Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up: November 27 To December 03, 2023

Mohit Kumar and Anr. v. Office of the Insurance Ombudsman and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1173

Filo Edtech Inc v. Union of India & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1174

Universal City Studios LLC. & Ors. v. Fztvseries.Mobi & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1175

Ms SK Educations Pvt Ltd v. Sripathi Bhushan Srichandan & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1176

AERO CLUB v. M/S SAHARA BELTS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1177

Resorts Consortium India Limited Versus ITAT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1178

Muneer Ahmad v. Registrar of Trade Marks 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1179

Upinder Kaur Malhotra v. Capt Teghjeet Singh Malhotra and Anr 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1180

Dabur India Limited v. Ashok Kumar and Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1181

BABY ADIRA JATIA & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1182

FAHIM v. STATE 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1183

Shubham Chopra v. Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1184

Asset Reconstruction Company India Ltd v. ATS Infrastructure Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1185

RESILIENT INNOVATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED v. MADHURI JAIN GROVER & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1186

AVTAR SINGH KOCCHAR @ DOLLY v. ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1187

H.P. Cotton Textile Mills Ltd v. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1188

Newton Engineering and Chemicals Limited and Ors v. Uem India Pvt Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1189

JATIN KHURANA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1190

Vermeet Singh Taneja v. Jasmeet Kaur 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1191

ACHLA DHAWAN v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1192

Writ Petition Maintainable If Insurer Disallows Claim De Hors Specific Policy Terms: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Mohit Kumar and Anr. v. Office of the Insurance Ombudsman and Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1173

Allowing a couple’s insurance claim in respect of travel bookings cancelled due to Covid-19 onset, the Delhi High Court recently held that a writ petition would be maintainable if the court finds that insurer has illegally repudiated the claim de hors specific terms of the policy.

Observing that the court could exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to enforce a life insurance claim, Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav said,

“The determination of the question depends on consideration of several factors i.e., whether a writ petitioner is merely attempting to enforce his/her contractual rights or the case raises important questions of law and constitutional issues, the nature of the dispute raised, the nature of inquiry necessary for determination of the dispute etc.”

Situs Of High Court For Appeal U/S 117A Of Patents Act Determined By “Appropriate Office” Under Patent Rules: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Filo Edtech Inc v. Union of India & Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1174

Justice C. Hari Shankar of the Delhi High Court recently held that the situs of the High Court which would hear an appeal u/s 117A of the Patents Act would be determined by the location of the “appropriate office” in terms of Rule 4 of the Patent Rules.

The observation came to be made pursuant to raising of an objection to territorial jurisdiction in an appeal filed u/s 117A(2) of the Patents Act, whereby rejection of a patent application filed before the Mumbai Patent Office was assailed before the Delhi High Court.

Delhi High Court Grants 'Dynamic+ Injunction' Restraining 45 Rogue Websites From Distributing Copyrighted Content Of Disney, Netflix & Others

Case Title: Universal City Studios LLC. & Ors. v. Fztvseries.Mobi & Ors

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1175

Justice Prathiba M. Singh of the Delhi High Court recently granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of content creators Universal, Warner Bros, Netflix, Paramount Pictures and Disney in a suit filed against rogue websites disseminating their copyrighted content.

Taking cue from its earlier judgment in Universal City Studios LLC. & Ors. v. Dotmovies.baby & Ors., the court issued a “Dynamic+ injunction”, protecting not only the plaintiffs’ existing content but also future works.

Delhi High Court Restrains Former ‘Bachpan’ Playschool Franchisee From Continuing Use Of Its Trademarks, Logo

Case Title: Ms SK Educations Pvt Ltd v. Sripathi Bhushan Srichandan & Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1176

Justice C. Hari Shankar of the Delhi High Court recently restrained a former franchisee of playschool ‘Bachpan’ from continuing to use its registered word and device marks, noting that the Franchisee Agreement between the parties expired in 2021.

“The use, by the defendants, of the plaintiff’s mark, for running play schools, holding itself out to be a franchisee of the plaintiff, clearly results in likelihood of confusion and association, as envisaged by Section 29(2)(c) read with Section 29(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999”, the court said.

Sale Of Counterfeit Goods Goes Against Public Interest, May Render Brand Completely Useless: Delhi HC Grants ₹11 Lakh Damages To Woodland

Title: AERO CLUB v. M/S SAHARA BELTS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1177

The Delhi High Court has observed that sale of counterfeit goods goes against public interest and may render a trademark or brand completely useless.

Justice Prathiba M Singh made the observation while awarding Rs. 11 lakhs to Woodland as damages and costs in a trademark infringement suit against an entity selling counterfeit products using its registered trademark “Woodland.”

Appellant Was Pursuing Review Petition In Good Faith, Delhi High Court Condones Delay In Filing Appeal Against ITAT Order

Case Title: Resorts Consortium India Limited Versus ITAT

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1178

The Delhi High Court has condoned a 79-day delay in filing an appeal as a review petition was filed before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).

The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that the time spent by the applicant while pursuing the review proceedings deserves to be excluded even under principles analogous to Section 14 of the Limitation Act because the applicant, in good faith, was prosecuting the challenge to the impugned order before the Tribunal with due diligence, but the Tribunal was unable to entertain the review on account of a defect of jurisdiction.

Trademarks | When Examining For Registrability U/s 9 Or 11, Marks Ought To Be Viewed As A Whole: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Muneer Ahmad v. Registrar of Trade Marks

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1179

Justice C. Hari Shankar of the Delhi High Court recently held the mark “BHARAT with the device of brush” entitled to registration, observing that the Senior Examiner erred in invoking Section 9(1) of the Trade Marks Act (“TMA”) to refuse registration to the mark.

“In invoking each of the clauses of Section 9(1), therefore, the Senior Examiner has erred in viewing merely individual parts of the mark, ignoring others. In examining the registrability of the mark, whether under Section 9 or Section 11, the mark has to be viewed as a whole," the court said.

Plea To Transfer Case To Another Court Must Be Based On Reason, Not Apprehension Of An Over Sensitive Mind: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Upinder Kaur Malhotra v. Capt Teghjeet Singh Malhotra and Anr

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1180

The Delhi High Court recently dismissed a plea for transfer of matters pending before the Family Judge, Patiala House Courts to another court of competent jurisdiction, observing that apprehension underlying such pleas ought to be founded on reason and not merely an over sensitive mind.

“While there is absolutely no doubt in the legal proposition that Justice must not only be done, but also appear to be done, and where a party has a reasonable doubt that such a party may not get justice in a particular Court, the same may be a ground to transfer the proceedings to another Court, at the same tim

Call Meeting Of All Cyber Crime Cells For Coordination In Dealing With Fraudulent Transaction Cases: Delhi High Court To MHA

Case Title: Dabur India Limited v. Ashok Kumar and Ors

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1181

The Delhi High Court has directed the concerned Joint Secretary of the Ministry of Home Affairs ("MHA") to call a meeting of Cyber Crime Cells in various states to ensure coordination while dealing with cases involving fraudulent transactions.

Justice Prathiba M Singh said that there needs to be some coordination between Cyber Crime Cells of all police authorities in the country and ordered that the meeting be held on December 20.

Unauthorised Constructions | Delhi High Court Flags Influx Of Cases Against MCD Inaction, Calls For More Transparency

Title: BABY ADIRA JATIA & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1182

The Delhi High Court has observed that a mechanism needs to be evolved, if not already in place, to ensure that the action taken by Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) on the complaints received about unauthorised constructions in the national capital is “systematic, transparent and even-handed.”

Justice Prateek Jalan said that several cases are filed in the court every week alleging that the MCD has taken no action despite several complaints having been submitted regarding unauthorised construction.

Trial Courts Should Not Issue Non-Bailable Warrants On First Call, Except In Cases Of Genuine Apprehension Of Absconding: Delhi High Court

Title: FAHIM v. STATE

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1183

The Delhi High Court has said that the trial courts in the national capital should not issue non-bailable warrants (NBWs) against an individual on first call in the pre-lunch hours, except when there are genuine apprehensions that such person would abscond if not taken into custody.

The court said that there is a growing trend of the Trial Courts going against the settled judgments as well as the established Rules and dismissing genuine reasons of non-appearance of the parties and issuing warrants against them.

Delhi High Court Rejects PIL Against Mandatory Requirement Of CLAT-PG Score For Induction In Indian Army’s JAG

Case Title: Shubham Chopra v. Union of India

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1184

The Delhi High Court has rejected a public interest litigation ("PIL") challenging the mandatory requirement of CLAT-PG 2023 score as an eligibility criteria for induction of law graduates in Indian Army’s Judge Advocate General ("JAG") branch.

A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna said that it was not a fit case for a PIL and prescribing educational qualifications was not within the court’s domain.

Arbitral Tribunal Has No Jurisdiction To Create Security Over A Property Which Has A Third Party Charge: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Asset Reconstruction Company India Ltd v. ATS Infrastructure Limited

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1185

The High Court of Delhi has held that the arbitral tribunal has no jurisdiction to create security on a property over which a charge is created in favour of a third party.

The bench of Justice Yogesh Khanna modified an interim order of the arbitral tribunal passed under Section 17 of the A&C Act to the extent to which the order created security on the property on which a charge was already created in favour of a third party which was not present before the arbitral tribunal.

Ashneer Grover Apologises For ‘Defamatory’ Posts Against BharatPe, Delhi High Court Imposes ₹2 Lakhs Costs For Violating Orders

Title: RESILIENT INNOVATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED v. MADHURI JAIN GROVER & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1186

Former Managing Director of BharatPe, Ashneer Grover, yesterday tendered an apology before the Delhi High Court for posting allegedly defamatory posts against the fintech company on social media and also gave an undertaking not to post similar posts in the future.

Justice Rekha Palli bound Grover to the undertaking filed by him by way of an affidavit, subject to payment of costs of Rs.2 lakhs payable by to the Delhi High Court Bar Clerk's Association.

Sukesh Chandrashekhar Extortion Case: Delhi High Court Grants Bail To 69-Yr-Old Accused In MCOCA, PMLA Cases

Title: AVTAR SINGH KOCCHAR @ DOLLY v. ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1187

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday granted bail to one Avtar Singh Kocchar, a senior citizen aged about 69 years, accused in the cases registered under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) in connection with the Rs. 200 crore extortion case involving alleged conman Sukesh Chandrasekhar.

Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma granted relief to Kocchar noting that he is a senior citizen suffering from various health ailments.

Arbitration | Decree Holder Cannot Seek An Unquantified Claim In Execution Proceedings: Delhi High Court

Case Title: H.P. Cotton Textile Mills Ltd v. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1188

While dismissing a second execution petition filed in respect of “unsatisfied” claims in an Arbitral Award, the Delhi High Court has held that a court cannot go behind the Award in execution proceedings and enable decree holder to fill gaps in producing evidence.

Considering that the cost statement in question was made subject to certification by the Arbitral Tribunal but no proof of payment was forthcoming from the decree holder, Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri observed,

“…the decree holder cannot, under the garb of this execution petition, seek a claim that was not quantified in the award due to failure of the parties to furnish proof”.

Negotiable Instruments Act | Arbitration Proceedings And Section 138 NI Act Proceedings Can Continue Simultaneously: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Newton Engineering and Chemicals Limited and Ors v. Uem India Pvt Ltd

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1189

The Delhi High Court ruled that arbitration proceedings and proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (“NI Act”) arise from separate causes of action and pendency of one does not affect the other.

Dismissing the petition, which sought quashing of a complaint u/s 138, Justice Amit Bansal observed,

“There is no merit in the contention of the petitioners that the complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act is not maintainable in view of the ongoing arbitration proceedings between the parties.”

Delhi High Court Dismisses PIL Against CBIC Circulars Mandating Compulsory Disposal And Sale Of Seized Gold To RBI

Title: JATIN KHURANA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1190

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation challenging two circulars issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) mandating compulsory disposal and sale of all seized gold ornaments or jewellery to Reserve Bank of India (RBI) within three months from the date of seizure.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna dismissed the plea moved by one Jatin Khurana as being non-maintainable, observing that he was a stranger who was not adversely affected by the circulars as none of his ornaments or articles or jewellery items had been seized.

Welfare Of Child Prime Consideration In Guardianship Cases: Delhi High Court Declines Father’s Plea To Move Child To A “Better” School

Case Title: Vermeet Singh Taneja v. Jasmeet Kaur

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1191

In a father’s plea seeking direction to his child’s mother for transfer of the child to a “better” school, the Delhi High Court has observed that welfare of the child is of prime consideration in guardianship cases.

While dismissing the plea, the Bench comprising Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, noted that the child was residing in Pitampura with his mother, and the school suggested by the father was in Dwarka (20 kms away).

Court Rooms In Delhi District Courts Not Commensurate With Sanctioned Strength Of Judicial Officers: Delhi High Court

Title: ACHLA DHAWAN v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1192

Taking judicial notice of the fact that there is a shortage of space and budget in all district courts in the city, the Delhi High Court has said that the number of court rooms available is not commensurate with the sanctioned strength of judicial officers.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna said that several new judicial infrastructure projects have been awaiting administrative approval and expenditure sanction of the Delhi Government.