Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up: February 20 To February 26, 2023

Citations 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 161 to 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 182

NOMINAL INDEX

WINZO GAMES PRIVATE LIMITED v. GOOGLE LLC & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 161

PARMINDER SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 162

JAI A. DEHADRAI AND ANR v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 163

BHUPINDER SINGH & ANR. v. LT GOVERNOR OF DELHI & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 164

Asad Mueed & Anr versus Hammad Ahmed & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 165

HARSHPAL SINGH SAWHNEY & ORS v. CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 166

SARWAR RAZA v. OMBUDSMAN RBI & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 167

Delhi Waqf Board v. Union of India & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 168

PUNJAB KESARI PUBLISHING HOUSE PVT LTD & ANR vs AJIT SINGH BULAND & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 169

M/s. Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd & Anr. versus Shipra Estate Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 170

D Narasimha Rao & Ors versus Revanta Multi State CGHS Ltd & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 171

HARDIK KAPOOR v. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 172

MALVIKA CHOUDHARY & ORS. v. BAR COUNCIL OF DELHI & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 173

COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. REHMAN AFTAB ALAM 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 174

UNION OF INDIA & ANR. v. CR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 175

Shyam Jaju & Anr. v. Saurabh Bhardwaj & Ors. LiveLaw (Del) 176

TTK Prestige Ltd versus KK & Company Delhi Pvt Ltd & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 177

MOHD. MANAN DAR v. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 178

Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd vs M/s Zillion Infraprojects Pvt Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 179

Bolt Technology OU versus Ujoy Technology Private Limited & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 180

DEVENDRA KUMAR & ORS. v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 181

KAMALJEET SEHRAWAT v. OFFICE OF LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR OF DELHI & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 182

Google's Warning For Third-Party APK Files An Industry Practice, Doesn't Infringe Trademark: Delhi High Court Rejects WinZo Games' Plea

Title: WINZO GAMES PRIVATE LIMITED v. GOOGLE LLC & ORS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 161

The Delhi High Court has observed that the warning displayed by Google to users before they download WinZo's APK file is in the nature of disclaimer to caution them and does not result in trademark infringement of gaming platform.

Justice Amit Bansal observed that the reference to the name of the APK file or application “WinZO” in Google’s disclaimer is only for identifying the file being downloaded for purpose of warning.

The court dismissed an application moved by Winzo Games Private Limited seeking to restrain Google from displaying the warning "against" use of its gaming application “WinZO Games” on the Android Operating System.

India Has Taken Huge Strides In Providing Medical Facilities, Courts Can’t Decide On Procurement Of Instruments In Hospitals: Delhi High Court

Title: PARMINDER SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 162

Observing that India has taken huge strides in providing medical facilities with latest technologies and qualified professionals at accessible costs, the Delhi High Court has said that courts cannot take decision on procurement of instruments in hospitals as it is a matter of policy.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad dismissed a public interest litigation moved by one Parminder Singh seeking directions for ensuring availability of video laryngoscopes in the healthcare system to manage difficult intubation systems.

Delhi Govt’s Decision To Cap Number Of Visits By Family Members, Legal Advisers With Prisoners Not Arbitrary: High Court

Title: JAI A. DEHADRAI AND ANR v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 163

The Delhi High Court has said that Delhi Government's decision to restrict the total number of visits by family members, relatives, friends and legal advisers with jail inmates to two times a week, keeping in view the number of undertrials and prisoners, cannot be said to be arbitrary.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad said that the decision has been taken after “careful consideration” of the facilities available in jails, availability of the staff and the number of undertrials.

Can’t Direct CAG To Conduct Special Audit Of Finances Of Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee: High Court Rejects PIL

Title: BHUPINDER SINGH & ANR. v. LT GOVERNOR OF DELHI & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 164

The Delhi High Court Monday dismissed a public interest litigation seeking direction for a “special audit” of Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee and Guru Harkrishan Public School Society by Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG).

A division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Saurabh Banerjee observed that the PIL is not maintainable as there is already an applicable law in place, Delhi Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1971, which provides a complete methodology and mechanism for carrying out an audit by Chartered Accountants after due nomination by the Committee under the enactment.

Mere Existence Of Power Under S. 9 Of Arbitration Act Not Sufficient To Justify A S. 9 Petition: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Asad Mueed & Anr versus Hammad Ahmed & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 165

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the power of the Arbitral Tribunal to grant interim measures under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), is not inferior to the power of a court under Section 9.

The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma remarked that though Section 9(3) of the A&C Act is not an ouster clause, it still requires the court to consider whether its intervention is warranted after the Arbitral Tribunal has been constituted and is in seisin of the dispute.

Conclude Proceedings Against Schools Found In Violation Of Bye-Laws Within Six Months: Delhi High Court Directs CBSE

Title: HARSHPAL SINGH SAWHNEY & ORS v. CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION & ORS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 166

The Delhi High Court has directed the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) to conclude proceedings initiated against schools which are found in violation of its bye-laws within six months.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad disposed of a public interest litigation seeking CBSE enquiry into the transactions between education societies and franchise schools and also to inspect affairs of schools operated by Delhi Public School Society (DPSS).

Bank Customers Have No Way Of Contacting Officials Who Send Emails, Accountability Required: Delhi High Court

Title: SARWAR RAZA v. OMBUDSMAN RBI & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 167

The Delhi High Court has expressed concern over the computer generated e-mails sent by Citibank to its customers without the mention of contact details of officials under whose instructions they were generated and sent.

Observing that there ought to be some accountability of bank officials, Justice Prathiba M Singh sought response of the bank as to whether names of its officials along with their e-mail IDs can be inserted in the emails sent to customers.

High Court Asks Delhi Waqf Board To File Separate Petition Against Centre’s Decision On Status Of 123 Properties, Refuses Interim Relief

Case Title: Delhi Waqf Board v. Union of India & Ors

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 168

The Delhi High Court Wednesday asked the Delhi Waqf Board to file a separate petition to challenge Central Government’s decision to “absolve” the board from all matters pertaining to 123 properties, which have been under dispute for a long time.

Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri refused to pass an urgent order in Delhi Waqf Board’s application moved in a pending petition filed last year against the action of Union of India to delist the 123 properties.

The court asked the Board to file a separate substantive petition to challenge the letter and listed the application with the pending petition for hearing on August 4, the date already fixed.

Delhi High Court Restrains Journalist From Publishing News Under 'Kesari TV' Mark As Punjab Kesari Alleges Trademark Infringement

Title: PUNJAB KESARI PUBLISHING HOUSE PVT LTD & ANR vs AJIT SINGH BULAND & ORS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 169

The Delhi High Court has restrained a freelance reporter from using 'Kesari TV' mark and related logo for providing news services in print or electronic mode till further orders. The court also ordered suspension of the domain name 'www.kesaritv.com'.

The order has been passed in a suit filed by the owners of Punjab Kesari newspaper who alleged that the defendant had got the domain name registered in his favour and concretised an internet presence under the name 'Kesari TV' with a logo deceptively similar to its unregistered mark for 'Punjab Kesari TV'. 

Arbitrator Has No Jurisdiction To Set Aside Sale Notice Issued By Secured Creditor Under Section 13(4) Of SARFAESI Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/s. Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd & Anr. versus Shipra Estate Ltd

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 170

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the Arbitrator has no jurisdiction to set aside the sale notice issued by the secured creditor under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, seeking to enforce its “security interest”.

The bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani remarked that the matter of a notice issued under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act is not arbitrable at all, and thus, the Arbitrator does not have the option to exercise any discretion under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) in relation to the said matter.

Central Registrar Not Divested Of Its Authority To Appoint Arbitrator Under S. 84 of MSCS Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: D Narasimha Rao & Ors versus Revanta Multi State CGHS Ltd & Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 171

The Delhi High Court has held that the Central Registrar is not divested of its authority and jurisdiction to appoint an Arbitral Tribunal in terms of Section 84 (4) of the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 (MSCS Act), when a dispute pertaining to a multi-state cooperative society is sought to be referred to arbitration under Section 84 of the Act.

The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma remarked that as per the direction issued by the Central Government under the Notification dated 24th February, 2003, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies of States is contemporaneously empowered to refer matters to arbitration, however, the same does not denude the jurisdiction of the Central Registrar.

Law Interns To Wear White Shirt, Black Pants & Black Tie In Courts: Delhi High Court

Title: HARDIK KAPOOR v. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA & ORS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 172

The Delhi High Court has said that law interns can enter court complexes in the national capital by wearing a white shirt, black tie and black pants as prescribed by the Bar Council of Delhi (BCD).

Justice Prathiba M Singh also said that the advocates appearing before any courts, from city civil courts to the Supreme Court, would have to wear white bands along with the uniform prescribed for them.

High Court Seeks Details Of All Pending Complaints In Bar Council Of Delhi Against Advocates, Says Harassment Of Lawyers Can't Be Countenanced

Title: MALVIKA CHOUDHARY & ORS. v. BAR COUNCIL OF DELHI & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 173

The Delhi High Court has observed that lawyers "being put to harassment and frustration" due to repeated complaints to Bar Council cannot be countenanced, unless some serious case of misconduct is made out.

Justice Prathiba M Singh directed the Bar Council of Delhi to place on record the details of all pending complaints against the advocates. The information sought includes the dates of filing of the complaints and first notices.

Trial-Related Anxiety Does Not Justify Act Of Casting Aspersion On Judge: Delhi High Court Imposes ₹5K Cost On Contemnor

Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. REHMAN AFTAB ALAM

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 174

Closing the contempt proceedings against a person, the Delhi High Court observed that the anxiety, which the man went through during the trial of the case filed by his former wife, does not justify the actions of casting aspersion on a judicial officer.

Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora accepted the unconditional apology tendered by him, with a warning to exercise restraint and refrain from casting any aspersion on the court in future.

Delhi High Court Sets Aside CAT’s Order Granting Relief To IFS Officer Charged Of Fraudulently Obtaining Birth Certificate Of Surrogate Child

Title: UNION OF INDIA & ANR. v. CR

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 175

The Delhi High Court has set aside an order passed by Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) which had granted relief to an Indian Foreign Service (IFS) officer charged for fraudulently obtaining a birth certificate from Uttar Pradesh and then applying for an Indian diplomatic passport for his child born through an arrangement of surrogacy with a Mongolian national.

A division bench of Justice V Kameswar Rao and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta observed that the order of the Tribunal was unsustainable and liable to be set aside.

Remove Defamatory Material Against BJP Leader Shyam Jaju, His Son From Social Media: Delhi High Court To AAP Leaders

Title: Shyam Jaju & Anr. v. Saurabh Bhardwaj & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 176

The Delhi High Court on Friday directed Aam Aadmi Party leaders Saurabh Bhardwaj, Durgesh Pathak, Sanjay Singh and Dilip Kumar Pandey to remove the alleged defamatory material and allegations made on social media platforms against politician and former BJP National Vice-President Shyam Jaju and his son.

Justice Navin Chawla observed that prima facie case is made out in favour of Jaju and his son for grant of interim relief and directed AAP leaders to remove the material within two days.

High Court Restrains Delhi-Based Company From Selling Gas Stoves, Kitchenware Under 'Prestige' Mark

Case Title: TTK Prestige Ltd versus KK & Company Delhi Pvt Ltd & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 177

In a trademark suit filed by TTK Prestige Ltd, the Delhi High Court has restrained K. K. AND Company Delhi Private Limited from using the mark 'PRESTIGE' in relation to gas stoves or any kitchenware or cookware.

Noting that Prestige has been selling its products under the trademark since 1955, and the earliest registration of its mark dates back to 14th December, 1949, Justice Amit Bansal dismissed the contention that pressure cookers and gas stoves are different products and therefore there would be no confusion in the market.

Accused Not Entitled To Copy Of Public Prosecutor's Report At Time Of Extension Of Remand Under UAPA: Delhi High Court

Title: MOHD. MANAN DAR v. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY and other connected matters

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 178

The Delhi High Court on Friday held that the report of Public Prosecutor is not required to be provided to the accused at the stage of grant of extension of remand for continued investigation under section 43D(2) of UAPA.

A division bench of Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Anish Dayal however said that when the accused is produced to inform him about the extension of period of investigation based on Public Prosecutor’s report, “the accused cannot be a silent spectator” and the Special Court would be required to take into consideration, submissions on behalf of the accused, while examining the report regarding progress of investigation and the reasons for seeking further detention.

Arbitral Tribunal Has Power To Pass Interim Award On Basis Of Admissions Made Before IRP In CIRP Proceedings: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd vs M/s Zillion Infraprojects Pvt Ltd

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 179

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the Arbitral Tribunal has the power under Section 31(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) to pass an interim Award on the basis of the admissions made by a party before the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) in the CIRP proceedings initiated under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) against the opposite party.

Delhi High Court Refuses To Restrain Ujoy From Using 'Bolt' Mark For EV Charging Services, Says Bolt Technology Has No Market Exposure In India

Case Title: Bolt Technology OU versus Ujoy Technology Private Limited & Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 180

The Delhi High Court has refused to grant interim injunction in favour of Bolt Technology OU in relation to use of the mark ‘Bolt’ in EV (electric vehicle) charging stations in India by Ujoy Technology Private Limited.

The court observed that since Bolt is not engaged in providing EV charging services anywhere in the world and has merely installed some EV charging stations in a handful of locations for charging its own vehicles, no trans-border reputation in providing EV charging services can be credited to it which can be said to have spilled over to India.

Right Of Way: Delhi High Court Allows Demolition Of Portions Of Mandir, Masjid, Says Larger Public Interest Outweighs Concerns Of Places Of Worship

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

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 181

The Delhi High Court has observed that places of worship cannot encroach public land and hinder developmental activities meant for the larger segment of the public.

Justice Prathiba M Singh made the observations while paving the way for demolition of portions of a Mandir and a Masjid situated at Jheel ka Piao in Delhi’s ITO area for making the pedestrian pathway uniform.

The court observed that the Public Works Department (PWD) has to be permitted to make the pedestrian pathway uniform so as to not cause inconvenience to pedestrians on the busy stretch of road which also has access to a Metro station.

Delhi High Court Stays MCD Mayor's Notice For Re-Election To Standing Committee

Title: KAMALJEET SEHRAWAT v. OFFICE OF LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR OF DELHI & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 182

In a special Saturday hearing, the Delhi High Court stayed the newly-elected Mayor Shelly Oberoi's notice for re-election of the six members of standing committee of Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD).

Justice Gaurang Kanth observed that prima facie the returning officer or Mayor is conducting re-elections without declaring the results of elections conducted on February 24 which is in violation of Regulation 51 of New Delhi Municipal Council (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Regulations, 1997.

“From a perusal of Regulation 51, it is nowhere reflected that the returning officer or mayor has the authority to declare an election of standing committee as null and void. It is not out of place to mention that admittedly, the counting of votes and further duty casted upon mayor as in declaring the result of elections held on February 24 shall culminate into final result,” the court said.