Delhi High Court Weekly Round Up: July 11 To July 17, 2022

NOMINAL INDEXCitations 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 634 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 662M/S. SPML Infra Ltd. versus M/S. Trisquare Switchgears Pvt. Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 634META PLATFORMS, INC. v. NOUFEL MALOL & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 635DAMINI MANCHANDA v. AVINASH BHAMBHANI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 636Fresenius Medical Care Dialysis Service India Pvt. Ltd. v. Kerry Indev Logistics Pvt. Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 637Pratyush Prasanna v. State NCT of Delhi and other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 638Mrs. Manharleen Kaur v. Union of India & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 639JA ENTERTAINMENT PVT LTD v. MS SITHARA ENTERTAINMENT & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 640ANIL KUMAR TALAN v. STATE (GOVERNMENT NCT OF DELHI) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 641SHRI SALEK CHAND JAIN v. MINISTRY OF SOCIAL JUSTICE AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 642Nishant Chawla v. TDSAT 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 643SMT. SHASHI SEHDEV v. SH. NARENDER KUMAR SHARMA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 644Triveni Healthcure Private Ltd v. GNCTD 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 645Avneet Kaur v. Sadhu Singh & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 646National Research Development Corporation and Anr. versus Mak Controls and Systems Private Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 647Swastik Pipe Ltd. versus Dimple Verma 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 648DLF HOMES RAJAPURA PVT. LTD v. LATE O.P. MEHTA & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 649ALOK TRIPATHI v. STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 650BHAG SINGH GAMBHIR AND ORS v. RAMA ARORA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 651Vishwanath Kumar & Ors. v. National Testing Agency & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 652SNAPDEAL PRIVATE LIMITED v. GODADDYCOM LLC AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 653SARVINDER SINGH & ANR v. VIPUL TANDON 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 654NEHA SAINI AND ANR. v. RAGHUBIR SINGH AND ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 655Delhi Electrical Contractor Welfare Association v. BSES Yamuna Power Limited & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 656Madan Lal Suryawanshi v. Tara Devi (now deceased through its LRs) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 657VEENA JOSHI v. CPIO,CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 658Splendor Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. versus Rajesh Kumar Pasricha 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 659MS. X v. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 660DILIP KUMAR v. THE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 661JAMSHED ADIL KHAN & ANR. v. UNION TERRITORY OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 6621. Section 8 Application Should Be Filed Within Time Available For Filing Written Statement: Delhi High CourtCase Title: M/S. SPML Infra Ltd. versus M/S. Trisquare Switchgears Pvt. Ltd.Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 634The Delhi High Court has ruled that if a party fails to file an application under Section 8(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) for referring the parties to arbitration within the time available for filing the first statement on the substance of the dispute, which would include a written statement in the context of a suit, the party would forfeit its right to apply under Section 8(1) of the A&C Act.The Division Bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan held that the amendment to Section 8 of the A&C Act by the 2015 Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act cannot be considered in isolation, in view of the fact that the Parliament has also enacted the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which came into force on the same date as the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015.The Court observed that by virtue of the amendments made to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by the Commercial Courts Act, the Parliament has curtailed the outer time limit for filing a written statement in a commercial suit. The Court added that the said amendments were made to ensure expeditious adjudication of commercial disputes.2. Trademark Infringement Suit By Meta: Delhi High Court Permanently Restrains Use Of 'Facebake', Other Facebook Formative TrademarksCase Title: META PLATFORMS, INC. v. NOUFEL MALOL & ANRCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 635In a trademark infringement suit filed by Meta (formerly known as Facebook), the Delhi High Court has permanently restrained the use of marks namely 'facebake' and 'facecake', Facebook marks, Facebook Visual Presentation and any other 'Facebook‟ formative trademarks of the social media giant.Justice Navin Chawla also awarded nominal damages of Rs.50,000 in favour of Meta Platforms Inc. and against the defendants. The Court also directed the defendants to pay cost of the suit to Meta.Meta moved the Court after being aggrieved over the adoption of the mark "Facebake" by the defendant no.1, namely Noufel Malol, which was allegedly mimicking the visual presentation by copying the colour scheme, font, commercial impression, and overall look and feel of Facebook, and thus was intentionally trading off the significant goodwill established in "Facebook‟ marks.3. Delhi High Court Restrains Husband From Pursuing Matrimonial Case In Canada During Pendency Of Divorce Petition Filed By Wife In IndiaCase Title: DAMINI MANCHANDA v. AVINASH BHAMBHANICitation: 2022 LiveLaw...

Delhi High Court Weekly Round Up: July 11 To July 17, 2022

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags