Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up: April 10 To April 16

Citations 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 297 to 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 317

NOMINAL INDEX

RAVINDER v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 297

Court In Its Own v. S Gurumurthy 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 298

COMMISSIONER (FOOD SAFETY), GNCTD v. SUGANDHI SNUFF KING PVT. LTD. AND ORS. and another connected matter 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 299

Karan Antil vs. High Court of Delhi & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 300

SURENDER KUMAR MATHUR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 301

SAWAN v. STATE 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 302

RAJASTHAN EQUESTRIAN ASSOCIATION v. SPS TOMAR and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 303

Mahesh Kumar vs Union of India and Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 304

All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and Anr. v. Election Commission of India 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 305

INDU KAPOOR v. AU SMALL FINANCE BANK & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 306

UBER INDIA SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 307

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Versus UOI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 308

PEGASUS ASSETS RECONSTRUCTION PVT LTD v. SULABH KAPUR AND ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 309

HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED v. RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 310

M/s Promax Power Ltd vs. M/s Tahal Consulting Engineers India Pvt Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 311

RAGHUNATH v. DELHI BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 312

ACE TECHNOLOGIES CORP AND ORS. v. COMMUNICATION COMPONENTS ANTENNA INC. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 313

M/S GOKALDAS PAPER PRODUCTS v. M/S LILLIPUT KIDSWEAR LTD & ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 314

UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS LLC & ORS. v. FZMOVIES.NET & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 315

TATA SONS PRIVATE LTD & ORS. v. SARFARAZ KHAN 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 316

JMD HERITAGE LAWNS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. MR . ANKIT CHAWLA PROPRIETOR SADDA PIND RESTAURANT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 317

Judgments/Orders

Delhi High Court Orders Constitution Of Joint Task Force To Stop Illegal Sand Mining On Yamuna River Banks

Title: RAVINDER v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 297

The Delhi High Court has ordered constitution of a joint task force, comprising Delhi Police and Uttar Pradesh Police, to ensure that the illegal sand mining on the banks of Yamuna River is stopped.

Justice Prathiba M Singh directed the joint task force to regularly monitor the river banks and ensure that "proper pickets" are posted for stopping any kind of illegal sand mining.

Delhi High Court Discharges Vivek Agnihotri In Contempt Case After 'Unconditional Apology', Asks Him To Be Careful In Future

Title: Court In Its Own v. S Gurumurthy

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 298

Filmmaker Vivek Agnihotri has expressed his remorse and tendered an unconditional apology before the Delhi High Court in a contempt case related to remarks made against Justice S. Muralidhar on microblogging platform Twitter in 2018. Agnihotri was present in the courtroom and said he has "utmost respect" for the institution of judiciary.

In 2018, Agnihotri allegedly retweeted a post against Justice Muralidhar, former judge of the High Court and present Chief Justice of Orissa High Court, in respect of the judge's order quashing the order of house arrest and transit remand of activist Gautam Navlakha in the Bhima Koregaon case.

A division bench of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Vikas Mahajan recalled the show cause notice for initiating proceedings of criminal contempt against Agnihotri and also discharged him as alleged contemner.

Delhi High Court Upholds Validity Of Notifications Banning Manufacture & Sale Of Chewing Tobacco Products, Sets Aside Single Bench Ruling

Title: COMMISSIONER (FOOD SAFETY), GNCTD v. SUGANDHI SNUFF KING PVT. LTD. AND ORS. and another connected matter

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 299

The Delhi High Court has set aside a single judge verdict which had quashed various notifications issued by Delhi Government’s Commissioner of Food Safety prohibiting the manufacture, storage, distribution or sale of Gutka, Pan Masala, flavoured tobacco and similar products in the national capital.

Upholding the validity of the notifications, a division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Yashwant Varma allowed the appeals moved by Delhi Government and Union of India’s Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.

Pursuing Master’s Course In Law Doesn’t Constitute A Break In Practice, Suspension Of Enrolment Not Required: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Karan Antil vs. High Court of Delhi & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 300

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the eligibility criterion of seven years of continuous practise as an advocate to be appointed as a District Judge, as set out in Rule 9(2) of the Delhi Higher Judicial Services (DHJS) Rules, 1970 or Article 233(2) of the Constitution of India, does not require any inquiry into the actual area of practise as an advocate.

"If a person is enrolled as an advocate for a period of seven years prior to the date of the application, he would satisfy the eligibility criteria unless it is established that he was not entitled for being so enrolled as an advocate; had suspended his practice either voluntarily or otherwise; or had accepted an engagement or vocation, which was impermissible as an advocate," said the court.

Look Into Anomalies In Maintaining ‘Asla Registers’ In Police Stations: Delhi High Court To Commissioner Of Police

Title: SURENDER KUMAR MATHUR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 301

The Delhi High Court has asked the Commissioner of Delhi Police to look into the anomalies in maintaining the “Asla registers”, which contain details of issuance and return of arms, in all the police stations.

A division bench of Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Poonam A. Bamba passed the order while setting aside the conviction and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life awarded to a policeman for murdering one Jai Kumar.

Lawyer’s Complaint Alleging Injury Can’t Be Disregarded Merely Because He Knows How To Draft It: Delhi High Court

Title: SAWAN v. STATE

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 302

Denying anticipatory bail to a man accused of causing hurt to an individual by hitting his head with an iron rod, the Delhi High Court has observed that merely because the complainant is a lawyer by profession, his complaint cannot be disregarded merely on the ground that he knows how to draft it.

“The same would imply that an injured person who has his or her complaint prepared by a lawyer will be at better footing, than a lawyer himself who has suffered injuries on the vital part of the body,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said in the order.

Delhi High Court Issues Directions For Elections Of Equestrian Federation Of India, Appoints Justice Bharihoke As Returning Officer

Title: RAJASTHAN EQUESTRIAN ASSOCIATION v. SPS TOMAR and other connected matters

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 303

The Delhi High Court has issued a slew of directions for conducting elections to various posts of the office bearers to the Equestrian Federation of India and appointed former high court judge Ajit Bharihoke as the returning officer to determine the electoral college.

Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed that the elections to the federation have to be held to ensure that a “democratically elected body” is in place and issued directions as a “one time measure” considering that the 19th Asian Games are to be held between September 23 to October 08.

Appointment Offer Can't Be Cancelled Merely On Basis Of Previous Involvement In FIR Without Considering Reasoning In Judgment: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Mahesh Kumar vs Union of India and Ors

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 304

The Delhi High Court has said that generalizations cannot be made to deny the offer of appointment merely on the basis of registration of FIR without considering the reasoning in the judgment and the relevant facts and circumstances.

The division bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta made the observation while directing the authorities to consider the appointment of a person, whose appointment to the post of Sub Inspector (EXE) in Delhi Police was earlier cancelled due to his alleged involvement in a 2011 case of dowry death. The petitioner Mahesh Kumar was acquitted in the case in 2013.

Decide AIADMK’s Representation For Updation Of Its Amended By-Laws Within 10 Days: Delhi High Court Directs ECI

Title: All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and Anr. v. Election Commission of India

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 305

The Delhi High Court has directed the Election Commission of India to decide within ten days the representation of All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) for updation of its amended by-laws with the records of the constitutional body.

The counsel representing ECI told Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav that the Commission will take a call on the representation within ten days.

The court disposed of the plea moved by the political party and its interim General Secretary Thiru K Palaniswamy seeking direction for ECI to consider its representation and upload the latest amended bye-laws dated July 11, 2022 in its records.

Practical Solution Needed At Earliest To Address Issue Of Frequent Vacancy In DRTs: Delhi High Court

Title: INDU KAPOOR v. AU SMALL FINANCE BANK & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 306

The Delhi High Court has taken note of the issue of “frequent vacancy” arising in the national capital's Debt Recovery Tribunals, observing that the issue needs consideration and a practical solution has to be found at the earliest.

A division bench of Justice Najmi Waziri and Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain noted that out of the three DRTs in Delhi, only two are functional currently.

“Now one more Presiding Officer is stated to have put in his papers because of his appointment in another Tribunal. This would leave only one functional DRT with the pendency of over 17,000 cases of all DRTs,” it observed.

Delhi High Court Upholds Notifications Levying GST On Auto Rikshaw, Bus Services Booked Through Apps Like Uber, Ola

Title: UBER INDIA SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR and other connected matters

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 307

The Delhi High Court has upheld the validity of notifications issued by the Union of India levying goods and services tax (GST) on auto rickshaw and bus services booked through e-commerce platforms like Ola and Uber.

A division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora observed that the notifications do not create an unreasonable classification on the basis of the “mode of booking” availed by the consumers and are not violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

The court dismissed the petitions moved by Uber India, Pragatisheel Auto Rickshaw Driver Union and IBIBO Group Private Limited along with Make My Trip (India) Private Limited, challenging two notifications issued by Union of India on November 18, 2021.

Merely Seeking Documents Or Clarifications By Issuing Deficiency Memo Will Not Render Refund Application Non Est: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Versus UOI

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 308

 The Delhi High Court has held that merely because certain other documents or clarifications are sought by way of issuing a Deficiency Memo, the same will not render the application filed by a taxpayer as non-est.

The bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has observed that if the application filed is not deficient in material particulars, it cannot be treated as non est. If it is accompanied by the "documentary evidence" as mentioned in Rule 89(2) of the Rules, it cannot be ignored for the purposes of limitation. The limitation would necessarily stop upon filing the application.

Union Govt’s Duty To Ensure Fully Functional DRTs On Unhindered Basis, Non-Availability Renders Litigants Remediless: Delhi High Court

Title: PEGASUS ASSETS RECONSTRUCTION PVT LTD v. SULABH KAPUR AND ORS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 309

The Delhi High Court has observed that it is the duty of the Union Ministry of Finance to ensure that the Debt Recovery Tribunals (DRTs) in the national capital are fully functional on an unhindered basis as their non-availability renders litigants remediless.

A division bench of Justice Najmi Waziri and Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain observed that pro-active measures are expected in such matters especially when they involve the nation’s economy and assets of banks, financial institutions, private entities and citizens.

Advertiser Can Indulge In Hyperbole But Can’t Claim Competitor’s Products As Bad Or Substandard: Delhi High Court

Title: HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED v. RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 310

The Delhi High Court has observed that an advertiser can indulge in puffery and hyperbole to reflect its product in a good light, however, it is not open for an advertiser to claim that the product of its competitor is bad, substandard or its use would be detrimental to the interest or well-being of the customers.

A division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan said that while comparative advertisement is permissible, it cannot disparage the products of the competitors.

Delhi High Court Lays Down Twin Test For Exercising Power Of Attachment Before Passing Arbitral Award

Case Title: M/s Promax Power Ltd vs. M/s Tahal Consulting Engineers India Pvt Ltd

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 311

The Delhi High Court has ruled that though the power to pass an attachment order before an award is rendered by the Arbitral Tribunal may not have been specifically set out in Sections 9 and 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), however, such an order could be made if the circumstances so warrant.

Construction Workers' Pension Can’t Be Denied Over Distinction In DoB When Identity Is Established & Claim Is Not Fake: Delhi High Court

Title: RAGHUNATH v. DELHI BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 312

The Delhi High Court has observed that the right of pension of construction workers cannot be denied merely due to some distinction in the date of birth, as long as the identity can be established and the claim is not a fake or a ghost claim.

Noting that a large number of construction workers are either illiterate or even semi-illiterate and hail from rural background, Justice Prathiba M Singh said:

“It is nigh possible that their families may not preserve the proper record of date of birth and on most occasions date of birth is filled on the basis of information available with the adults in the family as also certain external events which may have occurred.”

Delhi High Court Upholds Patent Infringement In Favour Of Communication Components Antenna Inc.

Title: ACE TECHNOLOGIES CORP AND ORS. v. COMMUNICATION COMPONENTS ANTENNA INC.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 313

The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by Ace Technologies Corp. against Communication Components Antenna Inc., thereby upholding the findings of infringement in the order passed by the Single Judge.

The Division Bench comprising of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan rejected all grounds of invalidity raised by the Appellants, thereby holding that no credible challenge to the validity of the patent in question had been raised at the interim stage.

Perjury Is A Serious Criminal Offence Which Can’t Be Remedied, Making False Statement To Court Has To Invite Adverse Action: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/S GOKALDAS PAPER PRODUCTS v. M/S LILLIPUT KIDSWEAR LTD & ANR

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 314

Observing that perjury is a serious criminal offence which cannot be remedied, the Delhi High Court has said that making false statements to the court has to necessarily invite adverse action.

Justice Sanjeev Narula said that filing a false affidavit in court is a serious offence that undermines the very foundation of the legal system.

Observing that the legal system relies heavily on the honesty and integrity of individuals who appear before courts, the bench said:

“ When one makes a statement before the court or signs an affidavit, they are making a solemn declaration to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Filing of a false affidavit is a serious offence that undermines the very foundation of the legal system.”

Delhi High Court Restrains 40 Rogue Websites From Illegally Streaming Content Of Netflix, Universal City Studios & Other Entertainment Companies

Case Title: UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS LLC & ORS. v. FZMOVIES.NET & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 315

The Delhi High Court has restrained 40 rogue websites from streaming, hosting and making available to public the original copyrighted content of Netflix, Disney, Universal City Studios and other entertainment companies.

Justice Amit Bansal directed the internet and telecom services providers to ensure compliance of the order by blocking the rogue websites, their URLs and respective IP addresses.

Consuming Packaged Drinking Water Of Inferior Quality Can Be Fatal: Delhi High Court On Sale Of ‘Taza Water Plus’ Bottles In Tata’s Trademark Suit

Case Title: TATA SONS PRIVATE LTD & ORS. v. SARFARAZ KHAN

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 316

Observing that consumption of packaged drinking water which may be of inferior quality could lead to fatalities, the Delhi High Court has permanently restrained an individual from manufacturing water bottles under the mark “Taza Water Plus” in a trademark and copyright infringement case filed by Tata Sons Private Limited.

Justice Sanjeev Narula found the individual manufacturer guilty of infringement by dishonestly adopting a trademark which was “nearly identical” to Tata’s trademark “Tata Water Plus” for mineral water bottles and identical packaging.

Delhi High Court Permanently Restrains Rajasthan-Based Restaurant From Using 'Sadda Pind' Mark, Asks It To Pay ₹2 Lakh Costs To NGO

Title: JMD HERITAGE LAWNS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. MR . ANKIT CHAWLA PROPRIETOR SADDA PIND RESTAURANT

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 317

The Delhi High Court has permanently restrained a Rajasthan-based restaurant from using the mark “Sadda Pind”, which is registered in favour of a famous tourist place in Punjab.

Justice C Hari Shankar decreed the suit filed by JDM Heritage Lawns Heritage Private Limited after the defendant, Ankit Chawla, undertook not to use “SADDA PIND” mark for his restaurant.