Delhi High Court Monthly Digest: July 2023 [Citations 537 - 641]

NOMINAL INDEX

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

NOKIA TECHNOLOGIES OY v. GUANGDONG OPPO MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORP LTD & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 542

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

Social Jurist, A Civil Rights Group v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 547

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

ANTOSH v. STATE 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 553

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

COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 559

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

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.