Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up: May 15 To May 21

Citations 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 401 to 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 424

NOMINAL INDEX

SYNTHES GMBH v. CONTROLLER GENERAL OF PATENTS, DESIGNS AND TRADEMARKS AND ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 401

MICROSOFT TECHNOLOGY LICENSING, LLC v. THE ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF PATENTS AND DESIGNS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 402

Bennett, Coleman and Company Limited & Anr. vs. Planet Media Group & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 403

Durga P. Mishra v. Govt of NCT Delhi & anr 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 404

Radnik Exports v. Supertech Realtors Pvt Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 405

S.S. Con-Build Pvt Ltd vs Delhi Development Authority 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 406

RAJU YADAV v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI and other connected matter 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 407

Prateek Chitkara Versus JCIT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 408

RAJESH PRAKASH LOHANI AND ORS v. THE STATE AND ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 409

GAUTAM GAMBHIR v. PUNJAB KESARI & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 410

Dev Saran v. State 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 411

VIVEKANANDA INSTITUTE OF PROFESSIONAL STUDIES- TECHNICAL CAMPUS v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 412

Dhananjay Rathi vs Shree Vasu Steels Private Limited & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 413

SAMEER DNYANDEV WANKHEDE v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 414

SMT KARTARI DEVI v. SH. VINOD KUMAR AND ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 415

M EHTESHAM UL HAQUE v. UNION OF INDIA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEPARTMENT THROUGH ITS SECRETARY & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 416

Master Arnesh Shaw v. Union of India & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 417

KASHIF v. NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 418

RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) PVT. LIMITED & ANR. v. WIPRO ENTERPRISES (P) LIMITED 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 419

Durga P. Mishra v. Govt of NCT Delhi & anr 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 420

Department of Transport, GNCTD vs Star Bus Services Pvt Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 421

SH. CHHATTER PAL & ORS. v. STATE & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 422

AVINASH JAIN versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 423

Atul Agarwal vs UOI & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 424

High Court Orders Assistant Controller General Of Patents To Undergo Course On Passing Judicial Orders At Delhi Judicial Academy

Title: SYNTHES GMBH v. CONTROLLER GENERAL OF PATENTS, DESIGNS AND TRADEMARKS AND ANR

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 401

The Delhi High Court has directed an Assistant Controller General Of Patents to undergo a course on passing judicial orders at the Delhi Judicial Academy as it was “seriously disturbed” about an order passed by the officer while rejecting an application for grant of patent.

Justice C Hari Shankar said that the order was nothing less than a “total mockery” of the functions which are vested in the quasi-judicial authorities in the office of the Controller General of Patents.

Invention Shouldn't Be Deemed ‘Computer Program Per Se’ Only Due To Algorithms & Computer-Executable Instructions: Delhi High Court To Patent Office

Title: MICROSOFT TECHNOLOGY LICENSING, LLC v. THE ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF PATENTS AND DESIGNS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 402

The Delhi High Court has observed that an invention should not be deemed as a “computer program per se” under the Patents Act merely because it involves algorithms and computer-executable instructions but the decision should be based on the technical advancements it offers and its practical application in solving real-world problems.

Justice Sanjeev Narula said that it is essential for the Indian Patent Office to adopt a more comprehensive approach when assessing computer-related inventions by taking into account technical effects and contributions provided by the invention, rather than solely focusing on implementation of algorithms and computer-executable instructions.

Delhi High Court Orders Permanent Injunction Against Use Of 'Miss India' Mark by Planet Media Group In Case Filed By Times Group

Case Title: Bennett, Coleman and Company Limited & Anr. vs. Planet Media Group & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 403

The Delhi High Court has restrained the use of “Miss India” by Planet Media Group in relation to the beauty pageants organized and promoted by it under the mark “MISS INDIA WORLD” and “TAJ MISS INDIA/MISS INDIA TAJ”.

The bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula remarked that Planet Media had been dishonestly using “MISS INDIA”- the registered mark of Bennett, Coleman and Company, in the title of the beauty pageants organized by the former, including on its websites and social media accounts.

Delhi High Court Refuses To Interfere With Demolition Of Mayapuri Chowk 'Kali Mata Mandir'

Case title: Durga P. Mishra v. Govt of NCT Delhi & anr

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 404

Considering that the religious committee has directed the removal of Kali Mata Mandir at Mayapuri Chowk because it is “unauthorised” and “obstructs the free flow of traffic”, the Delhi High Court has refused to interfere with the demolition of the religious structure to be carried out by the PWD.

Justice Pratibha M .Singh observed that,

"As per the sketch and the photographs which have been produced today, it is clear to the Court that the temple is on Government land. In fact the footpath for pedestrians as also the road has been encroached by the temple which is not permissible. Further, because of the location of the temple i.e. in the corner of two roads, one main road and one arterial road, the smooth flow of the traffic is bound to be impeded".

Issue Of Full And Final Settlement Of Dispute Is A Question Of Fact Which Has To Be Decided By The Arbitrator: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Radnik Exports v. Supertech Realtors Pvt Ltd

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 405

The Delhi High Court has held that an issue of full and final settlement of dispute between the parties will be a question of fact which has to be decided by the arbitrator.

The bench of Justice Navin Chawla held that the Court while exercising powers under Section 11 of the A&C Act cannot determine a disputed question of fact as its jurisdiction is confined to a prima facie conclusion of the existence of the arbitration agreement.

Issues Falling Within The Exclusive Jurisdiction Of Estate Officer Under The Public Premises Act, Are Non-Arbitrable: Delhi High Court

Case Title: S.S. Con-Build Pvt Ltd vs Delhi Development Authority

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 406

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the disputes relating to determination of a lease or the arrears of rent payable in respect of public premises, are questions statutorily mandated to be determined exclusively by the Estate Officer under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (PP Act). Thus, the same are non-arbitrable.

The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma was considering a petition filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) seeking reference of the dispute concerning the computation of ground rent by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) with respect to the plot leased to the petitioner. The petitioner further sought adjudication of the validity of determination of lease by the DDA.

Court Should Incline Towards Considering Lower Side On Margin Of Error When Bone Ossification Test Opines Child Victim’s Age Between 15-17 Yrs: Delhi HC

Title: RAJU YADAV v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI and other connected matter

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 407

The Delhi High Court has observed that where the bone ossification test for determining age of a child victim under the POCSO Act opines the age between 15 to 17 years, the court should incline towards considering the lower side on the margin of error.

Observing that such an approach would be in consonance with the objectives of POCSO Act, Justice Jasmeet Singh observed:

“…the Supreme Court in Jarnail Singh case has only leaned towards the benefit of the lower age side to both the child in conflict with law and the minor victim under the POCSO Act. Hence, I am of the view that for determining the age of a child victim under the POCSO Act, where the bone ossification opines her age between 15-17 years, the inclination of the Court should be towards considering the lower side on the margin of error.”

Delhi High Court Quashes Penalty Order Under BMA On Failure Of Dept. To Consider Assessee’s Email

Case Title: Prateek Chitkara Versus JCIT

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 408

The Delhi High Court has quashed the penalty order under the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 (BMA) for non-consideration of the assessee’s email.

The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju has observed that, as per the reply filed by the petitioner/assessee, his assertion was that the penalty proceedings should be kept in abeyance, having regard to the fact that the appeal preferred by him on the quantum levy was pending before the CIT (A).

Ensure IOs Are Present In Court When Case Is Taken Up For Hearing: Delhi High Court To Commissioner Of Police

Title: RAJESH PRAKASH LOHANI AND ORS v. THE STATE AND ANR

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 409

The Delhi High Court has asked the Commissioner of Delhi Police to ensure that the investigating officers probing a case are present in court when such a case is taken up for hearing.

Expressing displeasure over the failure of an investigating officer in answering certain queries put to him by the court, Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar said:

“This has become routine invariable practice that the main Investigating Officers who have investigated the case are not appearing and substitute officials are appearing on their behalf and they are not versed with the facts of the cases.”

Delhi High Court Refuses Interim Relief To Gautam Gambhir In Defamation Suit Against Punjab Kesari, Says Don't Be So Sensitive

Title: GAUTAM GAMBHIR v. PUNJAB KESARI & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 410

The Delhi High Court refused to pass any interim injunction order for now in favour of former cricketer and BJP MP Gautam Gambhir in the defamation suit filed by him against Hindi daily newspaper Punjab Kesari and its reporters seeking to restrain them from making any allegedly defamatory publication against him.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh issued notice on Gambhir’s application seeking interim relief and listed it for hearing in October.

Delhi High Court Upholds Conviction, Life Sentence Of Man Accused Of Murdering 2-Year-Old Girl In 2016

Case Title: Dev Saran v. State

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 411

Observing that “taking a false defence itself adds up as an incriminating circumstance against the appellant”, the Delhi High has upheld the conviction of a person sentenced to life imprisonment under Sections 363/302 of IPC for kidnapping and murdering a one-year-four-month-old child in 2016.

The division bench of Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Poonam A. Bamba said that non-proving of motive on the part of the accused is not always fatal to the prosecution case. It said that the prosecution has proved that “beyond reasonable doubt” that the appellant had hit the deceased, an infant, against the floor/stairs of the mandir causing injuries on her head and other parts.

IP University Affiliated Private Colleges Can’t Charge Higher Fee From Students Admitted Through 10% Management Quota Seats: Delhi High Court

Title: VIVEKANANDA INSTITUTE OF PROFESSIONAL STUDIES- TECHNICAL CAMPUS v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. and other connected matters

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 412

Observing that malpractices and backdoor entry into admissions in professional courses is not unknown in society, the Delhi High Court has said that transparent and merit based admission process needs to be encouraged as it encourages students to work hard and “realise their potential in their academic pursuits.”

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav said that such a process also ensures that the “brightest and most talented students” are given the opportunity to study in educational institutions, which promotes excellence.

Delhi High Court Vacates Interim Injunction Against Use Of 'Rathi' Mark By ‘Permitted Users', Imposes Rs 5 Lakh Cost On Plaintiff

Case Title: Dhananjay Rathi vs Shree Vasu Steels Private Limited & Ors

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 413

The Delhi High Court has vacated the interim injunction against the use of the mark ‘RATHI’ by entities who were granted licenses by the Rathi Research Centre (RRC), in a trademark suit filed by businessman Dhananjay Rathi for permanent injunction against the infringement of the trademark.

Justice Amit Bansal said that the licensees were permitted users and thus, they cannot be said to be infringing the mark ‘RATHI’ by using the same in respect of their goods.

No Coercive Action To Be Taken Against Sameer Wankhede Till May 22 In Aryan Khan Bribery Case: CBI To Delhi High Court

Title: SAMEER DNYANDEV WANKHEDE v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 414

The Central Bureau of Investigation has told the Delhi High Court that no coercive action will be taken against former Mumbai zonal director of Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) Sameer Wankhede till May 22 in the Aryan Khan bribery case.

The oral assurance was given by CBI’s counsel Nikhil Goel before Justice Vikas Mahajan that the agency will not act against Wankhede till Monday. The court disposed of Wankhede’s plea seeking a free and fair investigation in the case. In the interim, he also sought stay on the summons issued by the probe agency.

 Appellate Tribunal Under Senior Citizens Act Should Make All Efforts To Decide Appeals Within One Month: Delhi High Court

Title: SMT KARTARI DEVI v. SH. VINOD KUMAR AND ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 415

The Delhi High Court has observed that the Appellate Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 should make all efforts to ensure that section 16(6), which states that appeals must be decided within one month, is implemented in its true spirit to the extent it is practical.

Section 16(6) of the Act states that the Appellate Tribunal shall make an endeavour to pronounce its order in writing within one month of receipt of such appeal.

Delhi High Court Dismisses Appeal Challenging Appointment Of Prof Najma Akhtar As VC Of Jamia Millia Islamia

Title: M EHTESHAM UL HAQUE v. UNION OF INDIA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEPARTMENT THROUGH ITS SECRETARY & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 416

The Delhi High Court has dismissed the appeal challenging the appointment of Dr. Najma Akhtar as the Vice-Chancellor of Jamia Millia Islamia.

A division bench comprising of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Talwant Singh upheld a single-judge order passed on March 05, 2021, which dismissed a plea challenging her appointment.

The single judge had said that the court cannot sit in appeal over the decision taken by varsity’s Search Committee.

Delhi High Court Constitutes 5-Member Committee For Efficient Implementation Of National Rare Diseases Policy

Case Title: Master Arnesh Shaw v. Union of India & Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 417

The Delhi High Court has constituted a five-member committee so that the National Policy for Treatment of Rare Diseases, 2017 can be implemented in an efficient manner and also to ensure that its benefits reach the ultimate patients.

Justice Prathiba M Singh said that there is a need for certain urgent steps to be taken in close coordination between the medical community, providers of therapies for rare diseases and the Governmental agencies.

Application For Drawing Sample U/S 52A Of NDPS Act Should Be Made Within 72 Hours, Can’t Be Moved At Whims And Fancies Of NCB: Delhi High Court

Title: KASHIF v. NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 418

The Delhi High Court has said that the application for drawing sample of a narcotic drugs or psychotropic substance before the concerned Magistrate under section 52A of NDPS Act should be made within 72 hours.

Justice Jasmeet Singh observed that such an application cannot be moved at the “whims and fancies” of Narcotics Control Bureau, being the prosecuting agency.

Dettol Vs Santoor Handwash: Delhi High Court Refuses To Injunct Broadcasting Of Wipro’s Advertisement

Title: RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) PVT. LIMITED & ANR. v. WIPRO ENTERPRISES (P) LIMITED

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 419

The Delhi High Court has observed that comparative advertising includes the right to show the competing product but denigration or disparaging rival’s product is impermissible.

“While it is permissible, therefore, to state that the advertised product is superior to the competitor’s, it is not permissible to attribute this superiority to some failing, or fault, in the product of the competitor. An advertisement cannot claim that a competitor’s goods are bad, undesirable or inferior. The subtle distinction between claiming one’s goods to be superior to the others’, and the other’s goods to be inferior to one’s, has to be borne in mind,” Justice C Hari Shankar observed.

Delhi High Court Dismisses Appeal Against Single Judge Order Refusing To Interfere With Demolition Of Kali Mata Temple

Case title: Durga P. Mishra v. Govt of NCT Delhi & anr

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 420

The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal challenging a single judge order which refused to interfere with the demolition of 55-year-old Kali Mata Mandir at city’s Mayapuri Chowk to be carried out by the Public Works Department.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad also refused to extend the time period for shifting idols and other religious objects from the temple to other temples.

Arbitral Award Passed After Inordinate, Unexplained Delay Is Contrary To Justice and Public Policy : Delhi High Court

Case Title: Department of Transport, GNCTD vs Star Bus Services Pvt Ltd

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 421

The Delhi High Court has ruled that an arbitral award passed after an inordinate, substantial and unexplained delay would be “contrary to justice and would defeat justice”. Consequently, the same would also be in conflict with the public policy of India.

The bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh was hearing a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), challenging the arbitral award on the ground that it had been passed after a long and substantial delay of 18 months.

Delhi High Court Issues Guidelines For Drafting Mediation Settlement Agreements In Matrimonial Cases, Says Prepare In Hindi Also

Title: SH. CHHATTER PAL & ORS. v. STATE & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 422

The Delhi High Court has issued a slew of guidelines to be followed by the mediators while drafting settlement agreements in matrimonial cases and said that such agreements must also be published in Hindi language, in addition to English.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that the guidance needed by mediators to draft agreements with a degree of coherence, consistency, and unambiguity will come a long way in “healing the lives of those in need” by immediately putting an end to a dispute and further insulating them from future litigation.

Filing Piecemeal Chargesheet Defeats Right To Default Bail, Goes Against Article 21: Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Accused In Loan Fraud Case

Title: AVINASH JAIN versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 423

Permitting the CBI to pick up one aspect of the investigation and file a piece-meal charge sheet to defeat the right of an accused to default bail, goes against the mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution, the Delhi High Court has ruled.

The court was hearing a plea challenging the denial of default bail to an accused in a loan fraud case by the CBI Court in February this year.

Robust Statutory Mechanism To Protect Investors: Delhi High Court Disposes PIL Over Delisting Securities Of ‘Vanishing’ Companies

Case Title: Atul Agarwal vs UOI & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 424

The Delhi High Court has observed that there is a transparent legal mechanism in place to deal with the process of delisting of securities, including a remedy to an investor aggrieved by such delisting, under the Securities Contract (Regulations) Act, 1956.

“Not only this, even in case of compulsory delisting, which is a disciplinary mechanism, an aggrieved investor may file an Appeal before the SAT against the decision of the recognized stock exchange delisting the securities under Section 21A(2) of the SCRA,” a division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela said.