Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up: February 6 To February 12, 2023

Citations 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 121 to 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 144NOMINAL INDEXASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY v. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 121LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER vs CAPITAL GENERAL STORE & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 122HP Cotton Textile Mills Ltd versus Oriental Insurance Company Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 123Ambrosia Corner House Pvt Ltd versus Hangro S Foods 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 124Blackstone Capital Partners (Singapore) VI FDI Three Pte. Ltd. Versus ACIT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 125P v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 126SR. SEPHY v. CBI & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 127AX v. GOOGLE LLC & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 128RR Patil Foundation & Anr. v. Archaeological Survey of India & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 129SOCIAL JURIST, A CIVIL RIGHTS GROUP v. RAJIV GANDHI CANCER INSTITUTE AND RESEARCH CENTRE AND ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 130CHITRA RAMKRISHNA v. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 131Shahrukh Pathan v. State 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 132Kidde India Ltd versus National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 133NATASHA NARWAL & ANR v. STATE OF NCT DELHI & ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 134Raman Bhuraria versus Directorate Of Enforcement 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 135SONALI KARWASRA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 136TARU PURI v. ANMOL SHEIKH ALIAS MALAIKA & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 137COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v UNION OF INDIA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 138AKASH versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 139PO v. VP 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 140Intercontinental Great Brands versus Parle Product Private Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 141Hinu Mahajan v. Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 142M/s Oasis Projects Ltd versus Managing Director, National Highway and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd (NHIDCL) 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 143K. P. RAO v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 144‘We Are Not Lawmakers, Can’t Issue Such Directions’: Delhi High Court On PIL To Conduct Lok Sabha, Legislative Assembly Polls Together In 2024Case Title: ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY v. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERSCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 121The Delhi High Court refused to pass directions on a public interest litigation praying that Centre and Election Commission of India be directed to ascertain the feasibility of conducting elections to Lok Sabha and Legislative Assembly together in 2024.“ We cannot do it. We are not lawmakers. We know our limitations. We ensure compliance of law. We can’t issue such mandamus,” a division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad said.As Upadhyay said that the plea be treated as representation, the bench disposed of the same by directing ECI to consider the PIL as representation and decide it in accordance with law.Pay ₹5 Lakhs To Louis Vuitton Or Face Civil Prison: Delhi High Court To Trader Who Continued To Sell Counterfeit ProductsCase Title: LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER vs CAPITAL GENERAL STORE & ORS.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 122The Delhi High Court has directed a Sadar Bazar trader to pay rupees five lakhs to Louis Vuitton within four weeks or face civil prison for a week, after he was held guilty of contempt for violating a restraining order by continuing to sell counterfeit products of famous French luxury brand.Justice C Hari Shankar observed that a counterfeiter abandons any right to equitable consideration by a court functioning within the confines of the rule of law, adding that he is “entitled to no sympathy” as he “practices, knowingly and with complete impunity, falsehood and deception.”Order Passed Under S. 36 Of Arbitration Act Not Appealable Under S. 13 Of Commercial Courts Act: Delhi High CourtCase Title: HP Cotton Textile Mills Ltd versus Oriental Insurance Company LtdCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 123The Delhi High Court has ruled that appeal against the order of the High Court, passed under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), is not maintainable under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, since it is not one of the orders enumerated under Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), from which an appeal would lie.The bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan observed that in view of the proviso to Section 13(1A), an appeal shall lie only from such orders that are specifically enumerated under Order XLIII of the CPC. The Court ruled that as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in Kandla Export Corporation & Ors. v. OCI Corporation & Ors. (2018), the scope of appeal under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act is controlled by its proviso.Sec 34 Petition Is Not Non-Est, Even If Award Is Not Filed In A Separate Folder: Delhi High CourtCase Title: Ambrosia Corner House Pvt Ltd versus Hangro S FoodsCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 124The Delhi High Court has ruled that the error committed by the petitioner/award debtor in not filing the documents, including the copy of the Arbitral Award challenged by it, in a separate e-folder, as prescribed in the...

Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up: February 6 To February 12, 2023

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags