Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up: January 9 To January 15, 2023

Citations 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 17 to 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 42NOMINAL INDEXVIRENDRA KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 17 DABUR INDIA LIMITED v. THE ADVERTISING STANDARDS COUNCIL OF INDIA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 18 Apollo Tyres Limited versus Pioneer Trading Corporation & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 19 CA NITESH PARASHAR v. INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA ICAI & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 20 Dr. Shilpi Agarwal & Anr. versus UOI & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 21 Mahendra Kumar Verma versus Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 22 ACTION COMMITTEE UNAIDED RECOGNIZED PRIVATE SCHOOLS v. DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 23 ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS & ANR v. UNION OF INDIA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 24 VP v. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 25 Sandeep v. UOI & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 26 M/s Diamond Entertainment Technologies Private Limited & Ors. versus Religare Finvest Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 27 MANISH KUMAR v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 28 PAWAN KUMAR AND ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 29 Machine Tools Aids India versus M/s. GNC Infra LLP & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 30 Sushil Ansal v. ENDEMOL INDIA PVT. LTD. & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 31 Oil and Natural Gas Corporation versus Joint Venture Of M/s Sai Rama Engineering Enterprises (SREE) & M/s Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Limited (MEIL) 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 32 Communication Components Antenna Inc. versus Ace Technologies Corp. and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 33 M/s Liberty Footwear Company versus M/s Liberty International 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 34 EHRAZ ZAFAR v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 35 MONK ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 36 Capital Food Private Limited versus Radiant Indus Chem Pvt. Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 37 Anil Kumar Singh & Anr. versus Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 38 DR. U.S. AWASTHI v. ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY PMLA & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 39 IKRA KHAN v. JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 40 SMT KAMESHWARI DEVI & ANR. v. THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) AND ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 41 RAJO v. DELHI BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS BOARD & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 42Delhi High Court Upholds Validity Of Provision Allowing Deduction In Pay For Payment Of Maintenance To Air Force Personnel's Wife, ChildrenTitle: VIRENDRA KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 17The Delhi High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of Section 92 (i) of the Air Force Act, 1950 which allows deduction from the pay and allowance of Air Force personnel for maintenance of the wife and their children.A division bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar also upheld an office order issued by Air Force on February 6, 2013 providing the procedure for grant, modification or cessation of maintenance allowance to the wife and the children of such personnel.Ad Industry Thrives On Creativity And Freedom Of Expression, Would Loathe A Govt Dictated Regulation: Delhi High CourtTitle: DABUR INDIA LIMITED v. THE ADVERTISING STANDARDS COUNCIL OF INDIACitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 18The Delhi High Court observed that the advertisement industry thrives on creativity and freedom of expression and would loathe a government dictated regulation, adding that not many industries enjoy a self- regulated regime.Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri made the observation while dismissing a plea filed by Dabur India seeking to restrain the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) from creating impediments in the broadcast of its advertisement regarding the health nutrition drink ‘Vita’.Registration of Tread Pattern Nearly Identical To ‘Suit Pattern’ As A Design Would Not Disentitle It From Being Regarded As Trademark: Delhi HCCase Title: Apollo Tyres Limited versus Pioneer Trading Corporation & OrsCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 19In a case relating the alleged copying of the tread pattern of tyres, the Delhi High Court has ruled that registration of a tread pattern, which is nearly identical to the suit pattern, as a design would not ipso facto operate to disentitle it from being regarded as a “trade mark” within the meaning of the Trade Marks Act, 1999."At the highest, the matter would be one of trial, in which it would have to be examined whether the tread pattern which was registered as a design was identical or nearly identical to the suit pattern," Justice C. Hari Shankar said in an order.The court was dealing with the argument that whether Apollo Tyres Limited, which has filed a suit against Pioneer Trading Corporation accusing it of violating a 2018 settlement agreement, deserves to be non-suited on the ground that it had applied for registration of the suit pattern as a design under Section 5 of the Designs Act.Sexual Harassment Complaint, Enquiry Proceedings Cannot Be Quashed Merely Because ICC Failed To Complete Enquiry Within 90 Days: Delhi High CourtTitle: CA NITESH PARASHAR v....

Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up: January 9 To January 15, 2023

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags