Delhi High Court Weekly Round Up: July 4 To July 10, 2022

NOMINAL INDEX

Citations 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 599 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 633

Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 599

Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 600

Case Title: SH AWANEESH CHANDRA JHA v. ANIL PRASAD NANDA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 601

Case Title: JOHNSON JACOB v. STATE 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 602

Case Title: DHRUV TEWARI v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 603

Case Title: Gulati Enterprises versus Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 604

Case Title: SAMARPAL & ORS v. UOI & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 605

CASE TITLE: MR. VIJAY GUPTA v. MR. GAGNINDER KR. GANDHI & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 606

Case Title: IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD. v. REACON ENGINEERS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 607

Case Title: Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd v. Punam Devi, CS(COMM) 504 of 2019 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 608

Case Title: OSRAM GMBH v. TEJMEET SINGH SETHI AND ANR. CS(COMM) 84 of 2022 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 609

Case Title: ANISH GUPTA v. UNION OF INDIA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 610

Case Title: SHIV LINGAM v. THE STATE AND ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 611

Case Title: SH. NARDEV SONI AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 612

Case Title: Social Jurist v. GNCTD 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 613

Case Title: DSIIDC v. H.R. Builders, FAO(OS)(COMM) 77 of 2022 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 614

Case Title: VIJAY SWAROOP LAV v. MS NISHA RATHI & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 615

CASE TITLE: NIPPON A&L INC. v. THE CONTROLLER OF PATENTS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 616

Case Title: Dr Nand Kishore Garg v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 617

Case Title: M/S Path2way HR Solutions v. GNCTD 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 618

Case Title: Deepak Upadhyay v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 619

Title: IMRAN v. STATE OF DELHI THROUGH COMMISSIONER OF DELHI POLICE & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 620

Case Title: Umesh v. State (and other connected matters) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 621

Case Title: 3M COMPANY v. MR. VIKAS SINHA & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 622

Case Title: NIKHIL GUPTA v. TANU GUPTA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 623

Case Title: HUDA ANSARI & ANR. v. JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 624

Case Title: NOVO NORDISK A S v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 625

Case Title: BRIGHT LIFECARE PVT. LTD. v. VINI COSMETICS PVT. LTD. & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 626

Case Title: CITICAP HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS LTD v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 627

Case Title: ROHITASH v. THE CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER OF DELHI AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 628

Case Title: Amit Sahni v. GNCTD 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 629

Case Title: MRS. ANUGYA GUPTA v. MR. AJAY KUMAR & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 630

CASE TITLE: PHILIPS LIGHTING HOLDING B.V. v. JAI PRAKASH AGARWAL AND ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 631

Case Title: HEMA GUSAIN v. INDIA INTERNATIONAL CENTRE AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 632

CASE TITLE: BEST AGROLIFE LIMITED v. DEPUTY CONTROLLER OF PATENTS & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 633

1. Delhi High Court Asks Centre To Consider As Representation Concerning Plea For Changing 'VT' Sign Written On Indian Aircrafts

Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 599

The Delhi High Court has asked the Central Government to consider a representation regarding a plea for changing the Call Sign 'VT' (Victorian Territory and Viceroy Territory) written on Indian aircrafts.

A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad granted liberty to Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay appearing in person to approach the concerned Ministry by way of a representation and also directed the said Ministry for considering it in accordance with law in a reasonable period of time.

The plea argued that VT sign is a reflection of colonial rule and that India being a sovereign country cannot be a territory of the Viceroy. It also claimed that most of the countries which went through colonial servitude have got rid of such signs and launched their own code.

2. High Court Refuses To Entertain Plea To Regulate Production & Consumption Of Intoxicating Drinks In Delhi

Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 600

The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a petition moved by BJP leader and Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay seeking to prohibit or regulate the production, distribution and consumption of intoxicating drinks and drugs in the national capital.

Ashwini Upadhyay, who was appearing in person, stated before the Court that the liquor shops established in the city were near schools or hospitals or religious places and were established contrary to the provisions as contained under Delhi Excise Act, 2019 read with Delhi Excise Rules 2010.

At the outset, the Bench remarked "The statute is there and everyone has to follow the statute."

3. Lady Justice Is Blindfolded Only To Be Non-Partisan, Not To Be Blind To Mischief Or Fraud Played Out By Dishonest Litigants: Delhi High Court

Case Title: SH AWANEESH CHANDRA JHA v. ANIL PRASAD NANDA

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 601

"Lady Justice is blindfolded only so as to be non-partisan; but not to be blind to mischief, deception or fraud being played-out before it by dishonest litigants making a mockery of the judicial process," the Delhi High Court has observed.

Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani added that a Court is not a casino for a litigant to place a bet masquerading as a legal claim and to later withdraw from the proceedings if he finds he has a losing-hand.

The Court observed that no legal proceedings may be initiated by a litigant by way merely of a gamble as if placing a wager, from which the litigant may conveniently withdraw at any time, if matters are not going his way.

4. Anti-Corruption Branch Of Delhi Govt Can Investigate Corruption Allegations Against Delhi Police Officials: High Court

Case Title: JOHNSON JACOB v. STATE

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 602

The Delhi High Court recently rejected the argument set forth by an official of the Delhi Police that the corruption allegations levelled against him cannot be investigated by the Anti Corruption Branch of the Delhi government for the reason that the agency falls under the Ministry of Home Affairs.

In doing so, Justice Jasmeet Singh relied on Anil Kumar v. GNCT of Delhi where it was held that since the Delhi Police personnel serve the citizens in the national capital and the functions of the agency substantially and essentially relate to the affairs of Delhi, the Anti-Corruption Branch of Delhi government has the jurisdiction to entertain and act on a complaint under the Prevention of Corruption Act in respect of a Delhi Police officer, and to investigate and prosecute the crime.

5. Person Against Whom "LOC Of Intimation" Is Issued Can't Be Detained By Airport Authorities: Delhi High Court

Case Title: DHRUV TEWARI v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 603

The Delhi High Court has observed that when a look out circular (LOC) of intimation is issued against a person, the authorities at the airport or any other port cannot restrain or detain such person on the pretext that intimation of arrival or departure is required to be given to the originating agency.

Justice Mukta Gupta observed that such an action would indirectly serve as a detentive or preventive LOC. It added that it is well settled that what cannot be done directly, cannot be done indirectly.

6. Voluntary Statement Made Before The Revenue Authorities Cannot Substitute A Statutory Pre-Show Cause Consultation Notice: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Gulati Enterprises versus Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 604

The Delhi High Court has reiterated that a voluntary statement made before the revenue authorities cannot substitute a statutory pre-show cause consultation notice, as contemplated under Rule 142(1A) of the CGST Rules, 2017, as it stood before 15.10.2020.

The Division Bench of Justices Rajiv Shakdher and Tara Vitasta Ganju dismissed the contentions of the revenue department that because the petitioner's authorized representative gave a voluntary statement before the concerned officer, the need for issuing a pre-show cause consultation notice was waived.

7. Law Is Worth Tinsel If Underprivileged Can't Get Justice, Courts Need To Be Sensitized: Delhi High Court

Case Title: SAMARPAL & ORS v. UOI & ORS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 605

While granting relief to five jhuggi dwellers in the city, the Delhi High Court has observed that when the poor and deprived knock at the doors of the Court, it is required to be sensitive and sensitised in equal measure.

Justice C Hari Shankar further observed that the Court is required to remain alive to the fact that such litigants do not have access to exhaustive legal resources.

" Law, with all its legalese, is worth tinsel, if the underprivileged cannot get justice. At the end of the day, our preambular goal is not law, but justice with all its legalese, is worth tinsel, if the underprivileged cannot get justice."

8. CPC | Order VI Rule 17 Obligates Litigant To Make All Amendments Necessary For Determining Real Questions In Controversy: Delhi High Court

CASE TITLE: MR. VIJAY GUPTA v. MR. GAGNINDER KR. GANDHI & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 606

The Delhi High Court has held that Order VI Rule 17 of CPC casts an obligation on the litigant to carry out all such amendments as are necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy.

A single judge bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar observed that the use of word "shall" later in Order VI Rule 17 is mandatory in nature.

9. Filings Without Mandatory Documents Not Valid, Date Of Filing To Be Considered When Petition Is Re-Filed With All Materials: Delhi High Court

Case Title: IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD. v. REACON ENGINEERS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 607

The Delhi High Court has held that an initial filing unaccompanied with mandatorily required documents could not be considered as a valid filing. Thus, the first date of filing has to be considered the date on which the petition is re-filed with all valid documents.

In this case, the petition was filed against an Arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The respondent in the present dispute opposed the petition on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The respondent submitted that the petition was filed after the expiry of a period of three months from the date of receipt of the impugned award and the petitioner had not filed any application seeking condonation of delay. 

10. If Essential Features Of The Registered Trademark Are Infringed, The Difference In Layout, Packaging, Etc Is Of No Consequence: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd v. Punam Devi, CS(COMM) 504 of 2019

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 608

The High Court of Delhi has held that in an action for infringement of a trademark once it is shown that essential features of the trademark are adopted by the defendant, the difference in layout, packaging etc. would be of no consequence.

The Single Bench of Justice Jyoti Singh was dealing with a suit for permanent injunction filed by Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. (Plaintiff) to restrain Punam Devi (Defendant) from using the trademark RANBAXY LABORATORIES.

The plaintiff is involved in the manufacturing of speciality pharmaceuticals since the year 1978. In 2014 they acquired all the assets along with intellectual property of Ranbaxy Laboratories along with its intellectual property including the trademark RANBAXY and RANBAXY LABORATORIES LIMITED.

11. Delhi High Court Injuncts A Party Indulged In Trafficking/Hoarding Of Trademarks, Imposes Cost Of 10 Lakhs

Case Title: OSRAM GMBH v. TEJMEET SINGH SETHI AND ANR. CS(COMM) 84 of 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 609

The High Court of Delhi has injuncted a party from using the mark 'OSRAM' on the ground that it indulged in the trafficking/hoarding of the trademarks.

The Single Bench of Justice Pratibha M. Singh held that it cannot turn a blind-eye to large scale illegality committed by the defendant who had admittedly filed 416 trademark applications and was not doing any genuine business under any of these marks.

The plaintiff filed a suit for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using the mark OSRAM.

The plaintiff claimed that it had adopted the mark 'OSRAM' in 1906 and the same was registered in the year 1946 under trademark no. 1112537 in Class 11 and the mark is still on the register in its name.

12. Disciplinary Proceedings Continuing Ad Infinitum Would Be Destructive Of Rule Of Law: Delhi High Court Grants Relief To CBIC Officer

Case Title: ANISH GUPTA v. UNION OF INDIA

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 610

The Delhi High Court has observed that allowing Disciplinary Proceedings to continue ad infinitum would not only be highly prejudicial to an individual but is also destructive of the Rule of Law.

A division bench comprising of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta was dealing with cross petitions filed by one Anish Gupta against the Union of India.

Gupta was serving as Officer on Special Duty (Legal at the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs), when he was suspended in August 2013. He was served with a Departmental Charge Sheet/ Memorandum of Charge pursuant to an incident of July, 2013. Admittedly, no criminal investigation or prosecution was ever initiated or contemplated against him.

13. Delhi High Court Expresses Concern Over "Disturbing Trend" Of Subordinate Courts Entertaining Bail Applications Despite Pendency Before Higher Courts

Case Title: SHIV LINGAM v. THE STATE AND ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 611

Calling it a "disturbing trend", the Delhi High Court has expressed concern over the practice of Trial Courts in entertaining the bail applications despite the pendency of the same before the higher courts.

Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta also noted that at times, the orders are mechanically passed without any substantial change of circumstances and in complete disregard to the observations or the factors which weighed with the higher court in declining the bail.

The Court also added that the consideration of bail application by subordinate court despite pendency of an application with the higher court or without consideration of grounds of rejection of earlier application by higher courts, may be an utter disregard to judicial discipline.

14. Axiomatic Delay Disentitles Party To Discretionary Relief U/A 226: Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Acquisition Proceedings After "62 Yrs"

Case Title: SH. NARDEV SONI AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 612

The Delhi High Court has observed that the axiomatic delay in approaching the court disentitles a party to discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

While dismissing a plea filed after an inordinate delay of 62 years in a land acquisition matter, a division bench comprising of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Gaurang Kanth further added that the Petitioners had accepted the enhanced compensation without reserving any right whatsoever and the law does not permit a person to approbate and reprobate at the same time.

15. High Court Directs Delhi Govt To Ensure Uninterrupted Supply Of Sanitary Napkins In Govt Schools

Case Title: Social Jurist v. GNCTD

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 613

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday directed the Delhi Government to ensure that there is uninterrupted supply of sanitary napkins to the girl students in government-aided schools under its Kishori Yojana.

A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad disposed of a public interest litigation preferred by NGO Social Jurist through Advocates Ashok Agarwal and Utkarsh Kumar, raising concern in respect of halting the scheme.

It was stated that the Department of Education of the Delhi Government had adopted a scheme namely Kishori Yojana scheme whereby the girl students were to be provided with sanitary napkins. However, since January 2021, the distribution of the same was stopped, putting the girls students to great discomfort.

16. Objection Regarding 'Excepted Matter' Would Be An After-Thought If It Was Not Raised Before The Arbitrator: Delhi High Court

Case Title: DSIIDC v. H.R. Builders, FAO(OS)(COMM) 77 of 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 614

The High Court of Delhi has held that the objection regarding the excepted matter would be an after-thought if the same was not raised before the arbitral tribunal.

The Division Bench of Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in J.G. Engineers v. UOI (2011) 5 SCC 758 to hold that only the question of determination of the quantum of compensation for delay is an excepted matter and the issue if the compensation is payable is an arbitrable matter.

17. Lack Of Clarity In Averments Not Ground To Dismiss An Application As Non-Maintainable: Delhi High Court

Case Title: VIJAY SWAROOP LAV v. MS NISHA RATHI & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 615

Observing that maintainability and clarity of averments in an application are two entirely different concepts, the Delhi High Court has observed that an application which may be unclear or wanting in requisite details, does not suffer from maintainability on that ground alone.

Justice C Hari Shankar was dealing with a plea challenging an order dated 24th March, 2022 passed by the Additional District Judge in a civil suit to the extent that it dismissed an application filed by one of the Defendants under Order XII Rule 6 read with Order VII Rule 11 read with Order I Rule 10 and sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

18. In Case Of Amendment To A Patent Specification, The Invention Before & After Amendment Need Not Be Identical: Delhi High Court

CASE TITLE: NIPPON A&L INC. v. THE CONTROLLER OF PATENTS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 616

The Delhi High Court has held that amendments to a patent specification or claims prior to grant ought to be construed more liberally than narrowly. It added that the only consideration that must be kept in mind is that the amended claims are not inconsistent with the earlier claims in the original specification.

A single judge bench comprising of Justice Pratibha M. Singh opined that an invention before and after amendment need not be identical in case of amendment before acceptance "so long as the invention is comprehended within the matter disclosed".

19. High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking Suspension Of Delhi Minister Satyendar Jain Amid ED Probe

Case Title: Dr Nand Kishore Garg v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 617

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation seeking suspension of Aam Aadmi Party minister Satyendar Jain who is under judicial custody in connection with a money laundering case being probed by the Enforcement Directorate.

A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad dismissed the plea moved by one Dr. Nand Kishore Garg, who has been the Member of Legislative Assembly of Delhi (thrice) from Trinagar constituency.

The petition also sought issuance of guidelines pertaining to resignation or suspension of the ministers if a minister is arrested beyond stipulated time period of 48 hours as per the practice being followed relating to the public servants in term of Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965.

20. High Court Refuses To Hear Plea Against Insufficient Stock Of "Popular & Niche Liquor Brands" In Delhi

Case Title: M/S Path2way HR Solutions v. GNCTD

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 618

The Delhi High Court on Thursday refused to hear a petition against non-availability of "popular and niche liquor brands" in the city.

The Petitioner, M/S Path2way HR Solutions, had approached the Court stating that even minimalistic brands like "Royal Stag" are not available with L1 licensees.

While refusing to hear the plea, single bench comprising Justice Yashwant Varma observed that popularity of a brand is a "subjective" concept and is not something for the courts to adjudicate. The Judge highlighted that the Delhi government's excise policy talks about uninterrupted supply of liquor, "not Black Label".

21. High Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Alleging Operation Of Illegal Slaughterhouses In Delhi

Case Title: Deepak Upadhyay v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 619

The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a petition seeking to ban the illegal slaughterhouses running in the Delhi NCR region.

A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad was of the view that the petitioner failed to give appropriate details about the said illegal slaughterhouses.

"You have not given one single example of any illegal slaughterhouse. You want us to do fishing and roving enquiry in entire Delhi. Where is the list of slaughterhouses?," the Chief Justice remarked orally.

22. POCSO Act Will Be Applicable To Minor Muslim Girl Who Has Attained Age Of Puberty: Delhi High Court

Title: IMRAN v. STATE OF DELHI THROUGH COMMISSIONER OF DELHI POLICE & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 620

The Delhi High Court has rejected a contention that according to Muslim law, since the victim has attained the age of puberty, the rigours of POCSO Act will not be applicable.

Justice Jasmeet Singh observed that the statement of object of the POCSO Act states that the Act is aimed to secure the tender age of the children and ensure they are not abused and their childhood and youth is protected against exploitation.

23. POCSO Act | Delhi High Court Asks Special Courts To Grant Interim Compensation To Child Victims Without Waiting For Them To Move An Application

Case Title: Umesh v. State (and other connected matters)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 621

The Delhi High Court has observed that Special Courts must, on their own, initiate action for grant of interim compensation to child victims at the earliest, without waiting for them to file an application for the same.

Justice Jasmeet Singh was dealing with a bunch of pleas wherein a predecessor bench had sought to streamline the process of supplying FIRs pertaining to commission of sexual offences to DSLSA, for the purposes of granting interim compensation to the victims.

The development came after the Court was apprised that when the applications are moved before the Special Court for interim compensation, it takes two to three hearings before any effective order is passed in the same.

24. Commercial Courts Act vs. CPC | Power To Condone Delay In Filing Written Statement In Commercial Suits Substantially Different: Delhi High Court

Case Title: 3M COMPANY v. MR. VIKAS SINHA & ANR

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 622

The Delhi High Court has observed that the Commercial Courts Act brings about a substantial change in the provisions relating to the period of filing of the written statement and the power of the Court to condone the delay in filing of the written statement as far as the commercial suits are concerned.

Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC prescribes that written statement has to be presented within thirty days from the date of service of summons, failing which, delay of not more than 90 days (from date of service of summons) may be condoned by the Court.

Section 16 of the Commercial Courts Act makes an amendment to the provision qua commercial suits of a specified value to provide that written statement has to be presented within thirty days from the date of service of summons failing which, delay of not more than 120 days (from date of service of summons) may be condoned by the Court.

25. High Court Cannot Control Day To Day Affairs Of Trial Court In Exercise Of Its Reversional Power: Delhi High Court

Case Title: NIKHIL GUPTA v. TANU GUPTA

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 623

The Delhi High Court has observed that a High Court, in exercise of its revisional power, cannot be seen as controlling the day to day affairs of the Trial Court.

The Court was dealing with a plea challenging an order dated 2nd May, 2022 whereby the Trial Court had rejected the request of the petitioner for appointment of Local Commissioner.

Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma was of the view that due to pendency of matters in the courts, the practice of appointing local commissioner for recording of evidence is being encouraged for the expeditious disposal of the matters.

26. NEET-UG 2021 | No Vested Right In Favour Of Candidates Erroneously Declared Successful Due To Technical Glitch: Delhi High Court

Case Title: HUDA ANSARI & ANR. v. JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 624

While refusing relief to three candidates in connection with NEET-UG examination 2021, the Delhi High Court observed that there is no right which stands vested in their favour as they had been erroneously declared "successful" due to a technological glitch.

Justice Sanjeev Narula observed thus:

"Therefore, the question that arises for consideration is whether a right stood vested in favour of the Petitioners, who were erroneously declared to be successful candidates on account of a technological glitch. The answer to this question has to be in negative, as no candidate can be permitted to take benefit of an inadvertent error."

27. Delhi High Court Directs Controller General's Office To Ensure Recommendations Are Duly Signed By Members Of Opposition Board Under Patents Act

Case Title: NOVO NORDISK A S v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 625

The Delhi High Court has directed the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (CGPDTM) to ensure that the recommendations are duly signed by the members of the Opposition Board under the Patents Act, 1970.

As per rule 56 of the Patents Rules, 2003, the Opposition Board shall conduct the examination of the notice of opposition along with documents filed and submit a report with reasons on each ground taken in the notice with its joint recommendation within three months.

Justice Pratibha M Singh added that in order to preserve the integrity of the recommendation of the Opposition Board, it is necessary to ensure that the names of the members constituting the Board are clearly reflected both on the cover page and on the final page where the members should append their signatures to the recommendation.

28. Advertising Campaign Can Be Protected Under Intellectual Property Law If It Has Become Distinctive, Threshold High: Delhi High Court

Case Title: BRIGHT LIFECARE PVT. LTD. v. VINI COSMETICS PVT. LTD. & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 626

The Delhi High Court has observed that an advertising campaign can be granted protection in law, if it signifies the source and has become distinctive of the party while adding that the threshold for establishing distinctiveness would however be quite high in such a case.

Justice Pratibha M Singh was of the view that while distinctive elements in advertising campaigns can be protected by the Court, unless and until there is enormous distinctiveness and likelihood of confusion or deception, the Court would not grant an injunction against an advertisement campaign, as the same may stultify creativity.

29. Merely Placing Sale Deed On Record Doesn't Absolve Party From Establishing Right To Claim Land Compensation When Possession Not Established: Delhi HC

Case Title: CITICAP HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS LTD v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 627

The Delhi High Court has observed that merely placing the Sale Deed on record will not absolve a party from its burden to establish its right to claim compensation in respect of a land when the fact of possession in its favour is not established from the documents available on record.

A division bench comprising of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Gaurang Kanth was dealing with a plea seeking a direction against the authorities to hand over or restore back the vacant and peaceful possession of a land. In the alternative, the Petitioner also sought a direction against the authorities to acquire the land in question under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition and Resettlement Act, 2013.

30. Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Election Of AAP MLA Ajay Dutt In 2020 Assembly Polls

Case Title: ROHITASH v. THE CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER OF DELHI AND ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 628

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition challenging the election of Aam Aadmi Party MLA Ajay Dutt in the 2020 Assembly elections, thereby seeking fresh elections from the said constituency.

Dutt had successfully contested the Assembly Elections of Delhi (Vidhan Sabha) 2020 from the Assembly Constituency – 48, Ambedkar Nagar (SC), held on February 8, 2020 as a candidate belonging to the Aam Aadami Party. He was declared as the elected candidate from the said constituency on February 11, 2020.

The plea alleged that Dutt had intentionally given false information in the election affidavit inasmuch as he had affirmed that there were no Government dues payable by him in respect of Government accommodation.

31. Additional Commercial Courts Will Be Functional Within Six Months, Efforts Underway To Make Infrastructure Available: Delhi High Court Told

Case Title: Amit Sahni v. GNCTD

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 629

The Delhi High Court has been told by its administrative side that additional commercial courts will be functional within six months in the national capital and that efforts were being made to ensure that requisite infrastructure is made available for the same.

Taking the statement on record, a division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad disposed of a PIL filed by Advocate Amit Sahni, seeking establishment of 42 Commercial Courts in the city, as notified by the Delhi government last year, to ensure speedy redressal of commercial cases.

32. Mere Fact That Both Prior & Subsequent User Are Registered Trademark Proprietors Irrelevant For Examining Who Generated Goodwill First: Delhi HC

Case Title: MRS. ANUGYA GUPTA v. MR. AJAY KUMAR & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 630

The Delhi High Court has reiterated that the mere fact that both the prior user and the subsequent user are registered proprietors is irrelevant for the purposes of examining who generated the goodwill first in the market and whether the latter user is causing misrepresentation in the course of trade and damaging the goodwill of the former user.

Justice Navin Chawla added that the action for passing off is premised on the right of the prior user generating goodwill and shall remain unaffected by any registration provided under the Trademarks Act.

33. Philips vs Syska | Mere Trade Variants Of Pre-Existing Designs Not Capable Of Registration: Delhi High Court

CASE TITLE: PHILIPS LIGHTING HOLDING B.V. v. JAI PRAKASH AGARWAL AND ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 631

The Delhi High Court has held that a design identical with or even materially similar to a pre-existing design should not be published or registered. A single judge bench of Justice Navin Chawla also held that mere trade variants of what is already in existence or what is common to the trade is not capable of being registered.

Briefly, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff, Philips Lighting Holding, filed two suits claiming rights in the design of what it refers to as a "T-Shaped LED Bulb‟. Referring to the products of the defendants (including Syska LED Lights), the counsel for plaintiff submitted that the same are infringing copies of its registered design and ought to be injuncted.

The plaintiff further submitted that the defendants (in both the suits) were also guilty of passing off their impugned products as that of the plaintiff's on account of a deceptively similar look, feel and trade dress of both the products.

34. [Order VII Rule 11 CPC] Quantum Of Damages Can Only Be Decided After Trial, Not Ground To Reject Plaint: Delhi High Court

Case Title: HEMA GUSAIN v. INDIA INTERNATIONAL CENTRE AND ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 632

The Delhi High Court has observed that a plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC on the basis that the quantum of damages claimed in it cannot be granted.

Justice Amit Bansal observed that quantum of damages to be awarded to the plaintiff can only be decided after the trial. Therefore, a trial would be necessary and so, the plaint cannot be rejected on the basis that the quantum of damages claimed in the plaint cannot be granted.

The bench also reiterated that there cannot be any partial rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. It added that either the plaint has to be rejected as a whole or there can be no rejection at all.

35. Patents Act | Non-Consideration Of Grounds In Rejecting Pre-Grant Opposition Constitutes Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice: Delhi High Court

CASE TITLE: BEST AGROLIFE LIMITED v. DEPUTY CONTROLLER OF PATENTS & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 633

In reference to the Patents Act, 1970, the Delhi High Court has held that non-consideration of grounds raised in a pre-grant opposition by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, per se constitutes violation of principles of natural justice.

The observation was made by a single judge bench of Justice Jyoti Singh, more particularly in reference to Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, which provides that mere discovery of a new form of a known substance which does not result in the enhancement of the known efficacy of that substance or the mere discovery of any new property or new use for a known substance or of the mere use of a known process, machine or apparatus is not an invention, unless such known process results in a new product or employs at least one new reactant.