Meeting to ratify the resolution appointing Justice (Retd.) M M Kumar as the Ombudsman cum Ethics Officer.

Justice Kumar is a former Chief Justice Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court.

Justice Subramonium Prasad disposed of the plea moved by DDCA's Secretary, Siddharth Sahib Singh, and granted him the liberty to approach NCLT for challenging the notice which was issued on June 10.

Wife's Identity Does Not Merge With Husband's Identity, She Has Natural Right To Pursue Her Dreams To Be Financially Independent: Delhi High Court

Title: NISAR AHMED v. AGYA PAL SINGH

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 574

A wife is neither an appendage nor an adjunct to her husband and her identity does not merge or get subsumed in her husband's identity, the Delhi High Court observed in a recent ruling, while directing a tenant to vacate a shop proposed to be used by daughters of a landlord, a Mutawalli of a Wakf-ul-aulad, for starting their business in the national capital.

Justice Najmi Waziri observed that a wife, in law, retains her individual entity, including the natural right to pursue her dreams, aspirations, desire and need to be financially independent or otherwise do some meaningful social work.

Alcohol Dependence: Delhi High Court Modifies ITBP Head Constable's 'Invalidation From Service' To Compulsory Retirement

Case Title: Kamlesh Kumar v. UOI & Ors

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 575

The Delhi High Court has modified the Indo Tibetan Border Police's decision to invalidate a Head Constable out of the service due to Alcohol Dependence Syndrome and said his case be treated as 'compulsorily retired from service' so that he is entitled to pension, medical and other consequential benefits.

In 2016, the Head Constable was permanently incapacitated for any further service within the department on account of indulgence in drugs and drinks. He was diagnosed with 'Alcohol Dependence Syndrome'.

Delhi High Court Denies Bail To 'Conman' Sukesh Chandrasekhar's Wife Leena Paulose In Extortion Case

Title: LEENA PAULOSE v. STATE OF DELHI and other connected matters

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 576

The Delhi High Court has denied bail to Leena Paulose, the wife of alleged conman Sukesh Chandrashekhar, in the Rs 200-crore extortion case.

Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma also rejected the bail pleas moved by co accused persons Kamlesh Kothari and B. Mohan Raj.

Paulose, who is presently in judicial custody, married Chandrashekhar in July 2014. She has been in jail since September 05, 2021.

Provide Details Of Grievance Officers And Rules Applicable To People Creating User Profiles: Delhi High Court To LinkedIn In Suit By Tata Sky

Title: TATA SKY LIMITED v. LINKEDIN CORPORATION AND ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 577

The Delhi High Court has directed social media platform LinkedIn to provide details of its Grievance Officers and the relevant Rules applicable to persons creating user profiles as per its policy.

Justice Prathiba M Singh also directed Linkedin to place on record the Standard Operating Procedure (SoP), if any, followed by its Grievance Officers whenever a complaint or grievance is received under Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.

Mere 'Idea In Vacuo' Not Protected Under Designs Act, Test To Decide If A Shape Or Pattern Constitutes Design Is Visual: Delhi High Court

Title: JAYSON INDUSTRIES AND ANR. v. CROWN CRAFT (INDIA) PVT. LTD

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 578

The Delhi High Court recently ruled that the Designs Act protects an idea which is to be applied to an article and not a mere “idea in vacuo” and that the test to decide if a shape or pattern applied to an article constitutes a design is ocular or visual.

Justice C Hari Shankar observed that an idea, which is not intended for “temporal manifestation”, by application of an industrial process cannot be protected under the Designs Act.

Delhi High Court Sentences Business Tycoon's Son To 3 Months Prison For Failure To Pay Maintenance To Ex-Partner

Title: KD v. VS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 579

The Delhi High Court has sentenced a business tycoon's son to three months in prison for failing to pay maintenance to a woman — who previously alleged that he performed a sham marriage ceremony with her, despite a judicial order recording his undertaking to pay the same.

A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna also imposed a fine of Rs. 2000 on the man and directed the SHO of Tilak Marg Police Station to issue warrants of arrest against him.

Delhi High Court Permanently Injuncts 'Satta Dream 11' In Trademark Infringement Suit By 'Dream 11'

Case Title: SPORTA TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. AND ANR. v. UNFADING OPC PRIVATE LIMITED

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 580

Ruling in favour of fantasy sports platform Dream 11, the Delhi High Court has granted permanent injunction against a website offering similar sports betting services under the mark “Satta Dream 11.”

Justice Prathiba M Singh observed that the domain name www.sattadream11.com is nothing but a “malafide attempt” to ride on the goodwill of Sporta Technologies' registered trademark Dream11.

“Counter-Balancing” Not Achieved When 2/3rd Members Of The Arbitral Tribunal To Be Appointed By One Party: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Margo Networks Pvt Ltd & Anr vs Railtel Corporation of India Ltd

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 581

The Delhi High Court has ruled that where a party is required to appoint an arbitrator from a panel made by the other contracting parties, it is mandatory for the panel to be sufficiently broad based, in conformity with the principle laid down by the top court in Voestalpine Schienen Gmbh vs. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd, (2017) 4 SCC 665.

The bench of Justice Sachin Datta made the observation while dealing with a petition filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), seeking constitution of an independent arbitral tribunal to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.

Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Tahir Hussain In Five Cases Related To North-Delhi Riots

Title: Tahir Hussain v. State and other connected matters

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 582

The Delhi High Court has granted bail to former Aam Aadmi Party councillor Tahir Hussain in five different cases registered against him in connection with 2020 North-East Delhi riots. However, Hussain will still remain in judicial custody in other FIRs registered against him, including the UAPA case alleging a larger conspiracy to commit the riots.

Justice Anish Dayal allowed the bail pleas which were moved by Hussain in FIRs 80/2020, 91/2020, 92/2020, 117/2020 and 120/2020 all registered at Dayalpur police station.

After perusing the FIRs in isolation, the court observed that Hussain's custody of 3 years as an undertrial has already overshot the maximum period of punishment prescribed in some of the offences.

File Complaint Before Delhi Police: High Court To AISA Activist Alleging Illegal Detention During Prime Minister's Visit To DU

Title: ABHIGYAN v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 583

The Delhi High Court has asked a Delhi University student and Delhi Unit President of CPI-ML's student wing All India Students' Association (AISA), to file a complaint before the Delhi Police in relation to his allegations of “illegal detention” before Prime Minister Narendra Modi's recent visit to the varsity.

A division bench of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Gaurang Kanth was hearing a habeas corpus plea moved by Abhigyan who alleged that he was illegally detained by some police officials of Model Town police station in his friend's flat on June 30 for about five hours.

'Publicity And Privacy Rights Not Heritable': Delhi High Court Refuses To Injunct Movie Based On Life Of Late Actor Sushant Singh Rajput

Title: KRISHNA KISHORE SINGH v. SARLA A SARAOGI & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 584

The Delhi High Court has refused to injunct further telecast of the movie “Nyay: The Justice” based on late Bollywood actor Sushant Singh Rajput's life which was released on OTT platform Lapalap in June 2021.

Justice C Hari Shankar dismissed the application seeking interlocutory injunction moved by the late actor's father in his suit against the producers and director of the film. He alleged that the movie was made without taking the permission of legal representatives of Sushant Singh Rajput.

Delhi High Court Permits Go First To Carry Out Maintenance Of Aircrafts On Lease, Subject To Monthly Inspection By Lessors

Title: GO AIRLINES INDIA LIMITED v. SMBC AVIATION CAPITAL LIMITED & ORS. and other connected matters

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 585

The Delhi High Court has permitted Go First to carry out maintenance of the aircrafts, currently on lease with the crisis-hit airline, subject to a monthly inspection by the lessors.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula was hearing an appeal moved by Go Airlines India Limited against a single judge order permitting the lessors to carry out inspection and interim maintenance tasks of their aircrafts, twice a month until final disposal of their pleas to de-register their planes from the airline.

The single judge has listed the matter for hearing on August 03.

DHJS Mains 2022: Delhi High Court Sets Aside Decision To Award Additional Marks In Two Papers To Candidates, Orders Redrawing Of List

Title: SUDEEP RAJ SAINI v. HIGH COURT OF DELHI & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 586

The Delhi High Court has set aside a notice declaring that the candidates appearing in the Delhi Higher Judicial Services Mains (Written) Examination, 2022 will be awarded additional marks in two papers i.e. Law-III and General Knowledge.

A division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan directed the High Court administration to redraw the select list of candidates and take consequential steps.

The notice was published by the High Court administration on October 13 last year. While one additional mark was awarded to the candidates for Law-III paper, half mark was awarded for General Knowledge and Language paper.

1984 Anti-Sikh Riots: Delhi High Court Refuses To Condone Delay In Filing Of Appeal Against Acquittal Of Accused In 1995

Case Title: State v. Hari Lal & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 587

The Delhi High Court has dismissed an application seeking condonation of delay of about 28 years for filing an appeal against an acquittal order of 1995 in a case of anti-Sikh riots dating back to 1991.

The division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said that if the prosecution or the complainant were aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, there was nothing which prevented them from filing the appeal.

Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging UPSC's Detailed Application Form For Civil Services Mains Exam 2023

Title: Himanshu Kumar v. UPSC & Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 588

The Delhi High Court has dismissed an application challenging Detailed Application Form (DAF) issued by Union Public Services Commission (UPSC) on July 10 inviting applications for Civil Services (Main) Examination 2023.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh dismissed the application which was moved by various civil services aspirants in their plea challenging UPSC's decision to publish the answer key of prelims examination only after declaration of the final result.

Delhi High Court Discharges S Gurumurthy In Criminal Contempt Case For Tweet Against Justice S Muralidhar

Case Title: DELHI HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCIATION THROUGH ITS SECRETARY v. S. GURUMURTHY

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 589

The Delhi High Court has discharged editor of Tamil political weekly “Thuglak” and RSS Ideologue S Gurumurthy in a criminal contempt case filed against him for his tweet against Justice S Muralidhar in 2018, after accepting his apology and “expression of deep remorse”.

“We accept Mr. S Gurumurthy's apology and expression of deep remorse for the subject incident and consider it appropriate to discharge the show cause issued to him in the present contempt petition. He accordingly stands discharged,” a division bench headed by Justice Siddharth Mridul said.

The court was hearing a criminal contempt petition filed by Delhi High Court Bar Association against S Gurumurthy in 2018.

Delhi High Court Restrains Wipro From Using 'EVECARE' For Its Female Hygiene & Menstrual Health Products In Plea Filed By Himalaya

Case Title: Himalaya Wellness Company & Ors vs Wipro Enterprises Private Limited

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 590

The Delhi High Court has restrained Wipro Enterprises from using the mark 'EVECARE' in relation to its intimate hygiene wash for women or any other product, in a trade mark infringement and passing off suit filed by Himalaya Wellness Company.

Justice Amit Bansal passed the interim order after noting that Himalaya has been selling its uterine tonic under the mark 'EVECARE' since 1998, whereas the product of Wipro was launched only around August, 2021.

Knowledge Is A Necessary Element For Committing Abetment : Delhi High Court Quashes Penalty Against Customs Broker

Case Title: Rajeev Khatri Versus Commissioner Of Customs (Export)

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 591

The Delhi High Court has quashed the penalty against customs brokers on the grounds that knowledge is a necessary element for committing abetment.

The bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has observed that knowledge of a wrongful act of omission or commission, which rendered the goods liable for confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act, is a necessary element for the offence of abetting the act.

Patents Act Must Prevail Over Competition Act In Exercise Of Rights By Patentee: Delhi High Court

Title: TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON (PUBL) v. COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA & ANR. and other connected matters

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 592

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the Patents Act, 1970 must prevail over the Competition Act, 2002 on the issue of exercise of rights by a patentee.

“Therefore, when asessed, by the maxim generalia specialibus non derogant or by the maxim lex posterior derogat priori, the Patents Act must prevail over the Competition Act on the issue of exercise of rights by a patentee under the Patents Act,” a division bench of Justice Najmi Waziri and Justice Vikas Mahajan observed.

Accused's Right To Cross Examine Witness At More Higher Pedestal Under POCSO Act In View Of Harsh Punishment For Offences: Delhi High Court

Title: SUSHIL KUMAR v. THE STATE GNCTD THROUGH SHO & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 593

The Delhi High Court has observed that the right of an accused to cross examine a witness is at a “higher pedestal” under the POCSO Act in view of the serious nature of offences and harsh punishment prescribed under the statute.

While granting an accused the opportunity to cross examine a prosecution witness in a POCSO case, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed:

“The offences are of a very serious in nature and considering the fact that the offences under POCSO Act prescribe very harsh punishment, it would not be out of place to hold that the right to cross examine would be all the more at a higher pedestal.”

Publicize SOP On Transportation Of Mortal Remains Of Indians Who Die Abroad: Delhi High Court To MEA

Title: CHELAKARA RAMASWAMY v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 594

The Delhi High Court has directed the Union Ministry of External Affairs to publicize the standard operating procedure (SOP) and guidelines on transportation of mortal remains of Indian tourists or workers who die abroad.

A division bench of Justice Najmi Waziri and Justice Vikas Mahajan directed the MEA to “prominently post and make accessible” the SOP and guidelines on its website within one week.

Impractical For Airlines To Conduct Blood & Urine Test Of Crew, Civil Aviation Requirements Mandate Only Breath Analyzer Test: Delhi High Court

Case Title: CAPT. AMIT KUMAR YADAV v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 595

The Delhi High Court has observed that there are sufficient precautionary measures in the Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR) to safeguard the crew members of aircrafts against “unfortunate false positive results” in breath analyzer tests.

Justice Gaurang Kanth added that the Requirements only imposes duty upon the airlines to conduct pre-flight breath analyzer tests and does not put any obligation upon such an airline to conduct blood and urine tests in case of positive results.

Court Under Section 29A Of The A&C Act Would Not Consider Issue Regarding Fees Of Arbitral Tribunal: Delhi High Court

Case Details: Anay Kumar Gupta v. Jagmeet Singh Bhatia

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 596

The Delhi High Court has held the Court exercising power under Section 29A of the A&C Act, which provides for extension of time to conclude arbitral proceedings, is only concerned with the issue as to whether the arbitrator has acted with expedition in the matter and would not consider any issue regarding the conduct of the arbitration or the fees of the arbitral tribunal as they are not relevant for the purpose of the said Section.

Subscription Amount Received From Subscribers Of E-Journals Cannot Be Treated As Royalty: Delhi High Court

Case Title: The Commissioner Of Income Tax Versus Springer Nature Customer Services Centre GMBH

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 597

The Delhi High Court has held that the subscription amount received from subscribers of e-journals cannot be treated as royalty.

The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that the subscription amount cannot be treated as royalty, having regard to the fact that there is nothing on record to suggest that the respondent or assessee has granted the right in respect of copyright to the concerned subscribers of the e-journals. All that the respondent or assessee did was sell the copyrighted publication to the concerned entities without conferring any copyright in the said material.

Well Reasoned Interim Order Of Arbitral Tribunal, Courts Should Not Interfere Under Section 37 Of The A&C Act : Delhi HC

Case Details: GLS FOILS PRODUCTS PVT. LTD V. FWS TURNIT LOGISTIC PARK LLP

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 598

The Delhi High Court has held that the Court under Section 37 of the A&C Act should not interfere with a reasoned order of the tribunal granting interim relief based on thorough examination of the matter.

Maintenance Case: Delhi High Court Sets Aside Arrest Warrant Against Man With Bipolar Disorder

Case Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 599

Ruling that the provision under Section 105 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 is mandatory in nature, the Delhi High Court has set aside an arrest warrant against a man, who said he is suffering from Bipolar Disorder, Generalized Anxiety Disorder and Depression.

The warrant had been issued by the court below in an execution petition filed by the man's wife in relation to an order directing him to pay a maintenance of over Rs.1 lakh per month to her and their minor daughter under Domestic Violence Act.

Merit List Can't Stay Alive Indefinitely For Enforcement, Does Not Confer Any Right Of Appointment On Selected Candidates: Delhi High Court

Title: RUPINDERJIT KAUR v. THE MANAGER, DHANPATMAL VIRMANI SR. SEC. SCHOOL AND ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 600

The Delhi High Court has observed that a merit list cannot stay alive for an indefinite period for enforcement and that it does not confer any right of appointment upon the selected candidates.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh made the observation while dismissing a plea moved by a candidate who was aggrieved of her non-selection and non-confirmation to the post of Trained Graduate Teacher, Maths at Dhanpatmal Virmani Senior Secondary School.

Writ Against Order Under Section 16 Of A&C Act; Maintainable Only In Exceptional Cases: Delhi High Court Reiterates

Case Title: IDFC First Bank Limited v. Hitachi MGRM Net Limited

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 601

The Delhi High Court has held that a writ petition against an order of arbitral tribunal rejecting an application under Section 16 of A&C Act is maintainable only in exceptional cases.

Justice Prathiba M. Singh held in view of the Supreme Court judgment in Vidya Drolia, the disputes falling under RDB Act, 1993 would be non-arbitrable as the DRT would have the exclusive jurisdiction to decide these matters, however, the Court would not interfere with the arbitral proceedings unless it is ex-facie clear that the dispute falls under the RBD Act.

Delhi High Court Dismisses Pernod Ricard's Plea Against Rejection Of Application For L-1 Liquor License, Permits It To Approach Appellate Authority

Title: PERNOD RICARD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 602

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea moved by French company Pernod Ricard against the Delhi Department of Excise's rejection of its application for L-1 license to sell liquor in the national capital.

Justice Prathiba M Singh rejected the plea due to non-maintainability and said that Pernod Ricard must approach the Appellate Authority under the Excise Act, 2009 to challenge the order passed by the Delhi Government's excise department on April 13.

Pernod Ricard's application for liquor license was rejected on the ground that various documents were received from CBI and ED alleging its participation in the alleged liquor policy scam, involving Delhi's former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia and various others.

Will Take Action Against Senior Officers Of Central Armed Police Forces For Passing 'Biased' And 'Vindictive' Orders Against Juniors: Delhi High Court

Title: MANUDEV DAHIYA v. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH DG ITBP

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 603

Deprecating the conduct of a Commandant posted in the Indo-Tibetan Border Police for acting with “extreme bias and vindictiveness” towards an Assistant Commandant, the Delhi High Court has said that it will not hesitate to take action against any erring superior officer it such orders are challenged.

Circulating a copy of the judgment to the Director General of Police in all the CAPFs for information and advice, a division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said:

“Before concluding, we hereby advise all the concerned that while taking action against any subordinate officer/personnel, it has to be borne in mind that no one is above law and if such orders are challenged before the Court, the Court certainly will not hesitate to take action against the erring officer.”

Mere Grant Of Extension Of Time To Contractor Does Not Necessarily Mean That NHAI Was Responsible For The Delays: Delhi High Court

Case Title: NHAI v. IRB Pathankot Amritsar Toll Road Ltd

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 604

The Delhi High Court has held that mere recommendation by Independent Engineer (IE) for Extension of Time (EOT) to the contractor does not necessarily mean the NHAI was responsible for the delays in the completion of the project work.

The division bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan held that when the agreement between the parties provides for compensation and extension of concession period in favour of the contractor only in the eventuality of a material breach by NHAI, the arbitrator cannot award damages or grant extension of concession period, without first determining the issue of breach of material breach of the agreement by NHAI, simply for the reason that the IE has recommended EoT in favour of the Contractor.

A 'Medium' Enterprise Can Approach MSEF Council If It Was A 'Micro Or Small' Enterprise At The Relevant Time: Delhi High Court

Date: Sterlite Power Transmission Limited v. EPC Solutions LLP

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 605

The Delhi High Court has Court held that the relevant date under the MSMED Act is the date of agreement and additionally the date on which the goods and services were supplied, therefore, a 'medium' enterprise can maintain a claim before MSEFC if it was a either a micro or a small enterprise at the relevant time.

Justice Prathiba M. Singh held that any subsequent upgradation of enterprise from 'micro or small' to 'medium' would not be a bar to the maintenance of its claim before the MSEFC, if it fulfilled the criteria at the relevant time.

Mere Pendency Of An Appeal Would Not Detract From The Excise Duty Refund Demand: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/S Goldy Engineering Works Versus Commissioner Of Central Excise

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 606

The Delhi High Court has held that the mere pendency of an appeal or an order of stay that may operate would not detract from the obligation of any person claiming a refund to make an application within the period prescribed and computed with reference to the "relevant date".

"We do so observe in light of the indubitable principle that an order of stay that may operate in an appeal does not efface the demand or the obligation of refund that may have sprung into existence. It merely places the enforcement of the order appealed against in abeyance. The order of stay would, in any case, be deemed to have never existed once the appeal comes to be dismissed," the bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma said.

Delhi High Court Restrains Canva From Making Available 'Present And Record' Feature In India In Patent Infringement Suit By RxPrism

Title: RXPRISM HEALTH SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. v. CANVA PTY LTD & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 607

The Delhi High Court has restrained Canva, an Australian multi-national graphic design platform, from making available its “Present and Record” feature in India in a patent infringement suit filed by RxPrism Health Systems Private Limited.

Justice Prathiba M Singh also directed Canva to deposit Rs. 50 lakhs with the Registrar General as a security for RxPrism's claims for past use of the infringing feature in India. This was done considering revenue and sales figures of the users who used the feature in the country at least once till June 30, 2022.

High Court Refuses To Entertain PIL Challenging Union Govt's Ordinance Giving Overriding Powers To LG Over Services

Title: Shrikant Prasad v. Union of India & Ors

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 608

The Delhi High Court refused to entertain a public interest litigation challenging the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Ordinance, 2023 promulgated by the Union Government on May 19.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula permitted Advocate Shrikant Prasad to withdraw the plea after noting that challenge to ordinance's constitutional validity is already pending before the Supreme Court.

Delhi High Court Declares 'Supreme' Red-Box Logo A 'Well-Known' Mark In Respect Of Apparel & Clothing

Case Title: CHAPTER 4 CORP vs DHANPREET SINGH TRADING AS M/S PUNJABI ADDA

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 609

The Delhi High Court has declared the 'Supreme' red-box logo as a 'well-known' mark in respect of apparel and clothing, under Section 2(zg) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

Justice Prathiba M. Singh made the declaration in a suit for permanent injunction filed by Charter 4 Corp, seeking protection of its red-box device mark 'SUPREME'.

The court remarked that the red-box device mark 'SUPREME' has acquired a secondary meaning keeping in mind the extent of its usage and therefore, it deserves to be protected.

Economic Offences Are Serious But Severity Of Allegations Cannot Be Justification For Pre-Trial Incarceration: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Suman Chadha v. SFIO

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 610

Observing that severity of allegations cannot be a justification for pre-trial incarceration, the Delhi High Court has granted bail to a Director of M/s Parul Polymers Pvt Ltd. in a case under Section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013.

Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani said, “Needless to add, that nothing in this judgment should be taken to detract from the position that economic offences are serious in nature, and the allegations against the petitioner and other co-accused, if proved at the trial, must be met with requisite punishment. However, that punishment must follow conviction, and the severity of the allegations by themselves cannot be justification for pre-trial incarceration.”

BCI Must Frame Guidelines For Establishing 'Ethical Code For Self Represented Litigants' To Minimize Frivolous Litigations: Delhi High Court

Title: NARESH SHARMA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 611

The Delhi High Court has said that the Bar Council of India must frame guidelines for establishing an “ethical code” for “self represented litigants” to save precious judicial time and minimize frivolous litigations.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma added that the ethical grounding will play a crucial role in minimising the flow of frivolous litigation and will reduce the burden of courts.

“This embargo of absence of ethical conduct needs to be addressed by the Bar Council of India, and some guidelines for establishment of ethical code for self-represented litigants need to be framed. This ethical grounding will play a crucial role in minimising the flow of frivolous litigation, and thus reduce the burden of Courts,” the court said.

Union Govt Must Continue Its Efforts Against Substance Abuse, It Requires Sustained Attention: Delhi High Court

Title: RAJIV BOOLCHAND JAIN v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 612

The Delhi High Court has said that the Union Government must continue its efforts and remain steadfast in its endeavour to combat substance abuse, "as the it requires sustained attention and a multifaceted approach."

"By doing so, the Government can contribute to the overall betterment of society and protect public health," said a division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula.

Application For Passport Renewal Can't Be Denied Only On Basis Of Apprehension Of Misuse Of Earlier Passports: Delhi High Court

Title: NISHANT SINGHAL v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 613

The Delhi High Court has observed that an application for renewal of passport of an individual cannot be denied only on the basis of an apprehension that the earlier passports would have been misused.

“Denial of passport has the effect of seriously impeding the rights of a citizen. The application for passport can be denied only on valid grounds,” Justice Subramonium Prasad said.

Delhi High Court Excludes Comparable On Grounds Of Functional Dissimilarity & Amalgamation

Case Title: The Commissioner Of Income Tax -4 Versus GE India Business Services Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 614

The Delhi High Court has held that the Software Development Services offered by TCS International could not be used as a comparable since the assessee was in the business of Indian Information technology-enabled services (ITES) or business process outsourcing (BPO).

The division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju has observed that TCS International is in the business of rendering software development services, which, inter alia, include maintenance and updation of software, as per the requirements of the users. In comparison, the respondent/assessee was providing non-development software services, which involved the purchase of software for provisioning services.

Delhi High Court Sets Aside Order Directing Registration Of FIR Against VHP Leader Alok Kumar Over Hate Speech Complaint By Harsh Mander

Title: ALOK KUMAR v. HARSH MANDER & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 615

The Delhi High Court has set aside a trial court order directing Delhi Police to register an FIR against Vishwa Hindu Parishad leader Alok Kumar, on a complaint filed by activist Harsh Mander, for allegedly giving a hate speech during a VHP rally in 2019.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that Mander had not leveled any allegation against Kumar in the complaint which he had lodged with the police.

“The single line averred by respondent no. 1 (Mander) against the petitioner (Kumar) in his complaint filed before the magistrate on the face of it does not constitute any offence, or make out any case against the petitioner,” the court said.

Also Read: Organizer Of Public Meeting Can't Be Held Liable For Hate Speech Delivered By A Participant, Mere Presence Not Enough: Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court Directs Tehelka, Tarun Tejpal To Pay ₹2 Crores Damages To Major General Ahluwalia In Defamation Suit

Title: MAJOR GENERAL M.S. AHLUWALIA v. M/S TEHELKA.COM & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 616

The Delhi High Court directed news magazine Tehelka, its former editor-in-chief Tarun Tejpal and two reporters to pay Rs. 2 crores damages to Major General MS Ahluwalia in a defamation suit filed by the latter in 2002.

A story was carried by Tehelka in March 2001 depicting Ahluwalia as an alleged corrupt middleman in the defence deals relating to import of new defence equipments.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed that Ahluwalia's reputation had suffered as he not only faced lowering of estimation in the eyes of public but his character also got maligned with serious allegations of corruption, which no subsequent refutation can redress or heal.

Asian Games Trials: Delhi High Court Dismisses Wrestlers' Plea Challenging Exemption Given To Vinesh Phogat, Bajrang Punia

Title: SUJEET AND ANR v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 617

The Delhi High Court has dismissed the plea moved by wrestlers Antim Panghal and Sujeet Kalkal against the exemption granted to Vinesh Phogat and Bajrang Punia for Asian Games trials.

Justice Subramonium Prasad said that the unanimous decision taken by the ad-hoc Committee to grant exemption to Punia and Phogat and to not expose them to injuries during the trials cannot be said to be arbitrary or perverse.

Non-Consideration Of Clause In Agreement: Can't Say Opposed To Fundamental Policy Of Indian Law: Delhi High Court

Case Title: National Highways Authority of India vs GVK Jaipur Expressway Private Limited

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 618

The Delhi High Court has ruled that non-consideration of a clause of the Agreement executed between the parties, cannot be said to be an error made by the arbitral tribunal which is opposed to the fundamental policy of Indian law. The court added that the same also cannot render the arbitral award patently illegal if the view of the Arbitrator is a plausible one.

The bench comprising Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad was dealing with an arbitral award which was challenged on the ground that the Arbitrator had ignored the relevant clause of the Concession Agreement while passing the award.

Proceedings Under SARFAESI Act 2002 Are To Remain Unaffected By Orders Passed Under SEBI Act 1992: Delhi High Court

Title: ICICI BANK LIMITED v. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 619

The Delhi High Court has observed that the proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 will remain unaffected by the orders passed under SEBI Act, 1992.

“….an interpretation of Section 35 and Section 37 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 would reveal that the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 are to be treated as a carve out to, and remain unaffected by, the orders passed under the SEBI Act, 1992,” Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav observed.

PayPal Liable To Be Viewed As 'Payment System Operator', Required To Comply With Reporting Entity Obligations Under PMLA: Delhi High Court

Title: PAYPAL PAYMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED v. FINANCIAL INTELLIGENCE UNIT INDIA & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 620

The Delhi High Court has held that payment platform PayPal is liable to be viewed as a “payment system operator” and consequently obliged to comply with reporting entity obligations as placed under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Justice Yashwant Varma made the observation while quashing the monetary penalty imposed by Financial Intelligence Unit India on PayPal in December 2020 for having failed to comply with the reporting obligations as placed under the Prevention of Money Laundering (Maintenance of Records) Rules 2005.

The FIUI had held PayPal to be a reporting entity under the PMLA. However, it was the case of the payment platform that it was not a "payment system operator” as defined under PMLA and that it would be erroneous for FIUI to hold it to be a reporting entity.

Arbitration: Review Of Section 11 Petition Order Can't Be Sought On Subsequent Decision Of Supreme Court In N.N. Global: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Ambience Developers and Infrastructure Pvt Ltd vs Zesty Foods

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 621

The Delhi High Court has ruled that a review of the court's order allowing the petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), cannot be sought on the basis of the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in N.N. Global Mercantile (P) Ltd. vs Indo Unique Flame Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 495.

The respondent, Zesty Foods, sough a review of the High Court's order dated 20.03.2023 where it had appointed a Sole Arbitrator, on the ground that the agreement executed between the parties containing the arbitration clause was not duly/sufficiently stamped. It thus sought a review on the basis of the subsequent decision of the Apex Court in N.N. Global Mercantile (2023).

Liquor Policy Case: Delhi High Court Extends Interim Bail Granted To Businessman Sameer Mahendru By Six Weeks

Title: SAMEER MAHANDRU v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 622

The Delhi High Court has extended by six weeks the interim bail granted to businessman Sameer Mahendru on medical grounds in the money laundering case related to the implementation of previous liquor policy in national capital.

Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma extended the relief till September 04, subject to the terms and conditions of an earlier order passed by a vacation bench on June 12 granting six weeks of interim bail to Mahendru.

Trademark Infringement: Delhi High Court Restrains Two Websites From Selling Testers Of Calvin Klein Perfumes

Case Title: COTY GERMANY GMBH vs XERYUS RETAIL PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 623

The Delhi High Court has permanently restrained two websites from selling perfume 'testers' bearing the trade name Calvin Klein or cK and imposed a cost of Rs 1,00,000 on them to be paid to Coty Germany, which has global authorised licensees of Calvin Klein perfumes.

Justice C. Hari Shankar passed the ex parte order in a suit for infringement and passing off filed by Coty Germany against Xeryus Retail Private Limited, that owns the web entity namely www.perfumery.co.in, and website www.unboxed.in.

Don't Take Any Action On Notices Issued To Mosques For Removal Of Alleged Encroachment: Delhi High Court To Railways

Title: DELHI WAQF BOARD v. UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 624

The Delhi High Court has directed the Railways administration to not take any action pursuant to its notices affixed on two mosques in the national capital for removal of “unauthorized structures and encroachment” allegedly built on the railway land.

Justice Prateek Jalan directed the Union Government to take necessary instructions in the plea moved by Delhi Waqf Board challenging the two notices pasted on walls of Masjid Takia Babbar Shah and Bengali Market Mosque situated near Railway Bridge and Babar Road railway line respectively.

Arbitrator Can't Decide Claims On Mathematical Derivations In Absence Of Evidence : Delhi High Court

Case Details: Satluj Vidyut Nigam Ltd v. Iaiprakash Hyundai Consrotium

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 625

The Delhi High Court has held that an arbitrator cannot decide the claims of a party based on mathematical calculation/derivations without any actual evidence supporting such claims by showing the actual amount incurred by the party claiming damages before the tribunal.

Justice Sachin Datta held that an arbitral award when it involves financial claims relying on novel mathematical derivations, lacking a solid basis in the pleadings and/or without substantial supporting evidence, can result in significant prejudice to the opposing party. Accordingly, the Court set aside the award as based on no-evidence at all.

Explore Possibility Of Procuring Medicine For Spinal Muscular Atrophy At Reasonable Cost: Delhi High Court To National Rare Diseases Committee

Title: FSMA INDIA CHARITABLE TRUST v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 626

The Delhi High Court has directed the National Rare Diseases Committee, constituted by it, to hold deliberations with companies manufacturing and marketing medicines for Spinal Muscular Atrophy, a genetic rare disease, to explore the possibility of procuring the medicines at a reasonable price.

Justice Prathiba M Singh asked the Committee to look into a note submitted by Senior Advocate Anand Grover, who is representing a public charitable trust Cure SMA India, setting out the pricing of medicines for the genetic disease in India and other countries.

Delhi High Court Permits St. Stephen's College To Give 85% Weightage To CUET And 15% For Interview In Admissions Of Christian Minority Students

Title: ST STEPHENS COLLEGE v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI AND ANR

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 627

The Delhi High Court has permitted St. Stephen's College to adopt 85% weightage for CUET score and 15% for the interview for admission of Christian minority candidates to undergraduate programmes.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad added that the varsity will adopt the marks secured in CUET alone as the sole eligibility criteria for admissions of non-minority candidates.

Persons Supplying 'Rotten Chana' In Mid Day Meals Can't Be Permitted To Supply Food Items Under PM-POSHAN Scheme: Delhi High Court

Title: SECRETARY, FOOD AND BEVERAGE FOUNDATION SOCIETY REGD. v. DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION, GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 628

The Delhi High Court has said that the persons indulging in supply of rotten chana in mid day meals given in government-aided schools cannot be permitted to continue to supply food items under the PM-POSHAN scheme.

Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that such incidents bring “bad name” to a noble cause that has been initiated by the Union Government which is to encourage children to attend schools.

Ensure Periodic Audit, Maintain Highest Standards Of Safety And Security At Railway Stations Across Country: Delhi High Court To Union Govt

Title: KUSH KALRA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 629

The Delhi High Court has directed the Union Government to ensure “highest standards” of safety and security at all railway stations across the country after conducting a periodic audit of the situation.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Saurabh Banerjee disposed of a public interest litigation moved by one Kush Kalra raising concerns in respect of safety measures at the railway stations in the country.

Estranged Wife Taking Recourse To Law By Initiating Legal Action Not Cruelty Against Husband: Delhi High Court

Title: NJ v. AJ

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 630

The Delhi High Court has observed that the act of an estranged wife taking recourse to law by initiating legal action and filing petitions will not amount to cruelty qua the husband.

“Merely because appellant (estranged wife) had taken recourse to law by initiating legal action before a court of law, it would not amount to cruelty. Taking recourse to law, cannot be, by any stretch of imagination, labeled as an instance of cruelty,” a division bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Manoj Jain said.

Educational Institutions Should Have Robust System For Preservation Of Records: Delhi High Court Directs KVS To Adopt Digitization

Case Title: Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Anr. versus Vijay Rajpal & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 631

Emphasizing on the importance of instilling efficiency and accountability in the administrative functioning of institutions like the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS), the Delhi High Court has said that educational institutions should have robust systems for the preservation of records.

Stressing on the need for better record-keeping, the court directed the KVS to adopt better practices such as digitization to ensure proper preservation of records.

The bench comprising Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula passed the order while setting aside a cost of Rs 2 Lakh imposed on KVS by a Single Judge for negligence in preservation and non-production of the Annual Confidential Report (ARC) of a teacher who was discharged from his services in a Kendriya Vidyalaya.

Delhi High Court Refuses To Put Complete Ban On Sale Of Acid, Directs State To Ensure Proper Implementation Of Existing Laws

Title: SHAHEEN MALIK v. STATE OF GNCTD THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY & ORS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 632

While refusing to put a complete ban on the sale of acid in the national capital, the Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government to ensure proper implementation of existing laws and take swift action against those using it unlawfully. The court said a complete ban may inadvertently affect businesses and individuals who require it for lawful purposes

Acknowledging the threat posed by uncontrolled acid sales and the need for stringent measures to prevent acid attacks, a division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula said:

“Therefore, on the basis of material before us, we are of the opinion that an outright ban on the sale of acid may not be the most appropriate approach. Instead, we propose that the State must focus on stringent implementation of the existing rules and regulations governing the sale. By enforcing 2015 Rules with full rigor, the authorities can effectively regulate the sale of acid and prevent its misuse for criminal purposes. This approach would balance the concerns addressed by the Petitioner with the need for safeguarding the legitimate needs of various industries and individuals.”

Delhi High Court Rules In Favour Of Prestige, Says Design Of Hotsun Pressure Cooker Imitative Of Its Pressure Handi Cookers

Case Title: TTK Prestige Ltd. vs Gupta Light House

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 633

The Delhi High Court has found a Delhi-based manufacturer guilty of design piracy under Section 22(1) of the Designs Act, 2000 after finding the design of its pressure cookers imitative of Prestige's “Pressure Handi Cookers”.

Justice C. Hari Shankar was hearing a suit for infringement of design filed by TTK Prestige Limited against the manufacturer Gupta Light House seeking a decree of permanent injunction and damages against the latter.

Delhi High Court Rejects PIL Against 'Conman' Sukesh Chandrashekhar's Letters To Jacqueline Fernandez, Nora Fatehi From Jail

Title: NISHANT SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 634

The Delhi High Court has rejected a public interest litigation seeking to restrain alleged conman Sukesh Chandrashekhar, accused in a cheating case, from releasing the alleged derogatory letters from jail to media about actors Jacqueline Fernandez, Nora Fatehi and Chahatt Khanna.

The PIL was moved by Nishant Singh, a public servant calling himself as “one of the hard-core fans” of the three actors, alleging that Sukesh's malicious efforts are intentional to outrage the modesty of India's women artists and that he is “ruthless in dealing emotions.”

Delhi High Court Grants Interim Bail To Former Rajya Sabha MP Vijay Darda, Son In Coal Scam Case

Title: VIJAY DARDA v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 635

The Delhi High Court has granted interim bail to former Rajya Sabha MP Vijay Darda, his son Devender Darda and businessman Manoj Kumar Jayaswal who were recently convicted and sentenced to four years of imprisonment in a coal scam case.

Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma issued notice on the pleas moved by Dardas and Jayaswal against the trial court order convicting and sentencing them in the case.

Is Requirement Of Plurality Of Inventions In Parent Application Necessary For Suo Motu Divisional Application To Be Maintainable? Delhi HC To Decide

Title: SYNGENTA LIMITED v. CONTROLLER OF PATENTS AND DESIGNS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 636

The Delhi High Court is set to examine a question as to whether the requirement of plurality of inventions in the parent patent application is necessary for a divisional application to be maintainable even where it is filed by the applicant suo moto and not on the basis of any objection raised by the Controller of Patents and Designs.

Justice C Hari Shankar referred the question to be decided by a division bench to be constituted by Chief Justice.

The court also framed the question that assuming if the such requirement in the parent application is necessary for a divisional application to be maintainable, does the plurality of inventions have to be reflected in the claims in the parent application or is it sufficient if the same is reflected in disclosures in complete specifications accompanying the claims in the parent application.

2006 Tis Hazari Violence: Delhi High Court Discharges 12 Lawyers In Criminal Contempt Case, Says No Evidence To Establish Obstruction Of Justice

Title: RE: TO CONSIDER SUO MOTU CONTEMPT OF COURT v. PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE TIS HAZARI COURT LAWYERS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 637

The Delhi High Court has discharged 12 lawyers, including former Delhi High Court Bar Association President Rajiv Khosla and former Delhi Bar Association President Sanjeev Nasiar, in a suo motu criminal contempt case in connection with the violence at the Tis Hazari Court in 2006.

A full bench of Justice Siddharth Mridul, Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta observed that there was no substantial evidence to establish obstruction of justice, acts of manhandling, or destruction of property by the lawyers.

Therefore, it cannot be conclusively established that the act of protesting interfered with the administration of justice, the court said.

Insufficiently Stamped Agreement Is Only Against Stamp Act, Can't Be A Ground To Set Aside Award: Delhi High Court

Title: ARG Outlier Media Private Limited vs HT Media Limited

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 638

The Delhi High Court has ruled that though in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s N.N. Global Mercantile Private Limited vs M/s Indo Unique Flame Ltd. & Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 495, an Agreement containing an arbitration clause which is not properly stamped, cannot be admitted in evidence.

However, once the Agreement has been admitted in evidence by the Arbitrator, who has passed an award by relying on the said Agreement, the award cannot be set aside on the ground that the Agreement was insufficiently/improperly stamped, the court said.

IBC | No Writ Can't Be Issued To Creditor, Free To Proceed Against Personal Guarantor Under IBC : Delhi High Court

Title: Vineet Saraf v Rural Electrification Corporation Ltd.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 639

The Delhi High Court Bench has refused to issue a Writ of Prohibition to prevent the creditor from approaching the NCLT under Section 95 of IBC against the personal guarantor.

On the issue of whether a writ of prohibition can be issued to prevent creditor from approaching NCLT, the Bench opined that when an alternative remedy exists, then the Petitioner must prove, (i) that the proceedings or actions being taken are wholly without jurisdiction; and (ii) as to why the alternate forum must be deprived of an opportunity to decide upon its own jurisdiction.

Parties With Malafide Intention Consider High Court As Only Option In NI Act Cases; Can't Usurp Metropolitan Magistrate's Powers: Delhi High Court

Title: Vinod Keni & Ors. vs Technology Development Board

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 640

The Delhi High Court has said that in many NI Act cases, the petitioners, with malafide intention, and to prolong the litigation, raise false and frivolous pleas, and consider the high court as their only option.

"On this, the High Court is made to step into the shoes of the Metropolitan Magistrate and examine their defence first and exonerate them," the court said, adding that even petitioners with genuine defence, instead of following due procedure of law under the NI Act and the CrPC, and further by misreading of the provisions, follow the same approach.

Permit OBC Category Candidate To Appear In Interview For Senior Resident Doctor Post: Delhi High Court To AIIMS

Title: J. VINUTHA v. ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES - AIIMS & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 642

The Delhi High Court has directed AIIMS to permit a candidate, whose OBC certificate was initially rejected on the ground that it was not as per the prescribed format and later because the re-submission was beyond the cut off date, to appear in second stage interview for the post of senior resident doctor.

Granting interim relief to the candidate who approached the court challenging the rejection of her candidature under OBC category during the selection process, Justice Chandra Dhari Singh said:

“Prima facie, this Court finds force in the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the candidature of the petitioner for the Reserved Category post may not be rejected on the sole ground that the Caste Certificate of the petitioner was not in accordance with the prescribed format, especially when the same was issued by an authorised and competent authority.”

Delhi High Court Upholds Arbitral Award Passed Against Spicejet In Favour Of Its Former Promoter Kalanithi Maran

Case Title: SpiceJet Limited vs Kal Airways Pvt Ltd & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 643

The Delhi High Court has upheld the 2018 arbitral award passed in favour of Kalanithi Maran, former promoter of SpiceJet, and his firm Kal Airways Pvt Ltd, in a share transfer dispute with the airline and its current promoter, Ajay Singh.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh has also dismissed Maran's challenge to the award where his claim for damages and restitution of 58.46% shareholding in SpiceJet was rejected by the Tribunal.

The dispute between the parties had arisen under a 'Share Sale and Purchase Agreement' (SSPA) executed between them in 2015, where Maran and his firm had sold their entire 58.46 per cent stake in SpiceJet to its co-founder, Singh.

Ensure Availability Of Cloud Storage Service To Sub-Registrars For Preservation Of Documents: High Court To Delhi Govt

Title: MONK ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 644

The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government to ensure availability of Delhi Online Registration System (DORIS), a cloud storage server, to all Sub-Registrars for preservation of documents including those relating to land records.

“For the said purpose the Principal Secretary (Revenue), GNCTD shall be personally responsible to ensure implementation of the DORIS system,” Justice Prathiba M Singh directed.

Family Court Should Not Give Adjournment For Long Period While Referring Parties To Court Counsellor: Delhi High Court

Title: RAVINDER SINGH BHASIN v. KANWALJIT KAUR & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 645

The Delhi High Court has said that the family court should not give an adjournment for long period while referring the parties to a matrimonial dispute to a Court Counsellor for exploring the possibility of a settlement.

While preponing a matrimonial dispute pending before a family court which was adjourned to October 18, Justice Navin Chawla said:

“Even though the order records that there are approximately 4000 matrimonial cases of various nature pending before the learned Family Court, such a long adjournment is still not warranted. The Court has to keep a watch on the petition/counseling proceedings that take place before the Court Counselor on a regular basis, and such watch cannot happen if the Court adjourns the matter for such a long date.”

Delhi High Court Refuses To Entertain PIL To Restrict Cash Transactions On E-Commerce Platforms Like Amazon, Flipkart

Title: ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY v. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 646

The Delhi High Court recently refused to entertain a public interest litigation to restrict cash transaction of goods, products and services purchased through online shopping platforms like Amazon and Flipkart.

The petitioner, Advocate and BJP leader Ashwani Kumar Upadhyay, sought to withdraw the PIL after a division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula expressed the inclination of dismissing the plea.

As the bench was about to reserve the order on merits, Upadhyay prayed for withdrawal of the petition, with the liberty to take recourse to other remedies available under law.

Arbitration Act| Alleged Liquidity Crunch Of Award Debtor Not Sufficient Cause Under Order XXI Rule 26 CPC To Grant Stay Of Enforcement Of Award: Delhi High Court

Case Title: B L Kashyap and Sons Ltd vs Emaar India Ltd

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 647

The Delhi High Court has ruled that alleged liquidity crunch of the award debtor cannot be a sufficient cause under Order XXI Rule 26(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) to grant stay of the enforcement proceedings in relation to an arbitral award.

The bench of Justice Yogesh Khanna made the observation while hearing a plea seeking modification of the court's order in the execution petition filed by the award holder, where the court had directed the award debtor to deposit the entire award amount of Rs.165 crores. The award debtor sought to modify the court's order so as to enable him to furnish bank guarantee instead of cash deposit, on the ground that the same shall lead to liquidity crunch in its company.

Produce Yasin Malik Through VC During Hearing Of NIA's Appeal Seeking Death Penalty: Delhi High Court Directs Tihar Jail Superintendent

Title: STATE (NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY) v. MOHD YASIN MALIK

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 648

The Delhi High Court has directed the Tihar jail superintendent to produce Kashmiri separatist leader Yasin Malik, convicted in a terror funding case, via video conferencing only and not in person on August 09, when the appeal moved by NIA seeking death penalty for him is listed for hearing.

A division bench of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Anish Dayal allowed an urgent application moved by Tihar jail authorities to produce Malik through video conferencing.

The court modified its earlier order passed on May 29issuing production warrants against Malik for August 09. The jail authorities had moved the application citing heavy security issue” in producing Malik physically in court.

Candidates Eligible To Apply In Both Online And Offline Modes For Management Quota Admissions In IP University Colleges: Delhi High Court

Title: VIVEKANANDA INSTITUTE OF PROFESSIONAL STUDIES v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 649

The Delhi High Court has said that the candidates intending to apply for admissions in different colleges affiliated with the Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University under the Management Quota seats shall be eligible to apply in both online and offline modes.

A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna directed the varsity to make an online portal to display the branch and college-wise seats available with it under Management Quota so that the prospective students can apply online as well as offline against the available seats.

“The college shall display the list of aspirant admission seekers on the online portal as well as on the notice board of the college. The college shall prepare common merit wise list of candidates who have applied through online and offline mode. The merit list college wise shall be published online,” the bench directed.

Have Withdrawn Advertisement Mandating Disclosure Of Religion For Appointment Of Guest Faculty: Ambedkar University To Delhi High Court

Title: TEJASWI CHHATWAL & ORS. v. DR.B.R. AMBEDKAR UNIVERSITY DELHI AND ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 650

The Dr. B. R. Ambedkar University has informed the Delhi High Court that it has withdrawn the advertisement requiring a mandatory disclosure of religion by those applying to the post of Guest Faculty in the varsity's School of Global Studies.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh was informed by the varsity's counsel that the employment notice published on July 24 has been withdrawn.

Taking note of the University's submission, the court disposed of a plea moved by three “prospective applicants” for their empanelment as the Guest Faculty who challenged the advertisement.

'Whitehat SR' Deceptively Similar To 'WhiteHat Jr' Mark, Can't Be Permitted To Be Used In Physical Or Online Platforms: Delhi High Court

Case Title: WHITEHAT EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED v. VINAY KUMAR SINGH

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 651

The Delhi High Court has permanently restrained an individual from using 'Whitehat SR' mark, logos or any name which is either identical or deceptively similar variant of the mark “WhiteHat Jr” which is registered in favour of an online coding tutoring platform for children.

“The mark 'WHITEHAT JR' is a registered trademark which has acquired enormous reputation owing to the extensive use which has been done over a short period of time. The impugned mark of the Defendant is 'WHITEHAT SR', which is almost identical to the Plaintiff's mark. In fact, the writing style of the letter 'W' is also identical to the Plaintiff's writing style. The mark is a registered trademark of the Plaintiff,” Justice Prathiba M Singh said.

Delhi High Court Allows US National Convicted Under POTA, Sedition To Travel Abroad For Visiting Ailing Father

Case Title: MOHD. YASIN PATEL ALIAS FALAHI v. STATE

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 652

The Delhi High Court recently allowed a US national, who was convicted in 2003 under the POTA Act and for the offence of Sedition under IPC for being member of the banned outfit SIMI, to travel abroad for four weeks to visit his ailing father in Chicago.

“Accordingly, we allow the applicant/appellant to travel to Chicago, U.S.A. for the abovementioned purpose for the period of 4 (four) weeks from the date he actually departs from Delhi,, subject to furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- in respect of him with the Surety Bond of like amount each to be furnished by his wife, two sons and one daughter with the Register General of this Court,” a division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said.

No TDS Deductible On Commission Payment To Non-Resident Agent Overseas: Delhi High Court

Case Title: PCIT Versus Maharani Enterprises

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 653

The Delhi High Court has held that commission payments to non-resident agents overseas are not chargeable to tax and there is no TDS required to be deducted under Section 195 of the Income Tax Act.

The bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has observed that there is no material on record to even remotely suggest that the non-resident, who had been paid the export commission, had any permanent establishment in India, carried on any business within the taxable territory in India, or had any business connection in India rendering them liable to pay tax.

Compounding Fee Is Not In The Nature Of Tax Or Duty; Delhi High Court Holds Legal Metrology Department Liable To Refund Compounding Fee Paid By Oil Marketing Companies

Case Title: Indian Oil Corporation Ltd vs Director of Legal Metrology & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 654

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the 'compounding fee' paid for compounding an offence under a Statute, is not in the nature of a tax or duty. The court remarked that the compounding fee is deposited by a person to avoid initiation of coercive proceedings against him and to obtain closure. Thus, the deposit of compounding fee should not in all circumstances be necessarily viewed as an acceptance of guilt or an admission of violation of a statutory obligation, the court said.

The bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Dharmesh Sharma made the observation while hearing a plea filed by oil marketing companies- the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd (IOCL), Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd (HPCL), and Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd (BPCL). The appellant-companies had challenged the Single Judge's order where it had refused to grant refund of the compounding fee paid by them under Section 48 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 for compounding the offences under the Act.

Delhi High Court Deprecates Practice Of Filing Writ Petition For Grant Of Parole Instead Of Approaching Competent Authorities

Case Title: MANMOHAN SINGH @ MONU v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 655

The Delhi High Court has deprecated the practice of filing writ petitions for grant of parole instead of approaching the competent authorities for seeking the relief.

Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma was hearing a plea moved by one Manmohan Singh alias Monu seeking second spell of furlough for two weeks or grant of parole for 30 days in a gang rape case registered against him in 2008.

The FIR was registered at Tilak Nagar police station for the offences under Sections 376(2)(g) [punishment for gang rape], 328 [causing hurt by means of poison, etc., with intent to commit an offence] and 34 [common intention] of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Delhi High Court Dismisses PIL Against Corporatisation Of Ordnance Factories, Says Interest Of Employees Already Protected

Case Title: Bharatiya Pratiraksha Mazdoor Sangh vs Union of India

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 656

The Delhi High Court has dismissed the writ petition challenging the Central Government's decision to convert the Ordnance Factories Board (OFB) from a government department into seven public sector companies.

The bench comprising Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula said the corporatisation of OFB was a policy decision of the Government of India taken in national interest keeping in view the defence requirements of the country, and therefore, no case of interference was made out.

Arbitrator Cannot Add The Amount Of Pre-Reference Interest To The Principal Amount While Determining Pendente Lite Interest: Delhi High Court

Case Details: NATIONAL PROJECTS CONSTRUCTIONS CORPORATION LTD v. M/S INTERSTATE CONSTRUCTION

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 657

The Delhi High Court has held that the arbitrator cannot add the amount of pre-reference interest to the principal amount while determining pendente lite interest as the same would amount to levying interest on a compounded basis. It held that the principal amount has to remain static throughout.

The bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Dharmesh Sharma held that Section 31(7)(a) of the A&C Act provides only for two periods of interest payable under the Act i.e., from the cause of action till the date of the award and from the date of the award till the payment is made. Further, it held that the distinction between pre-reference and pendente lite interest has vanished and is inapplicable to arbitrations governed by the Act of 1996.

Ensure Settlement Deeds Are Drafted With Due Application Of Mind, Don't Use Printed Proforma: Delhi High Court To Mediation Centres & Family Courts

Title: VIVEK KUMAR & ORS. v. STATE & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 658

The Delhi High Court has taken serious objection against the drafting of settlement agreements in matrimonial cases by mediation centres on “printed proforma.”

“This court while dealing with petitions of matrimonial quashing often comes across the settlement agreements being drafted by the Mediation Centres which are on a printed proforma. This court takes serious objection to it,” Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma said.

The court added that the settlements on printed proforma sometimes gives an impression that there is no application of mind and the settlement deed has been drafted mechanically.

Delhi High Court Restrains WOW Momo From Using 'WOW China Bistro' Mark In Trademark Infringement Suit By 'China Bistro'

Title: FOODLINK F AND B HOLDINGS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. WOW MOMO FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 659

The Delhi High Court has temporarily restrained fast food chain WOW! Momo from using the mark “WOW China Bistro” in a trademark infringement suit filed by an entity that has been operating various restaurants under its registered mark “China Bistro.”

Justice C Hari Shankar however clarified that WOW! Momo would be entitled to use the mark “WOW! CHINA” or “WOW! CHINA LIVE CHINESE” logo.

The court observed that when compared as wholes, the two individual marks in question are deceptively similar as their textual components, which constitute their essential and distinctive features, are deceptively similar to each other.

Whether An Agreement Is A Works Contract Or Not To Be Decided By Arbitrator For Applying MSMED Act: Delhi High Court

Case details: Jaiprakash Associates Limited v. MSEFC

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 660

The Delhi High Court has held that an issue whether an agreement is in the nature of works contract and the consequent issue of applicability of MSMED Act to such contracts is to be decided by the arbitrator.

The bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra and Justice Saurabh Banerjee dismissed an LPA against the orders of a single judge bench holding that the single bench had correctly referred the issue to be decided by the arbitrator as the court cannot go into the said determination at the stage of appointment of arbitrator or in a writ petition. It further held that that mere nomenclature of the agreement is not material to determine its nature.

Courts Should 'Prioritize' PCPNDT Act's Purpose Over Technicalities While Deciding Applications Seeking Condition Of Delay: Delhi High Court

Title: DISTRICT MAGISTRATE WEST DISTRICT THROUGH NEHA BANSAL v. JOSAN DIAGNOTICS CENTRE & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 661

The Delhi High Court has observed that courts should prioritize the purpose and objective of Pre-Conception and-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994, while adjudicating the applications seeking condonation of delay in cases pertaining to the enactment.

“The primary intent of PC&PNDT Act is to safeguard the rights of the unborn girl child and promote gender equality by curbing the misuse of diagnostic techniques for sex determination. Therefore, while deciding applications seeking condonation of delay, Courts should prioritize the Act's underlying purpose over technicalities,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said.

Delhi High Court Restrains Goldmines Telefilms From Uploading Songs Of 14 Bollywood Movies In Copyright Infringement Suit By T-Series

Case Title: SUPER CASSETTES INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED vs GOLDMINES TELEFILMS PRIVATE LIMITED

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 662

The Delhi High Court has directed the production house Goldmines Telefilms to not upload songs from 14 Bollywood movies on YouTube after T-Series filed a suit for permanent injunction claiming copyright over the same.

T-Series said that it owns prior assignment deeds in respect of the audio-visual works and the cinematograph films for the songs from movies like Guru and Vaastav, and that Goldmines does not have rights to authorise uploading of the songs on YouTube.

Revocation Petition Under Section 64 Of Patents Act Not A Suit Within Meaning Of Section 10 CPC: Delhi High Court

Title: DR. REDDYS LABORATORIES LIMITED & ANR. v. THE CONTROLLER OF PATENTS & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 663

The Delhi High Court has ruled that a revocation petition under Section 64 of the Patents Act is not a suit within the meaning of Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Section 64 of the Patents Act provides various grounds for revocation of patents. On the other hand, section 10 of CPC deals with stay of a suit — it states that no court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title where such suit is pending in India.

Delhi High Court Awards Rs 5 Lakh Cost To Sun Pharma In Its Trademark Infringement Suit Over 'Oxiplat' Mark

Title: SUN PARMA LABORATORIES LTD. v. MYLAN LABORATORIES LIMITED & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 664

The Delhi High Court has awarded costs of Rs. 5 lakh to pharma company Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited in a trademark infringement suit filed by it over its registered mark “Oxiplat”, which is named after one of its drug preparations.

The mark 'Oxiplat' was coined by Sun Pharmaceuticals in 2001. Since then, it has been used for medicinal preparations consisting of Oxaliplatin, a drug which is used in treatment of cancer of colon and rectum.

POCSO Act Is Gender Neutral, Misleading To Argue 'It Is Gender-Based Legislation And Is Being Misused': Delhi High Court

Title: RAKESH v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHII & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 665

The Delhi High Court has observed that the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, is a gender-neutral legislation and that it is insensitive to argue that the law is being misused.

While dealing with a POCSO case where the accused submitted that the enactment is a gender-based law and therefore is being misused, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said:

“To say the least, POCSO Act is not gender based and is neutral as far as victim children are concerned. Moreover, to argue that the legislation is being misused and using the language such as “as the complainant by keeping a gun on her minor daughter's shoulder had implicated the applicant in the present case so as to coerce him to re-pay a friendly loan that he had taken from her husband” (as mentioned in the petition) have been found to be most insensitive by this court."

Mental Health: Delhi High Court Issues Directions To Authorities For Protecting 'Mental Integrity, Soundness Of Mind' Of Prisoners

.Title: SARTAJ @ALLAHARAKHA v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 666

The Delhi High Court has issued a slew of directions to the authorities for ensuring protection of mental and emotional health of the prisoners, observing that while imprisonment restricts the right to liberty, it does not restrict the human rights of convicts.

“It is time to ensure that a convict who leaves the correction home/prison is restored to the society as a law abiding citizen who has repented his past conduct. This can be achieved only if the mental health issues of the convicts in prisons are recognized and attended to, rejecting the notion that this view is too idealistic,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed.

The court directed that in case a convict shows signs of mental health issues which are reflected through the behaviour, the administration concerned should bring it to the notice of psychiatrist posted in the prison.

This Court Never Ceases To Be Surprised By Orders Passed By Office Of Patents And Trademarks: Delhi High Court

Title: RAVI MANCHANDA TRADING AS SEEMA ENGINEERING WORKS v. THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 667

Taking exception to a “blank order” passed by a Senior Examiner of Trade Marks, the Delhi High Court recently said that it is no longer surprised at the kind of orders passed by the Registry of Trade Marks or Controller General of Patents.

“This Court never ceases to be surprised at the kind of the orders which come before it, from the office of the Registry of Trade Marks/Controller General of Patents. The present case is, in fact, sui generis,” Justice C Hari Shankar said in an order passed on August 03.

Depreciation Allowable On Goodwill Though No Actual Cash Payment Made For Acquisition: Delhi High Court

Case Title: PCIT Versus M/S Eltek Sgs Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 668

The Delhi High Court has held that depreciation is allowable on goodwill arising in a scheme of amalgamation even though no actual cash payment was made for the acquisition of goodwill.

The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma has observed that sections 49 and 55(2) deal with 'capital gains' arising on the sale of goodwill and not with respect to depreciation on goodwill. Section 47, in express terms, excludes the transfer of capital assets in a scheme of amalgamation from the purview of capital gains.

Delhi High Court Holds Wife Guilty Of Wilfully Violating Settlement Agreement With Husband, Sentences Her To One Month Simple Imprisonment

Title: ANURAG GOEL v. CHHAVI AGARWAL

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 669

The Delhi High Court has held a wife guilty of contempt of court for wilfully violating a settlement agreement with her husband and disobeying the undertaking to abide by the same given to the family court.

Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,000 on the wife and also sentenced her to one month of simple imprisonment, considering that she “deliberately, wilfully, intentionally and defiantly” disobeyed the undertaking despite various opportunities were granted to her, “only with an intent to enhance her financial settlement with the husband.”

“This Court therefore, imposes a fine of ₹ 2,000/- on the Respondent. This Court further sentences the Respondent to simple imprisonment for a term of one (1) month. In case of default of payment of fine, the Respondent shall further undergo 15 days of simple imprisonment,” the court said.

Rape Victims Be Taken To Hospital For MTP Within 24 Hours Even When Gestation Period Less Than 20 Weeks: Delhi High Court

Title: NABAL THAKUR (IN J.C.) v. THE STATE

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 670

The Delhi High Court has issued various guidelines to be followed by the doctors and the Delhi Police while dealing with cases of medical termination of pregnancy of victims of rape.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma directed that where an order for medical termination of pregnancy has been passed, the Delhi Police's Investigating Officers must produce the victim before the concerned hospital for conducting the procedure within 24 hours, even in cases where the gestation period of the pregnancy is less than 20 weeks.

The court also directed the Delhi Government's Department of Health and Family Welfare and Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to ensure that the existing guidelines or Standard Operating Procedure for conducting examination of the victims of sexual assault are circulated in all the hospitals in the national capital.

Delhi High Court Directs Release Of Rs. 16 Crores To Landmark Group As Per 2018 Arbitral Award Against Ansal Group

Case Title: Landmark Property Development and Company Limited & ORS. vs Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Limited & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 671

The Delhi High Court has directed release of over Rs. 16 Crores deposited with the court Registry, in favour of the Landmark Group in the execution petition filed by it seeking enforcement of the arbitral award passed against the Ansal Group.

In 2018, an Arbitral Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs. 46.01 Crores in favour of the Landmark Group against the Ansals in a dispute between the two business groups.

Vide order dated 05.01.2022, the Delhi High Court in the execution petition filed by Landmark, had directed Ansals to deposit the entire principal amount of Rs. 46.01 Crores awarded by the arbitrator, along with an additional amount of Rs. 34 Crores. Ansals were directed to deposit the amounts as a condition for vacating the stay order that had been passed in relation to their immovable properties.

Continue Taking Steps To Restrain Sale Of Chinese Manjha During Independence Day Period: High Court To Delhi Police

Title: ISHWAR SINGH DAHIYA v. STATE OF NCT DELHI AND ORS and other connected matters

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 672

The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Police to continue taking steps to restrain the sale of banned Chinese manjha in the national capital during the Independence day season.

"It is directed that Delhi Police shall continue to take steps to restrain the sale of Chinese manjha in Delhi even during the forthcoming Independence Day period, which is the kite-flying season,” Justice Prathiba M Singh said in an order passed on August 08.

While hearing a bunch of pleas highlighting the menace of manufacturing and sale Chinese manjha for kite flying in Delhi, the court perused the status report filed by the Delhi Police indicating the steps taken to stop the sale of Chinese manjha in the national capital.

Delhi High Court Quashes POCSO Case After Parties Get Married, Victim's Father Says 'Filed FIR Out Of Anger'

Title: ARJUN KAMTI v. THE STATE OF GNCT OF DELHI THROUGH SHO & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 673

The Delhi High Court has quashed a rape and POCSO case against a man after he and the victim consensually got married and the complainant father said that he had filed the FIR out of anger and misunderstanding. It was alleged that the accused kidnapped the girl and took her out from her father's guardianship.

The accused and the victim, who expressed her desired to live with him, got married with each other. They also became parents of two children.

Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain quashed the proceedings in the case after noting that the victim stated that she was leading a happy married life with the accused and the complainant father also took a stand that he was not interested in the continuing the case.

Contractor Cannot Deny Payments To 'Sub-Contractor' Merely On The Ground That It Has Not Received The Payments From The 'Employer': Delhi High Court

Case Title: Gannon Dunkerley and Co Ltd v. Zillion Infraprojects Pvt Ltd, OMP(COMM) 234 of 2023

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 674

The Delhi High Court has held that a contractor cannot deny payments to the 'Sub-contractor' merely on the ground that the contract is on back-to-back basis and it has not received the payments from the main employer.

Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri held that ordinarily in back-to-back contracts, the payments due to a 'Sub-contractor' is subject to the payment by employer to the Contractor. However, this mechanism is to be followed only during the currency of the contract and once the parties are in a dispute, Contractor cannot defer payments in perpetuity on the ground of the pendency of payments, when it has not otherwise disputed the correctness of the bills.

Google Not Exempted From Liability Of Trademark Infringement When Trademarks Are Used As Keywords In Its Ads Programme: Delhi High Court

Title: GOOGLE LLC v. DRS LOGISTICS (P) LTD. & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 675

The Delhi High Court has ruled that Google is not entitled to the safe harbour protection under the Information Technology Act, 2000, as well as from the liability of trademark infringement where it uses a trademark as a keyword in its Ads Programme.

“It is difficult to accept that Google is entitled to exemption under Section 79 of the IT Act from the liability of infringement of trademarks by its use of the trademarks as keywords in the Ads Programme. It can hardly be accepted that Google can encourage and permit use of the trademarks as keywords and in effect sell its usage and yet claim the said data as belonging to third parties to avail an exemption under Section 79(1) of the IT Act,” a division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan said.

The bench noted that while Google did not permit use of trademarks as keywords prior to 2004, it amended its policy thereafter for increasing the revenue and introduced the tool which actively searches the most effective terms including well known trademarks as keywords.

'Shouldn't Be Denied Special Moments In Life Even If Facing Trial': Delhi High Court Allows PMLA Accused To Travel Abroad For Son's Admission

Case Title: PARVIN JUNEJA v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 676

The Delhi High Court has permitted an accused in a money laundering case to travel abroad for admission of his son, observing that a person should not be denied such “special moments of small pleasures in life” even if he is accused and facing trial.

"Admission of a child whether in school or in a college/University is a moment the parent and the child cherish forever. It is a feeling of togetherness as well as support by the mere presence with each other, which is expected by each child and parent while achieving such a milestone. Even if a person is an accused and is facing trial, he should not ordinarily be denied these special moments of small pleasures in life," Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed.

'Mankind' And 'Novakind' Marks Confusing When Used For Pharmaceutical Preparations: Delhi High Court

Case Title: MANKIND PHARMA LIMITED v. NOVAKIND BIO SCIENCES PRIVATE LIMITED

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 677

Observing that the marks “Novakind” and “Mankind” are confusing when used for pharmaceutical preparations, the Delhi High Court has made absolute the interim injunction order against an entity manufacturing medicines using the suffix “Kind” till final disposal of a trademark infringement suit filed by Mankind Pharma.

“The “KIND” suffix not being endemic to pharmaceutical preparations, there is every likelihood of a customer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection, who chances across the defendant‟s “NOVAKIND” product, to believe it to be one of the KIND family of the marks belonging to the plaintiff,” Justice C Hari Shankar observed.

If Head Of The Families Are Parties To Arbitration Agreement And Others Have Signed, All Are Bound By Arbitration Clause: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Mrs. Vinnu Goel v. Mr. Santosh Goes and Ors

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 678

The Delhi High Court has held that all the members of the families would be bound by the terms and conditions of a settlement agreement executed between the heads of the two branches of families if they have signed the said agreement that pertains to the properties owned by them.

Justice Navin Chawla held that a party appending its signature of an MoU is bound by the terms and conditions of such an agreement, including the arbitration agreement. It held that a party cannot escape the agreement merely on the ground that it was not expressly made a party under the agreement.

Claim Of Damages, Supplementary Agreement Executed Under Duress Can't Come In The Way : Delhi High Court

Case Title: NHAI v. M/S. T.K. TOLL PRIVATE LIMITED

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 679

The Delhi High Court has held that a supplementary agreement executed by a contractor whereby it agrees to forego of its claims cannot preclude him from claiming damages against the employer if the execution of such agreement was a pre-condition to the issuance of PCC necessary for collection of toll taxes in BOT contracts.

Justice Yogesh Khanna held that a party would be acting under economic duress or coercion if it has to execute a supplementary agreement foregoing all its claims against the employer as a pre-condition for the issuance of PCC, ergo, it would not be a bar to contractor later claiming damages for the losses suffered by it.

Delhi High Court Upholds Centre's Decision Rejecting Proposal For Appointing Dr. J Thulaseedhara Kurup As NSD Director

Title: DR J THULASEEDHARA KURUP v. APPOINTMENTS COMMITTEE OF THE CABINET THROUGH ITS SECRETARY & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 680

The Delhi High Court has upheld a January 2019 decision of the Union Ministry's Department of Personnel and Training rejecting the proposal for appointment of Dr. J Thulaseedhara Kurup as the director of National School of Drama.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh observed that were adequate reasons for the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet for not accepting the proposal for consideration of Kurup's candidature for the post.

“Hence, considering the entirety of the matter, the facts, circumstances, submissions, objections, the contents of the impugned order and, most importantly, the contents of the original files as placed before this Court by Ms. Anjana, Under Secretary, Ministry of Culture, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 29th January 2022. There were adequate reasons for the ACC for not accepting the proposal for consideration of the petitioner's candidature for the post of Director at respondent no. 3/NSD,” the court observed.

Condonation Of Delay Is An Exception, Should Not Be Used As Per Convenience Of Government Departments: Delhi High Court

Title: DEPTT.OF HEALTH, GOVT.OF NCT OF DELHI v. KAMLA MEHNDIRATTA & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 681

The Delhi High Court has observed that condonation of delay is an exception which should not be used as per convenience of the Government departments.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh added that courts must not treat Government agencies differently while deciding the applications for condonation of delay and that the Government is under “special obligation” to ensure that their duties are properly performed.

While pulling up the Delhi Government's health department for filing an application seeking condonation of delay of 651 days in filing the application for restoration of a petition which was dismissed in default in May 2017, the court said:

“The petitioner though a State Department having numerous resources at its disposal, has still been unable to file the application of restoration in a timely manner. It is a well settled principle that the Government is under a special obligation to perform duties with diligence and commitment. The condonation of delay is an exception which should not be used as per convenience of the Government Departments.”

Delhi High Court Stays Income Tax Reassessment Proceedings Initiated Against Oxfam India

Case Title: Oxfam India Versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 682

The Delhi High Court has stayed the income tax reassessment proceedings initiated against Oxfam India.

"A counter-affidavit will be filed within the next six (6) weeks. Rejoinder thereto, if any, will be filed at least five days before the next date of hearing. In the meantime, there shall be a stay on the continuation of the reassessment proceeding till further directions of the court," the bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed.

The assessee/appellant has challenged the reassessment notice under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

[POCSO Act] Mere Absence Of Injuries On Victim's Private Parts No Ground To Hold That Penetrative Sexual Assault Did Not Take Place: Delhi High Court

Title: RANJEET KUMAR YADAV v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 683

The Delhi High Court has observed that mere absence of injuries on victim's private parts cannot be a ground to hold that penetrative sexual assault under the POCSO Act did not take place.

Justice Amit Bansal made the observation while upholding the conviction of a man for committing rape of a four and a half years old girl in June 2017.

The court observed that the man, who was the minor's neighbor, was not able to shake the version of the prosecution which had successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.

Delhi HC Quashes Summons Issued To H&M Over Alleged Violation Of 2011 Legal Metrology Rules

Case: H&M Pvt. Ltd. vs Legal Metrology Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 684

The Delhi High Court bench led by Justice Amit Bansal quashed a summoning order against H&M Pvt. Ltd., situated at Select City Walk Mall, Saket for violating Section 13(3)(b) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 [“2011 Rules”].

H&M Pvt. Ltd. is a multinational clothing company based in Sweden that focuses on fast-fashion clothing. Upon being inspected, the Legal Metrology Department wrongfully concluded that H&M Pvt. Ltd. had not followed the mandatory labelling requirements. The High Court held that the 2011 Rules are not applicable on 'loose garments'. Hence, H&M Pvt. Ltd. was absolved of liability.

Not Permissible To Dilute Time Schedule Of Medical Courses Under Article 226 In Absence Of Any Justifiable Reason: Delhi High Court

Title: SRI SATYA SAI UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY AND MEDICAL SCIENCES SEHORE v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 685

The Delhi High Court has observed that no dilution of the time schedule with respect to medical courses, which is mandatory and binding on all, is permissible in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in absence of any justifiable reason.

“Undoubtedly, medical education requires facilities and infrastructure of the highest standard as also the adherence to the time schedule for imparting premier education to candidates, thereby ensuring that the community receives the best possible medical practitioners,” Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav said.

'Rip Van Slumber Extended To More Than 27 Yrs': Delhi HC Refuses To Condone Delay In Filing Appeal Against Acquittal In 1984 Anti-Sikh Riots Case

Title: THE STATE v. MAIKALE RAM & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 686

Invoking the famous American short story “Rip Van Winkle”, the Delhi High Court has refused to condone the delay of more than 27 years in filing of an appeal by the prosecution against the acquittal of various accused persons way back in 1995 in relation to the 1984 Anti-Sikh riots case.

“In the present case, Rip Van Winklian Slumber has extended to more than 27 years and there is no explanation for this inordinate delay and the grounds taken by the State are not justifiable. Therefore, we find no merit in the present application, and the same is hereby dismissed,” a division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said.

Delhi High Court Directs Adjudicating Authority To Process Blackberry's Claim Of Interest Under Section 11BB Of The Excise Act

Case Title: Blackberry India Pvt Ltd. Versus The Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise And CGST Division

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 687

The Delhi High Court has directed the adjudicating authority to process Blackberry's claim of interest under Section 11BB of the Excise Act.

The bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has observed that there is no cavill that the petitioner would be entitled to interest in terms of Section 11BB of the Excise Act from the date immediately after the expiry of three months from the date of receipt of an application for a refund if it is not processed within the said period of three months.

Ensure Strict Compliance Of Provisions Dealing With Pre Or Post Grant Oppositions To Patent: Delhi High Court To Controller General

Title: AKEBIA THERAPEUTICS INC. v. CONTROLLER GENERAL OF PATENTS, DESIGN, TRADEMARK AND GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS, & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 688

The Delhi High Court has requested the Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks to ensure strict compliance of the provisions dealing with pre or post grant oppositions to a patent under the Patents Rules, 2003.

“…Controller General is requested to ensure that, hereafter, there is strict compliance with the provisions of the Patents Rules, particularly Rule 57, read with the judgment of the Supreme Court in Cipla, while dealing with and processing pre- or post-grant oppositions,” Justice C Hari Shankar said.

The Supreme Court in Cipla Ltd v. Union of India held that the report or recommendation of the Opposition Board should be made available to the parties in question before the Controller passes orders under Section 25(4) of the Patents Act.

Borrowers Should Avail Statutory Remedies Under SARFAESI Act Before Invoking Article 226 Against Recovery Proceedings: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Diamond Entertainment Technologies Pvt Ltd & Ors. vs Religare Finvest Limited

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 689

The Delhi High Court recently observed that the SARFAESI Act provides statutory remedies for borrowers, including the right to appeal, and that the court should not interfere in recovery proceedings unless there is a clear violation of law.

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav reiterated that the borrower will have to wait till measures under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act for taking possession of the mortgaged property are taken by the creditor. In the interregnum period, the scope for interference in writ jurisdiction is not warranted.

Designation Of Venue Would Override A Generic 'Exclusive Jurisdiction' Clause: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Reliance Infrastructure Limited v. Madhyanchal Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 690

The Delhi High Court has held that a venue where the arbitral proceedings were anchored is essentially the 'seat of arbitration' and it would override a generic exclusive jurisdiction clause. It held that a generic exclusive jurisdiction clause is not a contrary indicia that prevents the venue from becoming the seat of arbitration.

The bench of Justice Sachin Datta held that for an exclusive jurisdiction to override a venue clause, it must specifically provide that the Courts at a particular place have exclusive jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings and a generic exclusive jurisdiction clause which does not refer to arbitration proceedings as such does not override the venue clause.

No Prima Facie Presumption Regarding Validity Of 'Design' On Account Of Its Registration: Delhi High Court Declines Interim Relief To Hero Motocorp

Title: HERO MOTOCORP LIMITED v. SHREE AMBA INDUSTRIES

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 691

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday refused to temporarily restrain a bike manufacturer from selling front fender for its motorcycles in a suit filed by Hero Motocorp alleging that it was a copy of its registered V shaped front fender design fixed to “HERO HF DELUXE” bikes.

Justice Amit Bansal said that Hero Motocorp failed to make out a case for grant of interim injunction in its favour and that irreparable harm will be caused to manufacturer, Shree Amba Industries, if an interim injunction is granted in favour of Hero.

Officer Concerned Not Authorized To Administer Oath, No Evidentiary Value: Delhi High Court

Case Title: PCIT Versus ARN Infrastructure Ltd.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 692

The Delhi High Court while upholding the ITAT's ruling held that the addition of Rs. 10 crore was made purely on the basis of the statement made by directors without corroborative evidence.

The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that there is a qualitative difference between the statement recorded under Section 133A and Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act. The statement recorded under Section 133A of the Act has no evidentiary value since the officer concerned is not authorised to administer an oath and record a sworn statement. It is in contradiction with the statement recorded under Section 132(4), which is recorded on oath by an officer who is vested with the necessary powers.

Delhi High Court Deletes BLT Based AMP Adjustment For Yakult Danone For Non-Existence Of International Transaction

Case Title: PCIT Versus Yakult Danone India Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 693

The Delhi High Court has deleted the Bright Line Test (BLT)-based Advertising, Marketing, and Promotion (AMP) Adjustment for Yakult Danone for the non-existence of international transactions.

The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has dismissed the department's appeal, which challenged the ITAT's order, and held that the "bright line test" has no statutory mandate and a broad-brush approach is not mandated or prescribed.

False Allegations Of Illicit Relationship Are Ultimate Kind Of Cruelty: Delhi High Court

Case Title: LK v. OPM

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 694

Upholding a family court order granting decree of divorce to a husband on the ground of mental cruelty by wife, the Delhi High Court has observed that false allegations of illicit relationship are “ultimate kind of cruelty.”

“False allegations of illicit relationship are the ultimate kind of cruelty as it reflects a complete breakdown of trust and faith amongst the spouses without which no matrimonial relationship can survive,” a division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said.

Delhi High Court Orders Criminal Contempt Action Against Man For Making 'Scandalous Remarks' Against Family Court Judge In Pleadings

Case Title: NARENDER BHUTANI v. ANJALI BHUTANI

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 695

The Delhi High Court has directed its Registry to register a case of criminal contempt against a man for making scandalous allegations against a Principal Judge of a family court in the national capital.

“The Registry is directed to register a case of Criminal Contempt against the petitioner and subject to the orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice, place the same before an appropriate Division Bench of this Court,” Justice Navin Chawla said.

While directing the man to appear in person before the division bench on September 1, the court prima facie observed that the husband was in the habit of making scandalous remarks against the judges in order to browbeat them.

Ensure Availability Of Forces Before Holding Colleges Fests Or Functions: High Court Directs Delhi Police

Case Title: MANOHAR LAL SHARMA v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (C.B.I) & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 696

The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Police and college authorities to ensure that proper police force is available before a fest or function is organized in the institutions in national capital.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula also clarified that as and when such functions take place in any college or institution, it shall be the Delhi Police's duty to ensure the safety and security of the students.

The court passed the order while disposing of a public interest litigation seeking inquiry by Central Bureau of Investigation into the alleged instances of molestation and sexual misconduct inside Delhi University's Gargi College in 2020.

Proprietor Must Establish 'Validity' Of Trademark Registration U/S 28 To Obtain Relief Against Infringement: Delhi High Court

Case Title: SUN PHARMA LABORATORIES LTD. v. FINECURE PHARMACEUTICALS LTD& ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 697

The Delhi High Court has ruled that proprietorship of registration in respect of a trademark does not ipso facto entitle to the proprietor the right to obtain relief against infringement of the mark.

Justice C Hari Shankar added that the rights to claim exclusivity over the trademark and to obtain relief against its infringement, as envisaged under Section 28(1) of the Trade Marks Act, are conditional on the trademark registration being valid.

Can Seniority Guidelines Override Preference For Chartered Accountants In Appointments For Public Sector Enterprises? Delhi HC Refers To Larger Bench

Case Title: Geeta Sharma vs Public Enterprises Selection Board & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 698

The Delhi High Court has referred to a larger bench the issue of whether Seniority Guidelines based on pay scales/Board Level positions can override the preference for Chartered Accountants in the job advertisement for the post of Director (Finance) in Public Sector Enterprises (PSEs).

Justice Jyoti Singh was dealing with a petition challenging the appointment of Directors (Finance) in Telecommunications Consultants (India) Ltd. (TCIL) and Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL).

Delhi High Court Restrains Dabur From Selling Its 'Cool King Thanda Tel' In A Packing Similar To Emami's 'Navratna Ayurvedic Oil'

Case Title: Emami Limited vs Dabur India Ltd.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 699

The Delhi High Court has passed an interim order restraining Dabur from selling its 'Cool King Thanda Tel' in a packing confusingly or deceptively similar to Emami's 'Navratna Ayurvedic Oil'.

The bench comprising of Justice C. Hari Shankar noted that there was a clear attempt by Dabur to make its product appear similar to Emami's Navratna Ayurvedic Oil and that prima facie, the same was intended to create confusion in the mind of an average consumer.

Delhi HC Orders RSS Weekly 'Organizer' To Remove Article Alleging Sexual Exploitation Of Nuns, Hindu Women By Principal Of Christian School

Case Title: XYZ v. BHARAT PRAKASHAN (DELHI) LTD AND ORS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 700

The Delhi High Court has directed RSS weekly magazine “Organizer” and another website “The Commune” to remove an article alleging that the Principal of a reputed Christian school in the national capital sexually exploited nuns and Hindu women.

Justice Jyoti Singh passed an ex parte ad-interim injunction in favour of the Principal in his suit against the two publications which published the article titled “Indian Catholic Church Sex Scandal: Priest exploiting nuns and Hindu women exposed” in June this year.

Pre-Arbitration Reference To DRC Would Not Be A Bar To Appointment Of Arbitrator When The Chief Engineer Has Failed To Respond To Notice Of Dispute: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Y.K. Goyal v. Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 701

The Delhi High Court has held that in a multi-tier dispute resolution clause which provides for pre-arbitration reference to Dispute Resolution Committee (DRC), the failure to refer the dispute to DRC would not be a ground to refuse appointment of arbitrator when the Chief Engineer against whose decision an appeal was to be filed before DRC failed to respond to notice of dispute.

The bench of Sachin Datta held in a multi-tier arbitration clause, a party would have no occasion to file an appeal before the DRC when the Chief Engineer has failed respond to that party's notice of dispute, therefore, not approaching the DRC would be no ground to dismiss the arbitration petition. It further held that it is incumbent upon the Chief Engineer to render its decision within the time period provided in the agreement.

Rainwater Harvesting Should Be Seamlessly Integrated Into Delhi's Climate Resilience Planning, Authorities Must Explore Innovative Strategies: High Court

Case Title: R.K. KAPOOR v. NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI & ORS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 702

Taking note of the “unprecedented weather events” witnessed by the national capital this year, the Delhi High Court has observed that rainwater harvesting should be seamlessly integrated into the city's climate resilience planning for which the authorities must continually explore innovative strategies.

“A persistent focus on educating the public and resident welfare associations about the advantages of rainwater harvesting, coupled with practical implementation guidance, can catalyze a cultural shift towards sustainable water practices,” a division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula said.

Equilibrium Is Disturbed Where The Party Drawing Up The Panel Of Arbitrator Is Given A Further Right To Accord Its “Confirmation” To Nomination Made By Other Party: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Steelman Telecom Limited v. Power Grid Corporation of India Limited

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 703

The Delhi High Court has held that the equilibrium is disturbed where the party drawing up the panel of arbitrator is given a further right to accord its “confirmation” to nomination made by other party.

Justice Sachin Datta held that in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Central Organisation for Railway Electrification (CORE), the appointment of an arbitrator from a panel maintained by the other party is not invalid as it seeks to counterbalance the right of one party to draw a panel of arbitrator with the right of the other party to make the appointment from such a panel, however, it must be a broad panel as held by the Apex Court in Voestalpine Schienen.

Delhi High Court Upholds Single Judge Order Holding Satyajit Ray As First Owner Of Copyright In 'Nayak' Movie

Case Title: RDB AND CO(HUF) v. HARPER COLLINS PUBLISHERS INDIA PVT. LTD.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 704

The Delhi High Court has upheld a single judge order which ruled that late director Satyajit Ray is the first owner of copyright in 1966 Bengali film 'Nayak' and that the right to novelize its screenplay is also vested in him.

A division bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela dismissed the appeal moved by RDB and Co. HUF, whose 'Karta' R.D. Bansal had commissioned Ray to write and direct the film, challenging the single judge order passed on May 23.

Regular Drives For Sterlization And Immunization Of Stray Dogs An Important Public Function: High Court To Delhi Govt

Case Title: CONFERENCE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS (INDIA) (REGD.) v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. and other connected matter

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 705

The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government and civic authorities to continue making efforts for sterlization and immunization of stray dogs in the national capital.

“The respondents are directed to ensure that they continue with their efforts and drive for sterilization and immunization of stray dogs, as the same is an important public function and is required to be performed in all its earnestness,” a division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Jasmeet Singh ordered.

Preliminary Assessment Of Mental & Physical Capacity Of Juvenile To Commit Heinous Offence Must Be Concluded Expeditiously: Delhi High Court

Case Title: CCL M A v. STATE (NCT) OF DELHI and other connected matters

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 706

The Delhi High Court has ruled that every preliminary assessment under section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act in relation to heinous offences committed by a juvenile must be initiated and concluded expeditiously in terms of section 14 of the Act.

“In case of heinous offences, the Juvenile Justice Boards are required to follow the mandate of Section 14(3) and proviso to Section 14(4) in their true spirit and dispose of the proceedings before it expeditiously and without any unnecessary and unreasonable delay,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said.

Ensure No Illegal Dumping Of Plastic, Electrical And Medical Garbage, Take Action Against Defaulting Units: Delhi High Court To MCD

Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. SOUTH MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 707

The Delhi High Court has directed the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to ensure that there is no illegal dumping of electrical, plastic and medical garbage in the national capital.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula also directed the civic body to take appropriate action against all the defaulting units under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957.

Provisional Attachment Of Bank Accounts Adversely Impact Assessee's Business: Delhi High Court Imposes Rs. 5k Cost On Superintendent Anti-Evasion

Case Title: M/S Vikas Enterprises Versus Commissioner Of Central Tax (GST)

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 708

The Delhi High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 5,000 on the department and observed that the provisional attachment of bank accounts adversely impacts the assessee's business.

The bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has observed that the communication seeking to place a debit freeze on the petitioner's account emanated from Superintendent Anti-Evasion and not from the Commissioner exercising jurisdiction in respect of the taxpayer. The communication also does not indicate that it was issued with the authority of the Commissioner.

Notice Lacked Reasons to Show Wrongful Availment Of ITC: Delhi High Court Releases Seized Currency, Other Valuable Assets

Case Title: Deepak Khandelwal Proprietor Versus Commissioner Of CGST

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 709

The Delhi High Court has directed the release of the currency and other valuable assets seized from the petitioner during the search proceedings.

The bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav has observed that the notice under Section 74 of the CGST Act does not specify any particular reasons to show that "input tax credit has been wrongly availed of or utilised."

Delhi High Court Quashes Income Tax Penalty Notice Issued On The Strength Of A Non-Existent Assessment Order

Case Title: Darpan Kohli Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 710

The Delhi High Court has quashed the penalty notice issued on the strength of a non-existent assessment order.

The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that the department had issued a show cause notice for penalty under Section 271 F on the strength of an assessment order dated May 9, 2023, which was already set aside by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court vide judgement dated May 31, 2023.

Trial Court Must Give Prima Facie View About Basis Of Framing Charges Against Accused Under Juvenile Justice Act: Delhi High Court

Title: SUMAIYA JAN @ SOUMAYYA v. STATE NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 711

The Delhi High Court has said that the trial court is required to give a prima facie view stating that on what basis charges have been framed against an accused under the Juvenile Justice Act.

“Though at the stage of charge the court is not required to pass detailed order. However, the court is required to give prima facie view that on what basis the charges were framed,” Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma said.

Clause Restricting Right To Invoke Arbitration To Only 6 Months Invalid; Cannot Restrict To Period Lesser Than Provided Under Limitation Act: Delhi HC Reiterates

Case Title: M/s G.S. Express Pvt Ltd v. NTPC Ltd

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 712

The Delhi High Court has reiterated that an arbitration clause that restricts the right of a party to a mere of 6 months is invalid. The bench of Justice Yogesh Khanna held that the right to invoke arbitration cannot be restricted to a period lesser than that provided under the Limitation Act, 1963.

The Court was hearing an application under Section 11(6) filed by G.S. Express Pvt Ltd (Petitioner) seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute that has arisen between the parties.

Delhi High Court Dismisses PILs Alleging Violation Of Regulatory And Privacy Norms By Google Pay

Title: ABHIJIT MISHRA v. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA & ANR and other connected matter

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 713

The Delhi High Court has dismissed two public interest litigations filed against Google Pay alleging that the payment platform violated regulatory and privacy norms under the Indian law.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad rejected the petitions moved by Abhijit Mishra, who sought directions on Reserve Bank of India to direct Google Pay to cease its operations in India for the alleged violation.

One of the PILs moved by Mishra sought direction upon the UIDAI to initiate action against Google Pay for collecting, storing and using the users' Aadhar information in the violation of the Aadhar Act, 2016.

Publish Notification Withdrawing Mandate Of Delhi-NCR Address Aadhar Card In Four Weeks: High Court To Bar Council Of Delhi

Case Title: Rajani Kumari v. BCD

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 714

The Delhi High Court has directed the Bar Council of Delhi to notify on its website the notification which withdrew an earlier notification issued on April 13 making filing of Aadhar Card and Voter ID bearing address of Delhi or NCR region mandatory for future enrolments.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula granted four weeks' time to the lawyers' body to notify the subsequent notification.

Settlement Of Non-Compoundable Offences Through Mediation Agreements Not Permissible: Delhi High Court Issues Guidelines To Mediators

Case Title: ABHISHEK @ LOVE & ORS. v. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 715

Observing that settlement of non-compoundable offences through mediation agreements is not permissible, the Delhi High Court has issued various guidelines to be followed in such cases by mediators in all mediation centres in the national capital.

“… to permit the accused and complainant to compromise an offence on payment of money, in session triable serious criminal cases which attracts punishment up to life, cannot be subject matter of mediated settlement agreements,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said.

No-Claim-Certificate (NCC) Executed Under Duress, Contractor Entitled For Damages : Delhi HC Reiterates

Case Title: Government of NCT of Delhi v. R.S. Sharma Contractors Pvt Ltd, OMP(COMM) 130 of 2023

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 716

The Delhi High Court has held that mere execution of an NCC in favour of the employer would not disentitle the contractor from later claiming damages if it is shown that it was executed under duress and not out of free will.

Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri held that an endorsement given by Contractor, while seeking extension of time, would not come in its way in seeking escalation cost, especially when the delay was attributable to the employer.

Income Tax Dept. Not Under The Obligation To Grant Additional Tax Concession As Per BIFR's Order: Delhi High Court

Case Title: DGIT Versus The Indian Plywood Mfg. Co.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 717

The Delhi High Court has held that the income tax department is not under the obligation to grant additional tax concessions as per the order passed by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR).

The bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has observed that the obligation to extend further concessions could not be imposed on the Central Government (Income Tax Department) without its consent. The Income Tax Department had not consented to extend any concession.

Khiladi v. Khiladi: Delhi High Court Refuses Injunction Against Telugu Film In Trademark Infringement Suit By Makers Of Akshay Kumar Starrer

Case Title: VENUS WORLDWIDE ENTERTAINMENT PRIVATE LIMITED v. POPULAR ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK (PEN) PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 718

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the mark “Khiladi” pertaining to the 1992 Akshay Kumar starrer Bollywood movie and the mark “Khiladi” of a Telugu action thriller film which was released last year are prima facie not similar.

Justice Jyoti Singh dismissed the application seeking interim injunction filed by Venus Worldwide Entertainment Private Limited, the production company which produced the 1992 movie, in its trademark infringement suit against filmmakers of the Telugu movie.

Delhi HC Passes 'Dynamic+ Injunction' Restraining Rogue Websites From Streaming Present And Future Content Of Six American Studios

Case Title: UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS LLC. AND ORS. v. DOTMOVIES.BABY AND ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 719

The Delhi High Court has passed a “dynamic+ injunction” order restraining various vogue websites from streaming the existing as well as future content of six American studios.

Justice Prathiba M Singh passed the ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of Universal City Studios LLC, Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc, Columbia Pictures Industries Inc., Netflix Studios LLC, Paramount Pictures Corporation and Disney Enterprises Inc, in their suit against the rogue websites.

Discovering Husband's Infidelity Shortly After Marriage Can Have Devastating Effects On Mental Well Being Of Woman: Delhi High Court

Case Title: SAGAR v. THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT)

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 720

Observing that discovering husband's infidelity shortly after marriage can have devastating effects on the mental and emotional well-being of a woman, the Delhi High Court has denied bail to a husband accused of abetting suicide of his wife who was found dead within 13 days after marriage.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that the emotional trauma of discovering infidelity and subsequent ill behavior of a spouse can drive a woman to take extreme steps to the extent of committing suicide.

Splitting Up 'Comprehensive' Search Of Person And Belongings Doesn't Justify Not Giving Notice To Accused U/S 50 NDPS Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Sachin Arora v. State of GNCT of Delhi

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 721

Observing that Section 50 of the NDPS Act will be attracted in case of 'comprehensive search' of belongings as well as personal search, the Delhi High Court has granted bail to a person accused of supplying heroin and apprehended under Sections 21 and 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS) in 2019.

Physical Relationship With Wife Aged About 15 Years Can't Be Termed As Rape: Delhi High Court Upholds Muslim Man's Acquittal

Case Title: STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI v. MOHD K.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 722

The Delhi High Court has upheld the acquittal of a Muslim man in a rape case observing that his physical relationship with the child victim aged about 15 years, who was also his wife, cannot be termed as rape.

A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna upheld the trial court order which observed that no offence under Section 6 read with Section 5(1) of POCSO Act was made out against the man in view of the testimony of the child victim that she got married to him in December, 2014, and only thereafter did they have a physical relationship.

Money Laundering Case: Delhi High Court Permits The Quint's Raghav Bahl And Ritu Kapur To Travel Abroad For Business Meetings

Case Title: Raghav Bahl v. ED and other connected matter

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 723

The Delhi High Court has allowed The Quint's founder Raghav Bahl and co-founder and his spouse Ritu Kapur to travel abroad to London and New York next month for attending business meetings between September 02 - September 16.

Justice Amit Bansal also suspended the Look Out Circular issued against them by the Enforcement Directorate in connection with a money laundering case, on the said dates.

Importation Of Gold Is 'Prohibited Item' Under Customs Act, Owner Or Importer Not Entitled To Automatic Release: Delhi High Court

Case Title: NIDHI KAPOOR v. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER AND ADDITIONAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ORS. and other connected matters

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 724

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the importation of gold is a “prohibited item” within the meaning of Section 2(33) of the Customs Act, 1962.

A division bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma also observed that the redemption in case of importation of gold which is brought into India illegally in the form of smuggling does not entitle the owner or importer for automatic release of such item.

High Court Pulls Up Delhi Police For 'Terrible And Unfair Investigation', Directs State To Pay ₹50K Compensation Each To Two Accused

Case Title: STATE v. USHA DEVI & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 725

Pulling up the Delhi Police for conducting “terrible and unfair investigation”, the Delhi High Court has acquitted two accused persons and awarded them Rs. 50,000 compensation each, since the prosecution “floated trial” despite lack of evidence against them.

A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna gave a word of caution to the prosecution agencies to carry out investigation in a prudent manner and said that the trial courts are expected to judiciously assess the material placed on record, “so that no innocent has to bear the torment of incarceration.”

Procuring Call Data Records And Location Of Police Officials Can Encroach Upon Their Safety And Privacy: Delhi High Court

Case Title: STATE v. HARIPAL and other connected matters

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 726

The Delhi High Court has observed that procuring call detail records, including the tower-wise location of the police officials can prejudice their safety and privacy.

“The concerned police officers may be involved in dealing with cases of different nature, including sensitive or heinous cases or cases of national security, and orders, such as those impugned before this Court, can directly encroach upon the privacy of the police officials,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said.

High Court Deprecates Delhi Police's "Indifference" In Dowry Death Case, Says No Effort Made To Ascertain Actual Cause Of Death

Case Title: STATE v. DHEERAJ SHARMA & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 727

The Delhi High Court has deprecated the Delhi Police for conducting “lackadaisical investigation” in a dowry death case and said that no effort was made by the probe agency to ascertain the actual cause of death of the 23-years-old deceased woman.

“The ante mortem injuries and the Post Mortem Report clearly pointed out that it may be a case of homicidal death despite which the Investigating Agency has not even made any effort to conduct thorough investigations to ascertain the actual cause of death,” a division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said.

Decide Interim Maintenance/ Custody Applications In 90 Days: Delhi HC Issues Directions To Family Courts For Speedy Disposal Of Matrimonial Cases

Case Title: SMT. K.S. SUMI MOL v. SH. SURESH KUMAR E.K.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 728

The Delhi High Court has issued a slew of directions to the family courts in the national capital for speedy disposal of cases relating to marriage and family affairs within a time frame, in the absence of any specific Rules regarding the same.

A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna directed that when a suit has been duly instituted, summons may be issued to the defendant to appear and answer the claim and to file the written statement of defence within 30 days.

Delhi High Court Orders Release Of 'End Of Life Vehicles' Subject To Undertaking By Owners, Asks Delhi Govt To Frame Policy

Title: MS. SEEMA CHOPRA v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. and other connected matters

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 729

The Delhi High Court has ordered release of various “end of life vehicles” subject to an undertaking being furnished by their owners that such vehicles will not be plied on the streets or parked in any public space within the national capital and will be kept in a private parking space.

Justice Prateek Jalan also asked the Delhi Government to frame a policy to deal with similar vehicles in cases where the owners are ready to give an assurance that the vehicles will not be used in the national capital.

Pre-Deposit Made Before OHA Can't Be Adjusted Against Any Other Tax Dues: Delhi High Court Allows Refund To Flipkart India

Case Title: Flipkart India Private Limited Versus Value Added Tax Officer

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 730

The Delhi High Court, while allowing the refund to Flipkart India, held that a pre-deposit made before the Objection Hearing Authority (OHA) cannot be adjusted against any other tax dues.

The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma has observed that Section 38(2) of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (DVAT Act) uses the expression "recovery of any other amount due under this Act".

Delhi High Court Directs District Courts To Adopt Standardized Online Filing System, Issues Directions

Case Title: KARAN S THUKRAL v. THE DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE & ORS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 731

The Delhi High Court has directed all the district courts in the national capital to adopt a “standardized online filing system” for pleadings, documents, and miscellaneous applications and issued a slew of directions to be followed till the time appropriate Rules are in place.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula directed the District Courts to centralize all filings related to ongoing and pending cases, similar to the existing procedure for new cases.

True Or Certified Copy Of The Original Arbitration Agreement Can Be Filed When The Issue Of Stamp Duty Is Not Disputed: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Spelndor Landbase Ltd v. Aparna Ashram Society

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 732

The Delhi High Court has held that the true or certified copy of the agreement containing the arbitration agreement would be sufficient for the purpose of Section 11 petition when on the face of it, the same is duly stamped and a statement to this effect is made in the petition under Section 11 of the Act, and the same is not controverted by the opposite party.

Children Can't Be Forced To Attend Coaching: Delhi High Court Dismisses PIL Seeking Policy To Connect Coaching Centres With Schools

Case Title: Girish Kumari Gupta v. UOI and Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 733

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation seeking directions on the Delhi Government to frame a policy to connect coaching centres with schools and colleges.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula observed that the court cannot direct the Delhi Government to frame such a policy and thus, it found no reason to grant the relief as prayed in the matter.

National Medical Commission Not Expected To Assess Different Institutions On Different Yardsticks Based On Arbitrary Grounds: Delhi High Court

Case Title: NOVA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 734

The Delhi High Court has observed that an apex body like National Medical Commission is not expected to assess different institutions on different yardsticks, based on grounds that seem wholly arbitrary.

“The NMC is entrusted with the functions and duties conferred under the provisions of the NMC Act, 2019. The NMC and all autonomous Boards constituted under the NMC Act, 2019 discharge public function. The action of statutory bodies must conform to the norms and standards stipulated therein and are to be uniformly made applicable to all the institutions. Their action must necessarily be reasonable and free from any prejudice,” Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav observed.

Court Can Receive The Deficient/Requisite Stamp Duty Itself, Requirement To Send The Impounded Agreement To Collector Of Stamps Not Mandatory: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Splendor Landbase Ltd v. Aparna Ashram Society

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 735

The Delhi High Court while reiterating that it is mandatory for the Court exercising power under Section 11 of the A&C Act to impound the non-stamped or insufficiently stamped agreement held that the Court can itself collect the deficient/requisite stamp duty under Section 35 of the Stamps Act, 1899 and enable deposit of the requisite stamp duty along with penalty as contemplated under proviso (a) to Section 35 of the Stamp Act.

Wife's Insistence To Live Separately From Husband's Family Without Reason Constitutes 'Cruelty': Delhi High Court

Case Title: SJ v. S

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 736

The Delhi High Court has held that wife's insistence to live separately from other family members of the husband without any justifiable reason can be termed as an act of 'cruelty'.

A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna added that such acrimonious atmosphere at home cannot be a conducive environment for a married couple to forge a cordial conjugal relationship.

Wife Making False Allegations Against Husband, Constant Threat Regarding Being Summoned By Police Are Acts Of Cruelty: Delhi High Court

Case Title: KSG v. P

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 737

The Delhi High Court has observed that a wife's conduct of making false allegations against the husband and his family members and a constant threat to them regarding being summoned to the police station are acts of cruelty which severely impact mental balance.

A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna allowed a husband's appeal against a family court order dismissing his petition seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion by the wife.

MBBS Admissions: Delhi High Court Dismisses Challenge To Regulations By Aspirant Who Pursued 'Biology' Separately 11 Yrs After PCM Schooling

Case Title: Nishkarsh Singh Patel vs National Medical Commission & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 738

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the Graduate Medical Education Regulations 1997 as ultra vires and violative of the New Education Policy 2020, insofar as it requires an aspirant to have studied Physics, Chemistry, Biology and English together at 10+2 level.

The bench comprising Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Saurabh Banerjee was dealing with the plea of a candidate who had cleared his 10+2 back in 2010 with subjects Physics, Chemistry and Maths, and after obtaining a degree in engineering and masters in management, transgressed his career path to medicine.

Courts Can Partially Set Aside An Arbitration Award, Doctrine Of Severability Is Enshrined Under Section 34 Of The A&C Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: NHAI v. Trichy Thanjavur Expressway Ltd

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 739

The Delhi High Court has held that the Courts exercising powers under Section 34 of the A&C Act has the power to partially set aside an arbitration award to strike off the offending portion of the award while retaining the remaining award.

The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma held that the doctrine of severability of arbitration award is explicitly recognised under Section 34(2)(a)(iv) of the Act.

Civil Suit For Recovery Of Arrears Of Maintenance Maintainable When Amount Becomes 'Debt' And Is Payable To Wife Or Children: Delhi High Court

Title: VASU BAJAJ v. RAKESH BAJAJ

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 740

The Delhi High Court has ruled that arrears of maintenance by a husband becomes “debt” once the definite amount becomes payable to the dependent wife or children or parents which can be recovered by way of a civil suit.

A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that a civil suit for recovery of maintenance amount, which acquires the character of a “debt” is maintainable, once a final order is made under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.

Delhi High Court Orders Routine Inspections To Assess Animal Welfare In Preparation Of Anti-Venom And Anti-Rabies Serums

Title: PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS (PETA) INDIA v. THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 741

The Delhi High Court has directed the Committee for the Purpose of Control and Supervision of Experiments on Animals and other government bodies to continue conducting routine inspections to assess the welfare and well-being of animals in preparation of anti-venom and anti-rabies serums.

A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula also directed the authorities to initiate action against defaulting establishments under extant laws and regulations.

Recourse To Section 34(4) Of The A&C Act Can Only Be Taken For Curable Defects, Courts Cannot Allow The Tribunal To Either Review Or Reconsider The Award: Delhi High Court

Case Title: NHAI v. Trichy Thanjavur Expressway Ltd

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 742

The Delhi High Court has held that the recourse to Section 34(4) of the A&C Act, that grants courts the authority to remit an arbitral award to the Arbitral Tribunal, can only be taken for correcting the curable defects such as filling the gaps in reasoning, correct typographical and arithmetical errors and not to allow the tribunal to do a review of the award.

Pregnant Working Women Entitled To Maternity Benefits, Can't Be Barred Solely Due To Nature Of Employment: Delhi High Court

Case Title: ANNWESHA DEB v. DELHI STATE LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 743

The Delhi High Court has observed that pregnant working women are entitled to maternity benefits and cannot be denied reliefs under the Maternity Benefit Act, 2017, solely due to the nature of their employment.

“There is nothing in the language of the Act or in its provisions which suggests that a working expecting woman would be barred from getting the reliefs due to the sole reason of the nature of their employment,” Justice Chandra Dhari Singh ruled.

Delhi High Court Rejects SpiceJet's Plea To Stay Single Judge Order Upholding Arbitral Award In Favour Of Ex-Promoter Kalanithi Maran

Case Title: SpiceJet Limited vs Kal Airways Pvt Ltd & Ors. and other connected matter

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 744

The Delhi High Court has refused to stay a single judge order upholding an arbitral award asking SpiceJet and its promoter Ajay Singh to refund of Rs. 579.08 crores plus interest to media baron Kalanithi Maran.

A division bench comprising of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma dismissed the plea moved by SpiceJet seeking stay of the single judge order passed on July 31.

Provide Counselling To Parents For Accepting Lesbian Daughter 'As Per Her Wishes': Delhi High Court Directs Shelter Home

Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 745

The Delhi High Court has directed a shelter home in the national capital to provide counselling to parents of a 22-years-old lesbian woman, at least on alternative days, for accepting their daughter “as per her wishes.

A division bench of Chief Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna also ordered the shelter home's Director to admit the woman for her stay, give her necessary facilities including food and shelter and provide her with counselling sessions.

No Chance Of Customer Getting Confused Between 'Xpert' Soaps And Harpic's 'DrainXpert': Delhi High Court Upholds Registration

Case Title: M/S.RSPL HEALTH PRIVATE LIMITED v. RECKITT AND COLMAN (OVERSEAS) HYGIENE HOME LIMITED & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 746

The Delhi High Court has upheld the registration of “Harpic Drainxpert” trademark in favour of household goods manufacturer Reckitt and Colman.

Justice C Hari Shankar dismissed the appeals moved by RSPL Health Private Limited, engaged in manufacturing similar goods such as dish washing bars and gels under the mark 'Xpert', seeking rectification of Register of Trademarks by removing the mark “Harpic Drainxpert”.

Wife's Family Insisting Husband To Abandon His Parents And Become 'Ghar Jamai' Amounts To Cruelty: Delhi High Court Grants Divorce

Case Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 747

The Delhi High Court has observed that insistence of a wife's family for her husband to abandon his parents, become a “Ghar Jamai” and live in their house amounts to cruelty.

A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna granted divorce to a couple, who got married in 2001 and started living separately after a year, on the ground of cruelty and desertion under the Hindu Marriage Act.

Delhi High Court Refuses To Entertain Times Now Navbharat's Plea Against Bar On Telecast Of 'Operation Paap' Against AAP MLA Naresh Balyan

Case Title: TIMES NOW NAVBHARAT v. NARESH BALIYAN

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 748

The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a plea moved by Times Now Navbharat challenging a trial court order restraining the news channel from telecasting a programme “Operation Paap” against Aam Aadmi Party MLA Naresh Balyan.

Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora refused to entertain the petition in light of the statutory provisions contained under Code of Civil Procedure and the remedies available with the news channel under the statute.

State Election Commission Has No Role In Conducting General Elections: ECI To Delhi High Court In PIL Over 'First Level Check' Of EVMs, VVPATs

Case Title: Shri Anil Kumar v. Election Commission of India & Anr

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 749

The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a PIL against the conduct of State Election Commission during the “First Level Check" of EVMs and VVPATs at eleven district offices in the national capital for their use in the 2024 Lok Sabha polls.

The petition was moved by Anil Kumar, President of Delhi Pradesh Congress Committee which is a unit of Indian National Congress party.

In Hi-Tech “Click Of Mouse” Age Some Income Tax Officials Are Yet To Come Out Of Their Love For “Snail Pace” Style Of Working: Delhi High Court

Case Title: PCIT Versus M/S National Fertilizers Ltd.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 750

The Delhi High Court has rejected the appeal of the income tax department and refused to condone the delay of 498 days.

"Even in this hi-tech "click of the mouse" age, some of the government officials are yet to come out of their love for the "snail pace" style of working. The worst is when such delays are aimed at simply completing formalities so that the government appeals get dismissed on the grounds of limitation, to the intended benefit of the other party. Whatever the reason, it is either the loss to the exchequer or the abrogation of the valuable rights of the assessee litigating against the state," the bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia observed.

Provide Infra, Financial Assistance To Procure Gadgets For Conducting Trial Of Differently-Abled Accused: High Court To Delhi Govt

Case Title: RAKESH KUMAR KALRA DEAF DIVAYANG v. STATE GOVT OF NCT DELHI

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 751

The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government to provide infrastructure and financial assistance for procuring essential electronic gadgets for conducting trial in cases where the accused person is differently-abled.

“No citizen in this country should feel that due to his physical or mental disability, justice was not done to him either due to lack of material infrastructure or moral, ethical, sensitive and understanding by the judicial system and Court,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed.

Even Minimal Penetration Is Sufficient To Establish Sexual Intercourse: Delhi High Court

Case Title: RAHUL v. STATE OF DELHI

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 752

Observing that the nature of the offence as to whether it constitutes rape or an attempt to commit rape needs to be considered carefully, the Delhi High Court has said that even minimal penetration is sufficient to establish sexual intercourse by a man.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma made the observation while upholding the conviction of a man in 2008 for attempting to rape a seven year old girl child in 2006 and confining her in a room. The court also upheld the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs. 5,000 awarded to him.

After Delhi High Court Nudge, 29 Insurance Companies In India Have Launched Health Insurance Products For Persons With Disabilities

Case Title: Saurabh Shukla v. Max Bupa Insurance & Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 753

Noting that a total of 29 insurance companies in India have introduced health insurance products for persons with disabilities, the Delhi High Court has observed that the step will offer such individuals a ray of hope and would be a first step in achieving equality for them.

“While the said products may not be the most ideal for persons with disabilities, this would merely be a first step in the process of achieving Equality for PwDs, which is the solemn intent of legislations including the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016,” Justice Prathiba M Singh said.

NEET-UG: Delhi High Court Imposes Rs 20K Cost After Candidate Produces Fabricated OMR Sheet

Case Title: Selishia Mohandas v. UOI & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 754

The Delhi High Court recently imposed a cost of Rs. 20,000 against a NEET aspirant who claimed to have scored higher marks than what was reflecting on the record by producing a fabricated OMR Sheet.

Expressing shock over the stand of the aspirant, Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav said, “it is stated by counsel for the petitioner that earlier the name of the petitioner was appearing, however, on modification of the answer sheet, the same stands deleted. Such a stand is again unacceptable and shocking to the conscience of the court.”

Delhi High Court Refuses To Rely On ChatGPT Responses In IPR Suit, Says AI Can't Substitute Human Intelligence In Adjudicatory Process

Case Title: CHRISTIAN LOUBOUTIN SAS & ANR. v. M/S THE SHOE BOUTIQUE – SHUTIQ

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 755

Refusing to rely on ChatGPT responses in a suit filed by french luxury company Christian Louboutin over its unique “red sole” shoes design, the Delhi High Court has said that artificial intelligence cannot substitute either human intelligence or humane element in the adjudicatory process.

“Accuracy and reliability of AI generated data is still in the grey area. There is no doubt in the mind of the Court that, at the present stage of technological development, AI cannot substitute either the human intelligence or the humane element in the adjudicatory process. At best the tool could be utilised for a preliminary understanding or for preliminary research and nothing more,” Justice Prathiba M Singh said.

DGGI Can't Be Stopped From Taking Intelligence-Based Enforcement Action When Investigation By Other Authority Is Going On: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/S. Hanuman Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Additional Director General Directorate General Of GST

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 756

The Delhi High Court has held that the Directorate General of Goods and Service Tax Intelligence (DGGI) cannot be stopped from taking intelligence-based enforcement action when investigations by other authorities are going on.

The bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has observed that if any of the authorities have found it necessary to investigate the petitioner based on certain information, the investigation cannot be stopped or interdicted on account of an investigation conducted with respect to any other entity.

Courts Must Make Judicious Use Of Order VII Rule 11 For Expeditious Disposal Of Petition, Discard Frivolous Litigation : Delhi High Court

Case Title: Aseem Aggarwal v. Ashi Kumar

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 757

The Delhi High Court recently said that Courts must judiciously use the provision for rejection of plaint, Order VII Rule 11, to dispose of the pleas expeditiously and to discard frivolous litigation.

The division bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna and Justice Suresh Kumar Kait observed,

“ Scrupulous adherence to provisions of CPC especially provisions like Order VII Rule 11 CPC can curtail litigation like the present one, which aside from clogging the litigation that could have been nipped in the initial stage itself, also keeps the parties embroiled in litigation with a false hope of some relief, which is never to come their way. This not only leads to dejection amongst the litigants towards the system but also leads to prolonged acrimony between the parties which is not conducive to a robust judicial system and ultimately to a peaceful society.”

Don't Exhibit 'RCB Jersey' In Jailer Movie: Delhi High Court To Filmmakers In Suit By IPL Team

Case Title: ROYAL CHALLENGERS SPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED v. SUN PICTURES A DIVISION OF SUN TV NETWORK LTD.AND ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 758

The Delhi High Court has directed the filmmakers of Rajnikanth starrer Jailer movie to ensure that from September 01 onwards, none of the theatres exhibit the jersey of IPL team Royal Challengers Bangalore, as worn by a contract killer in one of the scenes in the film.

Regarding the movie's release on television, satellite or any OTT platform, Justice Prathiba M Singh said that an altered version of the film shall be broadcasted or telecasted prior to such release.

Husband Has No Right To Torture Wife And Beat Her Merely Because They Are Married: Delhi High Court

Case Title: RS v. AS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 759

While dissolving a decade old marriage of a couple, the Delhi High Court has observed that no law has given husband the right to subject his wife to beatings and torture merely because they got married.

“ Merely because the parties got married and the respondent was her husband, no law gave him the right to subject his wife to beatings and torture,” a division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said.

Section 34 Petition Filed Without Impugned Award And Statement Of Truth Is Non-Est: Delhi High Court Reiterates

Case Title: Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports v. ERNST and YOUNG PVT LTD

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 760

The Delhi High Court has reiterated that a Section 34 petition filed unaccompanied by the impugned award and without the statement of truth would not constitute a valid filing. The Court observed that the petition as originally filed was without the impugned award and statement of truth and constituted of only 46 pages, however, the refiled version ran into 1785 pages which included the impugned award, therefore, the original filing would be non-est.

The bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna held that the period of limitation for the purpose of Section 34 would stop only on the date when the petition is properly filed and a non-est filing would not stop the limitation.

Insulting A Woman Or Not Behaving With Her In A Chivalrous Manner Won't Amount To 'Outraging Her Modesty': Delhi High Court

Case Title: VARUN BHATIA v. STATE AND ANOTHER

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 761

The Delhi High Court has ruled that insulting a woman, being rude to her and not behaving with her in a chivalrous manner, as she would expect one to behave, will not be covered under the definition of “outraging the modesty of a woman” as per Section 509 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

“ The Courts will also have to consider, while adjudicating the cases of Section 509 IPC, the background of the complainant before it, as that can also guide the Courts in deciding as to what the complainant in a case, in given circumstances, would have interpreted or would the complainant's modesty with those words could be said to be outraged,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said.

Sending Scanned Copy Of A Signed Arbitral Award Through Email Constitutes A Valid Delivery Under Section 31(5) Of The A&C Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports v. ERNST and YOUNG PVT LTD

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 762

The Delhi High Court has held that an email sent by the arbitral tribunal to the parties wherein the scanned copy of the signed award is attached constitutes a valid delivery of the award under Section 31(5) of the A&C Act.

The bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna held that the period of limitation for challenging an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Act would commence on the date of the subject email and the fact that the award was physically collected on a later date is immaterial qua the limitation.

Delhi High Court Constitutes Fact Finding Committee To Evaluate Drinking Water And Sanitation Conditions In Tihar Jail

Case Title: DELHI HIGH COURT LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 763

The Delhi High Court has constituted a four member fact finding committee to evaluate the drinking water, sanitation and hygiene conditions in Tihar Jail.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula directed that the members of the committee shall be Advocates Dr. Amit George, Santosh Kumar Tripathi, Nandita Rao and Tushar Sannu.

'Pay ₹5 Lakh Or Face Civil Prison For Repeatedly Breaching Injunction Order': Delhi High Court To Hotel In Ramada's Trademark Infringement Suit

Case Title: RAMADA INTERNATIONAL,INC v. LA-RAMADA WORLD PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 764

The Delhi High Court has directed a hotel to deposit Rs. 5 lakhs with its Registry for repeated breach and “contumacious disobedience” of an injunction order passed against it in a trademark infringement suit filed by international hospitality company Ramada.

Justice C Hari Shankar said that in case the sum is not deposited, Kumar Sambhav, the Director of La Ramada World Resort and Spa, would be taken into custody to suffer incarceration in civil prison for a period of week.

Seek Candidates' Eligibility Proof During Submission Of Application To Avoid Cancellation Of Candidature After Shortlisting: Delhi HC To DSSSB

Case Title: GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. v. SHEETAL

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 765

The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) to amend its selection process and ask the candidates to upload documents showing their eligibility, caste and other details at the time of submission of the application itself.

A division bench of Justice V Kameswar Rao and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta passed the direction to ensure that in case a candidate is unable to upload the said documents after the results are announced, the DSSSB can rely or consider them after they are uploaded at the time of submission of the application and due verification.

Civil Services Exam 2023: Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking 10% Reduction In CSAT Cut-Off

Case Title: Siddharth Mishra & Ors. v. UPSC

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 766

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea challenging the order of Central Administrative Tribunal which refused to order reduction in cut off for Civil Services Aptitude Test 2023 from 33% to 23%.

Referring to a number of precedents including Ranjan Kumar & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors., (2014), the division bench of Justice V. Kameshwar Rao and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendriatta said,

“ The Tribunal had rightly observed that the said judgments restrain judicial bodies/fora from interfering with competitive selection processes merely on the ground that some of the candidates may have questioned the selection process or the syllabus of the examination, even though they had voluntarily participated in the examination.”

Extortion Case: Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Conman Sukesh Chandrashekar's Alleged Woman Aide

Case Title: POOJA SINGH v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 767

The Delhi High Court has granted bail to a woman, an alleged close aide of conman Sukesh Chandrashekar, accused of assisting him while he was lodged in Tihar Jail through a contractual nursing staff and for helping him run an extortion racket from the prison.

Pooja Singh was employed by Chandrashekar's wife Leena Maria Paul as manager of her nail artistry salon. Paul is also a co-accused in the case.

Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma observed that Singh was a young woman of about 25 to 26 years and that the Enforcement Directorate did not allege that she used “even a single paisa” for her own benefit.

Court Has Power To Issue Time Bound Directions To Collector Of Stamps To Decide On Unstamped Arbitration Agreements, Purpose Of Section 11(13) Of A&C Act Should Not Be Defeated: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Spelndor Landbase Ltd v. Aparna Ashram Society

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 768

The Delhi High Court has held the Court exercising power under Section 11 of the A&C Act has the power to issue time bound directions to Collector of Stamps to decide on unstamped arbitration agreements to ensure that the mandate of Section 11(13) of the A&C Act that provides for expeditious disposal of Section 11 petition should not be defeated.

Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Election Of Union Minister Meenakshi Lekhi In 2019 General Polls

Case Title: RAMESH v. SMT. MEENAKSHI LEKHI

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 769

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea challenging the election of Meenakshi Lekhi, current Union Minister of State for External Affairs, from the New Delhi Parliamentary Constituency in the 2019 Lok Sabha polls.

Justice Sanjeev Narula rejected the plea moved by Ramesh who contested as an independent candidate from the constituency and raised allegations of discrepancies in Lekhi's election expenditure and her involvement in corrupt election practices.

Section 67(2) Of The GST Act Does Not Empower Seizure Of Currency Available In Premises During Search: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Rajeev Chhatwal Versus Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (East)

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 770

The Delhi High Court has held that Section 67(2) of the GST Act does not empower the seizure of currency available on premises during a search.

The bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav has directed the department to remit the amount seized to the petitioner's bank account within a period of two weeks, along with accrued interest.

Section 14 Of Limitation Act Applicable To Proceedings U/S 34 Of Arbitration And Conciliation Act: Delhi High Court Reiterates

Case Title: NATIONAL SEEDS CORPORATION LTD v. RAM AVTAR GUPTA

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 771

The Delhi High Court has held that Section 14 of the Limitation Act, which provides for exclusion of time consumed in civil proceedings initiated before a Court not having the jurisdiction, applies to proceedings under Section 34 of the A&C Act.

The bench of Justice Jyoti Singh excluded 1239 days spent in prosecuting the petition under Section 34 petition before a Court not having the pecuniary jurisdiction. The Court observed that a party prosecuting its case with due diligence, in good faith and under a bonafide mistake before a Court not having the jurisdiction would get the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act and the time consumed in such proceedings would stand excluded from the purview of limitation.

Industrial Disputes Act | Situs Of Workman's Place Of Employment Vital To Confer Territorial Jurisdiction On Labour Court: Delhi High Court

Title: J BALAJI v. THE HINDU NEW DELHI AND ANR

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 772

The Delhi High Court has observed that the situs of a workman's place of employment is a determinative factor in conferring territorial jurisdiction on a labour court although not specified in the Industrial Disputes Act.

“Though the Industrial Disputes Act does not make any reference to the aspect of territorial jurisdiction, however, situs of the place of employment of a workman would be a determinative factor in conferring territorial jurisdiction upon a Labour Court for deciding a labour dispute raised by a workman,” a division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna observed.

Recovery Of Drugs From Couple's Bedroom Is Attributable To Both Husband And Wife: Delhi High Court

Case Title: DIXITA GOLWALA vs NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 773

The Delhi High Court observed that recovery of drugs from the bedroom of a couple is attributable to both the husband and wife.

The court made the observation in a bail plea filed by the woman who was arrested in 2021 after drugs were recovered from the couple's bedroom at their residence and from the husband's office premises.

Justice Jasmeet Singh said that bedroom is a private space shared by a husband and wife. Therefore, even if ganja is recovered from the couple's bedroom at the instance of the husband, the recovery was made from the joint space of the couple and thus, it cannot be attributable to the husband alone.

Delhi High Court Directs Omar Abdullah To Pay Maintenance Of ₹1.5 Lakhs Per Month To Estranged Wife Payal

Title: ZAHIR ABDULLAH & ANR v. OMAR ABDULLAH and other connected matter

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 774

The Delhi High Court on Thursday directed former Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 1,50,000 per month to his estranged wife Payal Abdullah.

Justice Subramonium Prasad increased the amount of interim maintenance from Rs. 75,000 which was directed by the family court in April 2018.

Delhi High Court Directs Nine YouTube Channels To Take Down 'Defamatory And Disparaging' Videos Against MBA Chai Wala

Case Title: PRAFUL BILLORE & ANR. v. BAEROJGAR & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 775

The Delhi High Court has directed nine YouTube channels to take down certain “defamatory and disparaging videos” against cafe chain MBA Chai Wala and its founder Praful Billore.

Justice Prathiba M Singh viewed one of the videos and noted that expressions like “MBA Fraud Wala” and various other derogatory expressions were used by the YouTube channels.

Delhi High Court Directs Registrar To Seek Explanation From Trial Court Judge For Passing Non-Reasoned Order Granting Bail To POCSO Accused

Case Title: MS. N v. STATE & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 776

The Delhi High Court has directed its Registrar (Vigilance) to seek an explanation from a trial court judge for passing a “non-reasoned” order granting bail to a POCSO accused.

“The Registrar (Vigilance) of this Court is directed to seek explanation on the administrative side from the concerned Judge, as to the reasons for passing the non-reasoned impugned order, report whereof shall be placed before the concerned Hon‟ble Inspecting Judges Committee of this Court within one week for consideration,” Justice Saurabh Banerjee said.

Sufficient Safeguards In Place: Delhi High Court Dismisses PIL Against Procedure Adopted For First Level Check Of EVMs For General Elections

Case Title: SHRI ANIL KUMAR v. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 777

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a PIL against the procedure adopted by the Chief Electoral Officer during the First-Level Checking (FLC) of EVMs and VVPATs to be used in the upcoming Lok Sabha polls in 2024.

The PIL was filed by the President of Delhi Pradesh Congress Committee through Advocates Aljo K. Joseph and Sunil Kumar alleging that sufficient notice was not given to political parties before conduct of FLC and that EVM details were not provided despite asking, thus defeating the whole purpose of the process.

Trademark Infringement | Except In "Most Exceptional Cases", No Ex-Parte Injunction If Defendant Has Been In Market For Some Time: Delhi High Court

Case Title: SILVERMAPLE HEALTHCARE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS vs DR AJAY DUBEY & ORS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 778

The Delhi High Court has ruled that in cases where the impugned mark has been used by the defendant for any length of time, the courts must give an opportunity to the defendant to respond to the application for interim injunction filed in a trademark infringement suit before passing any orders.

“ Where the impugned mark has been used by the defendant for any length of time, that sole factor would entitle the defendant to an opportunity to respond, inviting, to the prayer for interlocutory injunctive relief, before orders are passed by the Court thereon,” the bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar observed.

Making False Allegations Of Dowry Harassment Or Rape Against Husband's Family Members Is An Act Of Extremely Cruelty: Delhi High Court

Case Title: A v. S

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 780

The Delhi High Court has observed that making false allegations of dowry harassment or rape against the husband's family members is an act of extreme cruelty for which there can be no condonation.

A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna upheld a family court order which held a husband as entitled to divorce from his wife on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Not Safe To Prosecute Accused For Abetment Of Suicide When Deceased Was Hyper-Sensitive: Delhi High Court

Title: Rekha Rani and Ors. v. State of NCT of Delhi

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 781

The Delhi High Court has observed that it will not be safe to prosecute an accused for the offence of abetment of suicide when the deceased was “hyper-sensitive.”

Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain observed that in order to constitute the offence of abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, there should be abetment and intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide.

Section 42 Bars Petitions In Different Courts, Fraud Or Collusion Allegations Can Only Be Examined By The First Court: Delhi HC

Case Title: Liberty Footwear Company v. Liberty Shoes Limited

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 782

The Delhi High Court has decided that if a petition under Section 9 is submitted to any court other than the one where the initial application was made, Section 42 of the A&C Act will prevent it.

This section grants exclusive jurisdiction to the first court for arbitration-related cases. First court is basically the court where an arbitration petition is filed at the first instance. Section 42 says that if I have filed an application before the Delhi High Court, any other application that I file before any other court say Calcutta, would be barred by limitation.

When There Are Two Interconnected Agreements With Conflicting Arbitration Clauses, The Clause Contained In The Main Agreement Should Be Given Primacy: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Amit Guglani v. L&T Housing Finance

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 783

The Delhi High Court has held that when there are two interconnected agreements with conflicting arbitration clauses, the arbitration clause contained in the main/umbrella agreement should be given primacy over the other clause.

Justice Jyoti Singh held that when disputes under two connected agreements had different Arbitration Clauses, the disputes should be resolved under the main or umbrella agreement and the seat of arbitration should be determined as per the clause contained in the main agreement.

Periodically Monitor Status Of Uploading Central Acts, Other Legislations On India Code Portal: Delhi High Court To Law Ministry

Case Title: UNION OF INDIA v. VANSH SHARAD GUPTA

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 784

The Delhi High Court has directed the Union Ministry of Law and Justice to periodically monitor the status of uploading Central Acts and subordinate legislations on “India Code” portal.

“The Secretary, Legislative Department, Ministry of Law and Justice is directed to periodically monitor the status of uploading the Acts on the India Code portal and ensure that the process is completed seamlessly and in a time-bound manner,” Justice Manmohan ordered.