Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up: January 16 To January 22, 2023

Citations 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 43 to 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 73NOMINAL INDEXBright Simons versus Sproxil Inc & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 43 SANJEEV KUMAR TIWARI v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS2023 LiveLaw (Del) 44 SUBWAY IP LLC v. INFINITY FOOD & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 45 Kuldeep Singh Sengar v. CBI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 46 M/S JAI SINGH AND CO versus NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 47 AKSHAT BALDWA & ORS. v. YASH RAJ FILMS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 48 EMTA COAL LIMITED & ORS. v. DEPUTY DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 49 JAGJIT PAL SINGH VIRK v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 50 Tata Steel BSL Limited v Venus Recruiter Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 51 Anubhav Jain versus Satish Kumar Jain & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 52 ARUSHI MEHRA & ANR. v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 53 Ashwani Kumar Sharma & Ors. versus Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 54 SN versus IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 55 RABINDRA TIWARY v. LT. GOVERNOR, GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 56 MCD v. Lokpal of India 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 57 COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION V. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 58 Bhushan Oil and Fats Pvt Ltd versus Mother Dairy Fruit and Vegetables Pvt Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 59 Union of India & Anr. versus Alcon Builders and Engineer Pvt. Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 60 PSV v. THE INDIAN SCHOOL & ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 61 X v. STATE 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 62 DUKHTARAN-E-MILLAT v. UNION OF INDIA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 63 Amanatullah Khan v. State 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 64 Pawan Hans Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Trade and Taxes 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 65 SURJEET KUMAR v. STATE 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 66 Sneh Aggarwal versus Punjab National Bank 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 67 RAHUL MEHRA v. UNION OF INDIA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 68 KRBL LIMITED vs VIKRAM ROLLER FLOUR MILLS LIMITED 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 69 SACHIN & ORS. v. CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 70 UNION OF INDIA v. KOLLI UDAY KUMARI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 71 V K KANJLIA v. STATE NCT OF DELHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 72 Monika Oli versus M/s CL Educate Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 73Wrong Application Of Law Not Leading To Perversity; Arbitral Award Cannot Be Set Aside: Delhi High CourtCase Title: Bright Simons versus Sproxil Inc & Anr.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 43The Delhi High Court has ruled that merely because the arbitrator had wrongly applied the .IN Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (INDRP Policy), while adjudication a dispute over domain names under the said Policy, the award cannot be set aside in the absence of perversity.The bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh ruled that the terminology used by the arbitrator in the award, that the party had failed to prove its claim “beyond doubt”, cannot be equated with the legal term ‘beyond reasonable doubt’, as is used in the criminal trial. Thus, the Court rejected the argument that the standard of proof imposed by the arbitrator violated the fundamental principles of Indian law.Delhi High Court Rejects Plea Seeking Review Of Judgment Dismissing PIL Against CJI Chandrachud’s AppointmentTitle: SANJEEV KUMAR TIWARI v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORSCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 44The Delhi High Court rejected a plea seeking review of a judgment dismissing the public interest litigation that had last year challenged the appointment of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud.A division bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vikas Mahajan observed that the petition was an appeal “disguised as a review” and it did not fall within the four corners of review.“Petitioner is not able to show any error apparent on face of record. There are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order passed on November 11, 2022. The petition is accordingly dismissed,” the bench said.Subway Can’t Claim Exclusivity Over Word ‘Sub’, ‘Suberb’ Not Phonetically Similar To 'Subway': Delhi High CourtTitle: SUBWAY IP LLC v. INFINITY FOOD & ORS.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 45Dismissing its prayer for interim injunction, the Delhi High Court has observed that Subway cannot claim any exclusivity over the word ‘Sub’, especially when used in the context of eateries serving submarine sandwiches.Justice C Hari Shankar ruled that the word "Sub" is "publici juris" when used in the context of eateries dealing with submarine sandwiches.“No exclusivity can, therefore, be claimed, by the petitioner over the first part of its registered SUBWAY mark, i.e, "SUB." The plaintiff cannot claim a monopoly over all two-syllable words of which the first syllable is "SUB", especially when used in the context of eateries which serve sandwiches and similar items," the court said.Also Read: Law In India Doesn't Allow Grant Of Injunction Merely On Ground Of Similarity In Décor, Appearance Of Two Different Restaurants: Delhi High CourtUnnao Rape Case: Delhi High Court Grants Interim Bail To Ex-BJP MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar For Daughter's WeddingTitle: Kuldeep...

Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up: January 16 To January 22, 2023

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags