Delhi High Court Weekly Round Up: August 22 To August 28, 2022

NOMINAL INDEXCitations 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 792 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 805AUSTIN NICHOLS & CO INC & ANR v. GWALIOR DISTILLERIES PRIVATE LTD 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 792FIJA & ANR. v. State 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 793ZAHOOR AHMAD SHAH WATALI v. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 794KAILASH SEWANI v. MANISH KUMAR CHAUDHARY 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 795Kapri International Pvt. Ltd. versus Commissioner of Income Tax 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 796MEHTA TEACHER TRAINING COLLEGE v. NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION & ANR. and other connected petitions 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 797Ernst and Young U.S. LLP versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 798Whatsapp LLC v. CCI, Facebook v. CCI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 799Jahid v. State 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 800Overnite Express Ltd v. DMRC 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 801Case Title: DEVASRI BALI v. CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDRY EDUCATION & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 802Baba Alexander v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 803Diageo Brands BV & Anr. v. Great Galleon Ventures Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 804Commissioner of CGST Delhi East Versus Anand and Anand 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 8051. Royal Stag v. Royal Champ: Delhi HC Decrees Alcohol Brand Seagram's Trademark Infringement Suit, Awards ₹20 Lakhs DamagesCase Title: AUSTIN NICHOLS & CO INC & ANR v. GWALIOR DISTILLERIES PRIVATE LTDCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 792Ruling in favour of Seagram's alcohol brand, the Delhi High Court has awarded Rs. 20 lakhs damages and cost in its favour in a suit alleging trademark infringement in respect of Royal Stag whiskey by a company manufacturing Royal Champ whiskey.Justice Navin Chawla permanently restrained Gwalior Distilleries Private Limited, engaged in sale of Royal Champ whiskey observing that the impugned label was a "colourable and slavish imitation" of ROYAL STAG label.The Court also said that the same amounted to copyright infringement under sec. 51 read with sec. 55 of the Copyright Act.2. [Muslim Law] Minor Girl Can Marry Without Parents' Consent On Attaining Puberty, Has Right To Live With Husband Even When Below 18 Yrs: Delhi HCCase Title: FIJA & ANR. v. StateCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 793The Delhi High Court has observed that as per Mohammedan Law, a minor girl who had attained the age of puberty can marry without consent of her parents and has a right to reside with her husband even when she is less than 18 years of age.Justice Jasmeet Singh made the observation while granting protection to a muslim couple who got married in March this year as per Muslim rites and rituals. The plea was moved by the couple seeking directions to ensure that nobody separates them.The parents of the girl opposed the marriage and registered an FIR under sec. 363 of IPC against the husband. Subsequently sec. 376 and sec. 6 POCSO were added.3. Terror Funding Case: Delhi High Court Dismisses Zahoor Watali's Appeal Against Denial Of Bail On Ground Of Covid-19Case Title: ZAHOOR AHMAD SHAH WATALI v. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCYCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 794 The Delhi High Court has dismissed the appeal filed by Kashmiri businessman Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali challenging the Trial Court order denying him bail last year on the ground of COVID-19, in connection with a terror funding case.Watali had challenged the order passed by Trial Court dated 15th May 2021 wherein it was concluded that there was no question of granting bail to him only on the ground of spread of COVID-19 pandemic. The Trial Court also took note of his medical condition as he was suffering from various ailments including diabetes, hyperthyroidism, piles etc.Thereafter, on January 31, 2022, the Trial Court had, till further orders, directed Watali to be kept under house arrest at his Gurugram residence for his medical treatment.4. Article 227 Not Mercy Jurisdiction, Litigants Casually Prosecuting Proceedings Before Lower Courts Can't Expect Sanctuary From High Court: Delhi HCCase Title: KAILASH SEWANI v. MANISH KUMAR CHAUDHARYCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 795Litigants cannot be casual about prosecuting the proceedings before the Court below and expect sanctuary from the High Court under Article 227, the Delhi High Court has observed.Justice C Hari Shankar added that the jurisdiction vested in High Court by Article 227 is not expected to be used as an avenue for a party "to tide over the negligence exhibited by it before the Court below.""Nor is Article 227 in the nature of mercy jurisdiction," the Court added.The Court made the observation in a plea filed challenging an order dated 11th July 2022 passed in a civil suit wherein the petitioner was the defendant in. By the impugned order, the Civil Judge had rejected the petitioner's request to have the written statement taken on record.5. Application Under Companies Act Against Order Rejecting Waiver Of Interest; Dispute Falls Within Scope Of VSV Act: Delhi High CourtCase Title: Kapri International Pvt. Ltd. versus Commissioner of Income TaxCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 796The Delhi High Court has...

Delhi High Court Weekly Round Up: August 22 To August 28, 2022

Nupur Thapliyal